Posted on 04/24/2005 7:33:58 AM PDT by Phsstpok
Still trying to find something in English to properly confirm all the details about this, but apparently a French court has ruled that adding anti-copying mechanisms to a DVD violates the rights consumers have to make private copies of media that they’ve bought and paid for. Reportedly the court has given the company that released the film in question one month to provide the guy who sued them with an unprotected DVD; it’s not entirely clear whether this ruling applies to every DVD sold in France or just that one copy of Mulholland Drive this guy was trying to dub. Either way, expect the film industry to throw its entire weight behind getting this ruling overturned.
This story might impact DMCA copy protection here, given the Supreme Courts fondness for foreign (particuarly French) court precedents. Or might they be influenced by their friends on the left coast?
Anyway, it's an interesting story and a fun site for those into tech and toys ("THEY'RE NOT TOYS! THEY'RE NECESSARY BUSINESS TOOLS!"
That's what I keep telling my wife everytime I get a hankering for a shopping spree at CompUSA. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
Good point. Justice Kennedy is probably hopping on this one as we speak. Or, maybe he'll reference the Ugandan Statutes current as of Idi Amin's reign ~ then you'd get to make one copy but Idi would chop off your legs and eat them!
Might expect this from a nation that hasn’t produced anything worth copying in decades.
Stinky cheese.
If you favor government sactioned theft, why don't you just move there?
The people who produce copy protected or copy restricted DVDs don't have to produce them, and you don't have to buy them. Do you want really the goverenment to step in and tell some businessman how he has to sell his product? (And don't tell me they do it all the time. In most cases they shouldn't, and this is certainly one case where they should not.)
ML/NJ
The same rants came at the development of carbon paper, copy machines (Xerox), cassette recorders, 8-track recorders, fax machines, 8" floppy disks, hard disk drives, 5.25" floppy disks, VCR's, 3.5" floppy disks, CD-R drives, DVD-R drives, DVD recorders (and TiVo), yada yada yada....and none of those inventions sank the industries. If anything, studies show, they have actually caused more, not less, sales and profits to those ranting companies.
Copyright was originally created to prevent a person/company from profiting from the work of another. That means reselling someone's work without their knowledge and pocketing the income. Copyright was to protect the author against such practices -- historically. Copying for one's personal use is, first of all, impossible to prohibit if the technology exists, and, second, if a person purchases a product, they have the right to use it how they wish -- as long as they are not reselling it, en masse, for profit.
Otherwise, your argument could apply to garage/yard sales, used appliance and furniture, used vehicles, yada yada yada. Why should these sellers be allowed to re-sell? Close down all yard sales and used car lots because the manufacturers aren't profiting from those sales. See how ridiculous that argument is?
Some state courts have even ruled that sales taxes cannot apply to 're-sales' because the items have already been taxed on their original sale.
For any part of this whole argument, there exists many historical contradictions and counter-actions that have been made legal. The whole issue it nothing more than an extension of the legislated perk the music industry got regarding cassettes -- for years, each blank cassette has an assessed, undocumented 'tax' or fee on the sale. That 'tax' goes to the recording industry; regardless of what the purchaser uses the blank tape for. Pay off.
Copying for personal use is a straw dog. Who do you know who buys a CD or DVD and makes a backup copy? (And even if people did want to do this, I would maintain that if the implied contract at the time of sale is that backup copying is not permitted, then it is not a reasonable power of government to deny such an agreement between buyer and seller.)
You also seem to be suggesting that as long as reselling is not "en-masse," this would be okay in your Utopia. Maybe four buddies go in together to buy an original CD, and then they make copies so they can "share" it. I assume this would be okay with you too ("Sharing," is such a nice liberal word!)
Otherwise, your argument could apply to garage/yard sales, used appliance and furniture, used vehicles, yada yada yada. Why should these sellers be allowed to re-sell? Close down all yard sales and used car lots because the manufacturers aren't profiting from those sales. See how ridiculous that argument is?
Listen, Mr. Socialist: I never suggested that reselling the original CD/DVD would be improper, and no producer that I know of has suggested that resale of an original should be restricted.
ML/NJ
Um....
I make backup copies of every DVD and CD we buy. We use those, and put the originals away. We have four children. The havoc that would ensue if we let them use the originals is scary to contemplate.
No!
Still, people ought to be able to make copies of products which they have purchased. I have lost a lot of programs which I bought due to hard drive failure and other circumstances. There are a lot of situations which can arise in people's lives.
I had some construction done in my home, and lost because of damage original disks for MS Office programs. Later when hard drive failed because of a design flaw in the cooling system I was in a position where I had to repurchase the software which I already had legally.
Microsoft, and the RIAA and others should not profit because of my personal issues. I bought and paid for those programs, and if I could have copied the software in the first place I'd be a lot more likely to support these corporations who ( I feel) overcharge in the first place.
I am not for regulation, but most developers recoup their investments in short order and Microsoft for example makes products for literally pennies and continues to charge hundreds of dollars. It is difficult to feel bad for them. It is also not easy to feel pity for the RIAA which has long been one of the most exploitative Industries in the modern world.
compUSA is owned by mexican billionaire carlos slim.
Oh, and a few dollars in bribes are given Hatch & McCain to write the draconian copyright laws, so the billions of dollars keep pouring in.
I had some construction done in my home, and lost because of damage original disks for MS Office programs. Later when hard drive failed because of a design flaw in the cooling system I was in a position where I had to repurchase the software which I already had legally.
What are you talking about?
If you have a hard disk failure, and you have the original CD why can't you just reinstall the software when you solve your hard disk problem? Why do you need a copy of the CD?
I'm pretty sure that if you have damaged MS CDs MS will replace them for you if you return the damages disks. (I know that if I just call for a copy they will send it to me without even asking for a return, because they know they've sent me the original in the first place.)
ML/NJ
Man! Another socialist.
If you're tired of paying $12 for a DVD, why don't you just walk into a store and steal whatever you want? In our system here the sellers set the prices, and the buyers either accept them or they don't buy.
ML/NJ
You know your form of copying isn't what this thread is about, since I assume that there is never a time when the original or one of its derivitives is being viewed simultaneously.
And is it really so scary to contemplate? What do you do for toys? clothes? Do you copy them too? We replaced lots of stuff when our kids were growing up and never gave it a second thought.
ML/NJ
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.