Warner Bros. Embarrasses Self, Everyone, With New “Disc-to-Digital” Program

Originally Posted by HarryT

So what would you suggest as an alternative? That film studios hand out free tools to copy DRM-protected DVDs and BDs?

Seems to me that film studios are "damned if they do, and damned if they don't".

Would giving out free tools even make a difference?

People can already do this sort of thing with their music collection, with free tools provided by companies like Microsoft and Apple. Apple is particularly notable, because they are a major music retailer.

On top of that, copying the video off of a DVD/BD then transcoding it to an appropriate format is incredibly time consuming. So the use of such tools would be limited anyhow.

Finally, these tools are only of value to people who actually have legit media. Even if they did give a copy to a friend, the impact would be minimal compared to people who pirate material online.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Which is what many people in this thread object to: these companies (attempting to) spend tax money to hunt "criminals" who are only 'criminal' in the sense that they want to do the things they deserve to be able to morally do with the entertainment they've already bought.

Are they? I don't know of any case in which someone has been prosecuted for converting the format of legally-bought media for personal use. Do you?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Are they? I don't know of any case in which someone has been prosecuted for converting the format of legally-bought media for personal use. Do you?

What is the argument here? Is it OK to do something if nobody have been prosecuted?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by tompe

What is the argument here? Is it OK to do something if nobody have been prosecuted?

No. I was simply wondering if Ana's statement that media rights-holders are spending tax-payers' money in prosecuting people who format-shift media for personal use was in fact correct. In the UK, for example, although format-shifting is technically illegal, the industry has said that they have no interest in prosecuting people who convert legitimately-bought media for personal use.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. I was simply wondering if Ana's statement that media rights-holders are spending tax-payers' money in prosecuting people who format-shift media for personal use was in fact correct. In the UK, for example, although format-shifting is technically illegal, the industry has said that they have no interest in prosecuting people who convert legitimately-bought media for personal use.

Yes, there have been successful prosecutions under the DMCA, and people have been charged under the anti-circumvention section. There's a case sentencing summary here, that provides as follows:

SACRAMENTO United States Attorney John K. Vincent announced today that MOHSIN MYNAF, 37, of Vacaville, California, was sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge David F. Levi to 24 months in federal prison, a three year term of supervised release, a $1,600 special assessment, and also ordered to pay approximately $201,738.70 in restitution for engaging in six counts of criminal copyright infringement; six counts of trafficking in counterfeit labels; and one count of circumventing a technological measure that protects a copyright work (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act”). As part of his plea agreement, MYNAF agreed to the forfeiture of the equipment he used to commit the copyright violations, the forfeiture of $5,000, and the destruction of a substantial amount of property used to commit the copyright violations.

You can go here for a general FAQ on the anti-circumvention section of the DMCA if you're interested, with an interesting bit stating:

Question: So what is all the controversy about the DMCA?

Answer: The shift towards the distribution of copyrighted materials in digital form has been accompanied by new methods of protection. Through the use of "digital locks," technological systems behind which these copyrighted materials are protected, producers and manufacturers are able to automate fine grained control over who can access, use, and/or copy their works and under what conditions. Producers insist these "digital locks" are necessary to protect their materials from being pirated or misappropriated. But, these new technological systems, and the DMCA provisions making it a crime to bypass them, undermine individuals ability to make "fair use" of digital information, and essentially replace the negotiation of the terms of use for those products with unilateral terms dictated by copyright owners. These self-help technical protection mechanisms are generally not evident to the purchaser or user until after the sale. In some cases, producers who use these technical locks to enforce limits on access and use of their works fail to disclose the terms of use to the purchasers or licensees of their products.

The defenses and exemptions to the circumvention prohibition and circumvention device bans included in the law are fatefully narrow. As a result, the legitimate activities of scientists, software engineers, journalists, and others have been chilled. The DMCA has been used by copyright holders and the government to prevent the creation of third-party software products, silence computer scientists, and prosecute journalists who provide hypertext links to software code.

If you want more than that we can negotiate a rate for research

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

Yes, there have been successful prosecutions under the DMCA, and people have been charged under the anti-circumvention section. There's a case sentencing summary here, that provides as follows:

But that was a case of commercial copyright infringement - removing DRM and selling items for profit. I asked if there had been any prosecutions for format conversion and DRM removal for personal use. I have not heard of such a case (which is not to say that there have been none, of course).

[spindlegirl]

Unless one goes announcing their personal usage of something, it's really not something that can even be made to be anyone's business.

When I had the LP for "Dark Side of the Moon" 30 years ago, nobody knew I had taped it to stick on my Walkman unless I had told them.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by spindlegirl

Unless one goes announcing their personal usage of something, it's really not something that can even be made to be anyone's business.

When I had the LP for "Dark Side of the Moon" 30 years ago, nobody knew I had taped it to stick on my Walkman unless I had told them.

Exactly. That's why I was a little dubious about Ana's claim that:

these companies (attempting to) spend tax money to hunt "criminals" who are only 'criminal' in the sense that they want to do the things they deserve to be able to morally do with the entertainment they've already bought.

I don't know of any case where companies have attempted to "hunt" people who are doing what she describes. Do you?

[spindlegirl]

I've never heard of it. Correct.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I don't know of any case where companies have attempted to "hunt" people who are doing what she describes. Do you?

I was specifically referring to the thread around here about France piracy crack-downs. Many people download pirate versions as a form of format-shifting (how many people on MR have openly admitted to downloading Harry Potter because they own the book, as opposed to sending the books to a chop shop?).

Also, DVD companies have (iirc) gone after format-shifting tools on the grounds that those tools break DRM in order to work. I would also consider that in the same category as my statement.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

I was specifically referring to the thread around here about France piracy crack-downs. Many people download pirate versions as a form of format-shifting

That's not "format shifting", it's piracy, plain and simple. I've done it myself, but I'm not kidding myself that it's anything other than piracy. Are you suggesting that right holders are doing something wrong in prosecuting people who illegally download copyrighted material?

Also, DVD companies have (iirc) gone after format-shifting tools on the grounds that those tools break DRM in order to work. I would also consider that in the same category as my statement.

That's a very, VERY different matter to prosecuting people who USE those tools for personal use. There appears to be some doubt in the US whether or not using DRM-removal tools is illegal (some legal authorities have voiced the opinion that it constitutes "fair use") but there's not argument by anyone that development and distribution of DRM-removal tools is not illegal. The people who develop such tools are very well aware of that.

I'm afraid that I must, with the greatest respect, disagree with you about this.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

That's not "format shifting", it's piracy, plain and simple. I've done it myself, but I'm not kidding myself that it's anything other than piracy. Are you suggesting that right holders are doing something wrong in prosecuting people who illegally download copyrighted material?

That's a very, VERY different matter to prosecuting people who USE those tools for personal use. There appears to be some doubt in the US whether or not using DRM-removal tools is illegal (some legal authorities have voiced the opinion that it constitutes "fair use") but there's not argument by anyone that development and distribution of DRM-removal tools is not illegal. The people who develop such tools are very well aware of that.

I'm afraid that I must, with the greatest respect, disagree with you about this.

It won't be the first time we've disagreed, but I always enjoy speaking with you.

Can you explain, though, how someone downloading Harry Potter and pulping their paper books (to maintain a 1-to-1 ratio) is different from someone sending Harry Potter off to a chop shop?

Or how someone downloading the contents of their DRM-protected DVD is different from someone buying the tools to rip the DVD?

I'm afraid that I don't see a difference, personally.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Can you explain, though, how someone downloading Harry Potter and pulping their paper books (to maintain a 1-to-1 ratio) is different from someone sending Harry Potter off to a chop shop?

Or how someone downloading the contents of their DRM-protected DVD is different from someone buying the tools to rip the DVD?

I'm afraid that I don't see a difference, personally.

The end result? No difference whatsoever. As I've stated in another thread, I've done exactly that myself - bought another complete set of HP books, and download the pirated eBooks.

However, my point is that it's unreasonable to expect media companies not to regard this as piracy. They cannot know that I've bought the extra set of books, and I rather suspect that most people who download the pirated books do not do this. I regard the media companies as being absolutely within their rights to come after illegal downloaders.

[anamardoll]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The end result? No difference whatsoever. As I've stated in another thread, I've done exactly that myself - bought another complete set of HP books, and download the pirated eBooks.

However, my point is that it's unreasonable to expect media companies not to regard this as piracy. They cannot know that I've bought the extra set of books, and I rather suspect that most people who download the pirated books do not do this. I regard the media companies as being absolutely within their rights to come after illegal downloaders.

Well, I think that's a very big waste of tax-payer money, myself.

I've no problem with going after piracy sites, but going after individual downloaders who may well be *effectively* format-shifting is, imho, wasteful. And that was what I was referring to earlier. I apologize if I was unclear.

Originally Posted by anamardoll

Can you explain, though, how someone downloading Harry Potter and pulping their paper books (to maintain a 1-to-1 ratio) is different from someone sending Harry Potter off to a chop shop?

...

Or how someone downloading the contents of their DRM-protected DVD is different from someone buying the tools to rip the DVD?

Caveat: I'm not a big fan of format shifting. Copyright law effectively gives publishers the right to determine not only the number of copies, but the format in which those copies are created. A classical example is hardback vs. soft cover books. A hardback book may have additional value because it has a better quality binding, better quality paper, and a more durable cover. Some books may also offer colour illustrations and other value added features. Should someone be able to buy a soft cover book then reprint a hard cover edition from it? I know that sounds silly, but that's only because of the economics of the situation. A publisher could easily argue that a digital copy adds extra value because it is indestructible, is incredibly portable, adds conveniences such as keyword search, and features such as colour illustrations. (I don't necessarily agree with that assessment, but they probably would. And they are the ones who matter here!) In this situation the possibility of format shifting doesn't sound so silly because the economics work out, which is why many people think that it is okay.

That being said, I do believe that anti-circumvention tools should be legal. But that is to protect rights that I view as more fundamental. I believe in the doctrine of first sale and that consumers have the right to circumvent vendor lock-in (e.g. being tied to particular vendor's ereader). Yet I think that you should be the one who is using the tools, rather than letting the pirates do it for you. After all, the simple act of visiting a pirate website (never mind downloading a copy) is supporting illegal activities.