Go to Google... WTF is going on?

[ConHog]

From the onset of DVR's they made it so that what you record isn't transferrable. Most shows/movies are copyrighted anyway, and aren't meant to be moved between multiple devices. Recording a show, watching it later, then deleting it is ok. But they designed these devices so that you can't record something, place it on your computer and then share with the world.

But yeah, if you have a "device failure" on your DVR, and had 60 hours of shows/movies recorded that you haven't watched yet, you're shit out of luck!

I just think that is bullshit. And yes, I had the dreaded device failure last year. Had 2 complete seasons of Highlander just gone. Now of course I can just download those episodes from Hulu.com anyway, so the protection is dumb.

And I don't even want to do anything illegal. I have a 3 TB network drive where I have stored a bunch of my movies and such and put the DVDs up, we can watch those from anywhere that is connected to our home network. Now obviously I COULD copy those files and share them, but I don't, and likewise I wouldn't do anything illegal with my DVR recordings, I'd just like to move them to my network drive. But can't b/c of idiots who DO do illegal things.

[jimnyc]

I just think that is bullshit. And yes, I had the dreaded device failure last year. Had 2 complete seasons of Highlander just gone. Now of course I can just download those episodes from Hulu.com anyway, so the protection is dumb.

And I don't even want to do anything illegal. I have a 3 TB network drive where I have stored a bunch of my movies and such and put the DVDs up, we can watch those from anywhere that is connected to our home network. Now obviously I COULD copy those files and share them, but I don't, and likewise I wouldn't do anything illegal with my DVR recordings, I'd just like to move them to my network drive. But can't b/c of idiots who DO do illegal things.

Playing devils advocate here...

They do what they do to protect copyright infringement and/or piracy abuse. Suppose they design these DVR's in a manner where the drives work just like others, and you won't lose data in most failures, or it is transferrable - then how do they stop those looking to break the law? Everything and anything would then be wide open and available for abuse on their devices.

... With that said, the pirates already take what they want off of TV at will in other ways.

[ConHog]

Playing devils advocate here...

They do what they do to protect copyright infringement and/or piracy abuse. Suppose they design these DVR's in a manner where the drives work just like others, and you won't lose data in most failures, or it is transferrable - then how do they stop those looking to break the law? Everything and anything would then be wide open and available for abuse on their devices.

... With that said, the pirates already take what they want off of TV at will in other ways.

Of course what you say SOUNDS good, but let's say that other industries followed suit. Say automakers decide they don't want people who are willing to break the law speeding in their cars, and so they put rev limiters on them that limit how fast they can go....

Just as a small example.

[fj1200]

^You own a car, you don't own a song/movie. A car is also not easily copied at virtually zero cost.

[ConHog]

^You own a car, you don't own a song/movie. A car is also not easily copied at virtually zero cost.

Actually, when you purchase a song/movie you DO own that copy of the song or movie.

Chapter 111
Sound Recordings and Music Videos

1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

§ 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

(a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved —

(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,

(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or

(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States,

shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.

(b) Definition. — As used in this section, the term “traffic in” means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.

(c) Applicability. — This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

(d) State Law Not Preempted. — Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.
Chapter 11 Endnote

1In 1994, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act added chapter 11, entitled “Sound Recordings and Music Videos,” to title 17. Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4974.


http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html


Now by virtue of providing the DVR in the first place, DirecTV has obviously already consented to allowing me to record their material. They aren't trying to prevent me from doing so. All they are trying to do is prevent me from storing that content anywhere but on the hardware THEY provide.

AND it's a stupid attempt anyway, all I have to do is hook a DVD recorder up and record the shows as I'm watching them. But that is time intensive, and doesn't accomplish my goal.

I say again, what I want to do is NOT illegal in any sense of the word.

[logroller]

Actually, when you purchase a song/movie you DO own that copy of the song or movie.

Chapter 111
Sound Recordings and Music Videos

1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

§ 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

(a) Unauthorized Acts. - Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved —

(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,

(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or

(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States,

shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.

(b) Definition. — As used in this section, the term “traffic in” means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.

(c) Applicability. — This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

(d) State Law Not Preempted. — Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.
Chapter 11 Endnote

1In 1994, the Uruguay Round Agreements Act added chapter 11, entitled “Sound Recordings and Music Videos,” to title 17. Pub. L. No. 103-465, 108 Stat. 4809, 4974.


http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap11.html


Now by virtue of providing the DVR in the first place, DirecTV has obviously already consented to allowing me to record their material. They aren't trying to prevent me from doing so. All they are trying to do is prevent me from storing that content anywhere but on the hardware THEY provide.

AND it's a stupid attempt anyway, all I have to do is hook a DVD recorder up and record the shows as I'm watching them. But that is time intensive, and doesn't accomplish my goal.

I say again, what I want to do is NOT illegal in any sense of the word.

Right, that would be 'unauthorized fixation'; whereas utilizing the DVR they provide, I assume, has been authorizedby the content owner under certain conditions, ie license; such as some precaution is made to prevent further fixation and/or distribution. Similarly, a piece of software may be licensed for family use; where a limited number of copies are expressly authorized. I don't own that software, nor that show I recorded on a DVR; I've been authorized to possess and use it according to the license; big difference from owning it IMO.

[fj1200]

You don't buy copyrights...

Actually, when you purchase a song/movie you DO own that copy of the song or movie.

OK, Evil says I don't buy, you say I own... you two should argue about the wording you want me to use.

Now by virtue of providing the DVR in the first place, DirecTV has obviously already consented to allowing me to record their material. They aren't trying to prevent me from doing so. All they are trying to do is prevent me from storing that content anywhere but on the hardware THEY provide.

AND it's a stupid attempt anyway, all I have to do is hook a DVD recorder up and record the shows as I'm watching them. But that is time intensive, and doesn't accomplish my goal.

I say again, what I want to do is NOT illegal in any sense of the word.

It's not DirecTV's material to consent. I think they (DVR people) are complying with industry standards upstream in how they are allowed to record material.

I wish I could get a DVR that would record over-the-air broadcasts as I don't have cable or dish but the few that are out there are pretty pricey and I guess I don't care that much.

[ConHog]

OK, Evil says I don't buy, you say I own... you two should argue about the wording you want me to use.



It's not DirecTV's material to consent. I think they (DVR people) are complying with industry standards upstream in how they are allowed to record material.

I wish I could get a DVR that would record over-the-air broadcasts as I don't have cable or dish but the few that are out there are pretty pricey and I guess I don't care that much.

TIVO won't record over the air? What about building your own, a cheap computer with WIndows 7 and a video capture card would do it.

[fj1200]

TIVO won't record over the air? What about building your own, a cheap computer with WIndows 7 and a video capture card would do it.

Pretty sure not and I saw two devices that would but neither worth the price right now, one really pricey but another not so much. I don't want to go building anything at this point. I did see a jury-rig method that could use a VCR to record the new digital broadcasts but that requires a separate tuner and not worth the trouble now either. I can live with the few shows OTA and the rest on netflix via our Roku2.

[LuvRPgrl]

I wouldn't go that far. Their overreaching is mostly geared towards "piracy". And while I don't have a problem with people protecting the intellectual property and other "ownership", I have a HUGE problem with how the bill is designed to go about it. But DP would be at the very, very end of a long list, IF we would ever be on any list. I suppose things could go a little out of control if entire DNS servers were killed with webhosting providers, but I don't see that happening. In fact, from what I'm reading, I think this bill is going to be DOA in the long run anyway.

Does anyone have the latest news on the progress of this bill?

Its damn scary it even got this far.
Some here have shared info that might be construed as piracy.

I dont understand why people lay down like lemmings on the piracy issue. Last I checked, the movie and music industry is doing just fine.
Maybe lady ga ga only made 7 mil last year instead of 9 mil because of piracy.
The trademark laws incorporated by the founding fathers had nothing to do with music, IT WAS INTENDED SOLELY TO ALLOW INVENTERS TO GET THEIR INVESTMENT BACK ON THEIR INVENTIONS, and the trademarks had an expiration date on them.
If inventors couldnt get their money back from their inventions, they would have no reason to invent anything.

[fj1200]

I dont understand why people lay down like lemmings on the piracy issue. Last I checked, the movie and music industry is doing just fine.
Maybe lady ga ga only made 7 mil last year instead of 9 mil because of piracy.
The trademark laws incorporated by the founding fathers had nothing to do with music, IT WAS INTENDED SOLELY TO ALLOW INVENTERS TO GET THEIR INVESTMENT BACK ON THEIR INVENTIONS, and the trademarks had an expiration date on them.
If inventors couldnt get their money back from their inventions, they would have no reason to invent anything.

The law is pretty clear on the issue so there's no "laying down." Also disagree on the intent:

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.

Madison proposed that the Constitution permit Congress "to secure to literary authors their copyrights for a limited time"...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Authors and songwriters are not "inventors" but they do make an investment in their product.

[LuvRPgrl]

I came across this response from a writer who's been the victim of plagiarism. Here's the link, the piece is released from copyright for personal use, or in the author's words, "Feel free to use whatever is relevant or useful to you:" Here's an excerpt.





Just curious, how many contacted a representative? I did.

The one basic problem is that they will only go after instances of piracy from the big boys, smaller people and organizations wont be important enough, or far ranging enough to be included on those the govt is trying to protect.

ill tell you what pisses me off. All the fucking crooks have made it hard on the guy who just wants to use shit he paid for. Take my DVR for example. I have paid for the shows/movies I have recorded I should be able to watch them wherever and whenever I want. But no, can't , you can't transfer the files to another hard drive, they won't play. And if your DVR goes out? Too bad, even putting the old HD in a new unit won't allow them to be viewed.

Now of course you COULD sit there and record them on another device as you watch them, but what an inefficient process that is.

Hey, if you dont like it, dont buy a dvr.
I think the TSA should be in charge, everytime someone wants to watch a movie, or play music, a TsA agent needs to inspect the media it is recorded on.

The law is pretty clear on the issue so there's no "laying down." Also disagree on the intent:




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_Clause

Authors and songwriters are not "inventors" but they do make an investment in their product.

"laying down", I meant willing to accept anything the gov says we need to do to stop piracy.

I see "limited time" in there, so whats that about foghat again?

[fj1200]

^The response to SOPA/PIPA was not laying down; The people "lobbied" quite effectively.

And apparently Foghat > "limited time."

[LuvRPgrl]

^The response to SOPA/PIPA was not laying down; The people "lobbied" quite effectively.

And apparently Foghat > "limited time."

thats not what I was saying, I will explain later,

Dont they still git royalties?
I thought these copyrights were open ended?
If they collected on them for a period of time, that would be fine by me, after all, after a certain period of time, the artists arent even really getting much money, only the promoters and producers, record companies, etc.

[Noir]