You can RIP out the DRM, legally.


blink3times wrote on 2/25/2007, 4:03 PM
"I dont know ,, maybe I'm old or dumb or both,, but if it was my stuff you wanted for all three places you either carry the cd/dvd or buy three copies. they aint that heavy to carry around ya know."

You think your work is so special that I will carry it and it alone??? I go to the cottage just about evry weekend I can... You think I'm going to carry ONE cd and ONE dvd???

But alas.... it's this kind of attitude that will get you no where. I simply REFUSE to pay the same price for the same piece of work merely because it's on a different piece of plastic. So I guess your greed loses you $10, because I'll just give my money to the Anydvd people... so be it.
Serena wrote on 2/25/2007, 4:23 PM
>>>>but the price was beyond my price range for a DVD.<<<<<

Well, we're not talking about a DVD. We're talking about an instructional course delivered on DVD. Would you not buy a $100 filter that would improve your water sports video? Would you not buy a tripod because it cost more than $100? Would you not buy a camera case because $100 is beyond your means? How about a camera?
Vic offers you a course that provides instructions on how to produce a better product, so offering to assist YOU to improve your business and increase your income. So that's not worth your $100?
Jonathan Neal wrote on 2/25/2007, 4:50 PM
After making several posts here (sometimes conflicting, sometimes purposefully misrepresenting my own personal opinion) for the sake of my own education, I believed that my part in this discussion had come to an end. So, imagine my surprise when Victor fairly presented me with a final exam. And I'm not about to ditch class just because I'm not 100% sure of my answers. So here goes.

Dear Victor,

In response to your opening comments: I _have_ posted several of my own opinions that the current system (the "old school thinking" as you wrote) of Copyright law and media protection is lacking in value or importance. While I do believe that Copyright law and media protection must and will severely change as the digital revolution connects the lines between ideas and production, it was incorrect to therein disregard the current system at least works for many creative individuals on this board. Furthermore, I proceed with great caution, because your last post showed a perceivable disdain for my comments beyond this particular thread, so I'm not sure if you want me to answer for my statements, or take your questions as rhetoric. I'll answer them all, anyway.

#1. I've got to generate a minumum of $40,000 in sales simply to break even on my original "out-of-pocket", plus - well - what is MY time worth

Answer to #1: The same price of every other creative work, just like all productions, big and small. Your means are less than the bigger guys who have access to a broader range of advertisement and distribution, but on the other hand, your productions on average cost much less.

Answer to #2: It's priceless, because depending on how you use that knowledge depends on how much worth you get out of it; the limits are therefore endless.

Answer to #3: I don't think I can answer this, because I don't have enough information and it's not enough within the realm of our discussion for me to figure it out.

#1. So - Jonathan - how would YOU distribute this

Answer to #1: On DVD and via iTunes. Setting your own terms for digital distribution means A. You limit piracy, because you tap that availability before the pirates, and B. You reach an audience beyond own networking. Why iTunes? Because it's the best option we have at our current dispense, much like macrovision is for DVDs. It's not perfect, it will continue to change, but the worth of that audience and the protection Apple's technology provides is greater than going without it.

Answer to #2: You technically asked two questions, but I believe they require the same response. No one can guarantee you a return on your investment, unless you stuck the bill to someone else. Right?

Answer to #3: I / You would be upset (an understatement). I would be furious to see someone selling my work, making a fiscal benefit off of my hard larbor to which I saw no return. This brings me back to my point of beating the pirates to the digital market. Offer free clips online with included advertisements so you can make money before you even sell a copy.

#1. What is the new paradigm that will encourage me to make the last two movies of this series?

#1. The internet.

#2. Those are strong words, so my answer is an apology. I'm a small fry who says "hey, the big guys have abused the system, so down with the system!" when the smaller guys, who are probably my brothers and sisters on this board, depend on that system. I have been under the impression that this software is legal, and I'm also willing to admit to being wrong about that once someone shows legal proof. With that said, my proof of its legality rests on the word of its developers, Slysoft. At your request, I will edit my original post to reflect a change in our understanding.

So, Victor, if I have offended you with my earlier statements then I am sorry, sincerely. Some of them were blatant hypothetical opinions designed to challenge others to tackle the questions I struggled with. Regardless, I take responsibility for them all, and I spend the time addressing their replies, just like I did in the 'infamous' thread. I don't do this because I'm stubborn, I do this because we're community.

Please accept my apology for comments that disparaged or denigrated the spirit of copyright, in forms present or past.

(editing will be done for spelling/grammar corrections only)
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/25/2007, 4:54 PM
Not to hijack the thread...
Removing the national commercial content from your production is the ironclad way to avoid any trouble. But using a copyrighted work for illustrative/comparative/educational purposes is probably exempted under fair use, if it doesn't affect the commercial value of the holder, it doesn't use the substantial amounts of the copyrighted work and a couple of other factors.

Good thing you put the disclaimer. :-)
Try this for yourself, see how quickly you'll get zapped. Using commercial media for a live, one-time view is one thing. Using the media in a replicated DVD is entirely another. Doing so is a fast trip to the wrong side of the courtroom. Even TEACH specifically disallows this sort of use.

[edit] Jonathan:
Answer to #1: On DVD and via iTunes. Setting your own terms for digital distribution means A. You limit piracy, because you tap that availability before the pirates, and B. You reach an audience beyond own networking. Why iTunes? Because it's the best option we have at our current dispense, much like macrovision is for DVDs. It's not perfect, it will continue to change, but the worth of that audience and the protection Apple's technology provides is greater than going without it.

You're not really this naive, no? iTunes isn't a good mechanism to sell this sort of product for multiple reasons:
1. Most folks can't manage the download, even at lowered quality in MP4 formats. If they could, you'd see Hollywood blockbusters on iTunes with regularity. If people are paying bucks for it, they want quality. YouTube quality can be terrible, because it's free. The bandwidth just isn't there.
2. Most folks want to play this sort of media on a set top player, not on a computer or iPod. Yeah, they can render to another format if they're able to take a 640 x 480 vid on their NLE timeline, but that also violates the EULA of iTunes and likely, the owner of the content.
3. iTunes/Apple takes a chunk, and advertising to have it easily found is significantly more expensive than buying a full page ad in a trade magazine.
4. Products on iTunes are still a losing proposition for big studios, let alone small content creators like Victor.
5. The content is seriously easy to rip/pirate, almost as easy as InstantDVD and so forth.

There are more reasons, but these suffice for the moment.
I'm gonna guess that since I know you're a very young man, you've never created content for anyone. Therefore, your thoughts are easy to feel are concrete. Go work for *anyone* in the "real" industry, and not only will your understanding change, but so will your position. Most folks that create content don't take long to shift attitude when they finish a project that cost a lot of time/money/blood.

You say the "big guys have abused the system."
How? Please spell it out for a dumb old guy like me.
Even dogs, when threatened with losing their food, will guard it viciously.
The film industry is typically many years behind the desktop industry. Just because you "can" copy a film and give it to your buddies doesn't mean it's right. They're rightfully concerned about it. As are *all* "real" content creators. We're all concerned about protecting our investment. I'd wager that this latest production we're involved with cost more money in one month than you've made in your 19 years of life thus far. That's a big investment. It must be protected. If I thought it was going to be a blockbuster film, I'd not really care as much, but it's a specialty film and will carry a higher price tag at the counter.
You see....many folks only notice the 19.99 price tag on the vid, and think that's all profit for the studio. There are even folks here that post "Well, it only costs $1.25 to make a DVD. Yes, to replicate a DVD, that's accurate. The silver disc is meaningless without the content, and the content costs a lot to put on that disc. There are at least 4 editors that work on A-list films that participate in this forum. I surely wish they'd speak about how they've lost their jobs at Warner, Paramount, Columbia, and other studios simply because piracy has impacted the bottom line of studios. It's very cavalier to say "Well, I deserve to do whatever I want to with the media cuz I paid for it." OK, so what did the minimum wage grip or 20.00 an hour electrician do to deserve being laid off because of pirates? Of course, the bulk of costly piracy is happening in Russia and China, but the mere fact that the mindset exists here that theft of content is OK, is horrifying. I don't care how talented you are or are not, you deserve the right to protect your creation, and expect at the very least, respect from your peers because they've created media worth protecting.
EMI has a brilliant new scheme that will fail the day they release it; companies like Napster pay a huge deposit in advance, like the royalties that used to exist on blank CDs to help pay for piracy.
It's a vicious circle: DRM begets piracy and piracy begets DRM.
vicmilt wrote on 2/25/2007, 5:04 PM
CClub -

Very interesting, and, in fact, I will begin to test out your concepts very shortly - and will review results right here (in the family).

My initial complaint is simply that on a site for/by and about Movie MAKERS - well, I just don't expect to see software designed for Stealing Movies presented and - well - sort of Exhalted!! Hey dude - I don't mind helping you out, but don't crap in my face - this is HOW I MAKE MY LIVING!

If you're smart and industrious and morally defunct enough to steal my stuff - what can I say? But PLEASE don't encourage others in your bad and totally illegal manners. Not HERE - anyway - OK??

It's like a guy pushing cheap booze at an AA meeting.
(We don't wanna become crooks, but hey... wow... free??? and you say "everyone's doing it"??)

Second - to the guy that can't afford my disc - I am TOTALLY on your side. I wish I could afford to deliver these discs at $19.95 each. That's a decent price, in my estimation. But look at the logistics. How many people are even interested in advanced lighting techniques? The numbers simply aren't there for that kind of production. A four hundred unit sale in a limited market like this is a HUGE success, and a hundred buck a pop price point is out of reach for many people, that are not totally motivated to imporve their technique. I HATE the high initial cost of my videos, and as we amortize the intital expenses of production, you can see that we drop the prices to the buying public, as well. I guess waiting is an option, but I'm a hoping that CClub's ideas will pan out. I want all of you to have the opportunity to join me on this greatest of trips.

And Serena and Spot... (and everyone else, even you, Jonathan) - well THANKS for your unending support and encouragement.

I can't WAIT to show the world this one - but of course as my French buddy used to say, "le nouveau c'est meilleur" - the newest one is the BEST!
(I think he was talking about lovers, but you get the idea).

Seeya at NAB - I'll be at the party - waiting to meet all of you that can make it.

and... as usual, we can meet here - anytime.

ps to Jonathan - you and I were writing response at exactly the same time... so let me ammend this response - I hope you see the edit.

I LIKE you Jonathan! I respect your energy, enthusiasm and intelligence. I want to help you in any way I can, and to be your friend - really.
I'm a little tense right now, because $20k would'a bought a new kitchen for my wife. We're hoping to break even on this particular project in about two to three years - that's a long payback for five months of work. And dude - I WILL look into your distribution ideas - I said "you're never too old to learn" , and that means ME. But YOU also have to be careful what you preach on-line, and where you say it.
fldave wrote on 2/25/2007, 5:25 PM
Well said, Serena. Vic's "DVD's are not "movies" for $9.99 at the discount bin.

I saved my pennies and finally sprung for the "Light it Right" DVD. Definitely not light viewing. Full of hands-on applicable instruction.

They are "courses", not movies. Figure the price of a 2-day training course in mainstream corporate America runs about $400-$1200.

Even more reason Vic should clamp down on potential piracy. Maybe a "VASST Dongle" hardware solution for these high-dollar training DVDs.

I just found out that my company is going to issue me a "machine" that will display a code for me to enter whenever I log into a company server. Sheesh, I login to 10 different ones 8 times a day. Thanks a lot, all of you hackers.
rstein wrote on 2/25/2007, 6:03 PM

My first sentence was pretty clear, that abstention is the safest course. By the way, what makes you think that provisions of TEACH are applicable to the situation being described here?

"An ironic result is that fair use—with all of its uncertainty and flexibility—becomes of growing importance. Indeed, reports and studies leading to the drafting and passage of the new law have made clear that fair use continues to apply to the scanning, uploading, and transmission of copyrighted materials for distance education, even after enactment of the TEACH Act."

In addition, reading the testimony during the House debate on this subject, it was crystal clear that TEACH does NOT affect fair use under 17 USC 107.

Thus, 17 USC 107 fair use still applies, and those were the factors discussed in the post above. Not to say this makes things any clearer than the mud pots in Yellowstone; copyright law is messy and in flux.

The safest route is abstention or prior written consent of the copyright holder for the educational use. In any case, I'll yield to Spot's incalculably deep expertise on the subject.

Spot|DSE wrote on 2/25/2007, 6:49 PM
Please don't acquiese to my experiences when you could speak to our copyright attorney Paul Tauger, who has advised us numerous times on this very subject, and advised us on what we may, and may not show during live training at events ranging from webcasts to NAB Post Production Conference. I'm sure as a burgeoning attorney, he'd probably donate some time to you.
I realize you're in the process of becoming an attorney, and probably have more law in your little finger than I've got in my 30 years of paying lawyers, 7 years of being married to one, and having several filings on both sides of copyright law. But please at least acknowledge that several of us here have been in actual copyright litigation, taken dozens of hours of instruction, and at least have an idea of the industrial applications of various portions of the law.
TEACH allows for *transmission" not replication and commercial distribution.
Then again, Paul maybe isn't at the top of his game either, although his case regarding Giochi Prezzioizi v. Mattel is somewhat considered a landmark. I hope he's worth what we pay him. :-)
If we're gonna get into the issue of "what's safe," see the literally thousands of posts in this forum alone addressing the difficulty in obtaining permission from publishers for use in small form projects.
rstein wrote on 2/25/2007, 7:29 PM
Understood, Spot. Thanks for not ripping me a new one. I might take you up on your generous offer to speak with your IP attorney. I'm not familiar with the case you mentioned, and don't have Lexis or Westlaw access at the moment. But first, there's this little exam that starts on Tuesday... (IP isn't a topic on the Bar exam) :-)

FWIW, back in the 1980s I developed software used in almost 100 hospitals across the US, so I do have some familiarity with copyright laws. Fortunately, none of those hospitals gave the program to others, so I never had to deal with enforcement (or defense). The way I got hospitals to do that? Each distribution diskette had a compiled and compressed .exe file that hard-wired the hospital name in. Any attempt to modify the .exe through hex editing would cause my CRC algorithm to scream on screen "TAMPERING DETECTED!" and the program would stop (of course, they could always reinstall). Since the program dealt with controlled substances and generated documentation for DEA and state authorities, understandably it was worthless with another hospital's name.

Were it so easy to protect stuff in the video world... :-)

Serena wrote on 2/25/2007, 7:54 PM
Law is one subject on which everyone is knowledgeable. They know what it ought to be, they know that it is manipulated to suit the powerful, they know courts and attorneys are corrupt, they know it's expensive and they know it is unjust. What most don't know is the law.

I don't know it either, although after 30 years married to a lawyer I have a fair idea of how it works, and that it is a great deal more fair, direct, and honest than I believed in my young and even more naive days.

Too much of this thread has been devoted to misconceptions of all sorts, not only on the law (not meaning you, Bob Stein, or Spot) and very much on "how I would like it to be". Only selfish reasons have been argued against copyright protection and justifications for change are erroneously based. The point of view has been that of the selfish consumer and even when very sound positions have been put by those on the production side, these have been rejected as "old fashioned", not providing the services demanded by consumers, and why should you expect to make a profit anyway.

Jonathon started this thread because he'd found a way to get around troublesome copy protection, which several liked because it provided a means of skipping those annoying trailers that one should not be forced to watch, as well as those extremely tiresome FBI warnings in multiple languages. Understandable.

However the thread then shot down the path of "copyright is evil and so are those invoking it to make themselves even richer at our poor expense". Self interest written large and in ignorance of the law.

Discussing the law, like all else, is pointless if you don't understand it. Making it up to support an argument is pointless. Ignoring it on the basis that what you don't know can't hurt you, is delusional. A kernel of advice my husband offers all his civil case clients is "do not go to court". Get all the facts relevant to the law, examine the competing interests and reach an agreement. Only when agreement cannot be achieved do you go to court with its uncertain outcomes and certain expense. Few realize that justice and the law are different entities; courts deal with the law. If you want justice, pray (with care).
blink3times wrote on 2/25/2007, 8:19 PM
"Only selfish reasons have been argued against copyright protection and justifications for change are erroneously based."

Yes... Selfish is right... selfish on the INDUSTRY'S part... not the consumer's.

Look... I'm not a video pro... I do video for a hobby only. I am an Engineer by Profession. If you come to me with a structual problem with your building, I will look at it, an draw up a blue print on how to correct the problem. I will sell you that print for $3000 (real prices differ). Then a week later you come back to me and require a copy set because you would like one set in your office and one set on location. Do you think for one second that I would be able to sell you the second copy set for another $3000???!!! Let me tell ya... i'd be out of business pretty fast! I charge flat fee of $120 for copy sets. most of that is ink and wear&tear on a VERY expensive printer.

The cd/dvd industry is the ONLY industry that I know that can LEGALLY rip people off for second... third... forth copy sets.

So , you can call people like us cheats, or liars, or what ever you want... because it doesn't make a differene to me.... I know who the REAL cheats are.

Geeez... I only WISH i had it as easy as the cd/dvd industry... I would just LOVE to be able to make $6000 (or more) on a $3000 job!!!
vicmilt wrote on 2/25/2007, 8:42 PM
Blink -
OK you get $3k a week - fair enough.
And you'll make another PAPER print for ONLY $120 bucks on your VERY expensive printer???

Well, using your own figures:
I've got $20,000 in crew, edit, props, food, travel, lodging, special equipment rentals and a production of 5 months (20 weeks) using about $25,000 worth of equipment, and NO guarantees.

20 weeks at $3,000 bucks $60,000,00 (unpaid by anyone)
$20,000 cash out 20,000.00 (my money plus interest accruing all the time)

Cost of production: $80,000.00
Cost of distribution $80,000.00
Duplication/Art 2,500.00
Total investment: 162,500.00 (no profit yet, here)

Just send me a check (as I assume YOUR clients do) and I'll tell ya what...
I'll GIVE you all the dupes you want.

Don't call me a crook - and don't assume that anyone, no less everyone, in this business is a crook.

Film is an expensive process and it takes a LONG time to recoup the thousands, hundreds of thousands or millions that are required to give you the quality that you have obviously come to EXPECT... at $20 bucks a pop.

Or should we be satisfied with the YouTube offerings available?

I don't make judgements on YOUR profession, nor do I suggest or condone methods to steal your work, your concepts or your executions.

As little as I know about YOUR profession, well, it seems to me that a hundred and twenty bucks for a few sheets of paper for work that has ALREADY been PAID in FULL for... well that seems like highway robbery to me, if taken in the same vein as you propose.

blink3times wrote on 2/25/2007, 9:07 PM
Oh geeez... Play me a Violin why don't you... You don't like the business, then get out of it... otherwise stop your whining.

And I'm ticking YOU off????

I have done NOTHING but listen to this CROOK accusation crap right from the start of this thread... and I've been A LOT more passive about it than you.

So to use your own words back at you:

"Don't call me a crook - and don't assume that anyone, no less everyone, in this business is a crook."

And while we're at it... I will make $3000 (in the example) ONE TIME from ONE customer. To make $3000 at $20 per disk... all you have to do is sell 150 lousy lttle disks... Of course it's a lot easier when you can legally sell 2 disks to one person for FULL price both times isn't it.... you can double your take!
baysidebas wrote on 2/25/2007, 9:07 PM
"Or having to wait for a salesman to come unlock the cabinet where the product I want to buy is stored. Theft causes inconveniences."

Maybe so, but try this one on for an inconvenience.

I buy a DVD burner for my [still perfectly serviceable] six or seven year old Xeon workstation. Install the hardware and the bundled software. Insert a Vegas and DVDA produced disc for playback only to be rudely informed that since it cannot be determined that the analog video output of the computer adheres to some DRM requirement [there is no analog video output on this machine] the operation cannot continue. It then proceeds to kick me out of the app. Needless to say, neither the hardware manufacturer nor the software publisher will ever again see any business from this consumer.
Spot|DSE wrote on 2/25/2007, 9:23 PM
Is the point being missed? It's amusing that when I use the context of a physical example, it's slammed to the ground, but the same person slamming me for it uses the same example.

Blink, I've no doubt you're worth the 3K, 30K, or 300K or whatever you make for your truly creative projects. Basically, you're throwing in the cost of that first print due to the format of your work, your costs of education, office space if you have one, power, gas, secretary, whatever. All that is inclusive in your cost of doing business, and part of the quote you give folks and receive payment for when you render services.
With me so far?

Have you designed a building that everyone in the world would like to build, and wants a copy of? Is it fair to say that you've never had a set of blueprints that required perhaps....500 copies of the exact same master?
If not, why not just put your blueprints on the web, let folks download it once, and then run to Kinkos and make as many copies as they wish, to give to whomever they wish?
Except Kinko's won't print them. They've already had several lost copyright cases, and that's physical printing, not digital copies.

Boy o boy...what are we all gonna do when virtual manufacturing takes off? I can just see the lawsuits against people that make their own replications of.....<insert favorite object here>
I can just hear it now...."Damn that Chihully for putting a a copy limit on his sculptures; I have one in my house and I want one in my office!"
Good thing Michaelangelo and the other Italian masters are all public domain. <grin>
I sure hope RStein is going into IP law, because if everyone is as clueless as we seem to be...there is a mint in those cyber pages.
Serena wrote on 2/25/2007, 9:25 PM
>>>>>Blink - you're beginning to tick me off here..<<<<<

Vic, this thread can be greatly civilised by using the "ignore" facility. While one might be mildly curious about the poster shouting idiocies behind the door, you don't have to pay them attention.
DrLumen wrote on 2/25/2007, 9:36 PM
While we are on the subject.

Vic, I got your lighting video and it was great and I learned a lot. Luckily, I got it as part of the a prize in a Vasst contest. I was always curious to know why it wasn't selling for $20 and now I know why and it makes sense. As a hobbyist, I couldn't have justified the $100 bucks to buy it.

---editted---- beaten to a response

I have done some software programming and am an amatuer musician also so I understand the copyright argument. I will buy something if I enjoy or get a use (or knowledge) from it. It disturbs me when I see flyers floating around at work about 'buy 1 movie for $5 or 5 movies for $20' when they are done with a camcorder at a movie theater. I don't buy them because if I want a movie, I want a quality copy and am willing to pay retail.

With that said, I should be able to make a copy according to the 'Fair Use' laws and the DRM be damned. If the software mentioned above could limit copies to fair use, that would be great as it would stop the wholesale copying. By the same token, I''m glad it's there in the event I ever should want it.

intel i-4790k / Asus Z97 Pro / 32GB Crucial RAM / Nvidia GTX 560Ti / 500GB Samsung SSD / 256 GB Samsung SSD / 2-WDC 4TB Black HDD's / 2-WDC 1TB HDD's / 2-HP 23" Monitors / Various MIDI gear, controllers and audio interfaces

Serena wrote on 2/25/2007, 9:49 PM
>>>I should be able to make a copy according to the 'Fair Use' laws and the DRM be damned.<<<<

There are two difficulties:
1) few consumers (we are told in this thread) appear to share your high ethical standards,
2) not easy to make a copying lock that allows you to make a copy for "honest" use while preventing unethical copying. Look what happened with Sony's rootkit.

Once a lock-free copy has been made, then further copying is easy.

EDIT: >>>>As a hobbyist, I couldn't have justified the $100 bucks to buy it.<<<

Have you attended any one day seminars? About $200/day. I understand that $100 is $100, but even hobbies cost money. How about golf, sailing, painting, or even building models with matchsticks?
rstein wrote on 2/25/2007, 10:09 PM
Sorry, Spot.

I'm likely going to work for my non-law firm employer and oversee contract development and negotiations with healthcare IT vendors, risk management related to technology in healthcare, and eventually would like to do consumer protection work in the background. While I'm interested in IP, it's mainly relating to sharpening my skills for the contractual aspects of software/medical technology.

I have zero interest in being a litigator. As Danny Glover said in Lethal Weapon, "I'm getting too old for that sh!t" :-) At 53, starting from the ground up in law would be daunting.

And most importantly, after this week I will FINALLY have time to resume digitizing and editing the trove of many tens of hours of family video that I've not been able to get to over the past four years. Lurking in this community has kept my Vegas IQ up, and I'm looking forward for the opportunity to be creative.

Jonathan Neal wrote on 2/25/2007, 10:13 PM
vicmilt, I'm under the impression that my apology came too late, wasn't acceptable, or you never saw it. Since maybe you never saw it, scroll up a bit, it's there.

blink3times, I've tried frustration, I've tried explanation, so now I'll just try passive aggressiveness. Please, please please please stop talking down to people. Please, please please please, with sugar on top. We can be civil, and in the words of Mr. King (Mr.), "Why can't we all just get along?"

Serena, you mentioned the ignore button. Oh that ignore button is what I fear the most. There are far too many valuable thoughts and inputs on these boards, and it would be a great loss indeed if they delivered the silent wrath of a block. Unless there was a bot on here or something, I wouldn't ever want to miss out on our "diverse" discussions.
Serena wrote on 2/25/2007, 10:36 PM
>>>I wouldn't ever want to miss out on our "diverse" discussions.<<<

Jonathon, I agree. Only to be used most reluctantly and when those opinions add only heat and little useful information. The bind is that even the most obnoxious poster does sometimes reform and turns out to be pleasant company once they get that bee out of their bonnet. But once applied, one never knows!
DrLumen wrote on 2/25/2007, 11:29 PM
Once a lock-free copy has been made, then further copying is easy.

Not if I'm the only one with THE copy. :-)

Have you attended any one day seminars? About $200/day. I understand that $100 is $100, but even hobbies cost money. How about golf, sailing, painting, or even building models with matchsticks?

It comes down to a return on investment. I have spent more money than I care to count on books, equipment, certifications and re-certifications for my work. I know those costs will be recovered. If I wanted to do oil painting, I can't justify buying a picture book of Picasso's paintings when I really need canvas, brushes and paint. I also wouldn't seek out an illegal copy of said book. I might browse around in a library though.

-edit font tags didn't work for the quotes.

intel i-4790k / Asus Z97 Pro / 32GB Crucial RAM / Nvidia GTX 560Ti / 500GB Samsung SSD / 256 GB Samsung SSD / 2-WDC 4TB Black HDD's / 2-WDC 1TB HDD's / 2-HP 23" Monitors / Various MIDI gear, controllers and audio interfaces

Serena wrote on 2/26/2007, 12:06 AM
>>>>Not if I'm the only one with THE copy. :-) <<<<

Of course, and that's where we agree on ethics. I think it's hard to argue against people making a "backup" copy that goes no further. And having material available through libraries is fine, so far as I'm concerned. I mentioned earlier that our Australian Centre for the Moving Image has a vast library of quality movies for borrowing at very cheap rates, and I enjoy that service. Should Vic let them have "Light It Right" it would be a great resource for students and I imagine Vic would be pretty happy with that (even though, in theory, he might have wished each bought instead of borrowed).
Now, I suppose, people will argue that if the students pirate the DVD instead of borrowing it individually, then Vic is no worse off. He is, because those who wanted to have the DVD on hand would otherwise have had to buy a copy.

It's always a good idea to ask ourselves, when considering breaking copyright or otherwise stealing, "is it to my advantage?" If it is, very likely you're doing the wrong thing.
blink3times wrote on 2/26/2007, 3:01 AM
"It's always a good idea to ask ourselves, when considering breaking copyright or otherwise stealing, "

Yeah... well the point I made waaaay up top somewhere is that if you have lived long enough then you HAVE broken the copyright law in some way, in some fashion.

Now does that suggest that we're all no good cheating SOB's... or does that maybe suggest that there are problems with the law??