Small company offers copying software for DVDs

Associated Press via The Houston Chronicle ^ | November 11, 2002 | Unknown

[Illbay]

"I'd like an argument, please."

[Wingy]

Not an arguement, but an observation. If this software is USED AS INTENDED, then I see no harm, no foul...But, how does anyone know how it will be used by the consumer? I might set up a little operation to copy and sell "Star Wars" for $5.00. with none of the production costs, I should be able to reap a tidy profit when the costs of raw disks come down to $.30. Is that fair?

Now if I was only using it to backup my own purchased movie/software, I would say that it is fair.

The question, it seems to me, comes down to how it is used by the public.

You're the lawyer, what do you and the courts think?

[Wingy]

arguement=argument

[Renegade]

Copying a DVD over the internet from someone who PURCHASED the original, is no different than making a copy of a vinyl record, cassette tape, or CD that you bought and giving it to a friend .

[Illbay]

Correct. They're both illegal.

[drjoe]

There is a product, DVD Backup, for OSX on the Macintosh ostensibly for making backup copies of purchased DVDs. I suppose that we can now look forward to the movie-copying-police joining the ranks of the drug police, alcohol police, seat-belt police, dirty picture police, gun trigger lock police and our own homegrown Loudoun County VA pie police.

[neutrino]

So 321 has moved to allay some of industry's concerns. DVD X Copy injects electronic barriers into the copies it makes to keep them from being duplicated further.

It looks as if 321 Studios is being quite reasonable. The movie industry should welcome them with open arms - because, frankly, one can find explicit instructions on the internet about how to do this anyway. And with the internet instructions I just mentioned, there are NO protections for copyright.

[Illbay]

I receive spam nearly every day telling me how to "unlock" DVDs.

[anka]

look at your observation.

USED AS INTENDED.
How it is used by the public is really not the issue here.
It is still legal to buy a handgun in this country and how often are they not USED AS INTENDED?
Should we make the purchase of guns illegal because they _might_ by used to commit a crime?

[Illbay]

I agree with you. There is no reason to ban copying of DVDs or software/music CDs, etc., just because they MIGHT be misused.

I was addressing the statement that the other fellow made, that it's "okay" to make copies of intellectual property--whether LP, tape, CD, DVD, or whatever--and give it to a friend.

It's not. "Fair use" should be vigorously protected, but the casual attitude toward the law is causing the honest people a great deal of trouble.

[anka]

and with that, I completely agree.
i think copyrights do need to be protected (the length of copyright is debatable however).
it just seems that all the major studios (read: copyright holders) want to f*ck the consumers' ability to make _legal_ backups of their data because it _might_ and _could_ be used to pirate their copyright. i say go after those who are illegaly trading and selling copyrighted material. leave the law abiding citizens alone.

[LostPassword]

Actually, you can make copies and give them to a friend. The "Audio Home Recording Act" of 1992. Summary at http://www.hrrc.org/html/ahra_summary.html. There are other views of the act, but I've only heard the RIAA avoid it rather than debate it (but when really pushed, they admit that you can make non-commercial copies for friends).

Copyright holders get a royalty from every sale of a recording device or recordable media (audio tape, writable CD, DAT,etc) which is used to pay for their "loss" of sale that occurs when you make a copy for a friend.

[babygene]

"Should we make the purchase of guns illegal because they _might_ by used to commit a crime? "

Same could be said about a BIC lighter... Are you suggesting we make BIC lighters legal?

[anka]

i'm guessing you meant to say 'should we make BIC lighters illegal'
but therein lies the problem.
the argument shouldn't lie against the tool that could _potentially_ be used to commit a crime, but against the crime itself.
following the copyright holders' logic, guns/lighters/axes/software should be outlawed based _soley_ on their potential to be used in a crime.
you see the problem?

[wewillnotfail]

We moved all our home movies onto VHS tapes. Now we'd like to move them onto DVD. What's the best/cheapest way to do this.

[Honcho]

Copying a DVD over the internet from someone who PURCHASED the original, is no different than making a copy of a vinyl record, cassette tape, or CD that you bought and giving it to a friend .


Well I think the music studios didn't have as much problem with that because in those examples you gave there was quite a quality difference between the original and the copy. There was still a good reason to go out and buy an original. In this case there is virtually no difference in quality and that's the big beef here.

[babygene]

"you see the problem?"

Of course I see the problem. A person can make illegal use of almost anything (including BIC lighters)you would find in your home.

I bought a pair of bolt cutters a few weeks ago. Not to break into my neighbors shed, but to cut the padlock off my outside fusebox, that the key had been misplaced years ago.

Banning things that MIGHT be used in an illegal fashon is stupid.

Until fairly reciently, I would have thought that perhaps no one would need a hipodermic needle. That is, until I bought a refill kit for my inkjet...

[B Knotts]

Please note that this is not actually about "copy protection." You can copy a DVD to another DVD until the cows come home. What this is about is access control, which prevents someone from accessing the DVD in unapproved ways.

What this is really about is that Hollyweird was dissatisfied with Sony vs. Universal Studios and other court decisions that allowed consumers some Fair Use rights. They have sought to implement a technological barrier to Fair Use. That is what DMCA is all about. It seeks to outlaw the rights that courts have said consumers have, which would seem to me to be unconstitional on its face.

[Wingy]

As my original post never stated that the SOFTWARE should be illegal, I wonder why you would think that I believe guns should be illegal? If you commit a crime with a gun or Bic lighter or bolt cutters, you have commited a crime. I would have no problem with you being judged in a court of law. But to own a gun, Bic lighter, or software for fair use, I said that would be "no harm, no foul".

Now I know that the article was about this software firm and it's troubles, but I thought I was clear that the crime would be in the USE of whatever object you buy, not the actions of this software firm.

[anka]

wingy,
i'm with you on this, really.
simply pointing out the illogic of the copyright holders' arguments about making software illegal because it could be used to commit a crime.
i used the gun argument to point out the lack of logic in the copyright holders' (MPAA/RIAA) argument.