Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

News Hollywood wins DVD case

  1. Feb 20, 2004 #1
    This is messed up:
    http://wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62375,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 [Broken]
    A similar program is available over the Internet for free
    Last edited by a moderator: May 1, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 20, 2004 #2
    and so it begins, i can just see MPAA/RIAA agents arresting ppl now
  4. Feb 20, 2004 #3
    And DVD burners getting banned.
  5. Feb 21, 2004 #4


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not a chance.
  6. Feb 21, 2004 #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...
  7. Feb 21, 2004 #6
    I really dont see how DVD's are necessarily different from VHS. If we can copy stuff using tapes then why the restriction on DVD?

    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: Feb 21, 2004
  8. Feb 21, 2004 #7
    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: Feb 21, 2004
  9. Feb 22, 2004 #8

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    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.
  10. Feb 22, 2004 #9
    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)
  11. Feb 22, 2004 #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?
  12. Feb 22, 2004 #11
    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: Feb 22, 2004
  13. Feb 22, 2004 #12
    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...?????
  14. Feb 22, 2004 #13
    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.
  15. Feb 22, 2004 #14
    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....
  16. Feb 22, 2004 #15
    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?
  17. Feb 22, 2004 #16
    I dont 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 dont want there to be limitations on transferring to hard drive just becuase of big business interests.
  18. Feb 23, 2004 #17


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    The exact same restrictions exist on VHS as on DVD. You cannot legally copy a VHS movie.
  19. Feb 23, 2004 #18
    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: Feb 23, 2004
  20. Feb 23, 2004 #19
    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.

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

    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: Feb 23, 2004
  21. Feb 23, 2004 #20
  22. Feb 23, 2004 #21
    No, the companies are attempting to manipulate the law in order to increase their profit margins.

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

    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".

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

    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.

    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.
  23. Feb 23, 2004 #22

    jimmy p

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Personally, i buy cds and convert data to mp3 on my computer but i dont 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.
  24. Feb 23, 2004 #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...
  25. Feb 23, 2004 #24
    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.

    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.

    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.
  26. Feb 23, 2004 #25
    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.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook