Forbes Magazine says Madagascar WAS a true RIPGuard disc

[adam]

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?

Federal laws are created by Congress, not by judges. Title 17 USCS 106 states:

Subject to sections 107 through 122 [17 USCS §§ 107 through 122], the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

etc...

Feel free to browse through sections 107 through 122, I've already touched on several of them and explained why they do not apply to audio/visual works. If you can find a statutory exception let me know.

If you disagree with my assessment than cut the disrespectful sarcasm and YOU show me some proof of your assertions. If you hire any lawyer in the country to research this matter you will get the same answer that I have given. Its not because they are in the MPAA's pockets, its not because they are anti-consumer, and its not because they are lawyers...its because that's simply what this piece of legislation holds. I mean what the hell, the law has to rule one way or the other! You can't bitch at me if you don't like it anymore than the MPAA could bitch at me if the reverse was true.

[VegasBud]

The smart money says that stocks are long term investments.

The shareholders of Macrovision (the creators of Ripguard) might disagree.

[DereX888]

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?

Federal laws are created by Congress, not by judges. Title 17 USCS 106 states:

Subject to sections 107 through 122 [17 USCS §§ 107 through 122], the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

etc...

Feel free to browse through sections 107 through 122, I've already touched on several of them and explained why they do not apply to audio/visual works. If you can find a statutory exception let me know.

If you disagree with my assessment than cut the disrespectful sarcasm and YOU show me some proof of your assertions. If you hire any lawyer in the country to research this matter you will get the same answer that I have given. Its not because they are in the MPAA's pockets, its not because they are anti-consumer, and its not because they are lawyers...its because that's simply what this piece of legislation holds. I mean what the hell, the law has to rule one way or the other! You can't bitch at me if you don't like it anymore than the MPAA could bitch at me if the reverse was true.

Its not that I am attacking you (as a person), so don't take it so personally.
I do not know you, and I can't figure you out from your posts well enough to make any judgements on your person, so... don't take it so personally
Being a lawyer Im pretty sure you do know better than me what kind of scumbags are among your fellows, what is the common opinion about them, and how many laws actually don't hold and make no sense out there, not only in USA.
If it make you feel better I *do* appreciate your comments very much, it gives me better perspective on discussed subjects from your "lawyer" stand. My total lack of respect for your profession does not mean lack of respect for your person, as I've said - I don't know you enough to make any judgements.

So let me ask you again:
Is it your interpretation of the law, or can you back it up with some real-life case? Because I searched on google and I haven't found any single case of anyone being sentenced for making a backup of his legally bought DVD for his/her own use. And it was brought to my attention that the laws untested yet in a courts, can be interpreted differently by different lawyers (as it was with i.e. various cases of mp3 swapping in the past, even judges sometimes made qiute opposite interpretations of same laws).
Ofcourse we all know that the side with more $$$ always win in the court of "law" in the mighty US of A, but aside of that, out of curiosity, I really would like to know was there any US Citizen ever prosecuted for that?
Because if not, that would be sure sign that MPAA and 'powers-that-be' are not so sure that their potential case against Joe Schmoe for backing up a DVD for his own use would hold in case if it really goes to the court instead of being settled down outside of courtroom (as usually is the case with all the "mp3 swapping" cases).
So - has anyone ever been prosecuted for that?

The smart money says that stocks are long term investments.

The shareholders of Macrovision (the creators of Ripguard) might disagree.

Yes, youre correct. Stock value is the most democratic form of voting, and shareholders of Macroviusion withdrew their support for that company in the amount of 80 points (someone posted earlier that their stock was $105 in 2000, now it is only about $20 per share)

[smearbrick1]

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!

I love a debate as much as the next guy. Post on!

[adam]

I will say this yet again. Laws are made by Congress not by judges. You should be spending more time reading title 17 rather than looking for cases, and no there are no such cases involving infringement for personal copying of DVDs. That is a matter of enforcement of the law, not its substance. Title 17 expressly makes all copying of copyrighted works an infringement unless exempted, and an exemption for audio/visual works has been expressly declined. Congress has made it abundantly clear that there is no exception for this activity. The courts have no power to change this and the lack of cases on the matter really doesn't mean anything beyond the fact that its not economical to sue someone for personal copying.

So again I ask you if YOU know of any portion of Title 17 which makes such an exception either expressly or through judicial interpretation (these cases you want to see). If not then I don't see how you can argue with the language which grants the right to copy exclusively to the copyright holder. When someone cites an express law on something you don't ask them whether they have a case to back it up, lol!

I have to be honest and say that what you are saying doesn't even make any sense. There is nothing for a court to interpret outside of the most general of defenses. The exceptions to the exclusive rights are specific and just have absolutely nothing to do with archival copying of audio/visual works for personal use. Look them up, Title 17 is posted everywhere. The only one that comes close is Fair Use, and yes it is my interpretation that this defense would not work in a million years, feel free to disagree but I've already posted numerous examples to support my view. About the only other defense that could be raised would be de minimus infringement, but that is virtually inapplicable to copying.

As for your comments about lawyers and the legal system in general, I can tell you feel that way just from your posts and I think it has clouded everything you have ever posted on this matter. It would be nice if you could put aside your biases and approach this from an objective standpoint. Just my interpretation.

[thecoalman]

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?

So yes bypassing macrovision is a violation of the DMCA

This has brought up an interesting question.... AFAIK MV in a analog signal has no affect on computer hardware, it's just an error that causes havoc with a VCR's circuitry. The capture card sees what it sees and copies it. It has to actually look for the MV signal before making the video unviewable. So if you have a card like a Hauppage which doesn't detect MV you would in fact not be circumventing anything correct? The signal has been passed to the card as is and hasn't been removed nor tampered with.....

The same with Nvidia VIVO cards, if you get the older driver 1.08 or below there's no MV protection enabled. It simply has no affect because it's not looking for it....

[DereX888]

...and no there are no such cases involving infringement for personal copying of DVDs. That is a matter of enforcement of the law, not its substance. Title 17 expressly makes all copying of copyrighted works an infringement unless exempted, and an exemption for audio/visual works has been expressly declined.

thats wher we actually got once before.
I still don't see how the Law can treat same "audio/visual work" (the movie) in totally opposite ways:

If I buy audio/visual work titled "Madagascar" on a VHS media - I am legally granted the right to make a backup copy of it under the Fair Use clause.
If I buy same audio/visual work titled "Madagascar" on a DVD media - I am legally denied the right to make a backup copy of the same audio/visual work!
See, the difference is just the media the "audio/visual work" is stored on.
Granted, DVD may have added content compared to VHS, but the merit - the copyrighted "work" is the same. Yet 2 different law approaches for the very same "audio/visual work".
Basically it seems that the law dont really care about the protecting the copyrights of "audio/visual work' since it allows for low-quality backups, but denies only the higher quality backups.
Or the 'law' is just wrong in one of the cases, or both. I think we've been there before too?
If DMCA should not overturn previous laws, specifically Fair Use clause (I think you said that), then cracking DVDs protection for the personal use under Fair Use provisions must render DMCA void and meaningless?

As for your comments about lawyers and the legal system in general, I can tell you feel that way just from your posts and I think it has clouded everything you have ever posted on this matter. It would be nice if you could put aside your biases and approach this from an objective standpoint. Just my interpretation.

Believe it or not, but I have seen there (in the courts) enough to make me biased towards entire legal system probably for a few lifetimes. And no, im not a multiple convicted pirate, i never had any problem with the law except for 2 parking tickets

EDIT:
yes i read the 107 and few other, yet still have doubt, hence my posts, obviously.

[gll99]

This thread went off topic in the 9th post but fortunately was brought back.
There is no flame here that I can see. (Well maybe a couple that pushed things but nothing broken so far)
Why would this thread be locked?
I'm sure ROF relishes the attention and he is entiltled to his opinion.
The only caution I would like to offer is to not refer to fellow members on this board as thieves and pirates. I believe that crosses the line and may be justifiable grounds for carding according to the site rules. It is reminiscent of another troll who ended up being banned. Come to think of it ??? humm... nah it can't be him... can it???

@ROF

This is not to argue with you because I won't but it is a fair and measured response to near accusations made by you and other things you implied. No-one should misconstrue this as a flame. These are my final comments on the subject

Intemperate judgement and generalisation on personal family decisions is how I sum up your comments. Painting everyone with the same brush is a common trait of those with the weak position in an argument. You should be aware, that such out of context unbridled expressions tend to reflect more on writer's own lack than anyone else.
You will note that no-one invited this social commentary from you in a thread about disc security. We must give you the benefit of the doubt because to be sure a strong inward burning desire must have moved you to share some of your vast experience on the subject of child rearing and mental health in your courageous but futile battle of attempting to rectify this perceived injustice foisted upon the children of the electronic age by blind uncaring and negligent parents.

But enough about you! Let's talk about you.
ROF wrote

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.

This mystical conversion to the ways of the light must be very recent? Wouldn't you say?
Hummm What does gll99 mean by this question???

Now for the On topic part of this post:

I have always agreed that DVD producers can use whatever passive protection they so choose when selling their products (like Ripguard but unlike Sony) . They should just be clear up front so the consumer may choose not to purchase the product if they so decide.

[verchad]

They really need to come up with something alittle more cleaver

Finally an IP protection scheme even ROF would love.

Open the DVD case and a cleaver splits your skull open.

Best of all, its compatible with all current players.


If you opened the case you must be intending to infringe on the poor movie industries copyright - right ROF?

Yes, but this would mean a limited number of consumers, buy one and you're dead.

I think what they will try for instead is a media that, once opened, begins to disintigrate, and eventually becomes unplayable... oh wait Disney tried that.

Maybe the Studios can just burn the DVD's on cheap media, then after 2-3 years they will disintegrate, and the consumer would then be forced to rebuy the movie they just bought. Unless they illegally backed it up on decent media.

[GullyFoyle]

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.

I seriously doubt that there are hyperactive disorders on the rise due to tv. Fact of the matter is most parents and teachers do not know how to respond to young males. And big pharmaco want to make big bucks off kids. Start them young and continue treatment throughout their lives.
I watched a state of black america Tavis Smiley special on C-Span. One of the educators claimed that young males are typically diagnosed as hyperactive with learning disorders because young female teachers are NOT how to deal with boy children. It was also stated that in Europe where there are more male teachers the reverse is true with young females being diagnosed with learning disorders.
TV can't be blamed for every wrong in society? Murder, rape, all tv's fault.
What did they blame before tv.
Comic books, ever watch Comic Book Confidential?
Before that pulps.
Before that Penny Dreadfuls.
Now with billions of dollars to be made naturally the big drug companies get in on the act too.
And stupid lazy parents fall for it allowing their child to be doped for life.

[DereX888]

Maybe the Studios can just burn the DVD's on cheap media, then after 2-3 years they will disintegrate, and the consumer would then be forced to rebuy the movie they just bought. Unless they illegally backed it up on decent media.

But thats what actually is happening!
I bought 2 movies today. Both discs look bad, I replaced them in the store 4 times until I found one without obvious visual potential defects. Girls at some stores already hate me because it happens almost every Tuesday - you gotta go through 3,4 sometimes 5 discs until you find the perfect looking copies!
I don't remember this being a case up until about last year... before I didn't have to to open cases right there in a store and check the discs, it was maybe 1 out of 100 which wasnt right.
Nowaday its 1 out of 5 or less that is right

You might be right hehe

[GullyFoyle]

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

How sad is that? Punishing children by making them read. Instead of teaching them to appreciate the written word and explore a good book you use it as a means of torture.

[Rich86]

This is an interesting thread to read. ROF's opinions are exemplary - as coming from a music/movie studio employee or ambassador for same. And ROF certainly has a right to express those opinions.
However . . . a couple of notions to consider . . .

why is it assumed that all copying is "piracy"? why is it piracy for me to make a backup copy of my personally owned disc for my personal usage (in a car, portable, mountain cabin, child usage, etc.)?

why is it assumed that because a person might waste $.50 on a blank media to make a copy of something, that they would have otherwise run right out and bought it?

ask Sony how they like the improvement to their profits these days due to their continued customer abuse in their completely irrational attitudes about "copy protection". They should relabel this campaign "usage prevention". And if ROF is a stockholder, ROF should be chasing them - not folks in this forum - to address his profitability concerns.

The music and movie industry needs to focus their efforts on:
1. mass copying production by those who would steal from them to make a profit. chase the guy selling copies of Polar Express by the boxful on the street corner. chasing the customer who simply wanted to make a backup copy of his legitimately owned dvd so his kid didn't ruin it isn't going to generate more sales. it will do the opposite.

2. put out a quality product at a reasonable cost. do that - and the customers will buy. keep putting out crap that tries to screw up your computer to boot, and the sales figures will continue to drop.

3. look hard at the sales and profit figures now that all these customers have been sued, and a small fortune has been spent on copy protection and customer abuse. these cd's and dvd's must be selling like hotcakes because folks have some problems copying them, right? then make a good, intelligent, corporate financial decision.

I think the problem here is that the entertainment industry wants all sides of the issue. They whine constantly about falling cd sales - but refuse to acknowledge that legitimate electronic download sales more than make up for the cd sales loss. Do they expect folks to buy it on-line and then buy the cd also? These same "entertainment industry" folks refuse to admit they are in competition with each other. Add up all the revenue spent on entertainment. A dollar or euro or whatever spent on a dvd, cd, movie, theatre event, etc. is all part of the mix to the average working family and consumer.

then there are companies like macrovision, et al who spin the hype through the ceiling whether based on facts or not - to try to justify their own survival. if you own stock in macrovision or suncomm or first4internet - I really would worry. these are not companies who add anything to the products that might encourage folks to buy. if there is any justice, first4internet will cost Sony a fortune and drive themselves out of business.

by the way - I saw the new Harry Potter in the theater - it's terrific. When it comes out on dvd I'll buy it - because its terrific and I want a top quality original.
i saw "Bewitched" on dvd - it was worth the $.99 rental, maybe - but not a penny more! probably not worth copying - and certainly not worth buying.

[GullyFoyle]

Maybe the Studios can just burn the DVD's on cheap media, then after 2-3 years they will disintegrate, and the consumer would then be forced to rebuy the movie they just bought. Unless they illegally backed it up on decent media.

But thats what actually is happening!
I bought 2 movies today. Both discs look bad, I replaced them in the store 4 times until I found one without obvious visual potential defects. Girls at some stores already hate me because it happens almost every Tuesday - you gotta go through 3,4 sometimes 5 discs until you find the perfect looking copies!
I don't remember this being a case up until about last year... before I didn't have to to open cases right there in a store and check the discs, it was maybe 1 out of 100 which wasnt right.
Nowaday its 1 out of 5 or less that is right

You might be right hehe

More like planned obsolescence. After a year or two when the return expires you have to buy a new one.
Who is the real Piarte in that scenario?

[GullyFoyle]

Rich86

The industry needs to change its model.
Suppose all movies used product placement to generate revenue. Enough products turns a profit. You can also offer either a free or low price net release. It would be crippled in some way. mono or DD2. If it is a good movie you also offer a higher priced uncrippled dvd for about $10.
Everyone makes a profit. maybe not outrageous unless it is a good film. The way films used to be.
At some point it has to sink in that people will pay for good quality films to watch on the home theater. To collect.
That the only films not making money are the ones that suck.
Every movie will not turn a profit.
Billy Jack was a self made self marketted film that did turn a profit. Blair Witch was a low budget film that made a large profit.
The Dead didn't go broke from allowing fans to make concert recordings. If anything it promoted sales of their products.
The present model is wrong and needs to change.

[adam]

thats wher we actually got once before.
I still don't see how the Law can treat same "audio/visual work" (the movie) in totally opposite ways:

If I buy audio/visual work titled "Madagascar" on a VHS media - I am legally granted the right to make a backup copy of it under the Fair Use clause.
If I buy same audio/visual work titled "Madagascar" on a DVD media - I am legally denied the right to make a backup copy of the same audio/visual work!

I have no idea where you are getting this from. Like I have said multiple times in this thread, Fair Use has never been held to allow backup copies of any kind of tangible medium. Under copyright law your VHS is treated exactly the same as your DVD. Archiving either one is a violation of copyright, and if you bypass its respective copy protection it is further a violation of the DMCA.

If DMCA should not overturn previous laws, specifically Fair Use clause (I think you said that), then cracking DVDs protection for the personal use under Fair Use provisions must render DMCA void and meaningless?

The DMCA is inapplicable to anything that is deemed to be a Fair Use, yes. But that hardly makes this portion of the law void and meaningless (the DMCA does alot more than just prohibit bypassing protection anyway) because it still applies to anything not deemed a Fair Use. I do not think you realize just how limited the Fair Use doctrine is. If you are claiming Fair Use copying, you had better have a damn good excuse for why the copying is necessary. Like I said, looking at the Committee Notes and the four prongs of the statute and all the prior caselaw out there, I do not see how Fair Use could ever exempt personal copying of anything generally, and indeed THAT would render a large portion of our existing copyright laws void and meaningless, (ie: right to archive music, computer software, and right for libraries to archive generally.)

[DereX888]

ask Sony how they like the improvement to their profits these days due to their continued customer abuse in their completely irrational attitudes about "copy protection". They should relabel this campaign "usage prevention".

It came to this that the illegal downloads of such sony artists are safer than buying their legally released discs... and its not funny if you come to think of it...

[MOVIEGEEK]

ROF wrote,
"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. Plain and simple. I have my opinions because I'm one of the millions or so who hold value to IP over the thieves who are stealing from more than just some big corporation. They are stealing from people who are building a retirement fund and have no stake other than their money in the future protection of IP."


I own stock in Chevron and Exxon-Mobil but I still think they screwed us consumers this year.
Corporate profits are no excuse for taking away my rights as a consumer.
BTW...whatever happened to Divx and that 48hr self-destructing DVD?

[Rich86]

to Gullyfoyle - I agree with you. The entertainment industry also has to reset their financial objectives to something more reasonable. They cannot simply assume every consumer in the world will continue to fill their home space with media. I have a number of friends who have premium HDTV cable/dish systems with full-time digital music channels, plus digital music channels in their cars. They have no intentions of ever buying another cd or dvd again for the most part. When folks whine about falling cd/dvd sales, where do they include the revenues from these products (yes - the movie and music industry gets their piece of this pie also). however - the notion of selling "crippled" (only partially functional?) dvd's - I don't care for that notion and would not buy such a thing.

to Derex888 - I'm with you. the ultimate irony of Sony's copy protection folly and fiasco is that the only folks punished were their legitimate paying customers. I was interested in 3 of the titles Sony polluted with their rootkit virus software. However, I skipped 2 of them, and the one I did purchase was only because the "dualdisc" version did not include the copy protection crap, and it was on sale at only slightly more than the cd. I have been an avid music and movie collector and customer for many years. But Sony has singlehandedly convinced me to never trust a product from one of their labels ever again. And anyone who inserts a media from one of these labels into a computer without making sure autorun/autoplay is completely disabled is looking for trouble. These companies are not to be trusted - they are no better than whatever internet sites you stumble upon that steal information from your computer, inflict mod's to your computer and impact your ability to use your own system afterwards.

I am currently reading the most recent Harry Potter book (the Half-Blood Prince). I did not buy it. I borrowed it from my mother after she read it. My wife will also read it. Then it will probably go to another family member to enjoy. I hope that is ok with everyone and some idiot lawyer somewhere doesn't think I'm cheating someone because there aren't any commercials between chapters and we can circulate this book around forever and avoid buying multiple copies . . . . thank god it isn't digital, eh?

[dvdguy4]

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

How sad is that? Punishing children by making them read. Instead of teaching them to appreciate the written word and explore a good book you use it as a means of torture.

Do you have kids? We dont make ours kids write. One is 10 and the other is 4 so I cant make her write. What should I make them write?
Id love to hear from an expert of punishing kids. Lets get back to the real topic instead of all the crap being said. Could of swore we've been through this before in another thread. We all need to get a grip. Thanks

[verchad]

When talking about the movie industry and revising their profit goals, the topic of lost revenue is brought up, how much would it cost to make a dvd of just the movie vs. the cost of one with all the "special features".

In the beginning, some special features were kind of cool, but now, a lot of it is just extra crap thrown on the disc to be able to advertise that it has over 2 million hours of special features. Unless it was a movie that I really liked, I would just buy the "movie disc" if it was say $10 movie only vs. $15 for the spec feat one.

I think they might sell more that way.

Also, a point to consider, why is it okay for blockbuster, netflix, etc.. to buy a movie(s), then rent it (them) to others to see. Then get it (them)back, and re-rent again?

Yet I think that the movie and recording industry would not like it if I bought products, then rented them myself to my friends, then got them back to do it again.

Now let's say a friend ripped & burned one of these to cd/dvd. Now , they get stung by the indusrty and learn where they got the "original" from. Think the industry would come after me?

Think they would come after me if I was BB or netflix? Hmmmmmmmmmmmm.............

My point is, we know for a fact over the years on this board that some folks do exactly that with BB & Netflix. Why hasn't the industry just stopped selling to them? Then folks would either have to get the movies to copy from a friend who would be willing to break the law, or go out and buy a retail copy of the video/dvd (let's leave resale shops out of this for now).

Because they know that even when they put a piece of garbage movie out, they have a gauranteed number of sales to the video rental stores.

So I guess they want to crack down on illegal copying, but only in the most profitable way for them.

[guns1inger]

Video rental stores/chains pay additional royalties to allow them to rent titles. Back in the VHS days, rental stores would pay $100 per tape, when the same tape would sell to the public for $15 four months later.

Some special features do add substantially to production costs, however these are now factored in to the production costs of the movie. Actors/Directors etc do commentaries under their publicity clauses. Electronic Press Kit pieces are done a s a matter of course anyway. The most expensive pieces are usually retrospective documentaries for older titles, however most of these have already made enough profit to cover these costs.

However these costs would not make a huge difference to the overall cost of the disk. The difference between a disk with and a disk without would be in the order of a couple of bucks, not the $10 or 15 that the studios charge.

The biggest issue for the studios is the huge amount of money pumped into production each year into product that has a 1 in 100 success rate. That means that the profits of the 1 must cover the costs/losses of the other 99. If they made 50 films instead, and invested the budgets for other 50 in the short term money market, they would make more profit, and we wouldn't have to put up with 'American Pie 4 : Band Camp' sitting on the video store shelves obscuring better titles from view. It is win-win.

Perhaps ROF can take this back to the mothership at the end of his shift ?

[BJ_M]

can't we just get rid of such trolls?
Admins, come on, make a statement!

i already made a statement -- he has a right to his beliefs .. if you accept them or not is your choice ... it is like turning the channel..


now if someone can tell me how to make a backup of my wife - so when she gets old and damaged , i can use the backup copy ......

[adam]

I am currently reading the most recent Harry Potter book (the Half-Blood Prince). I did not buy it. I borrowed it from my mother after she read it. My wife will also read it. Then it will probably go to another family member to enjoy. I hope that is ok with everyone and some idiot lawyer somewhere doesn't think I'm cheating someone because there aren't any commercials between chapters and we can circulate this book around forever and avoid buying multiple copies . . . . thank god it isn't digital, eh?

I realize you are jesting but I think your analogy utterly fails since what you are talking about is so universally accepted as being permissible that it is considered one of the basic principles of copyright law. It is also spelled out specifically in 17 USCS 109. You can lend media that you have bought to as many people as you want regardless of what form the embodied intellectual property is, whether it be a book, CD, DVD, or computer program.

[BJ_M]

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.

I HAVE TO AGREE - this is very true .. to a point ...

sometimes it is just cheaper than a babysittter also ... if you can even get one (though anyone remember tha pics of mine i posted a couple years ago here ?)

[BobK]

Also, a point to consider, why is it okay for blockbuster, netflix, etc.. to buy a movie(s), then rent it (them) to others to see. Then get it (them)back, and re-rent again?

Because they're not doing anything illegal.

Yet I think that the movie and recording industry would not like it if I bought products, then rented them myself to my friends, then got them back to do it again.

If you did the same thing that BB/Netflix did you wouldn't have a problem. That would include paying all the taxes and others costs of a movie rental business.

Now let's say a friend ripped & burned one of these to cd/dvd. Now , they get stung by the indusrty and learn where they got the "original" from. Think the industry would come after me?

What exactly would the industry come after you for? What have you done that's illegal? There's nothing illegal about letting a friend borrow a cd/DVD (just as there's nothing illegal with BB renting them). If your firend does something illegal then it's his problem.

My point is, we know for a fact over the years on this board that some folks do exactly that with BB & Netflix. Why hasn't the industry just stopped selling to them?

We know that Enterprise (or Hertz) rent cars. Sometimes their cars are used for illegal purposes. Should Enterprise or Hertz not be allowed to buy cars?

Libraries loan books. It's possible that some people borrow those books and make zerox copies (I actually know someone that did this with a couple of books back in the 1970's). Should the book publishing industry stop selling books to libraries?

Nice series of strawmen.

[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.

I HAVE TO AGREE - this is very true .. to a point ...

sometimes it is just cheaper than a babysittter also ... if you can even get one (though anyone remember tha pics of mine i posted a couple years ago here ?)

@BJ_M
I
That's like saying I'm ...

Don't encourage him or you will be reported to Santa and end up on the naughty list

btw) Your off my Christmas list. I am giving away your present. My grandchildren will enjoy the new XBo...

Special On topic note: (A rarety lately)

Thanks to DVDFab Decrypter for overcoming the issues with this latest encryption trick and thanks for releasing the program freely.

[mbellot]

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

How sad is that? Punishing children by making them read. Instead of teaching them to appreciate the written word and explore a good book you use it as a means of torture.

Do you have kids? We dont make ours kids write. One is 10 and the other is 4 so I cant make her write. What should I make them write?
Id love to hear from an expert of punishing kids. Lets get back to the real topic instead of all the crap being said. Could of swore we've been through this before in another thread. We all need to get a grip. Thanks

You completely misunderstood his post, perhaps not unsurprisingly.

He is not saying force them to write things as punishment, but teach them to read for enjoyment - not use it as a punishment.

My kids (5, 2 and 2) all enjoy reading books, the five year old reads and writes at about the 2nd grade level. The two year olds obviously don't read, but will sit for several stories, especially their favorites.

They also enjoy "TV" (I hardly classify PBS as TV), but typically get less than 30 minutes per day (during dinner prep) and its generally well supervised since the kitchen and the family room are right next to each other.

I am currently reading the most recent Harry Potter book (the Half-Blood Prince). I did not buy it. I borrowed it from my mother after she read it. My wife will also read it. Then it will probably go to another family member to enjoy. I hope that is ok with everyone and some idiot lawyer somewhere doesn't think I'm cheating someone because there aren't any commercials between chapters and we can circulate this book around forever and avoid buying multiple copies . . . . thank god it isn't digital, eh?

Apples and oranges. If you photocopied the book and handed out the copies it would be no different than the violation you would commit with DVDs. Passing around any original (or reselling it) is well within your rights. Passing out copies is not.

I diverge from the arguement when it comes to backups for personal use, such as securing originals against damage due to defective stereo equipment. If my car stereo destroys my CD I can't punish it.

[ROF]

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

No Harsh feelings on my end dvdguy4. This can happen when too many people feel that think violating the law is cool because the law is stupid or unjust.

I agree that you should be allowed to back up your own media for your own use as many times as you want and to as many devices as you want. Unfortunately in most countries their are laws against doing so. Some countries are more lenient than others. Some countries have different rules for audio and video. But the majority of the world has some kind of stated law which either allows or disallows you to backup or archive movies and television broadcasts.

The United States does not allow you to legally back up your DVDs or Archive Television Broadcasts. The United States does not allow you to circumvent copyright protections. RipGuard is designed to keep law abiding citizens from casually breaking the law by making it more difficult or what might seem impossible for some people who wouldn't think twice when the click the record button. It also is intended to slow down the free flow of copyrighted digital information. Will it stop all copying? Surely not, but it's a nice attempt.

[Rich86]

Adam,
"I realize you are jesting but I think your analogy utterly fails since what you are talking about is so universally accepted as being permissible" . . .
I'm glad you realize I was jesting - a bit - but it didn't stop you from lecturing again, did it? And I agree - copying material you legitimately own is universally accepted as being within our fair use rights - in spite of the money the entertainment industry throws around to change that.

Let's be straight here - these rules and laws are truly ridiculous - the USA enacted dmca is complete nonsense - none of our opinions on the matter count for anything - this is about money - lots of regular folks have it in relatively small amounts each - the entertainment industry wants more of it to add to their already overstuffed coffers.

My suggestion stands - just buy less of this stuff - let ROF invest in some companies who don't abuse their customers and provide a more meaningful and quality product in order to have a reasonable retirement income!