16 replies to this topic

[sparky22]

I copied and converted a video I had in a video_ts folder to iPhone format just to see what size it would be.  I then decided to see what it would look like on the iPhone and decided to copy it using the already converted file as the source and “Output to Portable Device/Media” as the destination.  Once started, the Copy and Convert program reconverted the file even though it was already converted to the iPhone format.  Did it really do anything to the video the second time?  It took about 20 minutes. If it re-encoded from iPhone format to iPhone format (mp4 to mp4 I think) do I loose quality?

Also, when I played the video on my iPhone, there were subtitles.  They are also visible when I play the Roxio-made .mp4 file on my PC, but were not on when I played the original .VOB on my computer.  This is a problem in that there is no way that I can see to turn them off on the iPhone.

By the way, I cannot do the “normal” method of copying the video file into iTunes and then “syncing” for two reasons; I sync on my work computer and therefore cannot do it at home, also I have OverDrive audio books from my library on my iPhone and they would be deleted if I synced.  Don't you just love iTunes?

Sparky22

[sparky22]

Anyone?

[Brendon]

Would you indicate the question that you want anyone to answer, please?

[sparky22]

Would you indicate the question that you want anyone to answer, please?

The ones with a ‘?’ are two that I would like to find answers to:

• Did it really do anything to the video the second time?
• If it re-encoded from iPhone format to iPhone format (mp4 to mp4 I think) do I loose quality?

Then, it would be great if someone could help with the problem:

Also, when I played the video on my iPhone, there were subtitles. They are also visible when I play the Roxio-made .mp4 file on my PC, but were not on when I played the original .VOB on my computer. This is a problem in that there is no way that I can see to turn them off on the iPhone.

Thanks in advance;
Sparky22

[grandpabruce]

The ones with a ‘?’ are two that I would like to find answers to:

• Did it really do anything to the video the second time?
• If it re-encoded from iPhone format to iPhone format (mp4 to mp4 I think) do I loose quality?

Then, it would be great if someone could help with the problem:

Also, when I played the video on my iPhone, there were subtitles. They are also visible when I play the Roxio-made .mp4 file on my PC, but were not on when I played the original .VOB on my computer. This is a problem in that there is no way that I can see to turn them off on the iPhone.

Thanks in advance;
Sparky22

Subtitles?  What movie were you trying to convert?

[sparky22]

I am embarrassed to say, but I do not remember now what the movie was.  It was a DVD of a movie that I own that I had archived.  I just remember that when I played the Roxio generated .mp4 on my PC, the subtitles were on.  When I played the raw files (.VOB) the subtitles were off.

[gi7omy]

The subtitles come from the original source - No Roxio app adds them (wel it wouldn't even know where to look for them)

They have to have been there from the beginning really

[grandpabruce]

I am embarrassed to say, but I do not remember now what the movie was.  It was a DVD of a movie that I own that I had archived.  I just remember that when I played the Roxio generated .mp4 on my PC, the subtitles were on.  When I played the raw files (.VOB) the subtitles were off.

If it is a commercial movie, it is illegal to dupe it, if it is encrypted.

[sparky22]

I agree that the subtitles are in the original movie, it is just that they are not enabled by default when the original is played on my PC.  I suppose I could try to delete them before handing them off to Roxio if I were actually intending to use the resulting video.

I realize that the MPAA claim that making even one archival copy of a commercial DVD is illegal, but that is still under contention - the Real Networks decision notwithstanding.  I was hoping that this would not get off topic due to this.

[grandpabruce]

I agree that the subtitles are in the original movie, it is just that they are not enabled by default when the original is played on my PC.  I suppose I could try to delete them before handing them off to Roxio if I were actually intending to use the resulting video.

I realize that the MPAA claim that making even one archival copy of a commercial DVD is illegal, but that is still under contention - the Real Networks decision notwithstanding.  I was hoping that this would not get off topic due to this.

Ask 3-2-1 Studios, if it is still under contention!  It isn't.  It's fact, and any talk of burning illegal copies of a movie, in these forums, is not allowed.

Before you get angry, I would say that the bulk of the regulars agree that one should be able to make an archive copy of our purchased movie.  But, legally, we can't.

[Jim_Hardin]

I don’t have an iPod so I cannot simulate a transfer in VCC for Creator 2009.

In the VCC for Creator 2010 there is an option where you can set Language and Subtitles for the transfer.

Is that available in 2009?

With the advent of iPods etc. the “copy” is becoming less clear when you see new DVD & BD discs that include a provision right on the disc to allow you to copy it to your personal viewing device or even PC…

Now of course it requires Software that monitors what you are doing and prevents burning a disc but it is a change in attitude from the industry to keep up with the times. Still not a blank check but better than it was  

[sparky22]

I understand how Roxio would be gun shy and not approve nor even wish to appear to condone or  copyright abuse.  Who needs that hassle?  There is very little to be gained in allowing users to share copyrighted works or supply tools or give links to tools that are intended for that purpose.  Not only is it illegal, but I personally feel it is  morally unacceptable to assist others in theft.  I would not appreciate someone giving away something that I spent time and money creating.

Hopefully those forum prohibitions do not extend to us members giving our opinions however.  My opinion is that the fair use doctrine gives purchasers of DVDs the right to make archival copies.  I have not heard of this yet being tested in the courts.  Certainly most of us have heard of people being sued for distributing copy righted material, but I am not aware of anyone being taken to court over their “fair use.”  I suspect that the MPAA and others are avoiding this test and are instead adamantly advocating the opposite position that they believe to be correct.

Paraphrasing (and copying ) an article on Geek-dot-com commenting on U. S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel's recent decision:
But while it’s apparently illegal under the DMCA for a company to sell software facilitating the copying of a DVD by bypassing its encryption, Patel didn’t go so far as to say copying a DVD for personal use was illegal. Patel stated the dilemma thusly:
“The court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use,” she wrote.  “[W]hile it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.”  Further she wrote, “Whatever application the fair use doctrine may have for individual consumers making backup copies of their own DVDs, it does not portend to save Real from liability under the DMCA in this action.”

Although this is not an expression of opinion that her court believes making backup copies is legal,  it does say that she does not believe the issue is as clear cut as others have been lead to believe.  And if she, the Judge from the original Napster case is taking an agnostic  position, I do not see why  we should jump to the conclusion that the issue is firmly resolved.
  
Many times it has been said about some subject or another, “This is illegal.  It says so in this law right here.”  Only to have others point out, “Yes, but in this law here it says it is legal.”  It used to be “legal” to prohibit some of us from sitting in the front of a bus or attending certain schools or even voting.  Thank goodness we live somewhere in which citizens have a voice that continues to be heard even after some claim that following particular rule is the way we shall live.

Certainly these “DVD rights” are not as lofty as many others, but that does not make them insignificant either.  I understand those of us that do not want to get into the position of sounding as though we condone breaking the law, but we should understand the truly large difference between that and discussing what the law is.  In that spirit, I will be sure to be more aware when posting examples of issues and problems to not include the use of copy righted material.

Sparky22

[Jim_Hardin]

You are sadly mistaken, it has been tested many times in the courts and copying held illegal in each and every case!

This has been going on for 10 years now and nothing has changed.

I don’t think for one second that you are some evil scheming video pirate but your criticism of Roxio’s software is unfounded! You violated the law when you copied the DVD! Whether you personally used the illegal decryption software or downloaded somebody else’s illegal copy.

If you have the original disc, there is no way you can get Roxio to touch it. Windows won’t even allow you to copy the files!

As I stated in my previous post, what you are trying to do is becoming more and more encouraged and legal but! It has to be done ’Their way’ using ’Their software’ to maintain content control…

Roxio’s Venue allows you to download a DVD Movie and watch it on your PC! But there is no way you can copy or burn that movie…

Roxio’s Qflix however will allow you to download a DVD Movie, watch it on your PC and burn a copy of it for your use!!!

However you must have the Qflix Software, a special Qflix Burner and use special Qflix blank DVD media and you only get ONE burn.

Edited by Jim_Hardin, 11 October 2009 - 03:19 AM.

[grandpabruce]

Hopefully those forum prohibitions do not extend to us members giving our opinions however.  My opinion is that the fair use doctrine gives purchasers of DVDs the right to make archival copies.  I have not heard of this yet being tested in the courts.  Certainly most of us have heard of people being sued for distributing copy righted material, but I am not aware of anyone being taken to court over their “fair use.”  I suspect that the MPAA and others are avoiding this test and are instead adamantly advocating the opposite position that they believe to be correct.

Sparky22

Wrong!  Here is a short version of 321 Studios getting sued and run out of business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Studios

[sparky22]

Wow, I guess I am not being very clear somehow.  Jim_Harden, I did not criticize Roxio’s software anywhere or any time.  I am completely happy with it.  I have never claimed, nor did I mean to imply that Roxio software should or could copy protected DVDs.  That is not what it is intended to do and, to offer something like that for sale would be illegal. I would recommend Roxio to anyone looking for ways to copy, convert, edit, capture (I purchased their great little USB hardware things), or burn media files.  I have not used it for data files, but I suspect that it works nicely for those as well.  I do not understand those comments.  It sounds as though you think I was saying otherwise.  That is not the case.

I have searched and searched and I cannot find an instance where anyone was successfully sued for making archival copies of DVDs.  I am not talking about those who claimed that is the reason they happened to have three dozen copies of Star Wars or those that were in anyway sharing DVDs or trying to take a copied DVD across a border somewhere. And I definitely do not mean anyone who was distributing tools for making copies of copyrighted material.  I just mean someone that just backed some up with one copy each – not for use, but to have just in case their original copy becomes damaged.  Please point me to where I can read more about this I am anxious to see if I have been messing up these last few years.  I am not being sarcastic here.  I really would like to read about that.

Again Jim, I do not see where I have criticized Roxio’s software or policies.

I have also felt a change coming in that more and more content sources are putting less restrictions on their products such as the “extra” copies or licenses that are now included with some DVDs.  Even some music download sites are starting to sell content without DRM - although none of that should not be seen an approval or invitation to make illegal copies of their products.

Granpabruce, did you read my post?  123 Studio was not taken to court to over their over fair use.  

I did not say anything conflicting with what you say about  123 Studios.  They certainly were sued out of business.  They dod not loose a law suit for making an archival copy of one of their movies, however.   As I recall, they were the first so called legitimate or big company to offer a product that not only ripped, but also burned.  Content owners thought, and probably rightly so that being this easy, everyone would start copying their discs, not just the techies.  123 studios is just another one of the many DMCA examples dating back to 1999 and Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes and continuing on through this August with RealNetworks.  It seems to be pretty much consistently upheld that distributing tools (including posting links to those tools or instructions how to make those tools) is illegal.  I do not disagree.  The case I mentioned upholds what happened to 123 Studio as still valid.  But neither of these cases was about an individual’s right to make an archival copy, although both sides usually shouted their opinions on that.  They were about providing tools.  Which, I agree is illeagle.


Sparky22

[grandpabruce]

Wow, I guess I am not being very clear somehow.  Jim_Harden, I did not criticize Roxio’s software anywhere or any time.  I am completely happy with it.  I have never claimed, nor did I mean to imply that Roxio software should or could copy protected DVDs.  That is not what it is intended to do and, to offer something like that for sale would be illegal. I would recommend Roxio to anyone looking for ways to copy, convert, edit, capture (I purchased their great little USB hardware things), or burn media files.  I have not used it for data files, but I suspect that it works nicely for those as well.  I do not understand those comments.  It sounds as though you think I was saying otherwise.  That is not the case.

I have searched and searched and I cannot find an instance where anyone was successfully sued for making archival copies of DVDs.  I am not talking about those who claimed that is the reason they happened to have three dozen copies of Star Wars or those that were in anyway sharing DVDs or trying to take a copied DVD across a border somewhere. And I definitely do not mean anyone who was distributing tools for making copies of copyrighted material.  I just mean someone that just backed some up with one copy each – not for use, but to have just in case their original copy becomes damaged.  Please point me to where I can read more about this I am anxious to see if I have been messing up these last few years.  I am not being sarcastic here.  I really would like to read about that.

Again Jim, I do not see where I have criticized Roxio’s software or policies.

I have also felt a change coming in that more and more content sources are putting less restrictions on their products such as the “extra” copies or licenses that are now included with some DVDs.  Even some music download sites are starting to sell content without DRM - although none of that should not be seen an approval or invitation to make illegal copies of their products.

Granpabruce, did you read my post?  123 Studio was not taken to court to over their over fair use.  

I did not say anything conflicting with what you say about  123 Studios.  They certainly were sued out of business.  They dod not loose a law suit for making an archival copy of one of their movies, however.   As I recall, they were the first so called legitimate or big company to offer a product that not only ripped, but also burned.  Content owners thought, and probably rightly so that being this easy, everyone would start copying their discs, not just the techies.  123 studios is just another one of the many DMCA examples dating back to 1999 and Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes and continuing on through this August with RealNetworks.  It seems to be pretty much consistently upheld that distributing tools (including posting links to those tools or instructions how to make those tools) is illegal.  I do not disagree.  The case I mentioned upholds what happened to 123 Studio as still valid.  But neither of these cases was about an individual’s right to make an archival copy, although both sides usually shouted their opinions on that.  They were about providing tools.  Which, I agree is illeagle.


Sparky22

The movie industry is going after the companies that produce software that breaks the encryption on commercial movies.  All of that software is illegal.  You used a version of that software.  Therefore, what you did is illegal.

Maybe you want to be the first person to get nabbed, although, I am sure there are many who have been nabbed and fined already.

If I was you, I sure the hell wouldn't be posting what I did, in these forums.  You may end up being on the wrong end of explaining why you did it, in court.  

[Jim_Hardin]

Sparky: You are correct, I did misread your post and have edited my reply – sorry!

We need to be bring this to a close because regardless of how we feel it remains illegal to copy a commercial DVD and open threads like this tend to draw flies