tonygib Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 @tonygib cheer up You are completely right and most of the rest of them are too stoooopid to even see the problem... And the funny thing is I don't remember being asked by my government what I wanted and how it should be implemented. So incremental changes in public policy under the table without any public debate or input and the media cartels get away with murder cheers joey, nice to know I'm not a complete nutter My concern is not in the enforcability - by quantifying the fair use provision it becomes possible to compel manufacturers to enforce these restrictions in new generation equipment. bingo, yes people, we have a winner!!! My final words on the matter, which seems to apply to many things these days, are best sumed up by a greater man then me: Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both. - Benjamin Franklin
null_pointer Posted March 16, 2007 Posted March 16, 2007 cheers joey, nice to know I'm not a complete nutter perhaps its people like us that are nuts, I try to bring up these sorts of concerns at dinner parties with a bunch of intelligent people and get politly told to change the subject, the average joe is not interested in this stuff. This is why the government can makes these changes as the majority of people dont understand or just dont care. My concern is not in the enforcability - by quantifying the fair use provision it becomes possible to compel manufacturers to enforce these restrictions in new generation equipment. Yes exactly, this was my concern as well.
Neon Kitten Posted March 17, 2007 Posted March 17, 2007 Interestingly under these laws it is still illegal to use an ipod, and bascially illegal to use any mp3 player in any useful way.To use an ipod you must first format shift the CD into itunes then use itunes to copy the track onto your ipod. In doing this you have made a second copy of a format-shifted song which is illegal. I believe this was taken account of and the law was adjusted accordingly. It matters not, anyway; I've been "breaking the law" for well over 35 years now, so they can amend all they want. I'll just continue being the "criminal" I've apparently been all my life with, as always, complete impunity. Unenforceable laws are pointless laws that only serve to encourage a general disregard for anything that starts with "thou shalt not" When it comes to recording TV shows, you are only allowed to watch them once then they must be deleted. Let's see them make me. Sheesh, I've broken so many laws already this week - I must be a HARDCORE criminal! My concern is not in the enforcability - by quantifying the fair use provision it becomes possible to compel manufacturers to enforce these restrictions in new generation equipment. That does seem to be the long term goal. However, I'm not at all worried. Whatever is done to restrict fair use will be defeated in seconds by hackers. And hey, if they stop me recording TV, I'll just have to buy more bandwidth and "pirate" (hahaha) *everything*, instead of the 90% of my TV viewing that I "pirate" now
Scrut Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 It matters not, anyway; I've been "breaking the law" for well over 35 years now, so they can amend all they want. I'll just continue being the "criminal" I've apparently been all my life with, as always, complete impunity..... And hey, if they stop me recording TV, I'll just have to buy more bandwidth and "pirate" (hahaha) *everything*, instead of the 90% of my TV viewing that I "pirate" now I had a conversation around this yesterday. The other guy is anti-piracy but mentioned watching a complete 70s TV show on YouTube. When I pointed out the incongruity with his normal stance he brushed it off as being OK because there's no other means of his seeing it, so nobody is being deprived, so it must be OK! That's where this whole TV piracy thing makes so little sense - the inconsistency of views even from those who purport to understand the legislation. TV shows are broadcast unfettered into the outside world and we've been capturing them to tape for close to thirty years. We've been storing those tapes in archives for years. We've been lending those tapes to family and friends. And that includes the guy mentioned above. In recent years we've switched to a more convenient storage and distribution format, but what we're doing hasn't really changed. And these latest copyright amendments haven done nothing to clarify things for the vast majority of people. Most have no idea that what they've been doing for years is technically illegal, so when somebody hands them a DVD full of Desperate Housewives episodes it would probably never enter their heads that there's anything wrong with that, let alone that the donor is breaking the law. Nor that if she passes it on to somebody else then she is too. How long before we have a massive (taxpayer funded) education program to explain to us what a bunch of crims we all are?
Neon Kitten Posted March 18, 2007 Posted March 18, 2007 How long before we have a massive (taxpayer funded) education program to explain to us what a bunch of crims we all are? I can imagine it now - it'd be like those old "HAVE YOU BOUGT OR RENTED A PIRATE COPY?" ads on every VHS tape, or even worse, those patronising "YOU WOULDN'T STEAL A CAR" ads on current DVDs (yep, even ones you BUY!) I used to joke that the advantage of pirate copies is that they don't have those annoying (and in the case of DVD, non-skippable) ads. And pirate CDs or illegal music downloads don't have the hassle of copy protection. The corporations are morons, no question. By trying to lock down their content so heavily, they're likely turning legitimate customers into "pirates".
Recommended Posts