Posted by Goro on 01/02/06 17:24

Mike wrote:
> 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).

You may consider making Xvids and getting a cheap DVD player that plays
Divx/XviD. You can cram a ton of low bitrate Xvids on a single DVDR
and it's much nicer and more convenient than VHS. i believe some will
even do shuffle play of the XviDs.

-goro-

> 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]