how do I copy from DVD to DVD?
Erich J. Schultheis
The same thing happens when I borrow DVDs from friends and when I try to copy my DVD disc for friends.
I can burn movies from digital cable and off the antenna just fine.
Is the DVD too high a resolution for my DVD recorder or do I have a bad cable from my DVD player which is preventing me from recording to DVD?
Skid
"Erich J. Schultheis" <erichch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2004010212...@orion.besthost1.com...
Your burner is trying to keep you from breaking the law. What would mommy
say?
(P.S., you're not just trolling, you're trying to use the recoder for
something it's not designed to do. If you want to know why it won't work, do
a little homework at www.dvdrhelp.com)
Richard C.
You are a simple pirate......................
================
"Erich J. Schultheis" <erichch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2004010212...@orion.besthost1.com...
: I rented some movies from Blockbuster the other day and tried to burn them to a
:
Gilmour
will find a solution for us.
LanceBro
express etc...these will make copies for you, but it will not copy dvd to dvd
it will copy to the Hard Drive then ask you to insert your blank and copy your
DVD....
most DVD's are 8.7 gigs and are referred to as dvd9's the current blanks and
burners can only do 4.7 gigs...
so your movie will be compressed not an exact copy but it will look fine...
you will also not have menu's and/or special features etc etc
remember archival purposes only
Anonymous Joe
news:2004010212...@orion.besthost1.com...
It is most likely macrovision. It's designed so that you can't make ILLEGAL
copies. Sadly, it also prevents you from making LEGAL backups (luckily the
ones your trying to do are all ILLEGAL).
Yeah, there could be some workarounds....might cost $100 and be illegal in
some countries (sort of like having a so-called "black box" is in the US,
but it doesn't call for buying a "black box").
Parker Jefferson Sneeihl
You and your friends should forget all the trouble and legally purchase the
DVD you want. Not only will you get better quality, you will also get the
packaging and the extras. The price for many DVDs now is chump change,
compared to the price of VHS in 1970's dollars.
Dr. A.T. Squeegee
parker...@hotpop.com says...
...And compared to what laserdiscs used to cost.
I agree, BTW. If you like the movie, and you respect the huge
effort that went into its creation, just buy a copy. If you don't want
to pay full price, there are stores that sell used/retired rental DVDs.
--
Dr. Anton Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t c&o&m
Motorola Radio Programming & Service Available -
http://www.bluefeathertech.com/rf.html
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" (Red Green)
Colon Terminus
Your machine cannot copy commercial DVDs.
"Erich J. Schultheis" <erichch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2004010212...@orion.besthost1.com...
Jerry G.
It is called a very sophisticated copy protection. This is a good thing,
because all of this type of piracy is putting people out of work who are in
the media work force. As the incomes from the sales of their products goes
down, the production houses are laying off their workers to compensate.
I am involved in several aspects of media production, and am for strong copy
protection. For the small cost of a copy, it would be a contribution to buy
a second copy if needed. These small amounts by the many thousands of
purchases add up to keep people in their jobs.
A copy of a commercially produced movie is not considered a backup of user
files, as like user created work or software. Like bought (purchased)
software programs, entertainment media should be used on one device at a
time at one location at a time, unless agreed with between the manufacture
and the end user.
If you worked in this industry and had to feed your family, you would feel
the same way!
--
Greetings,
Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
=========================================
WebPage http://www.zoom-one.com
Electronics http://www.zoom-one.com/electron.htm
=========================================
"Erich J. Schultheis" <erichch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2004010212...@orion.besthost1.com...
Robert Nogo
"Erich J. Schultheis" <erichch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2004010212...@orion.besthost1.com...
Please understand that what you are trying to do is illegal. That's not a
technical difficulty, that's a copy protection method known as Macrovision.
It has nothing to do with the resolution of the source, Macrovision is
present on VHS as well. You are allowed to make recordings off digital cable
and the antenna for your own personal use, but I don't think it's legal
either to distribute those recordings to friends. As far as I am concerned,
I would rather purchase the DVD legally.
Paul Landregan
"Erich J. Schultheis" <erichch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2004010212...@orion.besthost1.com...
DVD Decrypt, the use Clone DVD to compress and burn.
Can not tell the different. But remember its strictly for archiving only.
Duplicating someone else's DVD;'s is Illegal.
James Sweet
"Erich J. Schultheis" <erichch...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2004010212...@orion.besthost1.com...
Pressed DVD's are encrypted, this is specifically to prevent you from doing
what you're attempting. Also their capacity is double what a single layer
DVD-R is. There's tools out there that would allow you to bypass this but
it's illegal. If you choose to attempt it you're on your own.
James Sweet
"Parker Jefferson Sneeihl" <parker...@hotpop.com> wrote in message
news:93484eb3ec77570b...@news.teranews.com...
That's definitly true, throughout VHS I bought maybe 5 or 6 movies, they
were just too expensive and too bulky. Once DVD's started hitting the
$10-$15 range I started buying movies, for the cost of renting one twice I
can own it, and they're nice and compact, I probably have 40+ of them now.
Franc Zabkar
<erichch...@yahoo.com> put finger to keyboard and composed:
I agree with the others who decry piracy, but at the same time I'm
enraged at how the various world governments allow the movie industry
to openly flout restrictive trade practices legislation by dividing
the globe into marketing zones with the explicit intention of stifling
competition and manipulating pricing. We all know this is immoral and
illegal, and such practices should be prosecuted.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
rstlne
> It is called a very sophisticated copy protection. This is a good thing,
> because all of this type of piracy is putting people out of work who are
in
> the media work force. As the incomes from the sales of their products
goes
> down, the production houses are laying off their workers to compensate.
>
> I am involved in several aspects of media production, and am for strong
copy
> protection. For the small cost of a copy, it would be a contribution to
buy
> a second copy if needed. These small amounts by the many thousands of
> purchases add up to keep people in their jobs.
>
> A copy of a commercially produced movie is not considered a backup of user
> files, as like user created work or software. Like bought (purchased)
> software programs, entertainment media should be used on one device at a
> time at one location at a time, unless agreed with between the manufacture
> and the end user.
>
> If you worked in this industry and had to feed your family, you would
feel
> the same way!
>
>
> --
>
> Greetings,
>
> Jerry Greenberg GLG Technologies GLG
Not sure what post was more of a laugh, his or yours..
I mean, Just look at the 3 LOTR films
a MASSIVE 500+ mil usd to make the film and bring it to the market. Now in
the BOX OFFICE ALONE the total sales is expected to reach 3 BN usd.. now..
Movie theatres say "We rarely profit from the ticket sales".. So one would
assume that the majority of the ticket sale goes back to the mfgr.. For you
we can go low, and say they make 50%.. so that's 1.5bn - .5bn or 1bn profit
So now they release the DVD's, And games, and soundtracks, and posters, and
so on and so on and so on ..
Your telling me that the DVD selling for 26$-28$ is priced so high because
it has to feed the people that made it? ..
Lets not forget that they have got their payment JUST from sales.. When this
film makes 30bn and gives it's 300mil to the RIAA to stop people who want to
make their own DVD for 3$ then I guess you can feel happy that your able to
buy your food..
Granted I think what the guy wants to do is wrong, but He wants to do it
because the media industry is just SO SO SO SO greedy..
I would bet that (riaa fees and sales company markup aside).. that the cost
of that 10$ DVD (box & cover design & production of the case & dvd itself)
is around 70c
Just saying that your post is as silly as his
jayembee
No, that's not it. Most commercial DVDs have software called
Macrovision on them to prevent them from being copied. That's
for the express purpose of keeping you from doing exactly
what you're trying to do: copy borrowed DVDs inside of buying
your own legal copies.
-- jayembee
rstlne
"Justin" <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbvbj3j...@debian.dns2go.com...
> rstlne wrote on [Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:39:25 -0000]:
> >
> > Not sure what post was more of a laugh, his or yours..
> > I mean, Just look at the 3 LOTR films
> > a MASSIVE 500+ mil usd to make the film and bring it to the market. Now
in
> > the BOX OFFICE ALONE the total sales is expected to reach 3 BN usd..
now..
> > Movie theatres say "We rarely profit from the ticket sales".. So one
would
> > assume that the majority of the ticket sale goes back to the mfgr.. For
you
> > we can go low, and say they make 50%.. so that's 1.5bn - .5bn or 1bn
profit
>
> theatre, and barely come close in the retail channel. Waterworld
> recently just made it's money back. This is money back, before profit.
>
> Or should studios only release profitable films?
>
No, I dont think that would be possible. What I am saying is that You
shouldnt need to pay 20$ for ghostbusters on DVD, They stay on top of
overkill until the product is completly dead.
> >
> > So now they release the DVD's, And games, and soundtracks, and posters,
and
> > so on and so on and so on ..
> >
> > Your telling me that the DVD selling for 26$-28$ is priced so high
because
> > it has to feed the people that made it? ..
> > Lets not forget that they have got their payment JUST from sales.. When
this
> > film makes 30bn and gives it's 300mil to the RIAA to stop people who
want to
> > make their own DVD for 3$ then I guess you can feel happy that your able
to
> > buy your food..
>
> The RIAA? That's music
You sure.. Check again.. all "media" formats come under the RIAA..
> And shipping, marketing, etc.
I counted marketing.. Shipping large volumes would be virtually nil (by thte
time you consider volume by cost) and be considered part of the "stores"
profit..
rstlne
"DarkMatter" <DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:o9kbvv8h2qmkpnjb0...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 19:39:25 -0000, "rstlne" <.@.> Gave us:
>
> >I would bet that (riaa fees and sales company markup aside).. that the
cost
> >of that 10$ DVD (box & cover design & production of the case & dvd
itself)
> >is around 70c
>
> producing packaging is a large number though. Add it up.
>
> 70c times 10 million discs pressed.
>
> That's a 7 million dollar cost. There are artists, and renderers,
> and a whole team of folks involved, long before the art gets to the
> presses.
>
> You are so lost. So what it is only 70c per package? It is THEIR
> product.
The Inital cost was of the movie profit took care of the film marketing,
film production, all cost associated with making the film and bringing it to
market. The conversion (for modern) films from the reel to the dvd isnt
that high (or did this movie decide to record everything in non-digital then
edit after the fact)..
James Sweet
"jayembee" <jayembe...@snurcher.com> wrote in message
news:d3aeee5b.04010...@posting.google.com...
Macrovision prevents you from making an analog copy of a DVD by recording
the output of a player onto a VHS or other tape, but preventing a digital
copy is the CSS encryption. There was a lot of buzz going on a few years go
when someone cracked the encryption and Hollywood shit a brick sideways.
luminos
"Paul Landregan" <pland...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bt4fco$37lg8$2...@ID-198833.news.uni-berlin.de...
And renting and copying is dupliacating some else's DVD. There are ca $90
boxes that can decrypt the various codes between
a player and recorder....but you have to 'sign' a statement that by buying
such a thing you will not use it for the purposes
mentioned by the original poster.
luminos
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:17:54 +1100, Franc Zabkar
> <fza...@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:
>
> >
> >I agree with the others who decry piracy, but at the same time I'm
> >enraged at how the various world governments allow the movie industry
> >to openly flout restrictive trade practices legislation by dividing
> >the globe into marketing zones with the explicit intention of stifling
> >competition and manipulating pricing. We all know this is immoral and
> >illegal, and such practices should be prosecuted.
> >
> >
> >- Franc Zabkar
>
> into the rest of the world, back in the day. That evolves, surely.
> Now, it is just business, and economy in a given region.
>
> It is their product, and it is their right to "price it" at whatever
> they want in whatever market they are selling it in.
Region codes are far more sinister than that and should be tested in the
courts.
James Sweet
"luminos" <x...@x.net> wrote in message
news:SdlJb.4601827$Of.7...@news.easynews.com...
Yes region codes I will agree are annoying, though it's almost laughable how
easy they are to defeat, particularly now that you can get DVD players so
ridiculously cheap that if you don't feel like hacking one of those Apex or
similar units to be region free you can simply buy a second player for the
other region you want. In the end all it creates is a small hassle.
SEVEN SEVILLE
HE SHOULD BE ALBE TO MAKE ALL THE COPIES HE WANTS. WHO IS HE HURTING? NOBODY? OH, WHAT THE FUCK ACTOR WON'T BE ABLE TO BUY ANOTHER HOUSE.
THAT SLUTTY ACTRESS WHO HAS TO SHOW HER FAKE TITS THAT LOOK LIKE MOLDY PINAPPLES CAN'T AFFORD THAT FUCKING HUMMER.
I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN IF YOU ARE AGAINST PIRACY THEN YOU
BRING A SPOON TO MY HOUSE AND EAT THE SHIT RIGHT OUT OF MY TOILET.
rstlne
> can convert Anamorphic PAL perfectly to NTSC
>
The DVD store format is the same for every region..
NTSC/Pal/whatever is done by the DVD player itself
rstlne
> rstlne wrote on [Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:56:15 -0000]:
> >
> > "Justin" <nos...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrnbvbp49...@debian.dns2go.com...
> >>
players
> >> can convert Anamorphic PAL perfectly to NTSC
> >>
> >
> > The DVD store format is the same for every region..
> > NTSC/Pal/whatever is done by the DVD player itself
>
>
Yeh.. Thinking about it a bit more your right..
My television is a multi-system tv able to play both NTSC or PAL tho....
Sorry I keep forgetting that some people live in the tightly regulated
american market
Jerry Greenberg
just make it, but people like the story, therefore, the watch it. You
only hear about the big ones that make the big money, and not all of
the money is made by the distributors.
For the pressing and distribution of the DVD's, and video tapes, there
are a lot of small subcontractors that do the actual work. This
involves everyone from the pressing, packing, sales, and distribution.
They are not the owners of the content of the DVD's, but only are
paid commission from the volumes of sales. These are the guys that
also have to pay their employees for the work done. The retailers
make a very small markup on these.
In the case of a first class movie in the movie theaters, the makers
of the movie, and the share investors are the ones that get the bulk
of the income from it. The theaters that show the movies, make only a
base commission from the number of tickets sold.
Jerry G.
--
"rstlne" <.@.> wrote in message news:<8JjJb.15476$FN....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
luminos
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:17:38 GMT, "luminos" <x...@x.net> Gave us:
>
> There is nothing anyone can do about that. There is no competition
> for a product that is a one of a kind work, so you can't say they are
> manipulating some market. The market is all theirs.
>
> Doh!
No. The market is not all theirs. Take a look at the docket of monopoly
and anti-competition suits filed.
luminos
"SEVEN SEVILLE"
<you_should_be_able_to_copy...@yahoo.com> wrote in
message news:2004010221...@orion.besthost1.com...
Idiot.
tn...@mucks.net
>there are archival program availiable for retail, such as dvd copy or dvd xcopy
>express etc...these will make copies for you, but it will not copy dvd to dvd
>it will copy to the Hard Drive then ask you to insert your blank and copy your
>DVD....
>
>most DVD's are 8.7 gigs and are referred to as dvd9's the current blanks and
>burners can only do 4.7 gigs...
>
>so your movie will be compressed not an exact copy but it will look fine...
The commercial DVD's are usually 8.7 gigs because they include
both wide screen and standard screen versions of the same movie
plus all the extra menus. Programs that will copy commercial DVD's
will usually let you pick which files to copy. If you pick to copy
just the wide screen version then the complete movie will fit on a
standard 4.7 gig DVD without any quality loss.
mzmeryze
>
>Idiot.
>
You're the bigger idiot for quoting the troll.
Mike Davis
"Jerry G." <jerr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bt4b0u$jmq$3...@news.eusc.inter.net...
Hey Jerry,
You seem like a pretty reasonable guy, but I beg to differ on your
opinion on copying. I'll give you a personal example; I've got three kids
ten and under, with another in the oven. I darm sure copy the Disney DVD's
using DVD X Copy. The kids are good kids, but they are still kids, no way in
the world are they going to treat my discs like I do.
I see nothing wrong with making copies for personal use. I don't sell
and don't lend them out (other than rare exceptions) either. If I want a
copy of the "Lion King" so the original stays pristene I don't think that is
out of line. The artist is paid and no copies go out in the gene pool, if
you know what I mean <ggg.>
All the best, Mike
Richard C.
"rstlne" <.@.> wrote in message
news:8JjJb.15476$FN....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
:
: because the media industry is just SO SO SO SO greedy..
=============================
When you start working for free, then you can say such things.
putz.
Richard C.
"rstlne" <.@.> wrote in message
:
: What I am saying is that You
: shouldnt need to pay 20$ for ghostbusters on DVD,
========================
You DON'T "need" to pay that.
If you don't want to, then don't buy it or watch it.
Simple.
========================
Richard C.
"rstlne" <.@.> wrote in message
:
:
: The Inital cost was of the movie profit took care of the film marketing,
: film production, all cost associated with making the film and bringing it to
: market. The conversion (for modern) films from the reel to the dvd isnt
: that high (or did this movie decide to record everything in non-digital then
: edit after the fact)..
===================
Why should they even release it for the home market if there is no money in it for
them?
Your attitude is pathetic.
================
James Sweet
>
> Hey Jerry,
> You seem like a pretty reasonable guy, but I beg to differ on your
> opinion on copying. I'll give you a personal example; I've got three kids
> ten and under, with another in the oven. I darm sure copy the Disney DVD's
> using DVD X Copy. The kids are good kids, but they are still kids, no way
in
> the world are they going to treat my discs like I do.
> I see nothing wrong with making copies for personal use. I don't sell
> and don't lend them out (other than rare exceptions) either. If I want a
> copy of the "Lion King" so the original stays pristene I don't think that
is
> out of line. The artist is paid and no copies go out in the gene pool, if
> you know what I mean <ggg.>
> All the best, Mike
>
>
Well there is where things get fuzzy, legally you *should* in theory be able
to make one backup copy for personal use, however there's that silly DMCA
which is very broad and makes it illegal to break the CSS encryption for any
purpose, so you're kinda screwed there. That said, I seriously doubt the
feds are gonna bust down your door for making a personal backup and I
wouldn't hesitate to do it, but obviously I wouldn't go selling copies to
people, I don't particularly like the industry, but it's still their product
and I find most DVD's to be reasonably priced anyway.
tempus fugit
doesn't give you the right to steal it.
That being said (and I agree wholeheartedly with copy protection),
Macrovision sucks. I got a DVD player and my ancient TV has no RCA ins. My
VCR does though, but I can't use it for DVD's because the macrovision kicks
in. I have no interest in copying a DVD, I just want to watch the f'in
thing.
I ended up buying a modulator (was going to build one, but couldn't be
bothered)./
"DarkMatter" <DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:3mtbvv02ajulvt141...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2004 21:07:31 -0000, "rstlne" <.@.> Gave us:
>
> >The Inital cost was of the movie profit took care of the film marketing,
> >film production, all cost associated with making the film and bringing it
to
> >market. The conversion (for modern) films from the reel to the dvd isnt
> >that high (or did this movie decide to record everything in non-digital
then
> >edit after the fact)..
> >
>
>
> So what? You don't get it. It is STILL THEIR product to sell. If
> you don't like the price or are out classed by it, buy into a
> different technology. It is that simple.
>
> AT NO time does any circumstance ever legitimize the theft of the
> product.
>
> No matter what you think of how it breaks down for them.
MR_ED_of_Course
jerr...@hotmail.com wrote on 1/2/04 9:48 AM:
>
> It is called a very sophisticated copy protection.
What is called "very sophisticated copy protection"? Certainly nothing that
DVDs have. Pirates can make bit-perfect copies of DVD movies in less than
an hour. This is the problem that I've seen with almost all copy protection
to date...they hurt legitimate consumers while not affecting professional
pirates at all.
For music, copy protection has at best created a annoyance for legitimate
customers while *increasing* the market for pirates and pushing people more
towards piracy.
Music, video and software are all different areas where I have different
attitudes towards copying. I've worked in all three industries and have
been a consumer who spends an order of magnitude more than the average
person on each.
MUSIC: I have no problems with people sharing music by any means necessary.
I think sharing music *is* the moral thing to do and the recording industry
should be destroyed.
SOFTWARE: Likewise, I have no problems with people pirating any Microsoft
software. I have no problem with people pirating other productive software
for personal use...in the sense of someone pirating PhotoShop so they can be
familiar with it when they go to work somewhere that the company will buy it
for them.
VIDEO: DVDs are so incredibly reasonable in terms of pricing. I'm against
pirating DVDs, but I do feel it's ok to use a DVD that you've purchased for
personal use. This would include making a back up, making a version that
strips out forced trailers and commercials, or using the content for
personal use...such as making a CD of some of the audio or making a game for
your children based on the video/art elements.
In summary, it's a "fuck the recording industry and fuck microsoft" attitude
along with if empowering the consumer with what they can do with the
content/software ultimately leads to more sales than go for it.
> This is a good thing,
Actually it's not. Studios are paying a lot of money for something that's
broken. Macrovision, region coding and CSS don't work. Even if they did
work, it would not be in their financial best interest to utilize these. It
will be interesting to see if they figure this out before the next format
dominates the market.
> because all of this type of piracy is putting people out of work who are in
> the media work force. As the incomes from the sales of their products goes
> down, the production houses are laying off their workers to compensate.
Well you said "media" instead of "movie"...as I mentioned above, I *want*
the recording industry to be destroyed.
In terms of the movie industry, I think they're treading a close line
between doing things the right way and falling into the same trap as the
recording industry.
For now, prices are totally reasonable, and piracy is extremely low...they
make it seem much larger than it actually is.
However I do see the movie industry making some crucial mistakes such as:
1) Limiting the availability of titles. I'm not talking about not getting
around to releasing titles, but not having a released title always be
available. The studios need to provide custom ordering. This could be very
inexpensive...hell it could be entirely automated. Think NetFlix with DVDs
being burned for the order and shipped for purchase. Without evergreen
availability, people will pirate DVDs solely because they want out-of-print
titles.
2) Using copy-protection that only annoys consumers, but has no affect
whatsoever on professional pirates.
3) Developing big-brother strategies. Remember Divx? It was never cracked.
Studios are considering a DivxII, not so much in terms of a marketing
strategy but in terms of what they can do to produce a really secure (and
upgradeable) copy protection scheme. Two copy protection schemes I've heard
them considering include a Divx like authentication system and a spindle
hologram which contains part of the code key.
> For the small cost of a copy, it would be a contribution to buy
> a second copy if needed. These small amounts by the many thousands of
> purchases add up to keep people in their jobs.
This is great as long as prices remain low and titles remain available.
> A copy of a commercially produced movie is not considered a backup of user
> files, as like user created work or software. Like bought (purchased)
> software programs, entertainment media should be used on one device at a
> time at one location at a time, unless agreed with between the manufacture
> and the end user.
Interestingly though US law actually says otherwise. What is not debatable
is that (in the US) you have fair use laws for media content which do go
beyond just having a back up copy like with software. The only real debate
is whether the fair laws are superceded by the fact that it's illegal to
circumvent digital copy protection. Even if it is, it would still be legal
to from digital media to digital media as long as it's within fair use and
the content itself was in analog form at some point during the process.
> If you worked in this industry and had to feed your family, you would feel
> the same way!
I'm currently working full time in the software industry, but I often work
in the film, tv, radio or music industries.
Mark
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:33:24 GMT, "luminos" <x...@x.net> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >Idiot.
> >
>
>
> You're the bigger idiot for quoting the troll.
Fortunately, it is not illegal to make a backup copy of the DVD, VHS
or other media format for YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE. Macrovision is a
scheme which takes advantage of the AGC circuit in the majority of the
video,VHS players now made. Circumvention of the copy protection is
easily bypassed. Smartripper, ISO buster and other freeware is out for
anyones use. You can hack the eprom code on the Apex units as well. No
big deal as long as you have a legit use. Other than that, go buy it.
luminos
> Mark wrote on [2 Jan 2004 22:36:04 -0800]:
> > mzmeryze <scree...@domain.com> wrote in message
news:<al3cvvkk2lf9l01hl...@4ax.com>...
> >> On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 23:33:24 GMT, "luminos" <x...@x.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >Idiot.
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> You're the bigger idiot for quoting the troll.
> >
> > Fortunately, it is not illegal to make a backup copy of the DVD, VHS
> > or other media format for YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE. Macrovision is a
>
> Bypassing the CSS encryption is against the law.
>
Section 4(c) of the DMCA specifically states that no section of the act
should be construed to compromise Fair Use.
This is the conflict in the DMCA. See www.eff.org
rstlne
"Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:3ff5eba2$0$31877$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com...
What if say a car dealer decided to go by the same type of markups that this
stuff is on.. That would make a bare Geo go for probably about 750k
I wish you were my customer!
SEVEN SEVILLE
BTW: WHY IS THIS BEING CROSSPOSTED TO SCI.ELECTRONICS.REPAIR??
Richard C.
"rstlne" <.@.> wrote in message
:
: The DVD store format is the same for every region..
: NTSC/Pal/whatever is done by the DVD player itself
================================
Not on this planet.
Richard C.
"Mark" <res6...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:390dc0c9.04010...@posting.google.com...
:
: Fortunately, it is not illegal to make a backup copy of the DVD, VHS
: or other media format for YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE.
=================
It is if you RENTED it. That is what the OP wanted to do.
==================
Richard C.
wrote in message news:2004010221...@orion.besthost1.com...
: HE SHOULD BE ALBE TO MAKE ALL THE COPIES HE WANTS.
===========================
NO HE SHOULD NOT! HE ADMITTED HE WANTED TO COPY RENTED DVDS.
===========================
: WHO IS HE HURTING? NOBODY? OH, WHAT THE FUCK ACTOR WON'T BE ABLE TO BUY ANOTHER
HOUSE.
: THAT SLUTTY ACTRESS WHO HAS TO SHOW HER FAKE TITS THAT LOOK LIKE MOLDY PINAPPLES
CAN'T AFFORD THAT FUCKING HUMMER.
========================
YOU ARE AN ASS!
==========================
:
: I'VE SAID IT BEFORE AND I'LL SAY IT AGAIN IF YOU ARE AGAINST PIRACY THEN YOU
: BRING A SPOON TO MY HOUSE AND EAT THE SHIT RIGHT OUT OF MY TOILET.
:
========================
YOU ARE CERTAINLY FULL OF IT!
======================
Richard C.
:
: "Richard C." <post...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
=================
Did you ever buy PARTS for that Geo?
The markup over the entire movie industry, counting ALL product, is not as great as
you imply.
==================
luminos
> "SEVEN SEVILLE"
<you_should_be_able_to_copy...@yahoo.com>
> wrote in message news:2004010221...@orion.besthost1.com...
> : HEY ALL OF YOU ANTI-PIRACY RETARDS, BACK OFF OF ERICH.
> : HE SHOULD BE ALBE TO MAKE ALL THE COPIES HE WANTS.
>
> ===========================
> NO HE SHOULD NOT! HE ADMITTED HE WANTED TO COPY RENTED DVDS.
> ===========================
This is true, and is definately not permitted by any interpretation of the
DMCA. However, some interpretations of copyright law indicate that
copying tapes for time shifting purposes should be allowed (see
www.eff.org). You are supposed to destroy the copy after viewing the
time-shifted copy...as if anyone would do that.
MR_ED_of_Course
DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org wrote on 1/3/04 2:38 PM:
> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:09:42 GMT, "luminos" <x...@x.net> Gave us:
>
>>
>> This is true, and is definately not permitted by any interpretation of the
>> DMCA. However, some interpretations of copyright law indicate that
>> copying tapes for time shifting purposes should be allowed (see
>> www.eff.org). You are supposed to destroy the copy after viewing the
>> time-shifted copy...as if anyone would do that.
>>
> There is NO such thing as a valid, legal time shifted copy of a
> rented film.
>
> If a light bulb were shown into one of your ears, it would show your
> skull cavity to be luminous, because the damned thing is HOLLOW.
I love the way people here are stating not only what they think the law is,
but what the law *will be* without any references whatsoever.
Unless you can cite a precedent for any of this, the fact of the matter is
that much of this is untested in the courts.
In regards to time-shifting a copy of a rented VHS tape, I'd really like to
know under what basis this would be considered illegal. Specifically where
do you draw the line under what constitutes time-shifting.
The bottom line is that the core of copyright law is to protect the artists
and producers from fair income for their work. If someone rents a video,
copies it, returns it, and then only watches the copy once before erasing
it, how could you possibly prove any loss of income to the
artists/producers?
Renting it and keeping a copy is a totally different story.
Leonard Caillouet
"MR_ED_of_Course" <OhNo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BC1C9D7F.2CC8A%OhNo...@pacbell.net...
So do you really believe that this person intended to erase the copy? Do
you think that horses can talk, too. Fair use is a pretty easy concept to
grasp if you have respect for what the copyright laws are about. No one
would really have a problem with time-shifting even for a rental if that's
what this were about. It clearly is not. The people who argue that copying
DVDs or any other copyrighted material is OK rarely do so within the context
of such limited use.
Leonard Caillouet
--
...I'd like to find you inner child and kick its little ass. Get over it...
(The Eagles)
Richard Crowley
> In regards to time-shifting a copy of a rented VHS tape, I'd really like
to
> know under what basis this would be considered illegal. Specifically
where
> do you draw the line under what constitutes time-shifting.
Time shifting, by definition, refers to capturing
material off the air when you can't be there at its
scheduled broadcast slot. You gotta have a really
sleazy lawyer to argue that you couldn't be there
when you copied the rental tape.
MR_ED_of_Course
rcro...@xprt.net wrote on 1/3/04 5:26 PM:
That's a great definition of *yours*, but it's not how it was defined by the
court. The court ruled in the Sony v. Disney/Universal case based on a
definition of time-shifting that was "watching the program once and only
once at a later time".
It very much was not specified that the program had to be broadcasted. In
fact the suit was based on plaintiffs who were not broadcasters at the time.
It also wasn't an issue of not being home at the time...specifically they
considered people who recorded one show while watching another.
The issues were whether (based on surveys) users were building up libraries
versus recording to watch (once) at a time that was more convenient. Other
issues involved whether one copyright holder had the right to prevent other
copyright holders from allowing such use.
Copying a rented video and keeping in a library is one thing, but copying a
rented video to watch it once at a more convenient time is clearly defined
as time-shifting.
Even if it wasn't, the line still is a lot more fuzzy than that. What
happens when a person has a TV with a buffering hard drive where all content
piped into the TV is buffered so the person can pause, rewind and playback?
Again, you gotta go to the bottom line in asking whether an activity
deprives the copyright holder of income.
Pushing the envelope here's what someone could do...
Rent a DVD. Record the DVD* onto a DVD-RW or +RW. Watch the copied DVD
once at a later time and then erase the DVD.
* This would involve either recording the analog output of a DVD player, or
accepting that the fair use act is not superceded by the DMCA so a bit
perfect copy could be made.
You'd have a hard time convincing a court that a copyright holder was
deprived of income because the person did this.
As far as not being their when the copy is being made...yes, I could see
that happening. I make copies of content all the time before going on
vacation where I dump shows from Tivo, burn DVDs of my own material, make
CDs, all at the same time while I'm packing.
Franc Zabkar
keyboard and composed:
>
>"DarkMatter" <DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
>news:1ajbvvsp5av8f5t2c...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:17:54 +1100, Franc Zabkar
>> <fza...@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:
>>
>> >
>> >I agree with the others who decry piracy, but at the same time I'm
>> >enraged at how the various world governments allow the movie industry
>> >to openly flout restrictive trade practices legislation by dividing
>> >the globe into marketing zones with the explicit intention of stifling
>> >competition and manipulating pricing. We all know this is immoral and
>> >illegal, and such practices should be prosecuted.
>> >
>> >
>> >- Franc Zabkar
>>
>> You're an idiot. The hierarchy was based on the way movies trickled
>> into the rest of the world, back in the day. That evolves, surely.
>> Now, it is just business, and economy in a given region.
>>
>> It is their product, and it is their right to "price it" at whatever
>> they want in whatever market they are selling it in.
>
>
>Region codes are far more sinister than that and should be tested in the
>courts.
They have been in the case of Sony's Playstation. Australia's consumer
watchdog (ACCC) has determined that region coding, at least in the
case of the PS2, is in violation of restrictive trade practices
legislation. Unfortunately the ACCC does not have the testicular
fortitude to take the next logical step and prosecute Sony for same.
======================================================================
http://abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s634309.htm
The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has praised a
Federal Court decision allowing Sony Playstation users to modify their
consoles.
Sony failed to convince the court that the use of modification chips,
to allow users to play imported and copied games, was a breach of
copyright.
The court action began when Sony tried to stop a small retailer
selling the chips.
The commission's Alan Fels says Sony's attempts to prohibit the use of
overseas and copied games inhibited consumer rights.
"In Australia, we have very limited range of games compared to other
regions such as the United States," he said.
"The consumer choice is restricted, and there is potential to charge
different, higher prices in the best competitive Australian market."
======================================================================
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.
Franc Zabkar
<DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
and composed:
>On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:17:54 +1100, Franc Zabkar
><fza...@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:
>
>>
>>I agree with the others who decry piracy, but at the same time I'm
>>enraged at how the various world governments allow the movie industry
>>to openly flout restrictive trade practices legislation by dividing
>>the globe into marketing zones with the explicit intention of stifling
>>competition and manipulating pricing. We all know this is immoral and
>>illegal, and such practices should be prosecuted.
>>
>>
>>- Franc Zabkar
>
> You're an idiot.
You're a blind capitalist apologist.
>The hierarchy was based on the way movies trickled
>into the rest of the world, back in the day. That evolves, surely.
>Now, it is just business, and economy in a given region.
> It is their product, and it is their right to "price it" at whatever
>they want in whatever market they are selling it in.
They have no such rights. In civilised countries such as Australia, we
have legislation to ensure that prices are set by fair competition.
Region coding flies in the face of this principle and offenders should
be prosecuted.
==========================================================================
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m0NEW/2002_Feb_10/82746578/p1/article.jhtml
The ACCC has been granted leave to be heard as a "friend of the court"
in Sony's action in relation to whether modifying PlayStation consoles
with "mod chips" infringes new parts of Australia's Copyright Act
1968.
Fels claims they do not and alleges Sony is seeking to use the Act to
restrict Australian consumers' access to a wider and cheaper range of
games than they can get in Australia.
But a statement issued by Fels on Friday makes it plain more than
computer games is on his mind. He says the ACCC has for some time been
investigating the regional playback control (RPC) technology present
in DVD players and accompanying films - which it maintains means
consumers are forced to pay higher prices for films with fewer
features and a lesser range of titles.
Fels also noted that a recent review by the Intellectual Property and
Competition Review Committee recommended repeal of the parallel
importation restrictions on computer software.
==========================================================================
> You do know what a free market is, don't you?
No corporation or cartel should be free to exploit the consumer.
rstlne
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:25:44 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
> <OhNo...@pacbell.net> Gave us:
>
> >In regards to time-shifting a copy of a rented VHS tape, I'd really like
to
> >know under what basis this would be considered illegal. Specifically
where
> >do you draw the line under what constitutes time-shifting.
>
> media. It is not for snaggin' a copy of a rental.
>
> Renting a DVD and then claiming that you needed to time shift a copy
> would get laughed at in the courts. It is not a reasonable
> application of fair use.
It is if the rental place had a special 2 for 1 and he rented 30 ..
he could only watch 15, and he manged to copy another 15 during that time
UGH
argue that..
UGH
this aint court
lol
Daniel L. Belton
No... The commercial DVD's are 8.7 gigs because they use dual layering
technology that most home burner units can't do. Some movies are more
than the 4.7 gig and they have only one format on the disc.
It all depends on the original encoding of the disc...
rstlne
> >have legislation to ensure that prices are set by fair competition.
>
>
> sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to piss and moan about. The movie
> is MINE TO SELL, and mine alone.
>
> It is a monopoly by default, and is perfectly legal in ALL free
> nations.
>
> If YOU make a product that others can make and compete with you for
> market share in, fine, but movies are SINGULAR works of art, and ONLY
> the studio that made them should EVER profit from one.
>
> If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
> allowed to sell it, or copies of it.
>
> AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.
Yeh, And if someone buys a work of art from you they should be able to
resell it too
Also they can make copy's of it and sell it as a copy..
You sure that this is what you were meaning?.. I mean.. If you define movies
as art then really they should only release 1 copy of it, it should be sold
as unique, and then non-originals could be resold down the road..
Keep the ideas rolling in here
Mischa van Dinter
>
>Yeh, And if someone buys a work of art from you they should be able to
>resell it too
>Also they can make copy's of it and sell it as a copy..
>
According to international copyright law, a buyer can resell the copy
he legally obtained, but he is still not allowed to make or sell
copies without permission.
Mischa
Richard C.
: Unless you can cite a precedent for any of this, the fact of the matter is
: that much of this is untested in the courts.
:
: In regards to time-shifting a copy of a rented VHS tape, I'd really like to
: know under what basis this would be considered illegal. Specifically where
: do you draw the line under what constitutes time-shifting.
=====================
"time-shifting" applies ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals.
James Sweet
> On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:47:36 -0000, "rstlne" <.@.> Gave us:
>
> >It is if the rental place had a special 2 for 1 and he rented 30 ..
> >he could only watch 15, and he manged to copy another 15 during that time
>
> >
> >UGH
> >argue that..
>
> You're retarded. Prove you aren't.
> >
> >UGH
> >this aint court
>
> You don't have the brains for a courtroom.
>
> Sorry, dipshit, but if you are too goddamned brainless to rent only
> those that you can watch, then you should be using an etch-a-sketch.
Who intentionally rents more movies than they can watch? That's just silly,
it'd be so much effort to copy a bunch of movies to watch later that only a
fool would do it on a regular basis. Why are people even still arguing this
crap? If you wanna do it, do it, you probably won't get caught, if you do,
legal or not you'll spend more money and time arguing in court to save your
ass than it's worth, now can we please get back on topic?
tn...@mucks.net
>>The commercial DVD's are usually 8.7 gigs because they include
>> both wide screen and standard screen versions of the same movie
>> plus all the extra menus.
>No... The commercial DVD's are 8.7 gigs because they use dual layering
>technology
? No to what ? It doesn't matter how they get 8.7 gigs. The
fact remains that if a movie uses the full 8.7 gigs it's usually
(not always) because there are two complete copies of the
movie on the disc.
>that most home burner units can't do. Some movies are more
>than the 4.7 gig and they have only one format on the disc.
>
>It all depends on the original encoding of the disc...
Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.
Franc Zabkar
>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:37:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
><fza...@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:
>
>>They have no such rights. In civilised countries such as Australia, we
>>have legislation to ensure that prices are set by fair competition.
>
>
> Look, ya dumbfuck! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
>sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to piss and moan about. The movie
>is MINE TO SELL, and mine alone.
I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you sell it that is at issue
...
> It is a monopoly by default, and is perfectly legal in ALL free
>nations.
> If YOU make a product that others can make and compete with you for
>market share in, fine, but movies are SINGULAR works of art, and ONLY
>the studio that made them should EVER profit from one.
I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you profit from it that is at
issue ...
> If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
>allowed to sell it, or copies of it.
>
> AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.
No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.
vanpall
where
Brooks
DarkMatter wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:55:55 GMT, "James Sweet"
> <james...@hotmail.com> Gave us:
> You're a goddamned idiot. It is not legal. Period.
>
> Do you even know what a criminal mindset is?
>
> BTW, the topic was copying DVDs, and telling lame fucks like you
> that it is illegal IS on topic, you retard!
----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
James Sweet
>
> Do you even know what a criminal mindset is?
>
> BTW, the topic was copying DVDs, and telling lame fucks like you
> that it is illegal IS on topic, you retard!
WTF? Did you even *read* my reply? I was supporting your side, but you seem
to be on a bit of a rampage, just drop it and take your childish insults and
bad language elsewhere, nobody who's still arguing even cares whether it's
legal or not, it's just a kiddie pissing match.
James Sweet
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:22:12 GMT, "James Sweet"
> <james...@hotmail.com> Gave us:
>
>
> >WTF? Did you even *read* my reply? I was supporting your side, but you
seem
> >to be on a bit of a rampage, just drop it and take your childish insults
and
> >bad language elsewhere, nobody who's still arguing even cares whether
it's
> >legal or not, it's just a kiddie pissing match.
> >
>
> illegal, nobody will catch you." kind of baby bullshit that gives the
> OTHER retards the idea that it is OK.
>
> You must be a clueless twit to claim you are "on my side".
Umm... I was agreeing that the argument that it's legal is silly, but in the
end I don't really care if it's legal or not, and I don't care if people do
it, I don't do it myself, but if someone else wants to break the law and
risk getting in trouble that's their life and I'm not their mother. If
you're so worried about it, perhaps you should try to educate people rather
than spend your day with this childish namecalling and profanity, it doesn't
exactly help to give you an authorative image, more likely makes people want
to go copy some dvd's just to spite you.
Mark Spatny
> I mean, Just look at the 3 LOTR films
> a MASSIVE 500+ mil usd to make the film and bring it to the market.
Your analysis is all wrong. What you have to remember is that the movie
studios make hundreds of movies each year, and most do not turn a profit
for many, many years. The blockbuster successes like LOTR keep people
employed while all the other films break even or generate red ink. You
have to examine the buisiness as a whole, and think about how all the
various profitable and not-profitable movies combine.
Looking at the annual reports of the various studios will give a clearer
picture.
> Lets not forget that they have got their payment JUST from sales.. When this
> film makes 30bn and gives it's 300mil to the RIAA to stop people who want to
> make their own DVD for 3$ then I guess you can feel happy that your able to
> buy your food..
This is the part that proves you really don't know what you are talking
about. The RIAA has nothing to do with movies. As long as you assume
that it does, any other facts or analysis you try to represent will be
suspect.
Mark Spatny
> A copy of a commercially produced movie is not considered a backup of user
> files, as like user created work or software. Like bought (purchased)
> software programs, entertainment media should be used on one device at a
> time at one location at a time, unless agreed with between the manufacture
> and the end user.
>
> If you worked in this industry and had to feed your family, you would feel
> the same way!
I work in this indutry, and depend on it to feed my family, and I do not
feel the same way. I have no problem with people making backup copies of
material they have purchased, so long as it is not shared with other
people or sold. If a parent wants to make a copy of a DVD in case his
kids break the original, there is nothing immoral about that.
This is certainly within reasonable interpretation of copyright law, and
a practice that I consider perfectly acceptable, and frankly, wise.
James Sweet
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:40:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
> <james...@hotmail.com> Gave us:
>
> >
> >Umm... I was agreeing that the argument that it's legal is silly, but in
the
> >end I don't really care if it's legal or not, and I don't care if people
do
> >it, I don't do it myself, but if someone else wants to break the law and
> >risk getting in trouble that's their life and I'm not their mother. If
> >you're so worried about it, perhaps you should try to educate people
rather
> >than spend your day with this childish namecalling and profanity, it
doesn't
> >exactly help to give you an authorative image, more likely makes people
want
> >to go copy some dvd's just to spite you.
>
>
> their life.
>
> You can for saying that you'll stand by one of them.
LOL Fire! Fire!! :-P
MR_ED_of_Course
post...@spamcop.net wrote on 1/4/04 9:37 AM:
It absolutely does NOT apply ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals. I believe
you're confusing two different arguments that Sony used in its defense.
Sony's Akio Morita is credited with coining the phrase time-shifting and the
court accepted it (then lost on appeal, then won in the Supreme Court). The
two defenses were:
1) Time-shifting: "The basic concept behind the home-use VCR is to free the
public from the constraints of television scheduling, in other words, to
allow people to watch programs at their own convenience." Note that this
does *not* use the word broadcast. This is a very important omission
because there is a HUGE difference between cable and broadcast and Sony
wanted to win based on the ability to time-shift *any* content.
This leads to the second (less central) defense:
2) Broadcast is public domain: "The huge volume of information transmitted
over the airwaves by television stations is in the public domain." This
argument had been used several times in other situations and has never
really been fully resolved...it probably never will be due to digital
encryption make the issue moot.
The fact that it *is* legal to record *cable* television is a result of Sony
winning the case based on the first argument and not the second. Had the
courts ruled that you could time-shift broadcast-only content because
broadcasting it over the airwaves put it in the public domain, it would've
meant that you could not record cable television. Not only that, but it
would've meant that you could do whatever you wanted with any content that
was ever broadcasted...as in make copies and sell them.
In other words, the courts agreed (based on surveys) that time-shifting of
content had no financial effect on the copyright holders, it simply
facilitated the watching of the content. They won only on the first
argument.
This is why it is legal to time-shift any content whether it be broadcast,
cable, satellite, Pay-Per-View, or video rental.
DarkMatter wrote:
> Time shifting is record now, watch later. It is for broadcast
> media. It is not for snaggin' a copy of a rental.
Right, building a library of copies of rentals is by definition illegal,
though very tough to prove in court.
> Renting a DVD and then claiming that you needed to time shift a copy
> would get laughed at in the courts. It is not a reasonable
> application of fair use.
It would never make it to the courts since the burden of proof would be on
the copyright holder that the consumer deprived the copyright holder of
income.
I'll take my boat out for a week or two at a time and often
time-shift/space-shift content to disc for viewing. If I were to rent a
video and do the same thing it would be legal and reasonable as long as it
was about viewing the content once and not depriving the copyright holder of
income. It would be both legal and ethical. In fact, it would actually
benefit copyright holders since they would be getting 1 rental for 1 viewing
for 10 or so movies as opposed to no rentals for a two week period.
Now if you want to turn this into an argument based on someone building a
library of copied DVDs they've rented, that's totally different. That is
Daniel L. Belton
resell it. BUT you do NOT have the right to make copy's and sell them.
Same goes for books, movies and music. You can sell the original, but
you can not copy it and sell it. There are laws to protect intellectual
property, and these are different from copyright laws even though they
do cross areas.
Daniel L. Belton
I have seen some that have only one format on the disc, yet require dual
layering to fit it all on the disc. These discs probably would cause
some quality loss when copied to a single layer disc with lower capacity.
Daniel L. Belton
> On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
> <fza...@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:
>
>
>>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
>><DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
>>and composed:
>>
>>
>>>On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:37:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
>>><fza...@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:
>>>
>>>
>>>>They have no such rights. In civilised countries such as Australia, we
>>>>have legislation to ensure that prices are set by fair competition.
>>>
>>>
>>> Look, ya dumbfuck! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
>>>sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to piss and moan about. The movie
>>>is MINE TO SELL, and mine alone.
>>
>>I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you sell it that is at issue
>>...
>
>
> If I want ten thou from you and only one thou from another customer,
> that is MY choice, and I have a right to price MY work at whatever
> price I want.
>
> If the buyer thinks it too high, the buyer should take a fucking
> hike!
I will agree with you here... If I produce a product, I can sell it for
whatever I want. I might not sell any, but I can price it however I
wish to. it is up to the purchaser to decide if they want to pay my
price or not. However, most people wishing to sell a product will try
to price it so that it does sell, but they don't have to.
rstlne
"Mark Spatny" <vfxpr...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1a621a225...@news.west.earthlink.net...
Wrong.. the MPAA does movies and the RIAA does music. All good and well IF
you leave it there..
DVD = Media Format..
Now since you can get a recordable DVD then it falls under the RIAA, why,
cause you could record music on it..
So go back to my origianal post.. A portion of all DVD cost will go back to
the RIAA to stop piracy..
Belive it if you will... I dont care, Email the RIAA and see where all of
thir funding comes from..
tn...@mucks.net
>> Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
>> therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.
>>
>I have seen some that have only one format on the disc, yet require dual
>layering to fit it all on the disc. These discs probably would cause
>some quality loss when copied to a single layer disc with lower capacity.
With variable bit rate encoding you would be hard pressed to see the
difference.
TCS
All DVD's are variable bit rate, so what was your point again?
Unless you system is absolutely garbage, perhaps a window on a computer monitor
or a 13" tv, halving the bitrate will most defineately produce a rather
noticeable difference.
Tim Auton
That depends on how you compress it. Using MPEG-4 instead of MPEG-2
you can easily halve the bitrate with no noticeable loss of quality.
Tim
--
The .sig is dead.
Mark Spatny
>
> Now since you can get a recordable DVD then it falls under the RIAA,
It doesn't "fall under anything", except the DVD consortium.
> Belive it if you will...
No thanks. I prefer to beleive the truth.
Leonard Caillouet
news:onthvv0lac7grc3r5...@4ax.com...
You could just as easily end up with a result unworthy of comparison by
halving the bitrate in this comparison...from what I have seen, MPEG-4 is
not much to get excited about if you are interested in quality. Of course,
it depends on the content...
--
Leonard Caillouet
...I'd like to find you inner child and kick its little ass. Get over it...
(The Eagles)
vanpall
Brooks
DarkMatter wrote:
> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:55:12 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
> <OhNo...@pacbell.net> Gave us:
>
> >1) Time-shifting: "The basic concept behind the home-use VCR is to free the
> >public from the constraints of television scheduling, in other words, to
> >allow people to watch programs at their own convenience." Note that this
> >does *not* use the word broadcast. This is a very important omission
> >because there is a HUGE difference between cable and broadcast and Sony
> >wanted to win based on the ability to time-shift *any* content.
>
> No. They wanted to make the distinction to show that cable
> "transmissions" should be included, not "any" content. This was to
> define cable as a form of "broadcast" even though it was on a closed
> system. It is STILL ONLY about scheduled programming, not some
> asswipe's rental or whatever your bent fuck'd perceptions define it
> as.
Richard C.
: in article 3ff84f41$0$84057$9a6e...@news.newshosting.com, Richard C. at
: post...@spamcop.net wrote on 1/4/04 9:37 AM:
:
: >
: > "MR_ED_of_Course" <OhNo...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
: > news:BC1C9D7F.2CC8A%OhNo...@pacbell.net...
: > :
: > : Unless you can cite a precedent for any of this, the fact of the matter is
: > : that much of this is untested in the courts.
: > :
: > : In regards to time-shifting a copy of a rented VHS tape, I'd really like to
: > : know under what basis this would be considered illegal. Specifically where
: > : do you draw the line under what constitutes time-shifting.
: > :
: > =====================
: > "time-shifting" applies ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals.
:
: It absolutely does NOT apply ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals. I believe
: you're confusing two different arguments that Sony used in its defense.
: Sony's Akio Morita is credited with coining the phrase time-shifting and the
: court accepted it (then lost on appeal, then won in the Supreme Court). The
: two defenses were:
:
: 1) Time-shifting: "The basic concept behind the home-use VCR is to free the
: public from the constraints of television scheduling, in other words, to
: allow people to watch programs at their own convenience." Note that this
: does *not* use the word broadcast. This is a very important omission
: because there is a HUGE difference between cable and broadcast and Sony
: wanted to win based on the ability to time-shift *any* content.
=================
What part of "television scheduling" do you not understand?
===============
:
: This leads to the second (less central) defense:
:
: 2) Broadcast is public domain: "The huge volume of information transmitted
: over the airwaves by television stations is in the public domain." This
: argument had been used several times in other situations and has never
: really been fully resolved...it probably never will be due to digital
: encryption make the issue moot.
:
: The fact that it *is* legal to record *cable* television is a result of Sony
: winning the case based on the first argument and not the second. Had the
: courts ruled that you could time-shift broadcast-only content because
: broadcasting it over the airwaves put it in the public domain, it would've
: meant that you could not record cable television. Not only that, but it
: would've meant that you could do whatever you wanted with any content that
: was ever broadcasted...as in make copies and sell them.
:
: In other words, the courts agreed (based on surveys) that time-shifting of
: content had no financial effect on the copyright holders, it simply
: facilitated the watching of the content. They won only on the first
: argument.
:
: This is why it is legal to time-shift any content whether it be broadcast,
: cable, satellite, Pay-Per-View, or video rental.
:
========================
That does not follow..........................
Daniel L. Belton
> rstlne,.@. says...
>
>>Now since you can get a recordable DVD then it falls under the RIAA,
>
>
>
> It doesn't "fall under anything", except the DVD consortium.
I believe that if you are using DVD to record AUDIO that the RIAA holds
the rights for, then it would fall under the RIAA. Movies would fall
under the MPAA. DVD recording in general would fall under neither one.
The DVD consortium I believe is what sets the standards for DVD. I
don't think they control what is recorded.
Franc Zabkar
finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote on [Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100]:
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
>> <DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
>> and composed:
>>
>>> If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
>>>allowed to sell it, or copies of it.
>>>
>>> AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.
>>
>> No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
>> market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
>> not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
>> reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.
>
>So. Market forces shouldn't be involved at all? Or the fact that the
>group selling the product in Market A is not the same company as is
>selling it in Market B. And these companies price according to their
>markets.
Of course market forces should be involved. My contention, and that of
Australia's competition watchdog, is that region coding interferes
with these market forces in such a way that the market is no longer
free. The same applies to restrictions on the parallel importation of
software and books.
>Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
>that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?
If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.
>Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.
If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
freedom of choice.
>And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
>B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
>VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
>a region free DVD player.
VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
real justification for the latter.
>Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
>theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
>been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
>countries.
Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
practices.
Mark Spatny
> I believe that if you are using DVD to record AUDIO that the RIAA holds
> the rights for, then it would fall under the RIAA.
The RIAA doesn't hold the rights to anything. It is merely a trade
organization representing the interestes of the member major record
lables and producers. The record labels own the rights to the recordings
they distribute, and the song writers and composers hold the rights to
the lyrics and music, respectively. This is why royalties are paid to
song writers & composers through organizations like BMI, ASCAP, etc.
When you want to license a piece of music or a song, you contact the
appropriate rights holder, which is NEVER the RIAA.
> The DVD consortium I believe is what sets the standards for DVD. I
> don't think they control what is recorded.
Exactly. They control the format, which is the only control in the
system. Nobody "controls" the content. Control is an odd word in this
context. Anyone is free to record any property they own own the rights
to on DVD, without consulting with either the MPAA or RIAA.
This is why the so called "screener ban" imposed by the MPAA was
basically dismissed by courts, because the MPAA doesn't have the
authority to tell producers and distributors when and how they can
freely distribute the movies they created. The same goes for the RIAA.
Franc Zabkar
finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote on [Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:03:31 +1100]:
>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:56:37 GMT, Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> put
>> finger to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>Franc Zabkar wrote on [Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100]:
>>>> On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
>>>> <DarkM...@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
>>>> and composed:
>>>>
>>>>> If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
>>>>>allowed to sell it, or copies of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.
>>>>
>>>> No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
>>>> market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
>>>> not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
>>>> reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.
>>>
>>>So. Market forces shouldn't be involved at all? Or the fact that the
>>>group selling the product in Market A is not the same company as is
>>>selling it in Market B. And these companies price according to their
>>>markets.
>>
>> Of course market forces should be involved. My contention, and that of
>> Australia's competition watchdog, is that region coding interferes
>> with these market forces in such a way that the market is no longer
>> free. The same applies to restrictions on the parallel importation of
>> software and books.
>
>Actually, the region coding ruling was about lack of content as much as
>anything else. Price is comparable. I can get a DVD from ezydvd for
>about the same price as most places in the US
>>>Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
>>>that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?
>>
>> If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
>> products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
>> price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
>> price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.
>
>So, the people in the originating area should carry the cost for
>importing into another?
I'm not sure what you mean here. If by "cost of importing" you mean
freight costs, then doesn't the end user ultimately pay for this
anyway?
>>>Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.
>>
>> If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
>> your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
>> buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
>> freedom of choice.
>You have it.
Only if I can defeat region coding.
>>>And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
>>>B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
>>>VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
>>>a region free DVD player.
>>
>> VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
>> OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
>> real justification for the latter.
>
>PAL/NTSC conversion is a real technical difference. Not all players can
>do the conversion.
So make PAL and NTSC versions of your DVD titles and give me the
option of buying either. No need to use region coding.
>>>Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
>>>theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
>>>been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
>>>countries.
>>
>> Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
>> practices.
>
>Discriminatory? Have you tried to distribute a movie? Do you know the
>costs involved? Often one area release helps pay the distribution to
>another. If the DVD were available locally then the theatre distribution
>would be hurt.
So distribute the movie, make your money, and then release the DVD. No
need to resort to region coding.
>Besides, it's up to the licensee as to when and how they release a
>product, not you.
That's just fine for American viewers. However, Australia gets short
shrift when it comes to product releases.
>BTW, it's much more tedious going the other way. Finding a decent DVD
>player that will do good PAL->NTSC conversion, including Anamorphic PAL
>is hit or miss.... or expensive. Magnitudes of expensive.
No Time
>
> >>>Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.
> >>
> >> If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
> >> your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
> >> buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
> >> freedom of choice.
>
> >You have it.
>
> Only if I can defeat region coding.
Nice try. You have the choice to buy the product at whatever price the
market is charging in whatever the form the market is offering it, or
you don't. Isn't capitalism grand?
>
> >>>And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
> >>>B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
> >>>VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
> >>>a region free DVD player.
> >>
> >> VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
> >> OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
> >> real justification for the latter.
> >
> >PAL/NTSC conversion is a real technical difference. Not all players can
> >do the conversion.
>
> So make PAL and NTSC versions of your DVD titles and give me the
> option of buying either. No need to use region coding.
No, sorry, they don't have to cater to you. You'll probably feel
better when you realize the world doesn't revolve around you.
>
> >>>Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
> >>>theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
> >>>been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
> >>>countries.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
> >> practices.
> >
> >Discriminatory? Have you tried to distribute a movie? Do you know the
> >costs involved? Often one area release helps pay the distribution to
> >another. If the DVD were available locally then the theatre distribution
> >would be hurt.
>
> So distribute the movie, make your money, and then release the DVD. No
> need to resort to region coding.
Except they're the ones who want to and it's their material. When you
actually produce a new media type, you can choose to make it more
accomodating to people who whine on usenet. Until then, you're out of
luck.
>
> >Besides, it's up to the licensee as to when and how they release a
> >product, not you.
>
> That's just fine for American viewers. However, Australia gets short
> shrift when it comes to product releases.
Then move. Simple enough. While you're getting your seed money
together, try to come to terms with the fact that you have no rights
whatsoever to other people's property; they make the rules and you can
either abide by them and attain their products or don't and not. Your
choice.
Franc Zabkar
finger to keyboard and composed:
>Franc Zabkar wrote on [Tue, 06 Jan 2004 21:52:06 +1100]:
>> On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:17:24 GMT, Justin <nos...@insightbb.com> put
>> finger to keyboard and composed:
>>
>>>>>Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
>>>>>that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?
>>>>
>>>> If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
>>>> products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
>>>> price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
>>>> price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.
>>>
>>>So, the people in the originating area should carry the cost for
>>>importing into another?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean here. If by "cost of importing" you mean
>> freight costs, then doesn't the end user ultimately pay for this
>> anyway?
>
>My response was a bit.... weird.
>
>OK, from your argument I took it to mean that you meant to build the
>costs of producing the product for two different markets, then both of
>those markets should cover the cost fo the second market.
>
>
>>>>>Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.
>>>>
>>>> If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
>>>> your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
>>>> buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
>>>> freedom of choice.
>>
>>>You have it.
>>
>> Only if I can defeat region coding.
>
>And that's fairly trivial.
Even if that were true, the point is that the consumer should not have
to resort to defeating artifical restrictions.
Have a look at this non-trivial region coding hack for a Sony
DVP-NS300 DVD player:
http://www.dvdrhelp.com/dvdhacks.php?select=Sony+DVP-NS300
To hack this player, one requires a special remote control. And even
if one does complete the convoluted process of converting this player
for multiregion use, there is still RCE to contend with.
>>>>>And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
>>>>>B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
>>>>>VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
>>>>>a region free DVD player.
>>>>
>>>> VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
>>>> OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
>>>> real justification for the latter.
>>>
>>>PAL/NTSC conversion is a real technical difference. Not all players can
>>>do the conversion.
>>
>> So make PAL and NTSC versions of your DVD titles and give me the
>> option of buying either. No need to use region coding.
>
>You have it.
No. Region coding prevents me from playing European PAL titles in my
Australian PAL player, for example.
>>>>>Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
>>>>>theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
>>>>>been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
>>>>>countries.
>>>>
>>>> Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
>>>> practices.
>>>
>>>Discriminatory? Have you tried to distribute a movie? Do you know the
>>>costs involved? Often one area release helps pay the distribution to
>>>another. If the DVD were available locally then the theatre distribution
>>>would be hurt.
>>
>> So distribute the movie, make your money, and then release the DVD. No
>> need to resort to region coding.
>
>So, let's take a smaller "big" movie, like Underworld, and see how this
>works. This movie hasn't been released in Australia yet, but is on DVD
>today. I'm assuming it's being released in Aus in January because it's a
>"summer" movie, meaning something to entertain people in the air
>conditioning in the summer heat. The US release of the DVD should be
>held up because of this? Or the worldwide release should be?
I see your point. However, in this case there are two competing
interests, mine and theirs. I don't accept that my free access to DVD
titles should be forever thwarted by the studio's desire for an
orderly release. In any case, how did the studios survive when the
only format was region free VHS?
>>>Besides, it's up to the licensee as to when and how they release a
>>>product, not you.
>>
>> That's just fine for American viewers. However, Australia gets short
>> shrift when it comes to product releases.
>
>True enough. Australia get's the short shrift on everything else, too.
no spam
"No Time" <omare...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b8ed4b07.04010...@posting.google.com...
Marcus
news:2004010212...@orion.besthost1.com...
> I rented some movies from Blockbuster the other day and tried to burn them
to a DVD-R and my DVD recorder said "Can Not Copy".
> The same thing happens when I borrow DVDs from friends and when I try to
copy my DVD disc for friends.
> I can burn movies from digital cable and off the antenna just fine.
> Is the DVD too high a resolution for my DVD recorder or do I have a bad
cable from my DVD player which is preventing me from recording to DVD?
Erich,
Basically, it's CGMS stopping you making a copy of a commercial DVD
(CopyGuard), which is what the recorder is supposed to be doing. Legally.
I'm with the others, go out and buy the movies in question if you like them.
You can afford a DVD recorder, right? and if off digital cable and the
antenna is fine, then how about buying the movies you really like?
Marcus
Marcus
news:8JjJb.15476$FN....@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net...
> Not sure what post was more of a laugh, his or yours..
> I mean, Just look at the 3 LOTR films
You're missing the point. The other poster wanted to make COPIES of
COPYRIGHTED materials on his DVD recorder. That's just not on, sorry - hence
"cannot copy" being displayed. I really don't care if you think it's a laugh
or not - we'll see who's laughing when people like yourself get caught for
pirating and distributing copyrighted materials.
Think I'm kidding? Try me - the Australiasian Film & Video Securities Office
would LOVE to hear about that poster and their activities.
Marcus
Marcus
> Now since you can get a recordable DVD then it falls under the RIAA, why,
> cause you could record music on it..
That's right, and you can record music onto it - music which is subject to
copyright that you don't own is not a justifiable reason for recording.
Sorry.
Marcus
Marcus
> MUSIC: I have no problems with people sharing music by any means
necessary.
> I think sharing music *is* the moral thing to do and the recording
industry
> should be destroyed.
Bzzt. Sorry, wrong answer. Go ahead and share music, fine - DON'T share
music if it's copyrighted and you are not the copyright holder.
> SOFTWARE: Likewise, I have no problems with people pirating any Microsoft
> software. I have no problem with people pirating other productive
software
> for personal use...in the sense of someone pirating PhotoShop so they can
be
> familiar with it when they go to work somewhere that the company will buy
it
> for them.
Sorry, wrong answer again. There's a thing called Shareware, and another
called Freeware, that you can legally distribute. Microsoft, Photoshop etc
forget it - they are COPYRIGHTED software, and running a pirated copy simply
for the sake of familiarising yourself is just not acceptable, nor legal.
> VIDEO: DVDs are so incredibly reasonable in terms of pricing. I'm
against
> pirating DVDs, but I do feel it's ok to use a DVD that you've purchased
for
> personal use. This would include making a back up, making a version that
> strips out forced trailers and commercials, or using the content for
> personal use...such as making a CD of some of the audio or making a game
for
> your children based on the video/art elements.
Wrong. This is why they're on sale on the first place. Want a backup? Fine,
then get TWO copies, and use ONE as a working copy, and keep the other in a
safe place. Why bother making a version to cut the trailers and commercials?
The button which is on every remote is akin to "Track select
forward/reverse". Use it.
> Well you said "media" instead of "movie"...as I mentioned above, I *want*
> the recording industry to be destroyed.
You do huh? Okay, think about this then. You seem to love every sense of
piracy.
Person A buys for example's sake, a Billy Joel album on CD. Person B gets
this album, makes a copy and gives it to a mate, who in turn makes a copy
for his, and so on and so on. These people who have the copies don't go out
and buy the CD as they have a pirate copy. Sales fall, artist eventually
decides to not make any more music, and then the pirates also lose out
because there is no raw material for them to copy from, ensuring no material
is available anymore. You want this to happen to *everyone*? I doubt it.
> 2) Using copy-protection that only annoys consumers, but has no affect
> whatsoever on professional pirates.
Using copy-protection is SUPPOSED to have an effect on potential,
professional pirates. Period.
> This is great as long as prices remain low and titles remain available.
..and they will remain high for as long as people break copy protection
systems and distribute pirated versions of the material. Think!
> I'm currently working full time in the software industry, but I often work
> in the film, tv, radio or music industries.
I bet they'd love to hear what you've just spat out for piracy.
Marcus
Cornholio
Then when you get your own copy, be sure to convert the movie to SVCD
and post it in the DVD2SVCD newsgroup to we can also have a copy.
Forget Marcus, Dark Helmet and the other anti-piracy homos. Let them
sit at home and stress out about piracy going on that they can't
control.
Sarah
why pay when you can do it free: dvdshrink.org
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:53:43 GMT, Cornholio <den...@newsguy.com>
wrote: