Re: dvd recorder/player

Kurt Hamster wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 08:40:47 -0600, Jer used
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say...
>  
>
> > Kurt Hamster wrote:
> >
> >
> > > On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 06:53:54 -0600, Jer used
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> to say...
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > Camper wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > "Jer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > Rick Pali wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I really have no need to do this, but I'm curious. I've only made three
> > > > > > > copies of video DVDs so far: once to see if I could, and twice because
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > rented movies and they were due back before I was able to view them. I
> > > > > > > burned copies to re-writables so I could recover the discs after
> > > > >
> > > > > watching
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > them. Now that's convenience...
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...and also illegal.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > Budding little lawyer aren't you
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > No, not really - I dislike thieves regardless of their chosen venue. 
> > > > And if one wanders in here and admits to such, they can damn well expect 
> > > > to get tagged for it.
> > >
> > >
> > > They aren't thieves though. 
> > >
> > > To be guilty of theft one must have taken property with the intention of
> > > permanently depriving the legal owner of it.
> > >
> > > I dislike pious bastards and if one wanders in here and demonstrates as
> > > such then they can damn well expect to get tagged for it.
> >
> > As I understand it, copying copyrighted material without paying for the 
> > priviledge IS depriving the copyright owner of their property.
>
>
> Then you understand it wrong. Simple really! 
>
> The operative word being "property", not profit. A pirate does not
> deprive a copyright holder of any property as the copyright holder still
> has 'his' film (his property) in his own possession.
>
> Now do you understand it?

I already do.  Perhaps you would care to explain to us all what the 
point of a copyright is.  Or perhaps you'd prefer to wait until you're a 
defendant to learn how juries equate property with profits.

> > Is there something about this legal concept that eludes your 
> > understanding?  I'm no attorney so I won't pretend to be one, but my own 
>
>
> The legal concept you refer to is copyright infringement. It isn't
> theft, never has been theft, never will be theft. Does that elude your
> understanding?

No, it doesn't elude me at all.  Copyright infringment = theft.  Got it? 
   (Clue: I'm a photographer)

> > attorney has explained this concept to me in terms even a pious bastard 
> > couldn't possibly misunderstand.  So, as a result, I sleep pretty good 
> > in my own pious bed.
>
>
> It sounds like your attorney dumbed it down too much, even so you still
> managed to misunderstand it.

Considering she makes her living at dealing with these issues, I'd defer 
to her professional opinion, in lieu of your internet opinion.

> Which only goes to show that piety != intelligence.

And she's far more pious than both of us together.


--
jer  email reply - I am not a 'ten'  ICQ = 35253273
"All that we do is touched with ocean, yet we remain on the shore of
what we know."  -- Richard Wilbur