Site News - TV-DVD Piracy (1 Viewer)

[Linda Thompson]

Gord, check out the first link I posted above...it specifically addresses the question of why this crime is so rampant in Canada. Not very in-depth, but it does offer a reasonable explanation.

And, I'm sure you've noticed that macgyverworld.com (which you and I discussed ages ago) is still up and running, offering sales of the first 3 commercial DVD season sets (via links to amazon) AS WELL AS the totally illegal "direct downloads".

 

[Gord Lacey]

Yeah, I provided a bunch of information to the reporter for that story.



Okay, that makes it difficult to obtain information on the people, but when that information is already available then it's not an excuse. Many of the sites sell products from Canada, but they're using US servers, which fall under US law. Most of the pirates also use anonymous proxy registration services, which are also based in the US. While that statement may be correct, I don't feel it's being applied appropriately here.

The lax Canadian laws would help protect me if the MPAA got my IP address because I was downloading a movie, but it shouldn't protect someone in Canada running a website off a server based in the US, with a domain address registered with a US company.

I know there are various regulations for registering domain names. I wonder if it would be easier to use some of these regulations to have the domains seized, which would drive the company that used it elsewhere. Any thoughts?

Gord

 

[Juan Books]

That is a false analogy. If you steal your neighbor's house, he loses a house. If you buy an alternative version of a show/season that has not been released, the studio loses nothing. Nothing has been extracted from them.

If they want my money, then go ahead and sell me the set - (the studio wins my money, I win enjoyment). If they can't be bothered, then one can only look for other avenues - (the studio neither wins or loses anything, I win enjoyment). It is not a zero-sum game.

 

[Linda Thompson]

Gord, check this out:

http://www.pfizer.com/pfizer/are/new..._2005_0210.jsp

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medi...p?newsid=11656

A situation with some definite parallels to the DVD piracy that's going on, and also involving international participants, in Canada. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out. If successful, perhaps a similar course of action can be applied towards the DVD piracy.

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

Jeff:

The guy is full of crap. See Linda's links.

1) The Beta Max case technically only allows time-shifting, not permanent archiving. The studios were trying to ban VCRs altogether on copyright grounds, and the court decided that this was absurd because there were uses for the technology that didn't infringe on the studios undoubted copyright.

2) "Profit" or even charging a fee, have nothing to do with copyright. The law does not bar unauthorized reproduction (excluding quotation of short passages for reviews and in articles and very limited academic and other "fair use") for sale. It bars unauthorized reproduction and especially distribution in all cases. It does matter matter a whit whether you charge money or not, still less whether or not you charge enough to make a profit after expenses. If I make buy a copy of a movie on DVD and run off 10 copies that I give to friends I am just as much a pirate as if I sold them via a website. Either this jackass has read one of those "you can avoid copyright" sites - close kin to the kind of nonsense that explains why you don't have to pay income tax - and believed it or he knows he's lying and put that disclaimer there in the hope that it will shield him from legal action and/or reassure people like you who are skeptical of his wares but not sure of the law.

Juan:


Archiving things you've already paid for is more of a grey area, and frankly not the kind of thing the FBI is going to waste time investigating anyway. I know people who use the kind of software we don't discuss on this forum to copy every DVD they buy and then play the copy rather than risk damage to the original. Again, ethical and perhaps even legal grey area. The courts have long recognized a right to make back-up copies of various kinds of software as insurance against loss, and DVD movies are software. But the courts have never sanctioned sharing commercial software or distributing unlicensed copies, so again, the clearly legal or at least ambiguous zone is circumscribed. Distribution under most circumstances is not allowed.

Regards,

Joe

 

[Linda Thompson]

Just to show how muddy some of the legal quirks can be, read this piece (3 pages) on the cans and can'ts of copying MUSIC. Some things which seem to be logical or common sense...aren't necessarily so, according to the law.

Even the formats (original and copy) make a difference.

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10165_7...ml?tag=nl.e404

A very informative set of links at the bottom of the pages also.

Video issues are AT LEAST as complicated, considering all the angles involved (time-shifting, archiving, etc.)

 

[Juan Books]

No, the principle is not the same. Intellectual property has an almost zero marginal reproduction cost. That puts it in a very special category. Intellectual property is only recognized because the generation of ideas, information, knowledge, technology and culture are indispensable to society, so the ability of creators to appropriate their work is guaranteed in order to allow and stimulate such endeavors. If copyright laws actually restrict or undermine the production and distribution of knowledge and art, its justification is gone, and reform becomes imperative.

The pigs at Sony have locked up Fiona Apple's beautiful album for years, refusing to either release it, or let its rightful owner, the artist who gave birth to it, release it herself. This is cultural slavery.

Read the following from someone directly involved in the music industry:

http://janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html

 

[Gord Lacey]

Umm....they own it.

Gord

 

[Will_B]

Morally, none. Legally, all the rights they need.

That it is an affront to the human experience to lock up art is pretty obvious, but our society is not based on ethics, it is based on capitalism.

 

[Jeff Willis]

Gord, Joe, Linda, thanks for the replies! It's an issue that I've thought about a lot over the years, more so with the advent of TV/DVD's.

Juan, I hear what you're saying too. It's a very tough issue. It tends to drive me


Will, similar quote.

Well, after reading these posts (which I knew would be thought-provoking within this thread), I have to take the side of the studios on this one. Both Gord and Dave L (TSoD) know without me typing it here that I have 2 series in mind when I posted my inputs in this thread . I guess we all have that special 1-2 series that aren't officially released that we're waiting for....

One intersting fact that I have noticed in visiting a couple of the sites that offer specific as yet-unreleased series: They never disclose the video quality or the video source of the DVD's that they're selling (ie were they copied from syndicated cut-ep outlets or copied from poor-quality ELP VHS tapes, etc).

 

[Duane Alford]

One night I walked into a WalMart and saw this wrestling DVD called "Wrestling Gold". The thing that drew me to pick it up was the cover had a pic of Jerry Lawler with the AWA World Belt. From my understanding, Verne owned the AWA video library & copyrights (until selling to Vince McMahon), Jerry Jarrett owned all the Memphis footage (until selling to Lawler), and Kevin Von Erich still owns all the World Class library & copyrights. Clearly no match Lawler wrestled in Memphis, World Class/USWA, or the AWA would be under "public domain", so how are companies able to sell these DVD's?

 

[David Bixenspan]

There's no AWA footage on the Wrestling Gold set.

The ownership of the Memphis footage is muddy as hell, but the set is legit.

A better example would be the "Wrestling Hall of Fame" VHS series from a few years back that somehow ended up at retail with a distribution deal in spite of being bootlegged footage off TV.

 

[Kevin/M]

Well, The RIAA and MPAA and their Piracy Lawsuits are coming back with a vengence (And Morhpeus, Grokster, and BitTorrent and their hosts/owners risk going down the tubes, yet AGAIN), so you can bet your asses that these Pirates will get their just commuppence in court.

 

[brad_Y]

Hi,

Can someone make a backup copy of a DVD, and give it to someone else, (NO money involved, strictly TRADE ????

 

[Joseph DeMartino]

NO. (Have you read any of the posts in this thread? ) Copyright is called copyright precisely because it deals with the right to make copies of a work. Making copies without permission - regardless of whether or not money changes hands - is a violation of copyright. Read the FBI warning at the start of a DVD. It says that unauthorized duplication, distribution or public performance is illegal. It doesn't say, "Unless you don't charge anything, then you're cool." The fact that it says nothing about money at all should make it clear that the mere use of the material for purposes not covered by the license is illegal.

Regards,

Joe

 

[brad_Y]

Hi,

OK, just wanted to check on that first..... It IS legal to make a backup copy of a DVD, right.... Also, if you are transferring videotape to DVD.......Correct.

Thanks

 

[AndrewWickliffe]

Nope.

That breaks the DMCA.

 

[Will_B]

Let's be clear here. It *IS* legal to make a backup copy of a DVD. However, it is illegal to use the tools neccesary to actually accomplish this.

It's a fine distinction, but one worth making.

It's rather like saying you have the right to free speech, but you aren't allowed to have air move across your vocal chords and produce sound.

 

[Vincent Matis]

IIRC, it is legal unless it is protect against copy (e.a. CSS). You can copy DVD, you can't break copy protections...

 

[Chris Bardon]

An interesting thread, and I like the way that Will made the distinction. Here's my question though:

-If a series is being shown on TV, then I have every right to tape & save every episiode with a VCR, correct?
-If so, I should be just as well within my rights to use my computer with a TV capture card to record episodes, and then burn them to DVD, correct?
-Now, if I'm paying for this content through my cable subscription already, why is it now illegal for me to download the same material from the internet? I'm obtaining and archiving exactly the same information, but one way is illegal, and the other way isn't?