Forbes Magazine says Madagascar WAS a true RIPGuard disc

[DereX888]

It's Alive!


The thread that wouldn't die!

hehe, how would it! Not with so many interesting sub-subjects

BTW - isn't this picture COPYRIGHTED? do you have written permission from (c) owners?

Cant help but to laugh at that

'scuse moi, but it is not a laughing matter
Making backup copies of legit DVDs for personal use without copyright owner's permission, which is socially acceptable, has been deemed breaking the law, while publishing copyrighted images without copyright owner's permission, as another socially acceptable behaviour, is a laughing matter to you, my friend?
Do you have any idea how much money the copyright owner of this image had just been deprived in lost profits due to multiple publishing of this image on this board? huh?! so stop laughing!

[Guy_Fawkes]

Adam
Thanks for the info, i kinda thought that to be the case.

[ROF]

'scuse moi, but it is not a laughing matter
Making backup copies of legit DVDs for personal use without copyright owner's permission, which is socially acceptable, has been deemed breaking the law, while publishing copyrighted images without copyright owner's permission, as another socially acceptable behaviour, is a laughing matter to you, my friend?
Do you have any idea how much money the copyright owner of this image had just been deprived in lost profits due to multiple publishing of this image on this board? huh?! so stop laughing!

Do you understand the clauses for fair use? The pic was posted for parody purposes and therefore qualifies under fair use. You claim to know so much and I know so little yet you can't seem to identify fair use when it's directly in front of you?

[DereX888]

'scuse moi, but it is not a laughing matter
Making backup copies of legit DVDs for personal use without copyright owner's permission, which is socially acceptable, has been deemed breaking the law, while publishing copyrighted images without copyright owner's permission, as another socially acceptable behaviour, is a laughing matter to you, my friend?
Do you have any idea how much money the copyright owner of this image had just been deprived in lost profits due to multiple publishing of this image on this board? huh?! so stop laughing!

Do you understand the clauses for fair use? The pic was posted for parody purposes and therefore qualifies under fair use. You claim to know so much and I know so little yet you can't seem to identify fair use when it's directly in front of you?

Although I promised not to reply to you anymore, my village idiot friend, I'll make this exception.
1: I have never claimed "to know so much". I question, ask, read, and most importantly - analyze the given answers, something what you will never understand (BTW - why are you here? CNN didn't finish news yet!)
2: We know your brain stuck on pause in Jack Valenti's ass long time ago, but I would say even a brainless moron like you should understand irony/joke when due... (you forgot to inform me that wife-beating is illegal in most States too)
3: How do you know I don't make DVD copies for parody purposes at my home? You already know better for what purposes I copy my DVDs? How do you even know they are copyrighted?! You've never seen non-encrypted, past copyrights time movies on DVD?! Seems to me that youre talking out of your ass more than your shit in your brain is worth. Alas its the shit you have for brains, hmm.

Really, dude, just GTFOOH!

[Supreme2k]

Do you understand the clauses for fair use? The pic was posted for parody purposes and therefore qualifies under fair use.

I don't think that the picture is being used in the strictest sense of parody, so it is most likely not protected in that respect. I think that the quantity of the work is a better protection, as well as the not-for-profit aspect.

But the point is probably moot, since the original "serious" statement was done in jest.

GTFOOH!

Bless you!

/hands a tissue

[ROF]

3: How do you know I don't make DVD copies for parody purposes at my home? You already know better for what purposes I copy my DVDs? How do you even know they are copyrighted?! You've never seen non-encrypted, past copyrights time movies on DVD?! Seems to me that youre talking out of your ass more than your shit in your brain is worth. Alas its the shit you have for brains, hmm.

Considering the topic of discussion is ripguard protection , I'd imagine we are speaking of a copyright protected movie. I also notice that Madagascar is a recent movie and is still protected.

With all the vulgar language you used in one sentence even pirates wouldn't hang with the likes of you.

[Rich86]

Well, shiver me timbers, let's make someone walk the plank.
Even better - let's make this entire thread walk the plank. Maybe it will finally drown. Then ROF can rush off to the store to buy a bunch of "Madasgascar" dvd's to shore up the sales figures to demonstrate the effectiveness of Dreamworks giving their money away to a firm like Macrovision to no purpose . . . . . . .

[ROF]

Well, shiver me timbers, let's make someone walk the plank.
Even better - let's make this entire thread walk the plank. Maybe it will finally drown. Then ROF can rush off to the store to buy a bunch of "Madasgascar" dvd's to shore up the sales figures to demonstrate the effectiveness of Dreamworks giving their money away to a firm like Macrovision to no purpose . . . . . . .

I already bought four of them, but I do need to buy probably one more unless we are going to be giving Polar Express instead.

[GullyFoyle]

After eight pages we seem to have two camps. The largest camp seems to think it is allright to copy for personal use. The minority camp interprets the law in the corporations favor by claiming it is illegal to make those copies.
No EFF people or pro-consumer rights lawyers post here. I assume most of us are pro-consumer rights so we can claim to be advocates.
Some state the law. But we all know the law is INTERPRETED. That what is set in stone one day is revoked the next. That even clear cut laws involving murder or theft are not always invoked and settled in the same manner from case to case and court to court.
The two main ideas are that people are pissed off and much like drug laws people will ignore them and do what they please when they please until they CHOOSE not to.
It seems like the corporations are digging their own graves. The more angry people become the more likely they are to avenge themselves on big media.

[ROF]

The two main ideas are that people are pissed off and much like drug laws people will ignore them and do what they please when they please until they CHOOSE not to.
It seems like the corporations are digging their own graves. The more angry people become the more likely they are to avenge themselves on big media.

choose not to or are arrested? Violating copyright laws can result in jail time and excessive fines depending on as you say a case to case basis. The more angry people get the more they buy. Just look at the latest gasoline supply disruption in the US. People got really angry yet people continued to buy more and more gasoline despite prices three to ten times it's normal cost. It is the law that backing up commericial DVDs and/or reverse engineering copy protections is illegal in the United States. Whether it's a good law or a bad law is not for the individual to interpret. You can do as you please but like the druggies who have dug themselves a grave, I hope when anyone here gets caught illegally making backups that they didn't dig it so deep that they will be financially and socially ruined all because they couldn't be bothered to not violate the law.

[gadgetguy]

Having followed this through all 8 pages, I think GullyFoyle's summary covers it pretty well.
But I have to question one part. It was my understanding that it's not the law that gets interpreted but the circumstances of each individual case are interpreted as it applies to the law. I've never been involved in a case, but I was a juror once and it was made pretty clear that we were not to interpret the law, but to decide if the accused performed actions that were in violation of the law that he was charged with.

[smearbrick1]

Blah-blah, blibbity, blah-blah - And that was just the first page. It was followed by:

Blah, blah, blibbity-blibbity, blah, blah,b-blah!
This pretty much sums up the remaining 7 pages.

Is it me or are all of us too stubborn to just yield to the other just for the sake of progressing the thread topic? I've had several posts on this thread, but we keep coming around to same thing:

ROF VS The Entire Videohelp.com Community

Throw in the towel! Someone. Agree to disgree. Nobody is going to change their opinion! It hasn't happened in 8 pages, it's not going to happen.

Now... onto a new subject.

Who here likes pie?

[ROF]

Now... onto a new subject.

Who here likes pie?

Depends on the baker. I've agreed to disagree with those who turn a blind eye to copyright violations. I just hope when someone steals their car they don't make an insurance claim but instead pull their backup out of the garage.

[smearbrick1]

Now... onto a new subject.

Who here likes pie?

Depends on the baker. I've agreed to disagree with those who turn a blind eye to copyright violations. I just hope when someone steals their car they don't make an insurance claim but instead pull their backup out of the garage.

You see! Right there. I start to see your perspective and then whip an apples to oranges comparison like that!

[davideck]

ROF -

You violate the law. We all do. Everybody drives a little too fast on occasion, or fails to make a complete stop every now and then, or jaywalks, etc.

The reason that you are not locked up in jail is because you live in a tolerant society made up (mostly) of people who understand the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law.

Your position might seem less hypocritical if you first locked yourself up and then argued that the rest of us should do the same.

[Rich86]

I already bought four of them, but I do need to buy probably one more unless we are going to be giving Polar Express instead.

Buying 4 dvd's won't help Macrovision a bit. Besides - "Polar Express" is a far better choice . . I've bought 2 so far. And kindly notice these buying decisions have absolutely nothing to do with whatever copy protection crap the studio has included . . .

How can you compare people being forced to buy gasoline at outrageous prices with anything related to dvd's? You really are stretching.

It's a simple issue - people should just not buy products that they consider to be unsatisfactory. The price of gasoline causes us to think twice before wasting it - probably a good thing no matter what the price? The usefulness and life of an entertainment product should also guide us in whether or not to buy it. I confess to having purchased the same favorite movie 3 times (vhs, laser disc, dvd). But I assure you, most of us have no intentions of buying the same movie on dvd more than once for our own personal use.

If the movie studios want to throw their money away by giving it to macrovision - I guess that's their business. But I think an objective analysis of the results of that folly will clearly indicate it is a waste. The serious bootleggers who actually do impact sales will blow right by this nonsense and continue to sell dvd's by the armload . . .

May you all have a terrific holiday season with family and friends and not be bothered by any MPAA or RIAA stormtroopers. Be sure to keep the poor starving movie studio executives and actors/actresses in your prayers as they struggle on their remaining income after all those losses they've taken due to the hordes of "pirates" out there . . .

[ROF]

ROF -

You violate the law. We all do. Everybody drives a little too fast on occasion, or fails to make a complete stop every now and then, or jaywalks, etc.

The reason that you are not locked up in jail is because you live in a tolerant society made up (mostly) of people who understand the spirit of the law as well as the letter of the law.

Your position might seem less hypocritical if you first locked yourself up and then argued that the rest of us should do the same.

Ever hear of speeding tickets? I'm sure I've gotten a few in my lifetime. Failure to yield? Yep, I got one of those too. I paid my fines agreed that I violated the law and that was that. The problem with digital piracy is people don't leave their homes. They download a program using a traceable address which enables them to illegally back up a DVD while the program logs those actions. It's only a matter of time before, like me and my speeding ticket, that you'll get caught too. Personally, I hope this doesn't happen which is why I support the industry initiatives to stem the illegal activities of individuals by making it ever increasingly difficult for the average person driving down the digital highway to casually violate the law.

[DereX888]

no way, smearbrick1.
I'm fed up with morons on tv, in theaters and now even on this forum, who are popping up out of the sudden and try to tell us, us - the vast majority of our society - that we are stupid and they know better how we must live.
These ******** ride on our acceptance and our ability to co-exist with different opinions and lifestyles and so on, and then they suddenly stab us in the back to force us into their minority point of view or lifestyle. or into protecting some shadowy group's profits.
Its just time to put an end to this brainwash.

The facts are, that no matter what ROFs of this world and their MPAA try to preach here and no matter how much they try to scare us with dead laws, the fact is that they have nothing.
In all years since DMCA has been passed, NO ONE, NOT EVEN ONE PERSON had been ever prosecuted nor even sued for copying a legally bought DVD or a CD for his own personal use at the premises of his own home. It is dead law, because no MPAA, no studio, and no government official will try to do so, knowing very well, that the hell will open in the medias, and immediately actual laws will be constructed stating clear and undenyable home personal use exemptions, either as modifications of DMCA or as an additions to the Fair Use clauses. Thats why all they do is just 'noise' in order to brainwash any weaker member of the society with the scare of some potential jail time if you dare to copy that legally bought DVD of yours. Thats their tactic and entire strategy, but they absolutely don't want and will not even try to sue anyone for making home backups, because this would lead to passing actual laws stating how much we are allow, as it happened with Fair Use when they tried to sue videomanufacturers. They shot themselves in a foot once, and they will not repeat this mistake again.
ANYBODY PLEASE SHOW ME AT LEAST ONE LAWCASE WHERE A PERSON HAD BEEN EVER CHARGED AND PROSECUTED FOR COPYING HIS LEGALLY BOUGHT DVD FOR PERSONAL HOME USE
The propaganda will ensue. It already works as we can see in the example of ROF (if he really is just a person) - he already buys multiple copies of the same movie, same movie for which he said himself that "we buy a licence to watch a movie on a disc when we buy the dvd" - doesnt he understand that by buying 4 copies of the same movie he just had paid 3 more times for the very same 'licence to watch' that he already paid for with the first disc (unless he bought 4 different movies ofcourse)?
MPAA is funded by the studios, I dont know their budget, but Im very sure they spend alot on PR (PRopaganda). They have entire army of paid for lawyers, PR specialist, and practically unlimited amounts of money. We have only our common sense, but even that seems to scare the shit out of them since they still haven't dare to make any exemplary public caselaw suing some Joe Schmoe. No, they can't do shit yet. Maybe in next 5, 10 or 20 years, when new generations grow up, brought up on MPAA's propaganda which is already spreading at every school (ask your children if you don't believe me, you'll be surprised), maybe then they will dare to charge someone for copying a movie for his own home use, because they will change public's opinion on such activity. But not now, while it is still accepted by vast majority of the society, they won't risk another 'failure' (for them) like Fair Use. Thats why their money is on propaganda for now, not on the enforcing their ridiculus dead laws like DMCA.

[smearbrick1]

no way, smearbrick1.
I'm fed up with morons on tv, in theaters and now even on this forum, who are popping up out of the sudden and try to tell us, us - the vast majority of our society - that we are stupid and they know better how we must live.
These ******** ride on our acceptance and our ability to co-exist with different opinions and lifestyles and so on, and then they suddenly stab us in the back to force us into their minority point of view or lifestyle. or into protecting some shadowy group's profits.
Its just time to put an end to this brainwash.

The facts are, that no matter what ROFs of this world and their MPAA try to preach here and no matter how much they try to scare us with dead laws, the fact is that they have nothing.
In all years since DMCA has been passed, NO ONE, NOT EVEN ONE PERSON had been ever prosecuted nor even sued for copying a legally bought DVD or a CD for his own personal use at the premises of his own home. It is dead law, because no MPAA, no studio, and no government official will try to do so, knowing very well, that the hell will open in the medias, and immediately actual laws will be constructed stating clear and undenyable home personal use exemptions, either as modifications of DMCA or as an additions to the Fair Use clauses. Thats why all they do is just 'noise' in order to brainwash any weaker member of the society with the scare of some potential jail time if you dare to copy that legally bought DVD of yours. Thats their tactic and entire strategy, but they absolutely don't want and will not even try to sue anyone for making home backups, because this would lead to passing actual laws stating how much we are allow, as it happened with Fair Use when they tried to sue videomanufacturers. They shot themselves in a foot once, and they will not repeat this mistake again.
ANYBODY PLEASE SHOW ME AT LEAST ONE LAWCASE WHERE A PERSON HAD BEEN EVER CHARGED AND PROSECUTED FOR COPYING HIS LEGALLY BOUGHT DVD FOR PERSONAL HOME USE :!:
The propaganda will ensue. It already works as we can see in the example of ROF (if he really is just a person) - he already buys multiple copies of the same movie, same movie for which he said himself that "we buy a licence to watch a movie on a disc when we buy the dvd" - doesnt he understand that by buying 4 copies of the same movie he just had paid 3 more times for the very same 'licence to watch' that he already paid for with the first disc (unless he bought 4 different movies ofcourse)?
MPAA is funded by the studios, I dont know their budget, but Im very sure they spend alot on PR (PRopaganda). They have entire army of paid for lawyers, PR specialist, and practically unlimited amounts of money. We have only our common sense, but even that seems to scare the shit out of them since they still haven't dare to make any exemplary public caselaw suing some Joe Schmoe. No, they can't do shit yet. Maybe in next 5, 10 or 20 years, when new generations grow up, brought up on MPAA's propaganda which is already spreading at every school (ask your children if you don't believe me, you'll be surprised), maybe then they will dare to charge someone for copying a movie for his own home use, because they will change public's opinion on such activity. But not now, while it is still accepted by vast majority of the society.

I'll take that as "no" then.

[Dv8ted2]

The sooner that these media conglomerates quit wasting money on ineffective measures that only punish the people that buy the product, the better.

[GullyFoyle]

Having followed this through all 8 pages, I think GullyFoyle's summary covers it pretty well.
But I have to question one part. It was my understanding that it's not the law that gets interpreted but the circumstances of each individual case are interpreted as it applies to the law. I've never been involved in a case, but I was a juror once and it was made pretty clear that we were not to interpret the law, but to decide if the accused performed actions that were in violation of the law that he was charged with.

The whole job of an attorney is to interpret the law and present what he thinks it says.
If the court agrees with that interpretation the law changes.
Examine supreme court decisions. Or even Medical Marijuana. The states voted it into law. The Feds interpret their law differently.
As much as it may seem so none of this is set in stone. A law merely exists until a better one comes along or it is shot down for violating some right.
Both juries and judges interpret the law all the time. You can not apply a law filtered through evidence with out making a personal decision as to what the law means. Ever watch Twelve Angry men? each has his own agenda. Each sees things differently. Then a general consensus wins out.
That is what we have now. One side interprets the law one way the other the other. eventually a case will come forcing a decision as to if the law is "legal" or not. Not being a violation of a right.
The only side ever presented here by the legal experts is the pro-corporate position.
Some more vehemently than others.
I'm sure someone will disagree with my interpretation and present theirs.
Which makes for a healthy discussion.

Also I bet the judge didn't explain Jury Nullification to you either.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/nullification.html

Jury nullification occurs when a jury returns a verdict of "Not Guilty" despite its belief that the defendant is guilty of the violation charged. The jury in effect nullifies a law that it believes is either immoral or wrongly applied to the defendant whose fate that are charged with deciding.

[ROF]

ANYBODY PLEASE SHOW ME AT LEAST ONE LAWCASE WHERE A PERSON HAD BEEN EVER CHARGED AND PROSECUTED FOR COPYING HIS LEGALLY BOUGHT DVD FOR PERSONAL HOME USE.

No need. There are thousands of people who have been served legal notice that their illicit activities can result in $150,000USD Fines for each illegal download or backed up movie in their collection. The MPAA is getting ready to submit another handful as we speak. read a newspaper sometime or ask around. I'm sure there is someone out there who has payed or agreed to pay an inexorbitant amount of money in restitution for their illegal activities of stealing.

The question(s) you need to ask yourself is do you want to pay these fines? Do you want to have the stigma of being labelled a thief? Do you want to risk your life (because the prosecution of these things takes time) because of a movie backup?

It seems harmless now, but just ask those in the past RIAA salvo of lawsuits against individual copyright violators whether their activities would ever result in them being labelled as a thief. I'm quite sure they'd do anything to reverse their previous course of action.

[rkr1958]

The more angry people become the more likely they are to avenge themselves on big media.

I doubt the average person is very angry about not being able to backup their DVDs. I doubt the average person cares about ripguard. I'd say that the people who really care about this issue and / or involved in backing up their DVDs are less than 1% (maybe more like 1/10 of 1%).

[GullyFoyle]

A warning is not the same as a prosecution.
Plus you made the argument that big media was NOT found guilty in the collusion case because they settled.
By your own standards anyone who settles is NOT guilty of a crime because they have NOT been convicted of such.
So really, and remember you set the standard, no one is even guilty of any violation if they have settled.

[smearbrick1]

The more angry people become the more likely they are to avenge themselves on big media.

I doubt the average person is very angry about not being able to backup their DVDs. I doubt the average person cares about ripguard. I'd say that the people who really care about this issue and / or involved in backing up their DVDs are less than 1% (maybe more like 1/10 of 1%).

Bingo. And the other 9/10 of that one percent are people who purchased DVD X Copy which is not usable with Ripguard.

@ROF

Every lawsuit I've heard about on the news has nothing to do with DVD backups. The lawsuits filed against average citizens have all been over P2P downloading (more uploading).

[GullyFoyle]

The more angry people become the more likely they are to avenge themselves on big media.

I doubt the average person is very angry about not being able to backup their DVDs. I doubt the average person cares about ripguard. I'd say that the people who really care about this issue and / or involved in backing up their DVDs are less than 1% (maybe more like 1/10 of 1%).

I don't know. I know people intentionally violate laws they disagree with.
I do not know percentages.
I do know there are a LOT of files out there and a LOT of people sharing them through either p2p or personal channels.
Somewhere revenge does play into the equation.

[ROF]

The more angry people become the more likely they are to avenge themselves on big media.

I doubt the average person is very angry about not being able to backup their DVDs. I doubt the average person cares about ripguard. I'd say that the people who really care about this issue and / or involved in backing up their DVDs are less than 1% (maybe more like 1/10 of 1%).

Exactly. The only ones who loudly complain are typically the ones who violate the law on a regular basis. I dare say the majority of those who complain do not even own the original but instead are complaining because their rental is due to be returned and they haven't been able to steal it yet. They'd steal it in the comfort of their homes but don't have enough gumption to walk out of the store without paying for it. It's only OK in their minds because there is nobody potentially watching what they are doing.

[ROF]

The more angry people become the more likely they are to avenge themselves on big media.

I doubt the average person is very angry about not being able to backup their DVDs. I doubt the average person cares about ripguard. I'd say that the people who really care about this issue and / or involved in backing up their DVDs are less than 1% (maybe more like 1/10 of 1%).

I don't know. I know people intentionally violate laws they disagree with.
I do not know percentages.
I do know there are a LOT of files out there and a LOT of people sharing them through either p2p or personal channels.
Somewhere revenge does play into the equation.

and that's why this whole thread has taken the turn that it has. People are taking the law into their own hands by violating the law. Dreamworks has attempted to use ripguard to prevent the continual losses experiences because of the channels you describe above.

[gadgetguy]

Ever watch Twelve Angry men?

I tried, twice. But it was a late night movie and I feel asleep (both times).
But, even if I had, I wouldn't expect to base my judicial knowledge on some movie or TV show that I watched. Those are self described works of fiction and even if based on actual events, blur the line between fantasy and fact. That's why, when possible, I prefer to read the actual text of a law or transcript of a case.

You're right, the judge didn't explain jury nullification. She read the text of the law that the defendant was charged with and told us to decide if the actions of the defendant violated that law.

[GullyFoyle]

The more angry people become the more likely they are to avenge themselves on big media.

I doubt the average person is very angry about not being able to backup their DVDs. I doubt the average person cares about ripguard. I'd say that the people who really care about this issue and / or involved in backing up their DVDs are less than 1% (maybe more like 1/10 of 1%).

I don't know. I know people intentionally violate laws they disagree with.
I do not know percentages.
I do know there are a LOT of files out there and a LOT of people sharing them through either p2p or personal channels.
Somewhere revenge does play into the equation.

and that's why this whole thread has taken the turn that it has. People are taking the law into their own hands by violating the law. Dreamworks has attempted to use ripguard to prevent the continual losses experiences because of the channels you describe above.

Again we are back to interpretation.
I seem to recall that during the civil rights movement people continually violated odious laws. We are better today for those acts of civil disobedience.
Because a law is on record it neither makes it fair nor just.