Comments on news posted 2006-10-10 13:55:49: We've repeatedly noted that when bloggers, industry analysts and the companies they analyze discuss competing for your broadband dollar, there's a tendency to treat piracy like the invisible pink elephant in the room. ..
Nightfall, you post is my whole point. If people on here had their work stolen (say paycheck stolen), they would be the first to complain.
They see copyright infringing behavior as a "victimless" crime.
Bootlegging a concert before the Net was fun. But, now it can be put on the Net and downloaded by millions stealing money away from a DVD.
Some bands allow recording. I know that U2 doesn't anymore since they are going to tape theirs and sell them on iTunes. U2, among others, even shut down fansites devoted to them that listed all their lyrics.
"it's the DMCA that says it's illegal to circumvent CSS - which means no personal copies whatsoever."
While this is, perhaps, so, the bottom line is that it has, essentially, no effect on personal copying, CSS or not. It simply is not possible to police personal copying and the only time the DMCA, etc would come into effect is if one were making mass copies for resale/redistribution without permission.
Still don't get it? There is no way LEGALLY excercise your LEGAL rights of making personal copies when it comes to DVD.
As for the third factor, you are time shifting an entire season at once and then placing all the episodes together on one or more disks. This would seem to go against a finding of fair use.
Finally, and probably most importantly, is your copy affecting the potential market for the work. Things to consider include whether your copy is as good as the originals. In this case yes--and even more so--because there are no commercials in the copy you made. The whole season without commercials would seem to compete for sales by the studio of their likely future DVD pack of the season of Lost. On the other hand, you aren’t widely distributing the materials and you aren’t posting it on line. Still, an argument can be made that you are causing a potential sale of a DVD set from the copyright holder to not be sold. I think you likely wouldn’t be able to get a finding of fair use.
Suppose one does time shift the entire season's episodes of Lost without commercials onto a disc or two. Now, there is no intent to share, distribute this IP content through a P2P network,or post it on line, only personal family viewing.
How can an argument be made, using the example cited here, that one is causing a potential sale of a DVD set from the copyright holder to not be sold.?
quote:The whole season without commercials would seem to compete for sales by the studio
IMO its a value versus cost issue. Factor in price for the cable connection or subscription, the set top box and related hardware to copy and archive the content.
In the long run, it may well be cheaper to buy the Lost DVD season from the studio. However, to me, it doesn't make sense to pay for the same content twice. Thus, negating the "lost" sale argument. Plus no commercials is an added benefit.
As for the third factor, you are time shifting an entire season at once and then placing all the episodes together on one or more disks. This would seem to go against a finding of fair use.
Finally, and probably most importantly, is your copy affecting the potential market for the work. Things to consider include whether your copy is as good as the originals. In this case yes--and even more so--because there are no commercials in the copy you made. The whole season without commercials would seem to compete for sales by the studio of their likely future DVD pack of the season of Lost. On the other hand, you aren’t widely distributing the materials and you aren’t posting it on line. Still, an argument can be made that you are causing a potential sale of a DVD set from the copyright holder to not be sold. I think you likely wouldn’t be able to get a finding of fair use.
Suppose one does time shift the entire season's episodes of Lost without commercials onto a disc or two. Now, there is no intent to share, distribute this IP content through a P2P network,or post it on line, only personal family viewing.
How can an argument be made, using the example cited here, that one is causing a potential sale of a DVD set from the copyright holder to not be sold.?
quote:The whole season without commercials would seem to compete for sales by the studio
IMO its a value versus cost issue. Factor in price for the cable connection or subscription, the set top box and related hardware to copy and archive the content.
In the long run, it may well be cheaper to buy the Lost DVD season from the studio. However, to me, it doesn't make sense to pay for the same content twice. Thus, negating the "lost" sale argument. Plus no commercials is an added benefit.
What I find funny is that you can DL (via cable box) it to a VCR/DVR and that perfectly "OK" with the industry. But if you download it to a desktop computer and ohhh, you are stealing money from the artists/creators. Sometimes i miss a tv show and I'll DL it to my desktop and convert it to Divx and watch on my home dvd player. What's the big deal?
In the long run, it may well be cheaper to buy the Lost DVD season from the studio. However, to me, it doesn't make sense to pay for the same content twice. Thus, negating the "lost" sale argument. Plus no commercials is an added benefit.
It's a time vs cost deal for the customer. You could DVR the entire season episode by episode and then transfer them from your DVR to your computer (assuming the 2 aren't one and the same) and then edit each file to remove the commercials and then burn them all to DVD, but you would be spending quite a bit of your time doing this. Plus, you are talking about using skills that Joe Average doesn't have (or things he thinks would be too hard to even try).
With the DVD though, you get the entire season without commercials, professional quality menus (which you could do , but would take more time) and perhaps even some extras.
For Joe Average, the DVD is the better deal. For people like you and me, the "burn our own sets" is the better deal. And honestly, I agree that it's not a "lost sale" so long as you don't start giving copies away to your friends (or, even worse, selling copies).
As for the third factor, you are time shifting an entire season at once and then placing all the episodes together on one or more disks. This would seem to go against a finding of fair use.
Finally, and probably most importantly, is your copy affecting the potential market for the work. Things to consider include whether your copy is as good as the originals. In this case yes--and even more so--because there are no commercials in the copy you made. The whole season without commercials would seem to compete for sales by the studio of their likely future DVD pack of the season of Lost. On the other hand, you aren’t widely distributing the materials and you aren’t posting it on line. Still, an argument can be made that you are causing a potential sale of a DVD set from the copyright holder to not be sold. I think you likely wouldn’t be able to get a finding of fair use.
Suppose one does time shift the entire season's episodes of Lost without commercials onto a disc or two. Now, there is no intent to share, distribute this IP content through a P2P network,or post it on line, only personal family viewing.
How can an argument be made, using the example cited here, that one is causing a potential sale of a DVD set from the copyright holder to not be sold.?
quote:The whole season without commercials would seem to compete for sales by the studio
IMO its a value versus cost issue. Factor in price for the cable connection or subscription, the set top box and related hardware to copy and archive the content.
In the long run, it may well be cheaper to buy the Lost DVD season from the studio. However, to me, it doesn't make sense to pay for the same content twice. Thus, negating the "lost" sale argument. Plus no commercials is an added benefit.
The original hypothetical made mention of transferring the created DVDs to a friend. If only for personal or family viewing, then I think there's no question it's covered under Sony.
The original hypothetical made mention of transferring the created DVDs to a friend. If only for personal or family viewing, then I think there's no question it's covered under Sony.
I'd add educational use to the list. My wife uses Mythbusters episodes in her science class from time to time to illustrate certain science topics. (Diet Coke and Mentos is good for Chemistry/nucleation. Breakstep Bridge is good for resonance.) What we do is record Mythbusters using our DVR. After watching the episode, if my wife decides that the episode would make for a good lesson, I'll take it off the DVR, strip the commercials, and burn it onto a DVD for her.
The original hypothetical made mention of transferring the created DVDs to a friend. If only for personal or family viewing, then I think there's no question it's covered under Sony.
I'd add educational use to the list. My wife uses Mythbusters episodes in her science class from time to time to illustrate certain science topics. (Diet Coke and Mentos is good for Chemistry/nucleation. Breakstep Bridge is good for resonance.) What we do is record Mythbusters using our DVR. After watching the episode, if my wife decides that the episode would make for a good lesson, I'll take it off the DVR, strip the commercials, and burn it onto a DVD for her.
Sounds like fair use there as well. Educational reasons have long been deemed such.
You may think it's right, but you're stepping on both the reproduction right and the public performance right in your Mythbusters-in-class scenario (and you would step on the latter even if you showed Mythbusters in class as it was broadcast). I doubt the courts would find that use to be fair; educational use is not automatically fair use. You'd fail three of the four tests (amount of work used, impact on market, nature of work), and rachael's bosses' goons would love to sue you over it.
This doesn't mean you're wrong to do it. Just that you're probably infringing copyright, because copyright law is out of control.
Without quoting your entire post Fatal Vector, let me make a few points here.
First off, every published writer and photographer, software writer, musician, and so on has intellectual property rights. These are special rights for the work that we do. Sure, if you know a trade like working in a computer department or being a call center agent, then you don't have intellectual property rights. I fail to see your arguement here at all other than pointing out that not everyone has these rights, and that is the way it should be.
Sure, I am happy when someone calls to use my work. I am also equally happy to cash the check when it comes in. I have also been known to give the rights to my work away for non profit organizations or special publications in certain situations. The point is, it is my right all the time. If I want to enforce it or not is my preference. Same goes for a software maker who decides to write a piece of software and then hand it out to a specific company to use and not charge them anything for it. Thats his right.
As for enforcing that right, I have done that 2 times and it is quite easy to do in a court of law. Costing me more to enforce it? Hardly. Having won twice and not having it cost me a cent and getting back a lot more than I would have charged, I know what it takes. Anyone with intellectual property rights to something has the ability to enforce these kinds of things. You obviously havent done this before so you don't know what the heck you are talking about.
I love how you label me a greedy when in fact I just want payment for my time spent, but I digress...
If I could have laws rewritten, I wouldn't use jail time as a motivator. The way you motivate people who break the law like this is with fines and court costs. The fines obviously going back to the person who has the rights to the property.
Its obvious that you don't know much about enforcing intellectual property rights, and it is also obvious that you don't have any intellectual property rights of your own to enforce. Therefore, you feel the need to bash those of us who do make a living off of intellectual property rights. I guess you can't show someone the other side of the situation so easily. Especailly when they have their head up their ass.
The internet was created on an "Open Source", "Free for everyone" logic (Anyone who wants to dispute this can look up the agreement made when the (Forgot which one) university handed over the technology to the American Government. Everything is free to everyone. Then big business came along and is now trying and succeeding in making billions out of this "Free use" ideal of the internet. Who is stealing from who?
A car was not made on the ideal of being "Copyied" or stolen. it was invented as a mode of transport and a personal posession.
You may think it's right, but you're stepping on both the reproduction right and the public performance right in your Mythbusters-in-class scenario (and you would step on the latter even if you showed Mythbusters in class as it was broadcast). I doubt the courts would find that use to be fair; educational use is not automatically fair use.
There is no "bright line" test that can tell if a particular use would be considered "fair," but the Copyright Act lists particular activities generally considered fair (this list is not to be construed as exclusive or limiting in any way). Some examples of uses listed in the statute that would generally be considered a fair use to copy copyrighted material include: Criticism, comment, parody, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research, or personal use such as time or format shifting.
(Emphasis mine.)
So while it's possible that the producers of Mythbusters could sue me and win (after all, you could probably find a judge to rule any way you like), it's not cut and dried that they would win. And they would probably lose on appeal. (Of course, this assumes that they would 1) bother to sue me for such a small infraction, 2) not offer some settlement which 3) I would be likely to take considering court costs, and 4) that I would be willing to file an appeal and continue the time consuming court process.)
Why not reduce the price of a high quality downloaded song to 5 cents. That way, it doesn't really make it worthwhile to steal it, and you make up the difference on volume selling, a sort of WalMart effect.
I have never once gotten any mal/spy/crapware or virii or trojans from downloading mp3s and videos. But the Sony DRM stuff scared the crap out of me and I was simply lucky it didn't effect me, as I still like to purchase the good cds, and by pure luck didn't happen to purchase any with DRM on 'em.
Rachel, illegal MP3 downloads started way before the legal ones did, so people were forced to download illegally. Then when the legal downloads DID come out, they were bloated with DRM-like crap right from the start. If someone (iTunes, Napster, whoever) started offering completely DRM-crap free downloads, it would spread like wildfire.
"Still don't get it? There is no way LEGALLY excercise your LEGAL rights of making personal copies when it comes to DVD."
No, it seems YOU dont get it. You dont HAVE to "exercise your legal rights" to make DVD's. You just make them. How the hell is anyone, let alone the government, etc, going to know unless you blab like a dumbass?
And then they wonder why people download off the net instead. Then agian..I got so sick of it and went to Linux..now I don't have to put up with that...
The way you motivate people who break the law like this is with fines and court costs. The fines obviously going back to the person who has the rights to the property.
Ahhh..problem with that is..that..this money goes to pay for court costs...plus profit for the government.etc, etc..you'd be lucky to get a dime for every $100 fine.
Whatever the case...I can see the point for 'the little' guy. You..being 'the little' guy..I'm sure..isn't going to be nearly as restrictive when you sell your work.
I would buy all my music online if they didn't have that stupid DRM. Running special software to send to your MP3 is a pain..espcially when it crashes your computer. I think 99 cents isn't bad...but they should screw the restriction..so..back to Lime Wire for me.
Well if Russia wants to join the WTO it is going to have to shut down allofmp3. They are still pirates no matter how you look at it. Yes the 99¢ one size fits all models is stupid. Older songs should be priced less. New songs could be priced more. Hell back in the ealy 80's I'd paid more than 99¢ for a song on a 45 record. By the way wal-mart sells songs for 88¢ and If you subscribe to Yahoo Music Unlimited you can buy songs for 79¢. You know 79¢ is not that bad of a deal.
The problem is the artist and songwritters aren't going to want to accept LESS money per song. Even though they'll be more likely to sell more songs.
That is the funniest thing I have ever heard...like..they'll let the movie and music industry call the shots on whether or not Russia enters the WTO. Besides..america had to clean up *their* act and make sure none of you punks are downloading non DRM music. (haha..that was a joke..since DRM music is a pathetic excuse)
No, they are not. No matter how you look it at it, THEY ARE LEGAL.
allofmp3.com is NOT legal. PERIOD. Anyone that thinks otherwise is severely mentally handicapped. They wouldn't have the record industry trying to shut them down if they were legal since you kind of need the record industries permission to sell LEGAL music.
And Allofmp3.com gives me the choice of paying more for a FLAC or 320k mp3 compressed file.
Just because a thief offers you choices in the stolen property they sell doesn't mean it's still not stolen.
It is totally LEGAL to download *anything* in Canada..it is just illegal to *share* it. What is happening in Russia is *legal* according to *their* laws...maybe not ours.. Again..allofmp3 isn't going to stop Russia from entering the WTO.
I was going to add...music from allofmp3 was aquired legally and is sold legally...it is up to government to tax it in the form of customs...this income then could go to the artists. Just because it is cheaper doesn't make it illegal. I can buy cheap booze in the US...since US has little taxaton on their alcohol..compared to Canada. Does that mean that Canada should force the US to stop selling booze since it is a fraction of the cost that it is in Canada?? Of course not. Gas in Canada and the US is less then half then most industrialized nations...should the rest of the G7 countries force Canada and the US to raise costs to reflect their costs?? Of course not.
This whole issue is a "Customs" issue. The US can either block the website or have taxes paid on every song bought from a US customer.
The way you motivate people who break the law like this is with fines and court costs. The fines obviously going back to the person who has the rights to the property.
Ahhh..problem with that is..that..this money goes to pay for court costs...plus profit for the government.etc, etc..you'd be lucky to get a dime for every $100 fine.
Whatever the case...I can see the point for 'the little' guy. You..being 'the little' guy..I'm sure..isn't going to be nearly as restrictive when you sell your work.
