«

http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D88DOU0G0.html

Great article. Interesting as to where this is heading. I believe
that the broadcasters have taken over, and are the real ones in charge.
Politicians cannot afford to cross them, as they are dependent on
television coverage for re-election.

(Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean that they aren't after us!)

Copyright laws were never intended to create "intellectual property".
This is a new term, indicating that the copyright holder has the right
to hoard that to which they have title to. This is a new concept as
well.

Copyright was not the sole right to copy, but the right to market and
distribute. People have been copying passages from books for
centuries, for their purpose, or for quoting in support or rebuttals to
arguments. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create,
but for the benefit of the consumer and intellectual thought. When the
product no longer has marketable value, then it becomes public domain.
Thomas Jefferson never believed that patents or copyrights should last
more than 19 years, what he had calculated to be the duration of a
genration.

Most are concerned about distribution of copyrighted material over the
internet without the permission of the author. This should be
troubling to us all. It is patently wrong, and could bring about a
reduction of new material in the future.

But there are so many reasons for a person to be able to archive his
own material, get rid of troublesome menus, remove offensive scenes and
language, &c that fall under the fair use doctrine.

As a final thought, think of all of the great old films that have
fallen into disrepair due to lack of attention from the "copyright
holders". Very often, films are restored from private copies, that
have been protected by others for decades. I do not trust that the DVD
that I purchase today will be available ten or twenty years from now.

Oh well, I am off to save my VHS copy of "ET" to DVD. The current
release of the DVD has the shotguns that the cops were threating the
kids with mambie pambie walkie talkies. I want to save a little bit of
political incorrectness for the record.

Wind me up Alpha, and off I go.....

"Mark Burns" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com...
> Great article. Interesting as to where this is heading. I believe
> that the broadcasters have taken over, and are the real ones in charge.
> Politicians cannot afford to cross them, as they are dependent on
> television coverage for re-election.
>
> (Just because I am paranoid, doesn't mean that they aren't after us!)
>
> Copyright laws were never intended to create "intellectual property".
> This is a new term, indicating that the copyright holder has the right
> to hoard that to which they have title to. This is a new concept as
> well.
>
> Copyright was not the sole right to copy, but the right to market and
> distribute. People have been copying passages from books for
> centuries, for their purpose, or for quoting in support or rebuttals to
> arguments. The purpose of copyright is to encourage people to create,
> but for the benefit of the consumer and intellectual thought. When the
> product no longer has marketable value, then it becomes public domain.
> Thomas Jefferson never believed that patents or copyrights should last
> more than 19 years, what he had calculated to be the duration of a
> genration.
>
> Most are concerned about distribution of copyrighted material over the
> internet without the permission of the author. This should be
> troubling to us all. It is patently wrong, and could bring about a
> reduction of new material in the future.
>
> But there are so many reasons for a person to be able to archive his
> own material, get rid of troublesome menus, remove offensive scenes and
> language, &c that fall under the fair use doctrine.
>
> As a final thought, think of all of the great old films that have
> fallen into disrepair due to lack of attention from the "copyright
> holders". Very often, films are restored from private copies, that
> have been protected by others for decades. I do not trust that the DVD
> that I purchase today will be available ten or twenty years from now.
>
> Oh well, I am off to save my VHS copy of "ET" to DVD. The current
> release of the DVD has the shotguns that the cops were threating the
> kids with mambie pambie walkie talkies. I want to save a little bit of
> political incorrectness for the record.
>
> Wind me up Alpha, and off I go.....
>

LOL. Actually, the DVD has both versions.

"Alpha" <> wrote in message
news:...
>
>
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D88DOU0G0.html
>
>
>
>

For what it is worth, here in the UK many digital TV programmes (especially
per per view) are already protected from recording either on tape or DVD.

DaveB
UK

It would be nice if you could justify this statement - I have a Sky+ box
with a HDD record facility, and occasionally record programs on the Digi
box, then later record them into the PC, and can easilly make DVD's from the
recorded material. I've yet to see any protection.

Are you talking Macrovision protection or something else?

>> http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D88DOU0G0.html
>
> For what it is worth, here in the UK many digital TV programmes
> (especially
> per per view) are already protected from recording either on tape or DVD.

I am not certain - it looks like the typical macromedia protection with the
rolling pictures and light and dark.

This is on Telewest Cable on Front Row Movies that are pay per view.

So it may not be the case with Sky+

It could have been "dropped" from Telewest as I haven't tried to record from
Front Row for a little while knowing what happened last time. All the free
programmes appear OK though recently.

DaveB
UK


"Alan Shepherd" <> wrote in message
news:421c4e03$0$5554$. ..
> It would be nice if you could justify this statement - I have a Sky+ box
> with a HDD record facility, and occasionally record programs on the Digi
> box, then later record them into the PC, and can easilly make DVD's from
the
> recorded material. I've yet to see any protection.
>
> Are you talking Macrovision protection or something else?
>
> >> http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D88DOU0G0.html
> >
> > For what it is worth, here in the UK many digital TV programmes
> > (especially
> > per per view) are already protected from recording either on tape or
DVD.
>
>

In article < .com>,
says...
> Oh well, I am off to save my VHS copy of "ET" to DVD. The current
> release of the DVD has the shotguns that the cops were threating the
> kids with mambie pambie walkie talkies. I want to save a little bit of
> political incorrectness for the record.
>

The original DVD release has BOTH the shotguns and the walkie-talkies..


--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct.

Dunno about this, but never tried the Pay Per view films, the normal film
channels work fine, and I was talking Sky+, not the normal sky box, also I
connect the PC to the S-Video output on the box, using a Pinacle Movie Box.

>I am not certain - it looks like the typical macromedia protection with the
> rolling pictures and light and dark.
>
> This is on Telewest Cable on Front Row Movies that are pay per view.
>
> So it may not be the case with Sky+
>
> It could have been "dropped" from Telewest as I haven't tried to record
> from
> Front Row for a little while knowing what happened last time. All the free
> programmes appear OK though recently.

>> It would be nice if you could justify this statement - I have a Sky+ box
>> with a HDD record facility, and occasionally record programs on the Digi
>> box, then later record them into the PC, and can easilly make DVD's from
> the
>> recorded material. I've yet to see any protection.
>>
>> Are you talking Macrovision protection or something else?
>>
>> >> http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D88DOU0G0.html
>> >
>> > For what it is worth, here in the UK many digital TV programmes
>> > (especially
>> > per per view) are already protected from recording either on tape or
> DVD.

Larry:

Thanks.

I actually own the DVD release since it came out, but have not even
broken the plastic on it. I was unaware, but shall have a look. I was
being tounge-in-cheek in the post.

I remember when I read the Spielberg had done this that he was also the
one who ranted about the colorizing of old films and testified to that
before Congress.

Not that I disagree, but digital touch up is digital touch up.

Cheers,

Mark

"Alpha" <> wrote in message
news:...
> http://apnews.excite.com/article/200...D88DOU0G0.html

I'm glad my brand-new TV is all analog!