Posted by Mike on 01/02/06 00:58

I believe the law allows for you to make a copy for your own use (backup
or whatever) if you have fairly and squarly bought a legit copy.

In my case (where lack of copy protection allows) I make a EP VHS copies
from my collection of TV on DVD that will run a number of hours without
me doing anything (do a lot of work at home I run them in the background
and in that application quality is not too much an issue).

But all those shows come from DVD's I bought fair and square.

Anything I buy I usually don't consider crummy (even the bad movies I
like in spite of themselves) so beyond the legal aspect, I want to make
sure my dollars vote for making more of these TV and movie releases.

I bought season one of The Mary Tyler Moore show on release day at thier
hefty price because I wanted them to continue putting the show out.
Well, not enough people did and it took TV on DVD catching on as a whole
before they considered putting out season 2 (and conforming packaging to
be at a friendlier price point). So, I bought season 2 when it finaly
came out as well. Thankfully, season 3 is shorter in coming.

The point is, don't expect the comanies to keep putting out "old crummy
movies" when you don't make it clear they can profit from it.


Mike


jayembee wrote:
>
> "Walter R." <wer25@example.com> wrote:
>
> > Your argument is compelling. However, you are confusing *stealing* with
> > *frugality*.
>
> "Frugality" is just a rationalization for stealing.
>
> > I would never dream of buying a $ 20 DVD to see a crummy old movie. By
> > copying an existing copy, I am not stealing: I am not depriving anyone of
> > anything, which would be the essence of stealing. By copying a CD, instead
> > of buying one which I would never do, I merely enhance my own standard of
> > living without depriving any poor starving artist of anything. Just because
> > something is against a stupid law, it is not immoral, as stealing would be.
>
> It doesn't matter if the owners of the property are not losing anything by
> your copying it given that you wouldn't buy it anyway.
>
> Our economic system is based on a quid pro quo arrangement. They
> have something you want (a movie), and you have something they
> want (money). The idea is that you give them money in exchange for
> their giving you the movie.
>
> If you copy it, even though they still have the original, you are getting
> something from them, without giving them anything in return. *That* is
> what makes it unethical, not just because it's against the law.
>
> And if it's just "a crummy old movie", why do you want it in the first place?
>
> -- jayembee

[Back to original message]