Music ripping software is promoted to encourage copying music. But copying movies is illegal and the software to copy protected DVD's is illegal to own in the USA. Music and movies are both copyrighted...why is music looked upon differently?
Because music isn't copy protected. They attempted that, but it failed. Also, part of it is that musicians are starting to change their model of making money. Touring and performing is their major income source, not selling the music.
I just love laws that can not be enforce such as making copy protection removal programs illegal but the software to do so can be found and downloaded off the net within minutes.
I don't understand. Why did copy protection fail on music files but not movie files? Are they so fundamentally different?
Just my thoughts, but someone usually buys music after they've heard it, if they liked it they will likely be interested in additional music by the same performer. After you've seen a movie, you've seen it. While I have a couple of my favorites on DVD (maybe 6?), I don't usually go out and buy a copy of any ol' movie I've seen. Bottom line, movies want their money up front, music gets it on the back end.
Hmm, what I got from the poster's message was that there was some technical reason for the failure of copy protected music. Maybe I misunderstood and he was talking about a cultural reason, as you are.
it is perfectly legal to record tv shows including movies both in the USA and in UK - you may also freely give those recordings to those you know so long as this is not a commercial practice