Slashdot Mirror
Best Way to Grab Movie Clips?
DorkusMasterus asks: "I work for my church in a volunteer sense, and I'm trying to produce a video that will incorporate video clips from films (short, less than 30 seconds per clip, more likely 5-10 seconds), and I am wondering what you fine folks use to grab clips from DVD and TV (in preferably an MPEG or AVI format when completed). Please keep in mind that I am not interested in something that would copy a full-length film, nor am I'm not advocating discussion on how to best pirate films. What utilities would you use to retrieve short clips from DVDs and other digital sources?"
I run a church media ministry out of my home, and we use DVD Shrink. The software is freeware, and it is excellent. It lets you select what scenes/chapters/frames you want to copy, and creates a new DVD-compatible clip on your hard drive. What is nice about VOB files (the DVD files) is that they are MPEG-compliant, so you can just rename the VOB extension to MPG and off you go.
If you need to shrink the file to lower res than DVD, I recommend TMPGenc, which works very well. You can also import your VOB/MPG into Adobe Premiere Pro and export it to a new format, while editing clips together with fades, titles, etc.
What is your budget? Do you prefer F/OSS? Windows? Mac? Linux?
When I was recording tv shows and cutting commercials, I used Virtualdub. It's a pretty good AVI editor for quick cuts and stuff, but doesn't have much in the way of advanced editing (fades, wipes, etc...) capabilities. As long as the computer has the codec, it can handle any avi file, and if you use avisynth, I think you can also open anything that directshow has a demuxer and codecs for. Also, it can save video/audio in any format that there is an encoder for, but the container has to be AVI, so you may have to convert stuff to mpeg using something else depending on what you're trying to do.
DVD Decryptor to get the vob files onto your hard disk.
Don't enable internet update though as the Decryptor's original website got taken over by the RIAA who don't want you to use it..
Cam-rip in the cinema. THEY CAN'T CATCH ALL OF US!
Oh, wait. You weren't advocating that. Nevermind.
Fair use covers the use of short clips in specific circumstances.
Also, copyright infringement is not theft.
Platform advocacy is like choosing a favorite severely developmentally disabled child.
Just grab them off the shelf and run.
I plug a player into the video input on my computer. A lot of TV tuner cards have video capture.
I don't know if you're the religious type (I assume so if you're volunteering for your church) but stealing short clips is still stealing. "Thou shall not steal" doesn't come with size qualifiers.
Funny thing is that no matter how large a portion he uses nothing is missing from the original work. Nothing missing, nothing stolen.
Producing a video for an audience to watch is even worse, you're basically using someone else's effort to create a product.
Nobody creates anything in a vacuum so every new work is based on someone else's effort.
And soliciting advice on how to hack into DVDs is a violation of the DMCA, agree with it or not.
Most religions require their followers to violate immoral laws.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
No, it isn't. If he'd shoplifted the DVD from WalMart then, yes, it would be stealing. Duplicating data (that he already owns a copy of if he bought the DVD) - is not theft.
If he was charging admission and was making a profit, then he might have problems. Otherwise, there ought to be no (moral) issues showing a clip to make a point as part of a presentation. The "law" be damned, he's not depriving them of revenue when he's potentially advocating the movie to people who may want to find and watch it later, based on his recommendation.
Besides, it's not like the movie studios respect copyrights themselves.
Regardless of your good intentions, I don't think that you'll find any officially sanctioned programs that will let you copy part of a DVD. Even if you restrict yourself to the most obvious fair use, you'll still have to do it with the same tools the pirates use. Perhaps someone will prove me wrong, but I won't be holding my breath.
"When copying DVD's is outlawed, only outlaws will be able to copy DVD's."
.evom ton seod gis eht
Running on Windows, Virtual Dub (Free) will let you take movie files and clip them whilst re-encoding the audio or video and resizing and filtering them too.
How does 1 Peter 2:13-17 fit into your beliefs?
my use of "unlicensed products" probably sells more of itThen explain this to the copyright owner in your letter seeking an offer. If they wanted to sell more of it, they would license clips to you.
Those two vertical bars you see on your screen mean "paused". TV tuner cards sold in the United States after October 1998 halt recording when they detect a Macrovision signal.
To support what you wrote (from copyright.gov):
One of the rights accorded to the owner of copyright is the right to reproduce or to authorize others to reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords. This right is subject to certain limitations found in sections 107 through 118 of the Copyright Act (title 17, U. S. Code). One of the more important limitations is the doctrine of "fair use." Although fair use was not mentioned in the previous copyright law, the doctrine has developed through a substantial number of court decisions over the years. This doctrine has been codified in section 107 of the copyright law.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
*the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
*the nature of the copyrighted work;
*amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
*the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.
The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported."
Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work.
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.
When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. (Emphasis added by me)
Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
DorkusMasterus's comment is very informative about fair use. And I agree that copying is never stealing. (Note: IANAL)
HOWEVER:
The BIGGEST reason why the DMCA needs to be struck down is that it does an end-run around fair use. It is completely within fair use to use clips from a copyrighted work. It certainly depends on the amount, but sampling is definitely allowed.
What you _can't_ do under the DMCA is exactly what you're asking about: You can't circumvent copy protection no matter how trivial - and almost all commercial DVDs are encrypted. Under the DMCA (in the US only, of course) you can't legally do this EVEN IF YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THE CLIP (under fair use) You can't even do this if YOU MADE the DVD. (Although presumably no one would sue you for that)
Strangely, this seems to mean that if someone anonymously sent you the clip you WOULD be able to use it. (I'm also not yet aware of a case where they went after anyone for viewing any number of "shared" files - to my knowledge they've only gone after claims that someone did the SHARING. But I think they have a potential traditional-copyright claim, it just doesn't give them the massive powers of the DCMA) Or if you recorded the clip from an analog or unencrypted digital video out on a legitimate DVD player. Or from a VCR. Note that HDMI is NOT unencrypted, which is why they want to put it on your devices and why you _don't_ want it - because that's not an output that you can legally decrypt stuff from unless you're an approved HDMI device.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
What Would Jesus Rip?
You could go the traditional church route and get a bunch of monks to "illuminate" the excerpts you want by having them painstakingly reproduce each frame by hand and scan each frame back into a computer and sequence it for full motion playback. Get a few more trained in the foley arts and some excellent impressionists to get the soundtrack.
With the man hours involved, no one would dare accuse you of exploiting the works for profit.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
Fuck off, Jesus freak.
afterdawn is a great site with all kinds of tutorials, forums and links to free utilities.
http://www.afterdawn.com/
Instead of equally faith-based "information wants to be free" dogma, how about realistic responses:
- Using short clips is allowed for reviews, for discussion in educational settings, etc., as long as you are clearly referencing the original work.
- Proper attribution and context makes the difference. It is the same as the difference between "quoting" and "plagarizing".
I presume you would acknowledge a difference between reading books and summarizing the knowledge into your own writing, photocopying the books and submitting the pages under your own name, and photocopying someone else's writing and submitting it under your own name. That's what copyright is. The fact that nothing is missing from the copied work, or that a self-written paper is based on CITED references anyway, has nothing to do with the concept that you are taking someone else's work and claiming that you did it.
If you want to release your work under the GPL and allow people to copy it, that's your right; OTOH if you want people to be able to get the money to make movies and shows that you like, you have to show your support for them by buying their results. It's a lot less direct than throwing a dollar into a busker's hat, and there are a lot of middlemen taking a cut, and I'd rather pay the band / director / producer myself and download it, but that's how the industry counts "votes" for a given product. Science fiction fans are mostly technogeeks, and they all know how to copy stuff, so fewer originals sell, so the industry says "Gee, I guess nobody liked this enough to buy it" and stops making it - or at least stops making *quality* stuff and focuses on the magic-wand stuff that people *do* buy.
Not necessarily. You can also show your support by funding production. The advantage of doing it that way is it works whether or not copyright law exists or is enforced; you can always make money by selling your services, but making money by selling copies isn't easy in a world where anyone can make their own copies for free.
Who cares how "the industry" wants to keep track? You don't have to conform to their standards just to get your "vote" counted; if they want to count inaccurately, that's their problem, not yours.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
I saw no specification of OS platform. iMovie works pretty well for that.
>>>You can also show your support by funding production. ...
>>>>>>but that's how the industry counts "votes" for a given product.
>>>Who cares how "the industry" wants to keep track? You don't have to conform to their standards just to get your "vote" counted; if they want to count inaccurately, that's their problem, not yours.
I *do* throw money into buskers' hats. I *do* follow local bands and buy their CDs. That also means I patronize the places they play (that's why the places pay them to play there, after all). And if I like them enough to help them reach a wider audience, which means they can keep creating the music I like, and the way to do that is through radio or distribution by bigger companies already in the business, then I have to try to convince those existing players in "the industry" to listen - and what they listen to most is money.
It's easier than ever for a local niche band to reach the world. But they'll still only reach a little NICHE of the world. And if someone puts up mp3s of all of their stuff, and nobody needs to buy their CDs, then they don't have money to pay their rent. That's why copyright exists.
I already said: there are too many layers of middlemen and the artists don't get enough of the result. Now that you can have a kiosk burn a CD on the spot rather than invest in stockpiling pre-made CDs, the economics should change, except there are already record stores that don't want to die and employees who don't want to be out of work. Buggy-whip manufacturers couldn't legislate against cars; the music business is somehow managing to convince people to legislate against change in their industry.
All of this IS our problem, because they're protecting their turf by changing interpretations of law and diminishing our rights. Most people speed on the highway because it usually seems safe to go faster, but if you get caught you get a ticket; lots of people ignore these laws too because they seem useless, but we should be fighting the laws instead of ignoring them because as they get enforced they will change the way everything works. When everything has DRM because the law has started requiring it, we won't even own our own creations.
You're assuming that the only way they can make money is by selling CDs.
But why would that be? Are they such bad performers that no one wants to see them live? Is the quality of their work so unpredictable that no one is willing to pay them to record another song without hearing it first? If so, then maybe they shouldn't be in the music business; if not, then they don't need copyright, because they can charge directly for their work.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Sorry, from what you've been saying I have to assume you don't know the realities. My brother-in-law is in a local band doing original songs as well as covers, and one of my colleagues plays jazz piano three nights each weekend. All of the musicians I know have fulltime day jobs, because the amount that local places pay for an evening's gig wouldn't cover a day's housing in this area, and if you plan to eat you need even more money. Producing a "concert" means putting up a lot of money up front to rent the hall. When I was a teenager in the 60s that was cheaper; now you need insurance and bonds and stuff, on top of the rent being a lot higher to start with.
So the answer is, No, I don't think people can make a go of it just being paid directly, until they get to some kind of critical mass. Especially today. Maybe that's why the archetypes of the starving artist and the minstrel busking for food are such cliches.
Don't get me wrong - I want to be able to copy my CDs so I can use them in the car, and change them to MP3s for my player, and do other things that should be fair use because I paid for the original CD fair and square. I oppose DRM that tries to make me pay for every format . . . though I did buy CDs of things I already had on vinyl. And the music industry doesn't make music, it makes recordings.
I certainly prefer to buy things directly from musicians where possible. Hell, even if you go to a show, you're paying a middleman - the venue expects a cover, or a rental, or at least good sales of food an drink, and if they don't see it's worthwhile they won't invite that group back, so you can't just show up and listen without spending something.
I fully agree that copyright infringement is not theft. Theft is when I take something away from you and you no longer have it. Copyright infringement is when I do something you don't like without your permission. The only thing I have taken away from you is your ability to say "No." But that's not the real problem here.
The problem here is that the fundamental point of DRM and the DMCA is to give copyright holders the ability to say "No" when nothing else will. Together, DRM and the DMCA enforce the wishes of the copyright holder even when those wishes go far beyond their legal rights. Fair use? It doesn't matter. Removing even a small amount of content from a DRM-protected DVD is strictly illegal under the DMCA no matter how you intend to use it. While fair use still exists as a defense against the charge of "copyright infringement," it is not a defense against the charge of (more-or-less) "safe-cracking" under the DMCA.
Look at it this way, making and using a copy of some content from a DVD potentially breaks two laws: Copyright and the DMCA. If it came to trial, you could claim that you weren't breaking the copyright law because your use falls under the category of Fair Use and, if you're lucky, the judge/jury would agree with you. However, in order to make that copy in the first place, you would have had to get past the DRM "proctection," which means that you have also broken the DMCA law. But, the DMCA does not recognize the Fair Use argument. If the DRM says you can't make a copy and you made a copy, then you've broken the law. Period. It doesn't matter how you planned to use that copy once you've made it, you've made and, therefore, you've broken the law under the DMCA. There's no excuse. There's no "wiggle room." There is no defense. You've lost. Game over. That's just one of many problems with this train-wreck of a law.
I know the OP tried to couch this request in the terms of Fair Use, but it's pointless. Fair Use only applies to your use of a copy. Making that copy, when it breaks past any form of DRM, is completely, totally, and strictly illegal under the DMCA. Period.
Have you considered the possibility that the musicians you know haven't reached the point in their lives yet where they should be trying to sustain themselves as musicians?
People seem to have the idea that if you enjoy playing music, but you can't make a living at it, then something's wrong with the system and the law needs to be changed to make it easier for you. But clearly we don't have that expectation in any other field. Very few high school athletes will be able to play professionally as adults, but we don't consider that a problem, do we? Just as most of those players need to realize that football will always be a hobby for them, not a career, a lot of musicians need to realize the same thing about music.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Before you assumed he was stealing the clips, did you all even ask if his church has the CCLI licenses?
Many churches (like mine for instance) purchase licenses from CCLI or others to give rights to do things like copying sheet music for choir, worship bands, etc, playing other's music, either led by choir/band, or from CD/DVD..
And, if you have the right licenses, you are legally allowed to use of video in various ways, whether clips, playing a movie for a crowd, etc.
Without those licenses, you are in violation of law or license just playing most movie DVDs to a group of people larger than some set (small) number.
Yes, I'm sure that CCLI and other licensers don't cover every possible piece of music or video, and that you might have to get rights to use some things elsewhere... but it is possible to legally use such things if you are willing to do the work and pay what is needed.
Or was everyone so eager to jump into the typical slashdot arguments about whether stealing/using this digital material was right/wrong/evil/etc, whether the laws were bad and all that?