That's pretty funny.Originally Posted by jaxxboss
Darryl
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
+ Reply to Thread
Results 121 to 134 of 134
Thread
-
@ jaxxboss: most other people on this thread are able to discuss these differing points of views without personal attacks. If you aren't able to do this, then please refrain from posting anything further or I will give you a warning.Are you trying to be stupid or is it a natural state for you?
Having had the op to read ur statements I have to say that the 2 codes I mentioned were for the the simple reason that people will not take this step to pursue copyright infringement enforcement. Its not like Im stuck on those 2 sections. It goes on and on and on beyond just those 2.
Yes, I am speaking of US Law, and you I guess speak galactic law?
What was the point in that?
Your arguments are just fine and dandy, but they will not hold up in a court of law. There is one way to prove it. I do not have to DISprove anything, you on the other hand are saddled with the mia culpa and can have your day in court either here or there wherever you are.
Let me ask you this. IF the copyright is automatically given to the person shooting the video like you say (IMPLIED). Then why oh why do they have this WRITTEN on the contract also? hmmm?
Again, my argument is valid and will stand up in a court of law. Sorry, but thats the way it is.
I sign ur contract, u have the rights. You sign my contract then I have the rights. No contract signed....... you say you have the rights and I say I do. Lets Rock.
Yeah, I'm an obstinate SOB, but only when I know im right. -
Originally Posted by jaxxboss
A copyright doesn't have to be necessarily enforcable for it to exist.
Yes, I am speaking of US Law, and you I guess speak galactic law?
What was the point in that?
Let me ask you this. IF the copyright is automatically given to the person shooting the video like you say (IMPLIED). Then why oh why do they have this WRITTEN on the contract also? hmmm?
Shoplifting is obviously illegal. Why oh why do many shops put up a big sign to say that you will be "prosecuted". Surely they are stating the obvious? Hmmmm?
I sign ur contract, u have the rights. You sign my contract then I have the rights. No contract signed....... you say you have the rights and I say I do. Lets Rock.
Yeah, I'm an obstinate SOB, but only when I know im right.
And you "know" you are right because you say you are? Grow up.
The written contact is a codified agreement between two or more parties. The contract belongs to both parties. There is no "my" or "your". Depending on the actual agreement, both parties have certain rights and responsibilities.
Regards.Michael Tam
w: Morsels of Evidence -
Sorry, but you once again miss the point. Enforcing the copyright is rather different from owning the copyright and that is really beside the point
The basic premise of copyright laws are pretty much equivalent across most Westernised nations. Details will differ (like your "sections") and in the context of the actual discussion, those details don't actually matter.
Because it puts it into context and reduces the likelihood of further dispute.
Shoplifting is obviously illegal. Why oh why do many shops put up a big sign to say that you will be "prosecuted". Surely they are stating the obvious? Hmmmm?
That is the most absurd thing I have ever read. "My" contract? "Your" contract? You truly have no idea. Before YOU have to sign any important contracts, I strongly recommend that you get some advice from a laywer.
Your contract states that you will have full copyright and My contract states I will have full copyright. Rather simple here.
And you "know" you are right because you say you are? Grow up
The written contact is a codified agreement between two or more parties. The contract belongs to both parties. There is no "my" or "your". Depending on the actual agreement, both parties have certain rights and responsibilities
In closing I would like to say that although this has been a painstaking process of having to continually correct you when you mis-quote me and and tell me that some things are the most absurd things you have ever read when you don't understand what im saying, this has been quite enjoyable.
Again, with no contracts involved your argument is that the person making the video of said wedding holds copyright. My argument is that with no contracts involved you do not have the copyright.
This is my point and like I said there is only one way to prove it and that is in a court of law. U.S court/Australian court or even the Galactic court.
Of course you would also have had to register ur work under sections 407 and 408 if this goes to court.
Have a great day and I'll buy you a EMU at the pub in freemantle someday. -
In US law the photographer owns the copyright to whatever he/she shoots unless the right is given up. I.E. if a photographer takes a picture of a bunch of firemen putting out a fire, according to the law, the photographer alone would own the copyright to it.
With that being said though, the photographer would have a hard time getting a remedy for the people who "stole" his work in a case like wedding videos. The work is of the couples wedding, and they aren't doing to exploit another's films(ie selling it on the street for profit) nor causing the author of the video to lose huge amounts of money. The plaintiff would waste more money trying to retrieve his losses(which he/she would have to prove that there were any). And the legislation on the paper doesn't mean its set in stone, the judge/jury gets the final say in determining whether a crime or a loss has been there. If a judge/jury feels that the law is applied in the wrong area, he/she can still judge in what seems to be a contradiction to what it says on paper.
BTW, contracts do not overrule criminal torts. If in an area, prostitution is illegal, you can't just make a contract that says you and the other person agreed to trade. -
Originally Posted by LanEvo7Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS -
Whenever I work on a news staff, or for a studio, anything I shoot for those purposes is theirs. Period. Why? I'm on payroll. It's in the employee contract. Where I live, which is in the USA, many memory-style photo/video services, especially by non-brick-n-mortar businesses, the contracts resemble closely the works-for-hire contract. Memory-style includes small personal events like weddings. Maybe people are just nicer and more honest where I live, I don't know. Gives me another reason not to move.
As I've said, the law is not set in stone. Just because something appears to be illegal on paper doesn't necessarily mean it is. It depends on how the judge/jury interprets the law that is already there. -
You started an interesting thread. You have my sympathy, not only for the copyright issue but in having to attend so many weddings with all those men in kilts! Your concern for your reputation is commendable. I am sure that inevitably your attention to detail and concern for quality will compensate for all this extra trouble.
Her name is Laura. She loves my bush. -
I know its a bit late in the day as the thread has drifted somewhat, (partly my doing) but read this page for copy protection.
http://www.apple.com/dvdstudiopro/advanced.html
It claims to add ccs + macrovision 1,2+3.
As I said my MAC wont run it as it runs 9.2 and it needs OSX.
Only does DVD. -
rotflmao...sorry guys just had too laugh....especially when someguy says 'i Spend hours editing and authoring dvds for ppl for them just to come along and copy em' i thought that was funny (maybe he'll think twice before downloading the next blockbuster lol)...SasArchiver
AMD 2200+ (1.83ghz), 512DDR PC2700 (333mhz)
160GB Hitachi 7,200rpm 1mb cache, 80GB Western Digital/7,200rpm HD
ATI Radeon 9600xt 128mb 8x, KT4 Ultra FSB 333 AGP 8X/ D bracket
DVD+R/DVD+RW/CD-r/CD-RW,Antec Plus 1000 Case with lights -
monstermash, i know where ur coming from ok, but the copy protection that companies use is the same as what ur looking at (same principles) so u could 'in respect' burn ur own copyrighted cd, but it will just be broken when burning ....SasArchiver
AMD 2200+ (1.83ghz), 512DDR PC2700 (333mhz)
160GB Hitachi 7,200rpm 1mb cache, 80GB Western Digital/7,200rpm HD
ATI Radeon 9600xt 128mb 8x, KT4 Ultra FSB 333 AGP 8X/ D bracket
DVD+R/DVD+RW/CD-r/CD-RW,Antec Plus 1000 Case with lights -
I know that, and I dont intend to use it (never did). But it is available to anyone who has a MAC with OSX upwards. I know its a long thread but if you read it all the way through, everyone knows that its impossible to realisticly copy protect a DVD. If someone wants to copy it then they will or at least know someone who can.
-
Originally Posted by monstermash
You CAN NOT apply css to DVDr no matter what application you use.
Similar Threads
-
Problem copying DVDs to hard drive (previously copied from videos)
By avz10 in forum RestorationReplies: 4Last Post: 2nd Mar 2010, 22:54 -
Problem Playing Copied DVD+R DL DVDs from CSS Protected Original
By bpbenda in forum DVD RippingReplies: 10Last Post: 24th Sep 2009, 09:04 -
Problem Playing Copied DVD+R DL DVDs from CSS Protected Original
By bpbenda in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 1Last Post: 23rd Sep 2009, 13:42 -
why cant i play the mini dvds that i copied on to my P.C's hardrive?
By boomblaszy in forum DVD & Blu-ray WritersReplies: 4Last Post: 21st Jul 2007, 11:22 -
Copied dvds wont play on my PC
By Rgalan in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 10Last Post: 21st May 2007, 16:34