Wikipedia protest shutdown

[adoucette]

They have successfully made it illegal to distribute the software required to make such a copy. I.e., we have all been pre-emptively punished, as we are deprived of such a legal ability. Instead, we'd have to break the law just to acquire the software required to make such copies.

Obviously not.
[potentially illegal material removed by moderator]

The relevant cases have already been listed repeatedly in this thread. You are simply being argumentative here.

Nope
Not one case has been listed where a court has found against a person for making a copy for personal use.

The fact remains that the DMCA says what it says, and it says that bypassing copy protection to make a personal back-up is illegal.

And yet you have not a single court decision in 12 years of the DMCA to back that up.

What you do have is the world moving on, buying and using retail software for making backup copies for personal use.

 

[Trippy]

What Hack Job?

You parse this then:

Do you not understand the difference between software that is licensed to decrypt CSS, and software that is not licensed to, but does so anyway?

Do you not understand that a license confers permission to do certain things, as long as you abide by certain conditions?

Do you not understand that when you purchase software you also purchase a license to use that software for a stated purpose, as long as you agree to abide by certain conditions?

So then this:

The Software that is available, that is not getting busted is LICENSED to decrypt CSS, which means that it is legal under the DMCA because the owner of the intellectual property has given permission for the CSS to be decrypted (by issuing a license).

But, it is still illegal to do so without permission (IE without a license), for ANY PURPOSE including (until sometime this year) making a backup copy of legaly purchased media.

Means that if I have purchased licensed software that has the stated purpose of making backups of CSS protected DVD's, then through the license that I purchase with the software, I have acquired permission from the holders of the intelectual property rights, through a third person (the creator of the licensed software, who has purchased a license to use and distribute the decryption keys) to use it for that purpose, as long as I am willing to agree to certain conditions. Everything is perfectly legal, and above board.

However, it is still illegal, under the DMCA for me to go onto the net, and download and use unlicensed software to decrypt CSS for the purpose of making a backup.

It is also still illegal for me to go onto the internet, lookup the CSS decryption keys for myself, and write my own software that will decrypt CSS for the purpose of making a personal backup.

 

[adoucette]

And the point they "illustrate" - that CSS busting software can be legally purchased and used - is incorrect. As made explicit on the actual webpage of the software recommended there, it does not work on encrypted DVDs, exactly because of DMCA concerns, and so you have to acquire an (illegal) third-party program to do the decryption if you want to use it to copy encrypted DVDs.

By all means, though: you've stated repeatedly in this thread that you make copies of your encrypted DVDs. Please point us to the legal software that you use for this purpose.

That version didn't
Others do.
[potentially illegal material removed by moderator]

 

[adoucette]

Do you not understand the difference between software that is licensed to decrypt CSS, and software that is not licensed to, but does so anyway?

Nope.
Don't think any such thing exists.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2003/12/3229.ars

Do you not understand that when you purchase software you also purchase a license to use that software for a stated purpose, as long as you agree to abide by certain conditions?

Yes and my software says explicitly that I can use it to copy ANY DVD and no such restrictions as you suggest.

However, it is still illegal, under the DMCA for me to go onto the net, and download and use unlicensed software to decrypt CSS for the purpose of making a backup.

As if such license actually existed.

It is also still illegal for me to go onto the internet, lookup the CSS decryption keys for myself, and write my own software that will decrypt CSS for the purpose of making a personal backup.

Nope
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2003/12/3229.ars

 

[leopold]

adoucette,
i'm curious.
how many times have you had the need to use one of your illegally made backups and why.

 

[adoucette]

adoucette,
i'm curious.
how many times have you had the need to use one of your illegally made backups and why.

All my backups were legally made.

After losing a DVD player and DVD to a ill placed PB&J sandwich (in the tray) my typical behavior is to make copies of DVDs that I like and may want to watch again and use the copies as the source that is in the media room.

I've had to remake several of them over the years, mostly because of playback issues, but only one for obvious physical reasons, got caught in door and scratched.

And then there are many that I've simply copied to shift format for use on the road.

 

[leopold]

All my backups were legally made.

After losing a DVD player and DVD to a ill placed PB&J sandwich (in the tray) my typical behavior is to make copies of DVDs that I like and may want to watch again and use the copies as the source that is in the media room.

I've had to remake several of them over the years, mostly because of playback issues, but only one for obvious physical reasons, got caught in door and scratched.

And then there are many that I've simply copied to shift format for use on the road.

just wanted to make sure it wasn't because of loss of data due to manufacturing defects.

 

[Gustav]

All my backups were legally made.

no they were not
you robbed hardworking folks by refusing to purchase a second copy

of all the products we own, we insist that digital media be placed in a category of its own. it should be purchased only once and is expected to last forever.

parasitic pinko thieves

After losing a DVD player and DVD to a ill placed PB&J sandwich (in the tray) my typical behavior is to make copies of DVDs that I like and may want to watch again and use the copies as the source that is in the media room.

I've had to remake several of them over the years, mostly because of playback issues, but only one for obvious physical reasons, got caught in door and scratched.

clear cases of negligence
the honorable thing to do would be to purchase a replacement

 

[arfa brane]

The pathos is rather moving, too.

You could almost publish this stuff (after copyrighting it, of course).

 

[quadraphonics]

Obviously not.
[potentially illegal material removed by moderator]

All of those programs are produced and sold in foreign countries. They are illegal to sell in the USA, and illegal to use for bypassing copy protection in the USA.

Not one case has been listed where a court has found against a person for making a copy for personal use.

And not one person here has suggested that it is illegal to make a copy for personal use. So you can stop beating that strawman to death any time now.

There are plenty of lawsuits that have been cited where a court has found against a company for distributing software that bypasses CSS. And as a result, such is illegal in the USA. The only way for Americans to make a (perfectly legal!) back-up copy of an encrypted DVD they rightfully own, is to illegally purchase prohibited foreign software, and then break the law by using it.

And yet you have not a single court decision in 12 years of the DMCA to back that up.

Yes I do. The cited cases are exactly why Americans cannot legally obtain and use the software required to bypass the encryption.

Had SOPA passed, my understanding is that Americans would have ended up unable to even obtain such software (it's pretty easy to get these days, despite being illegal).

What you do have is the world moving on, buying and using retail software for making backup copies for personal use.

But not legally.

 

[adoucette]

All of those programs are produced and sold in foreign countries. They are illegal to sell in the USA, and illegal to use for bypassing copy protection in the USA.

Obviously you are wrong.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005CELIKU/
http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/709033/123-Copy-DVD-Platinum-2012-Traditional/

And not one person here has suggested that it is illegal to make a copy for personal use. So you can stop beating that strawman to death any time now.

Ah, yes they have.

This was my personal favorite though:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2893190&postcount=232

There are plenty of lawsuits that have been cited where a court has found against a company for distributing software that bypasses CSS. And as a result, such is illegal in the USA. The only way for Americans to make a (perfectly legal!) back-up copy of an encrypted DVD they rightfully own, is to illegally purchase prohibited foreign software, and then break the law by using it.

Nope, see above.

Yes I do. The cited cases are exactly why Americans cannot legally obtain and use the software required to bypass the encryption.

Nope, see above.

Had SOPA passed, my understanding is that Americans would have ended up unable to even obtain such software (it's pretty easy to get these days, despite being illegal).

Nope, see above (Amazon is not a foreign web site so doesn't come under SOPA)

But not legally.

Obviously you are wrong since you can buy the software domestically, and the company linked to claims over 2 million users have done so, and no one has ever been charged or sued for doing so.

 

[Gustav]

adoucette's basement..........

....back in the day

 

[adoucette]

For music I still mostly listen to my vinyl collection, and I've been able to add a significant amount of very nice/diverse albums from a good used record store in town (often for just a few dollars each).

 

[Gustav]

used record store in town (often for just a few dollars each).

disgusting the way you insist on bilking hardworking artists and their families

 

[quadraphonics]

That version didn't
Others do.
[potentially illegal material removed by moderator][/url]

Those are all foreign softwares which are illegal to distribute in the USA, exactly because of the DMCA. If you purchased any of them, or used them to bypass encryption, then you broke the law.

Based on this:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/115021/court_rejects_ban_on_dvd_copying_code.html
and then this
http://w2.eff.org/news/archives/2004_02.php#001239

Those decisions don't make it legal to distribute DeCSS, nor do they offer any ruling whatsoever on how the DMCA relates to it. They only affirm that the ban on publication of DeCSS source code on grounds of trade secrets is not warranted.

It is, in point of fact, a violation of the DMCA to distribute DeCSS.

 

[adoucette]

I think the used record store owner that I help support is hardworking.
She and her husband go out and get the collections, verify their quality, put them in order by category and then run the retail store 6 days a week.

 

[quadraphonics]

Obviously you are wrong.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005CELIKU/
http://www.officedepot.com/a/products/709033/123-Copy-DVD-Platinum-2012-Traditional/

I have already explained to you that that software does not include any capability for bypassing encryption. It requires you to obtain a separate - and illegal - third-party software to do that.

Obviously you are wrong since you can buy the software domestically, and the company linked to claims over 2 million users have done so, and no one has ever been charged or sued for doing so.

That's because - for the third or fourth time now - that software explicitly excludes any banned capabilities. Despite its marketting claims to the contrary - you must obtain a separate, illegal piece of software to use that package to copy encrypted DVDs.

This is made clear on the website of the software in question, which I have already explicitly quoted here:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2894846&postcount=429

 

[adoucette]

Those are all foreign softwares which are illegal to distribute in the USA, exactly because of the DMCA. If you purchased any of them, or used them to bypass encryption, then you broke the law.

This one is distributed in the USA

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005CELIKU/

And no, I've broken no law.

Those decisions don't make it legal to distribute DeCSS, nor do they offer any ruling whatsoever on how the DMCA relates to it. They only affirm that the ban on publication of DeCSS source code on grounds of trade secrets is not warranted.

It is, in point of fact, a violation of the DMCA to distribute DeCSS.

He distributed DeCSS and was found not guilty.

 

[Trippy]

Nope.
Don't think any such thing exists.
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2003/12/3229.ars

Yes and my software says explicitly that I can use it to copy ANY DVD and no such restrictions as you suggest.

As if such license actually existed.

Nope
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2003/12/3229.ars

DVDCCA argued that publishing the DeCSS code was a misappropriation of trade secrets, and there were four cases.

Johansen was tried in a Norwegian Court under Norwegian law, so the only thing that proves is that it is legal to do it in Norway.

In the case of 2600 magazine, the magazine was banned from publishing any information regarding to DeCSS, and from hyperlinking to any websites publishing the information. The case went as far as the 2nd circuit court of appeals, but all of the rulings were in favour of the ban under the DCMA versus the first amendment and fair use rights of the jounalists to publish it.

In the case versus Pavolovich, it was ruled that Pavolovich was out of Jurisdiction - the acse was bought in California, but Pavolovich was a resident of Indiana at the time.

Which leaves us with the case against Bunner, which was (again) DVDCCA arguing that it was an illegal dissemination of a trade secret, versus Bunner's first amendment rights to republish information found in the public domain, and the ruling in that case was that it was unconstituional restraint on his freedom of expresion rights to republish information found in the public domain.

None of which has any bearing on the case that I was refering to, and have linked to, which deals with how that information is put to use.

 

[quadraphonics]

This one isn't

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005CELIKU/

And it is distributed in the USA.

I have already made it abundantly clear to you that that software does not have the ability to copy encrypted DVDs (despite its sleazy marketting claims to the contrary). You have to obtain a separate, illegal piece of software to make it do that.

How is it that you require 4 or 5 repetitions of simple, obvious facts before you cease making unsubstantiated, incorrect assertions?

And no, I've broken no law.

If you obtained and used software capable of bypassing DVD encryption without obtaining an explicit exemption from the Copyright Board, then you violated the DMCA.

If you'd like to put your money where your mouth is, I challenge you to contact the MPAA's legal representatives, tell them exactly what you've done with which software and which DVDs, and ask them whether they consider that to be free and clear of the DMCA.

And yet he was found not guilty.

The case is still open - all those rulings indicate is that the injunction on the basis of trade secrets was not warranted. They say nothing about the DMCA.