 
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| History Repeats Itself quote:
"Rick talked about the unauthorized use of content," Potter said. "But sometimes, unauthorized use of content is legal." He pointed to the 1984 case of Sony v. Universal, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled to protect consumers who used VCRs to make personal-use copies. Copyright-protected hardware under the Hollings bill would violate consumers' rights in the digital world, Potter says.
I believe the finanl outcome will result in the same decision reached by the Supreme Court in 1984 re: VCRs, in that the consumer has the right to make copies for personal use.
I would hope, too, that this helps put an end to this continual nagging by the Entertainment Industry every time a new technology emerges. First, they fought tapes, then VCRS, and now CD and DVD recording.
Not only does this litigation delay the release of new technologies, it is costly to the American consumer. When is "enough, enough"?
--
The glass is neither half-empty, nor is it half-full; it is merely twice the size required to contain the liquid elements therein. | |
|  | 
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| Re: History Repeats Itself I think that the industry eventually accepted copying of older analog media because of the fact that there is so much degradation from one copy generation to the next. The great fear with digital media is that there is no degradation.
Once again I'll state that I feel they should be spending their money on trying to stop distribution instead on wasting it trying to stop the ability to play copies (which will be defeated).
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
| | 
Mrhowes
join:2000-11-16
Saint Paul, MN
| Just a quick note for clarification. The Supreme Court decision about VCR's had to do with the recording of broadcast media (Cable, Satellite, broadcast TV), not VCR tapes and laser discs (media available at the time). This decision does not in any way apply to copyrighted non-broadcast media. So...copying copyrighted DVDs, CDs, VCR tapes, laserdiscs, etc is illegal.
I too am tired of the "Hacker" mentality that just because you can (technically) copy non-broadcast media, that is makes it OK to do. It's not.
But that's just my opinion...
--
Listen....do you smell something? | |
| | | russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| Re: History Repeats Itself Copying audio (including audio CDs) for your own use is _explicitly_ legal. Copying the rest of that stuff for personal use may or may not fall under "fair use".
However, I don't really care. When the game is rigged -- and make no mistake about it, the RIAA and MPAA have undue influence over copyright law -- there's no ethical reason not to cheat. You deal me a hand from the bottom of the deck, don't be surprised if I slip a few aces out of my sleeve
. | |
|
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| A few issues with that article... How is copying a DVD for a friend consider a "fair use right"?
I wasn't aware that a "perfect" copy of Spiderman has been uploaded to the net. I thought they were all handycams of one sort or another.
Any kind of copy protection included in the hardware will be defeated. Then we'll be back to where we are today only with the added cost of this hardware level piracy protection added into the cost of hardware and software.
My opinion is that they need to be more pro-active is stopping distribution, especially over the net.
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
| | 
Ray
Mahnahmahna
Premium
join:2001-04-02
Mesa, AZ
| Re: A few issues with that article... He wasn't talking about a copy for a friend. A "personal use" copy is for self-use only, like a backup. For example, it gets really hot here so I don't take my original CDs and leave them in the car - I take copies, while my original remains safe at home.
Edit: Stet, were you replying to tomsprat? In any case, I agree - making a copy for someone else IS a copyright violation.
[text was edited by author 2002-06-14 10:26:40] | |
| | |
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| Re: A few issues with that article... quote:
Edit: Stet, were you replying to tomsprat? In any case, I agree - making a copy for someone else IS a copyright violation.
That confused me, too, so I went back and found this in the article "interesting quotes":
quote:
Zuck and Potter say such a measure would deny consumers fair use rights, which permit copying a DVD for a friend or making a duplicate CD to take to the beach.
Yes, I agree that copying for a friend would be a violation of copyright.
I couldn't find any such quote by Zuck and Potter, nor is it contained in the proposed Consumer Bill of Rights. I wonder where it originated? Pretty stupid statement, regardless.
--
The glass is neither half-empty, nor is it half-full; it is merely twice the size required to contain the liquid elements therein. | |
| | |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| I was referring to the quote that tomsprat pointed out in the followup to your comment, not to anything in tomsprat's original comments.
Man, this is starting to get too confusing for a Friday morning 
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
| 
scott2ya
Iphone junkie
Premium
join:2002-03-07
Missouri
| This is Getting Old! Man this is getting old!
Why don't they just try enforcing the laws!
If you get caught then you pay the price. Simple as that!
I am going to get really pissed off if they start copy protecting everything. Next the government will start mandating governors in all cars capped at 65 miles per hour or even breathalizers. The list could go on and on. I like my Freedom!
[text was edited by author 2002-06-14 11:36:29] | |
| | 
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs: 
| Re: This is Getting Old! It's funny that you should mention breathalyzers (or intoxilyzers, as they are referred to in law enforcement.)
Those who have had previous drunk driving violations in some states can be forced to have a device installed in their cars that would force them to exhale into it for purposes of testing BAC before driving off.
If one fails, the car won't start.
If one passes, the car will start.
This technology has been around for a number of years. It just demonstrates what technology is capable of, and what technology misused by the wrong hands could do to the rest of us, even while some of that very same technology protects us, like keeping habitual drunks off the road, in the example I just mentioned.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
| | | 
XBL2009
------
join:2001-01-03
Chicago, IL | Re: This is Getting Old! Yeah, of course you can get your sober wife, friend or kid to blow into it. | |
| | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: This is Getting Old! Not when there is a camera mounted into it recording everything.
So, unless you have an identical twin, you couldn't make it work, and even if you did have one, the camera would notice one person exiting the vehicle, and another getting in.
I think also that there is some kind of sensor in the seat, so even if you got someone else to blow into it, they have to get out.
When exited, another breath would be required.
Also, tampering with the camera would be considered a violation and you would lose your license and go to jail for trying to defraud the system.
Believe me, there are failsafes in the technology they use to enforce this. It's expensive, and not often implemented, but it is done.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
|
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Here's an idea I was pondering all these arguments last night, and had a thought.
First, patents exist on various products for a period of seven years or so. Copyrights exist until the composer dies, from what I understand.
So, a proposal based on examples of how other intellectual property are protected could be made.
This is what I'm thinking:
The technology exists to put timestamps on software, etc. So, I think a compromise could be reached. It doesn't matter if the argument is about music, software, etc.
The solution is to put a timestamp, on the product in question (music CD, software, movies,etc.), to the effect of 18 months, for example.
After the 18 month period expires, and the media company has had a REASONABLE opportunity to charge their obscene prices for the product, then the protection expires, and fair use rights can then be exercised without repercussion, and file sharing such as P2P would be left alone.
Any file sharing or dissemination prior to the timestamp on the product should be inherently illegal and enforced scrupulously.
This way, when the back door copies of Spider-man make it to Morpheus, etc., and it is discovered, then the offending parties can be prosecuted, under a FAIR system of protection and enforcement, up until the time the timestamp expires. After that time, 18 months or so will have transpired, the movie will have made its' billions around the world, and the media companies are happy. After that time, people would be free to distribute that movie and anything else that is timestamp expired to any one they choose in any way they choose.
This would also free up manufacturers from having to meet the insane demands of Hollywood to protect their wares at the manufacturer's expense.
It would also free up oversight resources to concentrate on other things that are more pressing, like broadband issues.
It was just a thought I had.
BTW, this idea is copyrighted for seven years.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
| |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | Re: Here's an idea Actually copyright lasts for 75 years after the author's death. 18 months is way too low before something should be considered "free to use and abuse".
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
| | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Here's an idea 18 months was an example. The actual figure could be anything that could REASONABLY be agreed to. 2 years. 4 years. Whatever.
Regarding copyright, I have understood that copyright expired after the author's death, but I will investigate.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
| | | | 
duckydon
@adc.com
| Re: Here's an idea The copywright use to expire on the composers death. but media industry got that changed to 25 years. and then recently they lobbied congress and got it changed to 75 years. Disney was the biggest pusher for the 75 year mark as most of walt disney's copyrights were about to expire. They even slipped in a clause in the new stature to make it retro active to exisiting holders | |
| | |
tomsprat
Draw Me A "Cold One"
Premium,ExMod 2002-04
join:2000-11-03
Fort Lauderdale, FL
clubs:
| quote:
Actually copyright lasts for 75 years after the author's death.
Since a corporation is an entity that "never dies", I wonder if they retain "eternal rights"?
Sorry, BrianDamage, I don't think a "time stamp" is the answer, nor do I consider it fair. Provided the price is fair, $1 p/song, the quality and speed of the download excellent, I have no problem paying my fair share. These people deserve to make a profit from their work.
This is not directed to BrianDamage:
As I stated in another post, however, there will remain to be those who want "something for nothing", and will continue piracy even if prices are reduced to a reasonable level. Their greed will be of no lesser degree than the existing Industry's stance, and will be just as harmful to the average user.
--
The glass is neither half-empty, nor is it half-full; it is merely twice the size required to contain the liquid elements therein. | |
| | | |
BrianDamage
We Are The Hounds From Hell
Premium
join:2001-08-14
Rowlett, TX
clubs:
| Re: Here's an idea I know it was not specifically directed at me, but piracy existed prior to the 1990s.
Realize this. I remember back in the early 70s when VCRs came out what a mess these same folks started trying to quash that technology, citing the same reasons.
As was stated in another post, I agree that Hollywood and the music companies, instead of embracing technology and evolving with it, and learning to manage it so as to continue on making money, would instead choose to fight the new advances, and continue on the way things have been.
This reminds me of the way the ILECs would choose to drive on as well, for comparison's sake.
P2P could very well be utilized to advance their causes as well as those who are content with stealing property.
The reason I suggested timestamping is so that both sides would have ample opportunity to have at music, video, etc., while satisfying both sides' arguments, and while also respecting fair use rights of consumers.
Patents work in this way. A company has the unalienable right to do what they want with an idea, market it, sell it, etc., for 7 years I think, after which time it expires and the ideas come under competitive pressure, thereby leading other companies to market the product or service, creating a competitive environment, while respecting intellectual right for a reasonable period of time, as well as that of fair use and competition, and, respecting anti-trust legislation.
It was a compromise so that the developing company would have REASONABLE opportunity to make money off their invention or idea.
The same logic could be applied to this argument. I will concede that my ideas is very basic in idealogy, and would require much tweaking, but it could work, if both sides would reasonably sit down and work it out, which is the hardest part.
--
We've got our eye on the firmaments, our hand on the armaments, our heads full of arguments, and words for our monuments..... | |
| 
WildGod
God Is Dead
Premium
join:2002-01-30
NYC
| ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz quote:
Hollywood's biggest piracy problem is internal, Potter added. Perfect, pirated copies of movies like Spiderman were uploaded onto the Internet a week before theatrical release, the result of "backdoor activity" by studio employees.
hmmmmm hasnt Spiderman almost hit the $400MM mark? Doesnt seem to hurt by piracy.
--
AOL DSL SUCKS | |
| |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI | Re: ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz Except that it would have made more if it wasn't pirated.
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
| | |
WildGod
God Is Dead
Premium
join:2002-01-30
NYC
| Re: ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz lol more than $400MM? highly doubt that
most people who d/l it went to see it as well.
movies will never really lose money.
people will always go out on dates and the movies is probably the place most cples go.
--
AOL DSL SUCKS | |
| | | | 
Pz_
join:2001-03-31
Brownsburg, IN
clubs: | Re: ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz I saw it twice, but I suppose that I might have went 4 times had it not been for evil SVCD. | |
| | | |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| There are people who did not pay to see it in the theater at all because of the downloaded pirated version. And there are some who would have paid to see it more times if it wasn't for the pirated one. You can not deny this to be true.
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
| | | | |
WildGod
God Is Dead
Premium
join:2002-01-30
NYC | Re: ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz how many movies have ever made $400MM?
im just saying that i have seen the d/l version and id rather pay the $16 and take a woman with me to see it.
--
AOL DSL SUCKS | |
| | | | | |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| Re: ZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz There have been plenty movies (especially if you take into account adjusted ticket prices) that have made more then Spiderman has. The fact remains that Spiderman had potential to make even more then it had if it wasn't for piracy. To deny that piracy did not have a negative effect on the total that Spiderman has made so far defies all logic.
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
| 
antiserious
The Future ain't what it used to be
Premium
join:2001-12-12
Scranton, PA
|  ... wrong target ...
... they can't police their own industry ... can't stop employees from making and releasing illegal, high-quality copies ...
... they can't stop big-time bootleggers from producing and marketing illegal copies by the thousands ...
... so let's put the screws to the little guy, sitting at home with his 'puter, trying to protect his property ...
... any proposal which does this as its primary function is poorly designed and, IMHO, bad legislation ...
... solve the real problem, and leave the little guy alone ...
--
"Suicidal Twin Kills Brother By Mistake ... film at 11" | |
| randysavage0
join:2002-04-16
Fayetteville, AR
| doesnt matter How many millions of americans have participated in p2p file sharing??? RIAA sues companies that trade files at work!!!
It seems that America has embraced piracy... Why? Well... because it is the only economic alternative. If I want to listen to a cd, but refuse to or cannot pay $15-$18 for it, then I am left with theft as an alternative.
I just think it is kinda weird that there isnt a lot of talk of consumer groups against p2p stuff. It seems like a grassroots "we's vs the they's", they's being big money corporations. Generally the talk from consumers is that they hate the RIAA, and that they or the people they know participate in illegal file sharing.
I think it's also funny that the RIAA can't prove that they are actually losing money from the theft. Let's be honest, any one of us can make a study and prove as much as their studies (and the counter studies suggesting the opposite of the RIAA).
It just seems like it is the will of the people to have more fair music prices, but sad that nothing ever gets done.... whether because of stupid laws, poor enforcement (let's arrest joe schmo), poor interpretation (hopefully SC will make the right choice), or just some sort of spending habit americans possess, the prices will always dictate the amount of piracy. | |
| |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| Re: doesnt matter said by randysavage:
It seems that America has embraced piracy... Why? Well... because it is the only economic alternative. If I want to listen to a cd, but refuse to or cannot pay $15-$18 for it, then I am left with theft as an alternative.
No, the legal and moral alternative is to not buy it. Save your money until you can afford it if getting that CD means so much to you. $15-$18 (I don't know where you shop, I buy my CDs for less) doesn't seem like a lot of money to break the law over. You might as well go for the big take. Refuse to pay for a car that you want and just take it, using it's price as the excuse.
If everyone in the US took this approach to everything (take what they want, don't pay) our entire economy would collapse.
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
| | | 
jhudson2
Copyright Martyr
join:2000-11-07
San Marcos, CA
| Re: doesnt matter If I knowingly listen to a "pirated" CD, even though I myself did not create the copy, am I breaking the law?
If I hum a copyrighted tune I heard from this pirated CD am I breaking the law?
If I record my hummed version of this tune to CD and play it on my CD player am I breaking the law? | |
| | | | 
goldy
join:2000-11-14
Augusta, GA
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| Re: doesnt matter said by jhudson2:
If I hum a copyrighted tune I heard from this pirated CD am I breaking the law?
If I record my hummed version of this tune to CD and play it on my CD player am I breaking the law?
possibly....If humming the tune in public and the copyrighter hasn't given permission for the tune to be used
in that way :chuckle: | |
| | | 
grunteled
Puffy And Prickly
Premium
join:2001-06-13
Kansas City, MO
clubs:
| said by stet:
If everyone in the US took this approach to everything (take what they want, don't pay) our entire economy would collapse.
Except in the auto and other industries, there are plenty of choices to downgrade to. If I can't afford a BMW, then I buy a Geo. I don't get told "you'll buy this BMW or you'll drive nothing at all". The music industry has paid no attention to a market that has emerged. The notion that I want this ONE song and no others on the album. Technology has advanced to the point that that it is possible for consumers to demand just that. Until now the music industry has refused to offer what people want at a price they are willing to pay. That's never a formula for success in the market place.
The offering of $1 per song from Sony and Universal are good steps forward. I hope they continue with it. I'm perfectly happy to pay that price, and they are allowing it to be burned to CD, so it fits my need. If I have to keep paying over and over again for new formats, then it's a failure to me. I won't accept being limited in how I personally listen to music that I have paid for.
I really think they were hoping digital music and DRM would allow them to create pay-per-play music. They were holding out for that kind of technology to be legislated into our devices. They may now be coming to the conclusion that may not happen for years and have started giving in, releasing digital music now. Boy, they did so love the dream of DIVX! | |
| | | luckylar
join:2002-01-29
Hixson, TN
| said by stet:
If everyone in the US took this approach to everything (take what they want, don't pay) our entire economy would collapse.
Na... just the CEO's and a few other big wigs running our companies... and yes... they ARE collapsing OUR economy... looked at the DOW lately??? | |
| Sultan
join:2001-12-01
Omaha, NE |  And yet...
| |
| randysavage0
join:2002-04-16
Fayetteville, AR
| If you weren't gonna buy anyway TO STET:
If you have decided not to buy the cd, then who does it hurt if you pirate it? Only when you re-decide to buy cd's (the price drops to a "reasonable" level) and still don't, do you hurt someone.
The problem with most people is that this strategy is accepted after the fact, ie they began pirating and then said, hey!! I wasn't going to buy it anyway... I promise.
So, if you have agreed that your only alternative is to not buy the cd, then pirating isn't harmful. The record companies and anyone else that would have received money from the sale can show no damages. Intellectual property is weird..... | |
| |
stet
Volitar Prime
join:2002-03-08
Warren, MI
| Re: If you weren't gonna buy anyway If you are going to listen to it, then buy it. If it is not worth your effort to save up the money to buy it, then obviously you don't really want it and therefor it is not worth your time to even listen to it. So why bother pirating it?
If you can't afford something, you live without it. It is not OK to just take it.
--
Hey everyone! I'm a WEB HOG! | |
| 
Klendathu
join:2002-02-24
Studio City, CA
clubs:
| Is taping a song off the radio piracy? I was just curious. The radio stations pay a fee when they play a song over the airwaves. This song can be heard by millions of listeners. If I copy and listen to this broadcasted music am I committing a crime?
And if an individual via P2P buys a cd (which they have paid a fee) and broadcasts a song over the net for others to listen to, are they not doing something similar to what the local music station is doing.
I understand that taping a popular song off the radio is a pain in the neck, but the principal is similar is it not?
I have also heard music stations broadcasting entire albums over the airwaves too.
--
The only good bug is a dead bug | |
| | | |
|
|
