For most companies, the mounting failures could cause total collapse, but Sony proved that they were here to stay and still are as evidenced by their success in home electronics, including TVs, video game systems, movie studio and more.
When DVDs hit the market in the late 90s, the technology called for single-layered, single-sided disc. However, even this single format could hold more data than a typical VHS. Remember the double-tape Titanic VHS?
Or Braveheart? Or literally any movie that was three hours or longer? Well, dual-layer recording came out and turned what was an already impressive for the time 4.
Sure, that seems like chump change now, especially when you consider we have access to portable terabyte storage devices, but back in the mids, 8 gigabytes was huge.
Umm … floppy drives, anybody? You know, what kids today only know as the save icon on their computers. Even with the surge of technologically advanced storage devices like thumb drives and the cloud, DVDs are still a media format that is widely accepted and used by people of all ages, all over the world, even if it does skew a little more in the older population.
That is, if you still have a player to watch it. I was first released over in Japan November, There's likely a bit of need of people having that knowledge. If you claim to be an IP attorney why would you even need the statutes to be provided? So that the commenters understand the law and attempt to make intelligent responses.
Read the comments and keep in mind what the copyright statutes really say. You'll see that the vast majority of the comments are spoken by people that have no idea of the laws. The author should have put a couple of sentences out there explaining the laws.
But of course it would lessen the clicks. You are the person with the specialist knowledge of relevant statutes, therefore you should be the on to provide the links. Why don't you, do think that supplying links is infringing? I wonder if he's one of them. How curious that he didn't reply to this Anonmylous , 23 Apr pm. Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will communicate information only to someone who has been trained to read.
It really is about making a stupider consumer society, you see. Reading to your children wouldn't be, but reading it to the public as a public performance would be. I'm not sure whether the consumer is the one getting stupider. Silly semantic arguments, well.
Except that these "silly semantic arguments" have already been tried in court. Rightsholders have pretty bastardized definitions of what counts as "public performance". That One Guy profile , 24 Apr am. Ah, you're one of those kinds of lawyers. Does it depend on venue?
Number of people? Does reading to a group of kids at a library count, or does it only apply in a commercial setting? What if the person reading at the library is being paid? Did Ted Cruz infringe copyright for his ridiculous Dr. Seuss reading, or did that venue not count? Where these lines are drawn define how much support and respect the rules actually get.
If the lines are so tight that educating children suddenly requires a fee to a publisher, the rules become unenforceable because nobody will respect or support that. The first sentence says they are not purchasing any content, but merely a "right to access.
Are people purchasing a copy of the movie? Or are they merely licensing access to the content on the plastic? Copy has more meanings than the one you use at Techdirt Copy: If i've copied it I haven't stolen it. They've been told they can "Own it now on DVD" but the truth is just being admitted now: they are merely licensing access to the content.
People don't understand that. Okay then. I now own the rights to everything ever. After all, it's the same insane troll logic applied here. If they 'own' the DVD i purchased, and it gets scratched, warped, or broken Do they have to pay to fix it? Could you tell me where to find my licensing agreement. I want to check it to see who is responsible for repairs. I agree that we're only licensing the content but we've been repeatedly told we can "Own it now on DVD.
As you have correctly pointed out, we don't own jack. Pretty soon, every one will be just like me. Name a movie or tv show and I haven't see it and I never will. It's fraud and they ought to be prosecuted for it. Ignorance of the law is no defense. Maybe if there was a law or something that said you couldn't make new copies and then sell them.
You still own the copy you 'bought' and can sell it , but making a new copy and selling wouldn't be allowed. That seems like a reasonable approach. I might vote for a law like that. AnonCow , 23 Apr pm. If I send the DVD to the movie studio, how much are they willing to pay me for relinquishing my "license"?
Yeah, didn't think so Padpaw profile , 23 Apr pm. We don't own anything we buy, or are even born with. Anonymous Anonymous Coward , 23 Apr pm. Well, then what does one say to their grocery vendor when they ask one to regurgitate the last couple of years of meals that they 'rented' from them? Or, should that be the farmers? The test will be whether the first sale doctrine or copyright is stronger, and copyright is purchasing all the laws they can to make it the winner though whiner might be more appropriate.
In terms of the discussion above, there is information encoded and there is a physical storage device. More technically correct is that the media is the physical storage device. The information is stored by altering some characteristic of the media for the purposes of long term retention of the information. What is forgotten is that a specific performance has been recorded for presentation to the public. This recording of information has been achieved by various techniques over a long period of time.
The current common technique uses an encoding of a number to store the performance information. Now the interesting feature about using encoding of numbers to store information is that any particular number can be used to store quite different sets of information. A number is just a number and not copyrightable.
If you really want to get into a full very detailed discussion of this go to the archives for Groklaw and look up the discussion papers by PoIR on this matter. He goes into the technical details in a manner suitable for lawyers, judges and politicians.
If they are claiming we are only licensing the movie, does that mean that once we "license" it on dvd format we can then watch it in any other format? It's a derivative work then and you would need the copyright owner's permission. In reality, what are the damages and who will know if you do it in private? That is, if you rip it to Xvid or put it in an MKV container, etc.
People have been infringing copyright in all sorts of ways for decades, and nobody cared. The only difference now is that the sharing is done in public. All the infringement is out there for everyone to see, and it's possible to do easier and quicker than ever. But, in the minds of most people, they're still just sharing the stuff they would have done on CD, tape, VHS or whatever else. Attempts to crack down on piracy are failing largely because people are just doing what they've always done.
The technology's changed, but the fundamental idea and reasons haven't. When you don't have the commercial motive, things become far more difficult - especially when so many early attempts at cracking down were to treat people sharing a song the same way as they'd treat a commercial enterprise mass producing bootleg copies. If it's legal for me to make a backup copy privately, it would logically be legal for me to ask a friend to do it for me.
Now, if that friend is not able to do this in my home, he could rip the disc for me elsewhere and then send me that file. Now, let's say I don't have a friend who can do this for me, but someone else has a copy they made of another DVD, and they send me that copy which is identical to the copy that would have resulted from ripping my disc.
Assuming I legally own a copy of the DVD, at which point does the otherwise legal activity suddenly become illegal? The guy sending the copy might be infringing by sending me the file, but where am I infringing if having a backup copy of my disc is legal? This is why I pirate. Not because I can't afford something, but because, one day, someone will try to say that the thing I bought is no longer mine.
Until we get DRM-free purchases of games, movies, and books I will not be satisfied with any purchase I make. Anonymous Anonymous Coward , 24 Apr am. Most of us in this community are not lawyers, we're consumers. Consumers who are terribly frustrated with how things are, and to really understand us you are gonna need to read a whole lot more than just this one article. I would like to ask you what you think IP law should be. Not what it is, but what it should be.
For this hypothetical, let us assume it is Most of the contributors and commenters here have not been born yet. Neither has Bill Gates , or Steve Jobs. Sony and Cher are around, but they probably haven't met yet. There isn't much software being written as the IBM is still a couple of years away. And the IOC won't air an Olympic game for another 6 years, and their first true telecast won't be for another The MPAA exists, but it has mostly been about censorship to this point.
Remember, this is not about what the law is currently, it is about what the law should be. And let us remember what the basis for IP is in this country: Section. Should software be patentable or copyright-able? Should business methods receive protection of any kind? Should any country even attempt to force their vision of IP on any other country? Should there be any control over any product after a sale when copying for resale is already illegal?
Should format shifting be wrong if there is no money made from it? Should libraries and therefore sharing as in lending a book to a friend, not selling be illegal? What do you say? You actually expect him to answer?
One has to remember that there is currently a complete logical disconnect between IP law of any form and the real world. Lawyers rarely understand anything about the real world. They are locked in a mindset that revolves around their specific expertise in the legal domain. I find it also disingenuous of any lawyer who says he comes from a technical background and understands the real world. As a matter of course, all lawyers are trained to understand the complexity of the illogical nature of the law and not about whether the law actually make sense in the real world.
Well, we know he made a response at am above, so we know he has seen it. If he does not respond, then is it just one more nail in his 'I am not here to be serious, but to protect the business model in IP law that I have chosen' coffin. Along the lines you point out attorney's and some other professionals have a way of creating an unnecessary lexicon that is designed to make them necessary. I don't blame GooberdUp for this, it started long long ago. I will blame GooberedUp for participating for personal economic purposes in a profession that is corrupt and an attack and fraud on the common folk.
He will answer if he has any integrity, so your right, he won't answer. These are my personal views, so I don't know whether there is much worth here. Like anyone else, my opinions may sometimes be the same or differ from someone else's and won't necessarily follow the laws. I think a limited amount of time should be provided. If I am an author and I drop dead the day after I've spent 20 years writing a book, shouldn't there be some type of compensation?
I think the duration specified in the original law was fine. The Mickey Mouse copyright extensions are way over the top. I've done them over the years, but maybe it's my hardware engineer side that nags me about this saying that flow charts and functional boxes really shouldn't be patentable. Copyrights I'm okay with. Not a fan. I wouldn't have any issues with that going away. They shouldn't, as long as the restaurant isn't using any IOC trademarks in a way that could cause customers to be confused about affiliation.
Only if a unified vision is good for IP generally. Not quite sure about the Berne Convention. I think the copyright holder gets to decide how to handle its content.
Let them succeed or fail on their own. No, if you are talking about taking your content and making it viewable on numerous devices for your household use. It's only a single copy being moved. I'm sure the xxAA orgs would disagree with some of them. Thank you for answering. One more question Oh, and I take back the comment I made about integrity in a post that was held for moderation and I expect to show up some time in the future. I'm not denying fair use. Fair use is what's termed an "affirmative defense".
In other words, the defendant bears the burden of raising the defense and proving that the use was fair and not an infringement. Fair use is what's termed an "affirmative defense" Fair use should be considered by the copyright holder before bringing action, that they don't is having a chilling effect. Direct claims of infringement and use of the DMCA is allowing censorship, because most people cannot afford to hire a lawyer. GooberedUp profile , 24 Apr pm. I'm sure the copyright holder does consider it.
But given the deep pockets of most of the copyright holders that are suing, I'd bet it's barely a passing thought. John Fenderson profile , 24 Apr am. IP is not or shouldn't be an end unto itself. It is a trade-off, and the entire rationale for the tradeoff is that it benefits society in general, not that it benefits the creators of IP.
When I say good for IP generally, I really mean in terms of the ease of filing and reduction of cost. So for inventors large and small and the population in general, WIPO filings have been good. Higher IP costs likely would lead to higher product costs. John Fenderson profile , 24 Apr pm. I understand. So you really mean "good for IP". I just have a hard time seeing how "good for IP" means "good". Nick , 24 Apr pm.
From what I can tell, the CONTU report was sort of in favor of allowing the copyrighting of "non-literal" elements of software code.
The Altai decision, while not explicitly saying so, basically eliminates this kind of protection for software. Do you think that that is a mistake?
Or do you think that the CONTU report was didn't really support or understand that aspect of software copyrighting? It would appear that while GooberedUp claims to have knowledge and understanding of IP law and professes to have his misgivings about its absurdities, it seems he has no qualms making money off of it and insulting everyone else who disagrees with him. Nick , 24 Apr am. The DMCA makes it unlawful to circumvent digital protection measures, so there are certain things that you can be sued for doing with a DVD that you own.
Licenses are a thing that restrict the uses that purchasers make with the things that they buy. Therefore, people that buy DVDs are entering a license agreement.
This is obviously illogical. This is part of a broader effort on the part of content producers to attempt to trick courts into allowing the DMCA to bleed back into copyright ownership. The reason it is a problem is that the issue is complex, and judges frequently don't really understand copyright law. I hope that the copyright office makes significant efforts to push back against this trend.
DKWagner , 4 Apr pm. If the material is coded to cease being readable with restrictions listed, then the disc would still be mine, even though it stopped playing after 'X' number of plays or on a future date; but I still own the disc. If I don't own the disc, then I'm simply renting the product and the product should be returned by a certain date or it ceases to play after 'X' plays or a certain date.
You may and can resell it to someone else just like your '57Chevy. The copyright law has always allowed the purchaser to make a backup copy if possible in case the original is lost or damaged; but not if resold!!! Anonymous Coward , 10 Jul am. What a classic this one is, with the massive dog-pile and more aggressively wrong assertions than I can count.
I'm up to a hundred twenty-four, just to forestall the inevitable "up to ten" responses. Poor "GooberedUp"! You did succeed in running him off, so big WIN. I just wish other reasonable people knew of this thread, would save them much time. Fuse , 20 Apr am. Register here Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter this is for spambots, do not use this Comment Options: Use markdown. DVDs have lines of resolution in the U. For high-definition HD optical discs with 1, lines of resolution, see Blu-ray.
For DVD speed ratings 1x, 2x, etc. Blu-ray players also play DVD movies. They function like high-capacity CD-R discs. Aimed at the consumer, 1, rewrites are considered adequate. However, downloable music is available at the same sampling rates as DVD-Audio.
See DVD-Audio and high-resolution audio. Starting in , drives supporting both formats were introduced.
0コメント