all notions of personal responsibility has been eschewed in favor of a perverted sense of entitlement that involves exploiting children judge gustav: mr dotbiz, you copied the x movie on to a blank dvd? mr dotbiz: yes, goddamn it, i did. it is my god given right judge gustav: why? mr dotbiz: my kid destroyed it judge gustav: how did you copy the movie? mr dotbiz: i bypassed the encryption with illegal software judge gustav: baliff, remand this communist into custody
Actually there is nothing in the Fair Use doctrine that limits the reason for making a back up copy based on negligence, so yeah, advanced protection against the unfortunate occurrence of you're kid putting a peanut butter sandwich in the DVD tray and ruining both the DVD player and the DVD that was in it is still a valid reason to make an archive copy of a DVD you own.
Fair use Although certain types of infringement scenarios are allowed as fair use and thus are effectively considered non-infringing, "personal use" copying is not explicitly mentioned as a type of fair use, and case law has not yet established otherwise. Circumvention of DVD copy protection In the case where media contents are protected using some effective copy protection scheme, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) of 1998 makes it illegal to manufacture or distribute circumvention tools and use those tools for infringing purposes. In the 2009 case RealNetworks v. DVD CCA,[6] the final injunction reads, "while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies." This case made clear that manufacturing and distribution of circumvention tools was illegal, but use of those tools for non-infringing purposes, including fair use purposes, was not. The Librarian of Congress periodically issues rulings to exempt certain classes of works from the DMCA's prohibition on the circumvention of copy protection for non-infringing purposes. One such ruling in 2010 declared, among other things, that the Content Scramble System (CSS) commonly employed on commercial DVDs could be circumvented to enable non-infringing uses of the DVD's content.The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) hailed the ruling as enabling DVD excerpts to be used for the well-established fair-use activities of criticism and commentary, and for the creation of derivative works by video remix artists. However, the text of the ruling says the exemption can only be exercised by professional educators and their students, not the general public.
judge gustav: mr dotbiz, you copied the x movie on to a blank dvd? mr dotbiz: yes, i did. For personal use as a backup judge gustav: why? mr dotbiz: In case my kid destroyed it like he did some others I paid for. judge gustav: how did you copy the movie? mr dotbiz: I purchased a DVD copy program. http://www.copyprotecteddvd.net/ judge gustav: Fair enough, since in the cases where a court has ruled on consumer's right to copy digital media, they have never eliminated the right to make a digital copy for personal use or backup, and in two cases they've explicitly endorsed that right. You are free to go.
Gustav, what part of: it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer. did you not understand? LOL
in the year 2200, replicator tech is fully developed. and the home furnishing industry is in shambles mr dotbiz vs furniture ltd established the legal basis for replicating sofas under the doctrine of fair use. it had been affirmed that children frequent thrash furniture and parents are entitled to replace them by replication rather than purchasing a new set
2 things. first "it may well be" is kind of vague when it comes to law. either it is or it isn't. if you want to include "the gray area" then you are talking justice, not law. second you do not own the movie that is still under copyright.
Getting back to adoucette's assertion that most musicians sign contracts (well, the one's that sell "reasonable quantities" do Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!): I made no effort to prove my contention that most musicians do NOT in fact sign contracts (as contracts are principally the purview of major labels, and very few independents operate with such) for obvious reasons: it's kinda hard to prove a negative. That is to say, there aren't a whole lot of stats for people who don't sign contracts. Anyhow, here's why--in the words of Steve Albini: (From The Problem with Music. Bolding mine.) Of course, Albini doesn't provide citations, so I'm certain that adoucette will dispute all of this. Because, of course, he knows far more about the matter than some derd niffer--he's a "google scholar."
wtf? i was under duress when i said that. i was being blackmailed by the mpaa mafia. they had....pictures ----- adoucette the pinko liberal dont you just love it!
Considering adoucette's "expertise," I'd venture that he's actually been working with Albini for the past couple a decades...
Used like that, in "may well", I understand it's meaning perfectly. Since you think its illegal to copy DVDs for backup then simply show us a court case where an individual was found guilty of breaking this law.
Looking at what you posted you made it clear why you need a contract. Indeed, Albini is a producer and you know he isn't going to work without a contract. The POINT of his article is be wary of the big labels, they will screw you. Go to an independent LIKE HIM. But, regardless of who you go to, the POINT of a contract is to protect everyone's interest, and in the example you mentioned, the production of a record that is going to sell 250,000 copies, over $3,000,000 is involved and that is NOT done with a hand-shake. Ok, cut that by 1/5th, with say 50,000 records, that's still probably a quarter million being spent, again, NOT done with a hand shake. Don't believe me? Tell me anything you buy for that much with out a contract.
Sometimes he does, sometimes he doesn't--I know a fair number of people who have recorded with him. Likewise, he adjusts his rates based upon how much he likes the artist and how much money they have access to. Really? How exactly do you know this, Arthur? I'm familiar with plenty of labels that replicate between one thousand and 20 thousand units--and none of them use written contracts.
disingenuous red herring you simply cannot parse the fact that "fair use" is useless when invoked in this particular instance against dmca “The court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use,” she wrote. “While it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.” In other words, as the law stands, no tool can legally perform what is likely a legal act. (judge patel) nothing has been resolved yet you pretend it has so you can justify piracy
Except the courts have ruled many times on this, even on digital copies and even on copies of software, and in every case they found that making digital copies for personal backup was allowed.
http://www.imaginelaw.com/lawyer-attorney-1181372.html So THAWK, back in your court. Cite a case where someone was found guilty of making a back up copy.
