Studios sue retailer for selling DVD X Copy

hollywood need to put the time and energy it puts into chasing the pirate "ghost", and improve the community, improve their own disgression on what content they themselves release, and learn to respect the consumer. very few industries enjoy the freedom of delivering a product to consumers, while limiting the use the consumer has of said product. my only point regarding dvdxcopy platinum is... Hollywood vs Sony Betamax. any industry that sells me a non perminant medium, at a permanent price, without the right to back-up, can learn what every other business that does things like that learn...i wont buy your product. ever. the product is lack luster at best, anyway. im tired of make believe violence - too much in reality. p.s. DVDXcopy is a great peice of work. for the consumer, and for awareness of the problem of corporate policy seeping into government laws. good work mr. moore.

Quote:

---

....the product is lack luster at best ...

---

Thanks for the heads-up on the Forum Rule A.K. You asked me Prior to that, what was "illegal" in their products? Their original product included technology that circumvented a technological measure designed to effectively control access to a Copyright protected work, which is clear violation of the DMC Act. This is what the injunction is all about. To make matters even worse, the illegal product was developed and released considerably after the time the DMCA came into effect. Regardless of the Catch-22 that results from the DMCA/Fair Rights conflict, the law is the law. If it had been illegal to sell early 321 products, they would not have been sold. Mr. Moore has claimed that he was unaware of the DMCA when he began to market his product. Ignorance of the law is not a good excuse to use before a Judge. Most technology developers are aware of the laws and regulations that apply to their trade before they start marketing a product. As to why the early products were able to sell so well, it was unique and I suspect it took a bit of taunting to get the MPAA wheels rolling. If I was going to market an illegal product like Mr. Moore's, I don't think I would create splashy web pages, offer rewards, and sell it at the retail level. That's the best way to get the attention of the authorities, and this case proves it. With all due respect, I suggest that Mr. Moore's intent had more to do with making money than fighting for our fair rights. I believe the fight must continue, but I don't believe the best way to have a law changed is to blatantly violate it and profit by such violation. I believe that the actions of Mr. Moore has set the fight for "Fair Use" back a few steps.

nato: I prefer the term "corporate terrorism", because that is exactly what it is. Even the Congressmen who voted for the passage of the DMCA in 1998 are amazed at how it has been misused against the Consumer. buzzoon: Nice to see you again. I understand you were banned over at 321 Live! Hope you have better luck over here.

Hi Robert ... I was self-banished over at the 3-2-1 Forums. Your new crop of 'moderators' seem very immature and they are too power-trippy for me. I like to see both sides of an issue presented and they kept stifling me with threats of banishment whenever I presented a side they personally didn't agree with. How does the battle go Robert?

Why don't you tell me how the battle goes? You're the one with all the answers. I believe your last post over at 321 Live stated 321 had "nothing to do" with the Congressional Hearings. Isn't that right? And then over here you started calling me names. You might equally be surprised with the "power-trippy" moderators in this forum. I guess... we'll see. Cheers!

Hello Robert ... I said a lot of things over in the 3-2-1 Forums! Sorry about the descriptor I used for you here - have you read any of the "private" emails your "Great Eye" sent to me that were intended to egg me on? I was under the impression from reading the text of H.R. 107 that it's main thrust was To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes. Included in the "other purposes" was to remove the part that makes it a violation to circumvent a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work and to add a clause stating that it shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work. (highlighting mine) Contrary to your stated results of your 'Fortune 500' Company demographic survey (the methods and demographics of which you refused to share with us), I suggest that the majority of people who purchased your ripper products are, in fact, using them to infringe on Copyrighted work. This seems to be supported by the majority of comments here and on other forums and newsgroups when the discussion of Fair Use and DVD ripping software comes up. I have no problem with your original product or it's intent - I bought the retail version. And, like you, I have a major problem with parts of the DMCA and I have since it was introduced in 1998. It cut off a big part of my trading business! I just wish you would put the rubber to the road, admit that your intent was and is to make money, and admit that most of us are using ripper products to make copies of material we don't own. btw, I think the action filed by MacroVision to prohibit the copying the their code from an original disk to a copy is nonsense!

Hi Buzzoon: Obviously from your own comments, you are under many mis-impressions about the facts. And if it weren't for the fact that I have a high regard and respect for AfterDawn and its members, I would likely not take the time out to correct your misperceptions. As most of them have been addressed time and again. #1: You incorrectly assume that H.R. 107 would have no effect on the legitimate back up activities of consumers. --- Even the most juvenile read of the Congressional testimony would prove this 100% in error, so rather than take my time to educate, you should do so for yourself and read. #2: You incorrectly assume that we had no demographic study done by a Fortune 500 company demonstrating the legitimate use of our products and our customers. --- This is an amazing conclusion to come to, which on the face of it, would seem to indicate that I have lied about the study and further have tried to perpetuate that lie through this and other forums. So let's get this straight... I don't CARE what you believe or don't believe. Unless you are a Congressmen who can further these issues in some way that benefits me or my customers, I could care less what you think. In fact, if you showed up at my office tomorrow and asked extremely politely to see this study, I would tell you NO! I paid for it, it's mine to use or not use as I see fit. If you want to see the study, you'll have to pay for it yourself and get it done. #3: You incorrectly assume that this and other forums are quite typical of our average customers behavior and use that as your assertion of certitude that our demographic study either does not exist or is grossly in error. --- Like most people who do nothing more than extract lifeforce from the universe while blindly tapping away at their keyboards on any given day, as if anyone cared what they thought or said, you think the world revolves around you and those who do the same. The truth is, although I have many friends in these forums, I do not consider them to be typical of our average customer at all. In fact, they are quite the opposite. This is something else I learned in 4th grade. The world is a lot bigger than my eyes and ears can perceive. #4: You incorrectly assume that I hide behind some banner of non-profit and challenge me to put the "rubber to the road", whatever that means. --- Unlike Hollywood, which enlisted the aid of the U.S. Congress to enforce its illegal business model, I took the profits of 321 and poured them back into an anti-hollywood campaign that would demonstrate to these evil-monsters that consumers can become a viable, opposing force and one they should most definitely look out for. It takes money to fight and it takes a lot of it. I never asked once for a penny in legal fees, I only asked those that supported this position to purchase our products so that we could fund the effort. If you wanna know the truth, sometimes, I think I should have put more money in my pocket. At least that would have been a lot more fun... Cheers!

Mr. Moore ... You incorrectly assume that H.R. 107 would have no effect on the legitimate back up activities of consumers I assume nothing of the sort. What I am suggesting is that your (original) products and products like it (eg. dvdshrink) are not being used for legitimate backup purposes. You incorrectly assume that we had no demographic study done by a Fortune 500 company demonstrating the legitimate use of our products and our customers Your study suggests that 70% of your customers are using your product for legitimate backup of their personal DVD collection. I suggest that is not an accurate number. I simply asked you for the methods used to come up with this number and who participated in the survey. Your refusal to share this information so that I can verify it and eat humble pie if you are correct raises some doubt as to it's validity. me to put the "rubber to the road", whatever that means. It means tell us the truth about your motives! In spite of what you may think about me, I am on your side. I have signed many petitions to remove the very parts of the DMCA that you are are lobbying to get removed, many before the advent of 3-2-1. I just don't agree with your methods. It's not smart to blatantly violate a law to get it changed, even if the law is unreasonable. In Canada, I have to abide by the King's Law, much of which is ridiculous and out-dated.

OK, Buzz..... Most of these arguments have been thrashed to death, but let me just briefly touch on a couple, because you have brought them up. I am not the least aware of whether or not Mr. Moore was aware of the DMCA laws prior to the release of his first product(s). What good will it do, could it do for 321 or ANY other like-purpose software maker to "admit" that his/their products are used for (currently) 'illegal' purposes? What an end user does with his software is not in the hands of the authors. Should ALL software manufacturers similar to and including 321, immediately stop selling their programs simply because they could be used for backing up, say, rentals or library-borrowed films? You suggest that Mr. Moore was more interested in profit than anything else. I humbly suggest, that I can't imagine any software-producing company who would not be interested in making a fair profit for their work. Would you do it? I wouldn't. Should all companies producing backing-up software, in your opinion, "just break even" or what? Or should they produce, refine, enhance, upgrade, improve, incorporate user-requests, hire staff, --- all at a loss, just because they like people and have great faith in the human race? I only know of one source that distributes a free backing-up program. Anyone and everyone is free to use it, should they wish. Other than that, of the many other backup-software producing companies -- which of them is freely giving their work away or costs the consumer nothing? (I'm not talking about simple utilities). And judging from what I see in you as a degree of anger (I mean no disrespect to you, Buzz), what would you have 321 do at this point? Pull ALL of their software off the market? If so, for what reason? Will that help you or me or anyone else with anything at all? Will that stop the other companies from selling their backing-up software? Should the others stop selling it as well? What should we all do Buzz, in the here and now? Regarding all the legal litigation. I think 321 has done famously with Congress! Don't know of any single company (any company, period) who has done as much for you or me. 95% of them don't have the funds for one thing. For those that do, the Motion Picture Industry has frequently attempted to put the fear of GOD into anyone who would dare to challenge their MONOPOLY. (You see what I mean about thrashing old points to death?) I've said this in another thread, but it needs to be repeated here: Backing up software, for better or worse is the "Great Leveler". It has put Hugely Needed power back into the hands of consumers. It helps, immeasurably to 'level the playing field'. Hollywood, despite lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, does not control the Internet. When the horrifically unfair DMCA gets ammended, repealed, squashed like a bug, (whatever), you may have a different outlook on all of this. It means, that rippers will be 'legal'. For anyone who is intent on making illegal backups, it matters not one whit whether the powers-that-be deem it legal or not - they're going to make their backups regardless. Just my thoughts on the whole mess - don't know what more you expect or want. -- Klingy --

I am not the least aware of whether or not Mr. Moore was aware of the DMCA laws prior to the release of his first product(s). He stated in his own forums that he was not aware of the law when he started his venture ... I find this difficult to believe, especially coming from someone who is a self-professed expert in developing code to do what his products do. Heck, I don't know the first thing about writing code, but I became painfully aware of the DMCA as soon as it came into effect (and I am a Canadian!) Should ALL software manufacturers similar to and including 321, immediately stop selling their programs simply because they could be used for backing up, say, rentals or library-borrowed films? That is irrelevant. What Mr. Moore did was develop and market a product that was illegal, period. Here’s an easy analogy: If you don’t like going the speed limit and get caught speeding, what do you think would happen if: a) You told the cop you didn’t know what the speed limit was. IOW, you admit that you are ignorant of the law (I didn't know about the DMCA), or, b) You told the cop that yes, you were speeding but you don't agree with the posted limit and you wanted to make your point. You suggest that Mr. Moore was more interested in profit than anything else. I humbly suggest, that I can't imagine any software-producing company who would not be interested in making a fair profit for their work. Would you do it? I wouldn't. Absolutely not. But, I would also not try to sell anyone on the idea that I was investing all of my profit to help my customers assert their Fair Use rights either. I have no objection to any entrepreneur who comes up with an idea to make money. Should all companies producing backing-up software, in your opinion, "just break even" or what? Or should they produce, refine, enhance, upgrade, improve, incorporate user-requests, hire staff, --- all at a loss, just because they like people and have great faith in the human race? See above … I only know of one source that distributes a free backing-up program. Anyone and everyone is free to use it, should they wish. There are many more than one. I use the one you are probably thinking about, and I know I am violating the DMCA when I do. However, I am not profiting by the distribution of that software, nor am I profiting by infringing on others’ Copyrights by using it. Do you see the difference here? what would you have 321 do at this point? Exactly what they are doing since ordered to by a Judge, and what they should have been doing all along ... obey the law! And provide the promised updates to their customers :-) What should we all do Buzz, in the here and now? Keep talking about it and hope we get the ear of the lawmakers. ... the Motion Picture Industry has frequently attempted to put the fear of GOD into anyone who would dare to challenge their MONOPOLY. Interesting POV. Do you think that Microsoft has a monopoly with their Windows operating system? If they do, should they give up their rights and provide their code to all computer users so we can develop our own operating systems? What about the rights of the MPAA members? Even if you don’t agree with the way they enforce them (I certainly don’t), what gives you or I the right to say that they shouldn’t protect their rights in the best way they see fit? Hollywood, despite lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, does not control the Internet. This has nothing to do with the Internet. I don’t see any evidence that Hollywood is trying to control the Internet … When the horrifically unfair DMCA gets ammended, repealed, squashed like a bug, (whatever), you may have a different outlook on all of this. You’re sadly missing my point :-( I have no use for the DMCA. I will be delighted if it gets ammended, repealed or squashed like a bug. It does stifle my rights and has been written to protect moviemakers. I would dearly love to see it changed or eliminated all together. But, and here’s the part that you don’t seem to want to acknowledge ... at the present time, the DMCA is the law and anyone (at least anyone in the USA) who develops and markets a ripper product designed to bypass copy protection is violating that law. (see the speed limit analogy above) Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinions here …

I only wish that were the end of it. Sadly, it won't be... Buzz obviously never read the DMCA, nor the fair use exemption that many in Congress thought would prevent this from happening in the first place. And the main reason we filed the DRA in California and spent millions of dollars in legal fees, is because we BELIEVED the DMCA would never be interpreted the way it has been. Buzzoon: Get an education and then come back here and talk to me about the DMCA. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about... And in the future, unless you post something worth my time in responding, you can expect nothing from me. Cheers!

Robert ... please! 1. Is the DMCA law in the USA? Yes or No? 2. Do you and I as citizens have the right to interpret the law any way we see fit? Yes or No? 3. Did the development and marketing of your original ripper product violate the DMCA? Yes or No?

<Double post. Deleted.> (No, I'm not feeling particularly "power-trippy" this evening.) <A_K>

Can't really see what any of this is supposed to accomplish. This has nothing to do with the Internet. This has everything to do with the Internet! Perhaps I should have added, "Backing up software coupled WITH the Internet is the 'Great Leveler'. Why on earth do you think the motion picture industry is stooping lower than I've ever seen it stoop before? _Because_ of the Internet, that's why! Where do you think DE-DCSS came from? Tim Horton's? I don't see any evidence that Hollywood is trying to control the Internet. No, and you never will. That's the Whole Point. They can't. If they could, what do you wanna bet they wouldn't try? I use the one you are probably thinking about, and I know I am violating the DMCA when I use it. Oh, terrific! Thanks for coming 'clean'. So you are guilty yourself of that which you accuse 321. Just terrific! Actually, I don't know that you are guilty of anything. You see, I *too* live in Canada, and as such, our laws are a hell of a lot different than those of the US. I'm not a legal-beagle, so someone will have to tell me whether the DMCA can force other countries to comply. However, I am not profiting by the distribution of that software. Yes you are. By using the 'illegal' software, you made a copy of your legally purchased dvd. If you damage the original, you will not have to purchase another. You have just "profited" by violating the DMCA. And anyway, it doesn't matter. By your own admission, you are "guilty". (Not that I personally think you are guilty of anything - someone will have to tell me how far-reaching the DMCA is, and in what juridictions <Canada?> it is legally enforceable). China? Egypt? Venezuela? (I am not trying to be funny here - I am dead serious). Nor am I profiting by infringing on other's Copyrights by using it. How so? Buzz, you really shouldn't hang yourself like this. Do you see the difference here? No. I don't. Even assuming you use your software for _nothing_ else other than backing-up the dvds you have paid an arm and a leg for at the retail store, you _are_ violating the DMCA, are you not? You've admitted as much. As such, you are infringing on the copyrights of others, at least according to the DMCA. IF you accidently damage your original disc, you are "depriving" The Industry of their rightful expectation that you should go out and purcha$e another copy at retail, AND are depriving them of their rightful profit if you don't. Shame on you, you rotten backer-upper! (That was a joke, Buzz). I'm afraid Rob was right...... the saga continues..... [sigh......]

I freely admit that I am rotten backer upper!

Well then, you should hang around AfterDawn more often ! That's what all our rootin'-tootin' tutorials are for! We'll make a backer-upper out of you yet! (Buzz....you damned-near smiled that time). You forgot the smiley!

321 Studios spins toward zero By Jerri Stroud Of the Post-Dispatch 06/01/2004 Jay Belke, director of production for 321 Studios, works alone in the warehouse. The company, which had 20 employees working there six months ago, has three today. (Larry Williams/P-D) Robert H. Moore's 321 Studios has moved five times in 2 1/2 years to cope with rapid growth in sales of its DVD-copying software, DVD X Copy. But court orders that bar 321 Studios from selling any version of that product have thrown the company's growth into reverse. They've forced Moore to lay off nearly 300 people in the last two months and led him to sublease part of the 80,000-square-foot headquarters 321 Studios has occupied in the Missouri Research Park since last fall. A half-floor of offices is vacant, and a handful of employees work in a warehouse that once hummed with activity. Today, the company has about 50 employees, down from nearly 400, said Julia Bishop-Cross, a spokeswoman. Moore, 43, founded 321 Studios nearly three years ago as a way to get his son, Brian, interested in the computer business. Robert Moore figured out how to use a compact-disc burner to make backup copies of his collection of movies on DVD and videocassette. Brian Moore put together a Web site to sell his father's instructions, and sales took off. The company kept expanding - opening retail stores and a call center to market DVD X Copy and related products - until February, when the movie industry won an injunction halting sales of the product. The injunction was like "a hit to the back of the head," Moore said. He believes that some major movie studios want to put him out of business. Matthew Grossman, a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said the studios simply are defending their copyrights from piracy. "Obviously, we're not in the business of making people unemployed," Grossman said. "We are doing what we have to do to defend our studios' copyrights." Moore said 321 Studios was on track for sales of $100 million or more this year before a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that 321's product violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The judge said the software's circumvention of encryption codes on copyrighted material was a specific violation of the act. In March, a judge in New York issued a similar ruling in a suit filed by Macrovision, which makes encryption technology. Grossman said the MPAA has won similar judgments against 10 other companies marketing technology similar to what 321 Studios was selling. "The courts all agree that these are copyright violations," Grossman said. "If it's illegal, it's illegal." 321 Studios says making copies for personal use is legal under the long-standing principle of fair use of copyrighted material that an individual has purchased. Moore adds that his software has anti-piracy provisions, so it's impractical to use it to make copies for resale. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group dedicated to defending digital rights, filed briefs in support of 321 Studios before the injunctions were issued. The group says the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been used to stifle a wide variety of legitimate activities by journalists, publishers, scientists, students and programmers. Moore hasn't given up his fight against the injunctions, but he has been unable to persuade the judges to reconsider their rulings. "We're gasping for breath," Moore said. "No one will listen to us scream." 321 Studios has other products for sale, including game-copying software and a CD-rescue program. But sales of those products total only about $10 million a year, Moore said. "We still have the expenses of a $100 million company," he said, including big legal bills and expenses for lobbying Congress to revise the digital-copyright act to allow making copies for personal use. Moore has turned his attention to supporting a bill in Congress that would allow consumers to make copies of DVDs, music CDs and other material for personal use. This month, he testified in favor of the bill, which the MPAA opposes. Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said he's encouraged by the bill's prospects this year because Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is supporting it. Barton is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which held hearings on the bill last month. Moore worries that his company's legal troubles are threatening more than sales. "People are losing confidence that we are a viable company," Moore said. But rather than give up, he plans to fight. "If we go out, we're going out swinging." Reporter Jerri Stroud E-mail: jerristroud@post-dispatch.com Phone: 314-340-8384

Thank you for that timely update, XP. What does it mean to you? Do you have an opinion?

Hi buzzoon Laws are not set in stone but are an evolution of court decisions. Some laws are fought via civil disobedience. Some laws need a court case to provide the parameters for legal application. If a product does not come to market because it has a possible contravention to a law, we would have a lot less products for sale. The VCR comes quickly to mind as a product that has both legal and illegal usages. So does a camera and for that matter a computer. The court ruled that a VCR was legal inspite of the movie industry claims it would bankrupt them. This copyright war is bigger than 321 Studios. It is about consumer access to copyright materials. We in Canada have a similar fight going on. (http://www.piac.ca/PIACcopyrightreport.pdf) We can learn from the USA and their problems with the DCMA. With the current Federal election we have an opportunity to raise the issue and change the course of the copyright ship (http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/87262) We need to be thankful that Mr Moore has taken an interest in changing a law that limits consumer access to copyrighted materials.

It's unfortunate that Mr. Moore had to layoff a bunch of people, and his company can no longer provide the promised level of support or the promised product upgrades to his customers. I don't know why we should feel sorry for him though. It looks like he had a good run and I doubt if he suffered any personal financial loss. He even got an all expenses paid trip to the funny farm in Washington ... The squeaky wheel does get the grease, and Mr. Moore squeaked enough to get the attention of Jack Valenti and His Band of Thugs. That was the beginning of the end for his company. If he had kept a lower profile, his ripper products may have survived. As for personally feeling sorry for Mr. Moore (and seeing as how there doesn't seem to be any love lost between him and I), can I say that I feel about as sorry for him as I feel sorry for the liquor bootleggers when Prohibition was repealed :)

buzzoon, with all this arguing back and forth between you and rhmoore, you have lost most of your audience in this forum. It really just comes off as arguing for the sake of arguing. At this point, who cares? rhmoore has obviously had to prepare himself quite a bit over the last few months for all the legal wrangling. When I read his posts before all this b..ing started, I saw a fairly clear picture of his arguments and points. Didn't necessarily agree with everything but I had respect for the battle at hand. Rightly or wrongly, I cannot help from having to suppress the feeling that your point of view is a lot more colored by anger and passion. I am not really sure anymore where you are coming from. Why argue endlessly that rhmoore should admit something or another. Going through every quote and rebutting them point by point and 'over and over' becomes really tedious and pointless. I keep from this that you always supported the basic premise of the right to privacy, that you used products that 321 developed and distributed at a time when you feel they were already illegal. When you are being asked what Mr Moore should do, you talk about 'how he should admit this and not break the law, etc'(Yawn). I have the distinct impression that this is going nowhere and desperately needs to have all protagonists immediately check out some other form of entertainment. This is now neither entertaining nor educational. Enough spitting! Even Klingy - who is trying so hard - cannot save this one...

Rhmoore you're doing a great thing, despite what the knockers may say, and buzzoon, you really are a <deleted>if you think he has underlying motives just because he makes money, he's a s/ware developer for <deleted>sake, why do you think he put in all the hard time and effort? To make a program that goes out of it's way to violate some bullshit greedy law? I'm afraid buzzoon has completely missed the point of what 321 is doing. Why should we have to put up with these sorts of laws, we don't. We have rights as consumers and i don't care who the <deleted> you are, i bought a copy of a game/movie etc, i have the right to make a backup. You stop me from doing that and then you're the one breaking the law. And evertime buzzoon opens his mouth it just makes him look like a DMCA <deleted> wearing blinkers. Stop arguing for that sake of it and get behind something that matters, just like Robert H Moore is doing. pbailey: Please do not ever use the 'F' word in here again, or the other words you have used to describe one of our members. If your read more carefully, you will discover that buzzoon *does* agree with what Mr. Moore is trying to accomplish. As such, he agrees with you as well, as do I. <A_K>

siber: Even Klingy - who is trying so hard - cannot save this one. Oh, I dunno, siber. All depends on your outlook. I've been trained in "damage control". (Yeah, it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it, eh?)

I'm not in the least bit angry :-) I am simply trying to make a point that regardless of emotions, regardless of our rights, regardless of the curret state of Mr. Moore's company, and regardless of whether or not we agree with the law, the law was broken and somebody profited by it. Maybe I'm a little jealous? I know if I broke the law to profit and got caught, I probably wouldn't have access to this keyboard right now. Anywho ... my point has been made and I promise to leave it alone from now on. Thanks ...

LOL so sorry bout the f word, we all agree?? That's great!

LOL So sorry bout the f word, we all agree? That's great! Yep, we all agree. We're all just one, great big happy .... (um).... Family! -- Happy Happy Happy !! Earlier tonight I was Google-ing my way through miles and miles of text, trying to find out more about Canadian copyright law. As expected, there is so much stuff to wade through, I gave up. I was looking for something (anything) "legal" that would pertain to copying music and films (cds and dvds) from Public Libraries. Perhaps something that, at least here in Canada, the DMCA couldn't even remotely touch. In a Canadian Audio magazine, ["UHF", Ultra-High Fidelity] I was surprised to learn that it is legal to make a one-off copy of a music cd, as long as it is for personal, at-home use only. (No lending, no selling, no distribution.) Legal. Commercial music cds. The proviso was that the cd (or cassette, or vinyl LP) had to come from a real, "accredited" Public Library. (You can't just go to a music store, buy a cd and then run off 20 copies for your friends.) I had hoped to find something similar pertaining to commercial dvds, also as freely loaned by the public libraries, but couldn't find anything in the volumes of text I plowed through, but..... If it's legal to copy, for personal, non-commercial, private use, a music cd, then why not a dvd? Perhaps it is legal (???) Anybody know anything about this? Offnote: You know, when this DMCA thing gets ammended, it could have profound implications for the upcoming HD discs. If Congress allows for fair use backing-up of legally purchased dvds, one would have to believe this would also extend to High Definition discs. Who knows how much they will initially cost? $80-$100 each maybe? (Don't laugh - remember the 12" laser discs?) At that price, I definately believe one should be able to protect their investment! We can now "get around" the dvd format, but since the HD format hasn't even been finalized yet, it's impossible to say how tough or 'uncrackable' the drm measures will be. It could be a case where we may be legally _permitted_ to back up our expensive HD disc, but have no way to actually do it. Hmmmm.... interesting times ahead.

A_K it's interesting you found that about making a legal backup, because i have been under the impression since i started playing around with computers, since i was 7 that you were by law allowed to make a backup of a copy you own, but over the years, i'm now 22, i never actually heard them say you can't do it. Ofcourse essentially they did, by bringing out copy protection measures, and i remember raising a stink about it over at bjorn3d's forums back in 97, that surely they're breaking the law by introducing measures that stop us from making a legal backup of a copy we own. Now ofcourse they bung on that you're only buying the right to listen to it, not ownership rights. No poo, ofcourse we see it as that, but as consumers who spend money supporting these so called artits, we don't have the right to protect our own interests, ie listening rights, viewing rights etc. I don't want to get started, or i'll just ramble on, and unfortunately i have to go to work. With the flu. Everything sucks alot right now.. ;)

Oh yeah, blank dvd rw were about a $100 a pop when i first saw them on the shelves. LOL i only ever saw one of those huge laser disks, and the guy showing me said, this is what all games will be on soon, and i was like, you crazy mon, that's way too big...

Hi A_Klingon This is my take on the Section 80 of the Copyright Act in Canada "Copying for Private Use 80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording, (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording. (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c): (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental; (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade; (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public." (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33761 and http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#what_is_a_levy) I can legally in Canada make a copy of any music work/performance no matter the source. I can own the source. I can borrow the source. I can rent the source. I can dounload the source. The source is not limited to a tape, LP, CD, DVD, hard drive etc. It is whatever/wherever the musical work can be found. DVD do contain musical works. For me this justifies my DVD backups. This has not been tested in the courts making a legal interpretation uncertain. I hope this helps

The guy should still have been sued, but only for his bad taste in software. Hey Siber, fortunately we don't loose forums and fortunately we can get loose from pointless threads. I try to (although sometimes without success), remind myself that everyone is always going to be right in their one heads, and some discussions end will in unresolvable debates.

This one has calmed down quite a bit. Yesterday we had some serious shouting going on. As we both know, it is possible to drop an issue, walk away from it and find out that there really is a next day.

What there's a next day?! I thought it was to-day... :S Well, you've confused me now... I'll just stick to the rule of life: Live everyday like it's your last.

Too confrontational...Imagine if you really thought this was your last day. You'd never shut up, you'd always think you've got nothing to lose, you'd fight every fight...Nice slogan but luckily that's all it is. The world would be one crazy place every day...But I agree with the concept of enjoying every day to the fullest.

So, So, True Siber! When there is no point or reason to be ganined from further debate, then let it go and move on.

chthomson THANK YOU for that information !!! Yes, that does *indeed* help! Finally, some legal text that doesn't require a law degree to understand! The information you quoted seems very straightforward to me. We can legally copy a music (source) for our own use. Cool! Too bad that, technically, no mention of video was made. (Don't know when those laws actually came into effect, but surely, at least vhs was around at that time?) However, nowhere in those provisions does it say you can't also copy a video source either. So, yeah..... I think we're pretty lucky. And you must be right too, about it also being legal to own _downloaded_ copies of music as well (from P2P sources like 'Kazaa', etc.) Recently I was reading a news article (from here I believe) which stated that the record companies were trying to 'crack down' on P2P file swappers here in Canada, but as I haven't heard of any outcome from these 'threats', I will believe that it is still 100% legal to do so. Excellent! pbailey, hope your flu doesn't get you down. I too have never head anyone say Canadians can't make personal music copies either, whether from self-owned or rented/borrowed sources.

I'm in favor of protecting intellectual property rights as long as it's the rights of the creators that are being protected. The problem with making a decision that puts intellectual properties' in the hands of movie moguls or the RIAA is that it puts a strangle hold on creativity. Business people decide on the sound, image, and future direction of what we hear. They sift and filter it for what they, this small population of no talents, think should be what we're hearing. I support the law as it is written even thought there is much of it I am greatly displeased with.

hear hear. Excellent thread. :( cheers A_K.

I can legally in Canada make a copy of any music work/performance no matter the source. I can own the source. I can borrow the source. I can rent the source. I can dounload the source. The source is not limited to a tape, LP, CD, DVD, hard drive etc. It is whatever/wherever the musical work can be found. DVD do contain musical works. For me this justifies my DVD backups. Sigh! If only it were that simple. Re-read Sentence 2 of your post and think about how a Judge would interpret this with respect to your source.

PS ... before you get everyone in Canada going, you may want to bounce your interpretation of Canadian Copyright Law off a copyright lawyer. (This is something our friend Mr. Moore should have done before he developed and marketed his product) :)

Hi A_Klingon The Private Copying Regime law was created in 1997. Prior to that it was illegal to make copies of musical works. When it became legal to make a private copy of music a levy was imposed on recordable medium - cassettes and cds. These monies collected are to be distributed to music artists according a distribution formula to compensate for private copying. In their December 2003 decision, the Copyright Board states: "The regime does not address the source of the material copied. There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet." Video is not included in the Private Copying Regime only music. The Copyright Act defines sound recording as ""sound recording" means a recording, fixed in any material form, consisting of sounds, whether or not of a performance of a work, but excludes any soundtrack of a cinematographic work where it accompanies the cinematographic work; Uploading is still being decided on. In March the court ruled having music in a shared folder on a p2p network is not distribution. This case is under appeal. We might have an answer this fall. buzzoon I make copies of musical works. That is legal under Canadian Copyright law. See http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33231. My DVDs have music works and performances. Music videos are great entertainment. Legal opinion has no value unless supported by a court case. No one has been convicted of travelling 1K over the limit but it is still classified as speeding

Interesting chthompson ... thanks!

we are the workers of fair use,,but it seems that most people leave it up to some one else and all else fails. because NO one stickes together , even though we have the rights to act ,,we fall beside the way side amd the RIAA know this...they say people give out and just let it be ..these americans need to be governed by sadum and have a Big hard ship and then and only then will they injoy god and the united states and what We have to offer, people better get in to the fight for your rights, or you will have someone like Sadum-that will MAKE you like it!!!!!!!!!!!!

Quote:

---

Uploading is still being decided on. In March the court ruled having music in a shared folder on a p2p network is not distribution. This case is under appeal. We might have an answer this fall.

---

Has anyone tried buying the Platinum ripper version 4.0.3.8 here? http://www.platinumripper.com/ They are overseas and seem to still be selling it. They say they will fully support it and get it working for you. If they can’t they will give you a full refund. Buzz55

`Mr Moore. I find your products very worthwhile. I also purchased them after finding out about your xcopy platinum from a fellow co worker. I have had much success with your products. I also have games x copy. I salute you on your perseverience and stalwart helmsmanship of your company. I am so sorry to see 321 studios lost to the world. I hope things will go better in the future for you and you will be able to send us some new technology to help us middle class consumers in the relativly near future Bobbie