Terje A. bergesen
Forum Replies Created
-
You should Print To Tape using an MPEG-2 HDV template. If you do not see anything on your HD TV when you play it from your camcorder, something went wrong in the Print to Tape phase.
-
what you are referring to here is the fact that laws evolve. Oftentimes — especially when 530 mostly out of work lawyers in Washington DC get involved — earlier less restrictive laws give way to stricter more restrictive laws
Again, I am not a lawyer, but – eh, wrong. The US has what is called a common-law system, slightly different than the one in the UK, but similar. The main difference being the importance of the US Constitution. In a common law system precedence is generally more important than in other law systems, and in the US you also have the fact that all laws are held up against the constitution.
This means that the Betamax case, as it pertains to copying, has a stronger stand in the US than does the DMCA since the Betamax case has been tried i court. In fact, in order for a later court to overthrow the Betamax case it must typically either go to a higher court instance or be shown to contain some sort of error – or even be unconstitutional. More typically a lawyer would try to argue that the Betamax case could not be considered relevant in a particular case. This is why, if the duplication of DVDs ever goes to court, it will most likely be tried on cracking the encryption, not copying the content, since there is precedent that says copying the content for private use is legal.
Copying copyrighted material in the US has generally been legal for personal use. That is, you are allowed to put that CD onto your iPod, or that LP onto a tape for your car. You can even copy pages of a book if you feel that is a better way to read the book. This is precedent, and for the movie industry to nail me on making a duplicate of a DVD for my own personal use (let’s say to play on my iPod video), they would have to show that this is a fundamentally different from doing this with a music CD, which you and I both know it is not.
This is why the movie industry primarily have been attacking the breaking of the encryption, not duplication of the content. In other words, they have been attacking where DMCA differs from the Betamax case.
I am willing to put some money in escrow and bet that in 10 years the DMCA will still be with us and will still be law. Are you?
I am confident the DMCA will still be around in ten years, of course. Why would it go anywhere. I am also optimistic that by then the delineation between the DMCA and the Betamax case may have been tried in court, but I am not sure. I don’t really think the movie industry will ever try to have the Betamax case overthrown. Why would they?
But I wouldn’t want to be standing in court as an opium user (which I am emphatically not) arguing a case before a judge that today’s laws were not valid because according to earlier laws, it was legal.
This example is nice, and it illustrates a very important point very well: Your lack of understanding of law. In the US common law system I am confident Opium has never been legal. If you can find a law that states that any opiate is legal I would be interested to read it. What I am also reasonably certain of is that back then, in the Wild Wild West, it wasn’t illegal. Now that is another thing entirely. A thing that is not specifically illegal can be made illegal by creating a law against it. Remember, in the US common law system, anything that isn’t specifically illegal is legal (as opposed to Roman law, where the opposite is true).
Now, I would, as many others, argue that the ban on drug use for personal recreation is unconstitutional, but since the Supreme Court is primarily a political, and not a judicial institution, it seems unlikely that we’ll get a court in the near future that is willing to look at this from a purely legalistic standpoint.
The problem with your opiate argument is that copying of copyrighted content for purely private use has been deemed legal by a US court, and overthrowing that is typically not trivial. That is why the industry hasn’t really tried in the almost three decades since 1979.
And PLEASE I am not arguing that you should be allowed to duplicate and sell, give away, distribute or in any other way break the law, movies. I am arguing that if I buy the rights to watch a movie, the industry shouldn’t really have the right to ban me from watching that movie on my iPod video and force me to watch it on their approved Televisions.
-
Geez this is still going on, well anyways like i said before i was going to share it w/ my parents in my HOME
To me, this is not the point of contention. The point is that you intend to change the movie, without the consent of the movie owner, before you show it to your parents. You didn’t buy the rights to do that. You bought the rights to watching it with your parents, and telling them to shut their eyes when things that they don’t want to see come on.
But let’s say if they release a movie and it has a R rating in the theatres , when it comes out to video why not release a Uncut/Unrated/Director’s Cut/R/PG-13 and maybe even a PG vers of the movie
They very often do, but if they do not that is their prerogative, and, since you are not the movie owner, and you have not paid for the right to alter the movie, you can not do this. Note that TV stations and airlines buy down-rated movies or they alter them them selves to a lower rating, but they pay a lot of money for the right. You haven’t paid for that right. If you want to show your parents the PG13 version of the movie, record it to your DVR next time it shows on some TV station. Then you are fine. They have edited it for you and paid for the right to do so.
if that means sacrificing some nudity,blood splatters, limbs and heads being chopped off, without ruining the movie, I’d do it.
And that would be your choice. If I feel that my work would be sullied by such an edit, then it is my choice to not release such a version, and you, as a viewer, have no right to challenge my decision. It is my movie to change, you can watch it or not, those are the only options you have.
They’re alot of companies that edit movies out there and are still in business and making alot of money doing it, but personally I’d rather see that money go to the ppl that made the movie…
Not sure what you are saying here. The only people with the right to alter a movie, and make money doing so, are the owners (maker) of the movie or people they have given permission (usually for a fee) to do so.
-
What is even more puzzling to me is when I find *anyone* in our industry supporting the right to rip content for the purpose of sharing it with others. DCMA or not.
I would never advocate ripping DVDs to share with others, but I do contend that when I buy a DVD I buy the right to watch the movie, and I should be allowed to watch the movie any which way I like. In other words, if I want to watch the movie on my iPod video, I should be allowed to. The only way I can do that is by ripping the DVD.
Also, I have put together a multimedia solution with my home-office PC and my Playstation 3. I us TVersity to stream all my home-made video and streaming video from the net (legal) to my PS3. I have now bought three 500G HDs I intend to set up in a RAID configuration, and I intend to rip all my DVDs onto this HD and watch them by streaming them to my PS3 from my PC.
Given the fact that I have paid to watch these movies, why is it that I can go to jail for determining how I watch them? Note, I am not changing the movie at all, I am not even transcoding I am ripping the pure MPEG-2 stream to the HD and streaming this across to my PS3. Would you seriously contend that I am stealing just because I push the DVD content across an 100Mb/s ethernet connection to my PS3 rather than watching, bit for bit and byte for byte, the same content streamed off the DVD disk through the same PS3 onto my TV? Of course not.
-
I am not a lawyer, and what I say should therefore be taken with a grain of salt. Also, as a non-lawyer, I will be careful with stating either this or that categorically. We may need to wait and see a little on this one since it hasn’t yet been tried in court – that is, the Betamax case vs DMCA (see below). As you know, this is a country of common law, so court decisions are very important.
In the Sony vs Universal and Walt Disney (often referred to as the Betamax case), the court clearly states that duplicating copyrighted material for private use, in this particular case time-shifting, was fair use and therefore legal. Sony argued that copying like this had been not only possible, but widespread since the first tape recorder was released. Copying your records (LP) to tape for playing in your car (where you people had LP players) was common practice, and accepted (fair use). The court agreed with Sony. This decision, which is from 1979, is generally used as an argument that copying copyrighted material in limited quantities for your own use is generally legal in the US.
Along comes the DMCA, which adds another interesting twist to the discussion. The DMCA states that circumventing copy protection, which is required to copy a DVD, is illegal. OK, so now we have two conflicting areas of law, the DMCA that says I can not copy a DVD, and the Betamax case which in essence says that I can copy it for my own use.
These two conflicting areas of law have not yet been brought head-to-head in a court of law in the US, and the main reason, as far as I understand it, is that the movie industry is reasonably sure they would lose given the Betamax case. The fact that they think they would lose you can see in the fact that the entertainment industry has not gone after the makers of DVD duplication software at all (in reality). They realize it would probably be futile. Not so with people who share music. In reality, their actions (or lack of) show the public that they are OK with you making backup of this for your own use. This is something the court would take into account in a case. Same thing with CD ripping software.
Remember, without the Betamax case Apple would not be able to sell a single iPod.
As I said, I’m not a lawyer, but I am a betting man. I would not bet a single cent, no matter what odds, on the movie industry if they went after copying for private use in the courts.
There is a long history in the US of accepting copying of copyrighted material for private use. Books, music, movies, most have been tried in court, and the court tends to land on the “you can copy for private use” argument.
So, what about the circumventing of copyright? Well, again it does seem like the courts, the industry and others have agreed in practice what is and what is not legal. It appears that the courts have found that cracking the encryption is illegal, that is, sitting down and doing the crack, but using it after it has been published is not. This is, in my opinion, schizophrenic at best, but then again, that is an affliction commonly seen in a vibrant democracy.
-
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act expressly makes a crime any ripping of a DVD or other medium that falls under its protections.
This is correct, however, there are other laws that would allow it as Fair Use. Since the DMCA vs the older VHS (I think it was) have not been tried in the Supreme Court yet, we don’t really know. One court decision says you can, another law says you can’t.
What is clearly not legal however is altering the movie. Copying it, perhaps legal, altering it without permission, definitely not legal.
-
The image is not squished. It is just the way things are, and like it or not, it has to be like that due to the difference between HDV and 16×9 DV footage.
(people look a bit skinnier-no one seems to mind this issue but me :). … I just don’t think this should be happening. I want my proportions to be accurate.
People don’t look skinnier. This scaling has to happen, and your proportions are still accurate. This is just the tiny difference between HDV and DVD aspect. Again, nothing happens to you video, it is not getting squished.
I’ve captured the footage with 3 different apps with no change in final render outcome.
Again, this is in the nature of rendering HDV to DVD Widescreen. They all “do it” because it is the correct thing to do? Or, to put it differently, they are not doing anything at all, they are scaling your video down from HDV to DVD as accurately as is possible.
-
No, you should not have stretch on. There is a small difference in the aspect ratio of HDV and DVD, which is why you are seeing this. There are no black borders in the finished result.
-
What DVD creation software are you using? If you are using DVD Architect, it has a an option for creating an “Extras” folder. You won’t have room for much though, so it depends on the amount of footage here.
-
What is your footage? What is your project settings? What is your rendering settings? Vegas doesn’t add black bars to the side of your video unless you “ask it to”.