Forbes Magazine says Madagascar WAS a true RIPGuard disc

[DereX888]

From a few of his remarks in diff. threads, or lack thereof, he obviously is really ignorant or just always trying to stir 8)

I've noticed that too, and I'm hoping our Mods don't have a blind eye for this mpaa-running-dog-slash-troll...


PS
nice animated cake pic, Noahtuck

[gll99]

I'm very happy that this ripguard has been fairly easily circumvented so that in future when I purchase discs with these deliberate disc errors I may still continue to enjoy my legal backups and protect the suspiciously extremely fragile originals.

Many thanks to the authors of the ripping programs and to those who have taken time to post solutions on this site.

[thecoalman]

2. For post 2000 the majority are sequels not originals.

7 out of 15 are sequels. 8 out of 15 are not. 7 is not a majority..

Yes true, I miscounted but the point is that prior to 2000 excluding the Star Wars and Indiania Jones films there are no sequels in the list. Post 2000 has nearly 50% Sequels in the top 100. If we cut the list off at 50 only one original appears and 3 sequels.

At best that would depend on how you define "adult film". You are correct that there are no porn titles on the list.

You know what I meant, whether your type of film is "The Godfather", "On Golden Pond", or "Forest Gump" those types of films are not produced anymore. The movie Industry pumps their money into a few select films that as I said are primarily aimed and kids/teens like Shrek.

At this point I've forgotten what point you were trying to defend, but your argument trying to support it is "all flash no substance".

The point I'm trying to defend is there is nothing produced of an adult nature anymore that's worth watching. The all flash no substance statement is because ALL of those films listed rely heavily on special affects...... where's the substance though. Would Shrek be in the list if it had to be acted out by actors with no special affects? I think not.

[vitualis]

ROF, actually learn something about legal argument rather than rather stupidly quoting rhetoric from the entertainment industry.

You can breach copyright for any number of reasons legally, i.e., the fair use provisions. For example, say I want to get a clip from a movie for educational purposes (e.g., as part of a presentation in a lecture) from a DVD would obligate that I "rip" it. Yes, it is a breach of copyright, but it is a legal exception to the law.

The possible illegal part of it, hypothetically is circumventing CSS encryption due to the DMCA. However, that also, is far from clear. It has never been tested in court. Furthermore, the DMCA states that it does not override existing copyright laws, specifically, Fair Use provisions.

Ultimately, there is nothing unethical about copying or backing up a DVD that you own for personal use. Similarly, it is hard to argue that it is unethical to format shift a DVD that you own into XviD or DivX so that you can enjoy or movie on a PDA or a PMC (portable media centre). It is ludicrous to claim that these actions result in loss profits for the entertainment industry. It is unreasonable for the entertainment industry to expect that it can control public consumption of media in such a restrictive fashion.

The argument of illegality is itself highly questionable as I have mentioned before. The act of "ripping" a CD is qualitatively no different to "ripping" a DVD. Copying CD tracks digitally for the purposes of creating a backup or a compilation of for format shifting for use in a digital audio player is now considered a "norm". All industry arguments against "ripping" a DVD can equally be applied to CDs though the societal "norm" now is that ripping CDs is definitely no longer considered illegal. It is a default feature in Windows, not to mention the ever popular Apple iTunes.

The only possible contention then for DVDs is CSS and the DMCA. As I stated before, it is actually not clear whether breaking CSS (for fair use purposes) would actually be illegal as the DMCA itself is somewhat internally inconsistent. I can guarantee that the movie industry will never have this tested in court, in case they lose (which they probably will). It is much better for them to call it illegal in the climate of ambiguity and try to convince hapless fools that it is so (e.g., I bet that Sony regrets now that they actually tried testing "modchips" in court in Australia since their loss now takes the modchip industry out of the shadows and legitimises it).

Regards.

[GullyFoyle]

EDIT:
many Asian-released illegal DVDs are released better than the original DVDs back here in America. One of the best examples is i.e. "Kill Bill vol2", which not only had unaltered version of the film, but it had real 'star treatment' from those pirates who released it, including 4-page booklet, flaps on an additional hard-cover for the disc, better graphics print on the disc and so on. Kudos this poor original american release to its illegal asian copy LOL!
Forget those "cam things". Real piracy is not there lol. They are legitimate businesses in China and all over south-east Asia.

Are you sure it was a pirate copy and not the Japanese version? The Japanese had a couple of different versions with nice extras like that. One had a jacket I think. Of course they were pricey.
Check out Yesasia for Asian releases that go well beyond the US versions.

[ROF]

You can breach copyright for any number of reasons legally, i.e., the fair use provisions. For example, say I want to get a clip from a movie for educational purposes (e.g., as part of a presentation in a lecture) from a DVD would obligate that I "rip" it. Yes, it is a breach of copyright, but it is a legal exception to the law.

I know enough that fair use can never be a breach of copyright. I also know that ripping a copy protected disc even under the pretense of fair use such as getting a clip is not fair use but a violation of law by circumventing copyright. This would be similiar to saying murder is OK because the person murdered verbally assault the murderer. The end does not justify the means and in court the murderer would be convicted. Why do I bring murder into a relationship with copyright? Because both cause pains to people far beyond the victim. Both are illegal. Both can require jail terms to be served. Both can be marginalized by soceity. Both usually start out small and explode into something huge which effects more than those involved. There is nothing legal or fair use about ripping a copy protected piece of media in the United States. It's illegal and can not be protected by fair use.

[RottenFoxBreath]

hes talking about kill bill vol2.,not kill bill vol1-which is the one of which you speak.
i own the jap vol1,and the fights are in full color,and its a good bit longer than the us version,which in turn is about 6 minutes longer than the uk version(damn those stupid censors).
but there was a uncut version of vol2,which i believe was a better version too,but never got my hands on it.

[rkr1958]

I know enough that fair use can never be a breach of copyright. I also know that ripping a copy protected disc even under the pretense of fair use such as getting a clip is not fair use but a violation of law by circumventing copyright. This would be similiar to saying murder is OK because the person murdered verbally assault the murderer. The end does not justify the means and in court the murderer would be convicted. Why do I bring murder into a relationship with copyright? Because both cause pains to people far beyond the victim. Both are illegal. Both can require jail terms to be served. Both can be marginalized by soceity. Both usually start out small and explode into something huge which effects more than those involved. There is nothing legal or fair use about ripping a copy protected piece of media in the United States. It's illegal and can not be protected by fair use.

Man, your "murder" example is a VERY POOR analogy to backing up DVDs. It's just silly how you're trying to relate the two. They don't relate. Also, you need to get real to be credible on this board. The "pain", if any, cause by backing up a DVD you own can not be compared to the real and great pain cause by murder.

[thecoalman]

I also know that ripping a copy protected disc even under the pretense of fair use such as getting a clip is not fair use but a violation of law by circumventing copyright....... There is nothing legal or fair use about ripping a copy protected piece of media in the United States. It's illegal and can not be protected by fair use.

Here read this:

One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the copyright act (title 17, U.S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of “fair use.” Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.

Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship , and research.

If that's incorrect I suggest contacting the US copyright office since the information quoted above came directly from here:

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

[vitualis]

I know enough that fair use can never be a breach of copyright.

Wrong. It is still a breach of copyright. It is use an "acceptable" breach.

fair use such as getting a clip is not fair use but a violation of law by circumventing copyright. This would be similiar to saying murder is OK because the person murdered verbally assault the murderer. The end does not justify the means and in court the murderer would be convicted.

Get your analogies sorted out. Murder is always illegal by definition. Killing someone may not be illegal... for example, if in self-defence.

Why do I bring murder into a relationship with copyright? Because both cause pains to people far beyond the victim.

Okay...

So exactly what pains do I cause when I take a CD I bought, rip it and pop the tracks on my iPOD???

There is nothing legal or fair use about ripping a copy protected piece of media in the United States. It's illegal and can not be protected by fair use.

As above. Learn what the Fair Use provisions are.

Example: I'm a lecturer at university. As part of my lecture, I photocopy an article from a newspaper for discussion. Is it a breach of copyright? Yes. Is it protected by "Fair Use" provisions? Yes. Is it illegal? No.

I'm a lecturer at university. As part of my lecture, I include a clip from a recent Hollywood movie in my PowerPoint presentation. Is is a breach of copyright? Yes. Is it protected by "Fair Use" provisions? Yes. Is it illegal? No... though the DMCA is unclear of "Fair Use" vs. unlicensed CSS decryption.

Regards.

[ROF]

Okay...

So exactly what pains do I cause when I take a CD I bought, rip it and pop the tracks on my iPOD???

You are taking away from the profit generated by the sale of of compressed audio files by illegal media shifting. This is not protected under fair use since it's not backing up the media but instead media shifting it. It may not seem fair, but it's still illegal.

Example: I'm a lecturer at university. As part of my lecture, I photocopy an article from a newspaper for discussion. Is it a breach of copyright? Yes. Is it protected by "Fair Use" provisions? Yes. Is it illegal? No.

I'm a lecturer at university. As part of my lecture, I include a clip from a recent Hollywood movie in my PowerPoint presentation. Is is a breach of copyright? Yes. Is it protected by "Fair Use" provisions? Yes. Is it illegal? No... though the DMCA is unclear of "Fair Use" vs. unlicensed CSS decryption.

In the first example you are not breaching copyright. You are fairly using an intellectual property piece as part of a lecture or discussion about such material. You did not violate any laws to acquire the clip. You also did not violate the law in the use of you clip. Therefore, you have not circumvented or breached the copyright of the said article.

In your second example you are breaching copyright and as such you are not protected under fair use. In order to be protected under fair use you can not circumvent copyright.

[GullyFoyle]

hes talking about kill bill vol2.,not kill bill vol1-which is the one of which you speak.
i own the jap vol1,and the fights are in full color,and its a good bit longer than the us version,which in turn is about 6 minutes longer than the uk version(damn those stupid censors).
but there was a uncut version of vol2,which i believe was a better version too,but never got my hands on it.

http://us.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/pid-1003692671/code-j/section-videos/
http://us.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/pid-1003628525/code-w/section-videos/
http://us.yesasia.com/en/PrdDept.aspx/pid-1003968956/code-j/section-videos/

Again you should check out the various Japanese versions.
Some of the limited offer ones look to be gone from Yesasia.
All of the above are KB2.

[GullyFoyle]

At least ROF earns his pay. Nice work ethic he has going.
Where is Adam to further muddy the legal waters?

[thecoalman]

Where is Adam to further muddy the legal waters?

If anything he clears the mud such as some of the opinions i've seen you try to pawn off as fact. You seem to want to kill the messenger because of the message, even if you do it still doesn't change the message.

[DereX888]

RottenFoxBreath, GullyFoyle
KBv2 and KBv1 pirate versions bought in Hong Kong have both similar beautiful release, with extra hardcover for the case, with flaps etc. And yes, as one of you have pointed out, i wasnt talking about vol.1 with that ugly B&W scene - I have never bought this horribly altered and censored version here, and I never will. Such censorship, such lack of respect for the artists and the audience, it actually should deserve as much piracy as it is possible, perhaps this would teach something all those morons at the studios
I think both are copies of Japanese release version, but I can't be sure since I dont have original Japanese versions to compare. But if you compare vol2 original US version with this Asian pirated copy and dont know which one is 'original' which is a 'pirate', you'd certainly say that the original is a cheap fake

And no, none of the movies I bought there could be original Japanese nor any release either, not at their shameless price of about $1.80 USD each AFAIR
And I had no shame buying them either. At that time it was cheaper than making my own backup DVD-Rs copies of the originals released here.
Hows that for a backup? heh
I had store receipts for all of them (just in case they'd want to impose any import duties on me). Customs didn't question their legality either. So, doesn't it make them 'lega pirated copies'? Or I might be wrong, maybe they are original lol

EDIT: actually, now i remember, both KB movies and few other were slightly more than the rest of the movies, about $2.50 or $3 each.

[DereX888]

At least ROF earns his pay. Nice work ethic he has going.
Where is Adam to further muddy the legal waters?

Oh you fools, this is Adam in his alter ego!
Can't you recognize him?

[adam]

Vitualis I have to take issue with some of what you have posted. (I've given up on correcting ROF.) There is a fundamental difference between ripping a CD and ripping a DVD in the United States, and the difference is that one was given specific exemption under our copyright law (17 USCS 1008) and the other one was expressly denied such exemption. Even though the act of backing up your media is intrinsically the same for both of these forms of content, our government and most other governments in this world (that have copyright laws) simply grant far greater protection to audio/visual works versus purely musical recordings. That's all it boils down to. By statute you can copy musical recordings for personal use in the US, and in exchange for this right the manufacturers of the recording hardware and media must pay royalties to subsidize the industry. There is simply no such exception for DVDs and audio/visual works in the US and the hardware and media used for such copying is not subject to any such royalties. This is actually not a grey area at all and the 321 Studios cases also tested this area of copyright law and the DMCA's effect on it, pretty well. Even assuming the DMCA does not exist, backing up a DVD for personal use/backup is a violation of 17 USCS 106(1).

I'm not going to get into whether backing up your DVDs hurts the industry one bit, because monetary gain or loss is never a prerequisite to enforcement of a copyright. The simple fact is that backing up DVDs is a copyright violation in most countries including the US. I personally find the argument that, Fair Use could allow archival copying, to be silly but I know this is a very widespread belief and I've even subscribed to it in the past. But after looking at so many cases on the matter and construing the Committe Reports behinds its codification, the notion just makes no sense at least in the US. If Fair Use shielded archival copying generally then we would not have passed 1008 allowing musical recording copying for personal use or 117 allowing the archiving of computer programs, or 108 allowing libraries to make archives. In the Committe Notes to 107 (US's codification of Fair Use) the Congressmen even state that the Library of Congress and the American Film Institute are limited in what they are allowed to archive, being limited to the archiving of works actually in danger of being permanantly lost. When the Madagascar movie was first published (like how I tied this back into the original topic? ) a copy had to be deposited with the Library of Congress. Right now, the Library of Congress is not granted a Fair Use exemption if they archive their copy of this movie, but Joe Consumer is for no other reason than to protect his ~$15 purchase? This is just not at all how Fair Use is supposed to be used.

Anyway back to the original thread topic. The legalities of manufacturers using copy protections are largely outlined in the cases involving CDs, which as noted before is a type of media that the consumer expressly has a right to copy for personal use. Manufacturers are entitled to use copy protection to attempt to prevent clearly unlawful copying, (mass duplication for sale) nothwithstanding the fact that it frustrates lawful copying under specific statutes such as 1008 and general statutes like 107 (Fair Use.) So far the only limit that has been placed on this has come via the Deceptive Trade Practices Act when the copy protection renders the disc unplayable on a device advertised to support it. Then its basically their advertisement that is unlawful, not the protection per se...but same effect, they can't do it.

[GullyFoyle]

Where is Adam to further muddy the legal waters?

If anything he clears the mud such as some of the opinions i've seen you try to pawn off as fact. You seem to want to kill the messenger because of the message, even if you do it still doesn't change the message.

Yes clear the waters with pro-corporate interpretations. I have yet to see any of his posts that are pro-end user.
Question is why are you so touchy about him?
"Kill the messenger" is a tad extreme isn't it?
The only "killing" I have seen was self imposed over his hissy with Lord Smurf.
And you are correct it doesn't stop the message that some people will always present the case against their own best interests and the best interest of their peers. That is the I-got-mine-you-can't-get-yours mentallity.

[GullyFoyle]

And no, none of the movies I bought there could be original Japanese nor any release either, not at their shameless price of about $1.80 USD each AFAIR
And I had no shame buying them either. At that time it was cheaper than making my own backup DVD-Rs copies of the originals released here.
Hows that for a backup? heh
I had store receipts for all of them (just in case they'd want to impose any import duties on me). Customs didn't question their legality either. So, doesn't it make them 'lega pirated copies'? Or I might be wrong, maybe they are original lol

EDIT: actually, now i remember, both KB movies and few other were slightly more than the rest of the movies, about $2.50 or $3 each.

I think I misunderstood. I thought you meant that the pirates created all the nifty extras from scratch. My position was that it was the ( a variation) of the Japanese version.
Meaning Pirated from ( or possibly bought at very excellent discount fell off the truck idea) from the Japanese version.
But both KB 1&2 had a number of special Japanese releases/promotions during the initial pre-order phase.

[ROF]

Anyway back to the original thread topic. The legalities of manufacturers using copy protections are largely outlined in the cases involving CDs, which as noted before is a type of media that the consumer expressly has a right to copy for personal use. Manufacturers are entitled to use copy protection to attempt to prevent clearly unlawful copying, (mass duplication for sale) nothwithstanding the fact that it frustrates lawful copying under specific statutes such as 1008 and general statutes like 107 (Fair Use.) So far the only limit that has been placed on this has come via the Deceptive Trade Practices Act when the copy protection renders the disc unplayable on a device advertised to support it. Then its basically their advertisement that is unlawful, not the protection per se...but same effect, they can't do it.

Are the CD-ROM/DVD-ROM/DVD-RAM/CD-RW/DVD-RW hardware device(s) considered devices that are advertised as and required to support the playback of audio/video discs or are they technically for use with computer based software?

[adam]

Let me rephrase, the CDs themselves cannot be advertised to be supported by devices/software if the copy protection effectively frustrates this ability. Its not the drive so much as the pc as an entire playback device. I guess if you have to narrow it down to one thing its software designed to play CDs. In any case, CD manufacturers are not required to make CDs playable on computers but if this is the case than they must disclose this fact.

[ROF]

Similiar to how Sony informed their customers that playback software would be installed when they inserted their latest CD Protection scheme? I understand the whole fiasco about the rootkit install, so if I understand this, if Sony or another company were to put in their fine print that the Audio CD is not to be played on computer CD-ROM/DVD-ROM/DVD-RW/or CD-RW drives and someone were to attempt to do so, any problems experienced would solely be the end users failure to follow directions, correct?

That would solve alot of copy protection issues. Sony and others could just explain in the liner notes that the DVD/CD is not for computer use. They could continue with the rootkit installation and poll info, using the rootkit, based on the most popular ripping software to see what is installed and phone home letting Sony know that such and such software is installed at such and such IP address. Most of this software maintains a log of which discs have been ripped or shrunk so Sony and others could know who is the real violators and who is just doing a casual backup every so often. As long as they tell you ahead of time there would be nothing illegal about this?

[rkr1958]

Similiar to how Sony informed their customers that playback software would be installed when they inserted their latest CD Protection scheme? I understand the whole fiasco about the rootkit install, so if I understand this, if Sony or another company were to put in their fine print that the Audio CD is not to be played on computer CD-ROM/DVD-ROM/DVD-RW/or CD-RW drives and someone were to attempt to do so, any problems experienced would solely be the end users failure to follow directions, correct?

That would solve alot of copy protection issues. Sony and others could just explain in the liner notes that the DVD/CD is not for computer use. They could continue with the rootkit installation and poll info, using the rootkit, based on the most popular ripping software to see what is installed and phone home letting Sony know that such and such software is installed at such and such IP address. Most of this software maintains a log of which discs have been ripped or shrunk so Sony and others could know who is the real violators and who is just doing a casual backup every so often. As long as they tell you ahead of time there would be nothing illegal about this?

And 2 + 2 = 5 if Sony so deems it.

[adam]

States have varying laws regarding computer/internet privacy and specifically spyware. Just giving notice might not be sufficient. I'm not familiar enough with rootkits and the underlying technology to really comment, but it is my understanding that it is pretty damn pervasive and so at least some states may forbid the practice of using them for copy protection entirely. I don't know, we'll maybe find out in some of these suits against Sony. Of course it doesn't help them that they didn't even give any notice of the extent of the protection they used.

[gll99]

The early negative publicity about Ripguard on the various boards may have cost them my purchase. From what I read I'm sure it afffected others also. I was originally going to buy 2 copies as Christmas gifts for my grandchildren but the way they handle discs their parents have to back them up or they won't last a day. With the passing of time due to the debate I have started looking at other titles instead.

[BobK]

Similiar to how Sony informed their customers that playback software would be installed when they inserted their latest CD Protection scheme? I understand the whole fiasco about the rootkit install, so if I understand this, if Sony or another company were to put in their fine print that the Audio CD is not to be played on computer CD-ROM/DVD-ROM/DVD-RW/or CD-RW drives and someone were to attempt to do so, any problems experienced would solely be the end users failure to follow directions, correct?

Or, to use the type of analogy you're so fond of, if Ford or another car company were to put in their fine print that the car is not to be driven any faster than 55 mph and someone were to attempt to drive at 58 mph, then death caused by the brakes failing when they tried to stop would be solely the drivers failure to follow directions, correct?

[ROF]

They did say it was a new protection scheme and they did say new software must be installed in order to use those audio CDs so it's going to be interesting to say the least.

[ROF]

The early negative publicity about Ripguard on the various boards may have cost them my purchase. From what I read I'm sure it afffected others also. I was originally going to buy 2 copies as Christmas gifts for my grandchildren but the way they handle discs their parents have to back them up or they won't last a day. With the passing of time due to the debate I have started looking at other titles instead.

With two kids in my house I've come to the conclusion that's it's not the kids fault when discs are destroyed. It's a lack of parental control and explaining to their children that if they break their toys they aren't getting another one. I guess the easiest solution for some is to allow their kids to rule the house and do as they please. Ask my son where his copy of Bob the Builder CD is and he'll point to the trash can with a sad look. He's been without it for almost the entire year. Boy is he going to be surprised when he unwraps a new one this christmas. I'll bet he learned his lesson too because discs we bought for his birthday at mid year are always put into their cases now, just like daddy does with his.

[mbellot]

Yes clear the waters with pro-corporate interpretations. I have yet to see any of his posts that are pro-end user.

Not that I'm one to defend Adam or anything...

The fact is that most laws of this type that have recently (last 30 - 50 years) been put in place favor corporations over the individual. The Sonny Bono copyright extension law did more damage to the individual in favor of corporate america than just about any other law passed in the last 20 years.

I think for all our sanity sake we should take some good advice from adam...

I've given up on correcting ROF.

[ROF]

The fact is that most laws of this type that have recently (last 30 - 50 years) been put in place favor corporations over the individual. The Sonny Bono copyright extension law did more damage to the individual in favor of corporate america than just about any other law passed in the last 20 years.

How long has mass produced video been available to the consumer? That right there should tell why recent copyright extensions need to be changed or amended to extend them. There's a big difference between the video of the 1930's and the video of today. For one, just about every home has a video display device. Some have several. quite a few have transmission lines that allow two way communications with large chunks of data being able to transmitted from one place to another at a high rate of speed. This isn't point to point either. You can have several people communicating the same data. This requires that certain safeguards are put into place in order for protection. Since society as a whole will not self regulate it's behavior in the face of these newer technologies, stronger laws and measures to continually protect the valuable commodity of intellectual property must be mandated.