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

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Not impossible, just difficult.

It's impossible for anything ever released on disc. All someone would have to say is "I used to own that on disc but I don't keep my receipts". It would be impossible to ever disprove that statement.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

It's impossible for anything ever released on disc. All someone would have to say is "I used to own that on disc but I don't keep my receipts". It would be impossible to ever disprove that statement.

The enforcement emphasis is on people trafficking in bootlegs and the money trail that goes with it.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

The enforcement emphasis is on people trafficking in bootlegs and the money trail that goes with it.

Bootlegs are an extremely tiny part of the piracy problem. Most people download free copies, they don't buy bootlegs.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by bhampton

I hope I can get Crawl on UHD BD tomorrow.

Today I picked up Rise of Gru and Days of Thunder.

I've gone back to watching discs directly. I also can't stop buying them so I need to take over another wall for shelves.

I have 16 disc titles arriving this week. I know their allure well.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Bootlegs are an extremely tiny part of the piracy problem. Most people download free copies, they don't buy bootlegs.

I use "bootleg" to encompass all illegally made, sold, and/or acquired IP.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

I use "bootleg" to encompass all illegally made, sold, and/or acquired IP.

But a huge amount of "bootlegs" don't have any money trail at all because there is no profits being made. Is there no piracy occurring if people are freely sharing illegal copies?

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

But a huge amount of "bootlegs" don't have any money trail at all because there is no profits being made. Is there no piracy occurring if people are freely sharing illegal copies?

Much of the enforcement against illegal distribution is focused upon shutting down the FTP sites that host the illegal content and sometimes prosecuting/suing the owner of the FTP site. Sometimes they have even been able to identify those who are uploading the illegal files and they go after them, too.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Much of the enforcement against illegal distribution is focused upon shutting down the FTP sites that host the illegal content and sometimes prosecuting/suing the owner of the FTP site. Sometimes they have even been able to identify those who are uploading the illegal files and they go after them, too.

But according to your previous definition it's not piracy if those sites aren't profitable.

Originally Posted by Vilya

Piracy is basically selling and profiting from products (i.e. bootlegs) that you do not have the right to make and sell.

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

It doesn't sound like they would:



The RIAA stated (in your quote) that they have no problem with people making copies of the CDs they own for personal use. And neither do I.

Yes, but prior to that it stated "there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music". The part you quoted just basically states that no one is going to come after you if you only make the copy for personal use, not that it is legal to do so. So according to them I broke the law, just not bad enough that they will pursue prosecution.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

But according to your previous definition it's not piracy if those sites aren't profitable.

Thus the word "basically" in my definition.

Some people distribute illegal copies just because they want to stick it to the "man", i.e. the studios. The motivation does not have to be monetary.

FTP sites also make money from people visiting their sites. Ads and such. It is the illegal downloads that attracts the traffic that earns them their ad revenue.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Ender14

Yes, but prior to that it stated "there’s no legal “right” to copy the copyrighted music". The part you quoted just basically states that no one is going to come after you if you only make the copy for personal use, not that it is legal to do so. So according to them I broke the law, just not bad enough that they will pursue prosecution.

First you try to prove that you aren't a criminal. And then you try to prove that you are a criminal. What point are you trying to make?

Just to be clear since you don't seem to understand my stance:

• I have absolutely no problem with people making copies of their discs for personal use (whether they are copy-protected or not).
• I have a problem with people selling the originals and keeping the copies. This is where Vilya and I disagree.

[Ender14]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

First you try to prove that you aren't a criminal. And then you try to prove that you are a criminal. What point are you trying to make?

Just to be clear since you don't seem to understand my stance:

• I have absolutely no problem with people making copies of their discs for personal use (whether they are copy-protected or not).
• I have a problem with people selling the originals and keeping the copies. This is what Vilya is defending.

I'm pointing out that even thought technically making a personal copy is illegal, it is of so little concern to the rights owners that they don't bother enforcing it. If they care so little, why do you? That's the point I'm trying to make.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

First you try to prove that you aren't a criminal. And then you try to prove that you are a criminal. What point are you trying to make?

Just to be clear since you don't seem to understand my stance:

• I have absolutely no problem with people making copies of their discs for personal use (whether they are copy-protected or not).
• I have a problem with people selling the originals and keeping the copies. This is where Vilya and I disagree.

What anyone has a problem with is really not the point as we all already know that we will each do as we choose. We are keyboard warriors masquerading as lawyers, that's all.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Ender14

I'm pointing out that even thought technically making a personal copy is illegal, it is of so little concern to the rights owners that they don't bother enforcing it. If they care so little, why do you? That's the point I'm trying to make.

They specifically mention they are against giving away the copy or lending it to others for copying. That sounds very similar to retaining a copy and selling the original.

-The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying.

Scenario A: Bill buys a CD and makes a copy. He lends the copy to Sarah so she can make a copy. She lends the copy to Frank so he can make a copy. He lends the copy to April so she can make a copy. She lends the copy to Steven so he can make a copy. All of them end up with copies.

Scenario B: Bill buys a CD and makes a copy. He sells the original to Sarah so she can make a copy. She sells the original to Frank so he can make a copy. He sells the original to April so she can make a copy. She sells the original to Steven so he can make a copy. All of them end up with copies.

The RIAA specifically pointed out that they are against Scenario A. It is effectively the same as Scenario B. Vilya has stated that Scenario B is legal and acceptable.

It is only accurate to say the RIAA doesn't care if you stretch the meaning of personal use.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by Ender14

I'm pointing out that even thought technically making a personal copy is illegal, it is of so little concern to the rights owners that they don't bother enforcing it. If they care so little, why do you? That's the point I'm trying to make.

Zealots like converts.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

Vilya has stated that Scenario B is legal and acceptable.

Most people don't care one fig what their buyer does with disc that they are selling. They are not selling it so Sarah, Frank, or April can make a copy. They are selling it to get rid of it, to save space, and to make some of their money back.

It is always legal to sell your legitimately purchased discs. What you did with that disc beforehand and what the buyer does with it afterwards is irrelevant. The sale is legal. When selling a disc the seller does not have to disclose how they used it nor does the buyer have to share his plans for it.

Whether the personal use copies made along the disc's journey from person to person are legal and "acceptable" is where our argument lies. I say "yes" to both. I can say it as often as you care to hear it.

[PenguinInfinity]

Originally Posted by Vilya

Whether the personal use copies made along the disc's journey from person to person are legal and "acceptable" is where our argument lies. I say "yes" to both. I can say it as often as you care to hear it.

And I will say that "no" it is not acceptable or legal to retain a copy after you sell the original as often as you care to hear it.

[Vilya]

Originally Posted by PenguinInfinity

And I will say that "no" it is not acceptable or legal to retain a copy after you sell the original as often as you care to hear it.

Really? I had no idea that you felt that way! Maybe if you said so more often....

[PenguinInfinity]

The legality of it would likely come down to an individual judge if it was ever challenged in court. Some would agree with your position and others would agree with my position.

[cheez avenger]

Amazon Women on the Moon - Video Pirates - YouTube