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

[firas]

While I don't really care about their organization at all...


Who the hell actually makes "back ups" of DVDs ? Out of all my tech friends that I know, none of them have backup anything in their collections of games/movies/media.

People just like to complain to complain.

good point, I personally burn what I download to DVD’s to free disk space & make it easier when sharing them with other people, some just like to say “I have 1TB of movies/music”, though in these days you can obtain this amount in couple of months of you have a fast connection.
note: I just said “I burn what I download”, maybe I meant cat’s pictures, who knows!

 

[ripken204]

good point, I personally burn what I download to DVD’s to free disk space & make it easier when sharing them with other people, some just like to say “I have 1TB of movies/music”, though in these days you can obtain this amount in couple of months of you have a fast connection.
note: I just said “I burn what I download”, maybe I meant cat’s pictures, who knows!

you can obtain that amount in less than a week

 

[Blown 89]

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?

I think so, it was so long ago I can't remember

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA#Anti-piracy_efforts
Allegations of copyright infringement by the MPAA

In 2007, English software developer Patrick Robin reported that the MPAA was illegally using his blogging platform, Forest Blog. Forest Blog is distributed for free under a linkware license; anyone who uses it must link back to his site where Forest Blog is free offered for download. To remove the links back to his site, they must purchase a license. The MPAA had removed the links, without paying for a license.[32] They claim that they were only testing the blogging platform, and that the blog was “never advertised to the public in any way”. The torrent community in response mocked the MPAA saying that pirating movies is legal provided that they do not advertise them and only use them for testing purposes.[33]
On November 23, 2007, Matthew Garret notified the MPAA that it was in violation of the GNU General Public License (GPL) for distributing a software toolkit designed to help universities detect instances of potentially illegal file-sharing on school networks. This tool kit was based on the Xubuntu operating system, which is licensed under the GPL. The violation was distributing a derived work without making the source code available. On December 1, 2007, Garrett notified the Internet service provider for the MPAA that, in accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, he was requesting them to disable the offending distribution web site. It is not clear if this request was ever honored. However, the MPAA did change the site so as not to offer the toolkit for distribution.[34]
In the DVD extras to the film This Film Is Not Yet Rated director Kirby Dick accuses the MPAA of making an illegal copy of his film during the process of reviewing the film for its rating.

 

[firas]

you can obtain that amount in less than a week

not to mention a day!, the first 200GB is always the hardest, then comes relations… “let me obtain yours and I’ll let you acquire mine”

 

[Sprkslfly]

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

Might want to take another look around....

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

Ohhhhhh but there is. This is all about copyright.

Certain photo studios/companies/et al, have similar, if not some of the exact same statutes overlapping under current copyright laws as the MPAA do. So yes, this applies.

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.

There are *quite a few* photography "facililites" out there, that own the 'rights' to the photograph. And it's technically illegal to have that photograph reproduced in any form.
The only way you can get that photo again, is to go to the entity that produced it, and purchase another. Period. (Again, legally, that is.)

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.

As I stated just above...are you starting to see the similarity yet?

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.

Wrong again. The MPAA has zero ability to force themselves on you either.
Akin to what you said.... Don't like the movie industry? Don't support them.

All I was venting on, was those particular practices in use by *some* of the more antiquated photography entities out there, are the same as what the MPAA wants. Complete control, and to limit your rights/conditions of what you do with what you own.

As I said before, 'New can, same worm.'