 |
|
|
|
Welcome to the Invelos forums. Please read the forum
rules before posting.
Read access to our public forums is open to everyone. To post messages, a free
registration is required.
If you have an Invelos account, sign in to post.
|
|
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1 2 3 4  Previous Next
|
|
Add DivX to media types. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
| Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Posts: 4 |
| | Posted: | | | | Thanks for the heads up Skip. I've never downloaded anything "illegally" in my life. I have a guy that I pay to do all my dirty work for me...LOL. Maybe I'll go back and edit my previous posts...
Still say that they should add a media type that states "Other" or something along those lines. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 |  Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, admitting you pay someone else to do something illigal probably won't really be that much "better" than admitting you did it yourself.
Personally I have downloaded a number of copyrighted movies so I would not mind some way of tracking these (if I ever bother to enter them). But you should notice that I am in a jurisdiction where this is allowed, hence I am not doing anything illigal. | | | Regards
Lars | | | | Last edited: by lmoelleb |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 1,380 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
Personally I have downloaded a number of copyrighted movies so I would not mind some way of tracking these (if I ever bother to enter them). But you should notice that I am in a jurisdiction where this is allowed, hence I am not doing anything illigal. In many countries that is theoretically true. But if you DL by using torrents or any other "force share" program, it is illegal. | | | | Last edited: by whispering |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting whispering: Quote:
Quoting lmoelleb:
Quote:
Personally I have downloaded a number of copyrighted movies so I would not mind some way of tracking these (if I ever bother to enter them). But you should notice that I am in a jurisdiction where this is allowed, hence I am not doing anything illigal.
In many countries that is theoretically true. But if you DL by using torrents or any other "force share" program, it is illegal. I know - hence I use usenet as this is download only. And no, I do not beleive what I do is morally right - it certainly should be illigal, but then - so should copy protection (I do not want to buy the same content over and over again), DVD regions, and copyright tax on empty media. | | | Regards
Lars |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 1,380 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting lmoelleb: Quote:
And no, I do not beleive what I do is morally right - it certainly should be illigal, but then - so should copy protection (I do not want to buy the same content over and over again), DVD regions, and copyright tax on empty media. Agree with you there. e.g. I really cant understand why i cant play a PC game (which cost me 60€) against my friends on 2 of my computers. Also Trusted Computing is something i cant believe is even legal. | | | | Last edited: by whispering |
| | Registered: May 20, 2007 | | Posts: 4 |
| | Posted: | | | | Well, living in Canada, it's hard to find something that is illegal. I know what I did in the past was probably illegal, I admit that, but here's the thing. Whatever I have downloaded in the past, was not/is not currently available to purchase to my knowledge. For instance, I love the TV show Survivor, but out of 14 seasons to date, only 4 are available for purchase. I purchased everything that was available for me to purchase, and will continue to do so, if/when it ever comes out. Same goes for Heroes, downloaded the first season, loved it, will probably be the first in line at the local Best Buy when it comes out on DVD on Aug. 28.
The point I am trying to make is that how can something be illegal when there is no current legal way of providing the service I wish to pay for to support? I know it's illegal to some degree, but it's a debate that can be argued strongly by either side. |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting Spartycus: Quote:
The point I am trying to make is that how can something be illegal when there is no current legal way of providing the service I wish to pay for to support? I know it's illegal to some degree, but it's a debate that can be argued strongly by either side. Availability is not relevant. It is the right of those who have the distribution rights to not distribute if they so choose.  If a lot of people download the show and watch it, it becomes less interesting for your local TV stations to buy it - and hence the price goes down and the production company loose money. Unless your local law allows you to download legally, you can choose between not watching the show or do something illigal. | | | Regards
Lars |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 |  Posts: 72 |
| | Posted: | | | | Ummm... It doesn't matter if you would pay for it, the copyright holder hasn't released it. Even if they never release it again ("Song of the South" anyone?) it's legally their right not to sell it. Eventually it might fall into the public domain, But I think it currently take 70+ year for that to even be possible. Basically what I'm saying is the law is on the side of the copyright holder, and not with you. Now do I agree with the current system of almost unlimited copyright? Nope. Copyright was to protect the holders rights to profit from their Intellectual Properties, Thereby granting them what was kind of a temporary monopoly on the product. The original writers of copyright law had them expire in a not unreasonable amount of time, thereby allowing the materials to become public domain. This has of course been bastardized by corporations, which have applied considerable amounts of influence (i.e Money) to get laws passed which greatly increase the time a copyright is in effect. As it currently stands in the U.S. I doubt that most things made in the last 40 or so years will ever get into the public domain. Certain companies (Disney) will just keep working on getting the copyright limits extended. So thats about it, America is owned by the corporations, so thats how something can be illegal when there is no current legal way of providing the service you wish to pay for. You live in in Canada, so maybe it's better there. | | | Always remember that the crowd that applauds your coronation is the same crowd that will applaud your beheading. People like a show.
- Terry Pratchett "Going Postal" | | | | Last edited: by frizzlefryd |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 582 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting frizzlefryd: Quote:
You live in in Canada, so maybe it's better there. Don't know if it's better or not but it's certainly not different in this regard. The fact that something is not available to buy does not automatically make it public domain. Owning the rights on something includes the right not to publish it. | | | My 4x4 Club: Club FJ Cruiser Quebec
DVDP Français: Forum DVD Profiler Français
DVDCOL:DVD Collectors Online
Video: LG RU-42PX10
Audio: Sony DreamSystem DAVFX100W |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | OOOOOH. You are absolutely correct, Touti. Divx certainly is NOT public domain. Divx is a simply a dead product. The content of that product copyright and ownership resides with the same Studios that put it there in the first place, and all applicable laws and penalties for copying such remain active and TOTALLY enforceable.
Frizzle, now while I understand the argument relating to unlimited copyright. There is very good reason for it and I fully support concept. Why? Go buy a DVD of a movie that has been allowed to fall into the public domain, the premise is one thing price, and all that does is guarantee a low qualiity product. We are seeing some restoration work being done by major studios on their older titles that is nothing short of spectacular. That will not be done in the realm of public domain. Studios should be allowed to protect their property as long as they choose to do so, it gives the consumer some assurance of a quality product.
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 |  Posts: 467 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
OOOOOH. You are absolutely correct, Touti. Divx certainly is NOT public domain. Divx is a simply a dead product. The content of that product copyright and ownership resides with the same Studios that put it there in the first place, and all applicable laws and penalties for copying such remain active and TOTALLY enforceable.
Frizzle, now while I understand the argument relating to unlimited copyright. There is very good reason for it and I fully support concept. Why? Go buy a DVD of a movie that has been allowed to fall into the public domain, the premise is one thing price, and all that does is guarantee a low qualiity product. We are seeing some restoration work being done by major studios on their older titles that is nothing short of spectacular. That will not be done in the realm of public domain. Studios should be allowed to protect their property as long as they choose to do so, it gives the consumer some assurance of a quality product.
Skip Well in my country I have the rights to copy (or download) a DVD I already own. And I have the right to go to the library and borrow any movie I want and copy it. Since the laws of my country overrides the copyright. | | | | Last edited: by pompel9 |
| | Registered: March 14, 2007 | | Posts: 630 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting pompel9: Quote:
...
Since the laws of my country overrides the copyright. No, the laws of your country defines copyright within the jurisdiction of your country, just like US laws define copyright in the American jurisdiction. A country is not overriding the copyright laws of another country, they are defining it for separate jurisdictions. But if you mean the laws of your country overrides whatever is written in license agreements etc, then you are obviously right - that goes for ANY agreement. | | | Regards
Lars |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | The USSC has in a ruling from some years back, which only affects the US obviously, created something called Fair Use. Under that ruling an owner of a recorded media has the right to make ONE copy for backup purposes. Now this does come into direct conflict with the Distributors (be it audio or video) because they also have the right under Copyright law to protect their property. So while theoreticllay you can make a copy of DVD, the reality of the issue due to various methods employed to scramble the signal, creating that copy, while not impossible, is usually at least somewhat difficult. End result, never-ending conflict.  Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 582 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
The USSC has in a ruling from some years back, which only affects the US obviously, created something called Fair Use. Under that ruling an owner of a recorded media has the right to make ONE copy for backup purposes. Now this does come into direct conflict with the Distributors (be it audio or video) because they also have the right under Copyright law to protect their property. So while theoreticllay you can make a copy of DVD, the reality of the issue due to various methods employed to scramble the signal, creating that copy, while not impossible, is usually at least somewhat difficult.
End result, never-ending conflict.
Skip And, if memory serves, these laws specifically define the allowed usage of these backups. If I am not mistaken, you can make a copy but you can't loan it or use it for any public viewing. I believe you can only use it in your own home for your own personal use. | | | My 4x4 Club: Club FJ Cruiser Quebec
DVDP Français: Forum DVD Profiler Français
DVDCOL:DVD Collectors Online
Video: LG RU-42PX10
Audio: Sony DreamSystem DAVFX100W |
| | Registered: March 13, 2007 | | Posts: 21,610 |
| | Posted: | | | | Correct, Touti
Skip | | | ASSUME NOTHING!!!!!!
CBE, MBE, MoA and proud of it.
Outta here
Billy Video |
| | Registered: April 8, 2007 | | Posts: 72 |
| | Posted: | | | | Quoting skipnet50: Quote:
Divx certainly is NOT public domain. Divx is a simply a dead product. The content of that product copyright and ownership resides with the same Studios that put it there in the first place, and all applicable laws and penalties for copying such remain active and TOTALLY enforceable.
Skip Skip, Original question was on DivXNot DIVXSorry, just had to mess with you. As far as public domain copies go I agree that there generally low quality,often plagued by cuts,missing scenes ect. But they are also the only place to find certain titles. There are a number of films, TV shows, and Cartoons that have been allowed to fall into the public domain by companies that just don't care about their back catalog. In many cases the original copyright holder has either negatives or fist generation copies vastly superior to available PD Prints, yet just as they didn't care enough to not allow the material to become PD, they don't care to do quality releases of product they own. I'm coming at this as an animation fan, and several companies are known to have vast libraries of cartoons that fans have been pleading for releases of for decades, yet the companies say there isn't enough demand. Seems Like if you can't guarantee Mass Market acceptance they don't want to hear about it. So i'll keep my PD copies of Fraidy cat, and Animation by The Iwerks Studio for now. If at some point nice restored editions come along from the current holders, I'll be one of the first to buy it. | | | Always remember that the crowd that applauds your coronation is the same crowd that will applaud your beheading. People like a show.
- Terry Pratchett "Going Postal" | | | | Last edited: by frizzlefryd |
|
|
|
Invelos Forums->DVD Profiler: Desktop Feature Requests |
Page:
1 2 3 4 Previous Next
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |