Copy Protection. The only way you can make a copy is in the analog domain. Bummer huh.
22 responses Add your response
I would not regard this as illegal provided you purchased and still own the the original DVD and you are copying it for your own home use and not for re-sale or to give to someone else.A little sidebar perhaps, but why would anyone make a copy of a DVD if it was intended for their own home use, and not intended to be given to someone else or sold? This strikes me as a legal loophole to protect those who duplicate copyrighted material. Of what purpose are two identical versions of the same DVD in the same household?
If I'm not mistaken, the original intent of this loophole was to allow archiving of recordings that were in danger of being damaged if they were handled or played.
With the advent of CDs and DVDs, this potential for damage has largely disappeared.
Sure, there will be some examples offered: protect the original from damage, provide a second copy for the rumpus room. I'll bet all the explanations stretch credulity.
I am positive Rwwear. His source is a DVD. Bitrate is does not matter. What digital device he tries to record with does not matter either. The DVD in copy protected and copyrighted. His only course other than analog is the break the law and use a bootlet computer program.
Whether we regard it as illegal or not does not matter. The government considers it illegal. Saying someone on AudigoN said it was OK is not a legal defense in court.
Thanks everyone! I guess I'll try an analog copy first and see how it sounds. Like Rwwear, the purpose of the copy is to listen to it on CD in my car- it's a concert video. What's so frustrating is that the owner's manual of the CDR says that under SCMS copy protection rules, "you can record digital program sources onto a recordable CD disc to create a first generation digital copy. You cannot, however record from this recorded CD disc to another recordable CD disc." If the sound quality is not acceptable, I will look at other options.
"you can record digital program sources onto a recordable CD disc to create a first generation digital copy. You cannot, however record from this recorded CD disc to another recordable CD disc."Exactly. That language basically goes back to the copyright laws allowing a single archival copy for one's personal use.
It has never been legal to make more than one copy of any copyrighted recorded material, even though people have been doing it for decades. It wasn't until the advent of the CD, and the ensuing recordable CDs that record companies and distributors really started cracking down. In the days of cassette and reel to reel tape, the record companies weren't as concerned because they knew the best quality recording was always going to be an original pressing or tape recording, and any copies...and copies of copies were going to get progressively worse in quality each time a next generation copy was made. Of course, with CDRs, this isn't the case.
Fundamentaly I agree - there are lots of "excuses" for illegal copying - archival seems like one (given CD's durability).
Yet there are good practical reasons to want to copy some material. For example, a handful of burned CD's with selected tracks that came from original CD's (most often) or the occasional DVD are not doing harm to the industry, provided the owner keeps all the originals and there is no sharing going on. In this case, the owner might have the original in a CD Mega changer and another copy on a compilation in the car. The car copies don't last as they get scratched very quickly (often stored incorrectly, floating about in the box under the arm rest). It is harder to change CD's in a car and hence the advantage of a compilation geared to tastes.
Should this kind of use be illegal - I think not.
Shadorne, my post was intended to discuss copying of entire original discs, which is the one instance in which making a single copy of an album is legal. Clearly, very few people respect copyright laws when it comes to copying music, but it's precisely this disregard that adds to the cost of buying music.
I understand how you feel. This is largely the position of the execs at Sony and other major labels.
However, as a user, I am frustrated that I bought and own half of Disney's entire collection in VHS, some in PAL and some in NTSC and that I needed to invest in special costly video players and TV's to be able play them all back on one system and that by the time our second child was old enough to enjoy them I was forced to buy them again on DVD (because the videos have decayed and over half of them won't play anymore)
Did I do anything illegal - no. I just happened to live in two different countries when these videos were legally purchased and had children spaced far enough apart that the videos did not last.
Do I think it is fair that I am now buying DVD's of material I already own at full price - not really. I respect that all these obstacles to consumers are all legal...however, am I a satisfied customer - no, not really.
And if I want to cut a few tracks from original CD's I own for use in the car then I don't feel dishonest in doing so. I think the industry ought to feel ashamed of all the roadblocks they create for their customers.
Shadorne, I know of very few people who respect copyright law and refrain from making duplicates of recorded material. Clearly, you are in the majority.
While you make the argument that changing formats by the entertainment companies is driven at least partially by their desire to re-sell back catalogs, I would argue that format change is predominantly based on other factors, such as increased storage capacity, increased playback quality, convenience and ease of use for the consumer.
Copying material has a domino effect that touches many elements in the entertainment business including songwriters and artists...not just the monolithic entertainment companies. In addition to reducing record companies' total sale, the copying of music also reduces artists' and writers' incomes, which in turn triggers their respective unions and/or management representatives to file grievances against the recording companies, which sometimes results in lawsuits, which compells the recording companies to keep expensive lawyers on the payroll, which causes the recording companies to raise the prices of discs, which causes the artists to demand a larger cut of the pie...and on and on.
Part of the response of hardware and software manufacturers to software piracy entails developing and including anti-pirating devices into players and software, which also raises the cost of the products.
Again, I'll re-emphasize that you share the opinion of the clear majority of end users, but the chain reaction created by the cumulative effect of millions of end users innocently duplicating copyrighted material contributes to the circumstances with which you take issue.