Login

jahcs · 01-19-2006, 05:54 PM

Pete,Jan 18 2006, 06:18 PM Wrote:...The rant about LoTR (not in the post I'm responding to) should be aimed as much at the poster as at the distributors-- the info was out for almost a year ahead of release.  Even I, who shun all things media, knew about it.  Caveat emptor was probably an ancient concept when Latin was young.

--Pete
[right][snapback]99614[/snapback][/right]

I'll start out with the basics on my "rant."

First: It was simply an anecdote directly relating to the topic at hand and the way movie companies release many versions of films.

Second: I got exactly what I paid for. No more, no less.

Third: There are several reasons why I didn't buy any more LotR movies.
- I was a bit miffed.
- Some of my friends purchased extended versions I can borrow.
- I kept waiting for the next super duper version to come out. The LotR Special features and Extended versions are quite a bit better than a run of the mill Special Edition DVD with a preview, extra comentary, and some crappy deleted scenes.
- The price of the Extended versions warrants more time between purchases for some of us working folk, especially if we already have a version of the movie. I wasn't going to buy "normal" versions of the other movies if better ones were coming out and why have the extended versions mixed with a vanilla FotR?

Also, if you don't know a sock is missing is it really lost? What I'm getting at here is that at that time there was no reason for me to suspect that a super-duper version would be out so soon. No materials or employees in the store suggested it. Nothing in the current advertising on t.v. or in magazines I had seen suggested it. Nothing my friends had seen or said suggested it. It was a $15.99 DVD, not a new car, I won't go to the ends of the Earth researching and agonizing over it's purchase.

kandrathe · 01-19-2006, 05:57 PM

Doc,Jan 19 2006, 12:36 PM Wrote:...
Once again, I have no problem paying for something. I want to pay for things. I just want my money going to the right place and I don't want to have to worry about being reamed over something.
[right][snapback]99665[/snapback][/right]

That is the bottom line.

You may not like the RIAA, or Hollywood, or Microsoft. But, if you don't pay the originators for their products, then you are either paying the wrong person, or paying nothing. If you are paying nothing, then many others are paying nothing as well supporting the world's counterfeit economy.

How fair is it that lawful companies pay Microsoft hundreds of thousands for software licensing, while non-lawful competitors pay nothing. Can they compete equally? The problem with the internet is that it is not a US only thing. That latest Album or DVD gets ripped, transmitted over Limewire and burned a million times in China.

You certainly are not a corporation, but as an individual you need to look at effort and value. What is your effort worth? Since the US is a nation of patent and copyright laws that are enforced, in the world of free (meaning costing zero) flowing knowledge we find ourselves at a huge disadvantage. So when you (and a million others) use Limewire rather than pay the originator for a product what would be the result?

FenrisWulf · 01-20-2006, 09:56 AM

@Professor Frink:
Ah, sweet, thank you for the better information! I wasn't aware of that act. :)

So, Doc, you were totally right about the legality of copying tapes to distribute for non-commercial purposes. My bad.

eppie · 01-20-2006, 12:49 PM

Occhidiangela,Jan 19 2006, 02:37 PM Wrote:eppie, they happen to have the law on their side.  Consider how important law is to you, to your community, to your country, to the international community.

The law also allows dead penalty in certain states in the US. But that does not mean I have to agree with it. Laws can change, and especially with this discussion which is fed by new techniques, I can imagine people try to test the law and maybe eventually will force a change.

Occhidiangela,Jan 19 2006, 02:37 PM Wrote:Why do you make the presumption that he doesn't?  You reply is tangential to the point and a red herring.  Where do you get off assuming undesirable or heartless traits in someone you disagree with on a particular topic?  That sort of illogic is called "the reverse halo effect" and it leads to errors in judgment.  Trust me on that one, I've walked a mile or two in that pair of manure encrusted boots.  ;)  Heck, you've seen part of that hike. 

I don't, it was a sentence which I put there to stress my view on defending the music industry. I don't know much about Pete other than that he is a well-respected member of the lounge, I think he is a wise person, and I often agree with him.
(I didn't know my posts on the lounge were getting refereed nowadays :D )

Occhidiangela,Jan 19 2006, 02:37 PM Wrote:No.  Pete is suggesting that consumers use their brains, not get sucked in by hype, and defeat the evil conglomerates by not acting like a sheep.  Or, one can blissfully wander through life in the Gumpesque mode, demonstrating that "stupid is as stupid does."  The choice is in the hands of the consumer.

I will not react on this one here. (see previous thread about copying music)

Occhidiangela,Jan 19 2006, 02:37 PM Wrote:Yes, and fools get milked, right along with goats and cattle.  They smell about the same.  I direct your attention to PT Barnum: "There is a sucker born every minute, and two to take him." 

Sorry for not only thinking about myself.

Occhidiangela · 01-20-2006, 02:43 PM

eppie,Jan 20 2006, 06:49 AM Wrote:(I didn't know my posts on the lounge were getting refereed nowadays :D )
[right][snapback]99718[/snapback][/right]

They are not. This is me talking to you. :)

Cheers.

Occhi

Doc · 01-20-2006, 03:11 PM

FenrisWulf,Jan 20 2006, 04:56 AM Wrote:@Professor Frink:
Ah, sweet, thank you for the better information! I wasn't aware of that act. :)

So, Doc, you were totally right about the legality of copying tapes to distribute for non-commercial purposes. My bad.
[right][snapback]99716[/snapback][/right]

No worries.

Once again, since nobody has answered, what is the difference between me making copy of some music to CD or cassette and mailing it to somebody, which is completely and totally 100% legal, and me making a copy of something and emailing it or zapping it over a messaging service? The spirit of the law is the same. I am NOT making any profit off of the transfer, so there is no harm, no foul. No real law being broken.

I doubt anybody will be able to answer this in a satisfactory means.

Occhidiangela · (This post was last modified: 01-20-2006, 06:37 PM by Occhidiangela.)

Doc,Jan 20 2006, 09:11 AM Wrote:No worries.

Once again, since nobody has answered, what is the difference between me making copy of some music to CD or cassette and mailing it to somebody, which is completely and totally 100% legal, and me making a copy of something and emailing it or zapping it over a messaging service? The spirit of the law is the same. I am NOT making any profit off of the transfer, so there is no harm, no foul. No real law being broken.

I doubt anybody will be able to answer this in a satisfactory means.
[right][snapback]99732[/snapback][/right]

Doc

"Satisfactory?" Does that mean that if you can't have a simplistic answer, you presume there is no answer at all?

When you make a statement regarding the 'right" relative to copyrighted material, I suggest you are better off answering your question by using Google, Yahoo, or uncovering any number of web resources. Many of these cases are covered at websites visited and populated by intelligent and informed posters whose background is in the law, specifically copywright law.

.edu sites for Columbia, Cornell, and many other law schools have quite a bit of this stuff posted in Adobe, easy to read.

Occhi

Doc · 01-20-2006, 03:31 PM

Occhidiangela,Jan 20 2006, 10:18 AM Wrote:Doc

"Satisfactory?"  Does that mean that if you can't have a simplistic answer, you presume there is no answer at all?

When you make a statement regarding the 'right" relative to copyrighted material, I suggest you are better off answers your question by using Google, Yahoo, or any number of other web resources.  Many of these cases are covered at websites visited and populated by intelligent and informed posters whose background is in the law, specifically copywright law.

.edu sites for Columbia, Cornell, and many other law schools have quite a bit of this stuff posted in Adobe, easy to read.

Occhi
[right][snapback]99735[/snapback][/right]

What I want is really very simple.

Is there one iota of difference between me making a perfectly legal copy of say, ZZ Top's Sharp Dressed Man and mailing it to you Occhi on a cassette, or just emailing it to you? Either way, I am not making a profit. Or how about I make you a copy of Ishtar on a video cassette and mail it to you? It's perfectly legal. No profit is involved. Under fair use, I am completely within my legal rights to do so. But if I do the same thing and instead send it to you electronically, I am now somehow breaking the law.

The difference here, as I have stated, is that the industry gets kickbacks for each cassette recorder sold. No such luck for ripping mp3s. Judges could not make a ruling that people buy a computer for the sole purpose of ripping music so they could not rule it as a copy making device for the sake of the sin tax. However, people that went out and bought dual cassette boom boxes so long ago, it was painfully obvious what they were up to. And people like me who bought dual deck VCRs.

If the judges had ruled that computers were in fact a copy making device, and the sin tax was applied, we wouldn't be having this debate and I would be free to email you a copy of Ishtar.

degrak · 01-20-2006, 03:33 PM

I suppose certain collectors (or people in general) like it because they get to gather more versions of their likeable items.

Sometimes I like it, at least in the past I did. Lately it has been disappointing, mainly when I search for books to buy. Often I eBay them, and I see so many different versions I am wondering which one I should buy.

I must say, when I saw the topic I first thought of a certain episode of Seinfeld.

Season 4, episode 59, titled "The Implant." While George is at the wake of his girlfriend's aunt, he has the battle (argue) of double-dipping with his girlfriend's brother, Timmy. (And poor George was only there so he could get a copy of the death certificate to get 50% back on his airfare.)

jahcs · (This post was last modified: 01-20-2006, 05:07 PM by jahcs.)

I suspect the simple answer is the easier it is to do something the more people will do it. The more people do something the easier it is to abuse it. Lots of people don't automatically asume folks will try and bend or break the rules but some do. Also some folks are just greedy.

Also, how many Internet "friends" do we have? I bet many folks on the Lounge wouldn't have any qualms about sharing a music file with the other members of the Lounge. How many folks is that? What about your "friends" list on email or chat programs? Upload a file and hit "send." Bam, tens/hundreds of folks have the music. How many of those folks would you take the time to burn individual CDs for, box them up, pay the postage, and ship?

EDIT: this is in reply to Doc's query on the difference between digital transfer and hard copy transfer of copyrighted info. This is just a hypothesis.

kandrathe · Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio.

There haven't been many tests of copyright laws with the internet as the medium of transfer. In 1997 there was a big brewhaha with the LaMacchia Loophole that resulted in the No Electronic Theft Act (NET Act). The following year, congress consolidated the laws further with the DMCA which in essence made it illegal to decrypt (crack) software, video, music and etc.

Copyright.gov has most of the answers you are asking.

Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?

Why are there so many laws? Because there are that many idiots.

Chesspiece_face · 01-20-2006, 09:50 PM

Doc,Jan 20 2006, 10:31 AM Wrote:What I want is really very simple.

Is there one iota of difference between me making a perfectly legal copy of say, ZZ Top's Sharp Dressed Man and mailing it to you Occhi on a cassette, or just emailing it to you? Either way, I am not making a profit. Or how about I make you a copy of Ishtar on a video cassette and mail it to you? It's perfectly legal. No profit is involved. Under fair use, I am completely within my legal rights to do so. But if I do the same thing and instead send it to you electronically, I am now somehow breaking the law.

The difference here, as I have stated, is that the industry gets kickbacks for each cassette recorder sold. No such luck for ripping mp3s. Judges could not make a ruling that people buy a computer for the sole purpose of ripping music so they could not rule it as a copy making device for the sake of the sin tax. However, people that went out and bought dual cassette boom boxes so long ago, it was painfully obvious what they were up to. And people like me who bought dual deck VCRs.

If the judges had ruled that computers were in fact a copy making device, and the sin tax was applied, we wouldn't be having this debate and I would be free to email you a copy of Ishtar.
[right][snapback]99738[/snapback][/right]

One thing of note: Not a single person has ever been prosecuted for downloading music/movies/etc.. As much as the music or MPAA want to make you believe they have, it just hasn't happened. It is NOT illegal (at this time) to download these things. It is however illegal to provide them in the form of uploads etc. For those people that use Limewire or any other filesharing program if you wish to use them and be 100% legal just make sure your library isn't set to be shared with other people. download to your hearts content. Although i wouldn't reccomend using many of those programs because of spyware/virus issues.

When the big prosecutions came down a year or two ago when everyone was arguing about "making 12 year olds criminals" etc the users of those filesharing services were all prosecuted for uploading their files across the internet. they were not prosecuted for downloading them. I suppose the equivalent in your example Doc would be for you to make thousands of copies of Ishtar and start mailing them out to everyone in the phone book. If you happened to have a warehouse of Ishtar VHS's I think someone might take notice. And you would probably be prosecuted.

Which isn't to say the direction that these laws are going in isn't disturbing. Pratically everything i've seen the big entertainment companies pushing for is so unbelievably overreaching to the point of absurdity. A disruptive technology has entered the market and instead of ammending thier business solutions or market direction to account for it they just look over their shoulders to big brother and say "he's picking on me, kick his ass".

Chesspiece_face · 01-20-2006, 10:18 PM

In other news; here is an interesting review of the new Re-Re-Release of Snatch over at IGN:

Link.

LOL. Scathing.

[wcip]Angel · 01-20-2006, 11:02 PM

Chesspiece_face,Jan 20 2006, 10:18 PM Wrote:In other news; here is an interesting review of the new Re-Re-Release of Snatch over at IGN:

Link.

LOL.  Scathing.
[right][snapback]99776[/snapback][/right]

No no. That was a review of the Re-Re-Re-release, wasn't it?

Roland · 01-20-2006, 11:13 PM

jahcs,Jan 19 2006, 12:54 PM Wrote:What I'm getting at here is that at that time there was no reason for me to suspect that a super-duper version would be out so soon.  No materials or employees in the store suggested it.  Nothing in the current advertising on t.v. or in magazines I had seen suggested it.  Nothing my friends had seen or said suggested it.  It was a $15.99 DVD, not a new car, I won't go to the ends of the Earth researching and agonizing over it's purchase.

That's funny, because I explicitly remember knowing about the "Gift Pack" (Collector's Edition, with the extra "treat" inside, like the statue book-ends, the Gollum statue, etc) before the "vanilla" version was even out. From multiple sources, including friends, the internet, and of course - the store where I pre-ordered each film.

As much as I HATE the entertainment industry in its current form, I cannot find any fault in what happened to you. You got fleeced because you didn't choose to open your eyes. Simple as that.

Now, if you want a REAL gripe, try buying a CD that is completely unplayable in my computer CD player AND my mp3 player due to some "copy protection" scheme that opens my computer up to virus vulnerabilities, instability, etc. Yeah, I'm talking about the Sony / BMG copy protection BS. Now THERE is a legitimate gripe, and I can't wait until they settle so I can get my free replacement CD (and additional free album, as it was drafted last I saw).

jahcs · 01-21-2006, 12:53 AM

Roland,Jan 20 2006, 03:13 PM Wrote:That's funny, because I explicitly remember knowing about the "Gift Pack" (Collector's Edition, with the extra "treat" inside, like the statue book-ends, the Gollum statue, etc) before the "vanilla" version was even out. From multiple sources, including friends, the internet, and of course - the store where I pre-ordered each film.

As much as I HATE the entertainment industry in its current form, I cannot find any fault in what happened to you. You got fleeced because you didn't choose to open your eyes. Simple as that.

Now, if you want a REAL gripe, try buying a CD that is completely unplayable in my computer CD player AND my mp3 player due to some "copy protection" scheme that opens my computer up to virus vulnerabilities, instability, etc. Yeah, I'm talking about the Sony / BMG copy protection BS. Now THERE is a legitimate gripe, and I can't wait until they settle so I can get my free replacement CD (and additional free album, as it was drafted last I saw).
[right][snapback]99783[/snapback][/right]

Right, it wasn't the store's fault they didn't display any info (I'm being serious here.) on the extended versions, at that time, and I just didn't happen to look in the right places for the info. I don't debate that. I'm just saying that I didn't see anything saying there would be an additional release and my friends in some cases didn't know and in others didn't mention that fact. I don't live in a vacuum and I don't go through life with blinders on. I just didn't see any info on the extended version until I opened the DVD case. I didn't preorder either. Perhaps if I had the store clerk may have volunteered the information.

I said I got what I paid for and explained my reasons for not purchasing more copies. I don't feel like I got fleeced. The story was more of an anecdote than an "I hate all Hollywood companies" rant anyway.

Zarathustra · 01-21-2006, 03:26 AM

I'm a patient man. If it's something I must see the day it comes out, I'll stop at the local video rental place. Aside from that, I make a point of waiting for special editions.

I was given The Fellowship of the Ring as a gift when it came out, and I did get the extended edition as well. But the other two in the trilogy see only their extended versions in my collection.

Occhidiangela · 01-21-2006, 04:27 AM

[wcip]Angel,Jan 20 2006, Wrote:No no. That was a review of the Re-Re-Re-release, wasn't it?
[right][snapback]99782[/snapback][/right]

Around the time of the release of that film, Snatch, I saw a pic of Madonna wearing a black T shirt with the word "Snatch" on the chest.

My reaction? I had two of them.

1. "She finally changed her name to something that both fit her and was less offensive than what her parents named her."

2. "Truth in advertising."

Loved the film.

Occhi

gekko · 01-21-2006, 05:09 AM

The difference is that music companies finally have numbers to throw around in their arguments. There's no way RIAA can tell how many people use their blank CD's and DVD's to distribute copies of music and movies; however, they can find stats on the number of files being transfered electronically.

As to the sin tax, it already exists, although it is being fought. Many iPod owners in Canada are eligible for a rebate for about $50 CAN since a battle was fought and won to lower (remove? can't remember) the sin tax on iPods. Many countries have significant taxes hidden within the costs of MP3 players, even flash memory cards.

gekko

01-21-2006, 10:35 PM

Im all for music piracy, as I have said before.

But I dont feel much sympathy for you. You should know better. As Pete noted DVD libraries arent that great - youre better off renting. And the first release for sale never has the extra goodies.

Besides in 4 years your going to buy it all again in HDTV format.

NOTE: I personally dont pirate music, but I condone it, for reasons I have explained in detail before.

Login
Username:
Password:	Lost Password?
	Remember me