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

[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.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

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.

I've sold thousands of discs, it's not difficult at all. If I held your view I could easily save tens of thousands of dollars by selling the rest of my discs.

Your view that every single person that has ever owned a disc has a legal right to access the content on the disc forever is utter nonsense and is not supported anywhere.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

I've sold thousands of discs, it's not difficult at all. If I held your view I could easily save tens of thousands of dollars by selling the rest of my discs.

Your view that every single person that has ever owned a disc has a legal right to the content on the disc is utter nonsense and is not supported anywhere.

Backing them up is pain. Selling discs and dealing with customers is a pain and the return is seldom worth the effort. The former pain is worth it.

Purchase of a legitimate disc grants a permanent license. There is no requirement to keep the disc. It is supported by the fact that you can not cite any law or license that states that the disc must be retained as proof of license.

You have already said that you have no problems with people having a back-up of a lost or stolen disc. It is okay with you that they have no disc to offer up as proof of ever having truly owned the disc. They could be lying to you, what then? A full blown audit and carried out by who exactly?

You think that mere possession of a piece of plastic grants the license. If so, every shoplifter has a license. That's utter nonsense.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

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.

There is no sense in making a law that is not enforceable.

• It is impossible to prevent people from making copies of non copy-protected material.
• It is impossible to know if someone has retained a copy after they sell the original.
• It is possible to criminalize software that breaks copy-protection.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

You have already said that you have no problems with people having a back-up of a lost or stolen disc. It is okay with you that they have no disc to offer up as proof of ever having truly owned the disc. They could be lying to you, what then? A full blown audit and carried out by who exactly?

None of this enforceable in the slightest. It therefore all must rely on the honor system.

[alchav21]

Give it a rest guys! Thanks Vilya your the only one not sitting on this High Horse condemning people. No one wants your Discs anymore, like Vilya says I was taking a loss selling them. This was years ago I stopped selling Discs, and I still have hundreds of BD and DVD's. The only people that want Discs are Collectors, and the only way to enjoy the Highest Quality, according to High End Dedicated Room Projector Owners!

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by alchav21

Give it a rest guys! Thanks Vilya your the only one not sitting on this High Horse condemning people. No one wants your Discs anymore, like Vilya says I was taking a loss selling them. This was years ago I stopped selling Discs, and I still have hundreds of BD and DVD's. The only people that want Discs are Collectors, and the only way to enjoy the Highest Quality, according to High End Dedicated Room Projector Owners!

Are you happy, Vilya, to be the only one on alchav's side?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

There is no sense in making a law that is not enforceable.

• It is impossible to prevent people from making copies of non copy-protected material.
• It is impossible to know if someone has retained a copy after they sell the original.
• It is possible to criminalize software that breaks copy-protection.

We have lots of unenforceable laws. The sense in them is derived from the hope that people will obey them because they believe them to be in the public interest. Like laws prohibiting jaywalking to name just one. Not very enforceable, but in the interest of public safety.

A properly executed search warrant will readily determine if there are any illegal files present on computers, servers, discs, etc.

It is possible to define a person of one ethnicity to be three-fifths the person of another ethnicity, too, as was the case in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Not all laws are just. That's where civil disobedience can play a role in righting an injustice.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Are you happy, Vilya, to be the only one on alchav's side?

I am happy to stand up for the falsely accused. Alchav is not guilty of piracy. I need no one's approval but my own.

And stop trying to speak for everyone else. You are his only accuser.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

We have lots of unenforceable laws. The sense in them is derived from the hope that people will obey them because they believe them to be in the public interest. Like laws prohibiting jaywalking to name just one. Not very enforceable, but in the interest of public safety.

Jaywalking is a fine and there are plenty of places where the local government makes thousands of dollars off of jaywalking fines.

A properly executed search warrant will readily determine if there are any illegal files present on computers, servers, discs, etc.

None of this is enough to ever justify a search warrant so that argument doesn't hold up.

It is possible to define a person of one ethnicity to be three-fifths the person of another ethnicity, too, as was the case in the 1857 Dred Scott decision. Not all laws are just. That's where civil disobedience can play a role in righting an injustice.

The Dred Scott decision was even worse then that. All of those three-fifths gave additional voting power to slave owners and absolutely no power to the slaves. The slaves shouldn't have been counted at all.

But I don't know why you're trying to convince me that some laws are unjust. I already told you that I don't agree with the DMCA. My argument was that some actions that aren't illegal are also unjust but you keep defending people's right to (basically) pirate content by selling discs after they rip them.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

None of this is enough to ever justify a search warrant so that argument doesn't hold up.


But I don't know why you're trying to convince me that some laws are unjust. I already told you that I don't agree with the DMCA. My argument was that some actions that aren't illegal are also unjust but you keep defending people's right to (basically) pirate content by selling discs after they rip them.

Suspicion of possession of illegal files is most certainly justification for a search warrant.

Selling a legitimately purchased disc is never piracy no matter how that disc may have been used. Piracy is the trafficking of counterfeit goods.

Making a back-up from a legitimately purchased disc may be a copyright violation, it may be a DMCA violation, but it can never be piracy unless the back-up itself is what is being bought or sold or shared.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I am happy to stand up for the falsely accused. Alchav is not guilty of piracy. I need no one's approval but my own.

And stop trying to speak for everyone else. You are his only accuser.

No I'm not. The conversation started with bhampton quoting alchav's post and calling him "bad alchav". bhampton specically highlighted alchav saying that he was "backing up the Movie and selling the original".

https://forum.blu-ray.com/showpost.p...ostcount=38349

Wendell also made a similar point.

Originally Posted by Wendell R. Breland

The problem as I see it, if your house were legally searched and you have copies (physical or binary) and do not have the original disc then officials would probably charge you with piracy or theft. Without the disc they may not recognize ownership even with a receipt or invoice. In some of the computer software TOS/EULA they state if you sell the medium then you must delete the program from your computer.

I believe we all know piracy is a very big problem for content owners, rent a disc make a copy and/or rip to a binary storage device.

Anthony P also made a similar point.

Originally Posted by Anthony P

there is a term for people that take one copy and turn it into more than one (even if it is only two) and that is piracy.

If you go back a few pages both Wendell and Anthony have quite a few posts on the topic.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Suspicion of possession of illegal files is most certainly justification for a search warrant.

If you had files of movies that you didn't own on your computer or on burned discs there would be no way to prove where you got them. I think we call agree that downloading DVD and Blu-ray rips off the internet is illegal (regardless of whether the original discs had copy protection or not) and you would have no way of proving that the "back-ups" you had were made from legitimately purchased disc.

Having "back-ups" of movies you no longer own is therefore effectively illegal.

I see you already responded to a similar point:

Originally Posted by Vilya

I do not have to proof the legitimacy of the files on my computer or on my self-made burned discs. The burden of proof would lie with whomever made the allegation that they were illegal.

By this logic no one could ever be charged with having an illegal copy because it would be impossible to tell if a copy is legal or illegal.

[Vilya]

Oh for Pete's sake a defendant never has to prove their innocence! The burden of proof always lies with the prosecutor or plaintiff.