4 ms·

This whole argument disappoints me. Every manufacturer of a DVD or CD Writer has "enabled" illegal copying and potential distribution of copyrighted content. I

This whole argument disappoints me. Every manufacturer of a DVD or CD Writer has "enabled" illegal copying and potential distribution of copyrighted content. I haven't seen any of those entities reprimanded for their product manufacture.

solarc 12y ago
There's a tax in some countries over blank CD/DVD exactly for that reason, enabling illegal copying. It is a crazy world, anything is possible. Edit: found a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy
- kefka 12y ago
  So, by that definition, it's not illegal.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    Nope, still illegal. You're paying for something you can't legally do.
- sampo 12y ago
  You have understood that wrong. In those countries, private copying is legal, and the private copying levy is a tax on recordable media to collect some money from the people who legally practice private copying.
  - mzl 12y ago
    As a further note, the levy is intended for cases where the person doing the copy already has the right to do the copy (for example, recording from radio, recording a tv-show, or making a back-up copy of a movie one already owns a legal copy of). It is not intended to compensate for copying that is currently illegal (such as copies obtained using any form of pirating). Many people misunderstand this, and think it is a levy to compensate for illegal copying. That is not, and has never been, the purpose. This misunderstanding is also one of the common arguments against the levy, since it gives the impression that even though some copying may be illegal, it is compensated.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
Donzo 12y ago
Major content producers have attacked duplication mediums before and failed: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Univ.... The difference is that the ostensible intent of these products is to enable consumers to make archival copies. What is the ostensible intent of TPB?

solarc 12y ago

There's a tax in some countries over blank CD/DVD exactly for that reason, enabling illegal copying. It is a crazy world, anything is possible. Edit: found a link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_copying_levy

kefka 12y ago
So, by that definition, it's not illegal.
- icebraining 12y ago
  Nope, still illegal. You're paying for something you can't legally do.
sampo 12y ago
You have understood that wrong. In those countries, private copying is legal, and the private copying levy is a tax on recordable media to collect some money from the people who legally practice private copying.
- mzl 12y ago
  As a further note, the levy is intended for cases where the person doing the copy already has the right to do the copy (for example, recording from radio, recording a tv-show, or making a back-up copy of a movie one already owns a legal copy of). It is not intended to compensate for copying that is currently illegal (such as copies obtained using any form of pirating). Many people misunderstand this, and think it is a levy to compensate for illegal copying. That is not, and has never been, the purpose. This misunderstanding is also one of the common arguments against the levy, since it gives the impression that even though some copying may be illegal, it is compensated.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

Donzo 12y ago

Major content producers have attacked duplication mediums before and failed: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Univ.... The difference is that the ostensible intent of these products is to enable consumers to make archival copies. What is the ostensible intent of TPB?