Yes that's a computer data storage device for tape. That's not a VHS movie. I never said that you couldn't store data on tape, only that a movie on VHS is not 'data'.
If I could play Blue-Ray movies on my Linux box without hassle and if I knew that ability wasn't going to go away, then I would buy a Blue-ray drive and start collecting those movies instead. And there is my reason for wanting this petty DRM to be cracked permanently. It has nothing to do with pirating movies and in fact, if I were merely downloading pirated movies, it would be irrelevant to me whether I could play Blue-Ray discs at all. But I'm not and I want to play them. That's only possible if the DRM is broken.
Have you ever thought that the reason you cannot play Blu-ray movies is the lack of software support on Linux and not the fault of the DRM? Blu-ray plays perfectly fine on other OSes. Why doesn't the Linux community create or lobby for proper support for Blu-Ray playback like other OSes instead of simply trying to defeat the copy protection?
A movie is not data! Geez how dense are some people?! Show me the provision in copyright law or wherever that allows you to make a copy of a movie for whatever purpose.
You keep shifting your goalposts. You started with a point about fair use and have now moved on to arguing dictionary definitions - you seem to have traded any sort of structured argument for a bid to be 'right'.
No, I'm just responding to different arguments people make to try and justify their stealing of movies.
What is the difference, other than squabbling about what definition of 'data' to use, between copying a DVD and copying a VHS tape? You seem to be implying that there is one.
No, I'm saying the opposite - there is no difference. People here seem to think that since the movie is digital it is then 'data' and can be copied at will. A movie is just a movie, independant of medium and subject to copyright laws.
I would say a VHS tape is full of data, and plenty of people backed up their VHS tapes to bootleg copies.
A VHS movie is not 'data'. Look up the definition of data. And just becuae it was widely copied does not mean it's legal.
If I had the means, I would backup my car, my TV, my wife's diamond wedding ring (IANM), etc.
Sure, but it's not legal. And the reasons you give for copying are all justifiable in some manner, but again not legal. Most people here bizarrely think that just because the movie is now digital they can make legal copies of it. No you cannot. Copying movies to a harddrive is not legal and does not fall under the terms of the oft quoted 'fair use' law.
You are confusing the medium with the content. If the exact same movie was on analog tape, you would not be calling it 'data'. Calling it data just justifies in your mind the legality of creating a copy, regardless if it is legal or not. 'Fair Use' law does not mean you can make copies of entire movies - look it up.
Your response to the GP just shows that you just don't get it. It doesn't mean he's any less correct.
Oh I get what you are trying to do - I don't agree you are correct however. Since copying movies is not permissible by fair use then you are violating copyright by making a backup and therefore stealing. Simple as that. So don't try and justify your actions by saying 'but it's just data'.
I never bought a single HD-DVD disc. Why? I have no drive to back them up, so my purchasing them is useless to me.
You must be very klutzy or very destructive. I have a few dozen DVDs and have yet to damage one even slightly. These things are fairly robust you know.
The copy protection is meant to prevent you from backing up your only copy of the disk to another device, which falls under fair use. Also, you cannot format-shift because of the copy protection. If you buy an HD movie and want to downsample it for use on your iPod, you can't unless you get past the copy protection.
Neither of these are valid examples of fair use as defined under US law. Go look it up.
Seriously. You must be new here 'cause I might just be modded redundant people have been over this so many times on Slashdot.
Just because something is repeated doesn't make it true. Your using 'fair use' as an excuse to make illegal copies. I'm not new here, but you must be a regular since you spew unsubstantiated nonsense to justify your wild claims without looking up the facts.
No, I bought a movie, not a software program. You would never say your VHS tapes were full of data. Just because the medium happens to be digital people take this as an excuse to think they can do whatever they like with it.
DRM locks the data to the disk, requiring you to risk damaging the only copy of the data you bought in order to access said data.
Every other product I have, cars, TV, etc. all run the risk of being damaged in some way each and every time I use them. does that mean I should have free copies of each? People have this strage idea that just because a product is digital it has no real value and is somehow treated special.
Fair use is copying the data you bought to another device so you can access it from there.
Who's version of fair use is that? Yours? What is fair use was just to be able to watch the movie however many times you like?
I just bought a Blu-ray movie here last week. It was maybe $3 more than the DVD version? Which is not bad considering the lower production volumes. These prices will drop significantly now that HD-DVD is out of the picture.
Re:Marketing, all marketing...
on
Blu-ray BD+ Cracked
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Republicans are full of statements like that: 'no new taxes', 'mission accomplished', 'we had no knowledge of arms for hostages', 'the Taliban are good religious people fighting against the godless soviets'...
I'm not disagreeing with your statement that people have to get smarter about pricing and distribution of movies, but how is copy protection preventing you from getting fair use out of your movies? You can still watch them any time you like with the copy protection there or not.
So can you give me an example where charging less is "unfair"?
That was an example. Free or almost free is the same thing. If company 'A' was charging say 90% of what company 'B' was charging, then that is fair. But if you can show that one company is charging less than the cost of development, then no, that is not fair. Other markets have laws to prevent this. They fall under anti-competitive laws to prevent a large company that can absorb losses from giving away products away under cost, that would put a smaller company under that cannot afford to play the same game.
My question is, if you release software that you (not your company) own the copyright to, do you place any restrictions on it? If you don't write code except for your company, I don't think you're in a position to criticise open source developers.
First, I'm not criticizing developers, I'm stating my position on open source. Developers can do whatever they like.
I've written my own software and released it, but have never released source code. Theoretically, if I did release source code for free then no I would not place any restrictions on it whatsoever because it would be free. There's no point in placing restrictions on it.
I could also rephrase the question by asking if your company (assuming it's a software company) places restrictions on software it releases, or do they release everything as freely distributable with no restrictions whatsoever?
My company never releases source code, free or not. It's considered intellectual property. We release software as binaries only as part of a larger product. The two are inseparable (practically and legally). What does that have to do with the topic in question?
That sounds like you do not believe in copyright? Or maybe only copyright for professionals who ask for a payment for their services?
No, I believe in copyright on certain things (but not patents). But this whole 'look but don't touch' thing woith publishing source code under GPL is just silly in my opinion. If you don't want anyone using your source code don't release it! Give the binaries away for free if you feel you must.
And no I don't fully agree with copyright on software. Software is just one discipline just like mechanical, electrical, controls, etc. Why should software be treated differently? If I release design drawings for something really useful can I honestly expect someone not to take it and use it how they wish?
When I said 'prove it' I was asking the poster to prove his claim that Verizon knew the subcontractor had violated the software license. I have not seen anything to show that Verizon was aware of the GPL violation at all, let alone try to cover it up as claimed.
And to be honest, I'd assume the spirit was to prevent overcharging, and not to insist that you must charge! Also it would be reasonable to say that giving away software is a fair price.
If you could get software free from company 'A', and company 'B' was charging $10k for the same software, then you would clearly say that company 'B' was trying to charge an unfair price. However if company 'A' didn't give the software away for free but charged the going rate of $10k, then you would say the price was fair. So I'd say it works both ways - to prevent over and undercharging.
Does this mean that you, as a professional engineer, release everything as freely distributable with no restrictions whatsoever?
I release what I create to my company with no restrictions as that is what I am paid to do. I have not and nor would I ever release something without charge to the public. Just my personal opinion.
And exactly when did I say what they were doing was wrong? I only stated my oath and how I interpret it. I made no claim to restrict what others can or cannot do.
So instead of telling me to butt out, why don't you take your condescending attitude and blow it out your ass?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes that's a computer data storage device for tape. That's not a VHS movie. I never said that you couldn't store data on tape, only that a movie on VHS is not 'data'.
Have you ever thought that the reason you cannot play Blu-ray movies is the lack of software support on Linux and not the fault of the DRM? Blu-ray plays perfectly fine on other OSes. Why doesn't the Linux community create or lobby for proper support for Blu-Ray playback like other OSes instead of simply trying to defeat the copy protection?
A movie is not data! Geez how dense are some people?! Show me the provision in copyright law or wherever that allows you to make a copy of a movie for whatever purpose.
No, I'm just responding to different arguments people make to try and justify their stealing of movies.
No, I'm saying the opposite - there is no difference. People here seem to think that since the movie is digital it is then 'data' and can be copied at will. A movie is just a movie, independant of medium and subject to copyright laws.
A VHS movie is not 'data'. Look up the definition of data. And just becuae it was widely copied does not mean it's legal.
Sure, but it's not legal. And the reasons you give for copying are all justifiable in some manner, but again not legal. Most people here bizarrely think that just because the movie is now digital they can make legal copies of it. No you cannot. Copying movies to a harddrive is not legal and does not fall under the terms of the oft quoted 'fair use' law.
Well you might call it data if you are stupid and technologically inept.
No. When you buy a software program you buy a license. Thats why its legal to make copies of the media as the license to run the software is separate.
When you buy a movie you are buying the media with a copy of the movie on it for private viewing only.
My comparison makes perfect sense when you know what you are talking about.
While they may be reasonable to you, what makes you think they are legal?
Pure revisionist bullshit.
You are confusing the medium with the content. If the exact same movie was on analog tape, you would not be calling it 'data'. Calling it data just justifies in your mind the legality of creating a copy, regardless if it is legal or not. 'Fair Use' law does not mean you can make copies of entire movies - look it up.
Oh I get what you are trying to do - I don't agree you are correct however. Since copying movies is not permissible by fair use then you are violating copyright by making a backup and therefore stealing. Simple as that. So don't try and justify your actions by saying 'but it's just data'.
You must be very klutzy or very destructive. I have a few dozen DVDs and have yet to damage one even slightly. These things are fairly robust you know.
Neither of these are valid examples of fair use as defined under US law. Go look it up.
Just because something is repeated doesn't make it true. Your using 'fair use' as an excuse to make illegal copies. I'm not new here, but you must be a regular since you spew unsubstantiated nonsense to justify your wild claims without looking up the facts.
That's like complaining my Blu-rays wont play in my VHS player. Get a grip.
No, I bought a movie, not a software program. You would never say your VHS tapes were full of data. Just because the medium happens to be digital people take this as an excuse to think they can do whatever they like with it.
Every other product I have, cars, TV, etc. all run the risk of being damaged in some way each and every time I use them. does that mean I should have free copies of each? People have this strage idea that just because a product is digital it has no real value and is somehow treated special.
Who's version of fair use is that? Yours? What is fair use was just to be able to watch the movie however many times you like?
No, and books are more than dead trees with ink squirted on them too.
Republicans are full of statements like that: 'no new taxes', 'mission accomplished', 'we had no knowledge of arms for hostages', 'the Taliban are good religious people fighting against the godless soviets' ...
I'm not disagreeing with your statement that people have to get smarter about pricing and distribution of movies, but how is copy protection preventing you from getting fair use out of your movies? You can still watch them any time you like with the copy protection there or not.
Kinda like Bush and the propagandist "Mission Accomplished" speech on the Iraq war 5 years ago?
Have you ever thought of using a Blu-ray drive on your computer to back up data, and not just to copy stolen movies?
That was an example. Free or almost free is the same thing. If company 'A' was charging say 90% of what company 'B' was charging, then that is fair. But if you can show that one company is charging less than the cost of development, then no, that is not fair. Other markets have laws to prevent this. They fall under anti-competitive laws to prevent a large company that can absorb losses from giving away products away under cost, that would put a smaller company under that cannot afford to play the same game.
First, I'm not criticizing developers, I'm stating my position on open source. Developers can do whatever they like.
I've written my own software and released it, but have never released source code. Theoretically, if I did release source code for free then no I would not place any restrictions on it whatsoever because it would be free. There's no point in placing restrictions on it.
My company never releases source code, free or not. It's considered intellectual property. We release software as binaries only as part of a larger product. The two are inseparable (practically and legally). What does that have to do with the topic in question?
No, I believe in copyright on certain things (but not patents). But this whole 'look but don't touch' thing woith publishing source code under GPL is just silly in my opinion. If you don't want anyone using your source code don't release it! Give the binaries away for free if you feel you must.
And no I don't fully agree with copyright on software. Software is just one discipline just like mechanical, electrical, controls, etc. Why should software be treated differently? If I release design drawings for something really useful can I honestly expect someone not to take it and use it how they wish?
I agree completely.
When I said 'prove it' I was asking the poster to prove his claim that Verizon knew the subcontractor had violated the software license. I have not seen anything to show that Verizon was aware of the GPL violation at all, let alone try to cover it up as claimed.
If you could get software free from company 'A', and company 'B' was charging $10k for the same software, then you would clearly say that company 'B' was trying to charge an unfair price. However if company 'A' didn't give the software away for free but charged the going rate of $10k, then you would say the price was fair. So I'd say it works both ways - to prevent over and undercharging.
I release what I create to my company with no restrictions as that is what I am paid to do. I have not and nor would I ever release something without charge to the public. Just my personal opinion.
And exactly when did I say what they were doing was wrong? I only stated my oath and how I interpret it. I made no claim to restrict what others can or cannot do.
So instead of telling me to butt out, why don't you take your condescending attitude and blow it out your ass?