I actually agree with Dog here if you want another copy in a different format buy it that way. I have LP's tapes CD's of the same album. Sidebar: my wife just bought a new car that lets her load a bunch of CD's into the car's memory. Should they go after the car company for providing the cheating tech?
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
Science Chic wrote: Despite the fact that music and movie companies say it is perfectly alright to upload a CD or movie to your computer so you can play it on your iPod or other such device, the US Copyright Office just ruled that that is illegal.
So any guesses as to how many millions of Americans are suddenly criminals? :faint:
United States Copyright Office: Ripping is Illegal
By Michael Weinberg | October 25, 2012
This time around, Public Knowledge requested an exemption that would allow people to rip DVDs they already own in order to transfer the movie to a device that cannot play DVDs (like a tablet).
That request was rejected. Furthermore, the Register and the Librarian explained that they were unconvinced that space shifting was fair use at all. That has huge implications well beyond people who want to watch the movies they own on DVD on their iPad.
“Space Shifting” is what you do any time to take a file and move it from one medium to another. The best known example of this is probably ripping CDs to move the songs on to digital music devices like iPods. If you think it is ridiculous that such activity is illegal, you are right. And the RIAA and the MPAA agree with you.
First, the vast majority of movies are not owned by the purchasers of DVDs. You merely own the the copy of the movie on that DVD. Thus, all you own is that one copy.
Second, motion picture companies do not give you permission to rip your copy onto an Ipod. In fact, they try to get you to purchase a copy through Itunes.
Third, no court has ever held space shifting to be a legal noninfringing use. Time shifting was held to be a private non infringing use since the Supremes were of the opinion that those who recorded a show onto a VCR tape would view it once and then erase it to make space for another show.
Fourth, exemptions are only granted when there would not be harm to the copyright owner. For example, in this same opinion, the Registar allowed an exemption for converting books to audio or movies to captioned movies for the very limited market for the blind or hearing disabled to serve a market currently not being exploited by the copyright owner. In the instance under current discussion, users are wanting to convert their copy purchased for use in one medium or use in another medium without purchasing the copy intended for that medium. The Registar was of the opinion that would have an impact on the copyright owner as they would have sold different copies for distribution in the different mediums, usually at different price points depending on the distribution rights. For example, the DVD rights of distribution are probably sold to a DVD distributor, while the online rights are sold to another distributor. You are cheating the the second distributor to the revenue that have a right to by ripping the DVD to another medium. This is what copyright laws are about.
This would be analogous to claiming that since you bought a book at a hardback price, you then have the right to copy that single copy into paperback, ebooks, and audio formats as well without paying any additional fees (assuming that the technology would enable you to do that inexpensively).
Currently you have the right to make single archival copies of software, and to time shift recorded programs with the expectation that you will view it only once. Beyond that, you need to have a fair use defense from infringement to make copies of copyrighted materials.
If you desire to watch a movie on DVD, then purchase a copy intended for that medium. If you desire to watch that same program on an Ipad, then buy a copy of that version. You are only buying the single copy, not the rights to that movie.
The more you explain it the more sick it sounds. The owning of ideas, once let out in public is just wrong. If you don't want to share it, don't publish it.
Movies and CD's are not useful arts or advances in science, there is not fundamental reason to protect them, except that people want more money for less work.
Section 8, Article 8.
Congress shall have power....To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
Any architectural features on your house that have been used before, like windows interior lighting. Good thing there are not intelectual rights on that stuff....boy to I wish I invented fire in the modern age of owning ideas. Just sick.
Hey Dog, since you understand it, under what part of the constitution does the fed have the right to grant people rights to media used for entertainment and punish others that use it at their discretion? Please don't say Section 8.8. This is not useful or science.
FredHayek wrote: I actually agree with Dog here if you want another copy in a different format buy it that way. I have LP's tapes CD's of the same album. Sidebar: my wife just bought a new car that lets her load a bunch of CD's into the car's memory. Should they go after the car company for providing the cheating tech?
Only if you feel it is right to go after gun makers for gun killings.
There is a big difference between what they will do and what you feel is right, at least usually. Yes I am speaking for you.
I would love someone to convince me (really) with ethics and morals and not laws why intellectual property rights are just and why at the same time you feel you have the right use so many inventions that you did not invent and were not invented for you, like the window or fire, without paying the intellectual that invented it (or their heirs, etc.).....or is this entirely based within current law and not any kind of universal logic or morality.
Good points. I think it silly for the industry to go after people for copying when it is so easy to do and so many people are doing it. The music industry has completely changed because of this. It used to be artists toured to sell albums. Now they release albums to sell tours. Live music is the real moneymaker. Red Rocks had a record year and music sales are down.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
The legal issue is whether copyrighted works made and purchased abroad can then be bought and sold within the United States without the copyright owner's permission.
Yet the stakes could prove enormous for those who buy and sell books, movies, music, artwork, perhaps even furniture, electronics, automobiles, and clothing -- anything that may be considered "intellectual property."
Storefront and at-home secondary retailers, libraries, artistic venues, even the local garage sale could be implicated.
From what I read in the article and also heard on radio, the law contradicts itself. So, Mountain Books might have to close, bags of books sold at libraries might end, etc. I guess we'll find out next year when the SCOTUS renders its decision.
Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution says it all.
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
You may not think that the useful Arts include entertainment movies, but throughout history the useful Arts have included literature, plays, and art of all types. The Constitution does not distinguish the particular useful Arts, but does allow Congress to provide limited monopolies to Authors of Writings of any sort (under copyright law) and Inventors of Discoveries (under patent laws) without defining them to be "useful Arts". Copyright law to provide a limited monopoly to authors has been around under common law since the early 1700's if not before. The Constitution codified this law to make it clear that the people intended that authors to explicitly have this right. Further, the courts have found that the clause to promote progress in science and the useful arts is intended to ensure that only those original writings and discoveries will have this protection, i.e., that you can not steal or import the writings and discoveries of others and claim this protection. You may not believe that the works of William Shakespeare were "useful Arts" but the people of that time certainly did.
Obviously movie and music copies have value or people would not be paying for them. How many movies would be made or books published if the authors were not able to be compensated for their efforts? How expensive do you think books and movies would be if the authors and publishers were not afforded some protection from unauthorized copying?
So if modern movies and books and music are found to be protected under copyright law, which clearly they are, then the limited monopoly afforded to the creators of those works clearly prohibit the copying of such works. Congress does grant certain exemptions to those monopolies, but space shifting does not fall within the scope of those exemptions.
Copyright law does provide incentive for authors to express their creativity in mediums that will also provide affordable copies to the public. That some insist on destroying that incentive for their personal uses without compensating the authors does mean that copyright laws are wrong.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
The legal issue is whether copyrighted works made and purchased abroad can then be bought and sold within the United States without the copyright owner's permission.
Yet the stakes could prove enormous for those who buy and sell books, movies, music, artwork, perhaps even furniture, electronics, automobiles, and clothing -- anything that may be considered "intellectual property."
Storefront and at-home secondary retailers, libraries, artistic venues, even the local garage sale could be implicated.
From what I read in the article and also heard on radio, the law contradicts itself. So, Mountain Books might have to close, bags of books sold at libraries might end, etc. I guess we'll find out next year when the SCOTUS renders its decision.
This is a different issue, one concerning gray market sales and contract law. The issue in that case is that certain publishers sell books and copyrighted works in some foreign markets with the express language on the book that it can not be imported into the United States. This allows the publisher the ability to sell the books and such in certain markets where the public can not afford the prices charged in the US, but where they can be printed cheaper and thus sold cheaper in those markets. However, this individual was buying textbooks printed and sold at the cheaper rates in Thailand and then resold them in the US at rates cheaper than the US printed copies and despite the express language in the cheaper copies against doing so. The question here is whether the first sale doctrine applies, which means that once the book or other copyrighted work is sold, the purchaser can do whatever they would like with their copy applies so that the publisher can not stop the individual from buying those cheaper books and bringing them into the US for resale. The practical considerations are that if the individual can do so, the publisher will quit selling those books into those markets and/or jobs will be lost in the US economy.
I don't believe that it will affect the ability of used book stores in the US who lawfully buy and sell used copies, but only those who are buying and selling gray market products.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
