Do you guys think it's stealing to rent a DVD and rip (copy) a scene from the DVD to your computer's hard drive? Let's assume you don't then share this file with others on the internet. I know that it's technically illegal, but do you think it should be? What's the point in making a law that's impossible to enforce? How is it any different from DVRing a movie from your cable or satellite, or even recording a song from the radio with a tape recorder?
Yes, it certainly is stealing. You are making a copy for your use without actually purchasing it. Whether you share or sell it is irrelevant to that basic fact. You may be posting this question to help yourself rationalize theft. If you need to do that, you know the real answer too.
As for making laws you can't enforce, the truth is all laws are after the fact things. And if you are found to have this, for whatever reason like somebody knowing and reporting you because they got pissed off, you will find out is can be enforced. But going with your sidetracking, there are laws against rape and murder too. While these laws don't actually stop anybody from committing these crimes - a person next to you can simply pick up something solid and bash your head in - they do provide penalties if there is evidence and a trial.
It's not stealing; it's copyright infringement. It's still illegal in most places, though.
Up until a couple of years ago, doing what you described was perfectly legal here in Denmark; you could borrow a CD or DVD (e.g. at a library) and make a copy for yourself; but you were not allowed to make further copies from that copy, only from an original.
IIRC, other legislation was introduced, barring anyone from circumventing copy-protection schemes. This way you could still legally copy CDs and DVDs that were not copy-protected; but those with copy-protection, you could not. Quite how anyone was supposed to know whether any specific CD or DVD was indeed copyprotected or not, when just about any old copying program broke those protection schemes automatically, I can't imagine. Bureaucrats.
I'm not sure what the situation is now; legislation was proposed, banning it completely; but I can't remember whether it was passed.
Anyhu, that's all neither here nor there, as I expect you're a USian, BadDoggy; so whether other countries have loop-holes is of no consequence to you if you're breaking US laws. And if someone does sue your copyright infringing heinie, is your lawyer likely to try arguing the "impossible to enforce" defence?
An argument is only a rationalization if it's wrong. The purpose of this thread wasn't to assuage a guilty conscience, but to strike up a respectful conversation about a controversial subject. There are many intelligent and thoughtful people who don't think that intellectual property is such a black and white issue. I'm of the opinion that many of our current laws are unjust, and that it is not immoral to violate an unjust law.
Intellectual property rights are very different from physical property rights because they bump up against free speech. That's why patents and copyrights eventually expire. Intellectual property should be a utilitarian tool designed to encourage creative endeavors. Governments should give intellectual property rights to individuals not for the right holders benefit, but for the benefit to society. To quote the US constitution, the purpose of intellectual property is "To promote the progress of science and the useful arts by securing for a limited time to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective rights and discoveries." Intellectual property is a means to an end, not an end in itself, and our government should keep this in mind when they make the laws. We need to strike the right balance between intellectual property rights and fair use rights, with the ultimate goal being to maximize the benefit to society, NOT to protect some imaginary absolute right.
Traditionally, I think our courts have done a fairly decent job of this, but new draconian legislation is taking it out of their hands. Foreinstance, it's not to the benefit of society as a whole to make it a felony for someone to create a backup copy of a DVD that they legally own, or to send someone to jail for uploading a photo taken by their wedding photographer to a family album website. In my opinion, all criminal copyright laws should be abolished. Copyright holders should bear the responsiblity for curbing infringement through lawsuits. Take it to the civil courts and leave it out of the criminal courts.
By the way, I did a little research and as far as I can tell, it's not actually a crime to make a copy of a DVD that you rent as long as 1) You don't distribute it, and 2) You don't circumvent any copyright protection on the disc (and the majority of adult DVDs aren't encrypted). But if a disc is encrypted, it's a felony to make a copy of it even if you legally own it.
Look at it this way, the more people steal, the less the company creating the product make, in turn the less they pay performers, directors, writers, etc and the higher the price they have to make the product to continue to turn a profit. Eventually with this cycle there isn't enough money to make it worth creating a product and there won't be anything new for you to steal. Then you'll be bitching that there isn't anything to steal.
Making a duplication of something that you don't own is piracy, whether you share it or not, and ADT supports studios and not piracy.
You don't actually want somebody's intellectual rights - an idea, design, or concept. You want the direct result of somebody's work without paying for it. You aren't getting your own camera and people to film your own scene that is just like their's. So it is okay for you to make porn and even copy themes - the actual intellectual property. You have no real interest in that. Your questions would be different if you were. You just want to own a porn library without the cost of ownership. The actual images you are pirating are protected under copywrite laws. There is no question of intellectual property vs. fair use laws. You quite explicitly rented a movie. Rent - not bought, temporarily gained the rights to view. The law has no issue with this. Trying to act as if this were about greater rights - getting more than what you had agreed to - doesn't change any of the underlying facts. As for whether or not it is stealing, ask the RIAA and the people they have gone after. My initial answer was not legal, but moral. And it is wrong, to anybody who isn't a thief.
The issue might not be black and white, but that doesn't mean the answer to your question isn't very, very dark gray. At the heart of the issue is the fact that the product exists to be sold. You wish to take possession of that product without paying (permanently, I assume, not to be deleted at the end of the rental period). Most would say that's a very workable definition of stealing. I would as well.
On the other hand, when I was a kid, I used to copy Apple II games. My rationalization was that as a kid, I had no ability to pay for those games, so the software producers weren't really losing money that they could otherwise receive. I still think there's a kernel of moral truth there, but that's no longer the case as an adult, and I don't copy software, music or movies now.
The "unenforceable" argument -- that it's easy to do, so it shouldn't be illegal -- doesn't make sense to me either. It's easy to slip a roll of Mentos into your pocket at the drugstore. The cops will never catch you. But there's still a point to making it against the law.
I agree with much of what he says, even if he does get up many people's noses; but a thing to note here is that copyrights expire , meaning that the copyright was indeed awarded in the first place.
Without any sort of copyright, most porn or fictional mainstream movies would never be made; same goes for books and music.
After how long a copyright, patent or any other notion of intellectual property should expire, is another matter. While I don't see any particular benefit in having Donald Duck and friends revert to the public domain, I do think it's a slippery slope that corporate lobbyists have managed to extend the expiration date of copyrights far beyond the original intent.
Still, BadDoggy, I don't get the feeling from your posts that you're making any distinction between old porn and new porn. You could argue that porn (and non-porn) movies older than, say, 20 years should now be in the public domain - I actually do wonder whether that would increase or decrease my chances of ever seeing a digitised and cleaned up re-release of my favourite 80s porn movies - but if you're advocating that you should have the legal right to make a copy for yourself of any original movie that happens to pass through your hands, I'm pretty sure that if you had your way in that, it would lead to a marked decrease in the production of porn movies, including whatever type of porn you favour.
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Movies clearly fall under the umbrella of intellectal property. The actual DVD disc is physical property, but the movie on that disc is intellectual property.So I presume you think that recording movies from your satelite with a DVR is also stealing, and should be criminalized? If not, how is that any different from recording a movie from a non-encypted DVD? And for the record, I don't even own a DVD-ROM for my PC yet, but will soon be getting one when I get a new PC. I do, however, have a nice collection of adult movies stored on my DISH Network receiver/DVR.You are talking about crime prevention, while I'm talking about the ability to prosecute a crime after it has already been committed. If someone copies a DVD to their HD, but never tells another living soul about it, then no one will ever know. Here's an analogy... let's say there's some guy who, whenever he masturbates, thinks about sick and twisted things like raping and murdering children. Now, even if I believe that it's immoral to entertain such fantasies, I would still say it's pointless to make the activity criminal because the only way to prosecute the crime would be if the person confessed to someone that he did it.I think this raises an important issue. Unlike the theft of real property, the so-called "theft" of intellectual property only involes a hypothetical victim. The actual copying of a DVD does no harm to the copyright holder. The copyright holder is only negatively affected if the person who copies the product would have otherwised purchased it. This cannont be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.No, I'm not familiar with him.I'm not opposed to all copyright laws. I'm just against criminal copyright laws. I think the RIAA mananged to take down Napster without a single criminal charge ever being filed by the government. One advantage of making the copyright holder responsible for defending their intellectual property is that it's more efficient economically. Let the RIAA decide whether or not a particular infringement warrants the cost of litigation. As it is, rights holders are perfectly happy to watch $10,000 worth of taxpayer money be spent on a prosection, if that prosecuation increases their profits by $5,000. But mostly, I'm against making copyright infringement criminal (something can be illegal without being criminal) because the punishment does not fit the misdeed.
It cost money to make and distribute. It took time and money to convince somebody to do this. Sales numbers are used to get funding for new projects or kill them.
And while you are allowed to make an archival copy, this is only true if you actually own a CD/DVD. This right does not extend to people who merely rent. So from the basis of your arguement, it helps you not.
MOD: Guys, let's make sure that this discussion stays on the topic of legal vs illegal. If any post gets anywhere near the "how to's" of making copies, that post will be edited/deleted and the thread will be shut down,
One man's trash can be the next man's treasure. 1187 Posts 1/04
Posted - Jul 11 2006 : 5:48PM
'It's A Wonderful Life' has no copyright. For lack of a timely $3 and the right paperwork, the film's copyright wasn't renewed and now it's public domain. The film flopped in the theatre's 60 years ago and would have slipped into obscurity most likely but the lack of ownership allowed TV stations to air it for free and lo and behold the film is now a staple of Christmas season films. It got more and more popular as the years went by. Amazingly, the colorized version, which Capra hated to the day he died, is copyrighted. Jimmy Stewart testified before Congress about the colorized copyright version and mentioned it sickened him and he had to turn it off. That, my friends, is really stealing.
haven´t read everything what had been said here but let me say it this way. If i go to a videorentalstore i usually want to watch the stuff i get when i want and not when i rent it. And if i´m lucky to catch more than one movie at a time i´ll get all i can carry. I couldn´t care less what "someone" thinks i´m allowed to or not. Those movies are being either deleted afterwards anyway or i´ll buy the original movie for my collection. All "they" do is to make it harder for "Timeshift" viewers like myself. The can go to hell as far as i´m concerned.
I´d rather stop renting/buying/whatever than to accept any of those "new" gimmicks we are presented with almost every day. Take HTDV for instance ... does the industry really think they find enough (sorry for saying this) stupid people to buy their new product that forbids the consumer to make copies for timeshift viewing ? On the other hand let´s not underestimate the amount zerobrainers on this planet
Yea, he paid to rent their dvd and they got said dvd back. He bought his dvdr media and cpu. He owns that, and the right to put anythinng on it that he sees fit. This is America.
He rented for a time period, and agreed to return within a certain time. If he does not return within agreed time period he is charged again. What he does with the dvd within the time period he paid for, thats his own business.
If any studio wants to keep anyone from pirating, they should stop allowing rentals. But, since rentals make up a large share of sales they will allow it.
They cannot have their cake and eat it too.
So what if an individual buys, and then collects money for letting ppl borrow it, what then? Then what if he says that you can borrow it for free? They would have a fit.
Besides, all of the good dvd's are all much larger than the standard 4.7 gigs. So all you get is a shrunken to fit, pixilated new piece of garbage. If you like watching it like that, thats up tp you.
Most JM dvd's are around 6 or 7 gigs, and that is what I like to watch.
So I have a collection of 35+ JM dvd's, because I like quality and not pixilated pieces of crap.
If you like it, buy it.
As rumored on G4, the Sony PS3 will not allow any media that you do not own. You cannot play rentals, borrowed friends media, or pre played media.
Only what you purchase at new, FULL, factory price.
There is a certain honor in that, no hypocricy in collecting money by selling to rental places with their right hand, and raising a fist and crying piracy with their left.
He returned it, but the rental does not confer the right to copy. The fact that a law is hard to enforce doesn't mean it isn't stealing either. Nor is the fact that studios make money from rentals. Certainly they take the risk by selling to renting buisnesses, but that does not mean it wasn't stealing either.
For instance there are other crimes that are hard to solve or are far down on the police's priority list. Perhaps in leaving your residence you get mugged and beat up a bit. But the police have higher priority crimes to solve and this is down on their list. It never gets solved. Was a crime committed against you?
I haven't kept up with the rumour mill; where did you get that?
They'd be killing their own format before it got off the ground if they made it impossible to borrow movies from friends; and, as you said, rentals bring in profits too.
Dude you are the king of ridiculous hypotheticals. That is a question that everyone would agree on so you think that saying yes means that you are right about rental/piracy question. That saying yes would lend some credence to your argument.
But, the 2 questions have nothing to do with each other. So no such credit will be given.
That technique is frequently used in advertising and politics, and no one here will be falling for it.
Maybe you should stick to things that relate to the topic, or just plain agree to disagree.
It is in fact your technique. So heed your own advice.
You bring up the fact that studios make money from rentals, so they allow the access that makes pirating easy - without really addressing if it is stealing or not.
No, my two examples have a relationship, they relate a Hypocrisy of how these studios are crying out of both sides of their mouths, and how they cannot have their cake and eat it too. They are their own biggest problem, and until they want to fix it and give up the rental revenue, they should keep quiet. Do you see how they Relate?
It is not some random and completely abstract hypothetical mugging, not having anything to do with anything other than to get ppl to say "yes, you are right about that". Of course mugging someone is a crime.
Mugging someone will always be a crime, burning dvd copies is not always a crime regardless of any biased opinion for or against.
Just you should heed my advice.
.
"Thats like asking someone if they want free pie and chips. Of course I want free pie and chips. Its Pie, with chips, For Free" lol!
He paid to rent the right to watch the content of the disc for a period of time. He wasn't paying to just to rent the physical disc.He doesn't have the right to put copyrighted material that he doesn't own onto his own media. That's piracy and it's illegal. This is America. Copyright laws are expected to be respected.
Thats where we disagree. I say he does, and if he does it does not bother me a bit.
I say that if he paid, what he does with it is his own business.
It is a moral argument about what should or should not be legal.
Subjective, much the same way that I feel that the govmt. telling us that cancer causing cigarettes are legal, but marijuana is illegal. Back in the day the big wigs on tobacco Rd had the govmt's ear and successfully had it criminalized while keeping their product legal. Also, why prostitution is legal in one county in NV, but illegal everywhere else in America. These types of subjective topics along with obscenity have so much grey that it is hard to argue for either right or wrong. there is no concensus, only popular opinion, unlike other more black and white issues such as mugging being wrong.
I have no problem with it if thats what you choose to do with your rental, if you have a moral dilemma about doing it, then don't.
That is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. Nothing that you or anyone says will change my opinion, and I'm sure its vice versa for you.
It's not a moral argument about whether we think that it should or shouldn't be illegal. It's a legal argument about whether it is or isn't illegal. There is no debate on that topic. In the US, it is illegal . End of story.
You can argue what you think the law should be until you are blue in the face. That won't change federal copyright laws.
Hey Bill, read the original post, he asked our opinion on it, I gave mine. So yes, it was a moral question and not a debate on wether or not it was legal or illegal.
And lurker, if the FBI ever posted a question about the same subject I would give the same answer. My name and email address is on previous posts, and I really don't care who knows my opinion on the subject.
Do not confuse right with ability. Your hypothetical person doesn't have the right to put anything on his DVD media which he neither owns nor has permission to put on it.Wrong again. The material itself is protected by copyright, not by the rental agreement.Pirates can work with purchased DVD's just as well, a fact I'm sure you're well aware of.This seems like a rehash of the irrational argument that if you don't like something then it is worthless, so stealing it is OK. If you didn't like it and it had no value then you wouldn't steal it. QED
As to the morality of your position, you are breaking the covenant that came along with purchasing the product. You may not like the covenant but I say, so what? We aren't talking about bread and water here. These companies are not preventing you from obtaining life's necessities. They are providing entertainment. Any claims you make towards your right to their entertainment only serves to point out how shallow you are.
Go back and read your post. You wrote that he has the right to copy a rented disc. He doesn't have the right to copy the disc. It's illegal to do so.
If you wanted to say that you think that he should have the right to make a copy, that's what you should have written. Instead, you wrote your reply as if it were fact, not opinion.
My example isn't that abstract. And you probably derive some benifit from leaving your house - like an income and a social life. But hit and run accidents and crime are a possible hazard, one that apparently you should not complain about.
However, the fact that these hazards exist for studios have nothing to do with legality, they have to do with whether or not something is wrong or illegal. You were merely trying to obscure the basic question by pointing out that a profit is made by studios - nothing at all relevant. What is this designed to do? Point out that a profit is made to create some false inferrence that there was no theft in spite of what all the copywrite laws and court precident say? Poor slight of hand. Well the previous posts point out the holes in your logic.
Speaking of US copyright laws, here's one that I learned back in college which most people are not aware of and is probably broken by someone you know and probably by you and are totally unaware of it.
If you buy a movie, only YOU are allowed to watch it and no one else. So your family member, friends, neighbors needs to buy a copyright license to watch it with you if you want to do it the LEGAL way. How that is that policed is obviously impossible so no one bothers with this law. But it is the law so should all of us follow it or should be disregard it and sweep it under the rug?
Copyright laws can be very gray and very confusing and in order to understand it will probably require a class in at the least elementary school so people understand the little details. Like is it illegal for me to make a copy of CD and put it on my IPod? How many digital copies am I allowed to make if so? Let's say I have 2 computers at home, am I allowed to have a song in both of them or not? Let's say I'm the only one who lives there. Some people think algebra is difficult? Copyright laws are even harder because they change by the day.
What i find rather funny is ... i often see dvds in a lot of rental places that have a printing on them saying "this dvd is for sale only" and yet it´s right in front of you in a rental store :) How is that possible ? [timeout_off]
The only times that I've seen that is when the store has put it on the disc. There are some discs that they only sell and others that they rent. Usually, these are inexpensive catalog DVD's. However, one store in my area doesn't rent "big" multi-disc titles like "Pirates". They think that they can get more people to buy them if they doesn't rent these discs.
