how do I copy from DVD to DVD?

[DarkMatter]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:55:55 GMT, "James Sweet"
<jamessweet@hotmail.com> Gave us:

"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:id2gvvs9h9lachki7s2j5dc95h98s1m689@4ax.com...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:47:36 -0000, "rstlne" <.@.> Gave us:

It is if the rental place had a special 2 for 1 and he rented 30 ..
he could only watch 15, and he manged to copy another 15 during that time

No, it isn't.

UGH
argue that..

You're retarded. Prove you aren't.

UGH
this aint court

You don't have the brains for a courtroom.

Sorry, dipshit, but if you are too goddamned brainless to rent only
those that you can watch, then you should be using an etch-a-sketch.


Who intentionally rents more movies than they can watch? That's just silly,
it'd be so much effort to copy a bunch of movies to watch later that only a
fool would do it on a regular basis. Why are people even still arguing this
crap? If you wanna do it, do it, you probably won't get caught, if you do,
legal or not you'll spend more money and time arguing in court to save your
ass than it's worth, now can we please get back on topic?

You're a goddamned idiot. It is not legal. Period.

Do you even know what a criminal mindset is?

BTW, the topic was copying DVDs, and telling lame fucks like you
that it is illegal IS on topic, you retard!

 

The commercial DVD's are usually 8.7 gigs because they include
both wide screen and standard screen versions of the same movie
plus all the extra menus.

No... The commercial DVD's are 8.7 gigs because they use dual layering
technology

? No to what ? It doesn't matter how they get 8.7 gigs. The
fact remains that if a movie uses the full 8.7 gigs it's usually
(not always) because there are two complete copies of the
movie on the disc.

that most home burner units can't do. Some movies are more
than the 4.7 gig and they have only one format on the disc.

It all depends on the original encoding of the disc...

Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
<DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
and composed:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:37:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:

They have no such rights. In civilised countries such as Australia, we
have legislation to ensure that prices are set by fair competition.


Look, ya dumbfuck! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to piss and moan about. The movie
is MINE TO SELL, and mine alone.

I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you sell it that is at issue
....

It is a monopoly by default, and is perfectly legal in ALL free
nations.

If YOU make a product that others can make and compete with you for
market share in, fine, but movies are SINGULAR works of art, and ONLY
the studio that made them should EVER profit from one.

I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you profit from it that is at
issue ...

If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
allowed to sell it, or copies of it.

AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.


- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 's' from my address when replying by email.

 

[Justin]

Franc Zabkar wrote on [Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100]:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
and composed:

If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
allowed to sell it, or copies of it.

AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.

So. Market forces shouldn't be involved at all? Or the fact that the
group selling the product in Market A is not the same company as is
selling it in Market B. And these companies price according to their
markets.

Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?

Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.

And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
a region free DVD player.

Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
countries.

 

[vanpall]

DarkMatter, eat a rock, and take your disgusting language and castigation's else
where

Brooks

DarkMatter wrote:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:55:55 GMT, "James Sweet"
jamessweet@hotmail.com> Gave us:


"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:id2gvvs9h9lachki7s2j5dc95h98s1m689@4ax.com...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:47:36 -0000, "rstlne" <.@.> Gave us:

It is if the rental place had a special 2 for 1 and he rented 30 ..
he could only watch 15, and he manged to copy another 15 during that time

No, it isn't.

UGH
argue that..

You're retarded. Prove you aren't.

UGH
this aint court

You don't have the brains for a courtroom.

Sorry, dipshit, but if you are too goddamned brainless to rent only
those that you can watch, then you should be using an etch-a-sketch.


Who intentionally rents more movies than they can watch? That's just silly,
it'd be so much effort to copy a bunch of movies to watch later that only a
fool would do it on a regular basis. Why are people even still arguing this
crap? If you wanna do it, do it, you probably won't get caught, if you do,
legal or not you'll spend more money and time arguing in court to save your
ass than it's worth, now can we please get back on topic?

You're a goddamned idiot. It is not legal. Period.

Do you even know what a criminal mindset is?

BTW, the topic was copying DVDs, and telling lame fucks like you
that it is illegal IS on topic, you retard!

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

 

[James Sweet]

"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:igqgvv8u74eiccnm5i52jooifcf30so21m@4ax.com...

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 18:55:55 GMT, "James Sweet"
jamessweet@hotmail.com> Gave us:


"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in
message
news:id2gvvs9h9lachki7s2j5dc95h98s1m689@4ax.com...
On Sun, 4 Jan 2004 08:47:36 -0000, "rstlne" <.@.> Gave us:

It is if the rental place had a special 2 for 1 and he rented 30 ..
he could only watch 15, and he manged to copy another 15 during that
time

No, it isn't.

UGH
argue that..

You're retarded. Prove you aren't.

UGH
this aint court

You don't have the brains for a courtroom.

Sorry, dipshit, but if you are too goddamned brainless to rent only
those that you can watch, then you should be using an etch-a-sketch.


Who intentionally rents more movies than they can watch? That's just
silly,
it'd be so much effort to copy a bunch of movies to watch later that only
a
fool would do it on a regular basis. Why are people even still arguing
this
crap? If you wanna do it, do it, you probably won't get caught, if you
do,
legal or not you'll spend more money and time arguing in court to save
your
ass than it's worth, now can we please get back on topic?

You're a goddamned idiot. It is not legal. Period.

Do you even know what a criminal mindset is?

BTW, the topic was copying DVDs, and telling lame fucks like you
that it is illegal IS on topic, you retard!

WTF? Did you even *read* my reply? I was supporting your side, but you seem
to be on a bit of a rampage, just drop it and take your childish insults and
bad language elsewhere, nobody who's still arguing even cares whether it's
legal or not, it's just a kiddie pissing match.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> put finger to keyboard
and composed:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 19:37:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:

They have no such rights. In civilised countries such as Australia, we
have legislation to ensure that prices are set by fair competition.


Look, ya dumbfuck! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to piss and moan about. The movie
is MINE TO SELL, and mine alone.

I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you sell it that is at issue
...

If I want ten thou from you and only one thou from another customer,
that is MY choice, and I have a right to price MY work at whatever
price I want.

If the buyer thinks it too high, the buyer should take a fucking
hike!

 

[DarkMatter]

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@optussnet.com.au> Gave us:

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B.

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY wrong, boy! YOU do NOT dictate my price
schedule.

Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.

Too fucking bad, dipshit.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 12:03:00 -0800, vanpall
<brooks_van_pall@hotmail.com> Gave us:

DarkMatter, eat a rock, and take your disgusting language and castigation's else
where


Fuck you, you top posting, know-not-a-goddammned-thing, Usenet

RETARD!

Bone up on the forum which you are interloping your lame ass into!

You know... GET A CLUE, BOY!

 

[DarkMatter]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:22:12 GMT, "James Sweet"
<jamessweet@hotmail.com> Gave us:

WTF? Did you even *read* my reply? I was supporting your side, but you seem
to be on a bit of a rampage, just drop it and take your childish insults and
bad language elsewhere, nobody who's still arguing even cares whether it's
legal or not, it's just a kiddie pissing match.

Because your RETARDED ass was making statements like "even tho it's
illegal, nobody will catch you." kind of baby bullshit that gives the
OTHER retards the idea that it is OK.

You must be a clueless twit to claim you are "on my side".

 

[James Sweet]

"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:22ugvv00gkeprhoidbphn4apj955fpcv9d@4ax.com...

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:22:12 GMT, "James Sweet"
jamessweet@hotmail.com> Gave us:


WTF? Did you even *read* my reply? I was supporting your side, but you
seem
to be on a bit of a rampage, just drop it and take your childish insults
and
bad language elsewhere, nobody who's still arguing even cares whether
it's
legal or not, it's just a kiddie pissing match.


Because your RETARDED ass was making statements like "even tho it's
illegal, nobody will catch you." kind of baby bullshit that gives the
OTHER retards the idea that it is OK.

You must be a clueless twit to claim you are "on my side".

Umm... I was agreeing that the argument that it's legal is silly, but in the
end I don't really care if it's legal or not, and I don't care if people do
it, I don't do it myself, but if someone else wants to break the law and
risk getting in trouble that's their life and I'm not their mother. If
you're so worried about it, perhaps you should try to educate people rather
than spend your day with this childish namecalling and profanity, it doesn't
exactly help to give you an authorative image, more likely makes people want
to go copy some dvd's just to spite you.

 

[Mark Spatny]

Not sure what post was more of a laugh, his or yours..
I mean, Just look at the 3 LOTR films
a MASSIVE 500+ mil usd to make the film and bring it to the market.

Your analysis is all wrong. What you have to remember is that the movie
studios make hundreds of movies each year, and most do not turn a profit
for many, many years. The blockbuster successes like LOTR keep people
employed while all the other films break even or generate red ink. You
have to examine the buisiness as a whole, and think about how all the
various profitable and not-profitable movies combine.

Looking at the annual reports of the various studios will give a clearer
picture.

Lets not forget that they have got their payment JUST from sales.. When this
film makes 30bn and gives it's 300mil to the RIAA to stop people who want to
make their own DVD for 3$ then I guess you can feel happy that your able to
buy your food..

This is the part that proves you really don't know what you are talking
about. The RIAA has nothing to do with movies. As long as you assume
that it does, any other facts or analysis you try to represent will be
suspect.

 

[Mark Spatny]

Jerry G.,jerryg50@hotmail.com says...

A copy of a commercially produced movie is not considered a backup of user
files, as like user created work or software. Like bought (purchased)
software programs, entertainment media should be used on one device at a
time at one location at a time, unless agreed with between the manufacture
and the end user.

If you worked in this industry and had to feed your family, you would feel
the same way!

I work in this indutry, and depend on it to feed my family, and I do not
feel the same way. I have no problem with people making backup copies of
material they have purchased, so long as it is not shared with other
people or sold. If a parent wants to make a copy of a DVD in case his
kids break the original, there is nothing immoral about that.

This is certainly within reasonable interpretation of copyright law, and
a practice that I consider perfectly acceptable, and frankly, wise.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:40:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
<jamessweet@hotmail.com> Gave us:

Umm... I was agreeing that the argument that it's legal is silly, but in the
end I don't really care if it's legal or not, and I don't care if people do
it, I don't do it myself, but if someone else wants to break the law and
risk getting in trouble that's their life and I'm not their mother. If
you're so worried about it, perhaps you should try to educate people rather
than spend your day with this childish namecalling and profanity, it doesn't
exactly help to give you an authorative image, more likely makes people want
to go copy some dvd's just to spite you.

Good. They can burn in hell as their stupidity magnifies throughout
their life.

You can for saying that you'll stand by one of them.

 

[James Sweet]

"DarkMatter" <DarkMatter@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message
news:b6vgvv49c9l6fmai8kb7m38m7nvaccendo@4ax.com...

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 20:40:37 GMT, "James Sweet"
jamessweet@hotmail.com> Gave us:


Umm... I was agreeing that the argument that it's legal is silly, but in
the
end I don't really care if it's legal or not, and I don't care if people
do
it, I don't do it myself, but if someone else wants to break the law and
risk getting in trouble that's their life and I'm not their mother. If
you're so worried about it, perhaps you should try to educate people
rather
than spend your day with this childish namecalling and profanity, it
doesn't
exactly help to give you an authorative image, more likely makes people
want
to go copy some dvd's just to spite you.


Good. They can burn in hell as their stupidity magnifies throughout
their life.

You can for saying that you'll stand by one of them.

LOL Fire! Fire!!

 

[MR_ED_of_Course]

in article 3ff84f41$0$84057$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com, Richard C. at
post-age@spamcop.net wrote on 1/4/04 9:37 AM:

"MR_ED_of_Course" <OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:BC1C9D7F.2CC8A%OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net...
:
: Unless you can cite a precedent for any of this, the fact of the matter is
: that much of this is untested in the courts.
:
: In regards to time-shifting a copy of a rented VHS tape, I'd really like to
: know under what basis this would be considered illegal. Specifically where
: do you draw the line under what constitutes time-shifting.
:
=====================
"time-shifting" applies ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals.

It absolutely does NOT apply ONLY to broadcasts of TV signals. I believe
you're confusing two different arguments that Sony used in its defense.
Sony's Akio Morita is credited with coining the phrase time-shifting and the
court accepted it (then lost on appeal, then won in the Supreme Court). The
two defenses were:

1) Time-shifting: "The basic concept behind the home-use VCR is to free the
public from the constraints of television scheduling, in other words, to
allow people to watch programs at their own convenience." Note that this
does *not* use the word broadcast. This is a very important omission
because there is a HUGE difference between cable and broadcast and Sony
wanted to win based on the ability to time-shift *any* content.

This leads to the second (less central) defense:

2) Broadcast is public domain: "The huge volume of information transmitted
over the airwaves by television stations is in the public domain." This
argument had been used several times in other situations and has never
really been fully resolved...it probably never will be due to digital
encryption make the issue moot.

The fact that it *is* legal to record *cable* television is a result of Sony
winning the case based on the first argument and not the second. Had the
courts ruled that you could time-shift broadcast-only content because
broadcasting it over the airwaves put it in the public domain, it would've
meant that you could not record cable television. Not only that, but it
would've meant that you could do whatever you wanted with any content that
was ever broadcasted...as in make copies and sell them.

In other words, the courts agreed (based on surveys) that time-shifting of
content had no financial effect on the copyright holders, it simply
facilitated the watching of the content. They won only on the first
argument.

This is why it is legal to time-shift any content whether it be broadcast,
cable, satellite, Pay-Per-View, or video rental.

DarkMatter wrote:

Time shifting is record now, watch later. It is for broadcast
media. It is not for snaggin' a copy of a rental.

Right, building a library of copies of rentals is by definition illegal,
though very tough to prove in court.

Renting a DVD and then claiming that you needed to time shift a copy
would get laughed at in the courts. It is not a reasonable
application of fair use.

It would never make it to the courts since the burden of proof would be on
the copyright holder that the consumer deprived the copyright holder of
income.

I'll take my boat out for a week or two at a time and often
time-shift/space-shift content to disc for viewing. If I were to rent a
video and do the same thing it would be legal and reasonable as long as it
was about viewing the content once and not depriving the copyright holder of
income. It would be both legal and ethical. In fact, it would actually
benefit copyright holders since they would be getting 1 rental for 1 viewing
for 10 or so movies as opposed to no rentals for a two week period.

Now if you want to turn this into an argument based on someone building a
library of copied DVDs they've rented, that's totally different. That is
not a reasonable application of fair use.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:55:12 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
<OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net> Gave us:

1) Time-shifting: "The basic concept behind the home-use VCR is to free the
public from the constraints of television scheduling, in other words, to
allow people to watch programs at their own convenience." Note that this
does *not* use the word broadcast. This is a very important omission
because there is a HUGE difference between cable and broadcast and Sony
wanted to win based on the ability to time-shift *any* content.

No. They wanted to make the distinction to show that cable
"transmissions" should be included, not "any" content. This was to
define cable as a form of "broadcast" even though it was on a closed
system. It is STILL ONLY about scheduled programming, not some
asswipe's rental or whatever your bent fuck'd perceptions define it
as.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:55:12 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
<OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net> Gave us:

In other words, the courts agreed (based on surveys) that time-shifting of
content had no financial effect on the copyright holders, it simply
facilitated the watching of the content. They won only on the first
argument.

This is why it is legal to time-shift any content whether it be broadcast,
cable, satellite, Pay-Per-View, or video rental.

Wrong. All 4 transmitted forms, yes. Rented copies, NO.

 

[DarkMatter]

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 21:55:12 GMT, MR_ED_of_Course
<OhNoSPAM@pacbell.net> Gave us:

Right, building a library of copies of rentals is by definition illegal,
though very tough to prove in court.

Not really. It could be easily proven that the "copies" were NOT
from any transmitted form. Quality alone would be a decisive factor.

 

[Daniel L. Belton]

rstlne wrote:

They have no such rights. In civilised countries such as Australia, we
have legislation to ensure that prices are set by fair competition.


Look, ya dumbfuck! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to piss and moan about. The movie
is MINE TO SELL, and mine alone.

It is a monopoly by default, and is perfectly legal in ALL free
nations.

If YOU make a product that others can make and compete with you for
market share in, fine, but movies are SINGULAR works of art, and ONLY
the studio that made them should EVER profit from one.

If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
allowed to sell it, or copies of it.

AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.


Yeh, And if someone buys a work of art from you they should be able to
resell it too
Also they can make copy's of it and sell it as a copy..

You sure that this is what you were meaning?.. I mean.. If you define movies
as art then really they should only release 1 copy of it, it should be sold
as unique, and then non-originals could be resold down the road..

Keep the ideas rolling in here


no... if you purchase a painting from someone, you do have the right to

resell it. BUT you do NOT have the right to make copy's and sell them.
Same goes for books, movies and music. You can sell the original, but
you can not copy it and sell it. There are laws to protect intellectual
property, and these are different from copyright laws even though they
do cross areas.