"SEVEN SEVILLE" you_should_be_able_to_copy_whatever_the_****_you_
wrote in message ...
: 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.
===========================

: WHO IS HE HURTING? NOBODY? OH, WHAT THE **** 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 ****ING 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 **** RIGHT OUT OF MY TOILET.
:

========================
YOU ARE CERTAINLY FULL OF IT!
======================

"Mark" wrote in message
om...
:
: 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.
==================

"rstlne" .@. wrote in message
...
:
: "Richard C." wrote in message
: m...
:
: "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.
: ================
:
:
: 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!
:
=================
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.
==================

"Richard C." wrote in message
m...
"SEVEN SEVILLE"
you_should_be_able_to_copy_whatever_the_****_you_
wrote in message ...
: 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.

in article , DarkMatter at
wrote on 1/3/04 2:38 PM:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:09:42 GMT, "luminos" 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.

"MR_ED_of_Course" wrote in message
...
in article , DarkMatter at
wrote on 1/3/04 2:38 PM:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 21:09:42 GMT, "luminos" 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.

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)

"MR_ED_of_Course" wrote ...
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.

in article , Richard Crowley at
wrote on 1/3/04 5:26 PM:

"MR_ED_of_Course" wrote ...
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.

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.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 21:17:38 GMT, "luminos" put finger to
keyboard and composed:


"DarkMatter" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:17:54 +1100, Franc Zabkar
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.

On Fri, 02 Jan 2004 12:00:47 -0800, DarkMatter
put finger to keyboard
and composed:

On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 06:17:54 +1100, Franc Zabkar
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/m.../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.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

"DarkMatter" wrote in message
news
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 00:25:44 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
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.

Time shifting is record now, watch later. It is for broadcast
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

wrote:

On 02 Jan 2004 16:47:55 GMT, (LanceBro) wrote:


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.

you will also not have menu's and/or special features etc etc

remember archival purposes only



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...

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 dumb****! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to **** 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

On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 13:42:32 -0000, "rstlne" .@. wrote:


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

"MR_ED_of_Course" wrote in message
...
:
: 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.

"DarkMatter" wrote in message
...
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

No, it isn't.

UGH
argue that..

You're retarded. Prove you aren't.

UGH
this aint court

You don't have the brains for a courtroom.

Sorry, dip****, 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?

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.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
put finger to keyboard
and composed:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:37:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
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 dumb****! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to **** 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.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

DarkMatter, eat a rock, and take your disgusting language and castigation's else
where

Brooks

DarkMatter wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:55:55 GMT, "James Sweet"
Gave us:


"DarkMatter" wrote in message
.. .
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

No, it isn't.

UGH
argue that..

You're retarded. Prove you aren't.

UGH
this aint court

You don't have the brains for a courtroom.

Sorry, dip****, 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?

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 ****s 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 =---

"DarkMatter" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:55:55 GMT, "James Sweet"
Gave us:


"DarkMatter" wrote in
message
.. .
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

No, it isn't.

UGH
argue that..

You're retarded. Prove you aren't.

UGH
this aint court

You don't have the brains for a courtroom.

Sorry, dip****, 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?

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 ****s 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 ****ing match.

"DarkMatter" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:22:12 GMT, "James Sweet"
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 ****ing match.


Because your RETARDED ass was making statements like "even tho it's
illegal, nobody will catch you." kind of baby bull**** 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.

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.

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.

Jerry says...
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.

"DarkMatter" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:40:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
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.


Good. They can burn in hell as their stupidity magnifies throughout
their life.

You can for saying that you'll stand by one of them.



LOL Fire! Fire!! :-P

in article , Richard C. at
wrote on 1/4/04 9:37 AM:


"MR_ED_of_Course" wrote in message
...
:
: 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 we

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
not a reasonable application of fair use.

rstlne wrote:
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 dumb****! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to **** 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


no... if you purchase a painting from someone, you do have the right to
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.

wrote:

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.

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.

DarkMatter wrote:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
Gave us:


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
put finger to keyboard
and composed:


On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:37:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
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 dumb****! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to **** 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 ****ing
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.

"Mark Spatny" wrote in message
k.net...
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.

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.

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..

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.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:15:11 -0500, wrote:

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.

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.

TCS wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:15:11 -0500, wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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.

Belive it if you will...

No thanks. I prefer to beleive the truth.

"Tim Auton" tim.auton@uton.[group sex without the y] wrote in message
news
TCS wrote:
On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 22:15:11 -0500,
wrote:
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.

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.

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.

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)

Dark Brain, your using that garbage can mouth of yours again.

Brooks

DarkMatter wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:55:12 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
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 ****'d perceptions define it
as.



----== 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 =---

"MR_ED_of_Course" wrote in message
...
: in article , Richard C. at
: wrote on 1/4/04 9:37 AM:
:
:
: "MR_ED_of_Course" wrote in message
: ...
: :
: : 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 we
:
: 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..........................

Mark Spatny wrote:

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.


Belive it if you will...


No thanks. I prefer to beleive the truth.

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:56:37 GMT, Justin 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
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.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

Daniel L. says...
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.

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 05:17:24 GMT, Justin put
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 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
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.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.