>>>I don't think your THAT dumb... <<<

An interesting and thoroughly intellectual response. All DVDs actually state up front (on the screen) the permitted conditions of use. You might close your eyes, you might not read, you might pretend not to understand, but it is there.

"An interesting and thoroughly intellectual response. All DVDs actually state up front (on the screen) the permitted conditions of use. You might close your eyes, you might not read, you might pretend not to understand, but it is there."

Yeah... you said it... ON SCREEN.
Now why do you think they don't put that warning in those big bold letters on the FRONT of the dvd case where you can see it BEFORE you buy it?? It is possible given today's technology!

If copyright laws had a little more respect for people... then I am 98% sure that people would have a little more respect for copyright laws. It works BOTH ways.

Copyright laws today are no longer being used primarily for what they are supposed to do... they are instead being used as a way to increase profit. I have no respect for this or the people that milk the CR laws for everything they are worth.

and BTW: for the record, I did not say YOU are dumb. My meaning was that you sound like an inteligent person and I can't believe you are not seeing this.... or is it that you are CHOOSING not to see it?

EDITED:

You watch... they will do the same thing with the DRM disks... they will bury that warning so far that you won't be able to see it until everything is opened and can't be returned.

Do not misunderstand... it is not ignorance to the copyright law that I am stating here... it's DISHONESTY. To bury that warning is a dishonest and shady thing to do, and this is just ONE example in the shady ways of the copyright laws that exist today. Meanwhile, they're fully expecting the public to be as honest as the driven snow.

Well... I don't think so

You want the public to be honest... you must first set the example. And until such time.... copyright laws deserve very little respect... if any at all.

blink3times, three things:

1. "Copyright laws today are no longer being used primarily for what they are supposed to do... they are instead being used as a way to increase profit." ... is equal to ... "Crime laws today are no longer being used primarily for what they are supposed to do... they are instead being used as a way to increase civility."

2. Tell me, what are copyright laws supposed to do? Why do people © things again? You see, I was under the impression that copyright laws were there to protect the credits and rights of a distributor on a national and or international scale, and the incentive was to protect the use of your original work, be that for, *gasp*, profit. However, according to some of your earlier statements, I must be mistaken?

3. I don't think you're THAT dumb. ( i debated correcting you on this, i was just hoping somewhere inside that you meant it as a joke. )

Now here is something you all might like to ponder. Did you know that 40% (Yes four-zero %) of all US dvd sales are made by Wal-Mart and that Wal-mart has now started a movie download service and is trying to negotiate with the studios to move their 40% distribution to download only. Yes, Wal-Mart is lobbying the studios to stop making DVDs altogether.
The Wal-Mart system allows you to watch the movie as often as you like but only on the computer to which it has ben downloaded. Here is a senario where copyright that should protect artists could be used to create a monopoly where the studios and distributors are the only ones being looked after while the artists and the public are at their mercy..

On number ONE and TWO

I completely disagree. Copyright laws were built to protect someones idea... work... creativity from being stolen or altered If you want the creation, you must pay for it. Instead what they are doing now is forcing one to purchase the SAME creation over and over again at the SAME price, should one want a copy. There is NOTHING built in to the second disk that I buy indicating that I have already paid for the rights contained on the first disk. The second disk contains the same work, the same idea... nothing new... so why the same price??? Well... because they can get away with it, that's why. Well... I will use products like ANYDVD for my second, third..... copies............... because I can get away with it.

And crime laws were built to protect the public from the unecessary harm of others... not increase civility.... your mother does this when she teaches you table manners at a ripe young age.

And on Three:

Spelling errors and such happen... even with the best of typists... this why a newspaper (for example) will have SEVERAL departments doing nothing but checking for grammer and spelling mistakes. I'm not a newspaper.

On YOUR 1 and 2 of my 1 and 2

Copyrights are not merely for rat packing one's original ideas. They have been used, traditionally, to put a price on sharing. I'm not sure at what point you felt they changed.

When a copyright protects the financial stake of your hard work, then
it's capitalism. Guess what, we're capitalists. Copyright laws are like the Crime laws of our ideas, and as Crime laws protect people (and in doing so make life easier), then civility is a byproduct. As Copyright laws protect ideas (and in doing so give them greater value), then revenue is a byproduct. How about some good old fashioned hard work and labor? It produces product, and product sells. We have Wage laws. And thusly we have incentive to work harder. How about inventions, and inventions sell. We have Patent laws. And thusly we have incentive to innovate. Your economics teacher goes over this in high school.

And on #3:

Sorry, when you insult someone's intelligence, you should avoid turning the tables on yourself. That, and when people start throwing insults on one of these threads, it really frustrates me. Too many good discussions have already suffered deletion because of this.

Who's "sharing"?

I ask you to point to ANY one of my posts that mentions the word "sharing".

Revenue is a byproduct alright... at the consumers expense. Do you think maybe they would think of turning this around a little. NO.... heck... I should be shot for even thinking such a thing!

And yes... there are wage laws and they are built to protect the public from dishonesty. Just like there SHOULD be some kind of regulation protecting the public from the shady actions of those controlling the copyright laws. Maybe somebody should ORDER these people to place big copyright warning on the front of dvd cases where everybody can see it BEFORE they buy.... because they sure aren't going to do it of their own free will.

While I will freely admit that the word "dumb" was a little strong, it was not in any way shape or form intended to be an insult. It's merely an expression "I can't believe you're that dumb" However, if there are those that took it as an insult then you have my SINCERE apology.

I just get quite heated when we talk about this... there is much dishonesty in BOTH directions here, yet it's people me that get slammed for using products like anydvd. Meanwhile, the industry keeps steam rolling on, acting like Snow White.

I believe you are wrong legally and certainly you are wrong morally. Im sure on the legal side there are thousands of different license agreements for DVD/CD end users depending on the content distributor & copyright owner.

Anyway, my issue is one of simple media durability. I have a two and a three.5 year old who have a huge DVD collection. Well unfortunately, about half of that collection has serious enough scratches to prevent really watching anymore (due to their using the DVD player).

I don't blame the content provider that my media went bad, that's my fault. I do blame the content provider when they don't allow me to essentially extend the life of a childrens product to a reasonable period by backing up or copying.

I will say that a few childrens DVDs have no protection at all either to allow backup or just because they are such a cheap production.

The bottom line to me is that DRM means allowing the legitimate end user to use the content as they see fit.



Farss wrote:
...You bought a licence to play the music / video embedded in that piece of plastic. If that piece of plastic fails you have to buy another one.
You don't like the deal, fine, don't buy the product, no one is forcing you to buy the product. If the deal really stinks and no one buys the product do you not think those offering the deal might not get the message and change the deal...

LOL!!!

This has got to be the best one I hve heard yet. Yours is an absolutely outragous statement to make

What you are basically saying is that i'm immoral because I'm breaking the law for what you believe to be the wrong reason, but you are morally justified because you are breaking the same law (or at least questioning it) for the right reasons.


We ll you just take the cake don't you.

As a I said waayyy back above ... it just depends on how we ALL rationalize our ethics.

BTW... You CAN send those DVD's out for repair... There are quite a few companies that refinish disks... And maybe the adults should handle disks from now on :)

added: (The only disks that can not be repaired are Blu Ray disks... the ultra thin hardened layer can not be re polished)

This scenerio could play out like this: AnyDVD-HD anti DRM software declared illegal. Microsoft & MAC agree to incorporate "bust in logging for illegal copying software" in the updated operating systems. Hackers create anti bust in software. Microsoft & Mac sue 300 million Americans for using anti bust in software because they can't see what you are up to. All computers and hardware are designed for "DRM" disabling at your own risk". The government confiscates the Internet and requires social security number, birthdate, mothers maiden name, fingerprint, eyeprint as password to get on the internet then creates another cabinet post to investigate deaths during entering password. RIAA lobbies for a first time penalty of illegal copying to be "death". Government creates another cabinet post to figure out why the population dropped by 200 million last year being that the economy has entered the doldrums. "We just don't understand what is going on". Violin playing softly. Enter laugh track and I deny everything I said.
JJK

Copyrights are not merely for rat packing one's original ideas. They have been used, traditionally, to put a price on sharing.

This is not accurate, but it reflects the misunderstanding of most folks with regard to copyright.
Copyright is EXACTLY what the word implies; the "Right" to "Copy."
Nothing more, nothing less.
I own intellectual property. After 1989, it's automatically protected. Prior to 1989, it HAD to be registered. It's still good practice to register it.
Registration provides a means of proving when you created the work. Ideas cannot be copyrighted. A thought cannot be copyrighted. Only tangible, touchable/viewable works may be copyrighted.
Copyright protects the owner of the creative property from having their work copied and produced/profited by, from another party. Copyrights provide no financial incentives nor protections.
When you purchase a DVD, there are two copyrights involved;
1-copyright of the original work. Fair Use allows this work to be archived for *personal* uses.
2. copyright of the encryption software used to protect the original work. Due to the DMCA, it is illegal to bypass, break, or decrypt the encryption so as to gain access to the original work.

Neither offers a financial incentive.

Unfortunately, the dishonesty of a few has forced the implementation of #2. As mentioned, many childrens works, for example, have no encryption due to both cost and openness on the part of the creator to allow parents to make archives. BriteMusic, for example, doesn't protect their children's works for this very reason, hoping that people will be decent and not make copies for their friends or neighbors.

It's somewhat interesting to note that not one person has responded to the question of "have you registered a copyright/created a work distributed in the mainstream, broadcast, or available on a store shelf distributed by a national or international distributor."
I know some folks here have...but the majority of those in this thread have not, and therefore don't really understand the process. Merely undergoing the process would likely change some of the opinions.

I've always been somewhat opinionated on this subject, but after my name, domain name, business name were all violated by a "respected" member of the Vegas community, I became rabid about it. Having my copyrights violated by Disney paled in comparison, because Disney is a big company full of idiots. Having my trademark and copyright both violated by someone I knew well was so personal, I realized that given the chance, a high percentage of people will steal whatever they can, whenever they can.
One can't blame the studios for wanting to protect their work from casual theft. If it steps on the toes of the few that want/need to *honestly* copy/archive their work, so be it. It's a PITA when I'm in a hurry to buy something at the store and have to wait for the Sensormatic tag to be removed too. Or having to wait for a salesman to come unlock the cabinet where the product I want to buy is stored. Theft causes inconveniences.

Copyright protects the owner of the creative property from having their work copied and produced/profited by, from another party. Copyrights provide no financial incentives nor protections.
=================================================================
Spot, I disagree with your second sentence. Of course it provides financial protection to the holder. That's the whole purpose, to create an enforceable mechanism (right to sue) for deterring and disgorging those who infringe the IP.

One other minor technicality: you don't need to register a work to have a valid copyright, but you will need to register it before you can sue an infringer.

Bob.

As long as people have methods for getting something without paying for it, they will. I don't believe the "I'd buy it if it were not so expensive" crap. That may be true of a handfull of people but to most, if they can steal it without the threat of getting caught, they will.

Here's a quote:

Warner Music CEO Edgar Bronfman made a startling admission when he sat down for a Second Life interview with Reuters: his kids have pirated music. Well, they've probably pirated music—Bronfman doesn't sound too sure. "I'm fairly certain that they have, and I'm fairly certain that they've suffered the consequences," he said, though he later confirmed that he had caught at least one Bronfman child using P2P software.

The point is, if the opportunity is there, people will take it.

In my opinion DRM is the only solution.

JAB

Financial protection does not equal incentive.
I have locks on my door; they cost me money to install but they don't earn me revenue. That was my meaning.

if you took my words to infer one isn't required to register in order to be able to sue, something was misread. My point regards the fact that post 1989 Berne Convention, one does not need to register to enjoy copyright protection, one only needs to register if they want to take infringement action. Prior to the Berne, you had to register regardless of any intent if you wanted to use the © symbol in your works.

(Spot, Spot, how do you continue to get caught up in these ridiculous debates after you tried SOO hard at the beginning of the post to stay out?)

I'm sure I would view things differently if I had a product that was "distributed in the mainstream, broadcast, or available on a store shelf distributed by a national or international distributor." My miniscule reference point is when I produced a local documentary last year, had some great press, a great showing, and sold a few hundred copies. At the theater "release," I overheard several different people say, "Just buy one, then burn copies at home." I took it very personally at first, then had to come to the perspective that I'll take the initial sales, the pirated copies will get my name around, and keep moving forward. (Of course, it's just a hobby/small business for me at this point, not my bread and butter like some of you.)

I think this posting (and ANY posting regarding DRM) gets so much attention due to how many issues are involved. Human nature, money, fame, (money,) greed, ethics, (money).... Why else is Anna Nicole Smith in the headlines instead of the biographies of the brave soldiers who died in Iraq over the last week? I guess my view is that at the end of the day, I have to believe that the average person will buy something they have a high regard for, if the person selling it isn't trying to be too greedy themselves, and if the process isn't ridiculous and the price is reasonable. Maybe I'm an idiot, but it's a way of thinking that I have to live in or why not just move to Tibet and chant. Will there be a certain percentage of people that will always try to get something for free? Absolutely. But if I think it's EVERYONE, then I have bigger problems in life than how many people burned copies of my documentary.

Locks are not intellectual property, and trying to equate tangible property to intellectual property only goes so far. But since we agree on the concept that copyright protects the holder's pecuniary interests against infringement and provides a mechanism of relief, no need for a dance on the head of a pin. ;-)

Bob.

"The point is, if the opportunity is there, people will take it." I Ôm a little distressed to hear that you think so low of the human race! I for one think you are wrong. There are MANY honest and good people in this world and they donÕt deserve your rather pessimistic and slanted view of them. Furthermore I DONÕT think DRM is the only solutionÉ HasnÕt disk encryption taught anybody anything?? How long did it take to crack the HD DVD? Not very bloody long! DRM will be no differentÉ itÕs human natureÉ ÒYou canÕt break thisÓÉ.. ÒYes I canÉ. You watch me, and IÕll prove it to youÓ What the answer isÉÉÉÉÉ. I have no idea but it should be clear that Brute force is not the answer. I have always seen it best though when 2 opposing and disputing sides use a little bit of latitude and understanding as opposed to a sledge hammer.

Sorry people... I have no idea why my fonts have all of a sudden gone crazy in the above post... I have tried to edit... and it won't!?

<sigh...> Never said locks were intellectual property. The locks (read "DRM" or "copyright" or "both") protect what's inside (intellectual property). Copyright without content can't exist.
Kinda like my mouth is the lock to my brain, which compells my hand to create works. If I was smarter, my mouth would remain shut, therefore precluding my brain from compelling my fingers to type this post.

You can't copyright a thought. Copyright is a "locking mechanism" that assists the content owner in protecting what is his/hers. Therein lies my analogy. You claim that there is financial benefit to a copyright. I submit there is not.
I understand you're studying to become an attorney; great. More power to you and may your studies grant you a successful practice. That said, I'd suppose that 30 years in the entertainment biz run by lawyers, and registration of more than 500 copyrighted works has probably given me at least a small taste of experience.
I think I like the quote "Those that don't believe in protecting intellectual property, have none" is a great one.
No, one can't equate tangible one to one with intellectual but sometimes it's the only analogy that breaks through to some folks.

DRM is ONLY the solution if it does not impede those who have legally paid for the right/license. Thus far, DRM has done only one thing thing and that is impact legal owners and consumers who have paid for a product. The pirates continue to get around the protection while Joe customer is forced to eat the cost of the new protection schemes, the higher costs of product due to imaginary lost revenues, etc...

Activation software is the absolute worst. Recently I purchased DV Rack 2 HD for use in my studio at school. Plunked down the cash and got the package. EULA said I could install on a desktop and a laptop. Laptop works fine, desktop doesnt. I installed it on the desktop, enter activation code, it says thank you and then asks me to acitvate it again after running the program. Numerous tech calls, activation code resets, re-installs, still no use. Did DRM work? Yep, it worked so well that not even licensed users can use the software.

Copyright anymore is nothing more than a major scam. Copyright used to be a way to protect one's work. Now its used as a tool to squeeze every single dime out of its customers. Due to attorneys and interest groups (RIAA/MPAA/BSA), copyrights are used to force people to by multiple licenses that the licensor can dictate and change at any time without prior written notice. Imagine purchasing software that you use for generate and income and then one day, compnay X sells out to another company with a competing product or decides they want to push you to their software. The nice fat license you paid for can no longer be activated because the new company decides to end activation of that product. What recourse do you have? None. Why? The EULA states that they dictate the terms since you bought a license and not the software.

It goes back to the thread I once had about marketing "On DVD now, own it today." As long as they continue to market that people can actually own it, people will continue to loan it or copy it as they wish. Its a futile effort to even try and stop people anymore.

How money was invested in the new AACS? Wasnt that just cracked with BD cracking soon? Was it worth it? How much use did they get out of the protection? 6 months? Yet everyone else will pay for the R&D for the scheme so the studios could make more money and now will pay more than that to cover the cost of "lost future sales."

>>DRM is ONLY the solution if it does not impede those who have legally paid for the right/license. Thus far, DRM has done only one thing thing and that is impact legal owners and consumers who have paid for a product. <<

I can't agree with this statement. CSS encryption of DVDs is totally painless to the consumer in terms of using the product. The experience of playing encrypted and unencrypted DVDs is exactly the same. As far as economic impact, if your kid trashes the DVD, you have to buy a new one, just like if your kid tears all the pages out of his picture book, you have to buy a new one.

Music DRM isn't working as well. But that's not the fault of DRM. That's the fault of manufacturers who are trying to lock sales of media into their own platform. Imagine if the major studios were using different encryption schemes for DVDs - but they're not that stupid. Oh wait, I forgot, the nimrods running the studios decided to support competing incompatible HD standards instead of leaning on the manufuacturers to come up with a unified solution.

Vista's implementation of DRM doesn't seem to be working as well. But the problem there seems to be that Vista is requiring DRM-capable hardware to play back any HD content, whether DRM'd or not. That's not a DRM problem, its an implementation problem.

DRM (by which I mean activiation) works well on software generally, though I grant you that it's a pain for those who don't have 24/7 internet access. But that's mostly an implementation problem, again. (BTW, if you are a professional who relies on having your SW up and running, and you haven't gotten ahold of the keygens/patches/cracks you need to get your LEGITMATELY PURCHASED AND LICENSED SW up and running in an emergency when you can' t get through to the usual activation channels, you're not playing with a full deck, IMO)

In the digital age, DRM is both a good thing and a necessary thing. The problem is that it's still getting the kinks worked out.

Oh, and one last thing about the cost impact of DRM, at least with DVDs, new release films cost around $15 to $20 these days. That's an insanely good deal, no matter how you look at it. Guess what, a music CD with no DRM costs only slightly less.

p@mast3rs,

You're confusing licensing (providing each party, under CONTRACT LAW, with legal enforcement rights) with copyright (providing the holder with legal enforcement under COPYRIGHT LAW).

Two entirely different beasties, but understandably confusable in the context here.