Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA

["aicra(at)well.com" <aicra(at)well.com>]

Glendon, 

sorry you might have to wait on the ffmpeg man but this is something I
wrote a couple years ago about digitizing video. Now I presume you have a
box already, but the info is here... and I'll dig up that man page tonight
when I get home (can't ftp to home from here...)

How I digitized DMITRY SKLYAROV's AUGUST 29, 2001 speech on a free box
using free software for less than 700 dollars.

by aicra 

Hardware: 

sharp hi 8 camcorder VLE600
Audio/video output jack in the back already. 

wintv card (not firewire or USB)- Used drivers for the main chip which
supports many cards - GPL'd
BT848 driver supports a lot of cards 

wintv card comes with s-vhs to composite converter
For better audio, ensonic pci audio using the es1371 driver which is also
GPL'd. 

Since the camcorder is mono, and the sound card doesn't have rca jacks got
two converters - one y adapter to monoaudio from camera and an rca to 1/8
inch phono for stereo input to have identical channels.from radio shack. 

Debian unstable -sid kernel 2.4.9
AMD Duron 750, 128 MB ram which is probably more than the minimum you need. 


Case + mboard = $149
Duron = $59.99
Ram = $24.00
TV card (NOT usb nor firewire)= $99
Sound card = $39.99
20 gig drive = $49.99


Camcorder = $239
Radio Shack adapters = $6 

So if you have nothing at all, you can do it for about $700 dollars. 

These are more than the minimum requirements for getting the job done, so
you could probably do it for less. 

Software:
compiled ffmpeg - standard compilation
3 steps (standard) ./configure
make
make install


Used xawtv (GPL)for the settings...controlling the tv card
changed television to composite 1
CLOSE xawtv before running ffmpeg 

open an xterm and type the settings for ffmpeg to capture directly to mpeg. 

i.e. ffmpeg -r 12 -b 1024 -ar 44100 -ab 192 -s 384x288 out.mpg 

12 = frames per second
1024 = quality of frames
44100 = samples per second
192 = quality of samples
384x288 = size
out.mpg = filename



Original Message:
-----------------
From: Glendon Gross gross@xinetd.com
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:20:29 -0700
To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA


Yes, please do share it.  Thanks.

Regards,

Glendon Gross


"aicra@well.com" wrote:

> Glendon,
>
> I use a tv card, my hi8, ffmpeg and xawtv to convert my video to digital.
> I don't see any probs there...
>
> I wrote an ffmpeg man if you want it, I can dig it up.
> -marcia
>
> Original Message:
> -----------------
> From: Glendon Gross gross@xinetd.com
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:21:21 -0700
> To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA
>
> The Behringer 9024 is 24-bit, so no degrading of the signal takes place
> on the way to the P.C.   But the analogue soundcard samples at
> 44.1 Khz.  (While this is typically thought of as CD-quality, the sound
> has been preprocessed by whatever settings I have on the 9024.)
>
> Lately I have been converting the files to 128k Ogg Vorbis format in
> order to avoid the implications of .MP3 files, after which I delete the
> .WAV files to save space. Nevertheless,  I'm concerned by the direction
> the courts have taken in almost uniformly ruling against the consumer
> and in favor of large corporations.  I'm starting to worry if the RIAA
> might eventually try to target users of .ogg files, since the sound
> quality is superior to .MP3 at
> a given bitrate.   (There is more information on ogg vorbis files at
> http://xiph.org.    The freedom of the Ogg Vorbis format from copyright
> and
> software patent concerns is probably a separate issue from the question
> of which copying behavior is sanctioned as "fair use.")
>
> I've been wanting to buy a video spigot in order to convert the pictures
> from my analogue camcorder to DVD's.  Yet part of my reluctance in
> taking
> this step has been due to copyright concerns and the potential for
> misunderstanding.    I can definitely see both sides of the issue, but I
> feel that the
> pendulum has swung too far in favor of the copyright owners.
>
> Regards,
>
> Glendon Gross
>
> Michael A Rolenz wrote:
>
> >
> > My guess is that it would be a circumvention device under the DMCA or
> > that the RIAA will certainly argue that it is. What's the resolution
> > of your A/D? A CD is 16 bits. If you are using less than that, then
> > you are not actually copying the CD but degrading the performance as
> > with MP3 compression (see those cases). If you are using more than 16
> > bits then you are definitely copying the content with the distortions
> > introduced by the D/A, the lack of perfect sample pulses, the
> > reconstruction filter and the Sigma-Delta modulator (if a S-D D/A is
> > used).
> >
> > The same argument can be made for DVDs if you access the video signal
> > and convert it or whatever. Presumably Judge Kaplan would rule that
> > this is also forbidden speech.
> >
> >
> >  Glendon Gross <gross@xinetd.com>
>    Sent by:                                       To:
>    owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu  dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
>                                                   cc:
>    06/18/2003 10:40 AM                            Subject:        Re:
>    Please respond to dvd-discuss          [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and
>                                           AHRA
> >
> >
> >
> > I can't help asking the question,  "What about music that is copied
> > using
> > analogue techniques, so that
> > it does not represent a binary copy of the original file on the
> > CD?"    For
> > example, I like to record CD's to
> > my PC through the line audio input in my soundcard, running the sound
> > through
> > my own favorite set of analogue and
> > digital effects.  (I use a Behringer DSP-9024 to preprocess the input
> > stream.)  Does anyone know what the DMCA would say, if anything, about
> > me
> > doing this with my original and purchased content?
> >
> > My perception has been that this falls under "fair use", but I can't
> > help
> > noticing the irony that no matter what technique
> > is used to protect the digital content, it fails when I do this.   In
> > that
> > sense, it would seem that the processed (and non-copy protected)
> > copy would be called an "original work."  Yet I see how quickly we get
> > into a
> > quagmire of ambiguity here.   I'm thankful that the PC is not
> > called a "circumvention device".
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Glendon Gross
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "aicra@well.com" wrote:
> >
> > > Here's a question:
> > >
> > > Where there or not copy controlled music CDs? And if there were, did
> > anyone
> > > bypass the encryption? Were those files then passed along? If so,
> > then all
> > > the music that resulted from those would be a DMCA violation.
> > >
> > > However, it is my belief that because of the AHRA music is legally
> > shared
> > > otherwise. With regards to music that did not have copy control or
> > cds that
> > > were not encrypted, then shared "music" is NOT a DMCA violation.
> > >
> > > Perhaps I am mistaken about the music section of the DMCA, but I
> > believe it
> > > had most to do with subscription services, not music copies... The
> > AHRA on
> > > the other hand specifically states:
> > >
> > > A personal computer is not a device specifically designed to store
> > and
> > > record audio.
> > >
> > > Title 17
> > > Chapter 10
> > > Subchapter B
> > > Section 1008
> > >
> > > -marcia
> > > Original Message:
> > > -----------------
> > > From: Richard Hartman hartman@onetouch.com
> > > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:37:43 -0700
> > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
> > >
> > > The thing is that there _is_ amgiguity in fair use.
> > >
> > > There is, however, _no_ ambiguity in the DMCA.  If you
> > > bypass the TPM to get to the content, you're guilty.  Even
> > > if the act of copying the content is not in itself illegal.
> > > Fair use is one area.  Backups are another.
> > >
> > > --
> > > -Richard M. Hartman
> > > hartman@onetouch.com
> > >
> > > 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Phil Gengler [mailto:phil@codeallday.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:31 PM
> > > > To: dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
> > > > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I phrased it like that because the DMCA was a set of massive
> > > > changes to
> > > > copyright law, so the DMCA could be considered a subset of
> > copyright
> > > > law.  I wasn't really getting into fair use, which I probably
> > should
> > > > have mentioned along with that.
> > > >
> > > > Although, fair use isn't really a concrete thing either, the way
> > it's
> > > > laid out in the law is a series of tests for a judge to consider.
> > I'd
> > > > much rather see fair use actually be codified, so that there's no
> > (or
> > > > less) ambiguity as to what is a fair use.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:23, Stephen L Johnson wrote:
> > > > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 19:08, Phil Gengler wrote:
> > > > > > Violating the DMCA implies you're violating copyright laws,
> > but
> > > > > > violating copyright laws doesn't mean you're violating the
> > DMCA.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. The first part of your statement is not necessarily
> > > > true. I can be
> > > > > violating the DCMA by ripping some "Exclusive Bonus
> > > > Material" on a DVD.
> > > > > But the purpose of the copying to is to provide an except
> > > > to emphasis a
> > > > > point in my online video critique of the DVD. That falls
> > > > well within the
> > > > > bounds of fair use.
> > > > >
> > > > > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:04, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > > > > > > Violating copyright laws and violating the DMCA are
> > > > _not_ the same thing.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Vigilante actions are typically against the law -- law
> > > > enforcement is in the hands of the police agencies, not the
> > > > individual (or the corporations).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > > mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> > > http://mail2web.com/ .
> >
> >
> >
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .


--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .