There was another thread asking about how to copy a DVD for personal use that was closed before I got to respond. It was kind of answered, but not in sufficient detail.

A few people in the thread stated it was legal to copy software if one owned it. According to The Digital Millennium Copyright Act it is illegal to circumvent the digital encryption on the DVD, effectively making it illegal to copy a DVD regardless of whatever copyright argument one might have (fair use/backing up legitimately owned software, etc.).

This forum does not support illegal activities.

I'll reference this thread again for this forum's policy concerning this question.
Asking for or providing help in copying copyrighted materials

I think it's best just to stay away from the subject. There's plenty of other niche's on the 'net that will cater to your needs.

Correct, it is illegal as per DMCA to remove or alter in anyway, the copy protection of copyrighted material (Video in this case), even if you bought a legitimate copy at the retail store.

Since this is a "DVD Talk" website, discussing such material is a sensitive subject because it is under the scrutiny much more than a website which does not discuss DVD movies.

Just goto Google and see what comes up.
It is kinda silly that you can't talk about it.

From some of the people I've talked to it seems the ones that copy dvd are the ones that don't care if it's full screen.
They even buy the hand held copies of new movies for $10.
Even thought in 5 months they can buy a loaded spec. ed. dvd for $15.

well, i'm glad to see i wasn't banned.

being that i work at the patent and trademark office, and that i know more intellectual property attorneys, including my father, personally, people would be hard pressed to say i was asking a malicious question.

i guess, i'm not entirely sure if it's an illegal act. perhaps i will start a new thread.

As has been said, it's illegal. It's not silly to prohibit talking about it. Why not talk about how to murder someone? Manufacturing drugs? Make bombs? You can find that info on the 'net too.

It's because people who think an illegal subject should be discussed are probably more prone to be interested in doing said illegal activity. Many don't think copying is harmful so they have no problems doing/discussing it.

As you said, the info is out there on the net. There shouldn't be a problem with going out there and finding it.

i'm sorry, that's censorship. you're assuming way too much about the question that i posted. the intent in my question was not fore sume malicious, injurious purpose. just a convenience and a bit of a cool idea i thought.

i refuse to think i can't have what i want without breaking the law. locking a thread because it raises questions of legality is shortsighted and discourages potentially constructive conversation.

i don't want to break the law for god's sake.

The thing is if we let people talk about copying DVD's and then the MPAA or someone finds out. DVD Talk could get in trouble. Sorry but that is why we can't talk about it. Go to the 1000 other internet sites that discuss DVD copying if you want to talk about it.

without sounding too much of an ass, i think the truth is most people don't want it here because they spend obserds amount of money on buying originals, and get angry when someone who doesn't care as much about covering/labels just gets a pirated copy.

As for the orginal post, if you're just looking for some info about it do a google search on "Doom 9 DVD Information" Might help.

P.S in response to comparing asking about copying dvds & comparing it to making bombs there's a difference.. I think the original poster wanted information ABOUT it now how to do it.

Kind of like reading up on the history of Charles Manson, Paul Bernardo or other rapists.

That is NOT illegal

my point is, there's a difference between discussing copying and providing enablement for illegal behavior.

i had a purpose that could be discussed without divulging criminal info.

there's a difference to me between:
me: how can i do this?
dvdtalk: no, end of dicussion

and

me: how can i do this?
dvdtalk: you can't, it's illegal
me: so maybe i could do this?
dvdtalk: keep trying, still illegal
me: how about this?
dvdtalk: hmm. that could work. might be cool.

Hah...found this kind of suitable:

Censorship
Noun - The act, process, or practice of censoring.

Censoring
Noun - Counterintelligence achieved by banning or deleting any information of value to the enemy.

Last I checked, DVDTalk is not a democracy. They can choose what borderline issues they will permit on their site.

Besides, what constructive conversation is it that you feel will be generated about discussing an outright illegal act? There is no question of legality.

i have 9000 dollars saying you've made an egregious assumption.

should i take a picture when i get home? or will you just believe me as it is.

So does this mean (and I'm ONLY asking because I don't know) that a bit for bit copy of whatever could be legally made for archival backup -- that is, a copy with the copy protection still in place on the copy?

It's quite clear you do not know what the definition of censorship is.

And as stated above - you have no first amendment protection on private property (which this is).

dictionary.com:

censor: A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

the subject of copying is seemingly being supressed here without regard for its intent, and that's what i find annoying.

never made any claims to "rights" here, i'm trying to get helpful answers to a question. but i can't when threads are locked.

i'd be more than happy to be led to a resolution of my question(s) that is completely legal. heck, i'd prefer it.

The point is that there are hundreds of places on the Internet where you can talk about copying DVDs. The people who own this site say this isn't one of them. Arguing about it serves no purpose.

You should go here: Mod note: It's probably being nitpicky but let people do their own search if they want such info thx nemein and take a look at their forum.

RichC

It's also called Contributory infringement and can lead to DVDTalk getting sued

Actually, the Supreme Court allows certain restrictions on "free" speech that wouldn't qualify as censorship. For instance, would you say that you've been "censored" from shouting Fire in a crowded theater, or is it just that you can be arrested for doing it? Because it's the same with this; the people who own DVDtalk could be fined or even arrested for allowing the conversation to go on.

You're fighting the wrong person. I'd agree with you that the law is too strict, but it is the law.

That's pretty childish. Why do you refuse to accept that somebody who owns and runs a DVD site, and has done so for some time, is more aware of the laws that specifically affect them than you are?

That specific potentially constructive conversation is banned. And not particularly potentially constructive.

that was directed at the playing of random episodes on dvds. not talking on dvdtalk.

at a bare minimum, all i would need to get it to work is the instructions to tell the player to go to a specific spot on the dvd and start playing, not the actual episodes themselves.

getting just that, though, would be hard and potentially vary from player to player, disc to disc as i'm not sure how dvd players work.


this is the person who thought a few years ago it'd be awesome to make a dvd player that can go from disc 1 to disc 2 of something like the extended lotr movies without having to stop to change discs. you know it'd be cool. no interruptions in the movie. mmmm.

i think that too raised legal and techincal issues resulting from a likely buffer that'd be needed to get it to work. sigh.

OIC. I can hardly object, can I, given the context?

RichC

You still don't. Censorship REQUIRES government endorsement. That's where the authorized part comes in. I think we should sticky it.

hmm. stickying sounds like a good idea.

but i'll still dispute the need for government to be involved for censorship to occur. it's not in the definition i cited.

i would say dvdtalk moderators are sufficiently enabled to control what is and is not discussed on their forums, thus giving them the ability to censor their product/website/forums/whathaveyou.

what single word would you use to describe the prevention/stoppage of conversation on a controversial subject?