MPAA Says Making “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal

250px-Pirate_Flag_of_Rack_Rackham.svg.png
 
Kaitian said:
Of course it is :)

I was going to throw in my MPAA Pirate flag too to point out the sarcasm but I just threw it in photoshop which took me about 5 minutes. Here it is.

Click to expand...

I think I wanna adopt that flag, very fitting.
 
tubular said:
Now I fully agree that they are being unreasonable. However, being a wedding photographer I am very concerned with copyright law. This is a very tricky thing, there are a lot of 'starving artists' for lack of a better word, that would be absolutely destroyed if the law the MPAA and RIAA are using as a Guise for money grubbing were removed as I'm sure many people in these forums wish for.

Allowing copies of a thing to be made for free destroys the ability for people such as myself to make an income from our work. So before everyone and their grandma starts wanting this law to be torn down think about all the little guys that this law is really protecting.
Click to expand...

Sorry but I always thought the idea of professional photographers keeping negatives (for commissioned work) and charging a fortune for prints was and is a shame. Especially when the customer payed not only for the original prints made but also the fees and per hour charges for time and skill to just have them there to take the pictures.

It would be one thing if the photographer was ONLY charging for prints but most do not.

Especially with digital photography it is my opinion that for commissioned art, aka weddings and family photo's etc, the artist should charge for their skill, time and equipment and hand over the originals so the person who paid for that specific piece can do what they want with them. I could understand a resale clause or extra fee though...

If the photographer/artist is making their own art not on commission then yes more standard copy right laws should apply.

The entertainment biz is running into virtually the same problem with their business model.

Instead of adjusting their model and prices to fit the consumer and still make a healthy product, they are spending their time and money to fight against change that they will never win.

I have NO problem with people getting paid for their work. Just clinging and fighting to an old model that clearly is not working anymore is just stupid.
 
dandirk said:
Sorry but I always thought the idea of professional photographers keeping negatives (for commissioned work) and charging a fortune for prints was and is a shame. Especially when the customer payed not only for the original prints made but also the fees and per hour charges for time and skill to just have them there to take the pictures.

It would be one thing if the photographer was ONLY charging for prints but most do not.

Especially with digital photography it is my opinion that for commissioned art, aka weddings and family photo's etc, the artist should charge for their skill, time and equipment and hand over the originals so the person who paid for that specific piece can do what they want with them. I could understand a resale clause or extra fee though...

If the photographer/artist is making their own art not on commission then yes more standard copy right laws should apply.

The entertainment biz is running into virtually the same problem with their business model.

Instead of adjusting their model and prices to fit the consumer and still make a healthy product, they are spending their time and money to fight against change that they will never win.

I have NO problem with people getting paid for their work. Just clinging and fighting to an old model that clearly is not working anymore is just stupid.
Click to expand...

I suppose you feel that way with writers and authors too. Barnes and Nobles and Borders should not be selling these books because the author already sold his original draft to his editor or publishing house. The books were already paid for. Right? :rolleyes:
 
My photographer is awesome. We usually purchase about $300-$400 worth of prints when we use him. However, he always gives us the originals in both RAW and JPG.
 
Joe Average said:
What we need is someone to break into the home of a senior member of the MPAA or RIAA and find copies of movies from friends or family, 'cause you damned well know they do it, just like everyone else. Find recorded TV shows on VHS video tape, or on a hard drive in a PC, or something similar, and out the bastards...
Click to expand...
They already did....you don't remember the case in which the MPAA copied a guy's documentary for their court case? The guy made a documentary on the MPAA or piracy or something like that and the MPAA made an illegal copy rather than buy the thing. I'm sure soemone on here will remember and provide a link.
 
What?

I always buy two copies of everything! One is the backup of course....

(obviously not serious)
 
Azhar said:
I suppose you feel that way with writers and authors too. Barnes and Nobles and Borders should not be selling these books because the author already sold his original draft to his editor or publishing house. The books were already paid for. Right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Talk about a huge mistake in this analogy. The author sells or licenses the book to be mass produced in order to get the books on store shelves. That's the whole point.

A wedding photographer is not contracted to do this but instead to take photos of the wedding. The photographer did not set up the wedding for the purpose of taking photos to sell or license. The photographer was contracted to perform a service and provide a product as a result of the work of someone else.
 
dmagro said:
What?

I always buy two copies of everything! One is the backup of course....

(obviously not serious)
Click to expand...
I backup everything I own. For movies I have a backup on my HDD to upload to my PMP for trips and with music I keep copies in the car because I'm tired of losing my entire music collection when people break in. Both industries can kiss my ass, I own the discs so I can do as I please with them. I realize the law might disagree but that doesn't mean the law is right...it's my physical property now, not theirs.
 
Amen.

Here's the thing that really pissed me off about this whole thing with the MPAA- of all the issues we have to deal with in our country now, this is what is being argued in our court system? A chalenge to the idea of fair use??

You want to jail pirates? Go for it. Shut down napster? Obviously a copyright violation so go for it. But don't tell me what I can do with stuff I have bought.
 
Riddle me this; I can log into my county library online account & order any DVD they have at any affiliate library for free & they send it to the library closest to me. It may take awhile, but it's free & legal & they actually do have a fair amount of new releases (though you can end up in a long queue for them. Okay, now here's my point; now I look at the internet as a massive library...I download, watch & delete (as though I had taken it back to the library). I don't make a copy (though I used to).

Hey, if they can use twisted logic, then so can I.;)
 
So when you make a copy of a porno movie rental that is illegal?
Are they members of the MPAA?
Ive alway had to do this because I dont always finish the movie:D
 
Blown 89 said:
They already did....you don't remember the case in which the MPAA copied a guy's documentary for their court case? The guy made a documentary on the MPAA or piracy or something like that and the MPAA made an illegal copy rather than buy the thing. I'm sure soemone on here will remember and provide a link.
Click to expand...

This Film Is Not Yet Rated, was pirated by the MPAA. They made illegal copies and passed it around to many MPAA members. Is that the one you're talking about?
 
xxEIEIOxx said:
This is like me claiming this post is copyrighted by me. Everyone that reads it must pay me $1, every time they read it. If you copy and paste it, $2.
Click to expand...

This is like me claiming this post is copyrighted by me. Everyone that reads it must pay me $1, every time they read it. If you copy and paste it, $2.

Shit, I owe you $3
 
whats sad is they get a cut out of every blank disc. what more do they want?
 
matrix563 said:
whats sad is they get a cut out of every blank disc. what more do they want?
Click to expand...

they want it like ebay. charge people for the initial sale, then charge them for what they do with that product (in ebays case, charge you a hefty percentage of high high the sale went for on top of the listing fee you already paid based on the percentage of how much you initially listed it for)
 
tubular said:
Now I fully agree that they are being unreasonable. However, being a wedding photographer I am very concerned with copyright law. This is a very tricky thing, there are a lot of 'starving artists' for lack of a better word, that would be absolutely destroyed if the law the MPAA and RIAA are using as a Guise for money grubbing were removed as I'm sure many people in these forums wish for.

Allowing copies of a thing to be made for free destroys the ability for people such as myself to make an income from our work. So before everyone and their grandma starts wanting this law to be torn down think about all the little guys that this law is really protecting.
Click to expand...

Oi. New can, same worm.

Personally, and I don't care if others disagree, people with your mentality are a part of the problem.

You provide a "service." Nothing more. And you get paid handsomely for the service you provide (which is just, as these are memories to be cherished for [hopefully] a lifetime).

But with regard to photos of people, IMO, it ends there. Just because you threw a fancy title in front of your service (eg: "Portrait Studio") gives you no right to hold their memories HOSTAGE any time the person in the picture wants a copy. They should be able to go to whomever they damn well please, or do it themselves, should they so desire, and without recourse. What happens when you die? Or what if both your studio and reserve source (assuming you have one) burn to the ground?

In NO WAY is that "destroying your ability for an income". You got paid for the initial job
and then delivered what you were paid for. End of service.

Should you desire additional income, go take more pictures!!!

*shakes his head*
 
Azhar said:
I suppose you feel that way with writers and authors too. Barnes and Nobles and Borders should not be selling these books because the author already sold his original draft to his editor or publishing house. The books were already paid for. Right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

That is a product. NOT a service.

Thanks for trying though! :eek:
 
Azhar said:
I suppose you feel that way with writers and authors too. Barnes and Nobles and Borders should not be selling these books because the author already sold his original draft to his editor or publishing house. The books were already paid for. Right? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

SmokeRngs said:
Talk about a huge mistake in this analogy. The author sells or licenses the book to be mass produced in order to get the books on store shelves. That's the whole point.

A wedding photographer is not contracted to do this but instead to take photos of the wedding. The photographer did not set up the wedding for the purpose of taking photos to sell or license. The photographer was contracted to perform a service and provide a product as a result of the work of someone else.
Click to expand...

This and this. The way the MPAA wants it, if this were books, you would pay the price of the book. Then, you read the book once. Whether or not you've finished reading the book, you must pay another fee to read the book again, or pick up where you left off. If anyone else wants to read the same book you have, whether or not they live in your household, that person cannot - they must go and pick up their own copy of the book, and be subject to the same payment deal that you are. You are not allowed to lend the book out to anyone for any reason, and you cannot even use it for school/class material without their written consent. In fact, you cannot read it outside the comfort of your own home without their expressed written consent, so forget about bringing it with you on the bus, plane, train, or other mode of public/mass transportation you regularly go on. If you are a teacher, you cannot read it aloud to your class, unless every student has paid a licensing fee to listen to you read it, each and every day you read it. Keep in mind you are still subject to all charges for every time you pick up the book to read it In fact, you must pay to read the book everytime you even so much as open the cover. In their view, you should be glad they are not charging you viewing access by the page, or possibly even the paragraph, because they still reserve the right to do so.

And here's the real kicker - the author doesn't see a dime of this. All they get is what's originally been licensed for publishing. Your cut of the money to them stops when you buy the book.

Now, if you were an author, how pissed off would you be at THAT?
 
In a world of fast broadband, and since I can download easily from several sources with 2MB/s, I rarely take a movie out of my neatly placed glass case that holds them all together.

I just download it. I still own it though, and it's the same movie, so I can't see the problem.

Copyright crusaders are getting crazier and crazier.
 
ordovician said:
You do realize that if the average movie is 1.5hrs long, you could play your movie collection 24/7 without repeats continuously for almost 6 weeks?

Fucking awesome.
Click to expand...

You know the size, quality and of the videos in his collection?!?!
 
Rockjay420 said:
really>? out of bland media?
Click to expand...

i know it used to be, if you bought the "music" branded CD-R's, you end up paying a premium so the artists (well, their lawyers) get some money. i dont know if thats still going on, and i wouldnt doubt if it didnt work.
 
Dr.LaRd said:
LOL next thing they're going to come out with is "a higher price point" to reflect multiple watches, it'll go a little something like this:

movie companies are losing money! everytime you rewatch that new bluray/dvd you just legally purchased you are breaking the law. you only paid to watch it once, every subsequent view is lost sale of perpetual viewing rights.

oh, and if you even think about watching a movie with your loved one/friends....you have to buy more licenses for that. we have now included new sensors in every dvd/bluray player that can monitor how many people are in the room at any given time, and before you can use your device you must supply us with a credit card. if we detect anyone new, you will automatically be charged for that person. now you can rest at ease knowing you won't be charged with a federal felony for anyone not authorized to be present!
Click to expand...

LOL... best... post... ever!!!

I love it!! It sounds soooo legit that it actually sounds like something they would think of... kudos to you, kind sir... kudos to you :)
 
matrix563 said:
whats sad is they get a cut out of every blank disc. what more do they want?
Click to expand...

That may be the case in Canada, it is not the way it works in the U.S. for most DVD and CD media. The only exception is if your dvds and CD are burned in CE devices. Those require a different type of media, which includes a royalty for the media companies. They cost more and most CD/DVD media is computer media. I suspect all DVD media that's used for movies is Computer media, since those devices would never copy DRM video.
 
Sprkslfly said:
Oi. New can, same worm.

Personally, and I don't care if others disagree, people with your mentality are a part of the problem.

You provide a "service." Nothing more. And you get paid handsomely for the service you provide (which is just, as these are memories to be cherished for [hopefully] a lifetime).

But with regard to photos of people, IMO, it ends there. Just because you threw a fancy title in front of your service (eg: "Portrait Studio") gives you no right to hold their memories HOSTAGE any time the person in the picture wants a copy. They should be able to go to whomever they damn well please, or do it themselves, should they so desire, and without recourse. What happens when you die? Or what if both your studio and reserve source (assuming you have one) burn to the ground?

In NO WAY is that "destroying your ability for an income". You got paid for the initial job
and then delivered what you were paid for. End of service.

Should you desire additional income, go take more pictures!!!

*shakes his head*
Click to expand...

WTF are you talking about? Your lack of any sort of grasp of the concepts of copyright law or capitalism is appalling.

First of all, there is no comparison whatsoever between a wedding photographer and the MPAA in what this discussion is about- none.

A wedding photographer is someone who provides a service and then charges for that service and charges for various ancillary services surrounding the act of taking pictures for a wedding. They range in skills, fees and the way they charge for things they do.

The MPAA is a governing body that organizes the collective business practices of the movie studios. Because of the collective nature of their organization, they have a large amount of sway over the legalities of the way copyright law is applied to their product and to copy-written works in general.

if you don't like the way a wedding photographer charges or don't like the individual services he "nickels and dimes" you for, hire someone else. Unlike dealing with the MPAA, a wedding photographer has no opportunity to force their business practices on you.
 
Fuk em, nobody tells me what to do with the stuff I have purchased legally, if that includes making backups then so be it, if they dont want us to make backups then they should get their shit together so that dvds truly dont scratch.
 
EVIL-SCOTSMAN said:
Fuk em, nobody tells me what to do with the stuff I have purchased legally, if that includes making backups then so be it, if they dont want us to make backups then they should get their shit together so that dvds truly dont scratch.
Click to expand...

Amen brother.

What amazes me is that people tend to be more involved with and therefore purchase more of something that they can easily enjoy. My father in law for example buys many more movies now that he has a Kaliedescape system.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top