I got a new computer recently, and I decided to get a 500 gigabyte hard drive. Now a DVD holds about 5 gigabytes, right? So my thinking was that I could rip my 30 or so DVDs onto my computer and watch them whenever I want, and not worry about scratching the DVDs. I also got a DVD burner, so I could also make copies to use and keep the originals safe.
The only problem is: YOU CAN’T FUCKING DO THAT. My computer will basically explode before it lets me copy anything from a DVD. I get that this is because of piracy and peer-to-peer networks. But what really pisses me off is that I’m the biggest defender of intellectual property (is that the right term?) I know. I’ve stopped lending my CDs to people because I discovered that they just made themselves a free copy. And I don’t have any audio or video that I got illegally (ie from Napster, or Kazaa, or whatever the kids are using these days) and I don’t plan to any time soon. But the people who control DVDs are terrified that I’ll upload “13 Going On 30” and other losers will get it for free. I’m not going to do that. I’ll sign a contract. You can investigate me. But I’d like to be able to back up “School of Rock.” As it stands, I won’t put any DVDs into my PS2, since it chews them up pretty well, but that’s a pitting for another day.
So to recap: I’m on the side of the movie studios / tech. companies on the piracy issue. And how do they repay me? With content I can’t back up at all. Thanks. :mad:
Well…
I’ve looked for software that will do this, and everything I can find is VERY lossy. What I really want is to be able to basically copy the DVD bit-for-bit onto my hard drive and watch it from there. I want no compression. If I’m willing to devote hard drive space to this, I don’t see why I shouldn’t be able to.
But if I’ve managed to miss the software that allows me to do that for a somewhat reasonable price, and someone points me in the right direction, I’ll be eternally grateful. Until that happens, though, I’ll keep up the indignant rage.
Unfortunately, you can’t do a bit-for-bit copy of most commercial DVDs. While dual-layer recorders now exist, no consumer recorder is capable of copying the special decoding keys that are required to decrypt most commercial movies. The keys are stored on an area of the disc that is not even writable by consumer recorders.
I beielve it is possible to use that lossy decruption/conversion software on high-quality large-file-size settings, along with a dual-layer drive, to build up a not-too-badly-fuzzed copy of a movie, but that would essentially be completely re-authoring the disc from the parts given on the original disc. I have never tried that and I don’t know how well it would work.
Actually, you can do it without compression from your hard drive. What you need is a program that gives you virtual DVD drives and you need to create your DVD ISOs without compression.
It can be done, it’s just not a one-step process. Producers of DVDs go out of their way to make this as difficult as possible, but no matter what they do there are people who stay a step ahead of them.
You do realise what you are attempting may well be illegal? Although you amye be allowed to make a copy of a dvd under fair use, circumventing the copy protection of the dvd was made an offence by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
And some of us think that DVD companies are trying to make an end-run around fair use by depriving the population of something they are legally entitled to do, so at this point, fuck the MPAA.
I (and probably most of the other posters in this thread) do know of such software. Some of the programs are even freeware. Unfortunately, as rayh notes, these programs break CSS, therefore violating the DMCA. That’s why most of the posts in this thread are intentionally vague and don’t mention any of the needed software. If we start getting into specifics, this thread will undoubtedly be locked down.
There are ways other than vague posts to help this dude. He needs only check them out.
I will, of course, not say what those methods are in this thread, since the mods here would have a shit fit about it. I will, however, say that once you check for those methods, it will become apparent that Sunsapce, although repeating what the MPAA wants people to believe, is wrong.
Depends on how you read the post. It’s kind of ambiguous. My impression was that Sunspace took the phrase “bit-for-bit” too literally, and thought that the OP wanted to recreate the CSS protection on his copy.
Well dude, to oversimplify by not very much, it’s YOUR fault. You support the policies that allow this kind of bullshit.
I’d say there’s a bit of poetic justice. This is one of the precise objections that we who are NOT “on the side of the movie studios / tech. companies” have always held up as an inevitable consequence of such extreme measures.
Whether or not rayh is correct or not is of no importance to me. I believe that’s what I stated previously. Not that rayh was incorrect, but that my opinion is anything done, legal or illegal, to make the MPAA and the RIAA suffer is fine with me.
If rayh’s attitude is that you shouldn’t break CSS because it’s illegal, well, I guess I’ll just have to disagree with rayh over what is right and what is wrong.
That is not rayh’s attitude at all. I just thought it deliciously ironic that someone who supports the copyright laws would now find themselves doing something illegal even if for a legitimate purpose.
At least you have a fair use clause in the USA. In the UK there is no such thing. It is illegal to make back-up copies of commercial recordings, period. I will admit that you are unlikely to be prosecuted for doing such a thing. It has recntly got even more interesting in that I recently bought a CD which had copy protection on it, but this actually allows you to take a back-up copy of the CD. So I wonder if this is actually legal. I would presume the licencing agreement would have been amended accordingly, but I haven’t checked.
What I wonder is how the OP can be the biggest defender of intellectual property he knows, but still not be entirely sure if “intellectual property” is the appropriate term for what he’s defending.
I too believe in not stealing/copying something I should pay for. At the same time I am a firm believer that when I purchase content, I should be allowed to do whatever I want with it as long as it is just for my own personal use.
I don’t support the DMCA (I think it went way too far), I don’t support the attempts to restrict fair use, etc. etc.
When the poster said he/she supports the content companies, he/she did not say the support should eliminate fair use of a product.
I’m an intellectual property attorney and so it may be a bit ironic, but I am completely behind anything that inconveniences RIAA, MPAA, Disney, Ted Turner, and any other jack ass that thinks the current set of copyright laws do anything to ‘promote the useful arts’.
Just to throw in a gratuitous attack, its been my experience that a surprisingly large number of copyright holders/supporters of the current regime tend to be flat out nuts. Not all of them mind you, but definitely more than 50%.
While I agree with your position on the MPAA and the RIAA, I’ve never seen any proof that fair use includes the right to make back up copies of cassetes (video or audio), CDs, or DVDs *. I’ve seen many posters claim that fair use includes such a thing, but I’ve never seen a cite. I think copyright laws are often misunderstood. I think many people are breaking copyright laws without realizing it.
I don’t think that’s immoral though. I’m sure that copying Sing Mit Von Vilden Vesten (Your favorite songs of the Old West as sung in German) to cassete was illegal. Immoral? I haven’t deprived the copyright holders of additional revenue. I’ve only ever seen one official copy of Vilden Vesten for sale and I bought it. I didn’t make the copy to avoid paying for an official one. I did it because I don’t know anybody with a record player mounted in their dash (such things were made), nor do I have a walkman capable of playing vinyl.
I don’t think I have the right to copy vinyl to cassete or CD. I’d like a cite from the people saying I do.
Being a computer geek I’m sure you remember a time (I think it was the in the eighties) when software manuals made it clear ‘You may make one copy of this software for archival purposes only’. I’ve never seen a similar notice with other media.
During last year’s Fringe Festival, I met a fascinating performer who goes by the name of Super Ed. His show was cheap props, cheap laughs, and hidden lessons and profound questions. I was too broke to buy one of his DVDs (my show had actually lost me money), and had no DVD player. He kept trying to give me one. I felt guilty about taking one without paying. Finally, he got me to accept it. He said that he would loan it to me, and that the next time he was in Philly I could give it back.
I took the DVD with me on my next visit to a friend’s. I knew he had a DVD player. I couldn’t watch Super Ed’s DVD. My friend used a Playstation to watch DVDs. As an antipiracy measure, a Playstation will not play burned DVDs. Super Ed’s DVD is all original material. Super Ed owns the copyrights. He burns the DVDs himself on his home computer. I have an official and legal copy made by the copyright holder, and given to me by the copyright holder. Sony will not let me play it, claiming this protects the copyright holder.
You’re talking about the Fair Use principle as if it is some sort of comprehensive list that details exactly what you are an are not allowed to do. It doesn’t work like that.
Title 17, § 107 lists the factors that are taken into consideration when determining Fair Use, but it does not provide any comprehensive guide to what is and is not allowed. The Stanford University Libraries website on copyright and fair use, widely considered one of the best of its kind on the web, adds:
Even the record companies themselves have been rather inconsistent on the issue for format shifting and other cases of copying music for personal use.
In a recent submission (pdf) to the US Copyright Office regarding the continued attempts to set rules under the Digital Millenium Copyright act (DMCA), the record companies and other content producers argued that format-shifting is not a non-infringing use, and that it does violate the principle of fair use, even if you’re only copying your own CD for personal use.
But, arguing in the case of MGM v. Grokster (pdf) only months previously, the lawyer for the record companies said very clearly:
And if it’s fair use to make a copy to put onto your iPod, then surely it’s fair use to make other types of backup for personal use. Note that this quote from the record company lawyer does not talk merely about the granting of permission in specific cases; he talks about it being lawful to make such a copy.
The thing is, by making it illegal to subvert encryption, the DMCA removes the question of what is and is not fair use from the discussion altogether. For example, i don’t think there’s an intellectual property lawyer in the country who would deny that it is fair use to take a 20 second clip of a song and play it to students for educational purposes. This meets all four of the key fair use criteria easily. But the DMCA, by making it illegal to get around encryption, effectively quashes any and every attempt at fair use.
But the thing is, if a particular action is, in fact, fair use, then a statement such as that is unnecessary. Fair use is just that; it need not be authorized and cannot be abrogated by the copyright holder.
