- Status
poordirtfarmer
Distinguished
- Aug 12, 2009
- 13
- 0
- 18,510
The entertainment industry is rich beyond belief and keeps the most powerful lobbyists engaged. Add generous targeted campaign contributions to the mix and guess who owns the lawmakers. Without a doubt the lobbyists and their lawyers provide/approve the wording of related bills for the legislators to pass, and it would take a bloody revolution to change this crooked method of doing business. Logic and fairness has nothing to do with it. Heck, even Judges who don’t campaign succumb to the pressure and interest of the big money. I've read about utterly ridiculous judgments against the little guy.
But there’s a good reason for all that. All those fat cats with multiple mansions, yachts and servants must maintain their power and lavish standard of living. The notion that a kid might listen to the music a buddy buys must really give them goose bumps.
On the bright side, it could be a lot worse! We’re lucky that we’re not required by law to subsidize the mere availability of movies that we don’t want to watch, TV programs that we are anxious to turn off, and music we don’t even want to listen to. But all that’s probably coming
But there’s a good reason for all that. All those fat cats with multiple mansions, yachts and servants must maintain their power and lavish standard of living. The notion that a kid might listen to the music a buddy buys must really give them goose bumps.
On the bright side, it could be a lot worse! We’re lucky that we’re not required by law to subsidize the mere availability of movies that we don’t want to watch, TV programs that we are anxious to turn off, and music we don’t even want to listen to. But all that’s probably coming
It's like buying a hammer, and saying you can only use it for one project, after that you need to buy a new hammer. How can the law say it's not illegal to copy DVD's, but it's illegal to make something that copies DVD's? If the act of doing something isn't illegal, then making something to do the act shouldn't be illegal. Just because something can be used in an illegal manner doesn't make it illegal (guns, knives, chainsaws, detergents, etc.. tons of things that can be used improperly doesn't make them illegal to produce). But, as long as the movie industry provides entertaining movies people will keep buying them. Someone needs to start a movie studio that sells unrestricted DVD's, I bet they would sell tons of movies because they would cost less, no need to do encrypting, pay lawyers, pay RIAA their 'cut' etc. $10 DVD's and customers who actually like them 
.
.duckmanx88
Distinguished
- Oct 23, 2008
- 287
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]ready4dis[/nom]It's like buying a hammer, and saying you can only use it for one project, after that you need to buy a new hammer. [/citation]
LMAO. lol It's funny when people try and use analogies that fail. you can use the hammer on any project and any amount of times. But if it breaks you're fudged and you have to get a new one because you're not allowed to make a copy of the hammer. see why the hammer analogy didn't work.
LMAO. lol It's funny when people try and use analogies that fail. you can use the hammer on any project and any amount of times. But if it breaks you're fudged and you have to get a new one because you're not allowed to make a copy of the hammer. see why the hammer analogy didn't work.
neiroatopelcc
Distinguished
- Oct 3, 2006
- 3,078
- 0
- 20,810
The studios should allow burning on hard drive but have protection in place to prevent it from being burned again either on hard drive or DVD. This would prevent redistribution on disc or hard drive & the backup people would also be happy. They would just have to require Movie rental houses to buy special discs that couldn't be backed up.
The Federal Government, as well as state governments, have Sovereign Immunity. This dandy pile of shit allows them to protect themselves from lawsuits, unless they want to allow citizens to sue them. Political subdivisions(i.e. counties and cites within the United States, depending on who you talk to) do not have such immunity and can be sued.
The DMCA should have had a provision that required anyone that places digital protection on their content to replace any broken(physically or otherwise) data or physical media at no cost to the consumer for the life of the consumer. It would have made these greedy assholes think twice about attempting to screw over consumers.
If I purchase a song, I expect to be able to listen to that song until I die. If I do die, I expect to have the right to pass ownership of that song to whomever I wish. The same goes for movies, software, and anything else in existence.
Of course, many publishers, artist, and other people in the mix, believe that being able to resell the same content is good business. It is no longer about continually putting out a good product; it is about how many times you can push a consumer to purchase your content.
Look at the PSP and the failed UMDs. How many new movies are sold on that format? Look at Blu-ray. Sure, it is "high definition", but is it worth paying for the movies you own on "standard definition" to get a higher resolution and a few more extra features?
Hell, DVD and Blu-ray extras are getting worse and worse with every new movie release. Sure, some big budget movies are putting out some ok extras, but none of them live up to the hype that distributors are expounding.
It is time that consumers stand up and make these studios understand that we refuse to be treated like their slaves. We, as consumers, demand to get our money's worth when purchasing their product. If they refuse to produce, then we refuse to pay.
End of discussion.
The DMCA should have had a provision that required anyone that places digital protection on their content to replace any broken(physically or otherwise) data or physical media at no cost to the consumer for the life of the consumer. It would have made these greedy assholes think twice about attempting to screw over consumers.
If I purchase a song, I expect to be able to listen to that song until I die. If I do die, I expect to have the right to pass ownership of that song to whomever I wish. The same goes for movies, software, and anything else in existence.
Of course, many publishers, artist, and other people in the mix, believe that being able to resell the same content is good business. It is no longer about continually putting out a good product; it is about how many times you can push a consumer to purchase your content.
Look at the PSP and the failed UMDs. How many new movies are sold on that format? Look at Blu-ray. Sure, it is "high definition", but is it worth paying for the movies you own on "standard definition" to get a higher resolution and a few more extra features?
Hell, DVD and Blu-ray extras are getting worse and worse with every new movie release. Sure, some big budget movies are putting out some ok extras, but none of them live up to the hype that distributors are expounding.
It is time that consumers stand up and make these studios understand that we refuse to be treated like their slaves. We, as consumers, demand to get our money's worth when purchasing their product. If they refuse to produce, then we refuse to pay.
End of discussion.
mitch074
Splendid
- Mar 17, 2006
- 2,965
- 544
- 22,040
Well, that's where the DMCA is being stupid: it forbids one from using non-licensed means of making copies of copy-protected proprietary content.
I mean, when one reads a DVD, a copy of the data it contains is made:
- in the DVD drive's read cache,
- in memory, for decrypting,
- in memory again, for decompression,
- in video memory, for display.
These are the copies allowed by DMCA, _but_only_because_they_are_required_ for use - and even that got restricted: see Vista's fiasco with HD content (each and every step has to be encrypted, decrypted for the next step, re-encrypted, etc. regardless whether it may prevent you from watching the stuff you bought - this actually led to cracking the HD-DVD and BluRay encryption algorithms).
So, DMCA actually forbids you from making a backup copy, whether it be restricted or unlocked; the former is what RealDVD actually did.
One way to solve this is to petition the DMCA to allow DRM-protected, encrypted backup copies.
Another is to privilege open, unprotected content.
I mean, when one reads a DVD, a copy of the data it contains is made:
- in the DVD drive's read cache,
- in memory, for decrypting,
- in memory again, for decompression,
- in video memory, for display.
These are the copies allowed by DMCA, _but_only_because_they_are_required_ for use - and even that got restricted: see Vista's fiasco with HD content (each and every step has to be encrypted, decrypted for the next step, re-encrypted, etc. regardless whether it may prevent you from watching the stuff you bought - this actually led to cracking the HD-DVD and BluRay encryption algorithms).
So, DMCA actually forbids you from making a backup copy, whether it be restricted or unlocked; the former is what RealDVD actually did.
One way to solve this is to petition the DMCA to allow DRM-protected, encrypted backup copies.
Another is to privilege open, unprotected content.
The law should allow for everybody to have a backup copy of everything.
Consumers, people should taught some responsibility.
Lots of warning dialogues with: "your rights are now in your hands. "
"You can get sued by illegally distributing outside the scope of your possessions. "
The copyright system is way to exaggerated.
Consumers, people should taught some responsibility.
Lots of warning dialogues with: "your rights are now in your hands. "
"You can get sued by illegally distributing outside the scope of your possessions. "
The copyright system is way to exaggerated.
fatedtodie
Distinguished
- Feb 5, 2007
- 77
- 0
- 18,630
I like how I got voted down due to posting the truth.
The law says one thing. RealDVD did what the law said not to do.
If you don't like the law, email/write/phone/etc a congressman/woman or a senator. If you don't want to talk to them, your opinion doesn't matter. If you want the law changed... STAND UP AND DEMAND THE CHANGE. Illegally breaking CSS is not the way to demand a change. And yes many programs out there make it so you can break CSS, none of them are sold in the US all are sold via a foreign firm or given away through a foreign website.
I can only think of one thing that a massive amount of people breaking the law, changed the law. That law (prohibition) only failed because it was only America banning alcohol and it was easy to get the booze from elsewhere... Unfortunately for today's lawbreakers the majority is the law abiding citizens that don't mind paying for a DVD. If the majority was the pirates (and don't even kid yourself... you are nowhere near the majority) then maybe your attempts to get it changed through being illegal might work.
Until that day... as I have stated before and will again... DO THINGS LEGAL. Real DVD is ILLEGAL, handle it.
The law says one thing. RealDVD did what the law said not to do.
If you don't like the law, email/write/phone/etc a congressman/woman or a senator. If you don't want to talk to them, your opinion doesn't matter. If you want the law changed... STAND UP AND DEMAND THE CHANGE. Illegally breaking CSS is not the way to demand a change. And yes many programs out there make it so you can break CSS, none of them are sold in the US all are sold via a foreign firm or given away through a foreign website.
I can only think of one thing that a massive amount of people breaking the law, changed the law. That law (prohibition) only failed because it was only America banning alcohol and it was easy to get the booze from elsewhere... Unfortunately for today's lawbreakers the majority is the law abiding citizens that don't mind paying for a DVD. If the majority was the pirates (and don't even kid yourself... you are nowhere near the majority) then maybe your attempts to get it changed through being illegal might work.
Until that day... as I have stated before and will again... DO THINGS LEGAL. Real DVD is ILLEGAL, handle it.
bill gates is your daddy
Distinguished
- Apr 28, 2009
- 440
- 0
- 18,780
[citation][nom]fatedtodie[/nom]I like how I got voted down due to posting the truth.[/citation]
actually...I think you got voted down because people think you are a flaming asshole.
actually...I think you got voted down because people think you are a flaming asshole.
TheZander
Distinguished
- Feb 22, 2009
- 115
- 0
- 18,680
Every time we lose another one of these cases (and by "we" I mean those of us who buy digital content), we are losing our rights to protect our expensive intellectual property we've purchased. I wish there was something more we could do, but it's so hard to organize anything against the moneybag giants. They have so much more funding and legal expertise than a large group of laypeople. It's sad.
If I can't backup my legitimately purchased media, why the HELL would I buy it? Examples like this are much more likely to motivate me to RENT instead of BUY. And I guarantee they make more money off us buying their media than simply renting it.
And making it illegal to backup your own devices is yet again, simply more motivation for some to pirate that would've legitimately purchased. Having people's rights to protect their expensive physical media with backup copies trampled on is NOT going to help these companies ONE BIT.
All they are doing is biting their own behinds.
If I can't backup my legitimately purchased media, why the HELL would I buy it? Examples like this are much more likely to motivate me to RENT instead of BUY. And I guarantee they make more money off us buying their media than simply renting it.
And making it illegal to backup your own devices is yet again, simply more motivation for some to pirate that would've legitimately purchased. Having people's rights to protect their expensive physical media with backup copies trampled on is NOT going to help these companies ONE BIT.
All they are doing is biting their own behinds.
fatedtodie
Distinguished
- Feb 5, 2007
- 77
- 0
- 18,630
The good thing from the "we like to do things legal" front is that now kaliedescope got its ruling overturned and it will no longer be allowed to be held up as a standard of breaking DMCA. DOWN WITH PIRATES!
- Status
TRENDING THREADS
-
News AMD says Intel's 'horrible product' is causing Ryzen 9 9800X3D shortages- Started by Admin
- Replies: 83
-
-
Discussion PSU recommendations and power supply discussion thread - Tom's hardware- Started by Darkbreeze
- Replies: 2K
-
Discussion What's your favourite video game you've been playing?- Started by amdfangirl
- Replies: 4K
-
-
Question New build wont post Gigabyte B650M Gaming Plus wifi , AMD Ryzen 5 7600X CPU, 32GB T-Force RGB DDR5. Need help!
- Started by Notmiserable
- Replies: 36
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram