Piracy is necessary and doesn't hurt revenues

[fjtorres]

From Amazon.com, USA:
http://www.amazon.com/Philips-DVP288...dp_ob_title_ce

[fjtorres]

Philips DVD player at Amazon.com, USA:

http://www.amazon.com/Philips-DVP288...dp_ob_title_ce

This Region Free DVD Player is guaranteed play any DVD from any Country on any TV! No Special TV is required.
Play CD, (S)VCD, DVD, DVD+- R/RW, JPEG. HDMI 1080p upscales to high definition for sharper, flawless, true-to-life pictures
CinemaPlus for better, sharper and clearer images.
Progressive Scan component video for optimised image quality. Screen Fit for optimal viewing every time
ProReader Drive for smooth playback on virtually any disc

Anybody who thinks this is illegal, drop a dime to the feds.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

From Amazon.com, USA:
http://www.amazon.com/Philips-DVP288...dp_ob_title_ce

I pointed out right at the start of this thread that multi-region DVD players can be easily bought, but apparently this isn't a good enough reason for some people to think that playing DVDs legally bought in another region is legal .

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I pointed out right at the start of this thread that multi-region DVD players can be easily bought, but apparently this isn't a good enough reason for some people to think that playing DVDs legally bought in another region is legal .

A simple search on Amazon for import DVD region 2 returns nearly 20k entries:

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_no...t+dvd+region+2

Ebay has even more.

I don't expect facts alone to counter a fake moral equivalency, but the fact remains that out of region DVDs are legally exported to the US and legally sold. Everybody gets their cut. Neither illegal, unethical, or immoral. Don't even have to invoke fair use.

[Barcey]

I haven't seen people arguing that multi region DVD players are not available. I've seen people argue that the intent was the same and the MPAA would have liked the laws to apply. They couldn't enforce single region DVD players but they wanted to. The MPAA asserted that they had the right to geo restrict dvd's by region and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the members still assert that the multi regional players are illegal, they just aren't willing to test it in court.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by Barcey

I haven't seen people arguing that multi region DVD players are not available. I've seen people argue that the intent was the same and the MPAA would have liked the laws to apply. They couldn't enforce single region DVD players but they wanted to. The MPAA asserted that they had the right to geo restrict dvd's by region and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the members still assert that the multi regional players are illegal, they just aren't willing to test it in court.

This is, of course, the key. The issue with testing something in court is you may lose. Going to trial is never a sure thing.

[HarryT]

Damages awarded by a court in cases like this generally depend on being able to demonstrate a loss. If someone has legitimately bought a DVD, and a player to play it on, it's difficult to see who could be said to have lost anything.

[AnotherCat]

Here in New Zealand devices that control the mere access to copyright material are specifically not protected by law. So multi region DVD players are legal as is any other type of device that allows circumvention of restrictions of mere access to the viewing or use of copyright material such as computer games, ebooks, etc.

So, for example, as far as I am aware, most (probably all) DVD players here are distributed by their manufacturers as being multi-region capable.

Copyright material is also not protected for the case of its prevention of mere access to it either. So, for example, out of region DVDs are specifically legal here for both sale and use.

Private and commercial parallel importation is also specifically legal here. So, copyright owners are not protected from parallel importing of their material should they decide not to distribute it here (nor are they protected from parallel importation even if they do decide to distribute here).

So, for example, DVDs on vendors' shelves are predominantly Region 4 but may be of any other region if the copyright owner has decided not to distribute a particular title here. They may also be of other regions where local vendors find they can source the copyright material from third party foreign sources rather than direct from the copyright owner.

So is all very simple and clear.

[PKFFW]

@HarryT

I really don't see your point on this one.

The blogger has paid for the content, from multiple sources no less, so the copyright holder is going to get multiples of money from this blogger. So from that point of view there is no "theft" and there is no loss.

The blogger, admittedly, did not read the terms and condition of the contracts she signed and did not realise that she wasn't purchasing the right to watch the content in the country she is currently residing. So from that point of view she may be violating some law but it would be impossible to argue that any broadcast provider is being cheated out of their money since she has actually paid for it. So again, no loss and no "theft".

Your position seems to have nothing whatever to do with any perceived moral wrong doing on the bloggers part. It seems as if you saying the blogger should suck it up and go without because she happens to not have read the 18+ pages of each contract and so she deserves to do with out the content. That seems rather petty to me.

[Josieb1]

Years ago (12/15) I bought a Muti region DVD player so I could get US Show DVDs that had not been released in the UK. Since then I've bought a few series and about 4 films, nothing much in the scheme of things. All the films/shows have been shown over here yet at the time the DVDs hadn't been released. They all are now. I bought the player and I bought the DVDs. I didn't steal anything. The players still working but I now tend to wait for Region 2 DVDs

In this internet age where everything is available all over the world at the same time regionalising is just asking for piracy. After all if I am following a tv show that is shown in the US in September why should I wait for a British TV channel to show it a year later, or even never. And then the DVDs get released in the US first and then hopefully over here a few months later. By then I know everything that's happened that season and possibly watched bits if it on YT before I even get to see the show. The whole thing is madness. I have no sympathy for the TV companies at all. They have created this mess.

It's a bit different for movies, my gripe is the tv shows.

Supernatural is a classic example. The US have finished showing season 9, all 23 episodes. The UK has only shown up to season 8. It's now been dumped by Sky, not because it's unpopular but because they want to focus on 'new shows'. I now need to either pirate the episodes or wait for the DVDs which 'might' be out in November for Region 2. A full 14 months after the episodes were first shown.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

The blogger, admittedly, did not read the terms and condition of the contracts she signed and did not realise that she wasn't purchasing the right to watch the content in the country she is currently residing.

And that is the issue. It's her responsibility to find out what it is she's buying. Failing to do so is not (IMHO) a justification for piracy.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

And that is the issue. It's her responsibility to find out what it is she's buying. Failing to do so is not (IMHO) a justification for piracy.

Piracy is the common term for copyright infringement, correct? Has any copyright infringement actually taken place in reality? The copyright holder is going to get multiple incomes from the blogger, every broadcast provider is being paid for supplying the content whether she actually watches via their service or not. So where is the loss?

I think the blogger had done herself a disservice by mistakenly using the term piracy to get a point across. She may be in breach of her contract but she has paid for the digital content. All she is doing now is accessing that digital content via a different means. So I don't think you can argue that any copyright infringement has actually taken place.

So truly, where is the loss? Where is the actual copyright infringement in reality? Where is the moral wrong doing in relation to the copyright holder?

Or are you just peeved that the copyright holder isn't going to profit from the mistake of the blogger?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Piracy is the common term for copyright infringement, correct? Has any copyright infringement actually taken place in reality?

Yes.

She has paid for the right to access the material in the US, but not in Germany. By downloading the material in Germany she is creating an unauthorised copy. This is copyright infringement. The fact that she's paid to access the material in the US doesn't change this.

[PKFFW]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Yes.

She has paid for the right to access the material in the US, but not in Germany. By downloading the material in Germany she is creating an unauthorised copy. This is copyright infringement. The fact that she's paid to access the material in the US doesn't change this.

Are you seriously arguing this is a moral wrong? Seriously?

Again I ask where is the harm? Where is the loss? Where is the moral wrong done to the copyright holder?

Illegal I could understand and agree with but morally wrong?

I know you are a content provider of some sort yourself so I can understand and sympathise with your distaste of copyright infringement. However suggesting this is somehow wronging the copyright holder smacks of being a venal pariah in order to wring every last cent out of the end user even if it means profiting from anothers' mistake.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PKFFW

Are you seriously arguing this is a moral wrong? Seriously?

No, I was answering your question about whether or not it was copyright infringement. The answer to that is simple: yes, it is.

Whether or not it's morally wrong is an entirely different question, which I'm not qualified to answer.