Piracy - What is the border line?

[defense]

Finally, to the fine poster ranting on about 'god'. You are incorrect. The capitalization of 'god' is necessary when referring to a specific deity as a proper noun. For example if I say, "Loki was the god of mischief," it does not get capitalized. It was clear txpharoah was using the word in a non-proper context. So in addition to your poor legal advice, your grammar skills are awful, too.

Just a quick concise sentence or so. As far as the entire "GOD" issue, many will tell you that you don't refer to it in ANY manner, because it's not appropriate to say "GOD" at all unless you are doing so in a religious manner. As far as my "legal" advice. Too bad you can't read either. I didn't even offer a single piece of legal advice, because i'm not an attorney. This isn't a legal forum. There's a saying that small people use big words for small situations. This is CLEARLY a small situation. Reading that little tidbit of yours made me wanna puke more then listening to Dennis Miller with his pathetic array of lingo and grammar.

Whoever "defense" is, please get a better defense. Seriously? Spelling? At 1 a.m. CST spelling is the least of my concerns.

No, but at 1 a.m you had enough pizzazz to write an entire novel while at the same time referring to the people who did offer their thoughts as "dumb" and "stupid." It's also very clear that you didn't mispell anything. You thought the word was "conviscate" when in fact, it is "confiscate." What does that prove? Nothing, other then the next time you chose to call people "dumb" for their comments you better take a good look in the mirror because you aren't as sharp as I look.

[Karate Media]

And once more, a BACKUP is NOT the same thing as AN EXTRA COPY. I keep my backups in a safe or file drawer. Being where I work, I have access to things you'll never get. So, they're pretty valuable to a video collector like myself. I can lend out originals just fine. Not illegal. The backup stays in the safe or drawer as the backup. Only illegal if I loan it out too or use it in any fashion that would make it be less of a BACKUP and more of an EXTRA COPY.

-txpharoah

txpharoah, you must be a lawyer -- Fun w/ Semantics? While it is not my profession, I have studied some media and copyright law, and I think you are painting quite a gray area re: backup vs copy. I recently helped a local record store owner mull over the idea of renting audio CDs, so lets use that as an example:

Lets say you were to make "backups" of all your CDs and rent out the originals. One day you get dragged to court for copyright violations (I'm painting in broad strokes here, so lets not piddle on details) --- you would have to make a pretty convincing case that these were "backups" that you didn't listen to while the originals were rented out.

And that -- as I was taught -- is the crux of the argument: You cannot use your "backup" while the original is in use. In most cases (from what I am told - again, I have no empirical experience) if you were found with personal copies (CDRs, VHS dubs, etc) of original works that you rented out, then you would be in violation of the law. "One use at a time" is how it was explained to me. You cannot listen to your "backup" of a CD if your friend is at his house listening to the original that you rented to him, or even simply let him borrow.

If this is your line of work, I will try to defer to you, but the "backup vs. copy" argument doesn't jibe with my knowledge of US law, nor with what I would think would be a common-sense interpretation of it.

BTW: I think you're being a little harsh on everybody. Someone opened up a discussion -- not asking for a professional lawyer's opinion, but seemingly just starting a general discussion -- and people joined in. If someone makes their legal decisions based on what they read in a general internet forum (no offense to the fine folks at dvdrhelp), well then they deserve all the trouble they get into. Obviously, if you need legal advice for an immediate real-life situation, then go to a lawyer. If you just wanna shoot the shit, head for the internet.

ending my novel....now.

[txpharoah]

Karate, I'm not quite sure I follow you. Your comparisons to rented media versus personal backups are not the same. A store that rent media has no need to back up. Follow along here...

A BACKUP is for personal use, made in case your original storage media becomes destroyed. You purchased one allocation of the content. It came on media. If the media is destroyed, you can use your BACKUP in its place, however, try to keep the unusable original as proof of purchase. In all common sense, you are at home, so who cares?

A BACKUP is not the same as an EXTRA COPY. The BACKUP is legal. Use it only when the original in unusable. The EXTRA COPY is an extra, and illegal if you made it yourself without permission.

It's when you try to sell the original that all this matters. You can give the new owner the unusable husk as well as the backup of it. Destruction of the original, making the backup now the primary, may constitute an allowance for the addition of a second backup. Once again, this is for the purpose of BACKUP, not for access to an extra copy.

In terms of stores, while most owners would like to have this hold true, it has not held true in court. It has been ruled that the stores did not purchase the content. They purchased the media. They rent the media out for a price. They have no interest in the movie, they have interest in providing it to others for a price. Stores are involved in what could best be described as a licensing arrangement, which is not the same as buying the movie like you and I.

Although I'd have to verify this next little piece of info, as its not something I oversee, the rental houses share profits by way of royalties to the copyright owners. Don't take that little piece as fact yet, but I believe that holds true. That would make the biggest difference in private ownership versus a rental situation.

It's the personal consumer that purchases the item for the content, and having said so, will be allowed a backup.

You are correct in the assumption that this is a gray area. But for now, this is how it stands, and it has stood this way for quite some time, since the introduction of Blockbuster Video and other mainstream video rental outlets in the late 1980s. Feel free to look up court cases with a docket search. Nothing really new here for quite some time.

On this matter, in any depth, I would refer to a company attorney. I am not a licensed lawyer, but my position requires in-depth media law understanding, and I'm familiar with quite a few court cases and legal litmus tests, as well as formal legal training in media law specifically.

Also realize that law is only as good as the judgments it receives in court. For example, the DMCA may very well has some portions struck down in court someday, as they definitely push a bit in my opinion and many others' opinions. When considering legalities in media law, that you must refer to court cases in addition to the printed words of law in a law book. The judge may interpret it differently than you, and it is HIS or HER decision that matters here.

All of you should read a bit at LexisNexis.com for the real facts.

===

Apology on being harsh:

As far as being harsh, yes, I know. I mean no offense to people such as yourself, karate. You are here to learn and share, and you give great use to the Internet. To you, and those like you, I apologize that my harshness was taken negatively by you.

===

This next section is my rant:

It's people such as "defense" that are an irritation. I have become more harsh in past months on this board due to people like him/her. If a person does not know the answer, say so. Do not put opinion as fact. Do not stick up for others when you are not even sure if they are right. Do not criticize stupid things like a single typo in a document just because you're wrong or not as well informed as somebody else. When I read post where I don't really know, I'll say so, and then guess if I think my guess can help. But identify it as a guess. Defense, what you consider appropriate in terms of religion makes no difference to me. I can say god, God, or "the invisible man in the sky" (ala George Carlin) and be correct in this forum, as the matter at hand is about VIDEO and NOT AT ALL about religion. "Oh my god" is the proper usage of the expression in all journalistic print media. Also, V and F are a half-inch away from one another on the keyboard. So "conviscate" and "confiscate" are understandable errors known as typos. I'd only be stupid if I spelled it "conqiscate" because then Q is nowhere near the other letters. Not to mention, their is no spell-check in the forums. I type about 75 words per minute, so typos tend to happen; I'm not a hunt-n-peck person. Please read and don't post again until you have something useful to add to this topic. So far, you've added nothing but words that take up space.

[pharries]

Interesting thread but I fear most of you are wrong.
Generally we do not "buy" software, we buy a "licence" to use the software. Piracy starts the moment we break the rules of that licence.
So e.g. Microsoft state that when you uy their software it is for use on one PC only, installing it on your laptopp would constitute piracy, interestingly in the past Microsoft allowed you to do that in their licence.
It is up to the company selling you the software to make the terms of the licence clear. This is why so many products are sealed with a label stating 'breaking this seal costitutes acceptance of the terms of the licence"
Sadly common sense has gone out of the window! Draconian rules and measures sadly encourage as opposed to reduce piracy.

[Karate Media]

TX-

I was trying to examine -- however sloppily -- the grey area of what is a backup and what is a "copy" by creating a situation where you may have to prove that a copy is a "backup" and not an "extra copy."

Yes, it seems that you could loan out a DVD to a friend even if you had a backup copy -- the question seems to be how to prove that you didn't watch the backup copy while your friend watched the original (having to defend yourself for such a seemingly innocent transaction may not seem like such a paranoid concern in the near future).

It is my understanding that the law is interpreted as "one use at a time" and if you lent out the original and were found with a copy, the onus would be on you to prove that it was for backup purposes and at no time was viewed while the original was being borrowed. Again, this is a situation that most people won't encounter -- but the way things are going, it might actually become a worry... As before, this is not empirical knowledge for me, just book-learnin', so I will defer to those with hands-on experience.

I don't know if I just clarified my thoughts or not.... I think we agree what the law says; I may just be trying to put too fine a point on it.

[txpharoah]

You hit the nail on the head. If you "loaned" your bud a movie for a year, it would look like your backup was actually an extra copy. But if it was for a week, no worries.

But as far as your concerns in the future: there are no movie police. We have a Bill of Rights that will see to that. The laws are meant for criminals, not people trying to watch the product. I think you're just placing worry where none really needs to be.

But yes, it does seem you have a reasonable assessment of BACKUP vs EXTRA COPY.

[Karate Media]

But as far as your concerns in the future: there are no movie police. We have a Bill of Rights that will see to that. The laws are meant for criminals, not people trying to watch the product. I think you're just placing worry where none really needs to be.

It's getting late and this is a discussion for a different thread, but I tend to be a paranoid fella and I see the seeds for not a "movie" or "entertainment police" per se, but an enviroment where corporations are allowed to treat customers as enemies and thieves and are given jurisdiction to act upon these misguided thoughts. I am constantly reminded of the Mr. Show sketch, "Coupon: The Movie," in which a company takes the entire US population to court for not going to see a movie that "should've" been a blockbuster...

I also just spent the weekend watching "The Conversation" and "Brazil" so my paranoia and cynicism levels are pretty high...

[vitualis]

1. If I lend my DVD to a friend, does it amount to piracy?

It is not piracy. You may well be infringing the licence of the DVD but no one will care. As others have mentioned, you could easily skip around any illegalities with trivial constructions (e.g., you giving the DVD as a gift to your friend and he giving it back to you as another gift, etc.)

Lending the DVD to a friend when you have a backup? This is greyer territory. However, if the spririt of the exchange is so that you temporarily give ownership of disc (and the rights to viewing it) exclusively to your friend for that period of time (and you don't watch or use the backup), it is probably fine. Again, no one will care.

Loaning the DVD to a friend (e.g., for a fee) is a definite no-no and you will be prosecuted if caught.

2. If yes, then we do often lend books to each other. Does it also amount to piracy and infringement of copyright?

No -- as per the reasons above.

3. If yes again, then what about public libraries? They allow borrowing of books and movies to members for free. Are they too indulging in piracy?

Public libraries usually have a license.

4. If I have a cable connection at home, do I have the right to run a parallel connection to my bedroom? I think the cable companies do not permit this. Why is this termed as piracy?

It would depend on the license/contractual arrangements. If the contract specifically prohibits multiple simultaneous users, you may well be in breach of your contract. It is hardly piracy however, and it could be fair to argue that the stipulation of the contract is an unfair limitation of usage. For example, what if person A was downloaded a piece of software from the internet while person B was surfing the net on the same computer?

Regards.

[energy80s]

It's interesting to read the Texas lawyer's quote that you are only allowed to back up media and not software as in the UK it the exact opposite. You are not allowed to back up any media (video, audio, printed) at all without a license. The only thing you are allowed to back up is computer software (and that's one personal copy only). If you have bought a music CD for home and want to listen to it in your car cassette player you have to go and buy and cassette at full price from a record shop! This is because you don't actually buy the music, your only buying the right to listen to it in one specific form (CD / cassette / whatever). It is also illegal to make MP3's from CD's that you legally own unless you have a license from the MCPS. The whole thing is crazy!!!

[defense]

@ Karate Media, although txpharoah seems to think you learned from them....I think they actually learned from you. Very good points and I agree this is not a legal forum, but I am still one for the facts. I have a problem when I read people's posts and it is VERY OBVIOUS they are so full of shit it's sliding out of their ears.

Everyone is entitled to opinons but when people post opinion or more importantly, B.S as facts, that's when I think facts should take precendence. If the facts are stated incorrectly, it will affect how other people perceive a product or otherwise.

Anyway, this thread is a little different because although other posts are geared towards DVD backup in some way, shape, or form, this one is not. I have NEVER called anyone "dumb" or "stupid" although some people really don't have common sense and are utterly full of shit on posts, but that's a different story.

The point though is that txpharoah took the approach that they are the greatest and most omnipotent and they are going to present what they claim are facts, and while doing so, they administered a verbal onslaught on those who did state what they felt are facts.

Since this has turned into a heated "legal" debate, I would hope someone else who has expertise in this field could post on this thread and either confirm or negate some of these points that our "UNLICENSED" attorney has made so at least the ones who are interested can know for sure.


@ txpharoah, i'm very sorry to hear that you have become disgruntled from some members such as "myself" over the last few months. The problem with that statement though is that your description of what irks you doesn't signify me at all. I am however, sorry to hear that some members have "irritated" our "UNLICENSED" attorney. Let me explain. Follow now my little paddawon "UNLICENSED" attorney.

If a person does not know the answer, say so. Do not put opinion as fact. Do not stick up for others when you are not even sure if they are right. Do not criticize stupid things like a single typo in a document just because you're wrong or not as well informed as somebody else

My little Paddawon, I have said this to you twice, and I won't repeat it again. Your master is getting very impatient. For the THIRD and last time, I NEVER stated "ANY" facts on this particular thread. You know why?

Because unlike some other posters, I don't just type in bullshit unless I know it can be proven. I wasn't concerned about the legalities of this particular thread because they didn't interest me. I know what I can and can't do and whether it is legal or not, won't have any bearing on whether I continue. I would like you to "quote" ANYTHING I said which is NOT factual on this thread.

Since you have said TWICE I am stating opinions as facts, please show you are right and PROVE I have said things which are inaccurate. Being that you WON'T be able to do so, I think it is obvious that you are "UNLICENSED" for a reason. The reason is very simple. You don't know how to read. You made an "assumption" without researching the "facts" that "I' was one to make inaccurate statements on this thread. You are once again "INCORRECT."

As far as your "typo" goes, you shouldn't need a "spellcheck" you are omnipotent. What you need to do is take your 75 words a minute, Carpal Tunnel wrists off the keyboard and learn to "READ." I guess you never learned how to "research" and "read" huh? Yea, you can't get licensed with just runnin' off at the flap all day and don't put the effort in to research and READ.

You have failed too many times my little apprentice, go back to the drawing board and research and work harder. Maybe one day you can learn to read and research facts, and should that day come, I may decide to give you another opportunity. Until then, you have much work to do.

[txpharoah]

4 things...

=
1st: I reiterate

Anybody wanting sound legal advice should contact a lawyer direct or research on the LexisNexis legal documents network. In the meantime, take the advice of somebody that works in this industry (i.e., me or others with similar media law experience and qualifications). If others out there work in the media world too, by all means, back me up. I've said nothing so far that was not fact (outside of comments directed at the misinformation and those that carry it).

=
2nd: a good book

I'll share this: one book I keep on my shelves is for times when I need a brief or pointed in the right direction for something I don't usually deal with in relation to media law. It's a book I picked up on the advice of a colleague. "Mass Media Law" by Don R. Pember is a great resource for those not wanting to read the large law volumes and law journals. Many schools use this in their undergraduate and graduate media courses. It has large sections of information dealing with COPYRIGHT and CABLE. It also discusses TELEVISION, RADIO, MOVIES, and NEWS, among other topics. Reading it still won't make you a lawyer, but it will answer most basic questions and can give jump points to the other books and journals on the subject.

=
3rd: renting movies and loaning books

In regards to COPYRIGHTS and RENTING and BACKUPS:
http://www.digital-law-online.com/lpdi1.0/treatise12.html
This site has what I wanted to find in my books at work. It covers everything fairly well, though written in legal wordings that some may find difficult to understand.

The forum MOD brought up another point: renting media to friends. I believe he's incorrect on that being illegal. The original owner can do as he's sees fit as the buyer of the media. He's not breaking any copyright laws here. But he may be against the license, but unlikely to be caught if he's just rents to friends and does not open a business. More of a civil case here than a criminal one. I'll have to check into exactly any problems in this area, but it is surely NOT an infringement of the work to rent out movies.

On renting movies: It is NOT against the copyright, however it may be against some license aspect of the work. Again, I'll have to check more into this, but it's looking to be a civil case or business arrangement moreso than a criminal act. I'll get back to this if I find time. This forum is just a hobby I've spent too much time on recently.

=
4th: print vs non-print

Know that print media and audio/video media are not necessarily the same in law or in action and practice of the law. What may work for books may not necessarily work for movies. True they are media, but not really the same. It's like calling dogs and fish the same because they're both pets. Each has different needs and handling.

=
finally: to Defense...

Be a politician. You have gift for using lots of words, yet can say nothing. Unlicensed is a state of existence that is merely a bar exam away. But I don't need it. I have a very nice media job as it is. Same as spelling is a spell-check away. In both cases, I don't care. Defense, I'm curious what your qualifications are. I've stated mine. Professional media specialist at a large corporation. What exactly do you do besides type crap in these forums? You seem to elude this subject quite often, and a review of your other posts show mostly prattle and heresay comments with little meat. I'm trying to help people, whereas you're just mouthing off all the time. It's funny how in your first posts in November 2002 you admit to being "super new" to all this, and here you are, an expert on everything 6 months later. Well, guess what? I've been at this since 1992, and I still don't know everything, but I sure spent a lot of time and money getting all those degrees and working my way up the corporate ladder. And again, until you have useful comments to add to this discussion, please shut up. And with all that Star Wars speak of yours, I get the feeling I'm talking to a teenager or some college kid. You sound just like my neighbor's son.

[macleod]

txparaoh,

I enjoyed reading your take on the piracy thing. It is also nice to have a fellow texan on the site (you stated some of the great things about being a Texan, i.e. no state income tax and putting people to death) and someone who is close to the legality of the borderline of piracy.

A lot of people have had some experience with law (reading/learning/practicing or even being on the otherside ), and even if a person is a lawyer, it doesnt mean that their interpretation IS the law. I, too, have experience, however, the one thing that I learned during my short stint in trying to become a lawyer is that law does not necessary follow logic. That and by reading 1 or 2 pages from here and there does not mean that a statement is LAW.

I read this post over and just so their isn't confusion or misinterpretation over what I wrote, what I am trying to say is that based on txpharaohs statements, at least in the US, his interpretation of common and statutory law brought him to his conclusions (and I believe that he is correct). Certain comments made by other posters, however, also have merit. The final conclusion that everyone should make is, in the event your butt gets hauled into court over this, who's interpretation will win?


I posted an off topic question that doesnt really have to do with piracy of media, but I would like a legal opinion on it. So as not to "hijack" this topic, I posted the question here: https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=501368#501368

[alenhard]

Hey guys, if you need a laugh do a search on Defense's posts. Hilarious stuff! He and I go way back, too. Funny kid, really. Go easy on him. He's obviously trying to compensate for something with all that macho talk of his.

Defense- are you back on grammar again? Didn't I teach you not to mess the first time?

[defense]

@txpharoah, this will be my last comments on this thread. It is interesting that you TWICE commented on my non factual statements on this thread, but once again, have not shown where I stated facts. You said I harped on your grammatical errors because I was proven incorrect by your illustrious knowledge. Once again, where are your facts to prove it? There are none because you don't read, you just type.

From reading your posts, I don't doubt you have a very fine understanding of media law, as well as have a lucrative job, but there are things you are clearly missing. If you haven't learned them by now, you probably never will. You say that in six months I seem to think I "know" everything..lol..once again, that's just another one of your wrists tightening up on the keyboard.

If I know everything, why am I continuously asking questions for help? I do offer more help now then when I was a newbie, but I will be the first to tell you that the majority have more knowledge then me on subjects like DVD Backup. Again, it shows you are pulling these statements out of your arse.

Last but not least, you may be very good at what you do, but to sabotage this thread and make it seem as though you are the all mighty omniopotent and this case is going to the Surpreme Court was a complete joke and unecessary, as were your comments in attempting to validate your points.

Think about that and if you can finally backup ANY of your statements regarding my input of "facts" on this thread, please do so, otherwise, try and take your grip-locked hands off the keyboard and spend a little time reading. I"m sure as long as it isn't 1a.m CST, you will be just fine.


@alanhard, lol...anyone who read those DVD2ONE posts knows two things. One, you have a brain a quarter the size of a peanut, and two, you ask questions which paraellel what a Parrot would ask. At least with someone like txpharoah, they may pull some statements out of their arse, but at least they have some factual knowledge to bring to the table. You on the other hand have shown zero progression with the ridiculous posts you make, and it seems as though your brain is on life support. I sincerely pity you.

[txpharoah]

Well said, macleod. True law depends on what is said by the judge in a court. It's why I refer to court cases and not merely the legal statutes.

As far as "taking over" this thread with my "omnipotence". : I guess it would be cool to be omnipotent, too bad I never claimed to be. Supreme Court? Well, you're asking about laws and cases that have been in front of the Supreme Court within the past 25 years. Some are still sitting and waiting at this very moment.

Anyway, I wanted to point out that bhalerao asked a good question to start this post, and that these people added good answers: bugster, alucard2050, Karate Media, herbapou, Codyduck, Blaze1024, Conquest10, MarcD, rhegedus, MOVIEGEEK, pharries, energy80s, macleod, DiscoverPlatinum, housepig, sterno, Bob W, tinpaul, northcat_8. If your name is not in the list, you probably said something wrong or off-topic.

==

Defense, you ask how you are wrong. Let me tell you:

1. Fully digital signal compliance is not for 2006. FCC mandates, which is not necessarily a law but a license controlling agent, originally intended for the signal to go digital by Jan 1, 2007. That has been delayed because current progress shows only 85% of stations will reach that deadline. Please refer to http://www.fcc.gov.
2. All cable companies are not monopolies. Want an example? Try the Texas up-and-comers Grande Communications. We have lots of competitions and choices here in Texas. Please refer to http://www.grandecom.net.
3. DirecTV satellites are not positioned over Brownsville. Trust me, I'd know. They hover far more south, over Mexico. Permanent geo-synchronous orbits need to be closer to the equator than Texas. And again, there are several satellites that can carry the programming, not just one. Please refer to http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/learn/DTVTechnology.jsp and http://www.adec.edu/satdb/sat-loc.html.
4. You confuse typos with spelling errors. Examples stated above already. Please refer to common sense.
5. Your use of the word 'god' is incorrect, as I've already stated. Stating my expression of "oh my god" as a proper noun can be seen as blasphemy by the overly-religous and overly-sensitive people, hence proper usage in a public setting is a lowercase improper noun. Please refer to the Associated Press Style Manual.
6. You've added nearly nothing to this topic at all. Your statements are mostly off topic. Please refer to https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=124514

I hate to nitpick like this, but hoss, you asked.

If you have further rants, just PM them to me so that this argument no longers litters this board.

[defense]

I thought it would be my last post, but that was so silly I gotta comment.

@txpharaoh, you really are a joke, you do know that, right? lol...don't try and post that ridiculous crap when you said "twice" that I made "factual" comments regarding what are correct laws. When I said show your right, I made it very clear I was referring to the fact that you had twice stated that I was posting incorrect facts regarding the law.

Now, once AGAIN, I will be VERY CLEAR, post "ONE" comment I made where I was "INCORRECT" regarding the laws discussed on this thread. As far as 2006-2007....get real...seriously...lol...the last article I read said 2006, if it has been amended since then, you can see what I posted was "factual" and not just derived. I'm surprised you would even make yourself look so foolish by posting all this B.S. Also, regarding the Brownsivlle Texas dishes from DirectTV,...I read an article somewhere that said the dishes were over Brownsville, Texas.

If it is Mexico, then I read an incorrect article, and being that Mexico is directly next to Texas, again, that post was pitiful. The rest of your jibberish and ridiculousness has already been elaborated on more then once, so no need to comment further.

One thing I will say..your Jedi Master is very pleased to see your progression. You have posted links which proves you actually can "read" and "research" things. Too bad you can't "edit" my posts and prove what you have INCORRECTLY made yourself look silly on TWICE, which is that I was the one posting incorrect information regarding laws on this matter. Keep up the good work and I may promote you.

P.S. I happen to know people that work for one of the biggest law firms in the USA and charge about $800/hour. I will say that none of them feel the need to make a mountain out of a dirt hill as you have done here. Also, they have no reason to attempt to "belittle" people as you have done. You have a complex and it's very obvious. Maybe if you continue to make strides I can put in a good word for you with a buddy txpaharoah.

What do you think my omnipotentt "unlicensed" buddy? I think if you are lucky, I can get one of them to give you an interview, and if you are REALLY LUCKY, you might be able to hold the jockstrap of one of these REAL ATTORNEYS and do your job as a paralegal. I know your game.

You are nothing more then a paralegal wannabe Attorney Txharaoh. There are many of those at this firm, and you are no different.

Keep working hard and maybe...maybe..one day you will be successful.

[Greg12]

Comcast here doesn't charge for outlets but it does charge for boxes.

I luv it because we don't get ney ppv channels or premium channels so i can hook my vcr right up to the cable feed.

[alenhard]

Defense- Wow! You pulled out the big guns on that one!

The best thing about your posts is that you always prove me right.

How does it feel to be the laughingstock of dvdrhelp.com? We are truly entertained at your expense. Whenever there is any controversial thread we are guaranteed to find some of your comments, always backed up by your toughguy routine.

But I can't say I want you to go away. Every good forum needs a jackass that can brighten our day. Thanks for all you do.

BTW- good thing you don't have a job or a life because then you might not have time to post so much!

[MarcD]

defesne wrote:

Anyway, this thread is a little different because although other posts are geared towards DVD backup in some way, shape, or form, this one is not. I have NEVER called anyone "dumb" or "stupid" although some people really don't have common sense and are utterly full of shit on posts, but that's a different story.

then proceeded to claim:

@alanhard, lol...anyone who read those DVD2ONE posts knows two things. One, you have a brain a quarter the size of a peanut, and two, you ask questions which paraellel what a Parrot would ask. At least with someone like txpharoah, they may pull some statements out of their arse, but at least they have some factual knowledge to bring to the table. You on the other hand have shown zero progression with the ridiculous posts you make, and it seems as though your brain is on life support. I sincerely pity you.

I think this about sums up exactly how full of BS you are defense. txpharoah brings some good information to the discussion, you get on your high horse about spelling and manners, but offer nothing relevant to the discussion at hand. He somewhat apologizes for his harsh tones. You insult alanhard (while making plenty of spelling errors, I might add - how is that for irony), all the while sounding like some 12 year-old who just say E2 ATC for the first time. Still, you have yet to contribute anything on topic. Now who is the troll here?

[herbapou]

Thorn post:

You *ARE* pirating the video if you make a backup and then lend the original to your friend because technically, you could watch the movie at the same time as your friend has. You've purchased the right to have one viewable copy and turned that into two viewable copies.

Your confusing software laws with copyright laws. This is true for software, not music or movies. Lending an original is never illegal, and thats valid in both US and Canada. I also want to point out that commercially rent a DVD and lend a dvd to a friend are 2 completly different things. I am not familiar with US laws, but this is the text in the Canadian copyright act: http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/cp_circ_15-e.html BUT, if you lend a movie for a very long period after copying it, that may be view has an exploit and could very well fall into the distribution category, a criminal offense. 15 years ago in Montreal, there was a store renting copies of software for 99 years! At that time, the software laws where not what they are today, and this was a clear example of an exploit of the current law. They got suit and loss.

Thorn post:

Also, if anyone is still confused it is not legal to backup rentals. Unless you destroy that backup before you return your movie, you're pirating. The second you have a viewable copy and the rental place can rent that movie to someone else you've violated the license to that movie.

That may be true in the US, but not in Canada or France or Germany:

Private copying refers to the making of copies of pre-recorded musical works, performer’s performances and sound recordings onto a blank recording medium, such as audio tape or cassette for personal use. An example is buying a blank tape, going home and making a second copy of your favourite tape so you can have a copy to play in the car. Another example is borrowing a tape from a friend and making your own copy instead of buying one.

Now we are talking about music CD's here, but I showed above that this could apply to DVD/VHS too in Canada because of the discrepency between the english and french copyright text on Canadian DVD's and VHS tapes.

MarcD post:

The most poignant of which is that the idea of a backup. A backup is a safeguard of the content in the event the media which holds the original content becomes unusable. You cannot use a backup to increase the number of concurrent uses. If so, you have infringed on the copyright.

Again, you guys are confusing software laws with copyright laws. It is illegal (even in Canada and France) to make yourself a backup of a DVD or music CD. But its legal to make your own backup of software. Has far has backups are concern for DVD's, the only legal way to get one would be to ask for one. The only reason I can, has a Canadian, make a copy of a DVD (or CD), is because of the "Private copying" exception. Without this exception, it would be illegal for me to make a backup. Also, dont forget you will always break encryption laws when ripping a DVD. Encryption laws are not related to copyright laws, but both laws apply when copying a DVD. There is currently in big debate in europe regarding encryption laws and the "Private Copying" exception of the Copyright Act since you have to break the encryptions laws in onder to excercise your right to make a private copy. The music industry wants to put copy protection on music CD's in an attempt to make private copying illegal for music CD's.

Again, dont forget laws can be very different depending on the country you live in.

[DonVito]

oops

[defense]

Again, you guys are confusing software laws with copyright laws.

Nice points herbapou, and since they happen to contradict the UNofficial, UNLICENSED paralegals of DVDRHELP.com, I can't wait to see MarcD, A.K.A "Matlock Jr wannabe", ., and he accomplice, txhpharoah's "A.K.A MATLOCK jr. Paralegal" respond to the FACTS of that post.

Again, dont forget laws can be very different depending on the country you live in.

And in the USA, they can be very different from State to State. 8)

[vitualis]

The forum MOD brought up another point: renting media to friends. I believe he's incorrect on that being illegal. The original owner can do as he's sees fit as the buyer of the media. He's not breaking any copyright laws here. But he may be against the license, but unlikely to be caught if he's just rents to friends and does not open a business. More of a civil case here than a criminal one.

I believe you are in part correct...

However, the purchuser of the disc cannot "do as he see's fit" as he is obliged to observe the terms of the contract and the existing copyright laws.

"Copyright" (if I understand it correctly) gives the owner of the copyright more than just the ability of controlling how the intellectual property is copied, but also it's distribution and how it can be accessed.

Part of the license you implicitly agree to includes that you cannot redistribute the intellectual property for financial gain (i.e., renting the disc). Although I can't say for certain as I'm not a lawyer, my impression is that this would probably be prosceutable by law (depending on where you live) and probably wouldn't need to be a civil case (though they could probably do BOTH).

Regards.

[txpharoah]

defense writes:
And in the USA, they can be very different from State to State.

Yes, generally true, but copyright laws are federal laws, and tried in federal courts. States just watch.

[bugster]

I believe you are in part correct...

However, the purchuser of the disc cannot "do as he see's fit" as he is obliged to observe the terms of the contract and the existing copyright laws.

"Copyright" (if I understand it correctly) gives the owner of the copyright more than just the ability of controlling how the intellectual property is copied, but also it's distribution and how it can be accessed.


Regards.

how it can be accessed. Are you sure about this? I can't say you are wrong but this seems like a ridiculous restriction on consumer rights to me. If I buy a CD or DVD I have always assumed I have the right to listen to it/watch it using any equpiment and in any location that I so desire (barring public performances and profiting financially from doing so, I understand that is not allowed).

[MarcD]

Nice points herbapou, and since they happen to contradict the UNofficial, UNLICENSED paralegals of DVDRHELP.com, I can't wait to see MarcD, A.K.A "Matlock Jr wannabe", ., and he accomplice, txhpharoah's "A.K.A MATLOCK jr. Paralegal" respond to the FACTS of that post.

I will not respond to his post, because I am not familiar with Canada's or Germany's legal system, nor do I care. Once again defense, you have nothing to contribute, only to continue your hypocritical, uninformed ways. I am glad to see you think that somehow because Germany treats IP differently than the US you feel vindicated.

Although to add to txphaoaroah's statement, copyright law is federal, but most licensing agreements are commercial agreements within a particular state, so depending on what the alleged violation is, one or both could apply. The one constant, however is that if you infringe on copyright, then Federal court is the proper venue.

On a final note, defense, why don't you just go home. You insult, and whine, but contribute nothing. You have not contributed a single thing to this discussion outside attacking others. It is also quite pathetic that you continue to make fun of the qualifications of others, such as not being a member of the bar - something that is quite common among corporate attorneys. All the while, you offer no qualifications of your own.

If you want to be part of the intellectual process and contribute useful information, then by all means join in. If all you are interested in is showing your ass and moaning because people are more educated than you in certain areas, then crawl back under your VCD rock.

[herbapou]

Is it illegal to rent a DVD you own to a friend?

The "normal" answer to this should be yes.

BUT:

Before DVD went out, Video clubs had to pay high prices for VHS tapes used for renting. In Canada, the usual price for those tapes was around $100 each. But Video clubs had access to those tapes a few weeks before they were put on sale to the public. According to copyrights, only those special high price VHS tapes can be legally used for renting.

But since the DVD, both VHS tapes and DVD are made available at the same time to both the public and Video clubs and there is no high price DVD`s made for renting. So at the present time, Video clubs are paying less for DVD than VHS and they have a better resell value on pre-rented. DVD`s are currently the cash cows of Video clubs.

Normally, it should be illegal to rent those DVD`s, but since everyone is doing this, I have no idea where its going to go.