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

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by Vilya

One outrage at a time.

That one's a rerun, anyway.

Is using digital codes to wipe one’s ass any sort of violation?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Is using digital codes to wipe one’s ass any sort of violation?

Only if you sell the code sheets in that condition.

I guess you could sell them "ass is."

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

People are allowed to continue using the content on their discs no matter what they have done with their discs. No licensing requirements or laws stipulate that you must posses the disc as proof of license. The purchase grants the license and whatever becomes of the disc later does not cancel that license.

Where are you getting this information? Where does anything say that you have a permanent license to the content that is never transferred even if you transfer ownership of the item that granted you the license.

By your ridiculous interpretation, codified in no law or license anywhere, anyone who has ever ripped a disc of any type, CD, laserdisc, DVD, or blu-ray and then sold or lost the source disc is a criminal if they kept what they ripped.

Yes, that's correct. It's unlikely to ever be enforced because it is extremely difficult to track but it is piracy.

By your bizarre reasoning everyone who has redeemed a digital code that came with a disc purchase, kept the digital copy, and then later sold the disc is also guilty of piracy.

The digital copy is a separate license from the disc. Just as both the DVDs and Blu-ray Discs in a combo pack are separate licenses. They can legally be separated. Unlike personal copies each one of them was distributed by the studio and can only be used by one person or household at a time.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Where are you getting this information? Where does anything say that you have a permanent license to the content that is never transferred even if you transfer ownership of the item that granted you the license.

In order to be a violation of a law or a license you have to be able to show exactly what portion of that law or license was violated. No law or license states that you must retain the disc as proof of license. None.

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Yes, that's correct. It's unlikely to ever be enforced because it is extremely difficult to track but it is piracy.

Whatever it is, it is NOT piracy. No illegal copies or bootlegs are being sold.

You could argue that it is a violation of copyright and the DMCA, but that's it.

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

The digital copy is a separate license from the disc. Just as both the DVDs and Blu-ray Discs in a combo pack are separate licenses. They can legally be separated. Unlike personal copies each one of them was distributed by the studio and can only be used by one person or household at a time.

Digital copies derived from disc purchases are governed by terms of service that state that you must also own the disc. They are sold together and the digital code is NOT transferable without the disc.

[Wendell R. Breland]

Originally Posted by Vilya

People are allowed to continue using the content on their discs no matter what they have done with their discs.

For most commercially produced movie disc you must own the disc in order to have legal access to the contents on that disc. In the US you can not make a legal copy for most disc. So it would follow that you can not buy a disc, make a copy then sell the commercially produced movie disc and still claim to have legal access to the contents of that disc.

Personal view, as long as a disc owner possess his/hers purchased disc then how they use it in their private dwelling is their business.

I used to take my LD player to work for the purpose of showing certain staff members excerpts from commercially produced movie disc to highlight video and/or audio effects, lighting etc. The legal folks said I could do this with restrictions. I could not play the entire movie to the general staff because that would be a public exhibition and our institution privileges would not cover that. Did the same with my DVD and D-VHS players.

Blu-ray.COM appears to have double standards where codes included with disc is concerned. A random example here, click the slipback and it clearly states the code can not be sold separately.

Another random example, Disney TOS/TOU, in part:

A. Consumer License. If a Disney Product, or third party providing Disney Products subject to this Agreement, is configured to enable the use of software, content, virtual items or other materials owned or licensed by us, we grant you a limited, non-exclusive, non-sublicensable, non-transferable license to access and use in the United States such software, content, virtual item or other material for your personal, noncommercial use only, only for as long as that Disney Product is made available to you by us, or an authorized third party, and only in accordance with this Agreement and/or the specific terms that apply to that Disney Product, with no right to reproduce, distribute, communicate to the public, make available to the public, or transform any Disney Product, in any media format or channel now known or hereafter devised (except as may be expressly described or contemplated within the Disney Product).

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

In order to be a violation of a law or a license you have to be able to show exactly what portion of that law or license was violated. No law or license states you must retain the disc as proof of license. None.

As I previously stated the DMCA makes it illegal to make copies in the first place. There doesn't need to be separate laws about selling discs after making copies because the copies are already illegal.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

As I previously stated the DMCA makes it illegal to make copies in the first place. There doesn't need to be separate laws about selling discs after making copies because the copies are already illegal.

The DMCA makes it illegal to defeat copy protection or DRM. Intellectual property without DRM can be copied without violating the DMCA.

Regardless, there is no requirement that anyone retain a disc as proof of license. None.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The DMCA makes it illegal to defeat copy protection or DRM. Intellectual property without DRM can be copied without violating the DMCA.

And you would never ever rip a disc that contained copy protection, would you?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

And you would never ever rip a disc that contained copy protection, would you?

I consider the DMCA to be unsettled law as it faces continuing legal challenges.

The software that I use for making back-ups does not tell me when it encounters DRM.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I consider the DMCA to be unsettled law as it faces continuing legal challenges.

The software that I use for making back-ups does not tell me when it encounters DRM.

I don't agree with the DMCA either but you keep arguing legality, not ethics. You keep pointing out that there is no law specifically preventing people from selling their discs after they make a copy. There are laws that prevent you from making a copy in the first place (for the vast majority of discs) so there don't need to be any additional laws.

My personal view is that movie discs shouldn't be treated any differently from any of the other property you own: if you sell the property you shouldn't be able to use it anymore.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

For most commercially produced movie disc you must own the disc in order to have legal access to the contents on that disc. In the US you can not make a legal copy for most disc. So it would follow that you can not buy a disc, make a copy then sell the commercially produced movie disc and still claim to have legal access to the contents of that disc.

Personal view, as long as a disc owner possess his/hers purchased disc then how they use it in their private dwelling is their business.

I used to take my LD player to work for the purpose of showing certain staff members excerpts from commercially produced movie disc to highlight video and/or audio effects, lighting etc. The legal folks said I could do this with restrictions. I could not play the entire movie to the general staff because that would be a public exhibition and our institution privileges would not cover that. Did the same with my DVD and D-VHS players.

Blu-ray.COM appears to have double standards where codes included with disc is concerned. A random example here, click the slipback and it clearly states the code can not be sold separately.

Another random example, Disney TOS/TOU, in part:

As there is no requirement that you retain a disc as proof of license, there is also no requirement to explain what became of it. No one has to show their disc to the disc police when they use their home movie server. If they can't show their disc, there is also no requirement that they explain what happened to it.

The DMCA has created the idiotic situation where it is permissible to make back-ups of intellectual property contained on media lacking DRM. I can make all the back-ups I want of my Star Wars laserdiscs, but not of my Star Wars blu-rays. It is simply ridiculous.

Blu-ray.com has an entire forum for trafficking in digital codes. I naively wrote to them about this once and even showed them a sample of a TOS governing digital codes and they just shrugged it off saying that they have been allowing this for years.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I don't agree with the DMCA either but you keep arguing legality, not ethics. You keep pointing out that there is no law specifically preventing people from selling their discs after they make a copy. There are laws that prevent you from making a copy in the first place (for the vast majority of discs) so there don't need to be any additional laws.

My personal view is that movie discs shouldn't be treated any differently from any of the other property you own: if you sell the property you shouldn't be able to use it anymore.

I am saying that these are separate things getting conflated together.

Selling a used legitimate disc is legal with no need for an affidavit explaining how it was used prior to selling it.

If making a personal use copy is illegal, then it is either a copyright violation, a DMCA violation, or both, but it is not piracy. There is no trafficking in counterfeit goods occurring.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

As there is no requirement that you retain a disc as proof of license, there is also no requirement to explain what became of it. No one has to show their disc to the disc police when they use their home movie server. If they can't show their disc, there is also no requirement that they explain what happened to it.

The DMCA has created the idiotic situation where it is permissible to make back-ups of intellectual property contained on media lacking DRM. I can make all the back-ups I want of my Star Wars laserdiscs, but not of my Star Wars blu-rays. It is simply ridiculous.

If you're going to use a legal defense to justify what is acceptable then you can't pick and choose which laws to follow.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

If you're going to use a legal defense to justify what is acceptable then you can't pick and choose which laws to follow.

The very concept of civil disobedience is predicated upon the idea of refusing to obey an unjust law in order to protest against it. It is a bedrock democratic principle.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The very concept of civil disobedience is predicated upon the idea of refusing to obey an unjust law in order to protest against it. It is a bedrock democratic principle.

If that's your attitude you shouldn't focus on something being acceptable because it isn't illegal. You shouldn't bring legality into the argument at all.

Is this your argument?

• It is acceptable to copy non copy-protected discs and then sell the discs because there is no law that specifically prevents it.
• It is also acceptable to copy copy-protected discs because the law that prevents it is ridiculous.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

If that's your attitude to shouldn't focus on something being acceptable because it isn't illegal.

Is this your argument?

• It is acceptable to copy non copy-protected discs and then sell the discs because there is no law that specifically prevents it.
• It is also acceptable to copy copy-protected discs because the law that prevents it is ridiculous.

You can not violate a law that does not exist. Pretty simple, really.

Deciding when civil disobedience is warranted is a very personal matter as it does carry potential risks. We each have to decide if the principle that we believe in, and are fighting for, is worth the price that we may have to pay.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

You can not violate a law that does not exist. Pretty simple, really.

But you can still think that an action is unacceptable or unethical whether it is illegal or not.

If you sell a piece of property you should not retain access to that property. Pretty simple, really.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

But you can still think that an action is unacceptable or unethical whether it is illegal or not.

If you sell a piece of property you should not retain access to that property. Pretty simple, really.

Vilya's ethics and Penguin's ethics are not law. These are our own personal values and choices. We each have to decide for ourselves what is right and what is wrong. That's why I said earlier:

Originally Posted by Vilya

Follow your own moral compass.

An unjust law should be challenged. A just law should be upheld.

Again, real estate is not licensed intellectual property.

If I were to attempt to use that real estate after having sold it I am infringing upon the ability of the new owner to enjoy what is now theirs.

My watching a back-up copy of a disc later sold in no way infringes upon the ability of the new owner to enjoy their disc.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

People are allowed to continue using the content on their discs no matter what they have done with their discs. No licensing requirements or laws stipulate that you must posses the disc as proof of license. The purchase grants the license and whatever becomes of the disc later does not cancel that license.

The logical outcome if everyone shared your view would be that practically no one would keep their discs. Everyone would buy discs, rip them, and sell them. Each disc would provide thousands of people with a permanent copy for an extremely low price. The studios would make a pittance of what they make now.

If this is acceptable and legal behavior then the studios are absolutely justified in releasing everything exclusively via digital platforms where people can't transfer licenses.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

The logical outcome if everyone shared your view would be that practically no one would keep their discs. Everyone would buy discs, rip them, and sell them. Each disc would provide thousands of people with a permanent copy for an extremely low price. The studios would make a pittance of what they make now.

If this is acceptable and legal behavior then the studios are absolutely justified in releasing everything exclusively via digital platforms where people can't transfer licenses.

That outcome is far from logical. Ripping discs is a pain in the arse. It requires software, time (a lot of it), and money (possibly a lot) spent on storage devices. Few people have any interest in doing all of this.

Used discs don't command much of a price, either, unless they are OOP or otherwise collectible. Selling them is another pain in the patootie and for very small reward if you find a buyer at all.

Studios may distribute their intellectual property as they see fit. I don't have to like it, but it is theirs to do with as they choose. If they want to restrict access to digital platforms, that's perfectly legal. We know this because they are doing it already with lots of digital and streaming exclusives.

Whether or not it is acceptable varies with each of us. Digital distribution as the only option is a nightmare scenario for me, but some here would have no problem with it. Some here would even welcome it.