Well, I must say I'm not overly impressed with your binary treatment of parents who don't have the same approach to backup DVDs you do (they're either morons or geniuses). Please note I didn't say nobody does it, but pointed out that I don't personally know a single parent (or anyone, actually) who really, truly makes pure backup copies of DVDs for no purrpose other than to preserve the original. So, I suspect the actual practice is not really very prevalent, especially in light of how prominently it gets trumpeted in any pro-copying article.
Further, I would respectfully suggest that "backups" to media that offer additional functoinality are not actually "backups". They are space-shifted copies. So, again, I'm not arguing that space-shifting is good or bad, merely that the "backup" argument is pretty overdone, considering that it doesn't seem to really be the case that this is what people are actually doing in any great numbers.
As for pointing out the mistakes of content owners, I'm all in favor of supporting your right to ridicule content owners with practices that you feel don't meet the needs of today's consumer - though I will also tell you that I think that reasonaed arguments and voting with your wallet are much more effective means than flouting the law and generally being loudmouthed jerks. I mean, please, we're not talking about milk for your kids or fuel oil for your heater to keep you from freezing to death in the winter. These are movies. Pure luxury items. Let's have a little perspective here.
In short, my original statement above merely said that there are some more reasonable positions that BOTH sides can take in resolving the issues associated with digital media and copying. If it's fair to "peel back" the arguments of content owners, it's just as fair to do so with pro-copying arguments. I'm all in favor of getting BOTH sides to stop the theatrics and hysterics and act like grownups who can solve problems without resorting to hyperbole and overblown arguments.
I don't know a single person who REALLY makes just "backup" copies of their DVDs, in the sense of burning to another disc (i.e., DVD-R/RW), then viewing only the copy (on the same DVD player on which the original could be played), while the original sits safely on a shelf. It seems most "backup" copies actually turn out to be space-shifted copies. So, while one might argue that space-shifting should be acceptable, it is still the case that very few people REALLY make "backup" copies, so that argument should probably not be trotted out first in just about every pro-copying piece.
And since when do people "lend" digital copies? First of all, how is it "lending" when you make a copy and then send that copy to someone else, while you retain the original? What have you "lent"? And how many people follow up on that a few days later to remind the friend that he/she should delete the copy if they do not intend to make good on it by purchasing it legitimately within a reasonable time?
Finally, plenty of copyright holders recognize a difference between "infringement" and "piracy". Without condoning such activity, most copyright holders will admit there's a difference between someone who makes a copy of a movie or two to put on an iPod, versus someone who regularly makes a habit of ripping movies and making that content available to others on a larger scale. If the "problem" were really about people wanting the ability to make a true backup copy so they could save their originals from damage while the copy gets used in its place, I suspect we wouldn't be faced with all this DRM stuff. Content owners would probably learn to live with that. However, the problem is that way too many people, using the cover of making "backup" copies or "lending" copies to friends, are actually clearly outside of the rights that the copyright holder intended to sell you.
One might argue whether a copyright holder should be able to withhold some of those rights in a transaction for the sale of a copy of the movie on a DVD or Blu-ray, but, for the time being, they do have that right, and, so, use of that content outside of the terms of that sale IS "stealing". Granted, some examples of stealing are way worse than others, and it is also certainly possible that content owners are cutting their own throats by annoying their customers with such restrictive policies. However, thsoe content owners have the right to cut their own throats, and it is not up to us to save them from themselves.
While I'm sure they are quieter, and therefore less of a headache for the bus driver, I really doubt that the mere presence of a WiFi signal has turned them, en masse, in to hardcore early-morning studiers.
So, I am skeptical that this has actually provided any real education benefit. Not that there isn't some real value just for getting a busload of screaming kids to shut up for the duration of the ride to and from school...
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Re: Re: Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
Further, I would respectfully suggest that "backups" to media that offer additional functoinality are not actually "backups". They are space-shifted copies. So, again, I'm not arguing that space-shifting is good or bad, merely that the "backup" argument is pretty overdone, considering that it doesn't seem to really be the case that this is what people are actually doing in any great numbers.
As for pointing out the mistakes of content owners, I'm all in favor of supporting your right to ridicule content owners with practices that you feel don't meet the needs of today's consumer - though I will also tell you that I think that reasonaed arguments and voting with your wallet are much more effective means than flouting the law and generally being loudmouthed jerks. I mean, please, we're not talking about milk for your kids or fuel oil for your heater to keep you from freezing to death in the winter. These are movies. Pure luxury items. Let's have a little perspective here.
In short, my original statement above merely said that there are some more reasonable positions that BOTH sides can take in resolving the issues associated with digital media and copying. If it's fair to "peel back" the arguments of content owners, it's just as fair to do so with pro-copying arguments. I'm all in favor of getting BOTH sides to stop the theatrics and hysterics and act like grownups who can solve problems without resorting to hyperbole and overblown arguments.
HM
On the post: Peeling The Layers Off 'Piracy'
Peel back some pro-copying arguments, too
And since when do people "lend" digital copies? First of all, how is it "lending" when you make a copy and then send that copy to someone else, while you retain the original? What have you "lent"? And how many people follow up on that a few days later to remind the friend that he/she should delete the copy if they do not intend to make good on it by purchasing it legitimately within a reasonable time?
Finally, plenty of copyright holders recognize a difference between "infringement" and "piracy". Without condoning such activity, most copyright holders will admit there's a difference between someone who makes a copy of a movie or two to put on an iPod, versus someone who regularly makes a habit of ripping movies and making that content available to others on a larger scale. If the "problem" were really about people wanting the ability to make a true backup copy so they could save their originals from damage while the copy gets used in its place, I suspect we wouldn't be faced with all this DRM stuff. Content owners would probably learn to live with that. However, the problem is that way too many people, using the cover of making "backup" copies or "lending" copies to friends, are actually clearly outside of the rights that the copyright holder intended to sell you.
One might argue whether a copyright holder should be able to withhold some of those rights in a transaction for the sale of a copy of the movie on a DVD or Blu-ray, but, for the time being, they do have that right, and, so, use of that content outside of the terms of that sale IS "stealing". Granted, some examples of stealing are way worse than others, and it is also certainly possible that content owners are cutting their own throats by annoying their customers with such restrictive policies. However, thsoe content owners have the right to cut their own throats, and it is not up to us to save them from themselves.
HM
On the post: WiFi On The School Bus
Better students?
So, I am skeptical that this has actually provided any real education benefit. Not that there isn't some real value just for getting a busload of screaming kids to shut up for the duration of the ride to and from school...
HM
Next >>