page: 1 · 2  |
 
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Dag Watch out, frikkin **AA is coming. | |
|  | 
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs: | Re: Dag Here's an idea...
Dont illegally download music and film...
Suddenly.. no problem...
It's magic!
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom | |
| | | 
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | Re: Dag trader | |
| | | 
Cozworth
Premium
join:2003-06-10
england
clubs:
| Trouble for them is, unlike music is that I can go rent a DVD for a couple of days, rip it and then pass it on that way.
No download, no IP indicator, no problem, it makes pirated movies potentially a bigger loser for the industry, if you know where to go.
Whereas music is portable as an MP3, it will be a long time before a movie is so easily obtained.
I wanna see the development of downloadable movies and music that cuts the costs out for distribution, staff, premises etc. and so is passed on for a reasonable fee.
However the effect of the MPAA action will do something to stem the tide, much like King Canute. 
--
Coz.Happiness is a spinning Star  | |
| | | | Deathsadvoca
join:2003-08-20
South Lyon, MI
clubs: | Re: Dag Its slightly harder to make DVD copys. The average person would not know how to do it (Especially since dvdxcopy is not availible). | |
| | | | | 
insomniac84
join:2002-01-03
Schererville, IN | Re: Dag Dvdxcopy sucked. Their are so much better. And its not hard to find the old versions. Also it wouldn't make it any harder to copy dvds because those that have older version of course would still have it. | |
| | | | | 
xdeadhead
220, 221, Whatever It Takes.
Premium
join:2000-11-08
Mechanicsburg, PA | netflix, dvd decrypter, dvd-shrink and nero 6
burn and return.
--
I am not Herbert. | |
| | | | | | | | | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
 ·Verizon FIOS
| said by Fountainhead  :
Here's an idea...
Dont illegally download music and film...
Suddenly.. no problem...
It's magic!
Get netflix and a DVD burner!
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | | | 
dadkins
Merry Whatever
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Re: Dag I have a VAIO, VAIOs come with Click2DVD...hmmm, what is this for? Could it be for copying DVD movies?
NetFlix ROCKS! | |
| | | | | | 
ObdH
Premium
join:2003-06-11
| said by Fountainhead :
Here's an idea...
Dont illegally download music and film...
Suddenly.. no problem...
It's magic!
once again a clueless idiot taps in...
its about Sharing, not downloading
--
»www.tacticalhost.com/downloads/C···atch.exe --COD 1.4 Patch | |
| | | | davebenham
join:2002-01-31
Round Lake, IL
| Re: Dag He's not really clueless. He actually has a very simple and effective solution to the problem.
If you download a copyrighted digital file you have no legal rights to, you have committed an illegal act. There's really no room for debate on that.
The real issue in the Hollywood vs. FileSharers war is the concept of fair use and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Fair use grants consumers rights to make copies of copyrighted works for personal use, but the DMCA says it is illegal to circumvent security measures on digital material.
So, fair use says I have a legal right to copy a DVD for personal use, say to protect my investment against scratches. However, the DMCA makes it illegal to copy an encrypted DVD.
Publishers are asking for tight control of their product that allows them to prevent even legal copying of their work by consumers.
| |
| | | | | | |
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| Re: Dag My use of this avatar has not cost Mike Judge or MTV money. And if they begin selling avatars, I will gladly pay them a fee. I think we need to keep things in perspective.
On the other hand, the pirating and sharing of movies costs the industry billions of dollars.
Go ahead... continue down this path and fight for it as if you are entitled to copy movies and share them... and in the end, these industries will crumble...
Congratulations... you win.
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom | |
| | | | |
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs: | Re: Dag Beware of trolls, kids.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C | |
| | | | | | 
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
| Re: Dag said by SuperJudge :
Beware of trolls, kids.
Fountainhead does have a point.
- His avatar isn't illegal by his way of thinking
- Sharing copyrighted music/movies/software/etc is illegal.
Ok, so, that's two points. | |
| | | | | | |
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| Re: Dag I didn't say my use of the avatar is legal.
I said that the sale of images for avatars is currently not a business engaged in by MTV or Mike Judge and if they were to form a business by which I could pay them for the use, I would.
Much like a ringtone.
The use of this avatar has cost them zero cents.
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom | |
| | | | | | | | k_mumm
join:2001-06-14
Laramie, WY
| Re: Dag Sure it didn't cost them any money. I won't argue that it did but on the other hand downloading a movie/song doesn't cost someone money. It may have lost a sale but there is no way to prove that everyone who downloads a movie would have paid for it. So it is impossible to put a value on how much this pirating is costing the industry.
Basically by your logic it's ok to infringe on someones copyright when they aren't offering what you want for sale. Sorry that argument just doesn't hold water. | |
| | | | | | | | | 
FutureMon
OW My Eyes
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Colorado Springs, CO
clubs:
edit:
May 17th, @11:52PM
| Re: Dag said by k_mumm :
Sure it didn't cost them any money. I won't argue that it did but on the other hand downloading a movie/song doesn't cost someone money. It may have lost a sale but there is no way to prove that everyone who downloads a movie would have paid for it. So it is impossible to put a value on how much this pirating is costing the industry.
Basically by your logic it's ok to infringe on someones copyright when they aren't offering what you want for sale. Sorry that argument just doesn't hold water.
Damn straight.
I just sent Mattel a check for $1500 as an out-of-court settlement.
They were suing me because I had a Magic 8 Ball webpage.
Their grounds were that they suffered product market share "dilution" and loss of income due to my fraudulent use of their products' likeness.
Nevermind the fact that I wasn't using a pic of their product. I was using a real 8-ball off a pool table that I had modified into an animated GIF with a ? in it. Nevermind the fact that their product only had 20 answers, and mine had over 50 - out of which the only two that were the same were "Yes" and "No".
You can be sued for anything at any time. It's only a matter of how much money you have to throw at lawyers in your defense. Every single person who uses an avatar that is an image of someone else or someone elses work is at risk of being sued.
Imagine someone has an image of daffy duck as their avatar. They go around and post all sorts of lewd comments or are just generally up to no good with their attitude on boards all over the internet. I'm sure many of us know or have met in the past people who fit that description quite well.
However unfortunate it may be, some people may actually think that the person who posted those things was in some way affiliated with Warner Brothers, and file suit against them (Warner Brothers) for themselves or their children having been subjected to "whatever". That is Warner Brothers case against the copyright infringer, and they would be likely to win their case for damages.
Laugh now, but it could happen, if it hasn't already.
- FM
--
DCExec Member, Member of 'StarFire Seven' & Undisputed BBR Karaoke Champion! | |
| | | | | | | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
edit:
May 18th, @06:19PM
| Re: Dag Never mind | |
| | | | | | | | moonpuppy
join:2000-08-21
Glen Burnie, MD
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| said by Fountainhead :
I didn't say my use of the avatar is legal.
I said that the sale of images for avatars is currently not a business engaged in by MTV or Mike Judge and if they were to form a business by which I could pay them for the use, I would.
Much like a ringtone.
The use of this avatar has cost them zero cents.
First off, again, just because you can't buy it doesn't mean you can just take and use it. Look at TV shows. I like the show Max Headroom and it is NOT available on tape or DVD. Should I just be allowed to copy it for my collection? Legally, NO. That would be taking future profits from the producers of the show. Just because you say you would buy the avatar from Mike Judge and MTV doesn't mean your current use is legal or acceptable.
Same thing goes for ringtones. Verizon Wireless has publicly stated that they do not allow their customers to transfer their own ringtones into their phones because of copyright issues. They make them use their "Get it Now" service. Most other wireless phone makers think the same thing. Why do you think it costs $1-$2 just for a ringtone? The airtime is negligible at best. Even though the ringtone is (in most instances) a midi file, the melody is still the same and the author is still entitled to royalties.
Also, look at the DirectTV case in Canada. At first, the courts ruled that those making decoders for DirectTV were not breaking the law because they thought, as you do, that you cannot steal what is not sold. Later, the Canadian courts reversed themselves. | |
| | | | | | | | Cyron
join:2002-09-24
Charlotte, NC | When the Movie Industry starts selling SVCD's and CAM's of new movies around their release date, I'll start buying them. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
dadkins
Merry Whatever
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
edit:
May 17th, @05:07PM
| Re: Dag "The Harry Potter movie released in late 2001, for example, was available on DVD in Asia for about one dollar a copy--only two days after the film debuted in U.S. theaters.
According to Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, "Piracy saps $3.5 billion from the motion picture industry and discourages studios from releasing more digital content."
Where do you see P2P file sharing in that statement? I see where it refers to copying movies in Asia, but nothing about file sharers. | |
| | | | | | | |
Fountainhead
Premium
join:2003-10-25
New York, NY
clubs:
| Re: Dag Ok...
Here...
Since you can't make the connection yourself, I have dug out the info for you...
»www.guardian.co.uk/business/stor···,00.html
Film industry pays dearly for piracy
Richard Wray
Tuesday October 21, 2003
The Guardian
The impact of internet piracy could be losing the film industry $460m (£275m) annually within seven years unless the leading motion picture studios and distributors act now, warns a new report.
Informa Media Group believes revenues from legitimate sales of movies over the internet will be more than $870m by 2010. But sales over the internet would be worth $1.33bn if the industry clamped down completely on online piracy.
Adam Thomas, the author of the report, Film on the Internet, said the industry is unlikely to go the same way as the music labels, where online piracy has had a major effect on profits, but the studios should not be complacent.
"It is not going to be the cataclysmic event that the music industry experienced but there are warning signs and it could be a serious issue," he said.
In fact, the prognosis given in the Informa report is not as dire as one given earlier in the year by Deloitte & Touche. A report from the consultants warned that online piracy could cost the top studios up to $4bn annually within the next two years.
--
I'll buy everyone a HDD for xmass.... -- Strom | |
| | | | | | | | | yabos
join:2003-02-16
Ingersoll, ON | Re: Dag Drivel like that still assumes that everyone who downloads a movie would go to the theatre if they couldn't download it. That's not true at all.
Some movies are worth supporting, but others(Gigli, not that I downloaded it anyways), aren't. | |
| | | | | | | | | jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS | Just another made up report that doesn't take into account the economy for one thing and just assumes like others have said that everyone just downloads the movie without seeing it in the theaters or buying the DVD. | |
| | | | | | | 
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
| "According to Jack Valenti, President of the Motion Picture Association of America, "Piracy saps $3.5 billion from the motion picture industry and discourages studios from releasing more digital content." _________________________________________________________________________________ _______
Since we're turning to Jack Valenti for all our facts, figures and moral leadership, here's another sage-like piece of brain spew from our favorite octogenarian champion of the status quo:
"I say to you that the VCR is to the American film producer and the American public as the Boston strangler is to the woman home alone."
He said this in "expert" testimony to Congress in 1982. He also called the VCR an "avalanche" and a "tidal wave", and said it would make the film industry "bleed and bleed and hemorrhage". It's stunning to see just how little the MPAA's arguments have changed in two decades." Compare it to the "Analog Hole" crap they were "fixing" with the DMCA and they're virtually identical (except Valenti was playing on anti-Japanese sentiment then, and today it's anti-pirate sentiment). Of course, the MPAA was unsuccessful in plugging the "VCR Hole" - insufficient lobbying and knowledgeable judges familiar with the use of a VCR stopped them. The MPAA successfully adapted to the changing times and even today in the DVD age sells about 70 million cassettes for rentals and 600 million cassettes for home viewing every year (both numbers are on the decline due to the rise of DVD).
The media content industry is the most LAZY, BACKWARD, STATUS QUO LEGISLATING industry on the face of the earth. AND there is a DIRECT correlation between their tactics and anti-innovative conduct and the "creep" of Copyright protection and length in the last 40 years.
They NEED to be shoved out of the debate. If "stealing" from them is the only way to make them less powerful (i.e. less money in = less money to grease legislators with) then I think it's a WONDERFUL thing.
Avast Yee Mateys! Arr Arr Arr, look at me I'm a PIRATE! | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Yowzaaah
Ours Go To Eleven
join:2000-12-14
DamnFlat, OH
clubs:
edit:
May 18th, @01:12AM
| Re: Dag Nah...I'm a 1337 h4x0r p|r8:
Red Bull and Gin is as good as it gets,
I'm seeding 12 torrents and running freenet. | |
| | | | | | | saltydogmn
join:2002-08-31
Saint Paul, MN
| First off, when any industry says it is losing money to piracy, it is lying. What is really happening is that their business model is failing, and they wish to turn back the clock, to keep their position as the sole source of whatever product they are foisting upon the general public.
Instead of "losing money", think of it as every file traded - be it an mp3, a movie, or software program - as a "potential income enhancement event" that will not occur. For example, how many of you know someone who uses Photoshop, yet did not pay for it? Possibly including yourself, perhaps? Do you honestly think it is even worth $699US for it, just so you can join PS threads on Fark?!? Yet, every one of those people is considered a "loss" of $699US for Adobe. I would hazard a guess that less than 1 percent of people would buy it, if that was the only way to get it. No way can they claim the other 99% as a loss, since they would have never paid for it in the first place.
What gets me so angry is how some people can actually stand up for these lowlife scumbags; "...staffing at major labels is down 80%"..." Hey, the staffing at the local home ice delivery company is down 100%! Same for the local buggy whip manufacturer, and the Edison Phonograph plant, and the coal furnace supplier, etc. Guess what? Their time was up, and soon it will be for you, too. Your monopoly is finished, guys and gals. Time to give your customers what they really want; this would preclude suing them (unless you're SCO), since there are a LOT of us that would pay you good money for digital content, as long as we can use it the way WE see fit, NOT YOU. Get with the program, please.
As far as the **AA's go, they still have a chance to move into the 21st century, and actually innovate. They can do so willingly, or we can drag them along, kicking and screaming all the way. If they can't adapt, they will die, and I'll dance on their graves when it happens. (While jamming to the tunes on my Archos Jukebox, and yes, it goes to eleven!) | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | davebenham
join:2002-01-31
Round Lake, IL
| I don't think US copyright law prevents usage of images in this manner. Even if it did, the economic impact of his use of the image is nil, as previously stated. The economic impact of illegal file sharing is millions of times greater. There is really no comparison between the two. | |
| | | | | 
Logan 5
Dungeon Runners - Come get your Bling on
Premium,MVM
join:2001-05-25
The WasteLAN
·Pacific Bell - SBC
|  Re: Dag
said by davebenham :
I don't think US copyright law prevents usage of images in this manner. Even if it did, the economic impact of his use of the image is nil, as previously stated. The economic impact of illegal file sharing is millions of times greater. There is really no comparison between the two.
Guess you can't or don't want to see things in perspective because you're WAY wrong on this one, so let me try to help you out.
Next time you watch a movie, or a program on tv, look for the little © symbol at the end of the credits. That means that the COPYRIGHT holder has exclusivity with regard to the character likeness thereof, mannerisms and just about anything else they care to protect.
To be able to use a likeness of a property like a Beavis, or Cartman from Southpark or whatever, one must pay a royalty fee to be able to legally use that likeness for whatver reason.
Failure to secure the proper licensing agreements can lead to civil or criminal penalty's up to or including jail time, fines and restution if it is determined that the illegal use of the trademarked or copyrighted item damaged the livelyhood or reputation of the trademark or copyright holder.
said by The header on the avatar page from BBR:
»/avatar
If your choice is likely to be popular or copyright (Dilbert, a famous band icon, symbols from popular games, disney characters, car logos), or is just not suitable for younger users of the site, then please think again as the moderators will just delete it before it is public.
copyright exists on the internet as well: You are responsible for observing any applicable copyright laws in choice and use of your avatar.
While this is OBVIOUSLY not enforced as aggressively as maybe it should be, just because you have the avatar that you have does not mean that BBR has somehow made it legal for you to be using it. The mods have better things to do than that, as they expect people to act somewhat civilizied and pleading ignorance of the law is not a good enough reason to be breaking it.
Economic impact is an irrelavent arguement as bottom line it is currently ILLEGAL under US copyright & trademark laws to use a likeness of anything copyrighted or trademarked with out the express written permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark.
I want you to prove me wrong. | |
| | | | | | 
ghostpainter
I Write for the Apocalypse
Premium,MVM
join:2002-05-25
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
clubs:
|  Re: Dag
said by Logan 5 :
said by davebenham :
I don't think US copyright law prevents usage of images in this manner. Even if it did, the economic impact of his use of the image is nil, as previously stated. The economic impact of illegal file sharing is millions of times greater. There is really no comparison between the two.
Guess you can't or don't want to see things in perspective because you're WAY wrong on this one, so let me try to help you out.
Next time you watch a movie, or a program on tv, look for the little © symbol at the end of the credits. That means that the COPYRIGHT holder has exclusivity with regard to the character likeness thereof, mannerisms and just about anything else they care to protect.
To be able to use a likeness of a property like a Beavis, or Cartman from Southpark or whatever, one must pay a royalty fee to be able to legally use that likeness for whatver reason.
Failure to secure the proper licensing agreements can lead to civil or criminal penalty's up to or including jail time, fines and restution if it is determined that the illegal use of the trademarked or copyrighted item damaged the livelyhood or reputation of the trademark or copyright holder.
said by The header on the avatar page from BBR:
»/avatar
If your choice is likely to be popular or copyright (Dilbert, a famous band icon, symbols from popular games, disney characters, car logos), or is just not suitable for younger users of the site, then please think again as the moderators will just delete it before it is public.
copyright exists on the internet as well: You are responsible for observing any applicable copyright laws in choice and use of your avatar.
While this is OBVIOUSLY not enforced as aggressively as maybe it should be, just because you have the avatar that you have does not mean that BBR has somehow made it legal for you to be using it. The mods have better things to do than that, as they expect people to act somewhat civilizied and pleading ignorance of the law is not a good enough reason to be breaking it.
Economic impact is an irrelavent arguement as bottom line it is currently ILLEGAL under US copyright & trademark laws to use a likeness of anything copyrighted or trademarked with out the express written permission of the holder of the copyright or trademark.
I want you to prove me wrong.
That is why RIAA and the MPAA are trying to overturn the Beta laws of the 70's as well....they want to make you taping on a VCR from a TV Illegal as well.... | |
| | | | | | | davebenham
join:2002-01-31
Round Lake, IL
edit:
May 18th, @03:26PM
| Re: Dag Copyright laws generally do not give the holder complete control over their creation. Copyright laws were devised to guarantee rights of ownership for publishers. However, in conjunction with the rights of the publisher, the rights of the consumer are also recognized and addressed under a legal doctrine called fair use. Fair use exists as a necessary counter-force to copyright law because many recognize the proliferation of copyrighted ideas and material cannot readily take place in a society if publishers exercise draconian control over their material as you suggest they have a right to do. Fair use attempts to reconcile copyright law and the first amendment right to free speech.
And since you asked me to prove you wrong, here you go. Fair use regularly protects parody as a method of expression. Parodies often use likenesses and other copyrighted material to poke fun and make social statements. Look up Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music sometime, it's a supreme court case that recently dealt with parody. I might also suggest looking up "fair use analysis" sometime.
Incidentally, the fair use doctrine explicitly states economic impact is one of the factors in determining copyright infringement, so you are wrong in your statement that "Economic impact is an irrelevant argument."
What does this mean for the ill-chosen avatars that may infringe on copyrights? That actually isn't an easy question. MTV could choose to take the issue to court, and chances are they would win. But they'd likely win with an out of court settlement or an intimidating phone call from a lawyer to an average joe citizen, not necessarily because they are standing on legally higher ground. | |
| | | | | | | |
SuperJudge
Magus
Premium
join:2002-11-14
Albany, GA
clubs:
| Re: Dag said by davebenham :
What does this mean for the ill-chosen avatars that may infringe on copyrights? That actually isn't an easy question. MTV could choose to take the issue to court, and chances are they would win. But they'd likely win with an out of court settlement or an intimidating phone call from a lawyer to an average joe citizen, not necessarily because they are standing on legally higher ground.
I hope the remains of Black Isle doesn't try to sue my a$$, I don't have any Canadian money anymore.
--
Updated My Journal
TP&C | |
| | | | | | |
reaver221
join:2003-05-08
Cincinnati, OH
| Re: Dag said by ghostpainter :
No the solution is to open Moive download sites like they have been promising to do...I would gladly pay ¢99 to $2.00 to ddl a first run movie...Why is that so hard???
Because you're not going to the theater to see it (~$8) and then maybe buying the DVD (~$20).
"Hey! Let me have your content at like 1/10 of the price! Why is that so hard?" | |
| | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
MPAA Lawsuits Coming?
