Are there high quality DVDs or Videos of Layouts?

serious brain fart there - 2000

wow 1980 - now that would be forward thinking......

"Fair use" copying has been drastically (IMO unconstitutionally) restricted in the USA, but AFAIK, making an archival copy for personal use is still legal. Restriction on fair use hasn't gone as far here as in the USA (yet).

The entertainment industry's constant whining about "lost sales" is based on the faulty assumption that people would buy the music etc if they couldn't copy it. I don't think so. Some of it would be bought, yes. But most of it just be - ignored.

I understand all that you say, but I think the matter of archival copies for personal use applies only where it is specifcally permitted under the terms of use of the product. My understanding of the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) as it applies in the USA is that all copying of commercial entertainment DVD's is illegal, manufacturing or distributing an uncoded DVD player is illegal, tampering with or altering the player is illegal and so on and so on. Accordingly, "fair use" doesn't enter into the equation because all copying is per se illegal.

I should imagine Canada, along with all the other developed countries, has signed up to the provisions of the DMCA.

But if even *one* DVD would have been bought if not available as a knock-off, then the copying of that one DVD is what? I expect the entertainment industry has got a pretty solid set of assumptions underpinning their operations, that's why they are an industry. If people think that the creative offering of a product is not worth the price, be it a DVD or a model railway locomotive, then they shouldn't buy it. The market will respond.

I generally find that those people who mess around with "knock-offs" of any description are not people I particularly want to associate with. It's funny how people can self-justify breaking the law whenever doing things the right way would impact upon their drinking money or something. (This comment does not refer to you or any other contributor on this fine newsgroup, of course).

Just my thoughts.

Cheers, Steve

Well, Steve, I don't hold with copying and distributing tapes, CDs, or DVDs, and the only time I've done it was to when there was no other handy way of getting a copy. But I don't hold with price-gouging, either. The pirates put a downward pressure on prices, which IMO is a good thing.

I don't deny that some DVDs are not bought because there are knock-offs, but the assumption that all (or even most) such acquisitions would be purchases at full price if no pirated copies were available is ridiculuous. If only full price copies were available, people would buy far fewer copies, is all; and they would lend them out amongst each other. There's a fair amount of that going on anyhow. I suspect sales would go down, so far down that dollar value would also decrease.

IOW, the entertainment industry exaggerates its losses from piracy big time.

Archival is a right. 'Fair use' is always permitted - and it is above the terms and conditions of any product. Having a backup is part of your fair use rights. In the case of something like a DVD, you have bought the right to view the information/entertainment on the DVD, not just the physical object itself. If the physical object were to get damaged, you still have the right to watch it. This can go one of two ways - either the vendor will be required to replace damaged physical media free of charge, or you will be entitled to take your own precautions against this kind of damage. Vendors aren't required by law to replace damaged media (unless they are DOA), and I don't see this changing. As this is the case, you are entitled to take your own precautions.

It's not the copying that's illegal, it's breaking the protection system. The act of circumvention is illegal, rather than actually copying the data within.

(The act of distribution was always illegal - the DMCA doesn't change this).

If you could make a backup without circumventing anything, (i.e. the content is unprotected) then the DMCA would permit you to do so. Problem is, the DMCA is directly in conflict with your fair use rights when the content is protected. If you really are just making a backup to something you legally own anyway, then I can't see any company or law enforcement agency being that interested TBH.

I think you'll find that most of europe hasn't. (Unless you don't consider most of europe to be 'developed'?)

People generally have a set budget - and they'll buy what they can within that. If one entertainment product is available to someone free as a copy, that will mean they'll spend that money on something else.

So, as an industry, if you "regain" that "lost sale", you'll just lose the next one, as the person doesn't have the extra money to spend. Eliminate all piracy overnight, and the public as a whole won't spend any more on entertainment products - but the distribution of that revenue between the various companies and organisations will likely change.

Assuming you mean organised criminals who make/sell counterfeit goods of all kinds on a large scale, then yes - these are people I too have no desire to associate with. People buying things from these people does take money out of the industry, as it will go to the criminal fraternity instead. But the actions of these criminal organisations are illegal already - the DMCA doesn't make it easier to catch these people and bring them to trial, there are enough laws that cover this already. IMHO the industry (working with law enforcement agencies) should concentrate more on fighting organised criminal gangs. One of the easy things they could do is to stop pricegouging - if there was less markup going to the big media conglomerates, the prices would be lower, and there would be less money for the criminal organisations to make. This means they aren't able to cover their tracks as well, and it's not so worth their while doing it. Should be easier to catch the existing gangs, and there would be less incentive for new entrants. (And this doesn't mean the 'poor lowly-paid artist' getting less, as they get just about bugger all compared to the recording industry as it is.)

What the DMCA is really targetted at, is not organised counterfeitting, but sharing between friends. The industry has previously always accepted sharing between friends. There are two reasons behind this. If a friend lends the entertainment product to another friend, then the first person does not have access to it while the second person does. And if the second person takes a copy before giving the original back, they have paid a 'tax' to the industry as a whole to have done so - as the media they use to do this had a levy imposed on it by the larger media organisations, expressly to cover this. Please note: the artists don't get anything from this 'tax' on blank media. Only the large organisations. Which shows just how much they 'care' about the artists.

Two things changed with electronic distribution - the 'one master' disappeared, so that the first person can still enjoy the product while it is lent to the friend, and the 'tax' disappeared on the copy, as there is no physical media. (This last part is what 'legalised P2P' is all about, regaining that 'tax'.)

James Moody