Is backing up Dvds right?


points to ponder....

With the introduction of digital media players like WDTV, it would be space-saving to store dvds without the dvds wouldn't it.

Backing up your Dvd enables you to truly ‘own’ your dvd even if the disk itself gets damaged in any way. If not, when we are told we can 'own' the dvd, it might only mean that we can lease it as long as the dvd lasts.

Backing up legally purchased Dvds helps us get around the life-span of the dvd. Or are profiteers simply hoping that we'd be forced to buy new sets when old sets get damaged?

Backing up Dvds would also make sense for those who travel frequently. Surely they can’t be expected to pack a couple of luggage of Dvds if they were going overseas? If that is not allowed, then can it be said that when you ‘own’ a Dvd, you only do so in the country of purchase and where you can watch it via the hardcopy, and not when you travel overseas and can only have your collection stored on a hard-drive?

What if you have backups of legally purchased Dvds, you go on a trip, come back to find your house burgled, and your Dvd collection gone. Are you allowed to keep your backup copies, or are you supposed to delete them in respect of the fact that the burglars are now the new owners of your Dvd collection even if they did not purchase them themselves?

If we are allowed to make copies of our CDs, shouldn’t this be applicable to Dvds?

Are purchasers of 2nd hand Dvds allowed to make backups of the Dvds?

What’s legal must be in accordance with what’s right. Not the other way round.The following are thoughts that occurred to myself whilst considering ‘for’ and ‘against’ arguments on the net.

If we aren’t allowed to keep backup copies of Dvds which we sell off as 2nd hand later, then should the purchase of 2nd hand Dvds be made illegal since they are getting it for, say, half price, and we are losing half the price in that sale.

If the 2nd owners are able to make backup copies of their half-priced Dvds, than should we be able to do so as well since we’ve made a loss equivalent to the half priced purchase by 2nd hand buyers?

Putting it simply. I may not be the current owner of my Dvds as i sold off a 10 quid dvd for 5 quid. The 2nd buyer pays 5 quid, and i’ve made a 5 quid loss. In other words, we’ve both finally paid 5 quid for the dvd in terms of my purchasing it for 10 quid, selling it off for 5 quid, and thus having invested 5 quid in it. If the 2nd current owner can make a backup, wouldn’t i have the right to keep my backup as i’ve invested the same amount in it as the 2nd owner?


What’s legal must be in accordance with what’s right. Not the other way round. That is what founded the current version of democracy and modernity. To demolish the path that led to a more progressive present is to mire humanity in a past made contemporary.


ed

Comments

  1. Yup. You're right Mark - about them describing things at 'surface value'. But that's still quite helpful when it comes to information about what's going on - so far as it pertains to 'majority' interests that is. It's just that analytical depth is wanting. But, as confucians generally are, they are averse to contradiction and comparisons - includes the 'indians' as well like Gopalan Nair, etc - and can hence keep up the illusion that they are intelligent human beings whom aren't a symbiotic part of the problem they purport to address.

    Well, 'listening more than talking' isn't a bad strategy if you desire greater intelligence - so long as you ask lots of questions as well. But be warned, with confucians, to listen is a sign of stupidity or inferiority. To them, it means that you have nothing worth listening to since you are doing most of the listening. That is also one of the reasons why they tend to steer clear of politics as their role is to just 'listen' to the government - betrays their own subconscious sense of their own relative inferiority.

    The same principle is observed in social interactions. Just as the people look down on themselves for listening to the government, they also look down on those who listen to them. And with their self-esteem thus stoked, they will then discount everything you have to say since you have generally played the role of the 'inferior' listener. Anyway, if you didn't, and just spoke intelligently or about issues that they aren't interested in, they wouldn't listen anyway. A catch 22 situation. Relatively intelligent and creative people are f***ed either way. For myself, it is double-trouble as i can't talk about my intellectual interests - like yourself - or my aesthetic ones as well, i.e. art, photography, music composition. If you are like myself, you'd feel even more frustrated given the greater number of personal interests that does not coincide with the general culture of eating, shopping, gambling, talking shit, or not talking at all.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

The Inquisitive venture is a collaborative one. Let's collaborate.

Ad hominem is fine so long as it is accompanied with an argument, as opposed to being confused for an argument. In the latter case, deletion will follow.