DMCA is the law and it came from Congress and the POTUS at that time. If the copyright people are stepping on anyone else's turf, it is that of the justice system. They offered their opinion and that's nice of them but it isn't particularly binding or relevant to the fact that copying protected DVDs has been unlawful since the DMCA was enacted.
Court Rules Copying DVD now Illegal.
- Thread starter Scott Greczkowski
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 70
- Views 9K
In words that President Clinton might use in his defense, it depends on what the meaning of the word "it" is. In this case, "it" is a disc; you don't own the movie. You can examine it, play it or destroy it. That's as far as your rights go.
Thanks John. I know about imgburn but have not used it. Please understand that the folder structure is a bit different for 3D BD. I wonder if the imgburn is 3D BD compliant.
I create 3D folder structure with Power Director that can author 3D menus for my Productions. So far, the only product I found that can convert the 3D folders to an iso file is a non-documented process with a product called DVDFAB clone. This products clone a 3D disk bit for bit from one optical disk to a blank with two Blu Ray burners, documented. The process I use is a sneaky way of letting DVDFAB think the optical disk drive is really a hard drive and it thinks that folder is from a BD disk. Then it creates an iso of that on the hard drive. The menu structure is BD5 profile so it works in the players just like a commercial 3D disk.
Good point! However, as one here who IS a content creator and one who has taken people into a legal battle over copyright theft, I feel this way about the DMCA-
We have a great copyright law already with adequate Fair Use provision. The question should be asked- Just because a copyright is in digital form, why does the law need to be different and why make Fair Use illegal because the content is digital? If I distribute my work on a betacam SP master, a VHS tape, or on 16mm film, it may be copied by anyone who operates under the restrictions of Fair Use. But if I burn the work to a DVD, it automatically makes it illegal for others from copying the work restricted by the Fair Use provision.
No one is arguing that the Fair use means the copyright holder lose his rights. Fair Use was put into place to permit specific uses of copyrights without the need to get permission from the copyright owner, nor the need to pay for those rights. These specific uses are 1. Personal use, (under same household and no theatrical presentation) 2. News use 3. Educational use by recognized educational institutions. This means that if you copyright an analog work, you understand that it has no protection under fair use.
Note that the original Copyright law makes no distinction about how the copyright is formed or even uses the word analog or digital. A song is protected whether it is in sound waves or coded on paper sheet music or played with a flute or sung by human voice. But if it is encoded to 1's and 0's then it receives a special no Fair Use protection.
Personal use forbids distribution of the content to others outside the household. News and Educational allows distribution following certain guidelines.
No Fair Use may distribute for direct sale or commerce, whether or not there is a profit.
I don't see the need to restrict the above Fair Use just because the content is in digital form. This was a law poorly written (IMO) to circumvent the ease with which a user could copy using automated personal computerized process that can make a clone or close exact copy that the copyright holder was not able to lock out. ( The old key for every lock logic). So they simply made Fair Use illegal if in Digital form.
Yes it is. I don't know how much longre MakeMKV will be able to ship -- I like the one step to mkv process they have.
I too create copyrighted content.
At issue is what constitutes Fair Use. I don't think I've seen even the broadest self-serving interpretation allow for copying an entire work.
As Fair Use is so poorly defined, I'm not sure it is good enough to satisfy the needs of the copyright holders. DMCA doesn't prevent you from obtaining Fair Use content, only from obtaining from copy protected sources.
Therefore preventing fair use of copy protected media.. Duhrrr.
Making a copy for ones own personal use - whether it be space shifting or personal network distribution falls within everyone's definition of fair use.. well, almost everyone's.
And would you please be so kind as to point out where the EULA is on a DVD or BD? Of the hundreds that I own I have NEVER seen one.
What it does say is "For SALE OR RENTAL in the United States and Canada only." The use of the word sale means that there is no license agreement expressed or implied, and first sale doctrine is in force.
Last edited:
Politicians pass what panders.
Then count on "interpretations" and court action to clean up the mess.
Sigh, no more on this or its off to Sonic.
The main problem with things like the DMCA and such is that it really just ends up penalizing the people that actually will pay for copyrighted material. I just do not see how it has prevented people from posting copyrighted material on the internet. I would not do it just because I know it is morally wrong to do so, but why am I a criminal for ripping discs that I own? I could see if I rented the discs, ripped and returned them. It is just another poorly written law that has unintended consequences.
king3pj said:
It is the new American way....everybody is a criminal. Even if you work and live honest you are still a criminal.
JerseyMatt said:
I would say that of the hundreds of dvd's you bought every single one of them has not just a copyright statement, but also a copy forbidden statement as well as a warning that information on FBI investigation.
I do agree with you that making a copy for personal use as the intent of the original Fair Use provision was written is what most agree is not illegal. Some like harshness, feel they have additional "needs". I would say it is a want or greed, not need. But that's my opinion. The greed attitude is what evolves to the PPV model that could become a reality as I stated before. It was pointed out before this was tried and failed in the marketplace. True, but the reason it failed, was because the DIVX competed with traditional media. If all media was PPV, nothing to compete with that was able to be copied, then would the entire motion picture home distribution industry fail? I think not. We will all be subject to having a PPV or watch nothing. Copyright holders would claim, they "need" this.
Sent from my iPad3 using SatelliteGuys app
