For those interested in digital rights and the MPAA/RIAA...

[mrob]

I can't figure out if you are naive or obtuse.

You argue that someone who "takes too long" to release a higher quality version of their movie forfeits their rights to the product--and that you should be able to pirate an HD copy because they didn't provide it on your timeline?

And you are seriously trying to parse the difference between copyright infringement and illegality?

I'll bet money that you would be the first one going to court if you found someone had pirated a copy of Camtasia. Hypocrite.

You are coming off like a whiny baby with this "argument." "I want my high-def version of "Star Wars," and I want it right now!"

[AdmiralAkbar]

Originally Posted by MSUeddie

Copyright is a property right to an intangible good. You say "why couldnt you just change forms for your own use." As stated earlier you may NOT make another copy of the work. You bought the right to use the DVD not to use teh underlying movie.

It is a complicated concept. Take a CD that you buy. There are 2 copyrights, 1 is the right to the physical copy made of the music (the CD) which you have rights to use, resell and for other fair use. The underlying musical performance you have no rights to. Thus playing the CD at your bar is infringement, you have to pay a licensing fee to "perform" the musical performance on the CD. For the same reason, you have no rights to the art on the DVD, only rights to the physical DVD.

You are talking about making a Derivative work of another' s copyrighted performance, like it or not that is not permissible.

BTW - I love that you point to the RIAA and MPAA "lobbying" scaring you while in the same post pointing to Oil companies.

A few points:

-Thanks for the bold and underline about oil companies like I was defending them. I was merely using the "you wouldn't steal gas because it costs too much would you?" argument. Oil companies and their own favorable re-writes of laws is a whole can of worms that it would be pointless to open here.

-Like most, you are focused on the "for profit" use of copyrighted works being illegal. Nobody is disputing this. I am not implying that you should be able to copy a DVD to play it at a movie theatre, nor am I saying that you should make a "backup" copy then sell the original. I am not saying that you should make copies to sell on the internet.

-If I want to rip a CD that I own, and put that song on my iPod, is that illegal? I am taking the song from CD audio and turning it into an mp3 (or some other format); doing pretty much the same things as ripping a DVD into a HD format for your own personal use right?

-You are very well versed on telling us where the law currently is, and most of this is not disputed.. I would say this is an argument of where the law SHOULD be. Think the MPAA would rather you just buy another MP3 copy of a CD you already own to put it on your iPod? You bet they do! But should it really be that way? I say no.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by MSUeddie

Copyright is a property right to an intangible good. You say "why couldnt you just change forms for your own use." As stated earlier you may NOT make another copy of the work. You bought the right to use the DVD not to use teh underlying movie.

This is incorrect. You CAN make another copy of the work, so long as it is for personal archival purposes. Again, this is where we hit the Catch-22, because while this is provided for under the rules of copyright, the problem is that the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent copy protection. This is why the DMCA needs to be repealed until such time that it does not create contradicting situations with other laws.

It is a complicated concept.

That's too bad that our government has decided to make something so complicated that effects hundreds of millions of people. If it is that complicated, perhaps it should be thrown out and made less-complicated.

Take a CD that you buy. There are 2 copyrights, 1 is the right to the physical copy made of the music (the CD) which you have rights to use, resell and for other fair use.

Such as making a backup copy...

The underlying musical performance you have no rights to. Thus playing the CD at your bar is infringement, you have to pay a licensing fee to "perform" the musical performance on the CD. For the same reason, you have no rights to the art on the DVD, only rights to the physical DVD.

You are talking about making a Derivative work of another' s copyrighted performance, like it or not that is not permissible.

This is partially incorrect, at least in trying to link your first and second point together (about making derivative works of the original). There is no law, for or against, about taking a work that you have paid for, and altering it simply so that it can play on a different device. This is simply something that has never been tested in court, or had legislation made for or against it (yet). The last thing these organizations want to happen is for it to go to court, because it would lose. So I can only assume that over the next decade they will try to inject legislation into our governmental bodies so that it makes it a copyright infringement to take content that you have purchased, and convert it to use in a different way than they intended.

BTW - I love that you point to the RIAA and MPAA "lobbying" scaring you while in the same post defending how Oil prices are set.

He wasn't defending how oil prices are set; he was simply making a distinction between a physical good (something with natural scarcity), and a digital good (something with unlimited abundance). This is the very reason why this is called "copyright infringement" and not "theft", because in order for theft to occur, you have to have relieved someone of a limited good that they are now no longer in possession of.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by mrob

I can't figure out if you are naive or obtuse.

Perhaps I'm neither, and the problem stems from you?

You argue that someone who "takes too long" to release a higher quality version of their movie forfeits their rights to the product--and that you should be able to pirate an HD copy because they didn't provide it on your timeline?

No, I never said anything of the sort. What I did say was that the movie industry moves slowly because they don't want to keep up with innovation, because it costs them money. In the meantime, there are ways to watch the content in a higher-quality form. So if someone has the most recent version they made available, and fully intends to buy the new version when it is available, should they have to just sit around and wait 5-7 years for them to release it, despite the fact that they could obtain it today?

And the root of the question was simply, could it even be constituted as copyright infringement, when there isn't even a product this copy was obtained from to begin with? At best, I would suppose you could call it copyright infringement because the source was taken from cable television, but that's more of a stretch, and introduces even murkier waters.

And you are seriously trying to parse the difference between copyright infringement and illegality?

Well, considering one has to do with a civil offense, and the other a criminal offense, yeah, I'd say it's pretty God damned important to make that distinction.

I'll bet money that you would be the first one going to court if you found someone had pirated a copy of Camtasia. Hypocrite.

Well firstly, I wouldn't be in the position to do that, as I am not the appointed legal representative for that scenario.

More importantly though, this has very little relation to do with what I was speaking of. In that case, they would not have paid for the software. What I am saying revolves around having already purchased the product in question. If you're simply downloading movies that you have not made any attempt to purchase when a viable option to purchase is available, then yes, that is certainly copyright infringement, and as such, the content owners would have the right to bring a case against you, if they found that to be in their best interest.

P.S. Glad you took the time to browse my site!

You are coming off like a whiny baby with this "argument." "I want my high-def version of "Star Wars," and I want it right now!"

A whiny baby? I simply put forth an interesting scenario that has no precedent set for it in legislation or judicial regards. My main point overall is to demonstrate how behind the times copyright law is, and these points are just two of the more interesting of many ways by which to do this.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAkbar

-You are very well versed on telling us where the law currently is, and most of this is not disputed.. I would say this is an argument of where the law SHOULD be. Think the MPAA would rather you just buy another MP3 copy of a CD you already own to put it on your iPod? You bet they do! But should it really be that way? I say no.

I think of it like this: copyright law, as it was originally intended, was to give someone a temporary monopoly on an original idea or design. When it was originally created, there was no way that the original drafters could have foreseen that multi-multi-billion dollar mega corporations would be able to have copyrights on hundreds of thousands of works, and would then re-write their words to extend copyright from a length of twenty years, to a point of basically indefinite length (see: Disney Corporation).

Copyright law was created in a time where "technology" meant taking movable pieces of type, setting them in place, covering them with ink, and smooshing them onto a piece of paper. It was created so that original ideas could not just be instantly copied and sold, removing the original author's ability to fairly capitalize on their original idea for a reasonable period of time.

Copyright law was NOT meant to force consumers to buy, re-buy, re-re-buy, and re-re-re-buy content over and over, simply because technology allows for higher-quality viewing. This is nothing but the media industry abusing their vast amounts of money and resources to contort and re-interpret the original spirit of the law to take advantage of a way to milk the consumers for more money every 5-10 years. Unfortunately, this is what has happened. This was going great for them, until many consumers started getting sick of having to deal with using the content that they fairly paid for, only how the media industry so benevolently bestowed upon them. The media industry simply wasn't keeping up with the times, recognizing things like portable players, digital copies being streamed to multiple locations in the home, ringtones on phones, etc. All of these things, because they didn't have a legitimate response for them, are now being taken out of their control, and they HATE it. So what are they to do? Well, now they're trying to simply change the rules, and turn people who fairly paid for their content, and simply want to use it in a different manner, out to be criminals.

This is NOT what copyright law was intended to do. It was not meant to be used to turn normal people into criminals. It was not designed to even account for the rapid adoption and evolution of technology. And it CERTAINLY was not designed as a way for mega corporations to alter and manipulate how our government works.

[hexydes]

Just look at how copyright has been turned from something useful to allow someone to make fair compensation off of an original idea for a period of time, into a legal-loophole for corporations to basically hold an indefinite monopoly on the works that they own:

From Wikipedia:

Key laws regulating U.S. copyrights and their key effects include:

* Copyright Act of 1790 - established U.S. copyright with term of 14 years with 14-year renewal
* Copyright Act of 1909 - extended term to 28 years with 28-year renewal
* Copyright Act of 1976 - extended term to either 75 years or life of author plus 50 years, eliminated renewal option and registration requirement
* Berne Convention Implementation Act of 1988 - established copyrights of U.S. works in Berne Convention countries
* Uruguay Round Agreements Act (URAA) of 1994 - restored U.S. copyright for certain foreign works
* Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998 - extended terms to 95/120 years or life plus 70 years
* Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 - criminalized some cases of copyright infringement
* Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005 - criminalized more cases of copyright infringement, permitted technology to "sanitize" works

So somehow we moved from 28 total possible years of copyright (MORE than fair), to 120 years (longer than 99.99999% of people will ever live). If you can't see this is simply because corporations want to have indefinite control over works they have created, so that they can continue to sell you updated versions of that content, then you're a fool, and you deserve to lose the rights that are being actively taken from.

Don't be surprised in the year 2023 (when "Steamboat Willie" is next up for entering the public domain), when copyright terms get extended to a period of 150 years.

Copyright was meant to die with the author. It's patently clear that, because corporations never "die" (unless they go out of business), they intend to simply keep editing copyright law indefinitely. It's very sad that our representatives are selling away what is best for the people they are supposedly representing, just for the interests of a handful of corporations with very deep pockets.

[AdmiralAkbar]

Food for thought:

Electronista | RIAA claims CD rips are piracy in lawsuit

Converting music CDs to audio files on a computer is unapproved and therefore illegal, the Recording Industry Association of America has said (PDF) in a brief ahead of a crucial Arizona lawsuit.

[McRich]

Media corporations should offer a "Forever" purchase (like the post office) for a movie or album.

They set the rate, let's say $50 for one of my favorite recordings, "Who's Next". If I paid a "Forever" fee of $50 in 1971, I would own the following formats that I know of: LP, 8-track, cassette, CD, remastered CD, mp3's and maybe throw in some ring tones.

The artist and record company get the money up front and I am locked in for the latest formats automatically.

Yeah, I know it will never work, but it sounds cool.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by McRich

Media corporations should offer a "Forever" purchase (like the post office) for a movie or album.

They set the rate, let's say $50 for one of my favorite recordings, "Who's Next". If I paid a "Forever" fee of $50 in 1971, I would own the following formats that I know of: LP, 8-track, cassette, CD, remastered CD, mp3's and maybe throw in some ring tones.

The artist and record company get the money up front and I am locked in for the latest formats automatically.

Yeah, I know it will never work, but it sounds cool.

The point is, why should you even have to be buying those formats over and over? The media industry should certainly make the option available to buy in the latest and greatest format, but that fact should not restrict me from being able to create my own version of that content in the updated format, for my own personal use, if I have the knowledge and inclination to do so.

Perhaps I just love the LP version of a song. I don't have a need to buy the super, re-mastered version for my iPod, because I like what I hear on the LP. I simply want to be able to listen to the music that I paid for (by way of the LP), in a different location, with a different type of player. So I should legally be allowed to use the LP to create a personal version of the content that I paid to be able to listen to, in a different format. So if I want it on my iPod, I should just be able to hook my record player up to my sound card, record it in Audacity, and convert it to MP3.

Right now, this is legal. Copyright law allows you to make a personal backup copy of content you have legally acquired. The media industry knows this, and there is little that they can do to change that fact at this point. So what they are attempting to do is inject side-laws that will interfere with that fact. With new formats, they can simply stick DRM on the disc, and thanks to the DMCA, it is now illegal to circumvent DRM schemes, despite the fact that it is legal to make a personal backup copy of content you legally own a license to listen to. They would retroactively apply this if they could (to stop what is known as the "analog hole", which lets people employ older technology which can't support DRM to work-around the DRM issue), but they can't as easily control that. They've worked with companies like Microsoft to make it harder for consumers to take advantage of this, but it hasn't worked out very well for them.

At any rate, the media industry has pretty much taken total dominance of all artistic facets of society. They have extended, and will continue to extend the length of copyright law to a point that makes it basically indefinite, so that nothing falls into the public domain. To get around the pesky clause that people can create backups of the content they purchase a listen-license to (and thus not needing to buy nearly as many duplicate versions of the same content), they simply cross-injected the DMCA into copyright law, making it impossible for consumers to legally do what copyright law clearly states they are allowed to do.

It's not right, and they know it, but they don't care because it's making them money. Just think if classic works like Beethoven's 5th, the Mona Lisa, or the images of Mathew Brady from the Civil War, were all heavily-controlled by the media industry thanks to copyright law. There would be no way for people to use these classic works, whose authors and creators have long-since passed on, without paying exorbitant licensing fees to some jerk-off media corporation. Modern classics however, will be under their jurisdiction. Some great examples of these (and the dates they are due to pass into the public domain, assuming copyright law isn't "updated" any further):

"The Persistence of Memory" by Salvador Dali (painting) - 2026

"Wouldn't It Be Nice" by The Beach Boys (song) - 2061

"Jurassic Park" (movie) - 2088

Salvador Dali has been dead for 20 years. Who needs to be making money off of his classic painting for the next 18 years? Brian Wilson is 65 years old, and though I'm sure we'd all love to have him around, I don't think he's going to live until the ripe old age of 119 years old. Assuming he even makes it to 90 (which, lets be honest, I wouldn't want to take that bet), who is going to make money off of that for the additional 29 years? Capitol Records? Why do they deserve to continue to make money, when it should be questionable if even Brian Wilson needs to be making money off of the song almost half a century later? And Jurassic Park has probably generated almost a billion dollars at this point. Is there a reason that this movie shouldn't enter the public domain until the youngest person reading this board right now has been dead for probably a decade, other than "corporate greed"?

Copyright law is broken. It needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed in such a way that it is very clear and simple, accounts for today's technology, and remains flexible for unforeseen technological (or otherwise) changes in the future. There should be no distinction between an "individual" and a "corporation", because that just opens the door for corporations to abuse the system. We need to come up with a reasonable length of time to let an entity have a monopoly over the work that they have created, and after that, just let it go into the collective stream of art and knowledge that is our culture.

[mrob]

You have an awful lot of time on your hands to write such long replies.

The fact remains that buying a pirated HD version of something just because you are impatient and don't want to wait for the studio to release it in the format you want is wrong. You can write really long, well-crafted responses about it, but its still wrong--the length of your posts doesn't change that.

You may also enjoy parsing the differences between copyright infringement and illegality, but your anger over being called out on it shows you know its wrong, too. (A little touchy over the Camtasia thing, too, eh?)

Maybe stepping away from the keyboard would improve your perspective.

Can't wait for your reply.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by mrob

You have an awful lot of time on your hands to write such long replies.

Thanks, it's the weekend.

The fact remains that buying a pirated HD version of something just because you are impatient and don't want to wait for the studio to release it in the format you want is wrong. You can write really long, well-crafted responses about it, but its still wrong--the length of your posts doesn't change that.

Who said anything about buying a pirated version of content? If you buy pirated content, you are a pirate. No one should be making money off of something which they had no legitimate hand in creating. What I'm talking about is the philosophical right/wrong stance of downloading an HD version of something when a) you already own the highest-quality version of the content available, b) no such HD version is available for legitimate purchase, and c) you have full intention of purchasing the HD version once it is legitimately available.

Perhaps you're confused on the base of the argument?

You may also enjoy parsing the differences between copyright infringement and illegality, but your anger over being called out on it shows you know its wrong, too. (A little touchy over the Camtasia thing, too, eh?)

Anger? I may be passionate about distinguishing the differences between civil and criminal law, but I'm not sure where you're perceiving "anger" from me from. Perhaps you're confused once again?

Maybe stepping away from the keyboard would improve your perspective.

Can't wait for your reply.

Reply to what? You didn't even present any new ideas in your post. I've had to re-hash what I've said already, and then try to explain how I'm not angry.

I'd be glad to reply further though, if you present some compelling new angle to the discussion.

[mrob]

Originally Posted by hexydes

Who said anything about buying a pirated version of content? If you buy pirated content, you are a pirate. No one should be making money off of something which they had no legitimate hand in creating. What I'm talking about is the philosophical right/wrong stance of downloading an HD version of something when a) you already own the highest-quality version of the content available, b) no such HD version is available for legitimate purchase, and c) you have full intention of purchasing the HD version once it is legitimately available.
Care to explain the difference between "pirating" and what you are suggesting? Its clear that you are advocating downloading "illegitimate" content--that = pirating. It may make you feel better to write a long response trying to justify it, but its a distinction w/o a difference.


Perhaps you're confused on the base of the argument?
Get a mirror, son.




Anger? I may be passionate about distinguishing the differences between civil and criminal law, but I'm not sure where you're perceiving "anger" from me from. Perhaps you're confused once again?
Perhaps the use of profanity in your last post was the "clue"? Nice tap dance.




Reply to what? You didn't even present any new ideas in your post. I've had to re-hash what I've said already, and then try to explain how I'm not angry.

I'd be glad to reply further though, if you present some compelling new angle to the discussion.

Here's the "new angle": you are advocating the downloading of pirated content, which is a "copyright infringement," and can be a punishable offense. New enough for you?

BTW--try responding in fewer words than usual--it helps us dumber folks understand your big ideas.

[TheBobcat]

There needs to be a lot of copyright reform legisltation to bring the law into the digital age, unfortunately the RIAA and MPAA will likely write it.

I can't find the exact link, but I believe they had insinuated that ripping CDs or DVDs for use on a PMP might not be fair use in their eyes. No doubt they are lobbying for that to be spelled out in any future legislation.

This industry has survived and proffited by forcing users to upgrade their favorite movies and to new formats all the time, ie VHS to DVD to Blu-Ray, or Record to Cassette to CD to (they hope) digital. They are very scared by the ease and lossless nature of the conversion, copying and use of the digital files. From the looks of their archaic business model, they should be.

[PortlandSpartan]

The most interesting thing I've taken from this whole deal is that TechSmith is located in Okemos. I love SnagIt. Use it heavily at work to document stuff for our QA/Engineering groups and sometimes for customers.

[MSUeddie]

Originally Posted by hexydes

I think of it like this: copyright law, as it was originally intended, was to give someone a temporary monopoly on an original idea or design. .

I am sorry.. i cant read the rest of what you said, as you started off by violating the most elementary, bedrock principal of copyright law. You cant copyright an idea, the "idea/expression dichotomy." You seem to have put a lot of thought into this, yet refuse to listen/try to understand what the law truly states.

You seem more interested in climbing up on a soapbox than listening to people trying to educate you on specific points you have confused.

An idea can only be protected by a patent. A design by either a patent or trade dress.

[McRich]

Originally Posted by hexydes

The point is, why should you even have to be buying those formats over and over? The media industry should certainly make the option available to buy in the latest and greatest format, but that fact should not restrict me from being able to create my own version of that content in the updated format, for my own personal use, if I have the knowledge and inclination to do so.

Perhaps I just love the LP version of a song. I don't have a need to buy the super, re-mastered version for my iPod, because I like what I hear on the LP. I simply want to be able to listen to the music that I paid for (by way of the LP), in a different location, with a different type of player. So I should legally be allowed to use the LP to create a personal version of the content that I paid to be able to listen to, in a different format. So if I want it on my iPod, I should just be able to hook my record player up to my sound card, record it in Audacity, and convert it to MP3.

Right now, this is legal. Copyright law allows you to make a personal backup copy of content you have legally acquired. The media industry knows this, and there is little that they can do to change that fact at this point. So what they are attempting to do is inject side-laws that will interfere with that fact. With new formats, they can simply stick DRM on the disc, and thanks to the DMCA, it is now illegal to circumvent DRM schemes, despite the fact that it is legal to make a personal backup copy of content you legally own a license to listen to. They would retroactively apply this if they could (to stop what is known as the "analog hole", which lets people employ older technology which can't support DRM to work-around the DRM issue), but they can't as easily control that. They've worked with companies like Microsoft to make it harder for consumers to take advantage of this, but it hasn't worked out very well for them.

At any rate, the media industry has pretty much taken total dominance of all artistic facets of society. They have extended, and will continue to extend the length of copyright law to a point that makes it basically indefinite, so that nothing falls into the public domain. To get around the pesky clause that people can create backups of the content they purchase a listen-license to (and thus not needing to buy nearly as many duplicate versions of the same content), they simply cross-injected the DMCA into copyright law, making it impossible for consumers to legally do what copyright law clearly states they are allowed to do.

It's not right, and they know it, but they don't care because it's making them money. Just think if classic works like Beethoven's 5th, the Mona Lisa, or the images of Mathew Brady from the Civil War, were all heavily-controlled by the media industry thanks to copyright law. There would be no way for people to use these classic works, whose authors and creators have long-since passed on, without paying exorbitant licensing fees to some jerk-off media corporation. Modern classics however, will be under their jurisdiction. Some great examples of these (and the dates they are due to pass into the public domain, assuming copyright law isn't "updated" any further):

"The Persistence of Memory" by Salvador Dali (painting) - 2026

"Wouldn't It Be Nice" by The Beach Boys (song) - 2061

"Jurassic Park" (movie) - 2088

Salvador Dali has been dead for 20 years. Who needs to be making money off of his classic painting for the next 18 years? Brian Wilson is 65 years old, and though I'm sure we'd all love to have him around, I don't think he's going to live until the ripe old age of 119 years old. Assuming he even makes it to 90 (which, lets be honest, I wouldn't want to take that bet), who is going to make money off of that for the additional 29 years? Capitol Records? Why do they deserve to continue to make money, when it should be questionable if even Brian Wilson needs to be making money off of the song almost half a century later? And Jurassic Park has probably generated almost a billion dollars at this point. Is there a reason that this movie shouldn't enter the public domain until the youngest person reading this board right now has been dead for probably a decade, other than "corporate greed"?

Copyright law is broken. It needs to be fixed. It needs to be fixed in such a way that it is very clear and simple, accounts for today's technology, and remains flexible for unforeseen technological (or otherwise) changes in the future. There should be no distinction between an "individual" and a "corporation", because that just opens the door for corporations to abuse the system. We need to come up with a reasonable length of time to let an entity have a monopoly over the work that they have created, and after that, just let it go into the collective stream of art and knowledge that is our culture.

As far as copyright legislation, I am in favor of any law that will extend the protection for the artist and their family. Many artists will deliver their music via the web (many have already started) and take out the record companies. This is why I think the copyright laws will need to protect the authors as much as possible.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by mrob

Care to explain the difference between "pirating" and what you are suggesting? Its clear that you are advocating downloading "illegitimate" content--that = pirating. It may make you feel better to write a long response trying to justify it, but its a distinction w/o a difference.

True pirating, as the term was originally meant, was for those who were taking content, making a copy of it, and then selling it for a profit, without the authorization of the original copyright holder. The media industry has simply re-termed the word to apply to anyone who downloads something they hold a copyright on, no matter what the circumstance.

Originally Posted by PortlandSpartan