Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

321 Studios vs. Hollywood.

Feb 20, 2004 10:12AM PST

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Re:321 Studios vs. Hollywood. And my take on this.
Feb 20, 2004 10:20AM PST

I have had an issue with producers of various media over the years about replacement if such is broken or becomes defective.

In the case of DVD content, I found a couple DVD's so far that didn't play on my DVD player and a little research found others with same issue on the particular title "The Patriot." Being the industrious person I am, I dug up on the internet how to make a copy, which does work on my DVD player, but not the same quality, but so be it.

I have the DVD, so I didn't take issue over this since it's "fair use."

--------------------------------

I'm wondering if the next shoe will drop with suits filed against Nero, Roxio and others for CD audio copy programs?

Bob

- Collapse -
Re:Re:321 Studios vs. Hollywood. And my take on this.
Feb 20, 2004 9:36PM PST

"The studios and their trade group, The Motion Picture Association of America, claim the industry loses as much as $3 billion a year from the copying of analog videotapes"
It amazes me that these people can just say ANYTHING. This is total BS and everyone knows it. I think of every Monday when they release how much money movies raked in over the weekend.
Losing money? Take a look at the product.

- Collapse -
I have to agree with Bob on this one...and....
Feb 20, 2004 11:07PM PST

Both the Music and Movie Industries NEVER mention how many of us have had to purchase duplicate movies be it on Tape, CD or DVD due to them having a problem. In the past I've had to purchase my fleetwood mac tape several times due to it simply wearing out. *grin* Each time I've had to pay full price for it. I'm a believer in 'Fair Use', not 'Abuse', by myself and the Industry.

- Collapse -
Re:321 Studios vs. Hollywood.
Feb 22, 2004 12:40PM PST

Before the DCMA, copyright law restricted only the SALE OF COPIES of works that were under copyright.

The DCMA made it illegal not only to SELL ... but even to COPY a work for one's own use (although some exceptions still apply).

At issue in this case though, are the provisions of the DCMA making it illegal for one private party to manufacture, distribute, or otherwise traffic in devices or technology that will enable another private party to make a (now) illegal copy of a work.

The media industry did their homework well, anticipated the future issues, and lobbied through Congress a statute that tightly says these things -- without lots of people noticing or caring very much at the time.

Because the law was well crafted to cover the 321 Studios kind of situation, the court quite properly ruled in favor of the media companies; they caused the law to be written intentionally to allow them to do this sort of thing, and the only solution now is to ask Congress to amend the law.

I hope Congress does amend DCMA to once again allow legal copying of a work, and to prohibit once again only the SALE of unauthorized copies.

What is at issue is whether the individual citizens of the United States will allow the media companies to emplace these kinds of laws by lobbying Congress, or will the people request that the law be changed back again to allow individuals -- with or without help -- to make copies and not sell them.

An interesting note is that although the media companies try to sound as if the purpose of copyright law is to protect the artists and authors, it really is to protect the media companies -- the modern day equivalent of the Crown Printers of England -- in their government-granted monopoly for the sale of copies of certain works.

The monopoly was originally granted to printers for the purpose of allowing the Crown to CENSOR what individuals might print and say, an interesting history that dates to just after Martin Luther's becoming the first pamphleteer in history.

I recommend that anyone who wants a clearer idea of the origin of copyright law and its roots in censorship, see Gary North's excellent essay at http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north224.html

It is an enlightening read, for sure.

Best,

airtight