Terje A. bergesen
Forum Replies Created
-
There is no way. That is the nature of video compression. Going from one highly compressed format to another compressed format, and you will lose quality.
—
Terje A. Bergesen : https://terje.bergesen.info/ -
Hello Belinda. When you click on the down arrow on the tool bar line next to the “Auto Ripple” button, you get a set of options on what type of Ripple you want to enable.
The drop down gives you the following (in Vegas 8) options:
Affected Tracks
Affected Tracks, Bus Tracks, Markers, and Regions (sic)
All Tracks, Markers, and Regions (sic)Make sure “All Tracks” is selected and you will be fine.
-
You clearly don’t understand “Fair Use.”
You are right, I used “Fair Use” wrongly here, more as a collective concept of “When you can duplicate copyrighted material”. For music, my rights to duplicate it for personal use is codified in AHRA, and I therefore do not need to raise a Fair Use defense if I do so.
For printed material there is a huge pile of judicial precedent that also grants me right to use it.
Why should it be fundamentally different for movies than for any other art form or intellectual property creation?
-
ou can flap those verbal wings of yours until your arms either fail or become the “biceps of Godzilla” and it won’t change the fact that what you are doing and espousing is ILLEGAL
If the world was as simplistic as you seem to think it is, there would have been weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. We would have caught bin Laden by sending two FBI agents to Pakistan who asked politely to have him extradited, and we would have known for sure that some humans, at least those who claim to be a human form of a divine entity, can walk on water. Life, the world, and not to forget the law, is not that simple.
I am not, have never, and will never, argue that people should, can or must break the law, even the DMCA. It seems you think that I am arguing that people should be allowed to break the law, I am not arguing that. If you think I am arguing that people should be allowed to break the law, please read what I write a little more carefully.
What I am arguing is that the DMCA breaks with more than 100 years of US law and judicial practice, and that some parts of the DMCA will therefore probably not survive a lengthy battle all the way to the Supreme Court. I am also arguing that given the fact that some provisions of the DMCA has already, in 1979 for example, been struck down by the courts, that it was a bad law, and shoddy workmanship to begin with.
Sadly, in the paranoid aftermath of the current administrations raise to power, and the blatant pandering to any and all business interest over the interest of the consumer, the DMCA was inevitable. It will probably also stand for a while, as does a lot of laws that are later struck down.
Usually, when discussing a topic of this nature, creating abstracts and “what if” scenarios is always interesting. The reason being that they cast light on particular problems with the situation discussed. Such light, to be illuminating in the best possible manner, must be bright, and the more extreme the “what if” scenario the brighter the light.
Sadly, when you create such “what if” scenarios, people without the ability to think abstractly tend to go off their rockers, but I will try anyway.
Assume that China decides to award the copyright of any work to the first person who displays this work in China. No matter who creates it. No matter who owns it outside of China.
Say that Warner releases a new movie with limited distribution in LA and New York. Some enterprising person tapes the movie in the theater in LA, something that is clearly illegal, and hops in the first plane to China. In Beijing he rents a theater and shows the movie to an audience. According to this Chinese law, he now owns the copyright to this movie in China. If Warner tries to distribute it in China, they are in violation of his copyright and can be punished for it.
Now, this hypothetical law is in breach of international agreements and is also counter to existing Chinese law (they do in fact have some copyright law, but it isn’t really enforced). However and this is a very important point, it is fully legal in China, China is a sovereign state, to create such a law. China can also break international treaties they have signed, all countries do all the time, and we, the US are one of the most prolific violators of international treaties.
Is it your opinion that Warner has a case if they try to fight this law? Do they have a moral case? Of course they do.
My point with this example is that yes, the DMCA is law, and it does offer a significant amount of protection to movie copyright holders. In fact, the law offers them protection that previous laws specifically has removed, and also it offers them protection that no other copyright owners enjoy. The law does this in blatant violation of all “fair use” judicial practice in the US.
This is why I am arguing for the abolishment of the law, but not for breaking it. If you want to break it you should have an arsenal of good lawyers on your side and the willingness to go all the way to the Supreme Court. On the other hand, civil disobedience is one way to get bad laws changed, it did work for Rosa Parks, for example. If you accept that all laws at all times should, no matter their content, be followed, Rosa Parks was a common criminal who belonged in jail.
as Spot also says, those who argue the loudest for the removal of all intellectual property protections are those who have no intellectual property to speak of.
It is always sad when intellectual midgets (I am not saying you are) resort to ad hominem attacks of this nature. To avoid appearing like an intellectuall midget in the league of a Jerry Springer participant, try to avoid such tactics. You don’t know anything about me, and you assume a lot.
But, since you bring up the subject, I used to be a professional software developer with a large number of commercial titles under my belt. Software, as most movies, is not the work of a single individual, but of a team. The teams I have worked on have chosen not to employ copyright protection for our software, and my current company doesn’t employ this type of protection as a matter of policy (but we have more lawyers than most). Software enjoys copyright protection in the same way as does other creative works.
When I sold software to a customer I would recommend that he run that software on a particular type of system, but when I sold him the rights to use it, I left it up to him to decide whether to head my advice or not. If he chose to run it on under-powered systems that was his choice and I would not ban him from doing so.
The DMCA argues that I, as a copyright owner of my software, can ban my customer from running the software on a Dell computer and mandate they run it on HP PCs only. That is a blatantly absurd requirement. Still, that is what the movie industry wants the right to do. “No Sir, you can not run our software on a computer with a glass door, we do not allow that”.
-
A-yes, I believe watching a video ripped from a copyprotected DVD should be illegal, because as a director,producer, content creator; I reserve the right to a very narrow extent, to decide on what devices my work is shown upon, and by ripping it, you’re not only violating the DMCA, you’re also altering the quality of my film.
I understand that you as a movie producer want provisions like this, that is a good way for you to earn extra money from your creation. Interestingly, the music industry has wanted this, and been denied it by the US judicial system, for their clients. It is, as you know, fully legal to rip your own CDs and put them onto an iPod or (other) MP3 player, even though the MP3 format is clearly of lower quality than the original recording.
Currently, through the DMCA, you also have this option since the DMCA bans anyone from cracking the copyright protection of a DVD.
My question to you then would be as follows: Why should movie producers, as creative artists, enjoy benefits from the law that no other creative artists enjoy? What is it about a movie creator that makes him so special that he should have “rights” that are not applicable to a musician or the author of a book?
What is it about producing moving pictures that necessitates special treatment under US law?
IMO, it’s not just about the letter of the law (which you are arguing) and the moral implications of same
Then I am not sure what it is about. Every creative artist in this world have to accept the fact that I as a private citizen am allowed to duplicate his work for my own private use. If I purchase a painting I am allowed to make a duplicate of that and hang it in my house rather than the original, which I prefer to keep in my vault. Fair use. If I purchase a book recording on CD, I can duplicate this and put it on my iPod. Fair use. If I purchase music on a CD, I can duplicate this onto my iPod or even cassette, with dramatic reduction in quality, and do so legally. Fair use.
All artists are faced with the fact that their work can be copied, both for private use and also for profit (in much more limited situations) without their permission. Even the script writer have to accept that I am allowed to take parts of, or the entire script of his and parody the heck out of it, and he has no say in the matter. Fair use.
Why is the work of a movie director holier than the work of any other creative person in the world?
-
About copying your own music onto an iPod: You can and it’d done a lot I hear, but it’s not clearly legal even though iTunes automates this for you, making it easy to do. From what I’ve read, it’s commonly done but still not clearly legal.
I think you need to read up on copyright. Remember, copyright for you doesn’t automatically mean copy-ban for everybody else. Not even close. There are a large number of situations where I am allowed to copy your copyrighted work either for personal perusal or even for profit.
When it comes to copying music for my personal use, this is clearly legal according to the AHRA. Again, we are not talking about copying a CD you don’t own, only about copying a CD you do in fact own, and this is 100% legal. In fact (as far as I understand the AHRA) since I own a DVD recorder and I purchase blank CD and DVD media, I am paying the recording industry money for the right to copy the work of copyright owners they represent.
If someone publishes a book of public domain drawings that someone collected over the years. Someone else can’t just copy the book and publish it themselves — even though the content is all public domain.
Correct, I can not copy that book as is, but I can copy any individual part of it and make it part of my derived work since any part that I am copying is public domain. With the DMCA, I can not do this with a DVD that is copy protected. This is just one of the way the DMCA is counter to all previous law and legal practice in the US.
Now technically, my quoting of your material above is a copyright violation
Again, this is covered under copyright legislation and under legal practice. You are allowed to quote parts of my work as illustration. So, yes, my words are copyrighted by me, but that does not mean that you are not allowed to copy them. This is covered, for example, in provisions giving book and movie critics the right to quote from the works they are critiquing. Again, fully legal after judicial practice in the US. Interestingly, in these cases it is even legal to copy parts of my copyrighted work and re-publish it for profit. The New York times obviously makes a profit on their book reviews, and they are allowed to quote from the books they review, within reason. In other words, The New York Times makes money on copying other peoples copyrighted work. Fully legal.
Basic jist is that if somebody had to do work to create something, it’s not moral, and probably not legal to get the benefit of that work as a freebie through copying unless the person who did the work gives permission
Please read what I am writing. Please. I have never advocated that it is, or should be, legal to copy work you do not already own. I am only talking about making copies of work you have already purchased the right to peruse. When I purchase a DVD it doesn’t mean that I own the movie, but it does give me the right to view that movie an unlimited number of times.
Also, as shown above, when you say that I am not allowed to benefit from copyrighted material for free or to financially benefit from parts of, or the entire copyrighted material, this is, with strict limits, not correct. In fact, there are a number of ways I can copy parts, or even the entire part of your copyrighted work either for fun or even for profit legally in the US. I have mentioned New York times quoting books they are reviewing, a practice on solid legal footing. Also, I could take parts of, or the entire movie or music and create a derivative work including the entire soundtrack, if I did so in a way that parodied the original work. Fully legal.
So, yes, you have the copyright to any work you produce, but that does not mean that I can not copy it for a number of different purposes without your permission. Parodi. Review. For private use. All on solid legal footing within the US judicial system.
You can read more about some of the areas where copyright does not prohibit copying or replication here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright#Fair_use_and_fair_dealing -
As I said, Terje, and now will make abundantly clear: You are giving people BAD advice
Please note that I have not been trying to give advice in this thread at all; well, I advised the OP not to do what he tried to do since it was illegal. My arguments in this case have only been that things are not yet as clear-cut as you have argued that they are.
Let me try to very shortly state the basis for the contention in this issue.
US copyright law and practice generally gives a private person the right to duplicate copyrighted material for personal use. That is the general view of US law. I don’t think this issue is contentious at all. You can copy a CD onto an iPod and play it as you walk, in your car, or even at a party at a friends house. In other words, you can use the duplicate of the copyrighted material in the same way that you can use the material it self. You can, however, not sell it or distribute it for free. No debate here I think. If you think this is wrong, please explain RIAA v Diamond and the fact that we have iPods.
So, then there is the DMCA. The DMCA says you are not allowed to duplicate copy protected material. This is actually interesting, since the DMCA doesn’t require the copy protected material to be copyrighted for it to be illegal to duplicate it. In other words, if I create a DVD consisting only of public domain material and I include CSS copy protection on that DVD, it is still illegal to make duplicates of the DVD. This is one of the utterly bizarre consequences of the DMCA.
So, purely according to the DMCA, I can at the current point in time not make duplicates of anything that has copy protection on it. As Spot points out, this is illegal now, for any reason whatsoever (with a very limited set of exceptions for libraries and the like). I do not disagree with that point of view as the land currently lies. No argument whatsoever.
My point is the following: The US system of law is common law. The implications of this are important. This means that previous judicial precedent is generally very, very important, and it is even difficult to create new laws that go counter to judicial precedent. In other words, it is hard to make the DMCA stick over time when faced with decades of judges saying that what the DMCA deems illegal should be legal.
Let me use an example. Say that Warner Brothers decide to come after me because I have ripped a DVD and put it on my PC so that I can stream it to my PS3 in my living room. In other words, I do to a DVD exactly the same thing I have already (100% legally) done to my CD collection. BTW, do you not find it utterly bizarre that I can legally do this to all my CDs, but none of my movies? Why do a musician have less rights to his work than does a director? Anyway. We march on.
So, Warner comes after me with all of their big guns, and I hire the Ghost of Johnnie Cochran to defend me. Lets say it goes all the way to the Supreme Court. What is likely to happen apart from the fact that I have to try on various pieces of apparel that turn out to be too small for me? What is likely to happen is that WB will not be able to get me convicted for duplicating their copyrighted material, but they will be able to convict me for circumventing the copyright protection. A crucial difference.
Do I think the DMCA will stand in 10 years, not as it is today, no. It will be altered by court decisions along the way. All laws are, and hopefully, given this experiment we call democracy, always will be.
Sadly, in todays insanely paranoid post 9/11 judicial environment, having rationality prevail all the way to the Supreme Court is hard, but I hope that this great country soon regains most of it’s sanity, also when it comes to the ludicrous aspects of the DMCA. It gets utterly bizarre when counsel in a copyright lawsuits pulls in, and scores points on, the terrorist threat.
Note – I am not advocating sharing of copyrighted material, I am only advocating that the result of Sony v. Universal, and decades upon decades of rational US copyright law should be left as is. This can happen in one of two ways, either some poor sod is attacked by the big media companies for putting a DVD onto his new iPod video to watch on a flight across country or, well, see the next paragraph.
It will be interesting to see, over time, how the DMCRA (Digital Media Consumers Rights Act) fares. Hopefully well. It is short, simple and the only sane part of current copyright debate in DC.
Now, next time you try to turn my words inside out, do me the courtesy of at least reading them and maybe even try understanding them, okay???
That is an advice I will have to return to you re me giving advice.
But honestly, do you really believe that watching a DVD on your iPod video is, and should be, a crime in the US? Why?
-
You will have to spend a LOT of money arguing your case that you have a right to do something that is clearly outlawed by a statute on the books.
Bottom line, you still don’t understand that this isn’t “clearly outlawed by a statute on the books” since it is specifically legalized by another “statute on the books”.
Courts do NOT spend endless time wrangling philosophies as is done in forums like this.
Higher court instances do almost exactly that.
Maybe one day the DMCA will be overturned
Again, there is no reason the DMCA should be overturned. It doesn’t have to be.
Interestingly, and think about this for a little while before you answer. The guy who cracked the DVD protection scheme was prosecuted, DVD John, remember? He then published his work, and a number of companies have since created DVD decryption software based on his work. These companies have generally not been pursued in court. Why the discrepancy? Can you imagine a situation where a studio lawyer understands that they can pursue DVD John, but that they realize there is little to be gained from going after the ones who enable copying of DVDs?
-
If you can try to explain what you are doing, then that would be a help. Also, if you tell us what Vegas is saying to you while you are doing this, then that would also be good.
-
The fact is this: Law enforcement acts on the statutes that are on the books. Judges enforce based on these same statutes
Ah, well, “the fact” is rarely fact other than in the most simplistic cases. The statues that are on the books right now say that we can duplicate copyrighted material for private use. Do law enforcement act on those statutes? What about the judges when two aspects of “the books” are contradictory?