Why Backup?

[Ejoc]

" Many people don't realise that. When you buy a DVD you buy the VIEWING RIGHT to watch that movie, you do not buy the right to copy it as you see fit and give it away to anyone you please. "

So you're saying you can buy a dvd & give to 50 friends to watch & that is okay as long as you don't copy it?

If you are asking if its ok to let someone watch your uncopied DVD, free of charge, yes.

[Colindale]

Savant

Perhaps we should name YOU: "King Canute"

for you are trying to achieve exactly the same result.

[Savant]

bugster wrote:

backup, Copy, I think the semantics ARE important especially with respect to this particular thread. To me, Back Up means you are taking a copy of something you already own for security purposes, just like millions of people and companies worldwide 'backup' their data on their computer systems.

The problem is backup means different things to different people. Sure, I would agree with your definition, but if other people consider a backup to be making a copy of a disc whether or NOT they may own it, then we end up shooting ourselves in the foot because people have overgeneralized the term.

For sake of argument a person COULD say they wanted to 'backup' a rented movie so that they didn't accidently damage the original, but then they would keep the backup after returning the movie. I think we need to consider both since many other people have 'loose' ideas on what a backup actually is.

SatStorm wrote:

The fact is that the whole world, all the citizens in this planet, are united on this specific matter: Those digital laws are stupid, unethical, and only serve the profits of the very few.

I disagree, which means your statement is inaccurate. There are PLENTY of people who would disagree with you on this.

About Berne Convention. I belong to those that feels that it is simply a trade version of the civil rights. (snip) The Berne Convertion is an "update" based on trading ethics, which are simply not an issue for human rights. It seems that I belong to a different party than you, even on this matter!

You can believe the Berne Convention is a science-fiction convention they have in Las Vegas every year if you want, that doesn't make it true. The Berne Convention was drafted to protect the civil rights of artists and those who create original works. It was drafted LONG before you or your parents were born (the version was made in 1886) and was not influenced by 'big business' since there was no big business back then.

We can agree to disagree on this, but I still firmly believe that people are entitled to intellectual propety rights, and nearly every country in the world has signed the Berne Convention, supporting this idea.

Colindale wrote:

Perhaps we should name YOU: "King Canute"

Heh, now there's a blast from the past. Actually I don't think I'm being that way at all. Sure I have an opinion, and it may not be popular, but I have no intention to try and change the way the masses may think. I think everyone here is pretty set in their opinions and I wouldn't expect that to change anytime soon.

However, there is nothing like a little heathly debate to allow people to express their points of view, regardless of whether they agree.

The world would suck if everyone agreed with everyone else.

Regards,

Savant

[SilverBlade]

*plays a sad song on a violin*

So the RIAA or MPAA won't be able to afford a gold plated toilet in the future because of pirates *gasp*

[jarvis1781]

playing the devil's advocate here....

if it is ok to lend 50 people your DVD to watch then they have not paid one cent to the movie industry...

so what is so wrong with making 50 copies and letting friends watch them? the movie industry hasn't lost anything because in both cases they don't see one cent past the original that was purchased...

sure you could talk about morals and standards...but what are those anyway? people define words to mean different things for their own intents and purposes.

there is no point in talking about morals and standards because in many parts of the world it is ok to beat your wife and in others if you have more than 1 or 2 children the extraneous children are killed

[MOVIEGEEK]

SatStorm wrote:"And again: You in the US: Stop cencore old Cartoons!"

O.K I will stop and I will forward your request to the Cartoon Network.

I backup my DVD's because they will eventually become scratched beyond repair and unviewable.

[tygrus2000]

The arguement for backing up dvds still hasn't been proven here regardless of the legal implications of doing so.

If your collection of dvds gets stolen from your house or car or damaged, surely you have insurance which will replace them for you. I know I do, so why would I spend my time backing them up, when the good money I pay every year for insurance will give me back a brand new set.

If the arguement is that the dvds are so precious or such a money investment that I have to have a backup, then that argument is easily shot down. First, if it was such a money investment that you wouldnt want to lose it, just include it as contents on your insurance. Done - garunteed replacement value, no worries. Secondly, wouldnt it pay to backup something much more precious such as photos or home videos. These are irreplaceable and are a better choice to spend your time backing up.

In actuality if you have a backup of your dvds, there is a better chance insurance will deny your claim, so why do it? We have insurance to protect against loss. If not, you would have to keep two of everything just in case the first one was lost or damaged.

[MackemX]

roflmao, you are unbelieveable how you try to twist things and it's obvious you enjoy trying to twists words as you always seem to say you never actually used those words al the time. I guess you don't know what you are writing but at the same time you like the sound of your own posts. I bet you have a huge list of links just waiting to show us all . The problem is you seem to forget what you have written and let me show you what I have seen

For all intents and purposes in this discussion CDs and DVDs are one in the same. The content may be different, but the concept and issues are nearly identical.

The problem seems to be that you feel I have labelled people when I haven't done anything of the sort. I have never made any specific statements about the people in this forum, I have made GENERAL statements on piracy.
...............
However, as I said before, while I appreciate the need of a parent to back up a repeatedly watched children's DVD, it only represents a tiny fraction of DVDs that are pirated... err... that are "backed-up".

Let's just stop it there for now. You mention piracy and pirated. Let me tell you the person commiting piracy is commonly known as a 'pirate'. I don't care if you have actuall typed pirate
now let's continue quoting......

I have said that the majority of people who burn copies of DVDs OVERALL do not own the original DVD and are not making a 'backup'
............................................
I think the percentage of people who 'back up' DVDs for personal use is but a fraction of the total of those who copy DVDs.

let's stop it again. Basically what you say there is that the majority of people burning DVD's are commiting piracy if you use the first group of quotes. Therefore this implies they are also to be known as pirates

Now what is this forum all about?, oh yes DVD to DVD-R. So what percentage of users here do you think burn DVD's?. Probably somewhere close to 100%. I don't care if you actually said the majority of users here are 'pirates'. The simple fact is, based on your statements that you are implying it!. I guess I have to explain it in simple terms for you to understand my points. You cannot say one thing and then another and not expect them to fit together . That's the whole reason I posted in this thread

oh and this is another quote that fits into the two groups of quotes above

Do people on this board use the information here to assist them in pirating DVDs? Of course they do.

why not say 'Do some people' at the beginning?. As you didn't, it can mean anything your percentage is unknown, therefore you are left to think you feel the majority based on your quotes so far

I'm couldn't care what else you have said as basically you have implied that MOST users here are commiting piracy and you can argue all day and night about it but your own words speak the truth. I have just put them all together for you

one last thing,

Again I will state I am not opposed to people making backups of material they OWN, provided they do not sell or give away the copy or the original

but then you say this

A person who buys a CD or DVD (software, music or movie) DOES NOT OWN THE DATA CONTENT OF THAT MEDIA. Many people don't realise that. When you buy a DVD you buy the VIEWING RIGHT to watch that movie, you do not buy the right to copy it as you see fit and give it away to anyone you please. That's a right reserved for the copyright holder. Thus the term COPY right. The entity or person that owns the copyright has the RIGHT to determine how it is COPIED

in the first of the two above quotes you agree that people can make backups of their own. In other words copy that CD/DVD then you say the person owning the copyright has the say as to whether it's copied. Which is it?

I suggest the following to you. Unless you can prove anyone here is commiting piracy when they 'back up', you will choose your words wisely when labelling ALL people burning DVD's as ALL people will also include ALL the people in this forum

this thread was about why people make 'back ups' 'and not whether it is legal or not and what majority you feel is commiting piracy. Please give us all a break from all the links and quotes also and whatever else you know about is as this is not the topic of the thread that the poster asked about. There are other threads around that discuss it

I can't understand why you just didn't reply in the first place and say why you 'back up' your CD's (or DVD's) like most people here have . You have turned this into another Meritline

[MackemX]

First, if it was such a money investment that you wouldnt want to lose it, just include it as contents on your insurance. Done - garunteed replacement value, no worries.

not everyone will have an accidental damage policy, never mind one that includes DVD's

most insurance companies I know have something called 'excess', which is the amount you have to claim before you actually receive anything. I know mine is far more than the price of an average DVD. If I was to claim for my DVD on my home insurance it would cost me 2 to 3 times as much as popping into the store myself and buying one

I also believe you do not get the same value anyway. I lost over 300 CD's 10 years ago (mostly singles so harder to source replacements) and got less than half the value it would cost to replace them even though I had receipts for them all. How would you replace stuff that's out of print also?

[LanEvo7]

If your collection of dvds gets stolen from your house or car or damaged, surely you have insurance which will replace them for you. I know I do, so why would I spend my time backing them up, when the good money I pay every year for insurance will give me back a brand new set.

So everytime you accidently damage a DVD, you are going to file a claim to your insurance company. Most accidents with DVDs aren't house fires or floods, etc. Its usually accidently scratching it up or mistreatment. Your insurane company is not going to take your claim of Nemo because your kid scratched it up. Not everybody has insurance and backing up a DVD is WAY cheaper than buying insurance for it.

[tygrus2000]

But the chances of your collection getting stolen or damaged all at once, probably along with a lot of other stuff in your home, is much greater than every individual DVD going bad one after the other.

I've had contents of my vehicle stolen twice now and everytime I have recouped nearly all of my damages. They stole the in dash stereo and all the cds which I didnt have backed up. If not getting full replacement value is a concern, then by that theory, wouldnt you have a backup stereo, or back up whatever?

My insurance policy is guarunteed replacement on everything inlcuding all contents. If the house burns down, everything is returned to the way it was. If my DVDs or my TV or whatever is stolen or gets ruined, I am covered. If my friends car is in the garage, its covered.

[jarvis1781]

But the chances of your collection getting stolen or damaged all at once, probably along with a lot of other stuff in your home, is much greater than every individual DVD going bad one after the other.

I've had contents of my vehicle stolen twice now and everytime I have recouped nearly all of my damages. They stole the in dash stereo and all the cds which I didnt have backed up. If not getting full replacement value is a concern, then by that theory, wouldnt you have a backup stereo, or back up whatever?

My insurance policy is guarunteed replacement on everything inlcuding all contents. If the house burns down, everything is returned to the way it was. If my DVDs or my TV or whatever is stolen or gets ruined, I am covered. If my friends car is in the garage, its covered.

I'll bet that insurance plan costs a whole lot more than the things you actually own...
much cheaper to back up DVD's as you CAN back them up

you can't exactly back up your stereo unless you buy a new one...get with the program

[LanEvo7]

But the chances of your collection getting stolen or damaged all at once, probably along with a lot of other stuff in your home, is much greater than every individual DVD going bad one after the other.

The chances of just a SINGLE one of your DVD getting damaged is much, much, much higher than either of those two conditions. You've never had accident's happen to a single dvd or cd before? I know i have, more than once. But I have NEVER had my whole collection damaged in at the same time.

[tygrus2000]

People have tons of other items that are a similar cost to DVDs, like books or novels, and nobody would consider scanning those and making a backup. Its cheap and takes a lot of time, but if your collection is just that precious or you are certain someone is going to come and rip pages out everytime they visit, then its something you would do, right? Books are actually more valuable since they gain value over time. Of course you wouldn't, you just assume that if they get damaged you are forced to replace them, whether on your own or through insurance.

Why dont people say they are making a copy of their DVDs simply because they can and leave it at that, but using the arguement that its a critical posession that must be backed up regardless of the time, effort and legal implications doesn't hold water.

[tygrus2000]

The chances of A single dvd going bad are higher yes, but the chances of EVERY dvd going bad one after another are near astronomical.

[LanEvo7]

Its cheap and takes a lot of time, but if your collection is just that precious or you are certain someone is going to come and rip pages out everytime they visit, then its something you would do, right? Books are actually more valuable since they gain value over time. Of course you wouldn't, you just assume that if they get damaged you are forced to replace them, whether on your own or through insurance.

Because you can't backup a book economically. What are you going to do? Photocopy it? Everything that you can backup economically, you would. People back up their home videos all the time. Its also LESS EXPENSIVE to backup a DVD than to buy insurance for it. You still don't understand this.

The chances of A single dvd going bad are higher yes, but the chances of EVERY dvd going bad one after another are near astronomical.

I don't understand what you mean by this. If you are saying that the chances of everyone of your DVDs going bad on you is higher than a single dvd at random going bad on you, you are surely mistaken.

[MackemX]

My insurance policy is guarunteed replacement on everything inlcuding all contents. If the house burns down, everything is returned to the way it was. If my DVDs or my TV or whatever is stolen or gets ruined, I am covered. If my friends car is in the garage, its covered.

do you not have an excess?

what percentage of people here do you think have the same policy as you?

and all the other guys posts I agree with as I see no point repeating their statements

wow what a swing, this has taken the focus from Savant

[lordsmurf]

I have photocopies of a rare book in my fire safe, as well as copies of rare music. The original in the safe, the copies bound on the shelf. No amount of money could replace any of it, as it would likely take many years to track down another.

I backup anything of value or importance that can possibly be reproduced.

I'd also like to know the name and number of an agent where I can also get a magic insurance policy.

[jarvis1781]

I have photocopies of a rare book in my fire safe, as well as copies of rare music. The original in the safe, the copies bound on the shelf. No amount of money could replace any of it, as it would likely take many years to track down another.

I backup anything of value or importance that can possibly be reproduced.

I'd also like to know the name and number of an agent where I can also get a magic insurance policy.

Me too! I like magic...and insurance is good too

[DatMuthapucka]

i like your statement lordsmurf.... especialy the the stuff bout sony and them making dvd recorders.

and 808Smokey >>> who the fook is that next to your name ... she looks hella good. can i get some ?

[IvIark]

Savant wrote:

This is where we disagree. I think a person has just as much a right not to be shot as they do to protect their personal or intellectual property.

I assume you own the copyright on the "thousands of MP3s" that you have on your hard drive. Or is it morally acceptable to backup intellectual property on your hard drive providing it's only music and not movies? Surely you should be putting the original discs in when you want to listen to a certain track and accept that damage can happen to the original media? I mean you couldn't put a Hot Wheels car onto your hard drive could you?

Mark

[IvIark]

tygrus2000 wrote:

The arguement for backing up dvds still hasn't been proven here regardless of the legal implications of doing so.

What do you mean it hasn't been proven, it doesn't have to be proven. You keep filing your insurance claims and we'll keep backing up DVDs - everyone's happy. If that is morally unacceptable to you, Savant or anyone else for that matter, well I'm sure I for one will manage to live with it.

Why dont people say they are making a copy of their DVDs simply because they can and leave it at that, but using the arguement that its a critical posession that must be backed up regardless of the time, effort and legal implications doesn't hold water

I has already been said - by bugster halfway down page 1. Time, effort and moral acceptability is down to personal preference I'm afraid, and quite frankly nothing to do with you or anyone else.

Mark

[SatStorm]

The reason people don't back up books, is because the "media" Book can serve you for a lifetime. Or at least you feel that they can serve you for a lifetime. I have really old books in my collection, so LP vinyls. If you treat both with care , you can have them with you, for your rest of your life. You may never hear those LPs again ever, or read those books you own again ever, but feeling that "there are there for as long I wish to have them there" is a need the big ones don't bother with.
CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes and music Cassettes as a media, have a far limited life time. So, I do anything to keep what those discs/tapes includes for a life time! I bought them for having them with me, for ever! If I don't wish to own something, I simply use a rental to watch it or I subscript to a dedicated to movies TV station (we have plenty in Europe).
But for the things I own and interest about, if Back up is the way to keep them for as long as I wish, Back up I do!

What the big ones fail to understand, is that a costumer of those things, ain't only consumer. It is also a collector. Expecially on things involved entertaining, this turn soon or later very personal. And, any of us want to keep for ever those things, like we keep our photos.
The problem is exactly this: We back up digital media 'cause they fade real quick. Even the idea that I gonna loose something I tried hard to own, scares me. This is the real reason of the back up need.

And about Berne Convention you already answered yourself why I consider it a trade "update"....

And don't say something like :So you keep the same car for a lifetime also? This is apples with oranges!

The value of music and movies is like the photos I repeat. We own the photos of our birth untill we die. We are the only ones who interest for those photos and we do anything to keep them. So CDs and DVDs.
When I die, I don' t care about them. But for all the years I'm alive, I want what the Cds and DVDs have inside and I paid for it (I didn't pay for the media, I don't care for the media!), one or other form with me! I want my music video collection in my grave bared with me if possible!

And as you know, after 20 years copyrights ends, and need extension. That's why those "best of" or "Golden" releases, that's why the indestry presents one audio and picture format every 20 years or so. Just to expent copyright. What they couldn't imagine, is that the average person, gonna turn able to convert HIMSELF his property to a new media, as we currently do with our VHS collections. So what they did? A law don't allow that!
This is not a joke anymore, it is an isnult!

If the indestry wish to sell me again the same product, then let's present it to a new enchance form, as they did with the picture quality of VHS to DVD for example. I own my favorite movies on VHS, I bought them again on DVD 'cause the look better. This is acceptable. But to force me by law not to convert my VHS to DVDR for myself, is unacceptable.

And I wish I knew better english, to express my thought and points in a more advance way, so to be more understandable. Unfortunatelly, I can't do it better. This language limitations on the international forums is so iritating sometimes...

[Nitemare]

Greetings all!

Here in the U.S. we are supposed to have a government 'of the people, by the people, and for the people'. 'We the people' make the laws, by electing our lawmakers and so on and so forth...

The problems with the laws that get flouted in the U.S. are that many of these laws (like the DMCA) were purchased from our elected lawmakers by big businesses, are not in the interests of the people, and are consequently ignored by the people.

Here in the U.S., copyright laws and so forth are NOT about protecting artists or their works but about protecting the ability of these businesses to manipulate markets as they see fit.

DVD regions are just another example of this market manipulation. U.S. companies release films here first, then send the finite amount of actual prints of the film they've made overseas. This is done in stages (or Regions), maximizing the earning power of the film. In MANY cases, we in the U.S. can own the DVD of a film before people in other countries have even seen a theatrical release. If there were no DVD regions then it would be a relatively simple matter for the DVD to find it's way to countries where the films theater dollars haven't been earned yet. That would be bad for business. (I have no opinion on this... but it DOES qualify as market manipulation even if it is a sound business model)

It often seems that for every law (ex. Fair Use Act) there is another law (ex. DMCA) that negates it. "We the people" have decided that it's perfectly acceptable and legal to make backups of the things we purchase, CDs, software, DVDs, etc. While the vagueness of this law is legendary, some people could (and have) argued that any attempt by companies to prevent our ability make backups of these purchased items (copy protection schemes) is illegal.

Big coporations purchased the DMCA from our lawmakers, which effectively negates the Fair Use act. It's legal to make a backup but not legal to circumvent the copy-protection necessary to do so ... OH! and you can't download a backup copy because that's illegal too.

"We the people" have cried out in one voice "bullshit! (angry mobs... not the most eloquent of speakers) It will NOT be like this" but this voice has been ignored ... and so we ignore the law. We could change the law, by electing NEW lawmakers and having the DMCA repealed, but the new lawmakers would be bought before they even took the oath of their office, and so we continue to break laws that "we the people" never made because they have no ethical basis or foundation in principal.

They get away with this by invoking "copyright" but it's NOT the artists they're trying to protect, it's the ability to control the markets they "serve" that they're really interested in protecting. No, we can not pick and chose which laws we want to follow, but respect for a law that was purchased will never be a reality in the U.S. (This is not a conspiracy theory but a lamented fact of life here in the U.S.)

I don't support or advocate piracy, but I don't support iron fisted control of "free markets" by coporations either. I believe in the copyright laws, but when I've purchased a "copy" of a film or album, I am legally entitled to make a backup "copy". No law that the MPAA or RIAA buys will make me kowtow to their heavy-handed threats.

Food for thought... if copyright is so important, why are most of the movies coming from the US carbon copies of each other? Isn't there a copyright or "intellectual property" infringement in there somewhere? Just saw Terminator 3.... it was almost identical to T2 with a different ending. Who would want to pirate that anyway?

Regards,
Nitemare

[Savant]

MackemX wrote:

Savant wrote:
Do people on this board use the information here to assist them in pirating DVDs? Of course they do.

why not say 'Do some people' at the beginning?. As you didn't, it can mean anything your percentage is unknown, therefore you are left to think you feel the majority based on your quotes so far

I have mentioned that I feel the majority of copied DVDs are pirated. As you have noted, the word 'majority' can mean anything, but we know it means anything over 50%. However, I do not specify since any values that could be used would not be able to be applied to people HERE.

I have NEVER said I feel that everyone here is a pirate. If YOU want to say that, knock yoursef out. As you quoted me, I said:

I think the percentage of people who 'back up' DVDs for personal use is but a fraction of the total of those who copy DVDs.

I stand behind my comments. I do NOT feel that 'legitimate backups' account for the majority of discs being copied. If you want to twist my words to make them mean something else, then that's your choice.

I suggest the following to you. Unless you can prove anyone here is commiting piracy when they 'back up', you will choose your words wisely when labelling ALL people burning DVD's as ALL people will also include ALL the people in this forum

I *DO* choose my words wisely but you keep making up words I have not used. Please re-read my messages and find where I have said "all people" to refer to people burning DVDs. I have never made such a statement since such an absolute could never exist. If you are going to attack what I say, please do me the courtesy of attacking what I have ACTUALLY said and not what you 'think' I said.

tygrus2000 wrote:

I've had contents of my vehicle stolen twice now and everytime I have recouped nearly all of my damages. They stole the in dash stereo and all the cds which I didnt have backed up.

I agree and I had a similar experience. In my case it was cassettes (since it was a long time ago, before CDs) and I had 120 tapes stolen from my car when my car was stolen. We settled that part of my claim for $1500, and I was able to repurchase almost every tape I had lost. Since I had made a list of my tapes BEFORE they were stolen, I simply handed that in.

IvIark wrote:

I assume you own the copyright on the "thousands of MP3s" that you have on your hard drive. Or is it morally acceptable to backup intellectual property on your hard drive providing it's only music and not movies? Surely you should be putting the original discs in when you want to listen to a certain track and accept that damage can happen to the original media?

It's a thousand (no 's') but I do not own the copyrights for them. I don't need to own the copyright to copy them for personal use since in Canada we have a law that specifically allows me to do so. Here is a relevant explanation from the Copyright Board of Canada.

What is "Private Copying"?

On March 19, 1998, Part VIII of the Copyright Act dealing with private copying came into force. Until that time, copying any sound recording for almost any purpose infringed copyright, although, in practice, the prohibition was largely unenforceable. The amendment to the Act legalized copying of sound recordings of musical works onto audio recording media for the private use of the person who makes the copy (referred to as "private copying"). In addition, the amendment made provision for the imposition of a levy on blank audio recording media to compensate authors, performers and makers who own copyright in eligible sound recordings being copied for private use. The Copyright Board's decision issued today sets a levy for this purpose.

So I am well within my rights to make copies for my own personal use and I own all the CDs that I extracted audio from. The same act will soon be amended to include DVDs, and when it does I will be within my rights to do the same with DVDs. However I don't do so now since the law is not clear on the matter.

SatStorm wrote:

CDs, DVDs, VHS tapes and music Cassettes as a media, have a far limited life time. So, I do anything to keep what those discs/tapes includes for a life time!

I partially disagree. I do agree that VHS and cassettes have a liimited life span, but for CDs and DVDs it has been estimated that properly cared for CDs and DVDs will outlast the owner. Projections indicate DVDs manufacturered today may still be readable in 300 years. CDs are pretty well the same ball park, over 100 years based on the last report I heard.

So the only way the disc would be damaged would be by the user. The CD or DVD will not 'wear out' at all. I have many CDs that I own that are over 20 years old and they still play as good as the day I bought them.

The problem is exactly this: We back up digital media 'cause they fade real quick. Even the idea that I gonna loose something I tried hard to own, scares me. This is the real reason of the back up need.

Actually it's the BACK UP that fades, not the original. The DVD media you burn has been shown to degrade over time, and this is another reason that some people ask why people back up their DVDs. The copy will only last 1-3 years (based on the current level of quality we see from blank media manufacturers) so you end up needing to 'refresh' your backups yearly if you want to be SURE that you still have a good backup. Over time that's a lot of money to spend.

And I wish I knew better english, to express my thought and points in a more advance way, so to be more understandable. Unfortunatelly, I can't do it better. This language limitations on the international forums is so iritating sometimes...

I wouldn't worry about that. I still fully respect you even if English is not the language you speak every day. So long as I get a basic understanding of what you are saying, that's all that matters.

Nitemare wrote:

"We the people" have cried out in one voice "bullshit! (angry mobs... not the most eloquent of speakers) It will NOT be like this" but this voice has been ignored ... and so we ignore the law. We could change the law, by electing NEW lawmakers and having the DMCA repealed, but the new lawmakers would be bought before they even took the oath of their office, and so we continue to break laws that "we the people" never made because they have no ethical basis or foundation in principal.

The problem is that you can't pick and choose the laws you want to follow, or you end up with the potential for anarchy.

Look at the sniper trial for example. There is a person who may have deliberately said to themselves "I don't care that there is a law against murder on the books, I'm going to break the law anyway." As a result, PEOPLE DIED.

Now before people start claiming that there is a difference between murder and piracy, spare me please. This isn't about murder or piracy, it's about LAW and ORDER. Whether or not a person 'likes' a law is not grounds to disregard that law.

Let's use speeding for example. People may not like laws against excessive speed. So they will ignore the law just like the ignore copyright law. Then people get into accidents and others are killed.

Disregarding law is a VERY slippery slope which goes is a bad direction. In almost EVERY case when a person breaks a law, they are violating the rights of someone else in some way.

Sorry, I just don't think that's right.

Regards,

Savant

[RabidDog]

somebody ? mentioned that I havent really purchased the DVd merely the viewing rights to a particlular film?? Actually I purchased those vewing rights when I bought the VHS. How do I go about enforcing my viewing rights when my dvd gets damaged? zoneing isnt to protect local industry merely to protect hollywood profits. Claiming for dvd's on home insurance is both impractical and financially not worth it due to excess. Most music downloads are pirated?? non-copyright music, paid for donwloads, web-radio a large chunk there?

[IvIark]

Savant wrote:

It's a thousand (no 's') but I do not own the copyrights for them. I don't need to own the copyright to copy them for personal use since in Canada we have a law that specifically allows me to do so.

Oh so it's a legal issue then? The reason I ask is because previously you've said it was the principle of the thing. Do your principles of intellectual copyright become null and void if it's not illegal? It's fine for the rights of musical copyright owners to be less protected than those of movie copyright owners? In most countries it's not illegal to marry your cousin, but that doesn't mean I'd consider doing it.

I'm struggling to differentiate between the moral and legal ethics of you making MP3s for your own convenience without the copyright owners consent, and me making a copy of Barney's Christmas Star so my two year old doesn't spread jam on the original. Surely that simply emphasises how much the law lacks common sense, which is precisely why that vast majority of people are opposed to it and will continue to ignore it.

If that makes me a pirate, then oo aar Jim lad.

Mark

[bugster]

Now before people start claiming that there is a difference between murder and piracy, spare me please. This isn't about murder or piracy, it's about LAW and ORDER. Whether or not a person 'likes' a law is not grounds to disregard that law.

If the MAJORITY (nad you seem to like that word) dislike a law enough to feel it can or should be ignored, then the law is innefective and should be repealed. After all that is what the electorate wants, its just the politcians are too afraid of losing big industry finances to listen to the people in the 1st place!

And

Disregarding law is a VERY slippery slope which goes is a bad direction. In almost EVERY case when a person breaks a law, they are violating the rights of someone else in some way.

So, using the same example as you, i.e speeding. When I go 35mph in a 30mph zone, and end my journey without incident. whose rights am I violating.
Also, bringing this back (almost) on topic, and I am not saying I do this, just a what if. What if I 'copy' a DVD that I have purchased and then give that copy to a friend. A friend who would not have bought that DVD anyway, whose rights am I violating there? No sales have been lost, so no money due to the artists, producers, or big business backers is lost. Who knows, the argument often used to defend Music sharing on Kazaa and the like could be used here. By seeing this DVD I gave to my friend he/she has now been introduced to the works of the artist/producer/studio/genre in question and will now purchase other works that would previously been passed by. So there is even a possible benefit to the movie industry from such casual copying.

[andydd]

Lets be honest. I havnt 'backed up' a single original DVD I own. Whats the point ?... BUT I have copied 100s of DVDs I cant be arsed to pay £15 for. Am I bad.

Also the original posted quoted that the copies have inferior AC3 2.0 sound..NO THEY DONT..mine all keep the original DTS/AC3 5.1 soundtracks !

[SatStorm]

Sorry, but the explanation you giving for the life of the media, is simply theory....

I back up the original which I used it only once (during back up). I use the back up untill it broke down. I don't care for the back up's faith, nor I use it wiselly and proper. Accidently I use it for a coffee coaster, or my girlfriend use it for mirror (yes, those mamals use any surface for mirrors!). My kid use it for friesby... And so on.
So, a year or later, the back up is broken. What I do? I use again the original for a second time, again for a back up. And so on...
That way I feel (this is the point, how I FEEL) that my original is safe whatever stupid I do with the back up.

In the ideal world, nothing broke down, disasters of any kind doesn't happen and people are serius all day all night.
In the real world, disaster happens all the time, the weather is still unpredictable and people use drags, alcohol or simply turn nuts and kick anything around them.
My point? Care is something upredictable, Chaos is reality. And when I have to deal with property, I wish to play it safe. Back up covers this need so I do it.

You can doubt anything except a fact: Most people don't feel safe about their original CDs, DVDs, and tapes. I don't care what they say, I feel that if I use my original too often, soon or later gonna broke down. I don't fee secure using the original! And as you know, the need of security is almost equal the need of Freedom. This is what make us humans.
And because we are humans, we do silly things and mistakes. We are not perfect. We are not computers.
We can't change that, it is our nature. This "non perfection" is what evolve us to better homo sapiens every generation or so (well, almost... after the appearance of AIDS, this world turn backwards unfortunatelly, but this is another topic...).
But we can prevent things our "non perfect" nature sometimes makes us do. For examle, if I don't wash my hands after I paint a wall well, and then I through a CD on the player, the paint may be in my hands and defact the CD metal surface so my CD may damage, and turn it unplayable. This means accident. With back ups, I have fast replacements for my accidents.
I can't prevent being stupid, but I can be prepared for this stupid moment, by using the back up of my CD.
And now which I remember, I always backed up my LP vinys on Tapes, and use those Tapes to hear the music from the LPs on the beach, on the car, with my walkman on the road, etc.
This action is more than natural.
And since I purchased the rights when I bought a product (LP, DVD, LD, VHS, whatever), I have the right to store it to any media for my use fitting my needs.

Sorry, but you can't prove me wrong or unethical with my actions!