It's official: BOTH Blu-ray and HD-DVD downrez component (1 Viewer)

[Thomas Newton]

Nils wrote,


Imagine if the technology to duplicate food was available, and instead of paying a restaurant $2.00 for an ear of corn, you could grow a whole bunch "back up" ears of corn for the cost of a few cents worth of seeds. Are you suggesting that it would be perfectly legal and ethical to buy seeds, and then simply keep replanting your field with the seeds of the plants that grow from those seeds, every time you want to have more to eat?

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

Thomas, there is no copy right on corn. We are talking about products that have copy rights.

 

[Cees Alons]

Oh, it's questionable if you ever bought the right to sell your DVD off to someone else - or could expect within reason to be able to. Those sales of yours are hurting the studios.

And, Nils, please stop fighting the straw man argument that we, most members on the HTF, are in favour of any piracy or any illegal "loss" inflicted on the studios. WE'RE NOT IN FAVOUR OF ANY PIRACY!
So, there's absolutely no need to be "deeply disappointed that this topic is being allowed to continue in this fashion on HTF".

Personally, I even think we should stop replying to your perpetual repeating of this argument. We're not, I repeat: not condoning piracy! Period.

But we are arguing the measurements the studios are planning to take when implementing the new HD formats - and some of us are clearly saying that they don't like them. They want the studios to come up with something better.

And if the studios can't, then some of us are considering not to buy. That's all. We're not forcing the studios to anything - we just say we don't buy products we don't like. And at least that is our right, isn't it?


Cees

 

[Thomas Newton]

Using this line to try to suppress discussion is circular reasoning.

It's the Congress who determines the scope of copyright. Not the studios. There is no Constitutional entitlement to copyrights, only authorization for Congress to issue them IF it feels like it, under certain conditions.

Just because a studio wants every form of copying and use under the Sun to be illegal, doesn't mean that we the people, or the Congress, have to buy into it. Likewise, there is no Constitutional directive that says "the only way copyright laws can evolve is to become more and more restrictive on buyers and on the public."

If anything, the Constitution would require Congress to rebalance the copyright laws more in the favor of the public, whose interest Congress is supposed to serve.

Now, if the question is "How should the copyright laws evolve? What should they be?", how can you possibly say that opinions about reasonable and customary use, about what the laws are now, and about what the laws should be, are outside of the scope of debate?

 

[Ricardo C]

That's a very bizarre analogy, Nils. No one's materializing their backup DVDs out of thin air. We're all buying the original discs, the blank media, and the hardware. So the "replication" analogy is really quite out there when you attempt to apply it to clothing. Incidentally, should I feel bad for Levi's if I purchase denim, zippers and buttons and I have a tailor make me a custom replica of one of their models?

Also, as you say, one of the selling points of DVD was its durability. And if the discs are supposed to last decades, what's so wrong about making a copy to protect my investment in the case of an unforeseen problem (theft, fire, flooding, etc.)? I thought the studios were in the business of selling content, not the media that carries it.

As it stands, I'm going to be making "official" managed copies of my HD discs, but you can be sure I'll also make 960x540 backup copies of the analog output just in case everyone's worst DRM fears come to pass.

 

[Parker Clack]

I will reiterate what Cees has said many times in this thread. We, the Home Theater Forum, do not in any way condone the piracy of any type or recorded media.

Having said that, DRM and other types of encoding on future DVDs is something that needs to be discussed.

How to bypass DRM or any other discussion of how to get around these encryption technologies is not something that we will allow.

There is a very distinct difference.

 

[Ricardo C]

Parker, I didn't write anything to the effect of "how" to circumvent copy protection on any format.

I said I intend to record the analog output of these discs, which is unprotected by design. I'm having a hard time finding the "grey area" in my post, let alone the explicitly illegal.

 

[Nils Luehrmann]

This is so unreasonable. The message I am hearing from you is its OK to be perpetually posting the same anti-DRM/studio posts using the same arguments over and over again as seen in this and other HD threads, but for anyone who wants to respond with an explanation for why these DRM methods are being developed and how casual piracy plays a far greater role in the implementation of these DRM methods we are labeled as "trouble makers" and selected out to be criticized, while others are free to post how they make copies of DVDs and why this is, in their mind perfectly acceptable.

I would like to see one post where you were critical of one of the countless posts by FrancisP who more than anyone else has “perpetually repeated the same argument”, often times using very harsh language with factual errors and misleading and misquoted remarks. Honestly Cees, you yourself have posted numerous times perpetually repeating the same argument against DRM, so if anything your criticism based on that reason is why I am also deeply disappointed.

So, yes, I am deeply disappointed as it seems as long as someone is 100% in favor against DRM then they can pretty much get away with saying whatever they like, including stating opinions as if they were facts, using harsh inappropriate language, downplaying the severity of piracy, even suggesting that it helps boost legitimate sales, and admitting to breaking DVD’s copy protection in order to make copies.

However, if anyone dares challenge the facts from these posts, respond to some of the assertions that piracy is not a significant factor, and dare suggest legitimate reasons for these DRM methods, then they are treated as unwelcome contributors on HTF.

As someone who has gladly invested countless hours over the years contributing to this forum, yes, I am most definitely deeply disappointed, and I’m terribly sorry you not only don’t understand why I would feel this way, but that you feel there is no reason why I should feel this way.

If it will make you happy though, and maintain the peace, I will ignore all the “studios are stupid/evil” posts, all the DRM = draconian methods of controlling our way of life posts, and piracy is no big deal.mantra and will no longer participate in these threads.

 

[JeremyErwin]

 

[george kaplan]

Deleted cause there's no point, and I've had enough bad experiences debating certain people.

 

[Kelly Grannell]

He is not disappointed. By having and believing in his opinion, his view that he is holier than the rest of us became a reality. A wrong and skewed one, but it is a reality, if it is just for him.

 

[Shawn Perron]

It is illegal to make a backup copy of a retail DVD. Even if making a backup copy of a movie isn't illegal, it's illegal to break the copy protection on the DVD. The DMCA makes illegal any breaking of the copy protection utilized by the DVD. To legally make a back up copy, you would have to capture the video and audio at some point in the analog stage. Making a legal digital copy is impossible without breaking the copy protection and therefore patently illegal.

Now "intellectual property" seems to be an abstract concept. Anyone trying to dictate the morality of an abstract concept is stepping out of bounds. While people that own "intellectual property" are granted legal protections by law, it's a far jump equating listening to a song you never purchased to a someone actually stealing someone's physical property.

Illegal and unethical are 2 different things. While you can prove illegal, you can only claim something is against YOUR ethics.

Is digitally copying a retail DVD illegal? Yes and there is no arguing it.

Is it unethical to digitally copy a DVD? That's up to the individual to decide.

Should it be allowed for anyone to talk about or endorse making digital "backup" copies of DVDs on these forums? Last I knew, HTF not only frowned on discussions of illegal activities. but actively tried to stop them. Apparently they are willing to allow illegal activities to be endorsed.

 

[Cees Alons]

No arguing it? Ha, ha, ha. The US isn't the world. It's a 100% certain that it isn't illegal in most countries. It will be rather difficult to maintain on this international forum that anything IS illegal, in an absolute sense, unless proven illegal in most other countries too.

BTW, although we respect various forms of copyright very much, and have laws to underline that respect, I estimate the chance that anything like the DMCA will ever be promoted to a law in my country close to 0. With a very small epsilon.


Cees

 

[Kelly Grannell]

It seems like HTF have more and more people who loves to take things out of context and using it for their own personal agenda.

It was clearly mentioned by the forum owner that the discussion of copy protection IS allowed within this thread. You now have made an ASSumption and twisted his words into "willing to allow illegal activities to be endorsed".

English is not my first language, not even my second, but I think my interpretation of Mr. Clark's statement earlier today have no relation to the "willing(nes) to allow illegal activities to be endorsed".

 

[AaronMK]

Well, I myself don't really support illegal activities. But then I don't subscribe to the notion that a supplier of a product should be able to decide how I use that product after I purchase it. Yes, movies are products that I purchase. Otherwise, I would buy blank DVDs and save a whole lot of money.

Granted, DRM systems are needed to prevent copyright law from being unenforceable. I might even accecpt arguments in favor of a DMCA like law to limit the spread of circumvention tools, just as I can understand why radar detectors are illegal in many states. But for the content providers to feel they can decide what rules those systems will enforce is overstepping their authority.

New technologies will always create the need for the compromise to be renegotiated. (That is why the Fair Use doctrine is so loosely worded.) In the past, it had been renegotiated as new technologies were developed, usually by courts reinterpreting Fair Use and other exemptions. Some were considered to fit with that compromise (beta max, MP3 players), some did not (original Napster), and some are still being worked on (File Sharing in general).

So I guess that is my ethical view of the situation in a nut shell, minus some fine print.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

Point where it's said in law.

It can easily be argued that it is actually legally protected fair use to copy a DVD for personal or archival use. Because of the nature of CSS encryption, this fair use is in conflict with cracking CSS. Is it illegal to crack CSS for legally protected uses? This is not a settled question by any means, and there are commercial products (hardware and software) on the market that do exactly this, or rely on this.

Perhaps you should research more on the topic before you assert the erroneous claim that breaking CSS is de-facto illegal.

 

[Shawn Perron]

I'm sorry, you are correct about it possibly being legal internationally. So I'll rephrase it.

Is digitally copying a retail CSS encrypted DVD in the USA illegal? Yes and there is no arguing it.

In the US if you break the CSS encryption to copy the contents, you break the law through the DCMA. There is no arguing that. There are very few retail DVDs released in the USA without CSS. They tried to just stop the whole fair use issue by outlawing encryption breaking, then encrypting it.

While you may legally be within your rights to backup your movie in the US, you are unable to do so digitally from a DVD without breaking the law.

 

[ChrisWiggles]

This isn't settled at ALL. There are many products made and sold in the US that do exactly this, or rely on this.

If I have the legal right to fair use, and there is a conflicting legal right to prevent CSS decryption, there is an unsettled conflict in law. Don't be ridiculous and inflammatory.

 

[Glenn Overholt]

Hardly. When you buy a DVD you ARE NOT buying a product - rather you are buying a right to see it, and it is on a DVD just because that is the medium that the studios put it on.

I don't think that the 'Fair Use Act' specifically says that you can make backups, but even if it did, breaking encryption is illegal. That isn't the only place where one law can overrule another. Just wait until your City Hall decides that they want to put a mall up where your house is! Oh, you thought you owned it? So sorry!

Glenn

 

[Shawn Perron]

I'm not being inflamatory. Until the DMCA is abolished, it's explicitly illegal to digitally copy the CSS encrypted DVDs in the USA, as much as everyone would like to argue otherwise. Like I said in my earlier post, you should be free to capture the movie in analog if you can manage it.

You seem to be arguing that you should be able to digitally bit for bit copy the original movie. As far as I know fair use just allows for a back up copy, and there is no provision stating you are entitled to the best possible audio and visual representation.

So legally copy away in analog, but in the USA digitally copying encrypted material makes you an outlaw.