Actually, I was making no assumption at all about subsequent lawsuits, because it's irrelevant. Anybody can sue. Yes, it may be a practical obstacle, but doesn't negate the whole process.
Further, plenty of companies create workarounds for all sorts of patents. Many of those workarounds themselves are then patented in their own right. If you get sued over a workaround and lose, it generally means it wasn't realy a workaround.
And I am actually quite knowledgeable in this field (patents, not power tool manufacturing), so your assertion that I am arguing from ignorance is demonstrably false (though I don't feel any obligation to trot out my resume to actually conduct the demonstration - just please take my word for it).
I think you have twisted the story just a bit on this one. The lawsuit (without having all the details and complaints at hand), appears to be a garden-variety product liability claim. Plaintiff says defendant was negligent in manufacturing and selling this product without addressing certain safety issues. Kinda like suing Ford for making Pintos that explode - a behavior generally unexpected in automobiles by most consumers.
The plaintiff likely made the case that there was an available technology that was reasonable to include in the saw that would have prevented/reduced his injury, and the defendant was negligent in not doing so, because they knew, or should have known, that people were going to have blade-hand interactions in using the saw.
This is a big reason for the safety devices ALREADY in use on power tools today. Many of them require two switches to be operated (i.e., both hands are in specific places), or have guards over various moving parts, etc. These are all ways of reducing the risk of operator injury, and, therefore, the financial risk to the manufacturer of product liability and negligence lawsuits.
The jury (not the court - the jury, made up of twelve local citizens, not patent experts) after hearing all the evidence (including, presumably, cost information by the defendant), deliberated and decided that, all things considered, the defendant did not perform its legal duty of a reasonable standard of care in manufacturing the saw in a way that would address this problem it knew or should have known about.
This verdict does not require anybody to do anything (except for Ryobi to pay money to the plaintiff). It does set a precedent for future cases, but it doesn't require anybody to license any particular technology. Other inventors are free to come up with other ways of addressing this safety issue which don't infringe the patent(s) in question ("workarounds"). But, for the meantime, it appears that a need has been identified, and one inventor/company has had the foresight to come up with a solution for that need.
Again, the "government" is not requiring anybody to do anything. Yes, a precedent has been set, and it can be assumed that future similar cases will look to this one for guidance. However, I think I would characterize it more as the "people" setting this requirement, rather than the "government".
I suggest this creates incentive for saw manufacturers to put their thinking caps on about how to deal with this safety issue in ways that let them avoid taking a patent license for this particular invention. Meanwhile, this is exactly what the patent system is intended to promote - a creative inventor being the first/best one to address a need in the market and therefore getting to profit from it.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
Regarding backups vs. "backups", I think it is true that a lot of people don't see the difference between the "DVD-R guy" and the "digital guy" you described above. I think that is an obstacle to resolving copying issues. I really don't think content owners would object much at all if there were a way to enable true backup copies (for the DVD-R guy), while not also enabling the space/format-shifting ability sought by the digital guy.
And I think it is significant that a boycott might not generate enough supporters. In a market for a pure luxury item like movies/music (i.e., the situation is not biased because we're dealing with food, shelter, or other necesseties), your response indicates the majority of the market doesn't support your point of view and is not looking for the functionality you want. In a capitalist economy, why should a supplier cater to the minority, rather than the majority, especially when the minority wants more functionality - arguably without paying more for the product in the first place.
I think it would be helpful if someone could produce some market research that shows two things: 1. that the current market majority would likely not reduce its rate of purchasing of digital content products each year, AND 2. the minority would buy at least SOME increased amount of digital content products. To the content owners, you could then say, "look, bub, by unlocking your content, you're not losing any sales from the people who are already doing the right thing, AND you're actually GAINING sales from people who used to "steal" your content. You would actually come out AHEAD, not BEHIND!"
Regarding the RealDVD outcome, why is it important to understand whether the supporters had a financial interest in it? That's how court cases work - especially when you're the plaintiff. The major reason for ANYBODY to sue anybody else is because you want to either stop the action of someone else who is negatively impacting you (usually financially) or to be comepensated (usually financially) for some injury (often financial) done to you by the defendant.
Keep in mind the whole purpose of copyright is to provide a protected (financial) interest to artists in order to maximize their incentive to create works to be enjoyed by all of us.
RealDVD had a financial interest in the outcome, too. They weren't in it for the principle of the thing. They had a product they wanted to sell - for profit.
And many of the folks who supported RealDVD had a financial interest as well. They want to be able to enjoy copies of the movies they buy without having to pay additionally for those copoies.
I'm quite sure there are any number of law professors who believe the RealDVD case was decided correctly ("correctly" meaning merely that it was consistent with the law as it is today - putting aside the question of whether the law SHOULD be what it is today).
I think the "financial interest" angle is a red herring.
HM
PS: Thanks for accepting my honesty, though. I really do mean for this to be an intelligent discussion, rather than a mud-slinging contest! ;-)
I don't dispute at all that all this copying is an economic force that has to be taken seriously and appropriately accounted for. You are right that the reality is that a lot of people are copying, regardless of measures (both technical and legal) that are put up to try to hold back the tide.
Personally, I do wonder how much of their profit would they keep if the studios dropped copy protection. Would piracy run rampant and profits drop through the floor? Or would piracy cause perhaps SOME drop, but not anywhere near a fatal drop, with most people still continuing to do the right thing and pay for what they use? It's very risky to find out, so I'm not sure any studio would be too eager to be the first to try it...
I'm wondering if we have a language gap that's our problem, or if I'm just not familiar with your style of writing English, or what. I sense that we're not quite matching up on the same sheet of music (as it were)...
In any case, I'm not sure where you even get the idea to bring up the concept for discussion that NOT listening to Metallica would be a crime... I suspect you're raising this absurd idea to make a point, but what that point might be is lost on me.
I'm not sure how "risky" it is to be a rock star - unless the would-be rock star is investing his/her own money. If not, then it is risky for the producer/promoter who IS putting up the money.
In any case, I'm not sure what point you're making about artists and reocrd labels, unless it's one of the OTHER overstated, hyperbolic arguments of the pro-copy movement that record labels somehow DESERVE to lose their profits on music, because they allegedly treat artists so unfairly themselves. Well, that may or may not be. Either way, it's not really our business, and, in any case, I'm not aware of a single person who made a clearly illegal copy of a CD, but took the initiative to send money directly to the artist - bypassing the record label. So, this is naother argument that I would suggest is fairly overstated in the pro-copy lobby. Fortunately, only the real over-the-top rabid types seem to go for this argument.
Anyway, I do understand the argument that not every instance of unauthorized copying is necessarily a "lost sale" to the record labels. And I agree that estimates of losses due to piracy may be very overstated if the underlying assumpion is that every unauthorized copy represents a corresponding lost sale. However, the argument coming from the other direction, as I mentioned before, as you seemed to be making (though you seem to think I missed your point, so I'm happy to consider it if you'd please re-phrase it), was that the fact that someone was not going to buy a copy in the first place equated to no real cause for complaint on the part of the content owner. This seems a very twisted argument. If you're not using your bike right now, why shouldn't I be allowed to take it - even without your permission? If I bring it back in time for you to use it later, what's the harm? If you're away on vacation, what harm is it to you if I enter your home, watch your TV and sleep in your bed, as long as I clean up and put everything back in place before you return home?
One more point - regarding your assertion that the kids of today, who are the voters of tomorrow, having no respect for our current copyright system, I suspect that, like in many things, their views on this will evolve as they grow older, get jobs, learn a bit how the world works and want to become successful artists in their own right. They might feel a bit differently 20 years from now when someone not even born today is ripping THEIR content.
Maybe, maybe not, of course. But, consider that most of the folks who were at Woodstock eventually drove minivans to take their kids to soccer practice before going to the PTA meeting.
I am reasonbly sure that I do not have any music which represents an actionable infringement of copyright. I do not rip CDs I do not own. I do not download music at all. I only rip my own CDs. As for any infringing music that might be in a game or video clip or something, I reasonably rely on the likelihood that the game/video artist is not infringing, either by obtaining the necessary permission(s) or perhpas via fair use, etc.
And I'm not sure what you mean about "denying reality," and why you think the Real case supports your opinion that I am doing so. I am asserting that "reality" is that people are not really making "backup" copies, and, therefore, it is not really a valid argument in support of the pro-copy ideology. Further, the Real case actually supports MY point, not yours (at least about whether I'm "denying reality"). The RealDVD product was not about making "backup" copies. The copy was made to a PC hard drive for use in a more flexible way than was avaialble through the original movie disc.
Now, of course, this is COMPLETELY separate from the point about whether space-shifting (via tools such as RealDVD) should or should not be considered, essentially, a "fair use". My whole point all along has been merely that the pro-copy movement is just as subject to relying on overstated arguments as is the conent industry. Just like not every person who rips a DVD is a "pirate", it is also true that most people who claim to want to make "backup" copies are really doing more than that. And I honestly believe that the issue becomes harder to resolve as long as BOTH sides condone the use of hyperbole and overstatement by members of their respective sides of the argument.
You seem to be making an interesting argument, namely, that, because you were not prepared to pay for Metallica's music in the first place, there should be no real objection to you getting as much of it for free as you might want.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
Please consider my comment about the legality of copying audio CDs suitably modified.
As for the backup becoming illegal as soon as it stops being a pure backup, that depends on what you have done with it beyond that. The AHRA does not say specifically "backup" copying is OK. It applies to all personal use. However, the specifiic examples you gave would certainly cross the line from permitted to illegal copying.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
Semantics are important - but often abused.
No, the two scenarios are not the same thing:
1. You wish to preserve your copy of "Iron Man", so you use a software tool to copy the movie to a DVD-R. You then put your original disc safely on a shelf, and play the DVD-R in your DVD player when you want to watch that movie. You are happy with this, because you have successfully preserved your original movie disc.
2. You wish to preserve your copy of "Iron Man", AND you wish to watch it on your home media server, on your iPod, any of a number of devices OTHER than the DVD player that would play the copy you brought home from the store. So, you rip the DVD to your PC's hard drive as an MP4, making it available on your home network, copiable to your iPod, and so forth. You are much more happy with this arrangement, because, not only have you preserved your original movie disc, but you have now also added significant functionality to your movie experience by making multiple copies in multiple formats to multiple devices.
I would suggest that the former is a backup scenario. The latter is not. The pro-copying lobby often (usually) presents the former as an oh-so-reasonable "right" of consumers, when very few actually do just that. They much more often go to the second scenrior, which is much more than a mere backup.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
My apologies. My characterization of the pro-copying crowd was certainly a generalization, and I did not intend it to apply to you specifically - unless, of course, you do actually act like a jerk. ;-)
Again, I didn't say "nobody" makes backups. I said I didn't know anybody who actually made backups. I know plenty of people who space-shift copies (e.g., ripping movies to a PC-based hard drive for subsequent use on an iPod, etc.). However, the argument that the pro-copying lobby usually trots out first and trumpets the loudest is that people want to make "backup" copies for the purpose of preserving the original. However, space-shifted copies do MORE than that, so the "backup" argument doesn't really hold a lot of water. People aren't stopping at "backup" copies. They're almost always going the next step to space-shifted copies in order to get more flexibility. So, I certainly think the argument about whether space-shifting should be permitted is a valid one - but it's not about "backup" copies, and it's somewhat disingenuous for the pro-copying lobby to keep using the "backup" copy argument in that case.
And it appears that you consider yourself one who argues reasonably, but you completely ignored my "vote with your wallet" suggestion. Why do you apparently not think boycotting content with restrictions attached is a good way to go?
No, I disagree. While many (all?) works of art borrow themes so forth from other works, they do not usually copy specific expression.
This is one of those pro-copying arguments that I think is overblown and mis-stated.
ACTUAL copying, as in sampling or derivative/transformative works, or in comment, satire, parody, etc., makes up a fairly small percentage of the universe of creative works generated by artists.
Interesting analogy, because there are actually copyright laws that apply specifically to the copying of boat hull designs.
In any case, they sold you the movie subject to certain conditions, one being that it is for viewing only. The price is arguably based on that. You don't like the condition? Don't buy the disc.
I actually do think there should be more clear labelling on DVDs/Blu-rays that clearly informs the buyer that a condition of buying the disc at the advertised price is conditioned on not making copies. The consumer has a right to know what he's purchasing. And I agree with many that the FBI warning at the beginning of movies is often not really stated accurately, as not all unauthorized copying is illegal.
First, it is not illegal to make a personal use copy of an audio CD. This is provided for in the Audio Home Recording Act. Rip to your heart's content - for your own personal use.
I have ripped all several hundred of my CDs to my Zune library, and have actually thought about the question you have raised. I'm not sure there's an easy and direct "legal" answer, but my own approach is as follows:
1. If I break the disc (which almost never happens, though I'm not overly careful in how I handle them), I don't feel a particular obligation to delete the ripped files or to rush out and repurchase the CD. However, I will likely repurchase the CD at some point, just out of an anal desire to have "complete" collection.
2. If I purposely give away the disc (to a friend or in a garage sale or to Goodwill, whatever), I absolutely DO delete the ripped files.
3. I do not rip copies of my CDs for friends, just like I do not make photocopies of my books for them.
I don't doubt at all the utility of ripping CDs and storing the content as MP3s on a hard drive and/or a portable media player. However, those are not "backup" copies. They are space-shifted copies.
I think your description of your earlier practice of duplicating an audio cassette, then playing the dupe while storing the original away in a closet IS an example of truly making backup copies.
In any case, my comment about not knowing anyone who really makes backup copies was meant to support my belief that the practice is making true "backup" copies (as opposed to space-shifting in order to strip DRM, gain more flexible use of the content than was provided on the original media, etc.) is actually not nearly as prevalent as is implied in the pro-copying articles which almost always mention it as the primary argument in support of DRM circumvention.
Re: 'I don't know a single person who REALLY makes just "backup" copies of their DVDs'
Actually, I would argue that the copies you're making to the hard drive are not "backup" copies. They are space-shifted copies. Copies ripped to a hard drive are not merely preserving the original. They are providing additional functionality that was not included with the original disc. Not to say that's right or wrong, but merely to say that the "backup" argument is overblown, because most people who claim to be making "backup" copies actually aren't. They're making space-shifted copies in order to enjoy more flexible use of the content.
In any case, it is not illegal to make copies of CDs for personal use. The Audio Home Recording Act makes that clear.
I'm sorry, but I'm not quite sure I'm following you here. Are you arguing that it should be permitted to "lend" a copy to a friend because that friend might not return the copy and you don't want to have to pay to replace it (if you had loaned him the original instead of a copy)?
Well, most of your arguments are about how current content owners just aren't meeting the desires (I won't say "needs", since movies are luxury items, not necessities) of consumers. Fair enough. However, in that case, it seems the right answer is to vote with your wallet. You don't like that you aren't permitted to copy a DVD or Blu-ray? Don't buy it. Make content owners very aware that your purchase decision is direclty impacted by DRM. If enough consumers do that, you can bet the sales practices of these content owners will change. If not enough people vote with their wallet in that way, well, then we see that the complainers are merely a small minority of cranks who don't really impact the studios' bottom line, so why cater to them? That's capitalism. Capitalsim is NOT "sell me what I want to buy, or I'll break into your store and steal it from you."
As for whether IP is like tangible physical property or not, yes, there are some good points there, but overall, your claim that it is a pure binary decision (it's either like physical property or not, and therefore using it in an unauthorized manner is either stealing or not) is somewhat fallacious. We have plenty of examples of things which are not tangible physical property, but are subject to theft. We talk about "identity theft", for instance. The money in your bank account can be stolen, though it may NEVER actually have been manifested as physical bills or coins.
Personally, I tend to think the concept of time-limited copies (such as what is/was done by Zune) that let you give a copy of a song (or other work) to a friend, subjec to that copy expiring after, say, three days seems to be a fairly reasonable implementation of "lending" digital copies. However, there's still the argument that even time-limited copies are still "stealing" if they were not authorized by the copyright holder and not otherwise to an exception like fair use.
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re: Re: Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
Further, plenty of companies create workarounds for all sorts of patents. Many of those workarounds themselves are then patented in their own right. If you get sued over a workaround and lose, it generally means it wasn't realy a workaround.
And I am actually quite knowledgeable in this field (patents, not power tool manufacturing), so your assertion that I am arguing from ignorance is demonstrably false (though I don't feel any obligation to trot out my resume to actually conduct the demonstration - just please take my word for it).
HM
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Re:
HM
On the post: Tool Maker Loses Lawsuit For Not Violating Another Company's Patents
Not quite as nefarious as you suggest...
The plaintiff likely made the case that there was an available technology that was reasonable to include in the saw that would have prevented/reduced his injury, and the defendant was negligent in not doing so, because they knew, or should have known, that people were going to have blade-hand interactions in using the saw.
This is a big reason for the safety devices ALREADY in use on power tools today. Many of them require two switches to be operated (i.e., both hands are in specific places), or have guards over various moving parts, etc. These are all ways of reducing the risk of operator injury, and, therefore, the financial risk to the manufacturer of product liability and negligence lawsuits.
The jury (not the court - the jury, made up of twelve local citizens, not patent experts) after hearing all the evidence (including, presumably, cost information by the defendant), deliberated and decided that, all things considered, the defendant did not perform its legal duty of a reasonable standard of care in manufacturing the saw in a way that would address this problem it knew or should have known about.
This verdict does not require anybody to do anything (except for Ryobi to pay money to the plaintiff). It does set a precedent for future cases, but it doesn't require anybody to license any particular technology. Other inventors are free to come up with other ways of addressing this safety issue which don't infringe the patent(s) in question ("workarounds"). But, for the meantime, it appears that a need has been identified, and one inventor/company has had the foresight to come up with a solution for that need.
Again, the "government" is not requiring anybody to do anything. Yes, a precedent has been set, and it can be assumed that future similar cases will look to this one for guidance. However, I think I would characterize it more as the "people" setting this requirement, rather than the "government".
I suggest this creates incentive for saw manufacturers to put their thinking caps on about how to deal with this safety issue in ways that let them avoid taking a patent license for this particular invention. Meanwhile, this is exactly what the patent system is intended to promote - a creative inventor being the first/best one to address a need in the market and therefore getting to profit from it.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
And I think it is significant that a boycott might not generate enough supporters. In a market for a pure luxury item like movies/music (i.e., the situation is not biased because we're dealing with food, shelter, or other necesseties), your response indicates the majority of the market doesn't support your point of view and is not looking for the functionality you want. In a capitalist economy, why should a supplier cater to the minority, rather than the majority, especially when the minority wants more functionality - arguably without paying more for the product in the first place.
I think it would be helpful if someone could produce some market research that shows two things: 1. that the current market majority would likely not reduce its rate of purchasing of digital content products each year, AND 2. the minority would buy at least SOME increased amount of digital content products. To the content owners, you could then say, "look, bub, by unlocking your content, you're not losing any sales from the people who are already doing the right thing, AND you're actually GAINING sales from people who used to "steal" your content. You would actually come out AHEAD, not BEHIND!"
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: OK
Keep in mind the whole purpose of copyright is to provide a protected (financial) interest to artists in order to maximize their incentive to create works to be enjoyed by all of us.
RealDVD had a financial interest in the outcome, too. They weren't in it for the principle of the thing. They had a product they wanted to sell - for profit.
And many of the folks who supported RealDVD had a financial interest as well. They want to be able to enjoy copies of the movies they buy without having to pay additionally for those copoies.
I'm quite sure there are any number of law professors who believe the RealDVD case was decided correctly ("correctly" meaning merely that it was consistent with the law as it is today - putting aside the question of whether the law SHOULD be what it is today).
I think the "financial interest" angle is a red herring.
HM
PS: Thanks for accepting my honesty, though. I really do mean for this to be an intelligent discussion, rather than a mud-slinging contest! ;-)
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: OK
Personally, I do wonder how much of their profit would they keep if the studios dropped copy protection. Would piracy run rampant and profits drop through the floor? Or would piracy cause perhaps SOME drop, but not anywhere near a fatal drop, with most people still continuing to do the right thing and pay for what they use? It's very risky to find out, so I'm not sure any studio would be too eager to be the first to try it...
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: That's a really wierd argument.
In any case, I'm not sure where you even get the idea to bring up the concept for discussion that NOT listening to Metallica would be a crime... I suspect you're raising this absurd idea to make a point, but what that point might be is lost on me.
I'm not sure how "risky" it is to be a rock star - unless the would-be rock star is investing his/her own money. If not, then it is risky for the producer/promoter who IS putting up the money.
In any case, I'm not sure what point you're making about artists and reocrd labels, unless it's one of the OTHER overstated, hyperbolic arguments of the pro-copy movement that record labels somehow DESERVE to lose their profits on music, because they allegedly treat artists so unfairly themselves. Well, that may or may not be. Either way, it's not really our business, and, in any case, I'm not aware of a single person who made a clearly illegal copy of a CD, but took the initiative to send money directly to the artist - bypassing the record label. So, this is naother argument that I would suggest is fairly overstated in the pro-copy lobby. Fortunately, only the real over-the-top rabid types seem to go for this argument.
Anyway, I do understand the argument that not every instance of unauthorized copying is necessarily a "lost sale" to the record labels. And I agree that estimates of losses due to piracy may be very overstated if the underlying assumpion is that every unauthorized copy represents a corresponding lost sale. However, the argument coming from the other direction, as I mentioned before, as you seemed to be making (though you seem to think I missed your point, so I'm happy to consider it if you'd please re-phrase it), was that the fact that someone was not going to buy a copy in the first place equated to no real cause for complaint on the part of the content owner. This seems a very twisted argument. If you're not using your bike right now, why shouldn't I be allowed to take it - even without your permission? If I bring it back in time for you to use it later, what's the harm? If you're away on vacation, what harm is it to you if I enter your home, watch your TV and sleep in your bed, as long as I clean up and put everything back in place before you return home?
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Except...
Maybe, maybe not, of course. But, consider that most of the folks who were at Woodstock eventually drove minivans to take their kids to soccer practice before going to the PTA meeting.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Except...
And I'm not sure what you mean about "denying reality," and why you think the Real case supports your opinion that I am doing so. I am asserting that "reality" is that people are not really making "backup" copies, and, therefore, it is not really a valid argument in support of the pro-copy ideology. Further, the Real case actually supports MY point, not yours (at least about whether I'm "denying reality"). The RealDVD product was not about making "backup" copies. The copy was made to a PC hard drive for use in a more flexible way than was avaialble through the original movie disc.
Now, of course, this is COMPLETELY separate from the point about whether space-shifting (via tools such as RealDVD) should or should not be considered, essentially, a "fair use". My whole point all along has been merely that the pro-copy movement is just as subject to relying on overstated arguments as is the conent industry. Just like not every person who rips a DVD is a "pirate", it is also true that most people who claim to want to make "backup" copies are really doing more than that. And I honestly believe that the issue becomes harder to resolve as long as BOTH sides condone the use of hyperbole and overstatement by members of their respective sides of the argument.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Additionally
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
As for the backup becoming illegal as soon as it stops being a pure backup, that depends on what you have done with it beyond that. The AHRA does not say specifically "backup" copying is OK. It applies to all personal use. However, the specifiic examples you gave would certainly cross the line from permitted to illegal copying.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
No, the two scenarios are not the same thing:
1. You wish to preserve your copy of "Iron Man", so you use a software tool to copy the movie to a DVD-R. You then put your original disc safely on a shelf, and play the DVD-R in your DVD player when you want to watch that movie. You are happy with this, because you have successfully preserved your original movie disc.
2. You wish to preserve your copy of "Iron Man", AND you wish to watch it on your home media server, on your iPod, any of a number of devices OTHER than the DVD player that would play the copy you brought home from the store. So, you rip the DVD to your PC's hard drive as an MP4, making it available on your home network, copiable to your iPod, and so forth. You are much more happy with this arrangement, because, not only have you preserved your original movie disc, but you have now also added significant functionality to your movie experience by making multiple copies in multiple formats to multiple devices.
I would suggest that the former is a backup scenario. The latter is not. The pro-copying lobby often (usually) presents the former as an oh-so-reasonable "right" of consumers, when very few actually do just that. They much more often go to the second scenrior, which is much more than a mere backup.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
Again, I didn't say "nobody" makes backups. I said I didn't know anybody who actually made backups. I know plenty of people who space-shift copies (e.g., ripping movies to a PC-based hard drive for subsequent use on an iPod, etc.). However, the argument that the pro-copying lobby usually trots out first and trumpets the loudest is that people want to make "backup" copies for the purpose of preserving the original. However, space-shifted copies do MORE than that, so the "backup" argument doesn't really hold a lot of water. People aren't stopping at "backup" copies. They're almost always going the next step to space-shifted copies in order to get more flexibility. So, I certainly think the argument about whether space-shifting should be permitted is a valid one - but it's not about "backup" copies, and it's somewhat disingenuous for the pro-copying lobby to keep using the "backup" copy argument in that case.
And it appears that you consider yourself one who argues reasonably, but you completely ignored my "vote with your wallet" suggestion. Why do you apparently not think boycotting content with restrictions attached is a good way to go?
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Then there would be no Commandments
This is one of those pro-copying arguments that I think is overblown and mis-stated.
ACTUAL copying, as in sampling or derivative/transformative works, or in comment, satire, parody, etc., makes up a fairly small percentage of the universe of creative works generated by artists.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: If I purchased....
In any case, they sold you the movie subject to certain conditions, one being that it is for viewing only. The price is arguably based on that. You don't like the condition? Don't buy the disc.
I actually do think there should be more clear labelling on DVDs/Blu-rays that clearly informs the buyer that a condition of buying the disc at the advertised price is conditioned on not making copies. The consumer has a right to know what he's purchasing. And I agree with many that the FBI warning at the beginning of movies is often not really stated accurately, as not all unauthorized copying is illegal.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: A question I've always had......
First, it is not illegal to make a personal use copy of an audio CD. This is provided for in the Audio Home Recording Act. Rip to your heart's content - for your own personal use.
I have ripped all several hundred of my CDs to my Zune library, and have actually thought about the question you have raised. I'm not sure there's an easy and direct "legal" answer, but my own approach is as follows:
1. If I break the disc (which almost never happens, though I'm not overly careful in how I handle them), I don't feel a particular obligation to delete the ripped files or to rush out and repurchase the CD. However, I will likely repurchase the CD at some point, just out of an anal desire to have "complete" collection.
2. If I purposely give away the disc (to a friend or in a garage sale or to Goodwill, whatever), I absolutely DO delete the ripped files.
3. I do not rip copies of my CDs for friends, just like I do not make photocopies of my books for them.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
I think your description of your earlier practice of duplicating an audio cassette, then playing the dupe while storing the original away in a closet IS an example of truly making backup copies.
In any case, my comment about not knowing anyone who really makes backup copies was meant to support my belief that the practice is making true "backup" copies (as opposed to space-shifting in order to strip DRM, gain more flexible use of the content than was provided on the original media, etc.) is actually not nearly as prevalent as is implied in the pro-copying articles which almost always mention it as the primary argument in support of DRM circumvention.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: 'I don't know a single person who REALLY makes just "backup" copies of their DVDs'
In any case, it is not illegal to make copies of CDs for personal use. The Audio Home Recording Act makes that clear.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Missleading as usual
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
As for whether IP is like tangible physical property or not, yes, there are some good points there, but overall, your claim that it is a pure binary decision (it's either like physical property or not, and therefore using it in an unauthorized manner is either stealing or not) is somewhat fallacious. We have plenty of examples of things which are not tangible physical property, but are subject to theft. We talk about "identity theft", for instance. The money in your bank account can be stolen, though it may NEVER actually have been manifested as physical bills or coins.
Personally, I tend to think the concept of time-limited copies (such as what is/was done by Zune) that let you give a copy of a song (or other work) to a friend, subjec to that copy expiring after, say, three days seems to be a fairly reasonable implementation of "lending" digital copies. However, there's still the argument that even time-limited copies are still "stealing" if they were not authorized by the copyright holder and not otherwise to an exception like fair use.
HM
Next >>