- #31
master_coda
- 591
- 0
Indeed. It's hard to argue with someone when they think the fact that something is illegal is evidence that it should be illegal.
Hollywood Wins DVD Case: Judge Sides with MPAA
- Context: News
- Thread starter The_Professional
- Start date
Click For Summary
Discussion Overview
The discussion centers around a recent federal court ruling that requires 321 Studios to cease selling its DVD copying software, which the MPAA claims violates copyright law. Participants explore the implications of this ruling on fair use rights, the legality of copying DVDs compared to VHS, and the potential consequences for consumers and technology like DVD burners.
Discussion Character
- Debate/contested
- Conceptual clarification
- Technical explanation
Main Points Raised
- Some participants express concern that the ruling undermines fair use rights, comparing DVD copying to making personal copies of music CDs.
- Others argue that the ruling may lead to increased enforcement actions by the MPAA and RIAA against individuals.
- A few participants question the necessity of making backup copies of DVDs, citing personal experiences with VHS tapes where backups were rarely made.
- Some participants highlight the differences between DVD and VHS copying, noting that VHS has protections like Macrovision that complicate copying.
- There are discussions about the broader implications of banning DVD burners, with some suggesting that it could drive users to alternative methods of obtaining content, such as downloading from the internet.
- Several participants assert that the ability to back up DVDs is not solely for movies but also for data storage, raising questions about copyright violations in this context.
- Some participants mention the legal allowance of making one backup copy for personal use, though there is uncertainty about how this applies universally.
Areas of Agreement / Disagreement
Participants do not reach a consensus; multiple competing views remain regarding the implications of the ruling, the legality of copying DVDs, and the necessity of backup copies.
Contextual Notes
There are unresolved questions about the specifics of copyright law and fair use, as well as varying interpretations of what constitutes personal use. The discussion reflects a range of opinions on the impact of technology on copyright protections.
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
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
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?
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
master_coda
- 591
- 0
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
The_Professional
- 428
- 2
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"[/color] ? 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
kat
- 42
- 0
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".
- #36
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
Thank You, please explain it to master_coda, my attempts seem to have fallen short...not my fault I suspect...Originally posted by kat
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".
- #37
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
So, I realize that any DVD burner is not what is at stake, or in question, herein, it is that software that you mention, but if that software is bundled with "a DVD burner" then that Burner should not be sold, as it is a tool for Copyright Violation...
That, I suspect, is the point everyone in that case is trying to make...But I could be wrong so...
- #38
The_Professional
- 428
- 2
The software does not come bundled with the burner. Even if it is not included, it only takes a minute to do a search on google to find the program.
So that means we should also ban search engines as well, as they "aid" in piracy. Big Joke.
- #39
MacTech
naw, not search engines, just the entire web
- #40
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
Apparently in your *Ahem* Ignorance of Both, law, and the internet, you seemed to have missed completely the central issue reguarding the internet, freedom of speech, copyright law, and you!
For the very first time, in the history of humanity, human speech is directly translatable into actions, and actions that can be very deleterious to humanity...as in...
<<Insert string of maliciously intended code <--input/output-->Completely blacked out power stations>>
NOW! neither Copyright law, nor freedom of speech, have protections against this type of occurrence, HOW could they!??! Never, in the history of humanity, has there been a position wherein human speech was directly translatable into action, unless you were a KING, and even then, a mad king could be shot...in this instance we have opportunity for anyone to act like a King simply by having the programming abilities, something copyright law was NEVER INTENDED to protect NEVER.
Now, that you can find malicious code, on the net, apparently is not a new thing (even though the net is) but it is something that requires that copyright rules need be, either, reviewed and/or revised and/or have a 'set aside', or completely new section(s) (Rules) to deal with (computer) programs as copyright law was never intended to protect the creation of The tools of burglary, larceny, piracy, nor malicious anarchy...and it is one of the above (which one?) that you all seem to want to have "protected"...funny I remember back when 'net people' wanted "no rules" agreeing that they would, willingly, Police themselves!...HEY! where did Y'all go"
It is the principal reason why democracy works The VOLONTARY upholding of the law by the vast majority of the citizenry...otherwise, it simply co$ts to much, throwing everyone in jail...
YOu are being unreasonable, and it just might cost you waaaaaay more then you ever dreamed!
Lights out, everyone!
What some of you seem intent upon protecting, is a right, to have the ability to pirate, cause the vast majority, of net users, cannot program!...so they need someone else to do that... right?
For the very first time, in the history of humanity, human speech is directly translatable into actions, and actions that can be very deleterious to humanity...as in...
<<Insert string of maliciously intended code <--input/output-->Completely blacked out power stations>>
NOW! neither Copyright law, nor freedom of speech, have protections against this type of occurrence, HOW could they!??! Never, in the history of humanity, has there been a position wherein human speech was directly translatable into action, unless you were a KING, and even then, a mad king could be shot...in this instance we have opportunity for anyone to act like a King simply by having the programming abilities, something copyright law was NEVER INTENDED to protect NEVER.
Now, that you can find malicious code, on the net, apparently is not a new thing (even though the net is) but it is something that requires that copyright rules need be, either, reviewed and/or revised and/or have a 'set aside', or completely new section(s) (Rules) to deal with (computer) programs as copyright law was never intended to protect the creation of The tools of burglary, larceny, piracy, nor malicious anarchy...and it is one of the above (which one?) that you all seem to want to have "protected"...funny I remember back when 'net people' wanted "no rules" agreeing that they would, willingly, Police themselves!...HEY! where did Y'all go"
It is the principal reason why democracy works The VOLONTARY upholding of the law by the vast majority of the citizenry...otherwise, it simply co$ts to much, throwing everyone in jail...
YOu are being unreasonable, and it just might cost you waaaaaay more then you ever dreamed!
Lights out, everyone!
What some of you seem intent upon protecting, is a right, to have the ability to pirate, cause the vast majority, of net users, cannot program!...so they need someone else to do that... right?
Last edited:
- #41
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
So, "Children" time to behave, as adults...responcibility.
It is very clear that "Unreasonable" applies to the idea of "Unlimited" inasmuch, as I can apply a limit of 1 Billion copies, (well below "Unlimited") and prove conclusively that you cannot listen to them all, (No practicle use, at this Limit) as you will die before you attain that age, ERGO = UNREASONABLE, therefore equals "Unfair" as well, and, it is ultimately unfair of you, to yourself, inasmuch as, you will be the one who is disappointed, as, guaranteed your "Request" is not going to be granted, not a chance, too many Responcible adults (there's 'those' words, agin) in the world to let that kind of 'childish' behaviour rule...in LAW.
So anyone got something that, they think, they can reasonably demonstrate, is a resonable limit?
It is very clear that "Unreasonable" applies to the idea of "Unlimited" inasmuch, as I can apply a limit of 1 Billion copies, (well below "Unlimited") and prove conclusively that you cannot listen to them all, (No practicle use, at this Limit) as you will die before you attain that age, ERGO = UNREASONABLE, therefore equals "Unfair" as well, and, it is ultimately unfair of you, to yourself, inasmuch as, you will be the one who is disappointed, as, guaranteed your "Request" is not going to be granted, not a chance, too many Responcible adults (there's 'those' words, agin) in the world to let that kind of 'childish' behaviour rule...in LAW.
So anyone got something that, they think, they can reasonably demonstrate, is a resonable limit?
- #42
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
You might want to read the (my) "last" post, on this page/thread *Rights*...Maybe not...
- #43
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
Hummm, since none of you seems to be willing to give me a reasonable estimation of what would be suitable limitation upon "Right to Copy" (for personal use)...try this one, how much economic activity do you think that, the third post above, will actually generate?...cause you know it is going to...don't you?
- #44
master_coda
- 591
- 0
One of the things adults learn how to do is spell. It's a little something called responsibility. If you're going to start calling people children, at least learn to write like you're not a child.
- #45
master_coda
- 591
- 0
I already told you. Unlimited is a suitable limit on the right to copy. Not according to your rules, but I see reason to follow your rules.
- #46
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
Unlimited limit, hummm an oxymoron, must of been generated by an oxy-moron, as in "oxygenated moron" "One who has no concept of logic"...see 'master_coda'
(did I spell that right?)
EDIT it's fixed!
Last edited:
- #47
master_coda
- 591
- 0
No. You should have used "must have" not "musta".
- #48
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
Actually NO that's your rule, I can, as an "internet personna" (whatever the heck that is) use "musta" or, I can use what I have fixed it with, "Must of"...not bad though, for someone with a "spell checker", you found, well, what you think is an error, Oh Ya (is that spelt wronglee?) the machine I'm on, presently, doesn't have any spell checking abilities.
After that well there is one other explanation to come concerning you, tomorrow maybe...maybe not don't really think your worth the time, at this point...
- #49
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
BTW I've got (God's Grace) 2465 posts in these forums, so, master_coda, why don't you go spell chek'em all!
- #50
master_coda
- 591
- 0
That still wouldn't help. Your ideas would remain. Spell checking won't fix those.
- #51
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
They are not broken, but you do seem to have been, so BYE...(did I spell that right?)
Puerile little infantine is what you are, immature, unreasonable and pedomorphic...(Oooops! I spelt "Ooooops" wrong!) as well as guileless, immature, and ingenuous...
The only thing about my ideas that needs fixin is your eyeballs, and brain, in the "Reading and Comprehension" follow-through...but your too busy 'spell-checking' to have even, so little as, understood, what you have read...bye-bye baby, goodbye!
- #52
master_coda
- 591
- 0
My immature self certainly appreciated your excellent demonstration of how to act maturely.
- #53
Mr. Robin Parsons
- 1,243
- 0
So you do recognize the reflection of yourself, by me, how nice...to know, that you do know...
As stated: Thanks! BYE!
Then again, that 'one' saying "Now 'children'" then finishing on 'responsible adults' well, people like me see ourselves in the "responsible adult" category, already, so we don't see the "children" part, as addressed, to us, that is for the ones who do recognize themselves, in that word...as you did...that was what I had mentioned before as "one last thing...maybe" you proved yourself, easily, and ignorant of the fact that you did it, you don't deserve to be addressed as an adult, because of/for it!
Please, testing your spell checker, is not proving 'yourself'. right? O.K.? (What is it that tells you, sooooooo clearly!, that it is a 'spelling mistake' and not 'a typo', (know the difference? Twit!) or is it because you think yourself, what? God? Ya nuts?)
EDIT P.S. ** i-R-responsible ** see I like the "fun" with 'typing thingy' it's permissory of inventiveness with typing, and language, and conversation, and all the rest...
(Ideas/Concepts/thoughts/Knowledge/Imagination) C:\Ya.**
Last edited: