What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
65 Comments
- mrhaines, on 10/12/2007, -0/+65This is a prime example of the MPAA being anti-consumer. When will these big wigs figure out that if they work with societal trends they will make more money than if they don't. I think it is a shame when technology and progress are held up by protectionists who do not understand the benefits of technology.
- Langford, on 10/12/2007, -0/+38They do realize they are hurting customers, they just don't care. Their actual intentions are to change the way copyrighted material is treated by the law, so that they can force selling multiple copies of the same product, to the same person, over and over. All the talk about protecting against pirates is just marketing and lies on their part.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+28"This lawsuit’s purpose isn’t just to shut down Load ‘N Go Video. It also indirectly implies that it is illegal for people to rip legally purchased DVDs at home. Quite a shame, since this only hurts actual paying customers. “Pirates” are going to continue doing whatever they want. It’s just like the sad truth about DRM. The people that are actually buying songs are being restricted from listening to them on devices of their choice, whereas those who aren’t, remain unaffected."
When the ***** are these companies going to realize that they are only hurting their PAYING customers, not people who intend to pirate their works? - jus1haz2, on 10/12/2007, -2/+28all those company's (riaa, mpaa) are such dick heads. Are they not people? I mean wtf is thier problem!
- MjrParanoid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+27OK, so the ONLY way to legally get a movie on your video Ipod is to buy it though I-Tunes?
Does that sound ridiculous to anyone else? - andydumi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+24If the DVDs are also given then whats the problem? Is the ripping software also given and included in price?
- daeken, on 10/12/2007, -0/+16Why should they re-read it? They wrote it :P
- 0b501373, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16Just preload it with porn.
At least those guys are willing to move with the times.. - Astravian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15Will the madness ever end?!?
- meltingrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14@alexradoo
Sure, buying only independent label music hurts the RIAA. Some labels that I purchase from include Metropolis, Kill Rock Stars, and Sympathy for the Record Industry. All are completely not associated with the RIAA. There is always http://riaaradar.com/ for anything you aren't sure about. - MjrParanoid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12I didn't say video, I said movies. Actual movies, like seen in a theater or direct to 7-11 dvd rack. I own over 200 dvds. Have you noticed that I-Tunes has no way to rip video off a dvd? Only audio. I personally don't see a difference but it seems that the law does. They are both circular disks I paid for that hold things that hold entertaining content. Music , movie, whatever. Its just entertainment.
I guess the more of your senses you have to use the more protected the content is.
When they finally perfect smell and touch you will probably be given a small memory affecting concussion when you leave the theater to prevent you from telling anyone about the content you viewed. - retral, on 10/12/2007, -0/+10Or it could be that no one cares.
- bmobile, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Isn't the EFF a good place to start? www.eff.org
- Invid, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I still can't understand how Americans can tolerate this state of affairs. You claim to value freedom in all it's forms, but as a country you willingly prostitute those same freedoms to benefit corporate interests. Madness.
I hope the trend of bought and paid for politicians never gets the same level of traction here in Canada. We have similar problems, but not nearly so brazen and in-your-face. - venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7It is illegal technically. The DMCA outlaws the circumvention of copy protections (e.g CSS protection on DVDs). Even though it's considered fair use to rip a backup, breaking the copy protection is illegal. Whether the DMCA is a just law is another matter completely (I think it's draconian personally), but it is illegal to rip a copy-protected DVD.
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9This company should have seen this coming.
Regardless of how you feel about the DMCA or the MPAA, the *law* currently states that subverting copy protection mechanisms is illegal.
In order to rip a DVD you must subvert the copy protections built into the DVD format, and you therefor violate the law. End of story.
The fact that this subversion is easy makes no difference in the eyes of the law.
No matter how you look at it, this company is violating the DMCA and is making money from that violation. - Doggpound, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6@alexradoo
Buy your music from www.emusic.com they sell only in the mp3 format and only from labels that do not want to restrict customers. - chris9902, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7good to see the **AA lawyers keepin' themselves busy. I mean you go to law school for all those years. Daddy isn't gonna make all that money back... well he will but that's not the point.
The point is you now wear a suit and you get to feel like a big man by pushing around people who don't know better with fancy words and you can make threats like you'll send them to jail unless they pay you X amount.
The Media Mafia thanks you for your cooperation. - venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6If I'm not mistaken, the fair use provisions of the DMCA only protect the ability of people to break copy protections for educational (and other related) reasons, and allows reverse engineering to that effect. It has no implications for people wishing to back up their media content. That's part of the fair use doctrine, which isn't even law afaik, but is just what is generally considered by courts to be fair use.
- shrapnull, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8Sorry, Otto.
Fair use is not a law, but Copyright and DMCA are! If more people knew that Fair Use is not outlined within the confines of the law they would fight to have it so!
Copyright gives you legal access to a single copy, not copies you make (legally speaking). DVD ripping is not licensed so dvdcss is ILLEGAL and violates the DMCA. Apple pays Thompson and the music labels royalties for your ability to rip CD's so it's legal.
I'm not agreeing with it, I'm just stating how it is. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+8That is sofa king stupid.. seriously.. i cant see how that makes any sense..
- boyasunder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Fair use _is_ outlined in law. It's vague, but section 107 of Title 17 (the copyright title) of US Code provides fair use outlines.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000107----000-.html
They aren't a lot of help to read, and it's a really fact-specific inquiry as to whether you are protected under fair use, but it's wrong to say there isn't any statutory law on the matter.
(Yes, this isn't the DMCA, this is generic copyright, but the fair use would/should still be a defense to the coyping of the DVD.) - lordigor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4from how i understand it, its actually legal to copy a dvd you own to any device. the way they get around that is that it is _illegal_ to break the encryption, which you MUST do to copy the dvd. hence, there is no legal way to copy a dvd.
i might be wrong, but thats how i understand it. - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4What about Macrovision-protected tapes? There was copy protection back then too.
- takeda, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"i am so tired of this ... does anyone knows any way to fight these companies or to help some initiatives, i feel the need to fight!"
The only way to fight them is not buying their products, and encourage your friends to do the same. Suppert independent artists.
Eventually they'll die, it's a matter of time. Although more easy-to-use p2p networks should speed it up ]:> - Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Is the company based in the US? If so, then by letter of the law(albeit a crooked law), it is illegal to rip DVDs because the CSS copy protection needs to be circumvented in order for someone to transcode their DVD into another format. The DMCA makes this illegal. The reason it is legal to rip your audio CDs is because they are not governed by any copy protection mechanism. The act of copying is not illegal, however the act of breaking copy protection is. This is why they're going after Load ‘N Go Video.
If Load ‘N Go Video was based in another country, such as Canada, the MPAA would have no case whatsoever. Ripping DVDs is perfectly legal here. - ExtremeRyno, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Now they're going to sue all those people who transfer their VHS to DVD and all the companies that provide that as a service. Lets chalk another one up to MPAA's continued retardation.
- Otto, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Well, the MPAA needs to re-read the DMCA again. This would fall under fair use, which is still a valid defense and is protected under the relevant section of the DMCA.
- andydumi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I guess audio is protected this way but video is not.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001008----000-.html - Arkonnan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"Even if it did, what's to stop you from going outside the US (say, do it in a boat in international waters)? Retarded US laws don't apply everywhere in the universe."
Nothing is to stop you. Like I said, it's legal in Canada and other countries where the DMCA does not exist. By my country's laws, I am allowed to make copies for backup purposes. Format shifting is not prohibited. A backup is a backup. :) - ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8That's certainly not the only legal way to get a video on to your iPod.
- venom8599, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2That's fair use, or it least it's considered fair use currently. If the content on the CD was copy protected and you break that protection in order to copy the software (even to your computer for backup/archival) then you've run afoul of the DMCA.
- Ahnteis, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2It allows reverse engineering for interoperability. That's the angle that should be taken.
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm pretty sure "most rippers" don't work that way. That's called framegrabbing, and it was done back before CSS was cracked. Nowadays they just decrypt the MPEG-2 data directly.
(And anyway, framegrabbing is still a DMCA violation. What matters is that you're circumventing the copy protection, not that you're doing it specifically by cracking the encryption.) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I can actually see that happening... if they dont make that money from the re realease in dolby digital ***** remastered blah blah with special commentary by the directors grandma.. then they will try to sue(how the hell would they find ud) those people transfering their vhs movies to dvd sighting that the ***** janitors at movie theaters need to make some income.
- MjrParanoid, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Ok, I respect that all of you are aware of CSS and how it used as a copy protection, but that is not how most rippers work nowadays. The actually legally play the content through an external player and convert the output stream on the fly. I know its a hairs difference but its in effect the equivalent to sitting in front of your TV with a digital camcorder. That is why they are so slow. Add in that the purpose of CSS was to stop people from making more DVDs not to stop that single DVD from being viewed on newer forms of entertainment devices and I think a strong case can be made for fair use.
- ThinkFr33ly, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Except transferring VHS to DVD is not illegal because it doesn't subvert any copyright mechanisms in the VHS format. (Since there are none.)
So no, they won't do that. - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What it comes down to is that the MPAA really misses the whole point and spirit of the law. Their interpretation is completely off the scale. They are misguided, sue happy and just plain greedy. If you own a DVD you can very well rip it and do what ever you want with it. It's fair use. The spirit of the law is to stop ILLEGAL PIRACY. That is selling of illegal copies of content. Putting the DVD you own onto your own iPod or computer is NOT what the spirit of the law is about at all. The MPAA/RIAA must be stopped. They are causing more harm than piracy ever could hope to.
- boyasunder, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Invid
What would you call the Canadian levy on every piece of blank media sold, which then primarily goes to copyright owners? Just like how few everyday people in the US come up against the DMCA and realize it, few Canadians know they are paying money to copyright holders under the assumption that all blank media they buy is going to be used for piracy.
The fact is that in both the US and Canada (and lots of other places, I'd imagine) these small, incremental infringements on sensible IP rights are rarely noticed, not that people don't care. - mulling, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3To be fair, the DMCA makes it unlawful to bypass 'effective copy protection mechanisms'. Since CSS isn't effective, and hasn't been for years, this shouldn't apply.
Even if it did, what's to stop you from going outside the US (say, do it in a boat in international waters)? Retarded US laws don't apply everywhere in the universe. - tech42er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Ripping DVD;s is illlegal? Well, sue the DVD recorder making companies then! Oh, you haven't? You're going after the little companies? Jackasses (and DVD recording is legal).
- Sfmobius, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2As long as people keep buying all the heavily encrypted crap, they will keep trying to force it down our throats. The only way to make them listen is to hit them in the pocketbooks.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is a great way for the MPAA to give consumers the necessary justification to investigate what this "bittorent thing" is all about.
- Meowbiusfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It all reminds me of those "Do not remove this tag
under penalty of the Law" on mattresses. - Invid, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@boyasunder:
Actually, I'm quite well aware of the levy imposed on blank media here in Canada, and strangely enough I'm OK with it. In taking that money, copyright holders have effectively blocked themselves from being able to sue individuals for copyright infringement. You cannot collect damages twice for the same infraction. Moreover, the levies are small enough that blank media is still cheap.
It's an ethical compromise, but a pragmatic win. - OCedHrt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well, ripping a DVD without DeCSS wouldn't be illegal.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1sicko's
- Eccles, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The only freedom really valued is the freedom to make money, from what I've seen. (Witness the War on Drugs, anti-gay marriage, etc.) But really, the difference here is that there are companies based in the U.S. who make a whole lot of money selling movies in the U.S. So they have the power and incentive to get the law twisted to their ends. The problem isn't the same in Canada because the media interests aren't as powerful.
- Snootch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@finbec
You should read the comment by ThinkFr33ly again. He is talking about "law" and makes it clear when he said "Regardless of how you feel about the DMCA or the MPAA, the *law* currently states that subverting copy protection mechanisms is illegal." You are talking about ethics (not the same thing).
If you feel it's your duty to break an unjust law go ahead. You may also get sued for that action but that's what comes with the territory. I agree it’s a stupid law but that doesn’t mean it’s ok to break it. There are legal ways to get laws changed if you wish to avoid the problems of a lawsuit. - Meowbiusfox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1And don't worry,the paradigm will shift and the corporate
media nazis will find that nobody wants to buy what they have to sell anyway.It's already happening.. -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is