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
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook