|
|
| J-Pierre |
| Posted: Apr 11 2005, 06:09 PM |
 |
|
Unregistered
|
Me again 
I may have been unskilful, but in no way, I would take you on an illegal way.
The french law explicitly provides with a right to the private copy, that's all what I'm doing. And if you could see the quality of the TV Rip, it's obvious it's not coming from a DVD. But I understand you cannot just rely on my words.
Any way, many thanks for taking the time of answering.
Jean-Pierre
|
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Apr 11 2005, 07:23 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | The french law explicitly provides with a right to the private copy |
well, if you have the original media, you already have one copy, right?
french law allows it?
so what does the copyright sticker say in france?
does it say "you are allowed to make a private copy of this media....."?
i would surely like to see a thing like that.
the only applicable law is the law that's written on that sticker; make a copy, and let's see who has more power; media manufacturer, or the 'fair use' laws.
i say that if you copy the content, you can never win in the court of law against the media manufacturer.
it is impossible.
just like you are not allowed to quote book contents without approval from the author, same applies here.
only author can give you the right to copy his work, after you explained to him what would be the purpose, and if (offcourse) he agrees to it.
the type of media doesn't matter; book,dvd,vhs,video-game...
it's all copyrighted.
copyright on the sticker says you don't have the right to copy this material(or do those other things they enlist as prohibited).
if you were to ask;
"what's the good tool to make fansubs with?"
i believe i would reply:
http://www.urusoft.net/products.php?cat=sw&lang=1
--------------------
my signature:
 |
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Apr 11 2005, 09:49 PM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
Please do not resurrect the same topic for the third time... if I wanted people to respond I would have left the topic open. I'll rename this topic so it might turn out in a discussion about copyright and "fair-use", but please make no referral to the original problem... or ask for help regarding any other dodgy things. 
As for my stance:
I think these discussions are rather fruitless. Either side will misuse analogies to prove their point which then will be countered by the other side by disproving the analogy. Three post later everyone is discussing the validity of the analogy instead of the real issue. Of course an analogy is almost never 100% perfect, so you either have to avoid analogies or people have to stop nitpicking and see the bigger picture (ahum... right...).
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Apr 11 2005, 11:41 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | I think these discussions are rather fruitless. |
you think that because you tried to discuss it on doom9 and divx forums; the forums that mostly preoccupy themselves with dvd-ripping are a bad place to talk about this. (and sometimes it's impossible to talk to somebody about a particular subject. that's just a fact.).
but i'll say (it again) that you and fcc did just fine in that doom9 thread.
it's a pitty one has to use the analogies while one only needs to read the cd/vhs/dvd/book labels/beginning pages to realise the truth.
copyright iterally means "you can copy only if copyright holder lets you".
(and indeed j-pierre's persistance is kinda....boring sometimes. <wink>.
j-p. just leave it be and rephrase the question if you make a mistake in the future. 2 times is too much, 3 times is boring.)
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| fccHandler |
| Posted: Apr 12 2005, 12:06 AM |
|
|
Administrator n00b
Group: Moderators
Posts: 3961
Member No.: 280
Joined: 13-September 02
|
J-Pierre's second post brings up something that I think few people realize. When you purchase a video or DVD, what you are really purchasing is a license to view the movie in your home. You don't actually own the movie and you can't do anything you want with it.
By the same reasoning, if you download a copyrighted movie from the Internet you are still violating the copyright, because you didn't purchase the license to view it (as the DVD owner did).
--------------------
May the FOURCC be with you... |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Apr 12 2005, 12:19 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE (fccHandler @ Apr 12 2005, 02:06 AM) | J-Pierre's second post brings up something that I think few people realize. When you purchase a video or DVD, what you are really purchasing is a license to view the movie in your home. You don't actually own the movie and you can't do anything you want with it.
|
++
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Apr 12 2005, 07:16 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
| QUOTE (i4004 @ Apr 11 2005, 08:23 PM) | | well, if you have the original media, you already have one copy, right? |
I never saw how misleading the english term "copy" is. I think for someone not speaking english as native language, the term "copy", in this manner, is quite misleading - "copy" in german would mean "additional exemplar".
Still, I fail to see why one isnīt allowed to make a backup-copy. After all, as FCC said, one bought the right to view the movie - not the right to use the medium as long as it lives, which is the way itīs now - once the disc is broken, youīre done. Buy another "copy" of it, if you want to watch it again.
If it doesnīt exist anymore - bad luck. :-(
My personal opinion is that once something ran on TV, it should be OK to copy it(the TV edition, not the DVD). TV usually is the last instance where it goes - most, if not all, money has been squeezed out already.
Similar to "abandonware" - programs/games that arenīt even sold by the producers canīt be bought, yet itīd be illegal to copy them.
Doesnīt really make sense, does it?
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| stephanV |
| Posted: Apr 12 2005, 10:19 AM |
|
|
Spam killer ;)
Group: Moderators
Posts: 4348
Member No.: 8917
Joined: 18-February 04
|
| QUOTE (Cyberman @ Apr 12 2005, 09:16 AM) | | Doesnīt really make sense, does it? |
Unfortunately its not about making sense, it's about the law.
Auteursrecht (Dutch law on copyright)
Some relevant passages:
| QUOTE | Artikel 1
Het auteursrecht is het uitsluiten recht van den maker van een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst, of diens rechtverkrijgenden, om dit openbaar maken en te verveelvoudigen, behoudens de beperking bij de wet gesteld.
(Copyright is the sole right of the creator of a work of literature, science or art, or of the rightful owners of the work, to publish this work and replicate (copy) it, under the restrictions defined by law. |
| QUOTE | Artikel 5
...
2. Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op het gansche werk wordt beschouwd het verveelvoudigen of openbaar maken van eenig daarin opgenomen afzonderlijk werk waarop auteursrecht bestaat, door een ander dan de maker daarvan of diens recht verkrijgenden
Copyright infringement on the complete work is to be considered the replication (copying) or publishing of any seperate work within that (complete) work, which is copyrighted, by anyone else then the creator of the work or the rightful owners. |
hmmm....
| QUOTE | Artikel 16b
1. Als inbreuk op het auteursrecht op een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst wordt niet beschouwd de verveelvoudiging welke beperkt blijft to enkele exemplaren en welke uitsluitend dient tot eigen oefening, studie of gebruik van de natuurlijke persoon die zonder direct of indirect commercieel oogmerk de verveelvoudiging vervaardigt of tot het verveelvouding uitsluitend ten behoeve van zichzelf opdracht geeft.
Copyright infringement on a work of literature, science or art is not the replication which is limited to a few copies and has the sole purpose for own exercise, study or use of the person who without direct or indirect commercial purposes replicates the work or orders to replicate it. |
(Artkel 16c has a similar meaning.)
aha...
| QUOTE | Artikel 29a
1. Voor toepassing van dit artikel wordt onder <<technische voorzieningen>> verstaan technologie, inrichtingen of onderdelen die in het kader van hun normale werken dienen te voorkomen of beperken van handelingen ten aanzien van werken, die door de maker of diens rechtvererkrijgenden niet zijn toegestaan. Technische voorziening worden geacht <<doeltreffend>> te zijn indien het gebruik van een beschermd werk door de maker of zijn rechtverkrijgenden wordt beheerst door middel van toegangscontrole of door toepassing van een beschermingsprocede zoals encryptie, vervorming of andere transformatie van het werk of een kopieerbeveiliging die de beoogde bescherming bereikt.
2. Degene, die doeltreffende technische voorzieningen omzeilt en dat weet of dat redelijkerwijs behoort te weten, handelt onrechtmatig.
...
4. Bij algemene maatregel van bestuur kunnen regelen worden vastgesteld die de maker of zijn rechtverkrijgenden er toe te verplichten om de gebruiker van een werk van letterkunde, wetenschap of kunst voor doeleinden omschreven als in artikelen ..., 16b, 16c, ... van deze wet de nodige middelen te verschaffen om van deze beperkingen te kunnen profiteren, mits de gebruiker rechtmatige toegang tot door de technische voorziening beschermde werk heeft. Het bepaalde in de voorafgaande zin geldt niet ten aanzien van werken die onder contractuele voorwaarden beschikbaar aan gebruikers worden gesteld op een door hen individueel gekozen plaats en tijd.
(  )
1. For application of this article, with <<technical provisions>> is meant technology, constructions or parts that in the context of their intended use prevent or restrict actions towards works, which are not allowed by the creator or rightfulowner of the work. Technical provisions should be <<effective>> when the use of a protected work by the creator or the rightful owners is controlled by means of acces control (?) or by applying a protection scheme like encryption, morphing (?) or other transformation of the work, or a copy protection with the aimed purpose.
2. The person who circumvents effective technical provisions and knows that, or should reasonably have known, is acting unlawfully.
...
4. Rules can be made to force the creator or rightful owner of a work of literature, science of art, to give the user the necessary means to exercise their rights as defined in articles ..., 16b, 16c, ..., provided that the user has legal acces to the work that is protected by technical provisions. This does not count for works that are displayed under conditions defined by a contract to the users at a by them agreed on place and time (???). |
Now for my interpretation:
Am I allowed to make copies of my unprotected CDs/DVDs?
NO, unless it is for personal use and I only make a few of them.
Am I allowed to make copies of my protected CDs/DVDs?
NO, unless the protection is not <<effective>> (but what is effective? Maybe I need to read again  ), or the necessary regulation is made. (My interpretation of <<effective>> is that the copy protection should not in anyway interfere with the normal use of the medium. If a DVD is encrypted with CSS and my *fully* functional DVD-player is not able to read the DVD, the protection is not effective IMO... but that is debatable of course)
So... nothing to do with making sense, all to do with the law. And since laws in my country are created by the dictature of majority (sometimes refered to as "democracy"), I will just have to swallow them.
And now I need to do something else 
--------------------
useful links:
VirtualDub, Input plugins and filters, AviSynth, AVI-Mux GUI, AC3ACM by fcchandler, VirtualDub FAQ |
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Apr 12 2005, 01:11 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
Laws that donīt make sense shouldnīt be allowed.
The main problem here is that those who "make" the laws donīt know anything about the field the laws are made for.
As you said, what is "effective" copy-protection? IMO, a copy-protection that can be bypassed isnīt effective anymore.
In the end, it probably is all about money - as long as no money is made, thereīll probably be less fuss about it. Though itīll still remain illegal, of course.
After all, a computer itself is technology to bypass copy-protection - one could write an assembly language program in DEBUG(still in Win2K, just checked) and circumvent copy-protection...
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Apr 12 2005, 06:37 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
it's all about 'what fair-use is and what fair use isn't'.
so let's concentrate on important thing; can we apply fair-use here. is there any provision to use it here?
http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html
this definiton surely doesn't allow copying whole contents of the media.
it also says this:
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material.
this is more or less what i'm saying; you can only be sure if you ask copyright owner: you defining your own usage of 'fair-use' won't really do.
do notce the domain of this page; it is us government's stance on fair-use and copyright.
that's a good place to search answers for, as them films say "protected by laws of usa and other countries". so if you go to india and copy american company's dvd, usa courts can prosecute you. they have the right to do that. it is american product that's copyrighted, so their laws apply. your country has no copyright law? usa laws apply still. you live in china?
same thing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
wikipedia is more elaborate (free encyclopedia must be... ), but even there you can't really find any provision for copying the whole copyrighted material without author's consent, or via stuff already mantioned in link1 ( education,parody,comment etc.)
http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/highered.htm#four
fair-use is most commonly used for eductation purposes.
look at this checklist;
http://www.copyright.iupui.edu/checklist.htm
notice the 'entertainment' under 'Opposing Fair Use'.
also notice checkbox grouping under 'amount'.
under 'effect', we have 'Could replace sale of copyrighted work'. etc.etc.
all in all, i don't see a provision to take a complete media and copy it here (unless you're in education business or other things mentioned that are good for fair-use).
there surely isn't even the provision to copy a copyrighted vhs tape incase it starts to fall apart.
(that would probably go under 'restauration via avs filtering' type of subjects. )
so, untill somebody can actually prove fair-use takes precedence over copyright laws, i'm done here.
hehm..just one more analogy <wink> ;
copyright is to mentioned media what locking my car (to prevent theft) is to me. copyright is the lock on my car's doors. safety precaution.
(all this talk reminded me; i should do a 'backup' of this zz top cassette-tape i'm just listening (some nice drum-machines and synthesizers on 'afterburner' of 1985.); my tape-deck can't loop {particular song i wan't to listen over and over again...did avery say that he liked the winamp loop option too on that page about vdub history?} .
don't tell warner bros. records.... )
http://lyrics.rare-lyrics.com/Z/ZZ-Top/Delirious.html
(oups; one more copyright infringment there... but zz top were always better with the guitars than with words.
i think wb won't mind after all the things i just said here.
hehehe...)
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Apr 12 2005, 07:34 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
Just one note - that "car" comparison doesnīt work here. A car is something physical, that which can be copied, isnīt.
When you steal a car, to take a lump of metal that has to be replaced. When you copy a disc - nothing is taken away.
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Apr 12 2005, 09:32 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
yes it is; a money copyright holder would otherwise get if you were to buy a cd, instead of just copy/dload it for free.
as you said video or audio signals are not 'physical' (neither are words and sentences btw.), so people invented 'lock for the non-physical media'-->copyright.
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Apr 13 2005, 07:59 AM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
I hate to use that "argument", but if I wouldnīt buy the cd anyway, thereīd be no loss of money.
Even so, the "loss" wouldnīt be as real as the loss of a car is. Itīs only potential loss, not factual one.
Unless you can prove that in some other universe I did buy the disc.
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
| i4004 |
| Posted: Apr 13 2005, 02:50 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2432
Member No.: 4935
Joined: 24-June 03
|
| QUOTE | | I hate to use that "argument", but if I wouldnīt buy the cd anyway, thereīd be no loss of money. |
if you wouldn't buy the cd and you wouldn't do the illegal dloading(or copying), then you wouldn't listen to music at all, as there would be none.
well said, it's a poor argument.
<wink>
| QUOTE | Even so, the "loss" wouldnīt be as real as the loss of a car is. Itīs only potential loss, not factual one.
Unless you can prove that in some other universe I did buy the disc.
|
potential loss?
are you saying that once i dload a complete album i'll go to store and buy album anyway? so it's not a potential loss, but a factual one.
and when doing compilations, that goes for particular songs (ie not whole albums).
dloading/copying music means you're not paying for it. as simple as that.
this reminds me....doom9's argument on p2p boosting cd sales is logical fallacy (doom9 is quite good at producing those.). tv and radio are much better media to 'market' the music than the p2p. tv and radio just jump at you, while p2p requires your action to search for something.
and cd sales would be boosted with less of any marketing anyway. as the standards rise.people just have more money today than yesterday. (ie car sales are boosted too, tv-sets sales and all other sales; try to sell a tv-set in ancient egypt... <smile> ) )
as for amount of loss; well, i'm sure more money is lost (worldwide) via p2p, than via car-stealing, especially with the (too) high prices of cds and dvds etc.
so i would direct this fight in different direction; either manufacturers bring the prices down, or one continues to illegally dload. (ie to boycott media producer alltogether).
luckilly, blank media is cheap.
<wink>
--------------------
my signature:
|
|
| Cyberman |
| Posted: Apr 13 2005, 06:13 PM |
|
|
Advanced Member
Group: Members
Posts: 2035
Member No.: 3477
Joined: 3-April 03
|
Iīm not saying that Iīd buy the disc once I downloaded it, though itīs quite possible to acquire the taste of some music and buy more of the band.
What Iīm saying is that just because I downloaded a song doesnīt mean I would have bought it otherwise. That analogy is faulty - to download something is much "easier" than to actually buy it. Iīd download a song I donīt really like that much, but am curious.
You canīt say X downloaded songs == X not bought songs.
--------------------
Matroska/MKV ? |
|
|
