Hollywood Wins DVD Case: Judge Sides with MPAA

  • News
  • Thread starter The_Professional
  • Start date
In summary, 321 Studios must stop selling its DVD copying program because it violates copyright law. The company plans to appeal the ruling.
  • #1
The_Professional
427
1
This is messed up:
http://wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62375,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
A similar program is available over the Internet for free

A federal judge ruled on Friday that 321 Studios, a software developer, must stop selling its DVD copying program, delivering a huge win for the entertainment industry.

Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District Federal Court for California sided with the Motion Picture Association of America, which claimed that 321 Studios' DVD-X Copy and DVD Copy Plus software violate copyright law. The company, based in St. Charles, Missouri, must stop "manufacturing, distributing or otherwise trafficking in any type of DVD circumvention software" in seven days.


321 Studios said they will appeal the ruling, and seek a stay from the judge during the appeal process.

"There is no difference between making a copy of a music CD for personal use and making a backup of a DVD movie for personal use," said Robert Moore, president of 321 Studios said in a statement. "We are so firm in our belief in the principle of fair use that we will appeal this ruling immediately. And we will take our fight all the way to the Supreme Court, if that's what it takes to win."


"This decision confirms what we've feared all along, which is that the DMCA is being used to take away your fair use rights in the digital world," said Jason Schultz, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which submitted a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of 321 Studios. "It really speaks to the need to go back to Congress and revisit the DMCA. I don't think anyone expected that this law would be used so severely to cut back on consumers' rights to use things they own or bought."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
and so it begins, i can just see MPAA/RIAA agents arresting ppl now
 
  • #3
And DVD burners getting banned.
 
  • #4
Originally posted by The_Professional
And DVD burners getting banned.
Not a chance.
 
  • #5
Hummm would have been nice if I could have made a backup copy of my car, as easily...that would help eliminate the idea of "Proprietal Rights" completely...normal use, define it, prove it, or give it all away, for free...least the 'Knowledge' parts, cause can't stop that, once it's out...
 
  • #6
I really don't see how DVD's are necessarily different from VHS. If we can copy stuff using tapes then why the restriction on DVD?

Originally posted by MacTech
and so it begins, i can just see MPAA/RIAA agents arresting ppl now

That reminds me of groups like the NKVD back in WWII. Arrest, then send to "re-education". I guess the MPAA/RIAA is acting as police now, whacking people with their big sticks of court injunctions.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Originally posted by russ_watters
Not a chance.

LOL..considering they tried to outlaw VCR's aeons ago, saying that it will destroy the industry. By no other than Jack Valenti.

I won't be surprised if they at least made an attempt to ban dvd burners.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Ban DVD burners? Well then people will download movies from the internet and put them on a VCD, a little primitive to DVD's but they will still have their back-ups or whatever.
 
  • #9
Originally posted by jimmy p
Ban DVD burners? Well then people will download movies from the internet and put them on a VCD, a little primitive to DVD's but they will still have their back-ups or whatever.
Sounds good(?) but most likely would be the eliminaton of the format and the introduction of a new format, you know something like DVD Square or something like that as to replace what was the "used system"...probably a bit like what CD's did to vinyl records...(LP's)

(Am I dated or what)
 
  • #10
BTW in my history I have known/know numerous persons with extensive collections of VHS tapes, either purchased, or recorded, and I don't know of a single one who has ever made so little as a single "Back up copy" of any of them...not a one!...so why is it so nessecary to make "Backup" DVD's? isn't there a warranty on them?
 
  • #11
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
BTW in my history I have known/know numerous persons with extensive collections of VHS tapes, either purchased, or recorded, and I don't know of a single one who has ever made so little as a single "Back up copy" of any of them...not a one!...so why is it so nessecary to make "Backup" DVD's? isn't there a warranty on them?

Okay, first things first. You can't make a backup of your VHS to another VHS because it has Macrovision protection. I've tried hooking up two VCR's before and all I got is static.

Backing up DVD's isn't just for movies. DVD burners are also used to store massive amounts of data. Such as backing up your hard drive, copying music,etc.. An average DVD disc has 4.7 gb worth of space in it, compare that to a CD that only has 650-700 mb.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Originally posted by The_Professional
Backing up DVD's isn't just for movies. DVD burners are also used to store massive amounts of data. Such as backing up your hard drive, copying music,etc.. An average DVD disc has 4.7 gb worth of space in it, compare that to a CD that only has 650-700 mb.
Thankfully admiting to attempting a crime isn't actionable...as for the ability to store L-O-T-S of info, Yup! O.K. but how does that imply/give/bestow any right to copyright violating, and if your info is, 'from the net' isn't it re-burnable from there? Why would you need to do that with information that (you should) have purchased? and now own a working copy of? Why the imperitive to have such technology, so widely available, when it could easily be done in another manner, that will help the Copyright protections of...well, Programmers, et al...?
 
  • #13
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Thankfully admiting to attempting a crime isn't actionable...as for the ability to store L-O-T-S of info, Yup! O.K. but how does that imply/give/bestow any right to copyright violating, and if your info is, 'from the net' isn't it re-burnable from there? Why would you need to do that with information that (you should) have purchased? and now own a working copy of? Why the imperitive to have such technology, so widely available, when it could easily be done in another manner, that will help the Copyright protections of...well, Programmers, et al...?

I can fit multiple audio CDs onto a single CD if I rip the music and convert it to mp3. Or I can make copies so that I can keep CDs in my car and in my house and at work, instead of having to cart a single disc around.

I should be able to do the same thing with DVDs. True, I wouldn't have much use for a movie in my car or at work, but that doesn't matter. I should be able to rip DVDs to store them on my hard drive instead of on a disc. Or re-enocde them in a different format with better compression. Or make backup copies. Even if I never actually do these things, I should still be allowed to.

And none of these uses I cited are copyright violations. If I gave copies to others that would be a copyright violtation. But I can make all the backup copies I want and as long as I don't hand them out I'm not violating anyones copyright.
 
  • #14
Originally posted by master_coda
(SNIP) And none of these uses I cited are copyright violations. If I gave copies to others that would be a copyright violtation. But I can make all the backup copies I want and as long as I don't hand them out I'm not violating anyones copyright. (SNoP)
Don't know if the law has been changed, but, generally, in Copyright matters, you are allowed ONE (1) copy...for your own "personal use", exclusively...
 
  • #15
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Don't know if the law has been changed, but, generally, in Copyright matters, you are allowed ONE (1) copy...for your own "personal use", exclusively...

In some places that may be legally true. I don't know how copyright is actually implemented everywhere.

But that is a violation of the spirit of fair use. Just like a company should not be able to tell you that you cannot make backups, they should not be able to tell you how to make backups.


I have no problem with comapnies restricting the distribution of their IP. But if I buy a CD, why should the producer have the right to tell me exactly how I'm allowed to play it? If I want to play it on from the original CD in a CD player, or from a music file off of my hard drive, I should be allowed to do that. What's next, books you're only allowed to read under light from lightbulbs bought from company X? And if you use sunlight, you're an immoral copyright violator?
 
  • #16
I don't like all the restrictions the RIAA wants to put on the whatnots of CD burning. The first thing I do with a bought cd is I transfer the contents onto my hard drive. Usually I combine several cd's onto one big mp3 cd to save space, and I don't want there to be limitations on transferring to hard drive just becuase of big business interests.
 
  • #17
Originally posted by motai
I really don't see how DVD's are necessarily different from VHS. If we can copy stuff using tapes then why the restriction on DVD?
The exact same restrictions exist on VHS as on DVD. You cannot legally copy a VHS movie.
 
  • #18
Originally posted by master_coda
In some places that may be legally true. I don't know how copyright is actually implemented everywhere. Used to be the ICC (International Copyright Convention)...something like that, now they are using the "Berne Convention" (watch Letterman) for the International agreements
But that is a violation of the spirit of fair use. Just like a company should not be able to tell you that you cannot make backups, they should not be able to tell you how to make backups. Uhmm what you are describing, in wanting "Multiple" copies is a violation of Fair Use...BY YOU!
I have no problem with comapnies restricting the distribution of their IP. But if I buy a CD, why should the producer have the right to tell me exactly how I'm allowed to play it? They are not! and they are not trying to tell you how it can be played, you purchase it in a 'playable' format, it is Assumed that you bought it in the Format the YOU needed, and will play it as that, NOT re-write it into "other formats" If I want to play it on from the original CD in a CD player, or from a music file off of my hard drive, I should be allowed to do that. What's next, books you're only allowed to read under light from lightbulbs bought from company X? And if you use sunlight, you're an immoral copyright violator?
Please, take a little time, and re-read the Emboldened Arguement...yours...at the bottom...want to write out 500 words on why not to make silly self-defeating arguements?...cause it tells of you not really knowing how copyright protections/laws work...now turn off that light it's the wrong one!
 
Last edited:
  • #19
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
In some places that may be legally true. I don't know how copyright is actually implemented everywhere. Used to be the ICC (International Copyright Convention)...something like that, now they are using the "Berne Convention" (watch Letterman) for the International agreements

The Berne convention lays down basic copyright rules. Many countries (such as the USA) have added additional restrictions on what you can do with copyrighted material. But those restrictions are not universal to all countries subject to the convention. Plus, even the rules laid down by the convention are interpreted differently by different governments.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Uhmm what you are describing, in wanting "Multiple" copies is a violation of Fair Use...BY YOU!

Why? Because media companies say so? It isn't their decision to make.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
and they are not trying to tell you how it can be played, you purchase it in a 'playable' format, it is Assumed that you bought it in the Format the YOU needed, and will play it as that, NOT re-write it into "other formats"

It doesn't matter what they assume. Copyright is designed to protect creative content. It doesn't exist so that companies can make you pay multiple times for the same content.

If I buy a book and take the time to transcribe it onto a computer, then have I violated a copyright? From a legal point of view, perhaps (at least in some countries). But the fact that something is or is not legal says nothing about whether it is right or wrong.


The purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of creative material. So that if you produce something which is easily copied but difficult to initially make, then you can still reap the benefits of your initial investment of time and/or money.

It doesn't exist so that you can produce something once, then force people to pay multiple times for the exact same content, just because they want it in different formats. The fact that you made something creative does not entitle you to tell people how to use that content.


Was my sunlight remark silly? Yes, it was. I'm aware of the fact that copyright law does not allow companies to tell you what kind of light you can read a book under.

But them telling you how to read a book is no different from them telling you how to do your backups. The fact that you're making additional physical copies is irrelevant, because you aren't distributing the creative content. Which is the only thing the law is meant to stop.


Edited to remove a quote block I accidentally left behind.
 
Last edited:
  • #20
Originally posted by master_coda
The Berne convention lays down basic copyright rules. Many countries (such as the USA) have added additional restrictions on what you can do with copyrighted material. But those restrictions are not universal to all countries subject to the convention. Plus, even the rules laid down by the convention are interpreted differently by different governments. Yes I am aware of that...and BTW your top quotation is attributed to me, and it is YOURS! (please, be a little more careful)
Why? Because media companies say so? It isn't their decision to make.
No, because Societies LAWS say so, and the companies are simply attempting to have them followed, by people like YOU!
It doesn't matter what they assume. Copyright is designed to protect creative content. It doesn't exist so that companies can make you pay multiple times for the same content. So you should be able to make multiple copies of a Book, For "Your own personal use?" HUH?? WHAT possible "Personal use" do you have for seventy-seven copies of "War and Peace"...paperweights?
If I buy a book and take the time to transcribe it onto a computer, then have I violated a copyright? From a legal point of view, perhaps (at least in some countries). But the fact that something is or is not legal says nothing about whether it is right or wrong.
O.K. something being 'Illegal' doesn't tell you that it is wrong...(to do)...Humm, they will like you, in prison...Understand anything about Law?
The purpose of copyright is to encourage the production of creative material. No, it is to protect the Authors rights, then the 'Expression of the Idea'...the 'Idea', itself, is a "Public Domain" So that if you produce something which is easily copied but difficult to initially make, then you can still reap the benefits of your initial investment of time and/or money.
ANYTHING protected by copyright is easily copied if the person wanting to do so, is willing to agregiously violate the law of our Collective Democratic Society...
It doesn't exist so that you can produce something once, then force people to pay multiple times for the exact same content, just because they want it in different formats. The fact that you made something creative does not entitle you to tell people how to use that content.
There are still existing restrictions upon your right to adulterate it, from it's Original FORM!...)the way it was when you bought it)
Was my sunlight remark silly? Yes, it was. I'm aware of the fact that copyright law does not allow companies to tell you what kind of light you can read a book under. Don't worry about it, I've done similar enough, in my life, enough times, that I was really only recognising a part of myself...O.K.?
But them telling you how to read a book is no different from them telling you how to do your backups. Untrue! The fact that you're making additional physical copies is irrelevant, Again Untrue! because you aren't distributing the creative content. Which is the only thing the law is meant to stop. Partially true...
 
  • #21
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
No, because Societies LAWS say so, and the companies are simply attempting to have them followed, by people like YOU!

No, the companies are attempting to manipulate the law in order to increase their profit margins.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So you should be able to make multiple copies of a Book, For "Your own personal use?" HUH?? WHAT possible "Personal use" do you have for seventy-seven copies of "War and Peace"...paperweights?


It doesn't matter what I want to do with the copies. As long as I don't distrubute them.


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
O.K. something being 'Illegal' doesn't tell you that it is wrong...(to do)...Humm, they will like you, in prison...Understand anything about Law?


Are you trying to say that it is always wrong to disobey the law? So if the law says it's illegal for a slave to disobey his master, then it's immoral for the slave to try and fight for freedom?

Things are not immoral because they are illegal. They're illegal because they're immoral. And the people who make the laws aren't always right, even when they're trying to be. So you can't just say "this is illegal so it's wrong".

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
No, it is to protect the Authors rights, then the 'Expression of the Idea'...the 'Idea', itself, is a "Public Domain"


And how are the authors rights violated by me having backup copies? What has the author lost?

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
There are still existing restrictions upon your right to adulterate it, from it's Original FORM!...)the way it was when you bought it)


Only if I distribute it. Of course, in many places this is not legally true. But as I mentioned before, just because something is legal does not mean it's immoral.


Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
ANYTHING protected by copyright is easily copied if the person wanting to do so, is willing to agregiously violate the law of our Collective Democratic Society...


Democracy is not some magnificent, infallible way of making decisions. It generally works better than other forms of government, but it is often wrong, too. The fact that the majority of people agree to a single point of view doesn't magically make the minority wrong.


Incidentally, none of the actions I have mentioned are in violation of either the Berne convention, nor are they in violation of copyright law as it is implemented in the country I live in (yet). So I am in no way in violation of the laws of democratic society.
 
  • #22
Personally, i buy cds and convert data to mp3 on my computer but i don't share files, or copy my cds. I should think you are allowed as many copies of a cd as you want as long its for PERSONAL use and not to sell on or whatever. Frankly people are going to do it. If they are so concerned about it, why not protect the cds? My Aerosmith Greatest Hits cd cannot be read by a computer for example.
 
  • #23
master_coda...I did not say 'immoral', you said "right" and/or "wrong", not "moral' and/or "immoral" and we are not talking about slavery, now are we...

Aside from that, what we are talking about is Copy Right Law, hence pertaining to the Right to make copies, assignation of Rights as pertaining to who/whom has right to what kind, and how many, copies...hence Copyright law...that you have a different belief in the morality of the actions of the industries, is nice, but a collective society is run on the accordances of the able majority...whether (or not) it is a manipulation, as you so assert, is something that gets adjudicated by courts...seeking fairness

You seem to want to make unlimited copies, with little apparent reason other then to prove you can? or have the right? multiplicity in this aspect seems really redundant...

As for you not distributing it, having a copy, on your computer, in any format (other then it's original) offers, to anyone who could hack it, the opportunity to have the protected content, without the protections that were included in the original format, since you would be required to remove those, to copy them, (right?) that is just one of the things that is what is being objected to, as it is paramount to advertising "Piracy rights available here" whether you see it that way, or not, like it that way, or not...
 
  • #24
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
that you have a different belief in the morality of the actions of the industries, is nice, but a collective society is run on the accordances of the able majority...whether (or not) it is a manipulation, as you so assert, is something that gets adjudicated by courts...seeking fairness

The courts, like everything else in the world, are falliable. If I believe the court is wrong, I will oppose their decision, even to the point of disobdience. Submitting to an injustice just because "that's the way most people want the system to be" has little meaning to me. If the "able majority" is wrong, I will oppose them, regardless of how much of a minority I may be in.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
You seem to want to make unlimited copies, with little apparent reason other then to prove you can? or have the right? multiplicity in this aspect seems really redundant...

Yes. In fact, I do not even want to make unlimited copies. I simply want the right to. If people give up a right simply because they currently see no use in having it, then eventually people will have no rights at all.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
As for you not distributing it, having a copy, on your computer, in any format (other then it's original) offers, to anyone who could hack it, the opportunity to have the protected content, without the protections that were included in the original format, since you would be required to remove those, to copy them, (right?) that is just one of the things that is what is being objected to, as it is paramount to advertising "Piracy rights available here" whether you see it that way, or not, like it that way, or not...

I know that breaking the copy protection mechanism makes it easy for piracy to occur. But the only way to stop piracy is to attack pirates. Randomly striking out at the innocent to try and catch the guilty is not an effective way of actually stopping crime. It merely inspires resentment among those who never took part in crime in the first place.

I don't steal software. I don't steal music. I don't steal movies. These companies have been paid what they asked in exchange for a copy of their copyrighted material. Yet they treat me like a criminal. And they try and change the law so that I am a criminal. It's not enough for them that they control the information that their copyright protects...they want to control everything that ever comes in contact with that information.
 
  • #25
Originally posted by master_coda

I know that breaking the copy protection mechanism makes it easy for piracy to occur. But the only way to stop piracy is to attack pirates. Randomly striking out at the innocent to try and catch the guilty is not an effective way of actually stopping crime. It merely inspires resentment among those who never took part in crime in the first place.

Not only that but the companies are kicking themselves in the butt. By targeting innocents they are destroying potential customers, and those potential customers will not buy their cd's and will also tell their friends not to buy their products.
 
  • #26
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Uhmm what you are describing, in wanting "Multiple" copies is a violation of Fair Use...BY YOU!
I think you're mistaken...it is, according to "fair use" doctines, perfectly within a persons right to copy a CD or DVD that they've previously purchases in order to say...have a copy for the car..or a back up copy in case their primary copy is scratched etc...It does cross the fair use line and becomes illegal, due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to bypass copyright protections built into the CD or DVD even if it is only for personal use.
 
  • #27
Originally posted by kat
I think you're mistaken...it is, according to "fair use" doctines, perfectly within a persons right to copy a CD or DVD that they've previously purchases in order to say...have a copy for the car..or a back up copy in case their primary copy is scratched etc...It does cross the fair use line and becomes illegal, due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, to bypass copyright protections built into the CD or DVD even if it is only for personal use.
Thank you(!), specifically though, what about format change?
 
  • #28
Originally posted by master_coda
The courts, like everything else in the world, are falliable. If I believe the court is wrong, I will oppose their decision, even to the point of disobdience. Submitting to an injustice just because "that's the way most people want the system to be" has little meaning to me. If the "able majority" is wrong, I will oppose them, regardless of how much of a minority I may be in. Funny, "everyone else is wrong", 'cept you, it seems, that is the impression I am getting...
Yes. In fact, I do not even want to make unlimited copies. I simply want the right to. If people give up a right simply because they currently see no use in having it, then eventually people will have no rights at all. Same impression as above, people who fight for their rights do so because being made absent of those rights has direct impact upon the living of their lives, this? here? you? nah!
I know that breaking the copy protection mechanism makes it easy for piracy to occur. But the only way to stop piracy is to attack pirates. Randomly striking out at the innocent to try and catch the guilty is not an effective way of actually stopping crime. It merely inspires resentment among those who never took part in crime in the first place. So going after the people who "aid and abet" them, provide them with "the tools" to do it, that is somehow wrong, according to you? aside, the case in question is about selling the tools to get around the copyright protections, Right? and you want them to have the right to make the burglary tools...this is what you are fighting for herein...you agree(?)

I don't steal software. I don't steal music. I don't steal movies. These companies have been paid what they asked in exchange for a copy of their copyrighted material. Yet they treat me like a criminal. And they try and change the law so that I am a criminal. It's not enough for them that they control the information that their copyright protects...they want to control everything that ever comes in contact with that information.
Not true, but I doubt that I could convince you of anything...
 
  • #29
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Funny, "everyone else is wrong", 'cept you, it seems, that is the impression I am getting...

So by this argument, everyone who disagrees with the majority is always wrong. And here all this time I thought appeal to popularity was a logical fallacy. Silly me.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Same impression as above, people who fight for their rights do so because being made absent of those rights has direct impact upon the living of their lives, this? here? you? nah!

There's no reason for me to only fight for rights that have a direct impact on me. Why others decide to fight for rights has nothing to do with why I should.

Those two arguments were little more than "you're wrong because other people have decided differently". The rightness or wrongness of something has nothing to do with how many people support a particular viewpoint. What other people decide only determines what's legal and illegal, not what's right and wrong.

Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
So going after the people who "aid and abet" them, provide them with "the tools" to do it, that is somehow wrong, according to you? aside, the case in question is about selling the tools to get around the copyright protections, Right? and you want them to have the right to make the burglary tools...this is what you are fighting for herein...you agree(?)

Backup tools are not burglary tools anymore than a rock is a burglary tool.

The Internet makes it much easier for people to distrubute child pornography. Does that mean that ISPs are aiding and abetting child pornographers? No. We should continue doing what we're doing now...arresting the people who actually commit the crimes.

Obviously it's easier to catch people who aren't criminals, since they're not trying to avoid getting caught. But that does nothing to actually stop the crime.

Pirates are already breaking the law by distributing the copyrighted material. I don't think they care if the software they use to do it is legal or illegal.
 
  • #30
Originally posted by master_coda
So by this argument, everyone who disagrees with the majority is always wrong. And here all this time I thought appeal to popularity was a logical fallacy. Silly me. Only one saying that, is you...
There's no reason for me to only fight for rights that have a direct impact on me. Why others decide to fight for rights has nothing to do with why I should.
Those two arguments were little more than "you're wrong because other people have decided differently". The rightness or wrongness of something has nothing to do with how many people support a particular viewpoint. What other people decide only determines what's legal and illegal, not what's right and wrong. Once again, "Generally speaking" what is right, and wrong, are generalizations, and Laws are rules set up based upon the Ideas of right and wrong, and generally tend to want to Make behaviours that are seen as wrong(ful) as Illegal...that you keep trying to "Murk up the waters" on these 'tacks' shows you for what you are, and are doing...very little
Backup tools are not burglary tools anymore than a rock is a burglary tool. A rock is not a burglary tool it is an object that can be used to break something else, but it is NOT a designed (hence designated as a) TOOL...it is a rock...on the other hand, a DVD burner that enables (by design) you to evade/aviod/abrogate the Societally accepted rights, of another, is a tool of crime...wheter you see it that way, or not!

The Internet makes it much easier for people to distrubute child pornography. Does that mean that ISPs are aiding and abetting child pornographers? No. According to you, personally I think it does, and they are, if it is maintiainted on an open sourced website. (but the law may disagree with me...cause I am NOT the law for anyone else, 'cept myself, and, God help me with that one, please! We should continue doing what we're doing now...arresting the people who actually commit the crimes.
Obviously it's easier to catch people who aren't criminals, since they're not trying to avoid getting caught. But that does nothing to actually stop the crime. WOW what a statement what the heck do you catch a person for...easy to catch people who are not criminals, only becuase you are saying they "aren't criminals", society says they are, that is why they get caught, heck that is why they are looked for!

Pirates are already breaking the law by distributing the copyrighted material. I don't think they care if the software they use to do it is legal or illegal. This means nothing as criminal behaviour doesn't permit further criminal behaviour, in, and/or for anyone
Have a nice day...enough of my time, thanks!
(circle, circle, circle, gets no where)
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons

Have a nice day...enough of my time, thanks!
(circle, circle, circle, gets no where)

Indeed. It's hard to argue with someone when they think the fact that something is illegal is evidence that it should be illegal.
 
  • #32
Ahem*

So master_coda last answer, and it goes like this, when you are finished making your 40 billionth copy of Jewel's latest hits (after all, you are the one wanting unlimited copying rights right?) we discover that you can never ever make use of all of the copies that you have produced...so you want to put them in the trash, leading to the opportunity for a charge of "distributing", against you, if, while sitting in your trash can, they are taken 'accidently' by one of your friends ("wasn't that what you had planned all along" askes the prosecutor, in your case)...no! that is not the case...this is, you will never ever be able to use them, it is unreasonable to expect that you could, it is unreasonable that you should have that many copies as just about anyone could limit that number to five or ten and, your needs would be compltetely satisfied, but NO you want UNLIMITED, ergo we KNOW that you are the one being UNREASONABLE! no Question bout that, so If we can so easily see that you are being unreasonable, (in your pursuit of legal right to Ad infinitum and/or Ad Absurdum) we can then very easily connect that word "Un-reasonable" to the other needed word "Fair", and we can see that if you are being unreasonable, then it is 'hand in hand' with the idea that you are, therefore, being UNFAIR, breech of the Spirit of Fair Use, because an unreasonable person cannot be a person who is (seen as) acting in a fair manner!

Do you get it yet?...as in what is a fair limit on your right to reproduce someone else's work...in TRUST?
 
Last edited:
  • #33


Well, the ability to make an unlimited number of backs doesn't make it any easier to pirate than the ability to make only one backup.

If you make backups and those backups find their way into the hands of others, than you would still be a copyright violator. You seem to be saying that if we let people make unlimited backups, then pirates will just claim they were making backups and not distributing. Which would of course fail, since your intentions are irrelevant. If you're distributing material, than it doesn't matter if you were "only making backups".

So asking for the right to unlimited backups is no more unreasonable than asking for the right to make one backup. The ability to create multiple backups isn't going to change the fact that distributing is still not allowed.
 
  • #34
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
A rock is not a burglary tool it is an object that can be used to break something else, but it is NOT a designed (hence designated as a) TOOL...it is a rock...on the other hand, a DVD burner that enables (by design) you to evade/aviod/abrogate the Societally accepted rights, of another, is a tool of crime...wheter you see it that way, or not!

Not true. A DVD burner by design enables a consumer or individual to watch DVD movies and to make back-ups of anything: his entire hard drive, images, personal files, audio, video etc. You're saying that "(by design) it's used to evade the societally accepted rights of another, is a tool of crime" ? not true again. It is the program itself that circumvents restrictions in order for an individual to make a personal backup copy of whatever movie or cd he has legally paid for. And the fact is, DVD and CD media is much more fragile than tapes, hence the need to backup.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
Originally posted by Mr. Robin Parsons
Thank you(!), specifically though, what about format change?

Format change is perfectly acceptable, so is cutting and remixing. It is not true, however, that one can make and have on hand unlimited copies. Although it's unlikely that someone is going to bust down your door with a search warrant to check...the key word is..."fair use". :wink:
 

Similar threads

News Patriot Act 2: Summarized by Alex Jones
    • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top