"High resolution output is forbidden for this content. Resolution is changed to 480p

I don't think people are advocation stealing. We're talking about preventing companies from engaging in copyright abuse, and taking people's fair use rights away from them. If you think fair use is "stealing" then you've been drinking the RIAA and MPAA Kool-Aid.

WOW, LOL.... :) that's pretty much it straight up. BTW the Rev. Jim Jones called for ya ONOUS.. Just kidding LOL :D
 
Have you read the last few pages of this thread? ocnier said he regularly uses a download site that gives NOTHING to either the studio or the artist. If that's not stealing, I'm not sure what is...

You still haven't answered my question- what do you suggest the consumer do?
 
I've already said I don't have any brilliant ides on how to handle this issue... all I was saying was that I don't agree with yours.

Fair enough, but your still leaving the situation without a solution. We need a solution good or bad, right or wrong :eureka. If you disagree with me that's fine, but by that same token offer alternatives. I choose my coarse of action. You can't stay on the fence forever.
 
Fair enough, but your still leaving the situation without a solution. We need a solution good or bad, right or wrong :eureka. If you disagree with me that's fine, but by that same token offer alternatives. I choose my coarse of action. You can't stay on the fence forever.

Let me answer your question with another one (mostly because I don't have a really good answer for yours):

Is it the current state of things that you disagree with, or the potential that it could get worse if the record companies have their way?

In regards to the current setup, I have a hard time finding anything to complain about, unless you want to argue (as you have) price, but that's not a "fair use" issue.

For example, I can buy a CD and then rip it to my computer and subsequently add it to my iPod, my daughter's iPod or my other daughter's MP3 player with no problems, right?

If I buy a song from iTunes, I can download it on (last I checked) 5 devices, and/or burn it onto a CD.

I'm trying to understand what's wrong with that from a fair use perspective. If you want to discuss price, that's fine, but it's a different argument.
 
Let me answer your question with another one (mostly because I don't have a really good answer for yours):

Is it the current state of things that you disagree with, or the potential that it could get worse if the record companies have their way?

In regards to the current setup, I have a hard time finding anything to complain about, unless you want to argue (as you have) price, but that's not a "fair use" issue.

For example, I can buy a CD and then rip it to my computer and subsequently add it to my iPod, my daughter's iPod or my other daughter's MP3 player with no problems, right?

If I buy a song from iTunes, I can download it on (last I checked) 5 devices, and/or burn it onto a CD.

I'm trying to understand what's wrong with that from a fair use perspective. If you want to discuss price, that's fine, but it's a different argument.

But those 5 devices in essence means you rented/leased the music. What if your hard drive goes south, what if you need more than 5 devices (ie a ipod goes south). It's still about who controls what, I vote the camp that says when you buy something its yours. Not the lease/rent model of doing things. Also who to say in future they won't reduce your rights to copy to only 3 devices. This isn't even counting non ipod products. Just food for thought.
 
Actually, the ruling isn't so blunt.
The fair use doctrine in the Betamax case was applicable only for time shifting purposes, not archiving...:)
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Diogen.

True, but the ruling also was viewed as precedent in some areas to defend the consumers right to copy/backup anything the consumers leagally owns. It also makes it pretty clear that public display (with regars to things inside the home) is fair to copy/backup. Those basta*ds have been trying to close that loophole ever since.
 
ocnier said he regularly uses a download site that gives NOTHING to either the studio or the artist....
You mean ALLOFMP3?
The legal framework around the existence of this site is much more complex than that.

To make it short: They - ALLOFMP3 - do license the content (did, actually), i.e. pay money for it.
The problem is, RIAA does not recognize the licensing authority of that organization.

Reason? Nothing from those payments goes to RIAA!
In other words, what they pay is the artists' share of any licensing payment.
And no RIAA sanctioned license will ever give more money to the artist!!

This was the reason why it did exist for such a long time.
I knew one of the co-founders around the time they started all this...

Diogen.
 
You mean ALLOFMP3?
The legal framework around the existence of this site is much more complex than that.

To make it short: They - ALLOFMP3 - do license the content (did, actually), i.e. pay money for it.
The problem is, RIAA does not recognize the licensing authority of that organization.

Reason? Nothing from those payments goes to RIAA!
In other words, what they pay is the artists' share of any licensing payment.
And no RIAA sanctioned license will ever give more money to the artist!!

This was the reason why it did exist for such a long time.
I knew one of the co-founders around the time they started all this...

Diogen.


I thought RIAA tried prevent subsequent payment to artists though from their standpoint of all or nothing. That's very cool though that you knew one of the co-founders. :up
 
I thought RIAA tried prevent subsequent payment to artists though from their standpoint of all or nothing.
I heard about this but haven't seen proof.
Knowing what a "nice" organization RIAA is, I wouldn't be surprised... :)

Diogen.
 
If I buy a song from iTunes, I can download it on (last I checked) 5 devices, and/or burn it onto a CD.

Actually you can put it on unlimited ipods. The 5 limit is the number of computers authorized to play it. You can burn it to CD and then read it back in if you wish and the copy protection is then gone.
 
Actually you can put it on unlimited ipods. The 5 limit is the number of computers authorized to play it. You can burn it to CD and then read it back in if you wish and the copy protection is then gone.

Right... and if a computer dies or you get rid of it, you just "de-authorize" it, and authorize something else... so there's not much real risk that I can see.
 
Actually you can put it on unlimited ipods. The 5 limit is the number of computers authorized to play it. You can burn it to CD and then read it back in if you wish and the copy protection is then gone.

Not to beat a dead horse, I tried that with some free songs from starbucks cards for itunes. It was no dice? Am I doing something wrong in itunes (also call me crazy, but isn't that the whole reason the hymnproject.org exists).
 
Back OT-

I had been experiencing the same problem of not being permitted to output old SD DVD in upconverted 1080p from the Toshiba A30. Tonight I decided to play one in my Samsung BD1400 and it played upconverted- no problem. Apparently this is a limitation of the player not a universal restriction of the DVD.