http://news.com.com/2100-1025-5162749.html
I just bought mine about a month ago. Glad I got it when I did.
I just bought mine about a month ago. Glad I got it when I did.
DVD X COPY.....ILLEGAL!!!!
- Thread starter tiktok 22
- Start date
Help Support Candle Power Flashlight Forum
GJW
Flashlight Enthusiast
It's a shame that 321 Studios had to pay all those legal fees.
AFAIK their software doesn't do anything that a score of other free programs do as well.
If you're going to break the law be sure that you don't charge for it.
AFAIK their software doesn't do anything that a score of other free programs do as well.
If you're going to break the law be sure that you don't charge for it.
321 Studios is, in essence, charging a lot of money for a program that does nothing much more than several widely available freeware programs out there can easily accomplish, plus you don't have to worry about stupid warnings and such being inserted into your video when using freeware DVD editing programs.
@tiktok 22: Since you said that you have just purchased a copy of DVD X Copy you should also be aware that the program is written in such a way that the company can disable your copy remotely (it phones home), if they want to (or if they are forced to). I just read a story a few weeks ago about how they did that to a guy that the police accused of copyright infringement (before he even went to trial). If you don't want your copy that you just purchased to be disabled remotely by 321 Studios then you had better block it from communicating with the internet using a firewall program such as ZoneAlarm.
Since it is possible for the program to be disabled remotely, I wouldn't put it past the ignorant judge in the case to force them to disable everyone's copies before this case is over with. I just thought I would let you know so that you can protect your investment. If I were you though, I would try to get my money back from them before they go under and then just use freely available programs to do the same thing.
@tiktok 22: Since you said that you have just purchased a copy of DVD X Copy you should also be aware that the program is written in such a way that the company can disable your copy remotely (it phones home), if they want to (or if they are forced to). I just read a story a few weeks ago about how they did that to a guy that the police accused of copyright infringement (before he even went to trial). If you don't want your copy that you just purchased to be disabled remotely by 321 Studios then you had better block it from communicating with the internet using a firewall program such as ZoneAlarm.
Since it is possible for the program to be disabled remotely, I wouldn't put it past the ignorant judge in the case to force them to disable everyone's copies before this case is over with. I just thought I would let you know so that you can protect your investment. If I were you though, I would try to get my money back from them before they go under and then just use freely available programs to do the same thing.
Datasaurusrex
Enlightened
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 665
"DVD Shrink" is WAY better than DVD X... and DVD Shrink is FREE!!!!
stockwiz
Enlightened
dvdxcopy never did that good of a job with compression either.. it always overcompressed. I use a combination of DVDDecryptor followed by dvd2one but there are other freeware programs available too. I also use IFOedit and VOBedit to combine 2 sided DVDs into one sided ones.
I always get compressed copys that are exactly 4.3x GB in size with the options I want.. usually just the movie with the dolby digital 5 channel sound.
Good point to make. It's the people that try selling stuff they pirate that get in trouble. I remember when I purchased all 4 seasons of The Family Guy for $30 on ebay... the guy did great work encoding them into the DVD format with menus and everything and the episodes were of good quality as well... about 2 weeks after I bought from him his username was pulled from ebay... not smart even if it is television episodes.
I always get compressed copys that are exactly 4.3x GB in size with the options I want.. usually just the movie with the dolby digital 5 channel sound.
Good point to make. It's the people that try selling stuff they pirate that get in trouble. I remember when I purchased all 4 seasons of The Family Guy for $30 on ebay... the guy did great work encoding them into the DVD format with menus and everything and the episodes were of good quality as well... about 2 weeks after I bought from him his username was pulled from ebay... not smart even if it is television episodes.
Datasaurusrex
Enlightened
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2003
- Messages
- 665
[ QUOTE ]
GJW said:
If you're going to break the law be sure that you don't charge for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Many would argue that Section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Law does indeed grant consumers the right to make backup copies of software, movies and music from any media, onto any media -- for personal, archival purposes only.
GJW said:
If you're going to break the law be sure that you don't charge for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Many would argue that Section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Law does indeed grant consumers the right to make backup copies of software, movies and music from any media, onto any media -- for personal, archival purposes only.
GJW
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
Datasaurusrex said:
[ QUOTE ]
GJW said:
If you're going to break the law be sure that you don't charge for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Many would argue that Section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Law does indeed grant consumers the right to make backup copies of software, movies and music from any media, onto any media -- for personal, archival purposes only.
[/ QUOTE ]
No argument from me.
My comment was pretty much tongue-in-cheek and based only on the judge's ruling.
Backing up for personal use is allowed -- defeating copy protection algorhythms isn't.
Similar to.....
Obtaining your FBI file is allowed -- breaking into the FBI office to obtain it isn't.
Lousy analogy but you get the point.
Datasaurusrex said:
[ QUOTE ]
GJW said:
If you're going to break the law be sure that you don't charge for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
Many would argue that Section 117 of the U.S. Copyright Law does indeed grant consumers the right to make backup copies of software, movies and music from any media, onto any media -- for personal, archival purposes only.
[/ QUOTE ]
No argument from me.
My comment was pretty much tongue-in-cheek and based only on the judge's ruling.
Backing up for personal use is allowed -- defeating copy protection algorhythms isn't.
Similar to.....
Obtaining your FBI file is allowed -- breaking into the FBI office to obtain it isn't.
Lousy analogy but you get the point.
raggie33
*the raggedier*
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2003
- Messages
- 13,906
rip dvd to hardrive then recomprese it with divx fit the dvd on a cd its cheaper
cosco
Newly Enlightened
DVD Shrink here:
http://www.dvdshrink.org/where.html
http://www.dvdshrink.org/where.html
IMHO the rulling is more than stupid. After all there are lots of countries out there who don't give a damn about USA laws. And how are they gonna pervent software produced in those countries from getting in here, let alone all the freeware...
@Zvi: I'll tell you one even more stupid than that. How stupid is it to make laws explicitly stating that you have the right to legally make a backup copy of anything that you own, but at the same time, allow companies to make it impossible to make that legal backup without breaking the copy protection scheme, which after the DMCA was passed into law is illegal to make a commercial product that does that now.
One might first want to assume that our lawmakers have schizophrenia or something, but the sad reality is that they are simply bribed off into passing the laws that they pass. You could almost write a book on the bribery and corruption that got the DMCA passed, but I won't go into that because there are whole web sites out there devoted to that subject. Just look around.
The way I see it, there are only a few ways that they can bring the current laws into harmony with each other (assuming that the judicial branch doesn't beat the legislative branch to the punch).
1. Revoke our right to make backup copies of what we buy completely, which would go over like a lead brick with the public and would be completely pointless because people would still backup their own stuff whether the law said that they could or not so this would be a very stupid way to go for our lawmakers.
2. Revoke the DMCA which already has to be one of the 2nd or 3rd worst laws that that I can think of that have been passed in recent memory, right behind the Patriot Act which still holds the number 1 slot IMO.
3. Do the sensible thing and make it perfectly legal to not only make backup copies (which is already the case) but also to ensure the public's ability to make their legally allowable backup copy by outlawing all forms of copy protection schemes. After all, it's kind of like the case with gun laws that ban law abiding citizens from owning guns, the real criminals will always get the guns that they want and the rest of us will have to do without. In this case, the real criminals that are making a living off of selling other people's software or video or audio are always going to be able to get around any copy protection scheme that they want, but it is the average law abiding person that suffers under the current law by not being able to make backups of the software that we bought and have a perfect legal right to backup.
One might first want to assume that our lawmakers have schizophrenia or something, but the sad reality is that they are simply bribed off into passing the laws that they pass. You could almost write a book on the bribery and corruption that got the DMCA passed, but I won't go into that because there are whole web sites out there devoted to that subject. Just look around.
The way I see it, there are only a few ways that they can bring the current laws into harmony with each other (assuming that the judicial branch doesn't beat the legislative branch to the punch).
1. Revoke our right to make backup copies of what we buy completely, which would go over like a lead brick with the public and would be completely pointless because people would still backup their own stuff whether the law said that they could or not so this would be a very stupid way to go for our lawmakers.
2. Revoke the DMCA which already has to be one of the 2nd or 3rd worst laws that that I can think of that have been passed in recent memory, right behind the Patriot Act which still holds the number 1 slot IMO.
3. Do the sensible thing and make it perfectly legal to not only make backup copies (which is already the case) but also to ensure the public's ability to make their legally allowable backup copy by outlawing all forms of copy protection schemes. After all, it's kind of like the case with gun laws that ban law abiding citizens from owning guns, the real criminals will always get the guns that they want and the rest of us will have to do without. In this case, the real criminals that are making a living off of selling other people's software or video or audio are always going to be able to get around any copy protection scheme that they want, but it is the average law abiding person that suffers under the current law by not being able to make backups of the software that we bought and have a perfect legal right to backup.
You know, there's another aspect to that very stupid law known as the DMCA to take into account to. From the best that I can make of it, it is still perfectly legal to break a copy protection scheme yourself, personally, but it is now illegal to talk about it or to publish a paper on it or to make a commercial product that is capable of breaking a copy protection scheme, no matter how noble the purpose. I've even heard of public libraries getting into trouble under the DMCA just because they were trying to preserve various types of software in a format that would still be accessible in the the future.
As it stands now, a company can hold your software that you purchase hostage with such nonsense as "activation codes", which would stand to lock you out of your own software that you purchase, if the company happens to go under, which happens all the time in the software world.
The way things are going, if the legislative branch doesn't do something about the DMCA, the judicial is likely to before it is over with because, as it stands right now, there are many different and conflicting copyright laws on the books and sooner or later they will have to be brought into harmony with one another. I only hope that the consumer comes out on top in the end and not the corporations, but who am I kidding, this *is* "corporate America" after all...
As it stands now, a company can hold your software that you purchase hostage with such nonsense as "activation codes", which would stand to lock you out of your own software that you purchase, if the company happens to go under, which happens all the time in the software world.
The way things are going, if the legislative branch doesn't do something about the DMCA, the judicial is likely to before it is over with because, as it stands right now, there are many different and conflicting copyright laws on the books and sooner or later they will have to be brought into harmony with one another. I only hope that the consumer comes out on top in the end and not the corporations, but who am I kidding, this *is* "corporate America" after all...
geepondy
Flashlight Enthusiast
Very soon before the year is out, DVD-9 recorders will be released on the market. This will provide the size necessary to copy a full commericial DVD without compressing or re-compiling. Then all you'll need is one of the many free programs that will allow you to rip a commericial DVD to your hard drive and then you can do a direct copy using normal software such as EZ cd creator or Nero. What will the lawmakers do then?
geepondy said: "What will the lawmakers do then?"
Where big money special interest groups are concerned, they will find something. I'm not sure what it will be but they will find some way of trying to outlaw it because the big movie people would love for you to have to go out and spend $20.00 to buy a new copy of a DVD that your kid sticks in the toaster or your dog may happen upon, etc. Why would they want you to be able to make a backup copy when they could otherwise get to charge you for a new copy if you have no way of making a backup?
I make it a policy to back up all of my stuff and then only play the backups. This way if anything goes wrong I've only lost like a buck instead of $20.00 on a DVD. Pretty cheap insurance I would say.
Also backing up audio CDs is great to for those times when you want to take a CD with you in the car, because if it is fried by the sun or lost or stolen you only loose like $.15 instead of $15.00. I'm sure that the recording industry is even now trying to get legislation passed to keep you from backing up your CDs. After all, they are already putting copy protection on music CDs these days to keep you from making a copy of them and if you break the copy protection on them then you are officially breaking the law under one interpretation of the DMCA. Of course they would have to throw quite a large percentage of the people in the country in jail if they were to actually do anything about it because pretty well everyone with a computer and a CD writer does it.
Where big money special interest groups are concerned, they will find something. I'm not sure what it will be but they will find some way of trying to outlaw it because the big movie people would love for you to have to go out and spend $20.00 to buy a new copy of a DVD that your kid sticks in the toaster or your dog may happen upon, etc. Why would they want you to be able to make a backup copy when they could otherwise get to charge you for a new copy if you have no way of making a backup?
I make it a policy to back up all of my stuff and then only play the backups. This way if anything goes wrong I've only lost like a buck instead of $20.00 on a DVD. Pretty cheap insurance I would say.
Also backing up audio CDs is great to for those times when you want to take a CD with you in the car, because if it is fried by the sun or lost or stolen you only loose like $.15 instead of $15.00. I'm sure that the recording industry is even now trying to get legislation passed to keep you from backing up your CDs. After all, they are already putting copy protection on music CDs these days to keep you from making a copy of them and if you break the copy protection on them then you are officially breaking the law under one interpretation of the DMCA. Of course they would have to throw quite a large percentage of the people in the country in jail if they were to actually do anything about it because pretty well everyone with a computer and a CD writer does it.
GJW
Flashlight Enthusiast
[ QUOTE ]
X-CalBR8 said:
After all, they are already putting copy protection on music CDs these days to keep you from making a copy of them and if you break the copy protection on them then you are officially breaking the law under one interpretation of the DMCA.
[/ QUOTE ]
My completely PC illiterate sister called me because she was having trouble playing a new CD on her laptop.
It would play on her boombox but not on her laptop.
The laptop CD drive would spin up and then just hourglass for about 4 minutes before spinning down again.
I had her look at it in File Explorer and the only thing that showed was about twelve 32k files.
Turns out it was a pre-release CD from a music agent and it had some new copy protection scheme.
X-CalBR8 said:
After all, they are already putting copy protection on music CDs these days to keep you from making a copy of them and if you break the copy protection on them then you are officially breaking the law under one interpretation of the DMCA.
[/ QUOTE ]
My completely PC illiterate sister called me because she was having trouble playing a new CD on her laptop.
It would play on her boombox but not on her laptop.
The laptop CD drive would spin up and then just hourglass for about 4 minutes before spinning down again.
I had her look at it in File Explorer and the only thing that showed was about twelve 32k files.
Turns out it was a pre-release CD from a music agent and it had some new copy protection scheme.
