[mythtv-users] "Excellent" transcode isn't so excellent
myth at dermanouelian.com
Sat Oct 28 17:54:30 UTC 2006
On Oct 28, 2006, at 6:58 AM, Richard Freeman wrote:
> Michael T. Dean wrote:
>> On 10/27/06 15:07, David Brodbeck wrote:
>>> While it may be technically illegal, I see no
>>> *moral* issue with ripping a movie you own.
>> You /own/ the movie? You paid the millions of dollars to create the
>> movie? Wow.
>> I simply buy discs that contain a copy of the movie which I am
>> to view through a licensed DVD player.
> Actually, copyright law is generally interpreted in terms of
> If you buy a movie at Walmart you OWN it. You do NOT have the
> right to
> distribute copies of it, but you otherwise have all the rights
> associated with the ownership of a physical object, such as the
> right to
> sell it to somebody else and the right to call the police if somebody
> steals it. The same has applied to books for centuries - you do
> not own
> the copyright on the book, but you do in fact own the book itself
> if you
> bought it.
Actually, you don't own the movie. You own the piece of plastic the
movie is on.
> In any case, you're trivializing the issue. The previous poster could
> just have easily said "While it may be technically illegal, I see no
> *moral* issue with ripping a movie you are licensed to view through a
> licensed DVD player." - and he'd be just as right in my view.
> The whole idea that you don't actually own a copy of something that is
> copyrighted started out with software EULAs, and it is a bit of a
> fiction. Just because something is written in a contract doesn't make
> it a legal fact - Microsoft could claim ownership of your next of
> kin in
> an EULA, and no court in the US would recognize this as being legal.
> In fact, until recently fair use was not mentioned at all in copyright
> law, and yet courts allowed such use in the interpretation of the law.
> The reason is in part that courts recognized that when you buy a
> book or
> other copyrighted work you are in fact obtaining ownership of the copy
> of the book, and there are many things that it just makes sense for
> owners to be able to do. Modern copyright law sets out specific
> guidelines for fair use, and they're generally in line with prior
> decisions. In fact, ripping a DVD for personal use would probably
> under these guidelines, making it perfectly legal (the copying is for
> personal use, and does not substantially affect the market for the
> Sure, the MPAA may not like it, but the fact is that this does not
> really matter - it only matters whether the court likes it.
Absolutely I agree. I also agree that no court would say it's ok for
the original poster to rip copies of DVDs he gets from NetFlix or the
public library which is what started this discussion. It was a bonus
that the original poster works for a broadcasting company who really
should know better.
More information about the mythtv-users