| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67
Comments:
<0> Its relative to what this program judges it, and nothing seems to get over 67% even if you cut it to a 30 minute video
<1> my wifes mother learned everything in the kitchen how to make good food
<2> FT: i wish DVDshrink or DVD decrypter would easily enable single-DVD to dual DVD-r's :-/
<3> Oc: yeah, good luck
<1> it was a requirement hehehe
<4> you pirates are whats responsible for the high prices of dvds you know
<0> Lupien i have switched from DVD shrink now to DVDClone2
<0> there are two brands one is expensive.
<5> Lupine...dude...?
<1> I hate pirates
<6> okay ... who thinks government should try to be everything to everybody?
<7> DVD;s are cheap
<1> and i hate the riaa
<6> show of hands please
<7> blank ones, that is
<1> so i buy none of their junk
<0> This is less expensive and it works with ANYDVD
<2> ocdoc: I don't. it hsould be only for what I want, nothing else
<6> Lupine: okay ... one selfish person so far
<0> The other DVDCLONE is about 100 bucks
<5> RIAA must burn in hell but theft is still theft
<1> when these **** heads start putting out good music i will buy it
<6> capture government and bend it to your will
<0> When you buy it its not theft
<2> zenabi: backing up your own personal movies is not theft
<0> if you buy it and copy it
<1> until then they can blame the whole world for pirating there crap and i won't care
<0> By there own case law one can own a copy of their media
<4> no, thats bull****, none of you are making personal backups
<1> i mean look at that olympic opener
<6> I think the law should end at copying for profit
<1> it was so lame they couldn't get permission
<8> ocdoc i do also
<1> its been all 'disco'
<6> if it's not for profit it shouldn't be against the law
<5> look, there last statement being that it is illegal to transfer your legal copies of cd's to iPod is insane
<0> IN fact my old friend who was very anally retentive, would take ever Music Tape when we used tapes not DVDs and stopped usuing 8tracks
<9> If you use something like itoons, it allows you a certain number of copies
<0> Anyway he would get the tapes, Immediately make a copy
<9> 7 or 8 I think
<2> kardos: eh? one major thing I do is rip DVDs to my laptop for when I travel
<0> He would never play the original
<6> you should have to prove in court that the copying was for profit
<1> FT, i see nothing wrong with that
<0> The Original he would only copy
<10> if you were given a choice, to have a fullfilling lifelong relationship with someone, making beautiful babies, but being completely ordinary, or being one of the most brilliant minds of the times, discovering things that affect millions, but being forced to live in social isolation and never having a family... which would you choose?
<0> this way he always had a master copy
<6> preventing copying per se should be forbidden
<1> exactly
<9> OcDoc, yeah, but the profit of the copier isn't the issue
<1> FT thats legal under fair use terms
<2> Father: #2, that is what hookers are for
<4> FatherHam: if i was that smart i'd find a way to defeat the choices
<6> Katey: it's the loss of income ... I know, but they should have to PROVE that it was for distribution
<0> Which was fine but I he was very anally retentive and belonged to some tape of the month club of something
<2> katey: in many nations, it is.
<9> OcDoc, it's the percieved LOSS of profit created by the free copy that someone gives to someone who might otherwise have bought their copy
<7> copy whatever you want, nobody is ever going to arrest you
<0> So I am experimenting.
<1> don't distribute it
<6> Katey the law should not be used to mandate protection through the copying machines
<0> at lesss than .50 a dvd
<1> tahs where you are wrong
<0> now i do have 8.5 DVDs but I dont experiment with them
<0> I use them for backup
<6> Katey: that's my point ... if you give it to others so they don't have to buy it, it IS for profit
<9> OcDoc, well, personally, I believe that if you own it you can do whatever the hell you want with it
<6> they get a free copy ... but you should not be prevented from simply copying
<5> the thing is, what are we, as consumers of music going to do about it? Me? I refuse to walk into a music retailer evre again
<9> this whole "you don't own it, you only own the right to have a copy of it" stuff is BS
<0> I think Copying to sell like one guy did out a van on a busy street is one thing..
<6> it's the same thing as making your employer into a tax collector to prevent your cheating on taxes ... it's a flawed theory
<2> ocdoc: yes/no.. loss does not always equate to unrealized gain
<11> it is funny though when pirates pretend they have some nobel cause, or they don't think what they're doing should be illegal. They have such retarded logic like "it's wrong to charge someone $50 for a piece of plastic! (refering to a cd/dvd)"
<0> He charged $10 a DVD bad quality and he made probably $9 profit
<11> it bugs me that nobody can be honest
<0> Hes stealing
<0> Intellectual capital
<6> Lupine: that's why I meant you have to prove the intent in court
<9> FreeTrade, copying to sell or copying to give it away are seen as the same thing by the RIAA
<11> I'm honest. I occasionally download music or expensive software. It's pirating. It's illegal for good reason. I do it anyway.
<0> But I have paid them for my use
<9> It's all loss of money
<0> and I dont plan on paying them again
<11> if you can't admit that...you're just a *****
<6> LUpine: anticipatory prevention should be unconstitutional
<1> doesn't matter
<1> buying stolen property
<0> Why am I talking about it openly ?
<0> Why ?
<1> its wrong
<6> it's not hard to draw the line ... the industry has captured government and used it as a tool unfairly
<0> Because its LEGAL
<1> its like buying drugs=)
<1> you support the illegal trade
<0> I am not selling any
<1> you bought it
<0> IO am not giving any away
<0> I am copying it
<2> OcDoc: Oh, what I meant was.. the other individual may never have purchased it if he wasn't able to get a copy. this applies more to software thou.. i.e. not everyone who has a pirated copy of photoshop would have purchased photoshop if copying was not possible. i.e. the existance of a pirate copy is not de-facto "loss of revenue"
<7> it's gonna snow in San Francisco
<6> they should have to prove in court that you gave it away in order to avoid someone having to buy it
<9> I think a significant part of the equation is the antipathy that many consumers have toward the industry
<0> US, Damn its been cold the last few days
<8> suna i dont pirate i dont have an illegal mp3 but i think intellectual property laws should be severely loosened. i think copyright protections hurts art, hurts the public, it doesnt necessarily translate to loss of profit, and that good artists will make money even without all of the intellectual property restrictions.
<9> Not that theft wouldn't occur anyway
<5> yes...stealing is wrong, but in the words of the RIAA (the devil) it _used_ to be legal to make copies (backup or otherwise) for personal use...
<1> OcDoc i think giving it away should be legal after 20 years
<6> Lupine: nevertheless he benefits from having the music without having had to pay for it
<0> Believe it or not I just told them to turn the heater on upstairs because my office was cold.
<7> FT yeah kinda cold here, been around 40 at night
<1> there should be a time limit
<12> It snows when US Male shakes his head
<0> Now that you mention it though I should tell them to cut it off its getting hot
<2> OcDoc: oh sure, absolutely.
<3> definitely,totally
<0> We were very warm last week early
<9> But CDs are overpriced, the artists see only a small percentage of the overall profits, and consumers are aware of this
<7> Bootleggr's public hair snows
<2> OcDoc: actually, I retract that.. if it was say, Britney Spears new album, there are no benefits!
<0> unseasonably warm
<8> 426hemi expiration of copyright was once around 25 years, they keep extending it
<1> timur "definetotally"
<1> hehehe
<0> Now we are unseasonably cold
<3> 426: all dat
<2> katey: I could see amending the law.. so that you could pay direct-to-artist
<12> things crawl in US Males pubes
<1> hehhe
<5> now they renege on that fundamental right that they granted
<6> Lupine: but PREVENTING copying to prevent wrongful distribution violates the rights of people who BOUGHT the thing
<7> Bootleggr's crabs have AIDS
<9> Bootleggr, he's been deloused
<0> OcDoc, you dont advocate no copies do you ?
<1> redfish yeh
<9> or so I hear
<12> Katey hehe
<7> Katey- gave Bootleggr the crabs
<8> katey yes, and without strict intellectual property laws , artists would have more power than industry executives
<9> i.e. shaved
<9> :)
<6> Free: of course not ... that's my whole point
<0> YOu are against copies for resale rigth ?
<12> US :)
<12> risk one takes
<0> Ok You had me worried for a sec ;)
<7> it's true !
<9> redfish, that may be true.
<6> Free: no, I think if you buy it you should be able to sell it too
<0> OcDoc, you can legally
Return to
#politics
or
Go to some related
logs:
#beginner
#debian
#computers
#computers
#nintendo
#computers
5554: tree connect failed: samba
NOMEX paper microscope
#politics
#unixhelp
|
|