[Geminiwave]

Now before I start, I understand that copying DVDs IS ILLEGAL. I am simply asking WHY(and the answer is probably because the MPAA has money).

So lets say that I have an english class(as I did last year). I have to get sources to cite in an essay. I go to the library, find some sources and photocopy pages out of the books. This is legal, because it is for educational purposes. Least thats what the college tells us.

Anyway. I had a film class last quarter, and I have yet another this quarter. We are suppose to rent movies and use our own money for this. Sufficed to say, this kinda sucks, but oh well. I'm gettin towards middleclass so I should be alright. The problem is that I have to rent a few movies every week...and watch them several times. I write papers on them, cite them etc etc. Fine...I should have enough time for that. EXCEPT I DONT! I have to rent the darned things and then rent them LATER because most of them I have to watch several times for several different papers. The expense was so great that I ended up spending well over $100 in rentals last quarter! I tried using the library, but I could not rely on the library getting me movies in time for the assignments.

So my uncle gave me DVD X Copy. I KNOW this is illegal. I cannot copy these "For educational purposes" so I dont. But my question is: why not? Why can't I copy these it if is for class? I have proof from the state that I am taking this class and that it requires movies to be watched. So why can I not copy them?

What makes a DVD different from a book?!

[pr0digal jenius]

It deals with licensing, I think

[Geminiwave]

legally it really isnt any different.

it all has to do with money.

thats my opinion anyway.

[No_Style]

I believe money is the key to finding your answer.

They're both "wrong", but it's more "wrong" to copy DVDs because people will lose more money over it.

P.S - Wouldn't it have been easier to buy the movie? Unless, you didn't realize you needed the darn thing for that many times.

[Duranix]

Money.

Theres no difference between the two, except that the MPAA has money, and says "No. We dont care."

but seriously... theres no difference!

[Geminiwave]

Originally Posted by No_Style

I believe money is the key to finding your answer.

They're both "wrong", but it's more "wrong" to copy DVDs because people will lose more money over it.

P.S - Wouldn't it have been easier to buy the movie? Unless, you didn't realize you needed the darn thing for that many times.

when you copy a book people lose money. Why dont people just go out and buy books, eh?! Some excuses could be "well it has poor availability" but that doesnt even work on DVDs.

And, btw, nobody "loses" money when someone copies a DVD. If someone is copying a DVD, chances are that they would NOT buy the DVD. Also, the concept of theft and losses dont apply to this. It is copywrite infringement. And the MPAA doesnt lose money. They simply do not gain money from that purchase. it is not a loss...just a lack of a gain. There is a big difference economically.

and yeah it would have been easier to buy the movies(though some could not be easily purchased) but that would have been even MORE expensive and also I was not aware that we had to re-rent the movies over the quarter. This was not explained

But I mean, lets say that you needed just a clip for a presentation. Why do you have to buy the movie?! why can't you just copy the clip that you need and show it for a presentation? Its all for educational purposes, so copywrite infringement does not apply.

its just sad really.

[pr0digal jenius]

actually, i think book licensing allows for reprinting for educatonal purposes, whereas DVD licensing doesnt allow for any reproduction of any sort, aside from personal archives.


You can record movies off TV, so it isn't the money issue

[Geminiwave]

personal archives have already been outlawed. Thats why DVD X Copy is gone.

[pr0digal jenius]

archiving, in its current legal form, requires destroing all but 1 copy, yes....

copying them sis till legal to go from say, a scratched disc to a new clean one

[YAYitsAndrew]

The answer is netflix.

[Geminiwave]

yeah I considered that...but the thing is that even THAT didnt work on my timetables. I needed a few movies every week or sometimes every 3 days. It was a very fast paced class.

Ah well, I think its just lame. Somebody should seriously consider making a better way of doing this...like maybe DVDs that stop working after a few viewings or something. That way, if you have a class, you can have it for like 6 viewings or something and you wont need it anymore.

[BoroVC]

I think the biggest thing that sucks here is that you have to do it for class but they wont subsidise(sp?) you. Do they think students are made of money? Its just not fair.

[X-Kal]

You have a library on campus, right? They've even got DVDs there, if they are not technologically backwards. Should it not be the responsibility of the instructor to ensure that all of the movies are available on reserve at your local library? If he's not picking titles that are easily accesible for free, then I would argue that the instructor is mostly to blame here.

[Vikingod]

just on a side note, when photocopiers came out, there was actually the same sort of fuss from a legal view. People actually did get sued and consiquently, had to pay fines for book and photo/art-gallery publishers. Technically, it is still illegal to make photocopies of anything copyrighted, people have just been looking the other way for so long, its been forgotten. Look in the legal notes of books and picture galleries, its all right there. The same will happen to DVD's, when the media hoopla calms down and the companies realize its a waste of resources, you'll see.

[BiGBrOwNPimpsta]

society today bases everything on money. in addition, since books are an older practice of getting information from and people have always done it, it's not "illegal" in that sense. thats my my opinion.