how do I copy from DVD to DVD?

[[email protected]]

No... The commercial DVD's are 8.7 gigs because they use dual layering
technology

? No to what ? It doesn't matter how they get 8.7 gigs. The
fact remains that if a movie uses the full 8.7 gigs it's usually
(not always) because there are two complete copies of the
movie on the disc.

that most home burner units can't do. Some movies are more
than the 4.7 gig and they have only one format on the disc.

It all depends on the original encoding of the disc...

Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Look, ya dumbfuck! If I make a movie, I am the ONLY one allowed to
sell it. THERE IS NO COMPETITION to piss and moan about. The movie
is MINE TO SELL, and mine alone.

I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you sell it that is at issue
....

It is a monopoly by default, and is perfectly legal in ALL free
nations.

If YOU make a product that others can make and compete with you for
market share in, fine, but movies are SINGULAR works of art, and ONLY
the studio that made them should EVER profit from one.

I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you profit from it that is at
issue ...

If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
allowed to sell it, or copies of it.

AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.


- Franc Zabkar

 

[Justin]

Franc Zabkar wrote on [Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100]:

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.

So. Market forces shouldn't be involved at all? Or the fact that the
group selling the product in Market A is not the same company as is
selling it in Market B. And these companies price according to their
markets.

Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?

Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.

And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
a region free DVD player.

Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
countries.

 

[DarkMatter]

I don't disagree with that. It's *how* you sell it that is at issue
...

If I want ten thou from you and only one thou from another customer,
that is MY choice, and I have a right to price MY work at whatever
price I want.

If the buyer thinks it too high, the buyer should take a fucking
hike!

 

[DarkMatter]

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B.

ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY wrong, boy! YOU do NOT dictate my price
schedule.

Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.

Too fucking bad, dipshit.

 

[Mark Spatny]

Not sure what post was more of a laugh, his or yours..

I mean, Just look at the 3 LOTR films
a MASSIVE 500+ mil usd to make the film and bring it to the market.

Your analysis is all wrong. What you have to remember is that the movie
studios make hundreds of movies each year, and most do not turn a profit
for many, many years. The blockbuster successes like LOTR keep people
employed while all the other films break even or generate red ink. You
have to examine the buisiness as a whole, and think about how all the
various profitable and not-profitable movies combine.

Looking at the annual reports of the various studios will give a clearer
picture.

Lets not forget that they have got their payment JUST from sales.. When this
film makes 30bn and gives it's 300mil to the RIAA to stop people who want to
make their own DVD for 3$ then I guess you can feel happy that your able to
buy your food..

This is the part that proves you really don't know what you are talking
about. The RIAA has nothing to do with movies. As long as you assume
that it does, any other facts or analysis you try to represent will be
suspect.

 

[Mark Spatny]

Jerry G.,[email protected] says...

A copy of a commercially produced movie is not considered a backup of user
files, as like user created work or software. Like bought (purchased)
software programs, entertainment media should be used on one device at a
time at one location at a time, unless agreed with between the manufacture
and the end user.

If you worked in this industry and had to feed your family, you would feel
the same way!

I work in this indutry, and depend on it to feed my family, and I do not
feel the same way. I have no problem with people making backup copies of
material they have purchased, so long as it is not shared with other
people or sold. If a parent wants to make a copy of a DVD in case his
kids break the original, there is nothing immoral about that.

This is certainly within reasonable interpretation of copyright law, and
a practice that I consider perfectly acceptable, and frankly, wise.

 

[Daniel L. Belton]

Yeh, And if someone buys a work of art from you they should be able to
resell it too
Also they can make copy's of it and sell it as a copy..

You sure that this is what you were meaning?.. I mean.. If you define movies
as art then really they should only release 1 copy of it, it should be sold
as unique, and then non-originals could be resold down the road..

Keep the ideas rolling in here

no... if you purchase a painting from someone, you do have the right to
resell it. BUT you do NOT have the right to make copy's and sell them.
Same goes for books, movies and music. You can sell the original, but
you can not copy it and sell it. There are laws to protect intellectual
property, and these are different from copyright laws even though they
do cross areas.

 

[Daniel L. Belton]

? No to what ? It doesn't matter how they get 8.7 gigs. The
fact remains that if a movie uses the full 8.7 gigs it's usually
(not always) because there are two complete copies of the
movie on the disc.




Dual layering is most often used to include two movie formats,
therefore most movies can be copied without any quality loss.

I have seen some that have only one format on the disc, yet require dual
layering to fit it all on the disc. These discs probably would cause
some quality loss when copied to a single layer disc with lower capacity.

 

[Daniel L. Belton]

If I want ten thou from you and only one thou from another customer,
that is MY choice, and I have a right to price MY work at whatever
price I want.

If the buyer thinks it too high, the buyer should take a fucking
hike!

I will agree with you here... If I produce a product, I can sell it for
whatever I want. I might not sell any, but I can price it however I
wish to. it is up to the purchaser to decide if they want to pay my
price or not. However, most people wishing to sell a product will try
to price it so that it does sell, but they don't have to.

 

[rstlne]

Your analysis is all wrong. What you have to remember is that the movie
studios make hundreds of movies each year, and most do not turn a profit
for many, many years. The blockbuster successes like LOTR keep people
employed while all the other films break even or generate red ink. You
have to examine the buisiness as a whole, and think about how all the
various profitable and not-profitable movies combine.

Looking at the annual reports of the various studios will give a clearer
picture.


This is the part that proves you really don't know what you are talking
about. The RIAA has nothing to do with movies. As long as you assume
that it does, any other facts or analysis you try to represent will be
suspect.

Wrong.. the MPAA does movies and the RIAA does music. All good and well IF
you leave it there..
DVD = Media Format..
Now since you can get a recordable DVD then it falls under the RIAA, why,
cause you could record music on it..
So go back to my origianal post.. A portion of all DVD cost will go back to
the RIAA to stop piracy..
Belive it if you will... I dont care, Email the RIAA and see where all of
thir funding comes from..

 

[[email protected]]

I have seen some that have only one format on the disc, yet require dual
layering to fit it all on the disc. These discs probably would cause
some quality loss when copied to a single layer disc with lower capacity.

With variable bit rate encoding you would be hard pressed to see the
difference.

 

[TCS]

With variable bit rate encoding you would be hard pressed to see the
difference.

All DVD's are variable bit rate, so what was your point again?


Unless you system is absolutely garbage, perhaps a window on a computer monitor
or a 13" tv, halving the bitrate will most defineately produce a rather
noticeable difference.

 

[Tim Auton]

All DVD's are variable bit rate, so what was your point again?

Unless you system is absolutely garbage, perhaps a window on a computer monitor
or a 13" tv, halving the bitrate will most defineately produce a rather
noticeable difference.

That depends on how you compress it. Using MPEG-4 instead of MPEG-2
you can easily halve the bitrate with no noticeable loss of quality.


Tim

 

[Mark Spatny]

rstlne,.@. says...

Now since you can get a recordable DVD then it falls under the RIAA,

It doesn't "fall under anything", except the DVD consortium.

Belive it if you will...

No thanks. I prefer to beleive the truth.

 

[Leonard Caillouet]

That depends on how you compress it. Using MPEG-4 instead of MPEG-2
you can easily halve the bitrate with no noticeable loss of quality.

You could just as easily end up with a result unworthy of comparison by
halving the bitrate in this comparison...from what I have seen, MPEG-4 is
not much to get excited about if you are interested in quality. Of course,
it depends on the content...

 

[Daniel L. Belton]

rstlne,.@. says...




It doesn't "fall under anything", except the DVD consortium.

I believe that if you are using DVD to record AUDIO that the RIAA holds
the rights for, then it would fall under the RIAA. Movies would fall
under the MPAA. DVD recording in general would fall under neither one.
The DVD consortium I believe is what sets the standards for DVD. I
don't think they control what is recorded.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

Franc Zabkar wrote on [Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100]:

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.

So. Market forces shouldn't be involved at all? Or the fact that the
group selling the product in Market A is not the same company as is
selling it in Market B. And these companies price according to their
markets.

Of course market forces should be involved. My contention, and that of
Australia's competition watchdog, is that region coding interferes
with these market forces in such a way that the market is no longer
free. The same applies to restrictions on the parallel importation of
software and books.

Or, is converting a movie to a different video format, and marketing
that product locally expected to cost no money to the licensee?

If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.

Nevermind translation if it's not a primary language region.

If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
freedom of choice.

And you can indeed buy the product from Market A and ship it to Market
B, you just have to have the right equipment to view it. Just like with
VHS beforehand. And the VHS multi platform hardware cost a lot more than
a region free DVD player.

VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
real justification for the latter.

Also, DVDs are different to most other media as there is the film in the
theatre aspect to it. There are many cases where say, the USA DVD has
been released before the movie has even hit the theatre in some
countries.

Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
practices.


- Franc Zabkar

 

[Justin]

Franc Zabkar wrote on [Tue, 06 Jan 2004 16:03:31 +1100]:

Franc Zabkar wrote on [Mon, 05 Jan 2004 06:43:55 +1100]:

On Sun, 04 Jan 2004 04:39:20 -0800, DarkMatter
<[email protected]> put finger to keyboard
and composed:

If I paint a painting, it is MINE and mine alone. I am the ONLY one
allowed to sell it, or copies of it.

AT WHATEVER PRICE I WANT, IN WHATEVER MARKET I SELL IT IN.

No, you should not be permitted to sell the same item for price A in
market A and for price B in market B. Furthermore, the consumer should
not be prevented from purchasing legal copies of your product from
reseller B simply because the consumer resides in market A.

So. Market forces shouldn't be involved at all? Or the fact that the
group selling the product in Market A is not the same company as is
selling it in Market B. And these companies price according to their
markets.

Of course market forces should be involved. My contention, and that of
Australia's competition watchdog, is that region coding interferes
with these market forces in such a way that the market is no longer
free. The same applies to restrictions on the parallel importation of
software and books.

Actually, the region coding ruling was about lack of content as much as
anything else. Price is comparable. I can get a DVD from ezydvd for
about the same price as most places in the US

If you believe that there are genuine cost differences in producing
products for two different markets, then build this cost into the
price and let the consumer decide whether he wants to pay the higher
price. Don't restrict his choices using artificial means.

So, the people in the originating area should carry the cost for
importing into another?

If you wish to package DVD titles with localised features, and recover
your costs in doing so, then go right ahead. Just don't force me to
buy a localised version if I'm happy with an alternative. I want real
freedom of choice.

You have it.

VHS multiplatform hardware addresses *real* technical differences.
OTOH, DVD region coding is software based and artificial. There is no
real justification for the latter.

PAL/NTSC conversion is a real technical difference. Not all players can
do the conversion.

Sorry, but I could care less for these discriminatory marketing
practices.

Discriminatory? Have you tried to distribute a movie? Do you know the
costs involved? Often one area release helps pay the distribution to
another. If the DVD were available locally then the theatre distribution
would be hurt.

Besides, it's up to the licensee as to when and how they release a
product, not you.

BTW, it's much more tedious going the other way. Finding a decent DVD
player that will do good PAL->NTSC conversion, including Anamorphic PAL
is hit or miss.... or expensive. Magnitudes of expensive.

 

[Mark Spatny]

Daniel L. Belton,[email protected] says...

I believe that if you are using DVD to record AUDIO that the RIAA holds
the rights for, then it would fall under the RIAA.

The RIAA doesn't hold the rights to anything. It is merely a trade
organization representing the interestes of the member major record
lables and producers. The record labels own the rights to the recordings
they distribute, and the song writers and composers hold the rights to
the lyrics and music, respectively. This is why royalties are paid to
song writers & composers through organizations like BMI, ASCAP, etc.
When you want to license a piece of music or a song, you contact the
appropriate rights holder, which is NEVER the RIAA.

The DVD consortium I believe is what sets the standards for DVD. I
don't think they control what is recorded.

Exactly. They control the format, which is the only control in the
system. Nobody "controls" the content. Control is an odd word in this
context. Anyone is free to record any property they own own the rights
to on DVD, without consulting with either the MPAA or RIAA.

This is why the so called "screener ban" imposed by the MPAA was
basically dismissed by courts, because the MPAA doesn't have the
authority to tell producers and distributors when and how they can
freely distribute the movies they created. The same goes for the RIAA.