Forbes Magazine says Madagascar WAS a true RIPGuard disc

[MozartMan]

ROF, why don't you just GTFOOH

[gadgetguy]

I have to admit, ROF finally said something I can agree with...

it's not the kids fault when discs are destroyed. It's a lack of parental control

I remember the amazement of my son's friend when at 4 years old he put a tape in the VCR to watch. I taught both my sons how to properly care for both the equipment and media when they were just toddlers and they've been able to use them ever since (now in their late twenties).

As for Adam's legal posts, I have never been able to figure out what HIS opinion is in regards to the laws he talks about. Only what the law actually says and means. It's not his fault if the laws favor corporate interests over the individuals.

[smearbrick1]

It seems to me, after all of this, the legal grey area is the circumventing of CSS with regard to backing up of DVDs. I believe the DMCA expresses pretty clearly that circumventing copy protection is not legal. Based on Adam's assertions, Fair Use isn't even an issue as far as the DMCA is concerned. My big question is... where is the DMCA if you did not circumvent copy protection to back up that hollywood DVD, but used an alternative analog source. Does fair use apply to backups taken without violating DMCA? Can DVD movies be considered personal computer media that is allowed to be copied for archival purposes? Does this fall under fair use?

To quote George Carlin:

"Would that then be a sin, Father?"

[ROF]

My big question is... where is the DMCA if you did not circumvent copy protection to back up that hollywood DVD, but used an alternative analog source.

I'd say the analog source will probably have at the very least macrovision if the digital version has two or more protection methods attached. could you provide an example where an analog source that isn't protected is available where a digital source has such protections?

[gll99]

@ROF
I agree with the training up to a point but the reality is that kids are just poorly coordinated and invariably they rub the bottom of the disc on the carriage or the case as they change the discs or drop them on the floor and it's almost comical to see them try to be gentle. It's like trying to creep into a room or trying to open or close the bedroom door late at night the harder you try the more noise you make.
I bought each set of grandkids the TV's and DVD players for their bedrooms as gifts the last 2 Christmas. My wife and I buy a lot of their classic DVD's so I have a vested interest in protecting the investment. After the first couple of accidents we learned that the only safe way is to backup the disc and let them use the copy.

I'm sure you would agree with those actions and even possibly recommend some tools for me to do that. You have done this yourself before have you not?

[ROF]

ROF, why don't you just GTFOOH

I don't have any flan on the hotplate at the moment.

[ROF]

I bought each set of grandkids the TV's and DVD players for their bedrooms as gifts the last 2 Christmas. My wife and I buy a lot of their classic DVD's so I have a vested interest in protecting the investment. After the first couple of accidents we learned that the only safe way is to backup the disc and let them use the copy.

That brings up another sore subject. Why do children need a TV in their rooms? Convenience? Getting them away from parents? Quite a few kids today have a hyperactivity disorder because they don't know how to respond when real live people are around. They sit in front of TV. It teaches them, it entertains them, it's their lifeblood. In my opinion, kids should not have TVs in their rooms and television viewing should be limited and supervised. TV is not a babysitter. Excessive TV viewing is a substitute for lack of parental skills.

[canadateck]

Run for Cover ROF. I see major Flaming in your future..

[ROF]

Run for Cover ROF. I see major Flaming in your future..

Thanks for the warning my northern friend but I'm pretty much immune to such tactics.

[smearbrick1]

My big question is... where is the DMCA if you did not circumvent copy protection to back up that hollywood DVD, but used an alternative analog source.

I'd say the analog source will probably have at the very least macrovision if the digital version has two or more protection methods attached. could you provide an example where an analog source that isn't protected is available where a digital source has such protections?

I do believe that since Macrovision is not a digital copy protection, circumvention of it is not a violation of the DMCA. Besides, I believe Macrovision was to be more of a deterrent rather than a full-on copy protection. I believe have demonstrated many times in this forum how bypassing Macrovision for archival purposes (vhs to dvd, laserdisc to dvd) is within the letter of law. Besides, Macrovision is easily defeated with any LEGALLY available stand alone TBC or SVHS with a built in TBC.

I realize all of this is more hypothetical than practical. Not many people would go to the unnecessary trouble to back up a dvd via analog copying. Either way, I believe it exposes a few holes in the DMCA/Fair Use relationship.

P.S. The parenting comments are all too true. I have no kids, but I was a kid once with parents who would have kicked my ass (at least I thought they would have) had I done half the stuff some kids get away with these days.

[ROF]

There will always be loopholes in any law, but those who might go to such extremes are probably those who are being considered or should be considered for legal action to reign in their activities. Anyone who will go as far as converting a DVD video to analog and then back to digital is not someone who is merely backing up a few DVDs in their childs collection.

[dvdguy4]

I bought each set of grandkids the TV's and DVD players for their bedrooms as gifts the last 2 Christmas. My wife and I buy a lot of their classic DVD's so I have a vested interest in protecting the investment. After the first couple of accidents we learned that the only safe way is to backup the disc and let them use the copy.

That brings up another sore subject. Why do children need a TV in their rooms? Convenience? Getting them away from parents? Quite a few kids today have a hyperactivity disorder because they don't know how to respond when real live people are around. They sit in front of TV. It teaches them, it entertains them, it's their lifeblood. In my opinion, kids should not have TVs in their rooms and television viewing should be limited and supervised. TV is not a babysitter. Excessive TV viewing is a substitute for lack of parental skills.

Thats all we need in this forum. Someone trying to tell us how to raise our kids. Television is fine just as long as theyre not watching violence, playing video games 24 hours a day. We control how much our kids can watch tv. My daughter loves the disney channel, pbs and a few others and shes learning stuff from them. I had a tv in my room and turned out fine and both our kids have tvs in their bedrooms.

[mbellot]

That brings up another sore subject. Why do children need a TV in their rooms? Convenience? Getting them away from parents? Quite a few kids today have a hyperactivity disorder because they don't know how to respond when real live people are around. They sit in front of TV. It teaches them, it entertains them, it's their lifeblood. In my opinion, kids should not have TVs in their rooms and television viewing should be limited and supervised. TV is not a babysitter. Excessive TV viewing is a substitute for lack of parental skills.

The impossible has come to pass. Surely this is the seventh sign of the impending apocalypse.

ROF has an opinion I not only agree with, but completely endorse.



You better watch out though ROF, the boys at the MPAA hear to talking about limiting TV viewing for one of the key demographics and they'll stop cutting you checks for your forum work.

[ROF]

Thats all we need in this forum. Someone trying to tell us how to raise our kids. Television is fine just as long as theyre not watching violence, playing video games 24 hours a day. We control how much our kids can watch tv. My daughter loves the disney channel, pbs and a few others and shes learning stuff from them. I had a tv in my room and turned out fine and both our kids have tvs in their bedrooms.

Sorry. I didn't mean to come off as if I was telling anyone how to raise their children, but how do you control what your kids are watching? Do you sit in their room with them? Do you check on them every 5 minutes? Remember you were a kid once, you knew how to avoid mom and dads rules. Kids today are much better at this because their friends parents are probably not as strict as you and they learn from their peers how to do what they want, watch what they want, when they want, and how to avoid getting caught. Once the television leaves the livingroom you've pretty much given up control of your children. When you send your kids to their rooms is it really punishment?

[gll99]

I bought each set of grandkids the TV's and DVD players for their bedrooms as gifts the last 2 Christmas. My wife and I buy a lot of their classic DVD's so I have a vested interest in protecting the investment. After the first couple of accidents we learned that the only safe way is to backup the disc and let them use the copy.

That brings up another sore subject. Why do children need a TV in their rooms? Convenience? Getting them away from parents? Quite a few kids today have a hyperactivity disorder because they don't know how to respond when real live people are around. They sit in front of TV. It teaches them, it entertains them, it's their lifeblood. In my opinion, kids should not have TVs in their rooms and television viewing should be limited and supervised. TV is not a babysitter. Excessive TV viewing is a substitute for lack of parental skills.

Why don't you start an OT on that one

btw) you didn't quote the last part of my post you left off my questions.

gll99 wrote

@ ROF
I'm sure you would agree with those actions and even possibly recommend some tools for me to do that. You have done this yourself before have you not?

Would there be a particular reason you did that? Is it worth pursuing??? Humm.... I wonder??? 8)

[BobK]

That being said, I fully support my opinions I express here. I own stock in several media companies and hold major shares in two minor players in this field. Theft of IP robs me of profit.

Although reasonable people might conclude that if you really thought you were losing that much profit the perhaps you'd invest your money elsewhere.

[ROF]

That being said, I fully support my opinions I express here. I own stock in several media companies and hold major shares in two minor players in this field. Theft of IP robs me of profit.

Although reasonable people might conclude that if you really thought you were losing that much profit the perhaps you'd invest your money elsewhere.

The smart money says that stocks are long term investments.

[smearbrick1]

There will always be loopholes in any law, but those who might go to such extremes are probably those who are being considered or should be considered for legal action to reign in their activities. Anyone who will go as far as converting a DVD video to analog and then back to digital is not someone who is merely backing up a few DVDs in their childs collection.

That is not for you to decide. Just because someone decides to back up a dvd within the letter of the law does not make them a DVD pirate. In fact, these are the people who are most likely NOT dvd pirates. Any one who is willing to string together two dvd recorders to make an analog copy of a dvd is obviously not in it for the purpose of mass production.

I believe that most large pirate DVD houses aren't even using a consumer level pressed dvd as the source, but film prints or some other source. I'm not too sure, but I don't think the real money is in pirating commercially available DVDs. The real money is in pirating pre-theatrical release movies.

If they want to put their efforts into protecting something, why don't they clamp down on the people who receive all the pre-release DVDs and screenings! After test audiences and critic screenings, no wonder every pirate from Long John Silver to Jack Sparrow has copy of the pre-release work.

[BobK]

That being said, I fully support my opinions I express here. I own stock in several media companies and hold major shares in two minor players in this field. Theft of IP robs me of profit.

Although reasonable people might conclude that if you really thought you were losing that much profit the perhaps you'd invest your money elsewhere.

The smart money says that stocks are long term investments.

Elsewhere would include the many thousands of stocks that are not media companies.

[ROF]

@ROF
I bought each set of grandkids the TV's and DVD players for their bedrooms as gifts the last 2 Christmas. My wife and I buy a lot of their classic DVD's so I have a vested interest in protecting the investment. After the first couple of accidents we learned that the only safe way is to backup the disc and let them use the copy.

I'm sure you would agree with those actions and even possibly recommend some tools for me to do that. You have done this yourself before have you not?

By backing up the media you are not teaching your grandchildren to take care of their property. You are also telling them that it's OK to destroy other childrens toys because there will always be someone who comes along and buys them another. In your grandchildrens case, that may be so, but they may have friends whose parents and grandparents don't have the resources you do and if they treat their own stuff badly because grandpa will just make a new one appear why should they treat their friends toys any different. My kids know if they break something it goes into the trash and won't be reappearing anytime soon. We have a movie pass for blockbuster. My son rents his favorite video almost everytime we visit the store. He owned it once, but he broke it and we never bought him another one. There are times when we visit the store and he cries because it's not there. He is learning a lesson that since he broke his toy, he doesn't just get a new one automatically. Toys cost money and he certainly understands money. You only need to ask him how much he has in his Eagle Bank and what it will buy him today.

There was a time when I did back up certain media but since the legality of it is in question I refuse to take part in a direct violation of the law.

[ROF]

That being said, I fully support my opinions I express here. I own stock in several media companies and hold major shares in two minor players in this field. Theft of IP robs me of profit.

Although reasonable people might conclude that if you really thought you were losing that much profit the perhaps you'd invest your money elsewhere.

The smart money says that stocks are long term investments.

Elsewhere would include the many thousands of stocks that are not media companies.

I have a well diverse portfolio, but I fail to see what that has to do with any of this.

[ROF]

That is not for you to decide. Just because someone decides to back up a dvd within the letter of the law does not make them a DVD pirate. In fact, these are the people who are most likely NOT dvd pirates. Any one who is willing to string together two dvd recorders to make an analog copy of a dvd is obviously not in it for the purpose of mass production.

I believe that most large pirate DVD houses aren't even using a consumer level pressed dvd as the source, but film prints or some other source. I'm not too sure, but I don't think the real money is in pirating commercially available DVDs. The real money is in pirating pre-theatrical release movies.

So you are saying that only large distributors are considered pirates while the same activity performed by an individual isn't piracy? That's quite interesting indeed.

[adam]

smearbrick1

The DMCA applies generally to all forms of copyright protections, there is no distinction between digital and analogue. Actually, Macrovision was one of the driving forces behind the legislation. One of the main things that the bill did was outlaw ALL macrovision removal devices from the date of its enactment. So yes bypassing macrovision is a violation of the DMCA if the underlying act is not exempted (Fair Use, permission from copyright holder, etc..) If you are engaging in a true Fair Use than you can bypass the protection regardless of the nature of the source.

But again, even forgetting that the DMCA exists it is still a violation of the copyright to copy any source, digital or analogue, if you do not fall within one of the statutory exceptions. So for instance, computer software archiving is an exception, so you can bypass protection mechanisms to do so but audio/visual work archiving is not excepted so you would be in violation of the copyright and additionally be in violation of the DMCA. If you made a Fair Use copy, say to excerpt a scene for use in a parody, then you would be permitted to bypass the CSS encryption or macrovision as the case may be.

The right to archive computer software comes under section 117. For libraries/archives its 108. For musical recordings its 1008. All of these exceptions are separate and unrelated to Fair Use which is codified in section 107. Fair Use is an affirmative defense to copyright infringement and it may always be raised against any claim of copyright infringement, but it just has nothing to do with any of the archiving exemptions I just mentioned. The only specific guidelines that have been delineated under Fair Use were done via the Teach Act which goes into great detail as to just what educators can and can't do under Fair Use. Other than that, you have to look to caselaw mainly and Fair Use typically is limited to criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research.

The exemption for computer programs does not apply to audio/visual works, though audio visual works can be encompassed in a computer program. "computer program" is defined in Title 17 as:

a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.

Its talking about code, which only exists if embodied in a form that can be interpreted by a computer. As an example, if you wrote source down on a piece of paper you have created a literary work, not a computer program. Audio/visual works exist outside of any specific format. It is the expression itself that is protected.

And for the record, "pirate" and "pirating" have specific meanings under copyright law. Contrary to popular usage, you do not have to copy for sale, profit, or commercial use, or copy on any mass scale to engage in piracy. Quite simply, copyright law provides a number of express rights to copyright holders, one of those being the right to make and to authorize the making of copies. Piracy is the infringement of this right whether you are duping 10,000 copies for sale or copying your storebought DVD. It simply means you have copied a copyright work without permission and without falling within any one of the statutory exceptions. Its just a term used to distinguish between copying the work versus, say publicly displaying it.

[DereX888]

There was a time when I did back up certain media but since the legality of it is in question I refuse to take part in a direct violation of the law.

Just this truly sums up your personality.
Those like you were the ones who i.e. ratted out hiding Jews to Nazi Germans during WWII, because it was the law and they were 'righteous' law-abiding citizens;
Those like you fought against end of slavery during Civil War, because it was the law and they were just law-abiding citizens;
I can go on with examples, but actually its pointless.
You are perfect exmple of common western 'useful idiot', better described by french term cretin, the by-product of mass-produced politically-correct 'culture' not using its own brain anymore only subconciously repeating the brainwashed formulas.
I bet your day starts and ends with CNN

I must admit that my jaws really dropped when I read your opinions on children, toys, tv etc... but then I founf out why is that!
"ROF" from the morning already went home, and its the "ROF" from next shift at MPAA who wrote it!
Hello, Mr or Mrs ROF The Second

[BobK]

That is not for you to decide. Just because someone decides to back up a dvd within the letter of the law does not make them a DVD pirate. In fact, these are the people who are most likely NOT dvd pirates. Any one who is willing to string together two dvd recorders to make an analog copy of a dvd is obviously not in it for the purpose of mass production.

I believe that most large pirate DVD houses aren't even using a consumer level pressed dvd as the source, but film prints or some other source. I'm not too sure, but I don't think the real money is in pirating commercially available DVDs. The real money is in pirating pre-theatrical release movies.

So you are saying that only large distributors are considered pirates while the same activity performed by an individual isn't piracy? That's quite interesting indeed.

I thought it was pretty clear that he was saying difference between someone making a backup of a DVD they own to watch and someone making thousands of copies to sell.

Defining "the same activity" as merely copying a disk while ignoring that one makes many copies and sells them vs the other making a backup copy to watch ignores reality.

[DereX888]

That is not for you to decide. Just because someone decides to back up a dvd within the letter of the law does not make them a DVD pirate. In fact, these are the people who are most likely NOT dvd pirates. Any one who is willing to string together two dvd recorders to make an analog copy of a dvd is obviously not in it for the purpose of mass production.

I believe that most large pirate DVD houses aren't even using a consumer level pressed dvd as the source, but film prints or some other source. I'm not too sure, but I don't think the real money is in pirating commercially available DVDs. The real money is in pirating pre-theatrical release movies.

So you are saying that only large distributors are considered pirates while the same activity performed by an individual isn't piracy? That's quite interesting indeed.

I thought it was pretty clear that he was saying difference between someone making a backup of a DVD they own to watch and someone making thousands of copies to sell.

Defining "the same activity" as merely copying a disk while ignoring that one makes many copies and sells them vs the other making a backup copy to watch ignores reality.

Don't bother.
He won't comprehend difference between murder and genocide either, even though it is one of his favorite examples

[dvdguy4]

Thats all we need in this forum. Someone trying to tell us how to raise our kids. Television is fine just as long as theyre not watching violence, playing video games 24 hours a day. We control how much our kids can watch tv. My daughter loves the disney channel, pbs and a few others and shes learning stuff from them. I had a tv in my room and turned out fine and both our kids have tvs in their bedrooms.

Sorry. I didn't mean to come off as if I was telling anyone how to raise their children, but how do you control what your kids are watching? Do you sit in their room with them? Do you check on them every 5 minutes? Remember you were a kid once, you knew how to avoid mom and dads rules. Kids today are much better at this because their friends parents are probably not as strict as you and they learn from their peers how to do what they want, watch what they want, when they want, and how to avoid getting caught. Once the television leaves the livingroom you've pretty much given up control of your children. When you send your kids to their rooms is it really punishment?

when it comes to punishment the tv is gone along with everything else playable. Thats when we make them read a book.

[dvdguy4]

I have a feeling this thread is gonna be locked very soon.
It went from "Forbes Magazine says Madagascar WAS a true RIPGuard disc" to everyone attack ROF.
If I came across like a jerk I apologize for that. Lets get back to the real topic

[DereX888]

And for the record, "pirate" and "pirating" have specific meanings under copyright law. Contrary to popular usage, you do not have to copy for sale, profit, or commercial use, or copy on any mass scale to engage in piracy. Quite simply, copyright law provides a number of express rights to copyright holders, one of those being the right to make and to authorize the making of copies. Piracy is the infringement of this right whether you are duping 10,000 copies for sale or copying your storebought DVD. It simply means you have copied a copyright work without permission and without falling within any one of the statutory exceptions. Its just a term used to distinguish between copying the work versus, say publicly displaying it.

The Lawyear had spoken
Is it your assumption or can you back it up with any single case of a US Citizen being ever prosecuted for making a backup copy of a legally owned DVD for his own personal use?

[DereX888]

I have a feeling this thread is gonna be locked very soon.
It went from "Forbes Magazine says Madagascar WAS a true RIPGuard disc" to everyone attack ROF.
If I came across like a jerk I apologize for that. Lets get back to the real topic

you are absolutely RIGHT (unfortunately).
Everybody - please - forget the mpaa troll from now on, its waste of time and such nice and timely thread don't deserve to be locked!