An Industry Unwilling to Play by Rules of 'Fair Use'

[mbellot]

Today, a digital copy of a digital content file is identical to the original and every file can be exposed almost instantaneously to the entire world online. That's a prospect the entertainment companies say could cost them billions.

Well I guess that lets P2P networks off the hook. The files shared are lossy re-compressed versions, hardly "identical to the original". :P

As the copyright expert Lawrence Lessig says, this "permission culture" will only make us less free. In short, the media moguls are making arguments that we shouldn't buy.

How true.

[ROF]

Today, a digital copy of a digital content file is identical to the original and every file can be exposed almost instantaneously to the entire world online. That's a prospect the entertainment companies say could cost them billions.

Well I guess that lets P2P networks off the hook. The files shared are lossy re-compressed versions, hardly "identical to the original". :P
.

I agree. The industry should continue to sue those customers of P2P who violate the law while those who use it properly are allowed to do so without the threat of their favorite client being shut down.

[RottenFoxBreath]

Today, a digital copy of a digital content file is identical to the original and every file can be exposed almost instantaneously to the entire world online. That's a prospect the entertainment companies say could cost them billions.

Well I guess that lets P2P networks off the hook. The files shared are lossy re-compressed versions, hardly "identical to the original". :P
.

I agree. The industry should continue to sue those customers of P2P who violate the law while those who use it properly are allowed to do so without the threat of their favorite client being shut down.

it costs a shitload more cash to sue than what they get back in return,many people will just never pay,and would have no intention too do so,so thats where your profits/shares/taxes go..right on..if you think thats right,and perfectly acceptable,you just keep on wearing those blinkers.. 8)
and the more they make things more illegal,like adding jail time,etc,its just a huge advert for file sharing.they have never learned with "the war on drugs" and now they make the same mistake with music/movies.
i for one would like to see the money spent in a better way to improve this shit world,and the problems that exist,rather than spending immense bundles of cash on pointless legal cases,that prove nothing,and wars that dont exist(war was never declared as such,thus its an illegal invasion).more moronic examples of the corporate world.

[ROF]

Actually there are very few cases which actually go to court. The lawyers for the cases are already in house lawyers so they get paid whether they are doing this or not. Most if not all cases have been settled out of court. failure to pay can result in contempt of court or other legal issue(I'm no lawyer) where the person who fails to pay is actually worse off and paying more. Shareholders benefit from this all the time. Just ask them.

[ROF]

and the more they make things more illegal,like adding jail time,etc,its just a huge advert for file sharing.they have never learned with "the war on drugs" and now they make the same mistake with music/movies.
i for one would like to see the money spent in a better way to improve this shit world,and the problems that exist,rather than spending immense bundles of cash on pointless legal cases,that prove nothing,and wars that dont exist(war was never declared as such,thus its an illegal invasion).more moronic examples of the corporate world.

That's an interesting view you have upon the world. Depressing but interesting nonetheless.

File sharing isn't illegal. I do it all the time. It's actually part of my job to do so. It's what files are shared that makes it illegal. The war on drugs is also an interesting topic. It has no relation here beyond the fact that most people including the drug addicts know that the drugs they are doing(files they are sharing) are illegal. They also know they can be arrested for it and that society in general frowns upon them.

War in general on the other hand is something humans seem to enjoy. Just take a look at the front page news and you'll see images and discussions about how good or bad any particular war in going. People choose sides and if international gambling were legal I'd bet the UN would have an odds board displayed on the side of the building. Conquest has been happening since before controlled fire existed.

[GullyFoyle]

Actually there are very few cases which actually go to court. The lawyers for the cases are already in house lawyers so they get paid whether they are doing this or not. Most if not all cases have been settled out of court. failure to pay can result in contempt of court or other legal issue(I'm no lawyer) where the person who fails to pay is actually worse off and paying more. Shareholders benefit from this all the time. Just ask them.

Not quite true. If you can not afford to pay the amount can be waived or reduced. It happens all the time.
Also change in income can bring about a reduction or stop of payments.
I would imagine after a couple of years if you stopped the monthly payment it would be sent to a collection agency.
Lots of ways around them.

[GullyFoyle]

File sharing isn't illegal. I do it all the time. It's actually part of my job to do so. It's what files are shared that makes it illegal. The war on drugs is also an interesting topic. It has no relation here beyond the fact that most people including the drug addicts know that the drugs they are doing(files they are sharing) are illegal. They also know they can be arrested for it and that society in general frowns upon them.

So was that nasty old civil rights thing. And a womans right to vote. And abortion.
Illegal until the law came around. Illegal but people did it anway.
So everyone using a drug is an addict? Every one who drinks is an addict then. Everyone who has coffee is an addict.
Lot's of addicts out there.

[ROF]

I don't know if any of that is true. But I do know that allowing something to go to a collection agency will ruin your chances of owning much of anything in this world unless you pay cash for it.

[lordsmurf]

But I do know that allowing something to go to a collection agency will ruin your chances of owning much of anything in this world unless you pay cash for it.

I hear this a lot, but never seen it. Many a time I've watched some real dirtballs not pay their bills, get taken to collections, and the process repeats over and over and over again. It obviously does nothing against them. You'd do just as good to threaten to soak them with a bucket of water.

[ROF]

@Lordsmurf

While that is true as well I'll bet those same people aren't buying any real estate or getting/increasing lines of credit. That was my point.

[GullyFoyle]

I don't know if any of that is true. But I do know that allowing something to go to a collection agency will ruin your chances of owning much of anything in this world unless you pay cash for it.

Wrong any bill other than medical has to be removed after six or eight years. I can't recall federal, may be eight. My state is six.
Only medical bills can stay forever.
But say the bill gets turned over to a new collection agency, they do roll these things over, and they file a new claim against you just before the limit the new claim will stay for the limit.
People who have collection agency's on their backs actually do buy things. And they do get credit. Nice thing about the Bushco economy lenders now are willing to overlook that whole debt thing. Everything from bank mortgages to new cars are out there for those with bad credit who don't mind paying a bit more.

[thecoalman]

But I do know that allowing something to go to a collection agency will ruin your chances of owning much of anything in this world unless you pay cash for it.

I hear this a lot, but never seen it. Many a time I've watched some real dirtballs not pay their bills, get taken to collections, and the process repeats over and over and over again. It obviously does nothing against them. You'd do just as good to threaten to soak them with a bucket of water.

I even have a court judgement against a guy and can't collect. Can't find him for one thing, second is if I do I'll have to spend yet more money to haul him back to court and then what am I going to collect?

People who get into those positions know how to work the system, beside you can't get blood out of stone. They apply for stuff using a girlfriends credit, parents credit etc. They'll be driving around in a new car but simce they don't own it you can't touch them.

[ROF]

Interesting. Are you sure about this?

Statutes of Limitations for Judgements and Renewals

Like I said, I'm no lawyer but if I owed $4000 in a judgement from a reduced payment of $250,000 fine plus 4 years in jail, I think I'd pay it off rather than have this hound me for quite possibly the rest of my life.

Bills maybe, but judgements are different. These involve the courts and legal action which the recording industry should continue to persue against those who violate the law instead of going after the P2P networks.

[GullyFoyle]

Interesting. Are you sure about this?

Statutes of Limitations for Judgements and Renewals

Like I said, I'm no lawyer but if I owed $4000 in a judgement from a reduced payment of $250,000 fine plus 4 years in jail, I think I'd pay it off rather than have this hound me for quite possibly the rest of my life.

Bills maybe, but judgements are different. These involve the courts and legal action which the recording industry should continue to persue against those who violate the law instead of going after the P2P networks.

You move out of state and can't be found.
Lot's of people duck judgements. or if you have the money you tie it up in court.
Or plead poverty or inability due to illness or circumstance.
None of this is really mandatory at certain levels.
What happens is straight citizens pay because they respect and fear the law.
The rest know how to get around laws like big business does.
No big deal for smart people.

[ROF]

Smart people?

Funny I thought smart people take responsibility for their actions and not run away from their responsibilities. In any case, judgements are not limited to the State you are currently a resident of and by moving to a State where you think your hiding the judgement will follow you there. Your credit is a part of you. Take responsibility for your actions. That's what mature adults do.

[Teutatis]

Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford law professor who is mentioned in the article, has written an interesting book titled "Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity".

This book is distributed under a Creative Commons license, which means that it is free to download and redistribute for non-commercial use. For those who are interested, the book can be downloaded here:

http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

[somebodeez]

Lawrence Lessig, the Stanford law professor who is mentioned in the article, has written an interesting book titled "Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock Down Culture and Control Creativity".

This book is distributed under a Creative Commons license, which means that it is free to download and redistribute for non-commercial use. For those who are interested, the book can be downloaded here:

http://www.free-culture.cc/freecontent/

Oh thank you - I am very interested.

[ROF]

Yes. Thank you. I needed a new comic book that skews reality in favor of the authors opinions.

[thecoalman]

In any case, judgements are not limited to the State you are currently a resident of and by moving to a State where you think your hiding the judgement will follow you there.

Yes they can but it's still a pain in the ass to collect. If I remeber correctly you have to file suit in that state. If you don't have a SS# of the person OR they don't use it then you'll never find them.

[jimmalenko]

5 hours for what? I didn't know fair use was part of todays legislation?

It only took 5 hours for you to start ........... and that's all I'm gonna say on the matter. You've reported the thread and proclaimed twice within a very short time that this isn't latest news, yet you're still here giving your 2c worth ?

This site is based upon Fair Use so what's the point bitching about it being legal or not AGAIN ? Just move on

[ROF]

In any case, judgements are not limited to the State you are currently a resident of and by moving to a State where you think your hiding the judgement will follow you there.

Yes they can but it's still a pain in the ass to collect. If I remeber correctly you have to file suit in that state. If you don't have a SS# of the person OR they don't use it then you'll never find them.

Court records have your ID#(Driver's License) and Social Security Number. You do not have to file suit in that state since the judegment is already intact. You can have your wages garnished, bank accounts seized, equitable assets with liens attached, and more.

Like I said, responsible adults do not run from their problems even if they are legal issues. But in any case, the judgement is for at a minimum of five years. If it's allowed to expire that's when your credit gets further destroyed for another 7-10 years. Considering the average lifespan is 74 years, I'd say running away from your responsibilities for 1/6 of your life isn't really worth it.

[ROF]

This site is based upon Fair Use so what's the point bitching about it being legal or not AGAIN ? Just move on

So show me where in Fair Use you are allowed to make 1-1 backup copies of copy protected media. That's all I'm gonna say on the matter as well unless you can provide such info. The majority of this site doesn't deal with this stuff anyways so I'd say the site isn't based on something that isn't fair use.

[jimmalenko]

This site is based upon Fair Use so what's the point bitching about it being legal or not AGAIN ? Just move on

So show me where in Fair Use you are allowed to make 1-1 backup copies of copy protected media. That's all I'm gonna say on the matter as well unless you can provide such info. The majority of this site doesn't deal with this stuff anyways so I'd say the site isn't based on something that isn't fair use.

I don't think anyone has ever doubted that Fair Use is not legally supported in the US; but it's not implicitly illegal either. AFAIK it sits in a grey area that doesn't really have any precedents, and isn't likely to in the near future either. But there's what's legal and then there's what's acceptable at this site, and that's where you seem to be misled.

Given that the AUP states:

Fair use / Backup
When you own the media, they are the rights you get automatically DESPITE what content providers or laywers might tell you. These rights are fully supported by the crew at VCDhelp and are the basis for most of the site. These fair use rights evaporate when you sell the media in question.

Backup
You have the right to make A backup of your media. You can back up as much or as little as you wish.

Format shifting
You have the right to convert your media to another format.

Time shifting
You have the right to time shift your legitimately received cable, tv or satellite signal for viewing at a later time

Fair use DOES NOT APPLY TO rentals or borrowed media.

and also:

Warez rules
What is warez? Obtained IP (intellectual property: software/music/movies) either through download, serial, or crack in a manner that either explicitly or implied breaks the copyright or license for that IP.

Do NOT give warez / Do NOT link to warez
Distributing warez. This includes linking to warez either directly or to crack or serial sites. Offering warez in any fashion including PM or e-mail is against forum policy.

Do NOT ask for warez
Asking for warez. In any fashion this is unacceptable including but not limited to PM or e-mail requests or information on what p-2-p network has copies.

Do NOT provide information on how to obtain warez
Providing information on how to obtain warez.

Do NOT advocate warez
Advocate warez. Recommending the use of warez.

I'd suggest that this site is very much pro-Fair Use to the point where MOST of the site is centred around much of what Fair Use covers.

[GullyFoyle]

In any case, judgements are not limited to the State you are currently a resident of and by moving to a State where you think your hiding the judgement will follow you there.

Yes they can but it's still a pain in the ass to collect. If I remeber correctly you have to file suit in that state. If you don't have a SS# of the person OR they don't use it then you'll never find them.

Court records have your ID#(Driver's License) and Social Security Number. You do not have to file suit in that state since the judegment is already intact. You can have your wages garnished, bank accounts seized, equitable assets with liens attached, and more.

Like I said, responsible adults do not run from their problems even if they are legal issues. But in any case, the judgement is for at a minimum of five years. If it's allowed to expire that's when your credit gets further destroyed for another 7-10 years. Considering the average lifespan is 74 years, I'd say running away from your responsibilities for 1/6 of your life isn't really worth it.

Fact is spanky smart people work the system. It doesn't matter if they are big business or crack dealers. they ALL ( well the smart ones) know the legal loopholes and where the law stretches.
You want to avoid bills, go on welfare. No one can collect from you.
You want to talk mature, there are elderly who have to get divorced and sign their assets over to someone so that they can afford medical treatment. Are they mature or just plain stupid?
As I said before people with bad or no credit can and do buy houses and new cars. Lenders have no problem charging them a bit more than others. If they default the property is siezed and resold.
You are pretty naive about how the system works.
Then again you always have the narrowest viewpoint on any given issue.
Finally by your own standards ( remember you said that because big media settled out of course in the collusion case they were not guilty) those who settle are not guilty of any crime.
Enough on money. The original post isn't about that it's about fair use and big business. it is about time to return to the core issue.

[thecoalman]

Court records have your ID#(Driver's License) and Social Security Number.

ahhhhh you got my hopes up ROF but no such luck. Neither appears on the judgement. My copy or the courts copy..... Oh well back to the drawing board.

[Headbanger's Ball]

Yes. Thank you. I needed a new comic book that skews reality in favor of the authors opinions.

If you like that syle so much....www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

[mbellot]

Yes. Thank you. I needed a new comic book that skews reality in favor of the authors opinions.

Because if it doesn't skew reality in favor of your opinions it must be a joke, right?

So show me where in Fair Use you are allowed to make 1-1 backup copies of copy protected media.

I think you would be hard pressed to find anyone who visits this site to fall into that category.

Most people are more interested in making backups that are specifically NOT 1:1, removing such things as mandatory advertising that can't be skipped and pointless extras that nobody gives a crap about.

And lets not forget re-encoding to fit onto smaller media (VCD, PSP, etc).

None of those are 1:1 backups.

Besides, if you want to get strictly technical about it, the simple act of removing CSS no longer makes it a true 1:1 backup. :P

[painkiller]

MBELLOT raises an excellent point.

Some time back there was a dvd copy software that did, in fact, reproduce dvd copies which advertised that it included the protection from the original onto the backed up copy.

(DVDXCOPY? Not sure if I remember the name of the product quite right.)

Anyway, it actually made a true 1:1 copy.

And yet, the content manufacturers sued them right off the planet (at least, certainly the USA) and forced that product to dissappear off the store shelves.

{EDIT: Very well then. Perhaps I should restate. The advertisement, based on my recollection, was that 123 Studio claimed to copy the entire DVD by first breaking the encryption - copying the content - and burning it with encryption onto another disk. If someone can show me that isn't the case, fine, but so far - I have not been able to Google such results.}

[mbellot]

MBELLOT raises an excellent point.

Some time back there was a dvd copy software that did, in fact, reproduce dvd copies which advertised that it included the protection from the original onto the backed up copy.

Not possible.

Home DVD burners are not capable of burning CSS encrypted disks.

[Dv8ted2]

This site is based upon Fair Use so what's the point bitching about it being legal or not AGAIN ? Just move on

So show me where in Fair Use you are allowed to make 1-1 backup copies of copy protected media. That's all I'm gonna say on the matter as well unless you can provide such info. The majority of this site doesn't deal with this stuff anyways so I'd say the site isn't based on something that isn't fair use.

It has never been a 1-1 backup, because the encryption has to be removed. In order to be a true 1-1 backup, the encryption would be copied as well.

Their side states that we are able to make perfect copies. Seeing as I shrink dual layer discs down to single layer blanks, that is not a perfect copy.