Wikipedia protest shutdown

Discussion in 'World Events' started by arfa brane, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    i think it is disgusting how you conspire with sleazy used record store owners to bilk god fearing artists and their families out of their livilihoods
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Ripley Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,411
    Found this:

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    First you fail to point out what the "actions" were, could it have been demands that financiers quite funding a site, and have only 5 days to comply before they themselves get the SOPA Button?

    Also that quote tells use nothing it does not say ONLY foreign sites may be targeted and it does not describe how to identify if the "primary" purpose is pirating.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    The actions are spelled out depending on what the linkage is to the foreign infringing site:

    So once the AG tells you that a specific site is a site primarily dedicated to Piracy, then you have 5 days (or longer based on the court order) to quit linking to it, quit sending money to them or quit advertising on their site.

    There is no requirement to monitor anything.



    LOL

    The whole point of SOPA is to prevent access and reduce profitability of Foreign Internet Sites that are primarily in the business of Piracy.

    SEC. 102. ACTION BY ATTORNEY GENERAL TO PROTECT U.S. CUSTOMERS AND PREVENT U.S. SUPPORT OF FOREIGN INFRINGING SITES.

    (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
    (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
    (2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
    (3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
    (b) Action by the Attorney General-
    (1) IN PERSONAM- The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against--
    (A) a registrant of a domain name used by a foreign infringing site; or
    (B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.
     
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Because they are not incorrect assertions.

    Q: Can someone in the US buy software that will copy DVD movies that have copy protection

    A: Yes, and millions have done so

    Q: Has anyone in the US been prosecuted for buying or using this software?

    A: No, in fact millions of people have been doing it for many years


    Q: If the Court ruling made selling or manufacturing software that breaks the encryption of DVD movies illegal, why is the above possible?

    A: Because if the software company is in the US they don't sell both parts required to break the encryption together. They sell you the software with the already embedded links to the DeCSS code in them and during install you provide the link to the readily available and totally legal DeCSS code from a separate site and since neither product is in violation, and making back up copies falls under fair use, if that's what you use it for, then no party is in violation of the DMCA.

    Of course if you buy your software, like you buy your DVD player and Media, over the internet, you are just as likely to buy a combined product, because the DMCA's reach does not extend to software made in the EU or UK.
     
  9. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    IN GENERAL- A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name's Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.
    (ii) LIMITATIONS- A service provider shall not be required--
    (I) other than as directed under this subparagraph, to modify its network, software, systems, or facilities;
    (II) to take any measures with respect to domain name resolutions not performed by its own domain name server; or
    (III) to continue to prevent access to a domain name to which access has been effectively disabled by other means.
    (iii) CONSTRUCTION- Nothing in this subparagraph shall affect the limitation on the liability of a service provider under section 512 of title 17, United States Code.
    (iv) TEXT OF NOTICE- The Attorney General shall prescribe the text of any notice displayed to users or customers of a service provider taking actions pursuant to this subparagraph. Such text shall state that an action is being taken pursuant to a court order obtained by the Attorney General.
    ... ... ...


    What this all means is that the site its self does not even need to be warned rather the providers of Internet to americans and the search engines can be forced to censor the the site, even without the site knowing. Sort of like how China censors websites it finds provocative, except this time there may be an "attorney general notices" telling US browsers that the site is blocked for infringement or what ever. The server hosts and advertising agencies can be forced to stop operating or funding the site.

    Why not first require that the site it's self be warned to remove the illegal material, and then if not complying or repetitive offending require the US service providers, search engines, server hosts and advertisers to derez the site after court agreement?

    (a) Definition- For purposes of this section, a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if--
    (1) the Internet site or portion thereof is a U.S.-directed site and is used by users in the United States;
    (2) the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code; and
    (3) the Internet site would, by reason of acts described in paragraph (1), be subject to seizure in the United States in an action brought by the Attorney General if such site were a domestic Internet site.
    (b) Action by the Attorney General-
    (1) IN PERSONAM- The Attorney General may commence an in personam action against--
    (A) a registrant of a domain name used by a foreign infringing site; or
    (B) an owner or operator of a foreign infringing site.


    Since many "american" sites are hosted on "foreign" servers, are they foreign? This act is too vague! More so lets say your using a "foreign" site to host all your family photos and videos, and once customer out of thousands is also hosting US copywriter material, the site is then de-viewed, de-listed, de-funded, de-maintained = "Derezzed" by force by some request by someone without trial. No more photos and videos of little adoucette in the tub playing with GI-Joe action figures stabbing "Liberals" or a naked Barbie with a peace sign drawn on it.
     
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    LOL

    The FIRST act in the SOPA process is to NOTIFY the site.

    (3) NOTICE- Upon commencing an action under this subsection, the Attorney General shall send a notice of the alleged violation and intent to proceed under this section--

    And all of this isn't because the AG just thinks so, all actions only happen based on Court Order:

    (c) Actions Based on Court Orders-
    (1) SERVICE- A process server on behalf of the Attorney General, with prior approval of the court, may serve a copy of a court order issued pursuant to this section on similarly situated entities within each class described in paragraph (2). Proof of service shall be filed with the court.

    etc etc
     
  11. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Yes they are. They are directly contradicted by the official website of the software that you keep pointing people to, among many other sources. Meanwhile, you have no backing whatsoever for your (wrong) assertions.

    True enough, but none of that was legal. Americans can buy crack cocaine, and millions have done so - without getting arrested. That doesn't imply that buying and selling crack cocaine is legal.

    If you are arguing that individuals who use illegal software to make back-ups of DVDs strictly for their own personal use do not run any significant risk of legal troubles, then I don't disagree. That is not because their activities are legal, but because they are very difficult to police, and probably not worth the trouble and expense to the MPAA.

    If you are arguing that such implies that the practice is perfectly legal, then you are clearly wrong.

    That is why you are not able to produce a single source that actually asserts that
    bypassing copy protection on DVDs for personal back-ups is legal, and instead have to resort to these increasingly inane sideways arguments. Or, prove me wrong: give us a single source that clearly, explicitly says that the activities and products you claim to be legal, are in fact so.

    Whoever is distributing the decrypter is violating the DMCA. That's why you won't find such on any above-board American servers. You have to obtain it either from a foreign country where it is legal, or from a black-market source in the USA. Any time you use the decrypter, you are violating the DMCA (unless you obtained a prior exemption from the Copyright Board, which they will not grant for purposes of back-up copies).

    Note - yet again - that the FAQ you are mocking here explicitly warns users that the recommended decrypter (DVD43) may not be legal where they live. If you google "DVD43 legality" you will get several results clearly explaining that it is not legal in the USA.

    So, how about you either drop your assertion, or back it up? Find us a single source that clearly states that DVD43 is legal in the USA.

    And importing such into the USA is illegal, as is using the decrypting function.
     
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Sure I do.
    Millions do it every day and have been doing it for 12 years since the DMCA was passed and no one has been arrested or sued for making a backup for personal use.
    Sort of the definition of an action which is legal.

    Sure, some can do it without getting arrested, but plenty of people do get arrested and jailed for it. Every day.
    Sort of the definition of an action that is not legal.

    NO.
    You can't claim there is any risk since after 12 years of the DMCA being law you can't point to a single person who has suffered in the legal system for making backup copies for personal use.

    That's possible on the civil side, but it doesn't prove that it's illegal.

    And yet you have not the first court case to back up your assertion that it is clearly wrong.
    I'm curious, what other things do you know which are illegal, that millions of people do all the time, for over a decade, and for which no one has ever been arrested/sued?

    It's more complicated than that.
    I've explained how the fair use provision of the Copyright law and the innocent violations exclusion in the DMCA act together so that users can make backups and not worry about breaking the law.

    So why is nothing done to stop this supposed illegality?

    [potentially illegal material removed by moderator]

    No, you find a single person who has been charged with anything for downloading or running DVD43 in the US.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2012
  13. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    I see adoucette still has the idea of "illegal" confused with "charged".

    It seems that things in adoucette's world are nice and black or white: if it's illegal (like growing dope) you get arrested, charged and convicted. It's that simple, folks.

    So to all those growers out there who haven't yet been charged and convicted: it's just a matter of time, buddy. You might have been getting away with it for years or even decades, but times change, you know? You probably think it's safe to exceed the speed limit a little--no dice, pal. There's a cop waiting somewhere just for you, you criminal you.
     
  14. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    The definition of an action which is legal, is one which there are no statutes against.

    What you have there, is the definition of an action which does not incur any significant risk of prosecution. This is a different thing.

    And, for about the 20th time, we are discussing civil offenses here, so the question of arrest is entirely irrelevant.

    I don't need a court case. I have a law that clearly bans the activities in question. I'd only need a court case if I wanted to argue that there was a significant risk of prosecution.

    I'm curious - what makes you think I'm daft enough to engage in this irrelevancy? Especially right after so much time and energy spent rejecting it explicitly?

    "More complicated" in the sense that no source you can find anywhere is willing to back your assertion, you mean?

    And yet, you cannot produce a single source backing that contention.

    Meanwhile:

    http://www.fr.com/files/uploads/att...Anti-Circumvention-Trafficking-Provisions.pdf

    Makes clear that Fair Use is not a defense, per se, and that the "innocent violations" doesn't mean what you say it means. It only means that a court may decide to forgo any penalties once you are convicted, if you can show that you didn't realize that you were breaking the law, and didn't have any good way to know that what you were doing was illegal. It does not render the violations of DMCA in question legal.

    Plenty has been done - no American business can sell (or give) you the software needed to bypass the encryption. Most people are consequently unable to make back-up copies of their DVDs, and so do not.

    Brothersoft is a Chinese corporation. All the data is hosted on servers in China. If you download DVD43 from there into the USA, you are violating the DMCA.

    But, the MPAA and buddies are doing other things to clamp down on such. One of which is their support of the SOPA legislation - which you support. Had that passed, none of these websites that you keep linking us to which offer free decryption software would be viewable from within the USA.

    I haven't argued that individual users are likely to face charges for such, so that's - still - a strawman. All I've argued is that such violates the DMCA. You can go ahead and type "DVD43 legality" into Google - I guarantee you'll get results stating unequivocably that it is not legal. Nor will you be able to find any above-board American entity to supply such to you.

    For my part, I'll just content myself to note that you've now explicitly declined to even attempt to support your false assertions. Probably this is because you tried to find some, and were disappointed. And so instead you're just beating your chest and trying to manufacture distractions.
     
  15. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    The DMCA is predicated on “the authority of the copyright owner” not “whether or not [the technological measure] is a strong means of protection.” Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp.2d at 318. Thus, to whatever extent CSS may have been cracked and certain CSS keys and algorithms have been compromised by hackers and made available on the Internet, this “availability” is not sufficient, under the DMCA’s language that the measure gives access “in the ordinary course of its operation” and “with the authority of the copyright owner.”

    The DMCA, in general, is aimed at entities seeking to traffic in circumvention tools, while section 1201(a), in particular, is aimed at circumvention tools that control access to protected works. The statute is not, as Real asserts, solely intended to thwart hackers. Rather, it provides broad statutory protection against circumvention of technological measures that protect the interests of copyright owners

    That Real may have initially gained lawful access to the CSS keys by entering into a CSS License Agreement does not mean that Real is thereby exculpated from DMCA liability forever more. RealDVD uses the CSS keys and algorithms to access DVD content without deactivating, impairing or otherwise circumventing CSS to access the DVD content only in limited circumstance. The only time RealDVD accesses the CSS keys with authorization is the first time RealDVD reads a physical DVD that is inserted in the DVD Drive. Thereafter, RealDVD circumvents CSS when it accesses the DVD content from its hard drive, after having performed the “save” or “play and save” function. Every time the RealDVD product, be it Vegas or Facet, accesses DVD content from the hard drive, it does so by circumventing CSS technology and violating the access-control provision of the DMCA.
    As the court in 321 Studios found, “only licensed DVD players can legally access the CSS keys in order to play DVDs.” 307 F. Supp.2d at 1095 (emphasis added).

    Real cannot escape this liability merely because it is a CSS licensee and because RealDVD leaves CSS content encryption on the copied disks. RealDVD’s removal of other CSS protections required for authentication and bus encryption unequivocally circumvents this technology under the DMCA.​


    ...the court finds that CSS technology is an effective technological measure to prevent copying of copyrighted DVD content by the average consumer. That CSS technology has been hacked does not disturb this conclusion.​


    The court has found the only copying the copyright owners have “authorized” is temporary copying, i.e., buffering or caching, because it is a necessary part of the playback process in all DVD players.​



    Real puts forth numerous arguments as to why neither the Studios nor the DVD CCA have a legal right to prevent consumers from making personal or “backup” copies of DVDs using the RealDVD products. The court considers the various iterations of these arguments together and places them under the rubric of a “fair use” defense.

    Real contends the Studios are attempting to secure an exclusive right not expressly granted by copyright law. Real cites to the DMCA section 1201(c), which provides that “[n]othing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.” 17 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(1). Real argues that the Studios’ rights
    under sections 1201(a) and (b) are therefore limited in that they exclude the rights preserved to others under the doctrine of fair use, as an affirmative defense to copyright infringement. See 17 U.S.C. § 106 (granting copyright holder exclusive right to make copies of its work) & § 107 (“the fair use of a copyrighted work . . . is not an infringement of copyright.”). In terms of case law, Real relies on Sony Corp. of Am. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984), for the proposition that creating a personal backup copy of a purchased DVD is a fair use.

    ...Congress, in enacting the DMCA, explicitly noted that section 1201 does not incorporate Sony...

    So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.


    Because RealDVD makes a permanent copy of copyrighted DVD content, there is no exemption from DMCA liability, statutory or otherwise, that applies here. Whatever application the fair use doctrine may have for individual consumers making backup copies of their own DVDs, it does not portend to save Real from liability under the DMCA in this action.

    RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc

    Conclusion? Software that bypasses CSS, ARccOS or RipGuard to make a permanent copy is illegal to sell within the US.
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    And for which people are prosecuted.

    A statute that YOU claim exists in a 12 year old law but for which NO ONE HAS EVER been prosecuted/sued, is sufficient evidence that what you claim is illegal, is in fact legal.

    No RISK.
    This is a different thing.

    No, you need a court case to make your case that what you claim is illegal, is in fact illegal.

    My contention is that if someone was sued/arrested that they would prevail.
    The fact that no one has been sued/arrested over 12 years is pretty good evidence that the DAs and Copyright holders feel the same.


    No in that the two issues is what makes it unlikely that anyone could prevail against someone making copies for personal backup.


    Even if that were true, it's irrelevant, there is no indication on any of those sites as to nationality, and in our global marketplace where the DVD recorders come from Indonesia and the Media comes from Taiwan, who cares where the servers are located that I get my software from?


    And yet you can get it from them and dozens of other sources.

    Nope, Brotherhood would not come under the clause because it is not engaged in any piracy.


    It may very well be illegal for an American company to sell it.
    Funny, but that doesn't make it illegal to buy it.

    Nope, you can start beating your chest when someone gets sued/arrested and convicted for making backup copies, until then, you're wrong.
     
  17. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    No, that's not required. There are plenty of laws on the books which are rarely, if ever, enforced. That doesn't mean that the laws no longer exist. It just means that they rarely, or never, actually get enforced.

    No, that is only evidence that the law is not being enforced. I can't find any credible legal expert anywhere who says that the activities in question are not violations of the DMCA - can you? I've asked you many times now, and you've consistently failed to respond. Meanwhile, I have no trouble producing sources that agree with me.

    Again, if you are so confident and so respectful of copyright holders, why don't you simply call up the MPAA's lawyers and ask them if the activities in question are okay in their view? You're confident that they'll agree with you, right?

    Establishing that the risk is exactly zero qould require either infinite time, or an actual binding legal ruling explicitly stating that the activities in question are legal.

    So what you have is no significant risk (as evidenced by the lack of lawsuits over the last decade), along with clear expert legal opinions that the activities in question violate the DMCA.

    No I don't. I'm not claiming that there's any appreciable likelihood of ending up in court for backing up your own DVDs. There is no requirement that a law ever get enforced, for it to exist.

    However:

    You do actually need a court case to substantiate that claim.

    All of the legal experts I've seen clearly disagree with your contention there. The issue seems to be that building such a case would be very difficult in practice, and so not represent a useful cost-benefit balance to the MPAA (or whoever).

    Well, no.

    First of all (and for about the 20th time), the DAs are irrelevant - we're talking about strictly civil matters. All we can conclude is that the MPAA doesn't perceive it to be in its interests to bring such a suit.

    Okay, then, go ahead and find me a credible legal expert who agrees with that interpretation. It shouldn't be difficult - this is a hot topic on the internet. Here's an article from US News on the exact topic, which agrees with my position exactly:

    http://money.usnews.com/money/busin...articles/2009/09/30/is-it-legal-to-copy-a-dvd

    Plenty of tools can be found on the Internet for sale, or even free downloading, that make it reasonably easy to copy DVDs. Some even work on the stronger software that protects high-definition, Blu-ray disks. But you won't find them in stores. Producing or distributing such software would appear to be illegal in the United States. Still, many people will and already do take advantage of the software, feeling they are safe from prosecution as long as they don't distribute the content from DVDs.​

    The US government cares. If you try to distribute such softwares on an American server, they will come after you. That's why all such software is distributed from locations outside the jurisdiction of the US government.

    All of which are either outside of the jurisdiction of the US government, or are black-market pirate sites.

    But it is engaged in "enabling or facilitating copyright infringement" by distributing software for breaking the encryption on copyrighted materials.

    The DMCA explicitly prohibits the import of such tools, as well as their use. It is illegal to download it, and illegal to use it (unless you have obtained a prior exception from the Copyright Board, which does not grant exceptions for personal back-up purposes).

    I have not claimed that there is any significant likelihood of an individual being prosecuted for making personal back-up copies, despite this being a clear violation of the DMCA.
     
  18. Me-Ki-Gal Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,634
    intellectual property is a joke right ? It should be . Freedom of information now . We teach our kids that secrets are bad don't we? Fuckers stop keep secrets from me . I will get it out of you the hard way . You don't want that trust Me .

    Serious now . Intellectual property ? What is that ? You steal information from someone else to come up with the format and them deem it your own property? What a gimmick . How long that been going on ? A few hundred years ? What back to when the church didn't let common folk read the bible ? what ? when ? The first person to make bread and would not give out the recipe ?

    Greedy bastards . I want bread too
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Name one that is NEVER enforced.
    One that millions of people do daily.

    And yet all these millions of supposed violations and no one does anything about it.

    Probably.
    Since they don't do anything about it.


    Well it could start when someone gets sued/arrested.
    Since 12 years have gone by and millions of people do it daily, it's pretty much a settled issue.

    No, no one has said making back up copies is not fair use.
    Indeed they have said that they are and ruled that they are.


    And yet for you to claim that something is illegal, considering that it's being done by millions of people and for over a decade, does require at least one person to be found guilty of it.

    You do actually need a court case to substantiate that claim.

    Hard to believe considering the millions of people doing it.
    Just more self serving rationalization
     
  20. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    First action, is that why its label #3? Show the whole section not a snip-bit.

    And what actions are those?, again snip-bit tells us nothing.
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    only in certain instances and by certain classes of people
    if you assert that the general public can do so by a ruling, please cite the source and highlight the specific text



    show me something similar to the above that explicitly grants that right to the general public. in the above instance, the protected classes still cannot duplicate an entire movie, just relevant portions or clips

    you have to show in copyright law that an entire movie can be backed up by just anybody. there are motions filed but no rulings yet......

     
  22. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    adoucette:"millions are doing it"


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    In what other product would we accept being told what to do with something we buy? For instance my washing machine doesn't tell me whos clothes i can wash or when or where, i can even make money washing everyones clothes if i want. Same with every product i buy
     

Share This Page