Encrypting a DVD so that others cannot copy

[triphop]

Dunno. You make a bunch of lawyers richer. It really could come down to - "I said, you said..." Also if either party could provide that the other party has history of violating contracts, etc, etc. In other words: A mess.

In the case that there is verbal contract and there is a dispute, then the case will need to be tried in a court of law.

And what has happenned in such cases?

Tommy Knocker: Whatever, dude. Go and report yourself. I ain't interested.

[Tommyknocker]

Trust me, I would not ne reporting me.

[rhegedus]

Dunno. You make a bunch of lawyers richer. It really could come down to - "I said, you said..." Also if either party could provide that the other party has history of violating contracts, etc, etc. In other words: A mess.

Right, so if it a mess and the case cannot be proven, then why would the law be on the side of the videographer in the case of an unwritten contract?

p.s. I'm not picking on you here, I'm just curious - I considered law as a career but was turned away by too many grey areas and not enough black and white.

[DTSL06]

Now I wish I hadnt bumped my origianl post.

When I use to do photo shoots (weddings, adds etc), unless otherwise stated in a written contract. I own the copyright to all materials. The client pays for an end product (unless otherwise stated). The client does not own any rights to the methods, processes or intermediate materials (that includes the neg's) that was used to produce the end product. A good portion of a wedding photographer's income comes from reprints. I dont want to get into arguing the ethics of this being good or bad but its just a fact.

Copy protection is just a waste of time since they cant protect nothing. Just make good quality work and charge a fair price so to make it not worth while to pirate then you have no prob's.

Now If only the movie industry would make the DVD's much cheaper then ppl will not pirate them. If you can buy an original new DVD for <$10, would u waste the time to copy/pirate it. I buy use/previous viewed DVD from the rental chains when they drop down to <$15 (CDN) since my time and material will cost me more to copy them.

[triphop]

I am certainly not a lawyer either, but heres my reasoning:

1. The videographer is an independant contractor
2. Copyright is automatically assigned to contractor unless specifically assigned to contractee.
3. The onus is on the contractee to demonstrate why the copyright needs to be transferred to the contractee upon mediation.

Lets just say that if you contract me to do your wedding and you ask that I transfer the copyright, then you will need to have a written contract to verify this in the case of contestation. So you have more to lose (you paid for something that you didnt get) and therefore you should be the one demanding the contractual protection. So if no protection can be provided, then it would probably means that in the case of a disputed contract that no such provision existed. IOW you're just pulling this out your *ss.

But again IANAL.

Dunno. You make a bunch of lawyers richer. It really could come down to - "I said, you said..." Also if either party could provide that the other party has history of violating contracts, etc, etc. In other words: A mess.

Right, so if it a mess and the case cannot be proven, then why would the law be on the side of the videographer in the case of an unwritten contract?

p.s. I'm not picking on you here, I'm just curious - I considered law as a career but was turned away by too many grey areas and not enough black and white.

[Tommyknocker]

DTSL06:

Could someone please tell MPAA this? They just don't seem to get the message.

[jimmalenko]

I guess this thread means that there are gonna be a lot of wedding videographers and photographers go out of business because their heads are so far up their ass......

[triphop]

Well, heres how I look at it...

I can buy a DVD for $16 and CD for $15. There is obviosly some issue here - how come a DVD is comparatively cheaper than a CD? I do think that copyright is being applied more and more strictly. The broadcast flag on digital content will further restrict the ability to make personal copies. Heres kinda where I come down on the issue:

You copy a DVD or CD or Software and then sell it - this is clearly wrong. However, personal low level piracy is arguably GOOD for content - its a classic instance of try-and-buy. I think that copyright holders need to make this basic distinction.

But until this is made, then the law is clear - the copyright holder gets to say who can reproduce their content.

...
Now If only the movie industry would make the DVD's much cheaper then ppl will not pirate them. If you can buy an original new DVD for <$10, would u waste the time to copy/pirate it. I buy use/previous viewed DVD from the rental chains when they drop down to <$15 (CDN) since my time and material will cost me more to copy them.

[triphop]

Damn - You think I should cancel my wedding gigs in the new year because the world is gonna fall on my head? Not. Nothing has changed.

I guess this thread means that there are gonna be a lot of wedding videographers and photographers go out of business because their heads are so far up their ass......

[jimmalenko]

You certainly won't get any gigs from the people here that are pro the wedding couples....or their friends...or their friends.

You know how important word of mouth is for business....

[triphop]

And why not? Because you dont like to be told what the copyright law says?

I would imagine that most here are more interested in getting a great deal (how does $400 should for 1 hour of produced footage, and 3 dvds sound). You shop around and you will see that most videographers will only start talking to you for $1500. Additionally most here will recognise that ripping off my hard work for $10 a copy is not worth it monetarily.

You certainly won't get any gigs from the people here that are pro the wedding couples....or their friends...or their friends.

You know how important word of mouth is for business....

[jimmalenko]

Laws may be laws but you don't have to agree with them....

Personally I would not deal with someone who acts immorally because the law backs them up.

[triphop]

Can you point out where I am acting immorally Mr Morality? I would classify myself as amoral.

[lordsmurf]

Can you point out where I am acting immorally Mr Morality? I would classify myself as amoral.

Thinking you own the images of somebody else's wedding qualifies.

[triphop]

Can you point out where I am acting immorally Mr Morality? I would classify myself as amoral.

Thinking you own the images of somebody else's wedding qualifies.

Dude you need to get some grip here - this is not a question of morality but of commonly established legal practice. Immoral behavior would be me deceiving my clients about the issues regarding their copyright.

Heres a question for you? What do you think about the open souce developers finding that their code now being sold by proprierary developers? Their is clear violation of the copyright on the code (The GNU Copyleft) So your logic would then extend to these developers so that they are immoral if they try and establish their rights?

[jimmalenko]

Can you point out where I am acting immorally Mr Morality? I would classify myself as amoral.

Immoral is when you profit handsomely from the most important days in someone's life and then want to control the possible future earnings of this day because you own it according to the law. My wedding day is all about me and my wife pal. All rights are held by me and it is a privilege if you get to be there.

[offline]

pelsass,

In Australia, the photo's you take are copyright reserved to you, not just because of "artists rights" and common law, but more so because it is
a standard inclusion in a wedding photo contract. The same applies
for video / DVD and audio. So to add extra protection
specifically state in the contract that DVD reproduction rights are
fully reserved by you and that unauthorized duplication is a breach
of contact. This should be ok for the US as well.

There is one way perhaps to physically protect your work from
90% of users.. PM me.

[orbital517]

Back to the original question and the original poster........just make copies using DVDXCOPY. When you do that, it automatically puts an encryption on there for you. I understand where you are coming from. By providing the service, time, and equipment used to make the video........you are entitled to charge any additional fees for copies. The USA is a service oriented country..........if he provides that service, he is also entitled to future revenue for his services in that wedding or whatever.

You guys should take it easy on the fella.

[bugster]

Back to the original question and the original poster........just make copies using DVDXCOPY. When you do that, it automatically puts an encryption on there for you.

Rubbish. it just adds a simple splash screen saying do not copy, and refuses to copy such DVD's itself. Any other DVD copying program will still copy it, it does not apply any encryption.

[triphop]

Look Mate - its quite simple - If you want to own the copyright to your fscking wedding you have to buy it. Its not automatically yours. If you disagree thats fine - go to another videographer and negotiate with them. What is immoral is you thinking that you have the automatic rights to simply copy that which you have no rights to. I guess if you can't can't attack the facts, attack the **morality** of the messenger.

And its not some damn god given right either. Its not like you have an automatic right to a wedding video - if you cant pay for one - get your mate to shoot it. But make sure that he signs the copyright to you because BY LAW dont get to own it even if the gear is yours.

And its not a privilege for a videographer to be at your wedding. Its a goddamn service you pay for just like when you hire the priest or the photographer.

Ker-rist - THIS AINT ROCKET SCIENCE.

Can you point out where I am acting immorally Mr Morality? I would classify myself as amoral.

Immoral is when you profit handsomely from the most important days in someone's life and then want to control the possible future earnings of this day because you own it according to the law. My wedding day is all about me and my wife pal. All rights are held by me and it is a privilege if you get to be there.

[/b]

[NYPlayer]

DVDXCOPY does not encrypt DVD's... All it does is put an archive.txt that prevents the DVD from being copied using DVDXCOPY. It does not prevent you from using other software to copy.

[duhmez]

However removing a companies logos from an existing work is clearly illegal and is something that you would get sued for. b]

Not true, even a little bit. As long as there was no DMCA violation(css etc) then the only person who could get sued was the guy who did the hiring.

And even if the original person did rmeopve the copyright logo, that is a fair use issue and is still allowed. (Removing the copyright notice is fine as long as unlawful distribution was not commited)

Same as ripping FBi warning off a DVD and removing credits etc.

[bugster]

And its not a privilege for a videographer to be at your wedding. Its a goddamn service you pay for just like when you hire the priest or the photographer.

Ker-rist - THIS AINT ROCKET SCIENCE.

I think thats what a lot of people are getting upset about. They have paid for a service, having their wediing videod. You are now telling them they have no rights to that very video! I would be upset too if I found myself in that situation.

[jimmalenko]

Look Mate - its quite simple - If you want to own the copyright to your fscking wedding you have to buy it. Its not automatically yours. If you disagree thats fine - go to another videographer and negotiate with them. What is immoral is you thinking that you have the automatic rights to simply copy that which you have no rights to. I guess if you can't can't attack the facts, attack the **morality** of the messenger.

And its not some damn god given right either. Its not like you have an automatic right to a wedding video - if you cant pay for one - get your mate to shoot it. But make sure that he signs the copyright to you because BY LAW dont get to own it even if the gear is yours.

And its not a privilege for a videographer to be at your wedding. Its a goddamn service you pay for just like when you hire the priest or the photographer.

You must have misunderstood me - I didn't say I wanted to own the copyright to my own wedding, I just don't want you owning it. If you wish to lay claim on it then you will not be paid to be at my wedding. Say bye bye money !

I agree that a service is provided for a cost initially. I don't agree with an ongoing inflated cost for further copies and luckily I have the knowledge to not have to worry about that.

Small business operators in general have to be very respectful of word of mouth because it can skyrocket or nosedive your career. You don't do yourself any favours hiding behind the law. You have to earn my money and I will look after you with PR.

[orbital517]

DVDXCOPY does not encrypt DVD's... All it does is put an archive.txt that prevents the DVD from being copied using DVDXCOPY. It does not prevent you from using other software to copy.

Oh, I didn't know that. Well.......I guess my advice can be tossed out the window then. hehehe Actually, I don't even think the original poster is replying or reading these posts anymore. It's just a bunch of forum members arguing with each other. CHEERS!!!

[triphop]

Bugster:

I am sorry if this is not something that you agree with but this is the way it is. There is no large recording company or large hollywood studio, just small companies trying to get by.

When a composer writes music for you wedding, you dont get the rights to that music. When a painter paints a picture, you dont get the right to duplicate that painting. The list goes on and on.

The primary reason for copyright is to protect artists from being ripped off. Is the wedding videographer an artist? I like to think so - I produce graphics and animations. I sometimes do some scoring. These are all creative works and go beyond a mere depiction of the wedding. I appy filters to the video to soften it when necessary. I fix levels when the video is overexposed, etc. These are an artistic addition that make the wedding videos memorable.

This is what you pay for when you get a wedding video. You dont just get a rambling video with wild pans and zooms. You get something you will want to watch again and again.

[triphop]

Bah. What are you talking about? Someone has to own the rights to copy the damn video. If its not the contractor then its the contractee. All I am telling you is that if you ever get a wedding video - apply your own standards of morality and tell them that you will be copying the wedding video irrespective of the terms of the contract.

Lets see if you have the guts to do that - them come here and talk about other peoples morality.

Look Mate - its quite simple - If you want to own the copyright to your fscking wedding you have to buy it. Its not automatically yours. If you disagree thats fine - go to another videographer and negotiate with them. What is immoral is you thinking that you have the automatic rights to simply copy that which you have no rights to. I guess if you can't can't attack the facts, attack the **morality** of the messenger.

And its not some damn god given right either. Its not like you have an automatic right to a wedding video - if you cant pay for one - get your mate to shoot it. But make sure that he signs the copyright to you because BY LAW dont get to own it even if the gear is yours.

And its not a privilege for a videographer to be at your wedding. Its a goddamn service you pay for just like when you hire the priest or the photographer.

You must have misunderstood me - I didn't say I wanted to own the copyright to my own wedding, I just don't want you owning it. If you wish to lay claim on it then you will not be paid to be at my wedding. Say bye bye money !

I agree that a service is provided for a cost initially. I don't agree with an ongoing inflated cost for further copies and luckily I have the knowledge to not have to worry about that.

Small business operators in general have to be very respectful of word of mouth because it can skyrocket or nosedive your career. You don't do yourself any favours hiding behind the law. You have to earn my money and I will look after you with PR.

[jimmalenko]

Bah. What are you talking about? Someone has to own the rights to copy the damn video. If its not the contractor then its the contractee. All I am telling you is that if you ever get a wedding video - apply your own standards of morality and tell them that you will be copying the wedding video irrespective of the terms of the contract.

Lets see if you have the guts to do that - them come here and talk about other peoples morality.

I hereby give notice to utilise triphop's videography services to capture the excitement, thrills and spills of my wedding (I am getting married again just to give him the pleasure). I will pay the minimum cost for all his hard work to produce only 1 copy.

I freely declare that I will duplicate this infinitely not for profit so if you wish to waste your own cash on legal fees, go ahead. Then try to prove I copied it.

[triphop]

Bonza!! Always wanted a 'Strine vacation!!

You might want to reconsider that offer mate - the travel costs will kill ya! But I am game if you are!

Bruce.

Bah. What are you talking about? Someone has to own the rights to copy the damn video. If its not the contractor then its the contractee. All I am telling you is that if you ever get a wedding video - apply your own standards of morality and tell them that you will be copying the wedding video irrespective of the terms of the contract.

Lets see if you have the guts to do that - them come here and talk about other peoples morality.

I hereby give notice to utilise triphop's videography services to capture the excitement, thrills and spills of my wedding (I am getting married again just to give him the pleasure). I will pay the minimum cost for all his hard work to produce only 1 copy.

I freely declare that I will duplicate this infinitely not for profit so if you wish to waste your own cash on legal fees, go ahead. Then try to prove I copied it.

[triphop]

Shoot - I'd give you the copyright and the wedding video free (subject to certain limitations ) for a trip to Aus!