What's new

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

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
is wrong. It may or may not be illegal (I am certain it IS legal), but you must certainly accede that saying there's no argument about it is refuted by the argument going on about it in front of your eyes. If you deny it's being argued about, then, well... :)
 

Shawn Perron

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Messages
500
I meant more in the sense that arguing it's legal is like arguing against gravity as you fall to your death. You may be of another opinion, but well.. splat. ;)



Well, fair use may allow for a "back up" copy, but I'm not sure that digitally copying it for mere convenience would even qualify. So you may be totally illegal in the case of ripping to a distributed server.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
I do not accept that, but if it were so, then there are so many outlaws that the law becomes like speeding 1 mile over the speed limit, which, while technically against the law, is, in practice so widely done, that it is, for all practical purposes, not illegal to go 1 mile over the speed limit.

The only real difference, is I'll admit that speeding 1 mile over the speed limit is technically illegal, I don't admit that with regard to making a backup for personal use.
 

george kaplan

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 14, 2001
Messages
13,063
Well, I won't deny the existence of gravity, but I will claim that you don't understand the true nature of the law of gravity, as you orbit the Earth perpetually, while waiting to splat into the Earth, which won't happen cause gravity doesn't quite work the way you think it does, just like making backup copies isn't illegal.
 

Shawn Perron

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Messages
500
Most of the laws in the USA are not enforcable on an individual basis. It's near impossible to enforce a law that can be broken in the privacy of your own home. It's not even possible to enforce fair use on an individual basis.



Never said it was. I said making digital copies from an encrypted DVD in the USA is illegal.
 

ChrisWiggles

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 19, 2002
Messages
4,791
This is a pointless argument. I already admitted it, fine I don't care. Feel free to prove your legal/intellectual prowess elsewhere. It's silly, and completely off topic from the subject of this thread, really. So what if it's illegal, it's illegal to burn music CDs too? Who cares, nobody is going to stop it, so why worry about whether it is or is not legal personal use.

Will it be legal to circumvent the analog output restrictions on HD formats to drive high-end legacy displays? Probably not. But you're not going to stop me and others from doing it to get HD content on our displays.

Anyway, done with this pointless argument. who CARES! It's illegal to jaywalk too.
 

Vader

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 19, 1999
Messages
811
Real Name
Derek


I cannot agree with this, as it is the same line of BS thinking as Microsoft's "you are not buying this product, only a license to use it." I'm sorry, but when I buy a CD or DVD I am then the owner of that physical object: polycarbonate, aluminum, pits, everything. Copyright restricts me from doing anything that will a) make me a profit, monetary or otherwise, b) deny the artist (copyright owner) any potential profit (of any kind), or c) claim authorship of said work (in any capacity). This means that I cannot make a copy to give to friends, nor can I set up shop to sell copies (obviously). However, it is completely within my rights to make duplicates and use them instead of the master (keeping it in pristine condition). I routinely copy CDs (all of which I legally own) to play in the car, or at work. I don't care what happens to the copy (I tend to get in a tizzy over misplaced fingerprints or scratches on the master). Since properly manufactured CDs/DVDs will not wear out from normal use (assuming they are cared for properly), I am under no obligation to repurchase said title after the initial purchase - ever - in order to continue using it. As for video, if I think that Val Kilmer looks better as Bruce Wayne with a Doc Holiday mustache, I am perfectly within my rights to rip a copy from LD to my HD (no encryption), digitally add said facial hair, and re-burn it to a DVD-R for personal use. To say otherwise is like saying that Bill Gates can show up at my door and say 'we just revoked the license you paid for, so fork over the disks. Oh, and you can upgrade to a Vista license for $xxx.xx (which we can also revoke later if we want).'

That being said, I have absolutely no interest in copying DVDs (I don't even have a DVD burner), nor am I justifying piracy in any form (which is, by definition, theft). Nor am I saying that I am within my rights to break encryption for any purpose (including personal), as that is illegal...
 

Shawn Perron

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 25, 2002
Messages
500
Oh, you think I'm against it? I just hate it when people won't take personal responsibility. You break a law, just own up. Like speeding, you take your chances. I don't really care if people rip digital copies, but it's annoying when they pretend they are within the law to do so. Nils had a good point about people complaining because copyright holders try to enforce thier right to make a living. Everyone started going on about how they were obliged to do something obviously illegal.

I personally pick and choose the laws I choose to follow, but I'm not going to go online and pretend everything I do is legal.

All you have to do is read this thread and everyone going on about thier right to make "back up" copies and you can see why Hollywood is insisting on stricter copy protections. It seems to me like 1/4 of this thread shows why the studios feel the need to restrict analog. I know people just want to stand up for thier "rights", but more likely it just proves to Hollywood that they did the right thing.

In the case of the mentioned disributed server, they will charge you a fee to place the movies on the server with both HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.



It's within your abilities, but not within your rights to break CSS in the USA. Unfortunately your rights are whatever the law says, regardless of what you may feel they are.

Now if you wanna say:

"I am able to rip a copy to my HD, digitally add said facial hair, and re-burn it to a DVD-R for personal use whether they want me to or not."

That'd be more correct.
 

Vader

Supporting Actor
Joined
Mar 19, 1999
Messages
811
Real Name
Derek

That's why I was careful to use LD in the above example (no encrytption). I am not arguing in favor of breaking the law (which defeating encryption would be), but simply stating that what I do with a legally purchased product after the transaction is none of Hollywood's concern (when, how often, or with whom - as long as it isn't public) so long as it does not violate the three conditions I stated above. They maintain ownership over the content only as defined by copyright, but the physical disc is my property. I would give real money to see some lawyer try and come to my door to revoke one of these "licenses". I need a good laugh...
 

FrancisP

Screenwriter
Joined
Jun 15, 2004
Messages
1,120

The DMCA does not say anything about digital copies. It says creation of a means whose sole purpose is to evade copy protection is illegal. However that's sort of like prohibition. Anyone who thinks that is going to stop distribution then they need to have their heads examined.

The DMCA does not say anything about using such a means. In the penalties clause it talks about a commercial or financial gain. Civilly it says there has to be a injury.
It also suggests that the user has to be aware they are committing a crime.

No court has ever ruled on the legality of making a backup. It is also interesting to note that the government recently charged two men with DMCA violations for hacking customers' X-Boxs but did not charge customers who paid to have their x-boxs hacked. This suggests the government looks at the DMCA much more narrowly than some on this forum.

People who buy the discs and make backup copies for their personal use is not the reason studios lose some money but a lot less than the $3.5 billion they claim. The reason is pirates who make copies and sell them. They are already breaking the law and are certainly not going to let the DMCA stop them. These are the people that they need to go after rather than ripping on customers.

Imagine what would happen if Ferrari said that once you buy one of their cars, you can only get it serviced at a Ferrari owned repair shop. Or you can only use Ferrari
parts. Or you could not sell it without their permission.
You cannot restrict how a person uses their Ferrari once they buy it but you can restict how someone uses their legally bought dvd for their personal use?
 

Cees Alons

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 31, 1997
Messages
19,789
Real Name
Cees Alons
Also note that you do not necessarily have to "break" the CSS encryption if you produce a verbatim copy, i.e. bit-by-bit (or byte-by-byte if you like; of a harddisk we would call this an "image copy", but that term could be misleading some in case of a video medium :) ).


Cees
 

JeremyErwin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2001
Messages
3,218
a verbatim copy includes both the encrypted data and the keyblock. Normally, a DVD layer looks for the keyblock in a predefined area of the disk. DVD-Rs, however, have this predefined area preburnt with zeros. You could devise a player that looks for the keyblock in new and interesting locations, or you could devise a player that bruteforces the encryption (25 bits don't take long), but both of those designs, if unlicensed, would contradict the DMCA.
 

Ricardo C

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2002
Messages
5,068
Real Name
Ricardo C
What if you mount the disc image as a virtual drive? No shenanigans there, right?
 

Aaron_Brez

Supporting Actor
Joined
Apr 22, 2000
Messages
792

Yes, well, Ferraris are not encrypted. The DMCA is a bad law, and arguably unjust. However, Congress is allowed to make bad laws, and even unjust ones, as long as they don't contradict the Constitution. I happen to find some of the provisions to be a 1st amendment violation, but that's a personal reading and unsupported by case law.

I echo Shawn when I assert: what you do in the privacy of your home-- which laws you respect and which you violate-- is up to you, and unless someone is harmed by these no one is likely to ever find out or be prosecuted for such (as pointed out, in terms of enforceability, consider speeding at 1 MPH over the limit). Just don't try to deceive yourself into thinking you're not breaking the law.



*Then again, it also says "...that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted work]", and it's easy to argue that CSS has been quite ineffective. :)
 

Steve Berger

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 8, 2001
Messages
987
Just to confuse the issue a little more regarding some analogies I've seen here. Corn, believe it or not, is often patented and farmers have been forbidden from saving it till the next season for planting (usually when weather make planting impractical - drought, flood or hurricanes, etc) and generally cannot replant the corn from the harvest either. The Automakers attempt regularly to stop the use of aftermarket parts and try to legislate "Autozone" type of suppliers out of business based on patents and copyrights. They have failed so far but their next step could be to encrypt the data ports on vehicles causing them to fall under DMCA (unless they already tried this - I haven't kept up).

As to my own beliefs, I understand the reasons for draconian DRM, but I do do not agree with the conclusion that it is necessary, and feel perfectly justified to try and influence them to not do it and disenfranchise early adopters.
 

Ryan-G

Supporting Actor
Joined
Oct 13, 2005
Messages
621


No it won't. Downloading is free, and free always wins. It'll just slow it down for a couple years, then it'll explode in the span of a few months.
 

JeremyErwin

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2001
Messages
3,218

Begging the question, aren't you?
Consider this. When a person plays massively multiplayer games, they're generally not interested in interacting with bots and other crude instances of artificial intelligence. Part of the gaming experience in a MMRPG is that one can play against, or with other humans. The more upstream traffic permitted, the more impressive the simulacrum of human interaction. The line between producer and consumer blurs a bit.

It is even blurrier in the case of free software. BitTorrent is habitually used to propagate linux distributions.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,818
Messages
5,123,868
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top