Does eminent domain ever apply to copyright and other intellectual? Can the government step in and say, "You know what, some bean counter make a mistake but we need to put the rights to this Public monument in the Public Domain. Here's a million dollars; never come back."
Or does this whole thing need to get ripped out of the ground post-haste and melted down into collectible coins?
In either case I think every taxpayer in the country should go take a deuce on Frank Gaylord's front lawn.
Exactly. I don't think these guys know how DRM circumvention and DVD duplication happens. You don't pop it into your home theatre and sit on your couch with the ol' handycam.
The warnings never get played if the activity they're "dissuading" happens. That is the opposite of the system you should implement. It's like a car alarm that only sounds when the owner unlocks it with the key.
Come ON, you think people will sit through 90 minutes of insulting warnings before watching the newest Chipmunks movie? They'll obviously need to break the infomercial up into 10 minute segments and interrupt the feature every 10 minutes for another installment.
This will be more effective too, because people are stupid and will probably forget about the last insulting warning after about 9 minutes.
P.S. Despite the plethora of incongruous lawsuits and settlements you can't copyright an idea.
I'd add into your shoplifting comparison that shoppers would be asked prior to seeing the video if they plan on shoplifting today. If they are then "Right! Off you go, no video for you. Have a great day of shoplifting."
I think we should also have audio warnings play when we start cars detailing how it's illegal to steal cars and how police departments arrest people for grand theft auto. It, of course, would be skipped if the car was hotwired.
It's pretty clear to me, and has been for sometime, that dajaz1.com has been seriously wronged. I'm glad that some light is finally being shed on the matter. I really do wonder how many individuals were involved in this entire fiasco.
This post talks about "the government" and the various organizations as a whole overreaching themselves and acting outside the law. At what point are bureaucrats no longer able to shelter themselves behind the guise of office? Will it come down to a few corrupt individuals being thrown under the bus, or with the entire system manipulated in an unjust manner come under scrutiny? I'm really not sure which I would prefer at this point.
I was more on the "So when are the corruption charges filed?" line of thought. I'm not sure fired is enough for the abuse of public trust here. I'd like to see the rubber stamp judge granting secret extensions take some flak too.
I'm pretty sure that selling something for more than it cost you is a frequent occurrence in this country. We can decide as a community what kind of mark-up qualifies a re-seller as a jerk.
Additionally I'm a little perplexed by your free download with physical purchase offer. (I think it's cool you're working with free and digital promotions) If the download is for a copy of something they already purchased on disc, then it seems specifically designed to be passed along by the customer. After all, they just bought the CD and if they want an MP3 of the entire disc it can easily (and legally without the inclusion of DRM) be converted to that format.
Or SimCity that came with patterns in red text on a red sheet of paper that wouldn't photocopy currently and red "decoder" glasses so you could read it. Take note entertainment companies: ENTERTAIN ME. Make the advertising the content, make the DRM part of the game!
Because they made our Fair-Use right to make copy of something we own (for personal use, formats for other devices or backup) illegal to exercise. This offering is an attempt to dissuade the Library of Congress from enacting an exemption that would allow us to use our rights.
"See? We generously loaned you a (drm crippled) copy of it already! There's no need to be able to make one yourself, just jump through our hoops."
Option A: Ultraviolet acknowledges that the Ultraviolet download is a separate product and the first-sale doctrine does apply. Movie studios immediately stop bundling codes with discs, offering codes as stand-alone purchases only for the same price as DVD and Blueray. No one buys them because that's preposterous. They blame the lack of sales on piracy.
Option B: Ultraviolet clarifies that the code is part of the disc license, for the sole use of the disc owner. Everyone goes back to either buying discs and ignoring the Ultraviolet "bonus" or buying a digital copy somewhere else. They blame the lack of increase in sales on piracy.
Option C: Ultraviolet decrees that the code is a license granted to the original disc's owner and is non-transferable. Since the code and stream-able version are immutably licensed to the disc owner, and the disc owner has only paid for a single license to the content, the owner somehow loses his first-sale rights to the physical disc being unable to discontinue use of the streaming license. With no resale rights, the value of discs drops and people who would otherwise have bought physical media switch to streaming content. They blame the decrease in sales on piracy.
Huh, that's interesting. I hadn't heard about game downloads being bundled with cards like that. Do you think the situation would be any different if they had included game discs in the box instead of download codes? Or how about mail-in coupons for game discs?
Personally, I feel like you were sold two copies of the game and you should be entitled to use them as you would any other property.
Isn't the CD key meant to be used in conjunction with the disc to enable a single instance of the game? It would seem more similar to me if they included a game disc in the box and a download code; meaning two separate and independent instances of the game.
Yeah, I worry about this circumstance as well. As a consumer, my primary mode of communicating with companies is either buying their product or not buying it. If a company uses practices that I disagree with, I'll generally try to avoid giving them business. The entertainment industry however doesn't seem driven to analyze their market and consumers, arriving at the conclusion that all lost sales are someone else's fault and that all potential customers are stealing. (Not to discount the difficulty of separating these different market factors, but surely someone could if they attempted)
Normally I wouldn't care if a business or industry arrived at a faulty and ineffectual rendering of their market, but entertainment's reaction to technology has been to reach out and tamper with other industries that I am participating in. This is a pretty good kick in the nuts as a consumer who's playing by the rules and expecting some semblance of balance on the other side of the equation.
I was actually really surprised by how many commenters on Consumerist seemed to agree that this was copyright infringement or illegal in some way. A lot of the arguments pointed out that the code was "free" with the disc, or that ownership of the digital copy was predicated by ownership of the disc.
I don't feel that this is correct, since they are obviously separate items packaged together. Would they make the same argument for selling the DVD included in a BlueRay bundle? And the price you "paid" (whether it was free or included in the price of the disc) shouldn't enter the equation either. If you own something, you should be able to sell it, no matter what price you paid yourself.
I guess that means the real matter boils down to whether or not people "own" the digital copies they receive from the seller or "own" the right to access a digital copy. I imagine we'll eventually see a statement from Ultraviolet on the matter that will make consumers even more wary of this drm-full "bonus" content that is intended to assuage the erosion of our fair use rights.
On the post: Postal Service Could Be On The Hook For Millions For Daring To Memorialize The Korean War Memorial
So what do we do now?
Or does this whole thing need to get ripped out of the ground post-haste and melted down into collectible coins?
In either case I think every taxpayer in the country should go take a deuce on Frank Gaylord's front lawn.
On the post: If You Meet A Censor, Ask Why They Haven't Become Moral Degenerates Themselves
Re: The correct answer is...
On the post: ICE & FBI Hatch Ingenious Plan To Make DVD Piracy Warnings Longer
Re:
The warnings never get played if the activity they're "dissuading" happens. That is the opposite of the system you should implement. It's like a car alarm that only sounds when the owner unlocks it with the key.
On the post: ICE & FBI Hatch Ingenious Plan To Make DVD Piracy Warnings Longer
Re: Re: Re: Clearly
On the post: ICE & FBI Hatch Ingenious Plan To Make DVD Piracy Warnings Longer
Re: Re: Great!
On the post: ICE & FBI Hatch Ingenious Plan To Make DVD Piracy Warnings Longer
Re: Re: Re:
It could be YOU!
On the post: ICE & FBI Hatch Ingenious Plan To Make DVD Piracy Warnings Longer
Re: Great!
This will be more effective too, because people are stupid and will probably forget about the last insulting warning after about 9 minutes.
P.S. Despite the plethora of incongruous lawsuits and settlements you can't copyright an idea.
On the post: ICE & FBI Hatch Ingenious Plan To Make DVD Piracy Warnings Longer
Re:
I think we should also have audio warnings play when we start cars detailing how it's illegal to steal cars and how police departments arrest people for grand theft auto. It, of course, would be skipped if the car was hotwired.
On the post: RIAA Tries To Downplay Its Role In The Feds' Unjustifiable Censorship Of Dajaz1
Re: Re:
On the post: RIAA Tries To Downplay Its Role In The Feds' Unjustifiable Censorship Of Dajaz1
Who is to blame?
This post talks about "the government" and the various organizations as a whole overreaching themselves and acting outside the law. At what point are bureaucrats no longer able to shelter themselves behind the guise of office? Will it come down to a few corrupt individuals being thrown under the bus, or with the entire system manipulated in an unjust manner come under scrutiny? I'm really not sure which I would prefer at this point.
On the post: Judge Lets Feds Censor Blog For Over A Year So The RIAA Could Take Its Sweet Time
Re: The REAL question is...
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: ebay & "free" downloads
Additionally I'm a little perplexed by your free download with physical purchase offer. (I think it's cool you're working with free and digital promotions) If the download is for a copy of something they already purchased on disc, then it seems specifically designed to be passed along by the customer. After all, they just bought the CD and if they want an MP3 of the entire disc it can easily (and legally without the inclusion of DRM) be converted to that format.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: DRM used to be fun....
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Ultraviolet wha?
"See? We generously loaned you a (drm crippled) copy of it already! There's no need to be able to make one yourself, just jump through our hoops."
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re:
Option B: Ultraviolet clarifies that the code is part of the disc license, for the sole use of the disc owner. Everyone goes back to either buying discs and ignoring the Ultraviolet "bonus" or buying a digital copy somewhere else. They blame the lack of increase in sales on piracy.
Option C: Ultraviolet decrees that the code is a license granted to the original disc's owner and is non-transferable. Since the code and stream-able version are immutably licensed to the disc owner, and the disc owner has only paid for a single license to the content, the owner somehow loses his first-sale rights to the physical disc being unable to discontinue use of the streaming license. With no resale rights, the value of discs drops and people who would otherwise have bought physical media switch to streaming content. They blame the decrease in sales on piracy.
I'm putting my money on "B".
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re: Re: Public Perception
Personally, I feel like you were sold two copies of the game and you should be entitled to use them as you would any other property.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re:
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re:
Normally I wouldn't care if a business or industry arrived at a faulty and ineffectual rendering of their market, but entertainment's reaction to technology has been to reach out and tamper with other industries that I am participating in. This is a pretty good kick in the nuts as a consumer who's playing by the rules and expecting some semblance of balance on the other side of the equation.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Re:
Ponder the message your complaints actually convey. Apathy is a much scarier prospect to some people.
On the post: Is Selling Your Ultraviolet Code Copyright Infringement?
Public Perception
I don't feel that this is correct, since they are obviously separate items packaged together. Would they make the same argument for selling the DVD included in a BlueRay bundle? And the price you "paid" (whether it was free or included in the price of the disc) shouldn't enter the equation either. If you own something, you should be able to sell it, no matter what price you paid yourself.
I guess that means the real matter boils down to whether or not people "own" the digital copies they receive from the seller or "own" the right to access a digital copy. I imagine we'll eventually see a statement from Ultraviolet on the matter that will make consumers even more wary of this drm-full "bonus" content that is intended to assuage the erosion of our fair use rights.
Next >>