Physical & Digital EST: The Future of Home Video Discussion Thread

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

No one but myself has access to my back-ups the same as with my discs. How do you figure otherwise?

If you give your disc to someone else they can make a back-up. They can then give it to someone else and they can make a back-up too. They can then give it to someone else and they can make a back-up too. They can then... you get the idea.

Under your logic as long as each person legally owned the disc when they made a back-up this is perfectly legal. Therefore an unlimited number of people can have a permanent copy from one disc.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

If you give your disc to someone else they can make a back-up. They can then give it to someone else and they can make a back-up too. They can then give it to someone else and they can make a back-up too. They can then... you get the idea.

Under your logic as long as each person legally owned the disc when they made a back-up this is perfectly legal. Therefore an unlimited number of people can have a permanent copy from one disc.

I do not lend my discs nor my back-ups and even if I did I am not responsible for the decisions made by others.

Each person that legally purchases a legitimate disc may choose to back it up. Most won't. Even you have never argued against our ability to make back-ups for personal use.

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Making a back-up is legal and selling the used disc is legal.

Your argument up to this point has been solely about what you believe our obligations are after making a back-up. The First Sales Doctrine, which governs the sales of used media, does not support your beliefs.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Each person that legally purchases a legitimate disc may choose to back it up. Most won't. Even you have never argued against our ability to make back-ups for personal use.

A backup is a copy made in case of accidental loss. If you sell the disc it isn't accidental.

Originally Posted by Vilya

Your argument up to this point has been solely about what you believe our obligations are afterwards. The First Sales Doctrine which governs the sales of used media does not support your beliefs.

Nor is the concept that anyone who bought a legal copy has permanent access to its content whether they keep the disc or not. This is the basis of your argument but it is not stated anywhere.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Nor is the concept that anyone who bought a legal copy has permanent access to its content whether they keep the disc or not. This is the basis of your argument but it is not stated anywhere.

Laws only prohibit specified actions and they ascribe specific penalties for committing those actions. That which is not explicitly prohibited has always been presumed to be legal.

In order to charge someone with a crime they have to have violated a law that contains all of the pertinent details.

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

A backup is a copy made in case of accidental loss. If you sell the disc it isn't accidental.

That is merely YOUR definition of a back-up. No law that I am aware of defines it that way. If there is one, please do share it.

Back-ups are legally permitted for "personal use"; what constitutes "personal use" varies.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Laws only prohibit specified actions and they ascribe specific penalties for committing those actions. That which is not explicitly prohibited has always been presumed to be legal.

In order to charge someone with a crime they have to have violated a law that contains the all of the pertinent details.

As it currently stands breaking copy-protection is almost always illegal due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So therefore all copying of DVDs and Blu-ray discs with copy-protection is illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_St..._Studios,_Inc.

If we are only arguing law (and not ethics) then making back-ups is illegal regardless of whether you keep the disc or not.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

As it currently stands breaking copy-protection is almost always illegal due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. So therefore all copying of DVDs and Blu-ray discs with copy-protection is illegal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_St..._Studios,_Inc.

If we are only arguing law (and not ethics) then making back-ups is illegal regardless of whether you keep the disc or not.

The DMCA only prevents circumventing copy protection software or DRM. It does not prohibit making back-ups unless you have to bypass DRM to do so.

The DMCA continues to be challenged because CDs, which contain material that is every bit as copyrighted as any movie, can legally be backed up simply because they lack DRM.

My laserdiscs, which contain copyrighted movies and TV shows, can also be legally backed up because like CDs they, too, contain no DRM.

Not all DVDs and blu-rays contain copy protection software while still containing copyrighted content and these, too, are exempt from the DMCA. Sure, most such discs have DRM, but many early titles to each format did not.

The argument against the DMCA centers upon these contradictions. Back-ups of CDs are legal. Back-ups of laserdiscs are legal. Back-ups of some DVDs and blu-rays are legal. It is rather absurd to expect the average consumer to know which media has DRM, and which does not, on a format by format and a disc by disc basis.

Despite the DMCA, the software that makes all of this backing up possible is perfectly legal to buy. It is like we are legally selling copy machines, but forbidding the making of copies.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Despite the DMCA, the software that makes all of this backing up possible is perfectly legal to buy.

No it isn't. That's exactly what the court case I pointed to was about.

Originally Posted by Vilya

The argument against the DMCA centers upon these contradictions. Back-ups of CDs are legal. Back-ups of laserdiscs are legal. Back-ups of some DVDs and blu-rays are legal. It is rather absurd to expect the average consumer to know which media has DRM, and which does not, on a format by format and a disc by disc basis.

That's not hard at all. If you can copy it without software that breaks copy-protection then it must not have copy-protection. If you need to use such software then it's illegal to copy.

By the way all pressed Blu-ray discs contain copy protection. That was stipulated by the Blu-ray Disc Association.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

No it isn't. That's exactly what the court case I pointed to was about.



That's not hard at all. If you can copy it without software that breaks copy-protection then it must not have copy-protection. If you need to use such software then it's illegal to copy.

By the way all pressed Blu-ray discs contain copy protection. That was stipulated by the Blu-ray Disc Association.

I own several such types of software all legally purchased from established and well known vendors right here in the U.S. Forum rules prohibit my being more specific as this type of software can be abused.

Burning ROMS are software and most of them do not tell you if they are encountering and defeating DRM or not. They just duplicate the disc. The software I use never tells me if it is defeating DRM to complete its function.

Made on demand blu-rays, the burned ones to be precise, fall outside of the Blu-ray Disc Association and that is why they do not carry the official blu-ray logo on them. Example:

vs something like this

The first one lacks the blu-ray logo as it is a made on demand title and burned upon a BD-R.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I own several such types of software all legally purchased from established and well known vendors right here in the U.S. Forum rules prohibit my being more specific as this type of software can be abused.

Being available from an established well known vendor doesn't mean it is legal. It just means the vendor wasn't aware. There are plenty of bootleg DVDs and Blu-ray discs being sold on Amazon.com. Do you think those are all legal just because they are being sold at an established and well know vendor?

Burning ROMS are software and most of them do not tell you if they are encountering and defeating DRM or not. They just duplicate the disc.

The ones that defeat DRM are illegal in the United States. But the companies are established in other countries where it is legal and the US has no jurisdiction.

Made on demand blu-rays, the burned ones to be precise, fall outside of the Blu-ray Disc Association and that is why they do not carry the official blu-ray logo on them. Example:

[Show spoiler] vs something like this

The first one lacks the blu-ray logo as it is a made on demand title and burned upon a BD-R.

I'm well aware of that, hence why I said all pressed Blu-ray discs contain copy protection.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Being available from an established well known vendor doesn't mean it is legal. It just means the vendor wasn't aware. There are plenty of bootleg DVDs and Blu-ray discs being sold on Amazon.com. Do you think those are all legal just because they are being sold at an established and well know vendor?


The ones that defeat DRM are illegal.

I said "vendors", plural. I doubt that ALL of them are selling the same software while being oblivious to its legality. The software that I have been using does not say if it has encountered DRM.

I have been buying and using this software for more than 10 years. That's plenty of time for even the most dim witted of vendors to purge illegal products from their inventory. There are new versions for 2023 available now.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I said "vendors", plural. I doubt that ALL of them are selling the same software while being oblivious to its legality.

I have been buying and using this type of software for more than 15 years. That's plenty of time for even the most dim witted of vendors to purge illegal products from their inventories.

The United States government has only gone after a few pieces of software that broke copy protection. Every time they did the company was forced to stop selling it. There are way too many of those programs for the government to try to stop all of them and unless they do the vendors have no reason to stop selling them.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

The United States government has only gone after a few pieces of software that broke copy protection. Every time they did the company was forced to stop selling it. There are way too many of those programs for the government to try to stop all of them and unless they do the vendors have no reason to stop selling them.

Pretty amazing that I have been able to buy the same brand for over 10 years.

A grand conspiracy then? Established and well known vendors are risking breaking the law because of a lack of enforcement? They have no concerns for legal consequences or for their reputations because this market segment is that lucrative?

Can you breathe okay with all that tin foil around your head?

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

A grand conspiracy then? Established and well known vendors are risking breaking the law because of a lack of enforcement? They have no concerns for legal consequences or for their reputations because this market segment is that lucrative?

Can you breathe okay with all that tin foil around your head?

What makes the software in the court case I linked to previously different from the other software you are using?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Studios_v._Metro_Goldwyn_Mayer_Studios,_Inc.

321 Studios had to stop selling its software because it broke copy protection and therefore violated the DMCA. Why do you think the other software is exempt from the same laws?

[Vilya]

My glass of STFU wasn't large enough. My apologies.

This conversation occurred late at night, so hopefully most of you were not here to be annoyed by it.

Again, follow your own moral compass.

I have been buying legitimate copies of my video entertainment for over three decades and I will back-up those titles that I deem need it. I started with backing up my rarest laserdiscs over 15 years ago and I will keep making back-ups as I see fit.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I have been buying legitimate copies of my video entertainment for over three decades and I will back-up those titles that I deem need it. I started with backing up my rarest laserdiscs over 15 years ago and I will keep making back-ups as I see fit.

Just to be clear: I don't agree with the DMCA. I think that making back-ups for personal use should always be legal. But back-ups of content you no longer legally possess should not be legal.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

What makes the software in the court case I linked to previously different from the other software you are using?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Studios_v._Metro_Goldwyn_Mayer_Studios,_Inc.

321 Studios had to stop selling its software because it broke copy protection and therefore violated the DMCA. Why do you think the other software is exempt from the same laws?

I rarely even bother to read Wikipedia articles anymore seeing as literally ANYONE, including ME, can edit them to say anything that they want. Citing Wikipedia has become like citing a Twitter post.

I don't know anything about that brand. Never heard of it. Never used it.

The one I primarily use has been available for over a decade and even has a new version for 2023 available now. How this brand has endured for so long if it is indeed illegal defies any explanation that I can offer.

People are using some kind of software to rip all of their discs to their home movie servers and often at the individual file level picking and choosing exactly what they want to keep or discard and that software is readily available, too.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The one I primarily use has been available for over a decade and even has a new version for 2023 available now. How this brand has endured for so long if it is indeed illegal defies any explanation that I can offer.

I'm trying to figure out what this software you bought from multiple reputable vendors is that breaks copy protection. Can I ask what vendors continue to sell the product (assuming they also sell other products and not just copy-protection breaking software)?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I'm trying to figure out what this software you bought from multiple reputable vendors is that breaks copy protection. Can I ask what vendors continue to sell the product (assuming they also sell other products and not just copy-protection breaking software)?

It's too risky to say as this website does not like any discussion that can lead someone to buying such software. We both could be in trouble already for even discussing it in broad non-specific terms.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

It's too risky to say as this website does not like any discussion that can lead someone to buying such software. We both could be in trouble already for even discussing it in broad non-specific terms.

Is is available from major U.S. software stores like Amazon or Newegg or any major brick & mortar stores in the U.S.?

If not then it could easily get around U.S. laws and would be too hard to enforce its removal.

[Vilya]

I don't think that I have bought software in a brick and mortar store since Egghead's stores closed up.