I really wish people would stop using the word "theft" to refer to copyright violation. Illegal copying isn't "theft" or "stealing," etc. It's illegal copying. The "crime" is basically the crime of illegally creating something. Smuggling a DVD out of a store under your jacket without paying is stealing. Making a copy of a DVD is not. And before everyone jumps all over me and accuses me of being anti-intellectual property, I make my living from patents, so I definitely do not have any aversion to IP...I do, however, have an aversion to using emotionally-charged terms like "theft" in inaccurate ways.
Probably, if it's patented. No. But you might be leaving yourself vulnerable to a patent-related lawsuit. Of course, this does not mean that you have stolen anything. No, that's not theft. But you should probably file a patent on your improvement, if it is non-obvious and you think it might be worth money.
So your position is that said claim - which nobody has disputed, per se - implies that the relationship between the DMCA and individual back-up ripping is qualitatively different from various other common "unenforced laws," yes? Specifically, in the sense that the legal liability for such is exactly zero? If not, what exactly are you arguing, and what is the relevance of this observation about the lack of prosecutions that you have been hammering away on for page after page after page?
You're entitled to your opinion about that, but JamesR isn't answerable to it (nor is anyone else). Whether you like it or not, he does have a clearly-defined responsibility to shield this site from various legal liabilities, on the basis of his own best judgement. His reading - like that of everyone here except yourself, as well as every expert opinion cited so far - appears to be that such software is at least in a grey area, if not clearly illegal outright. He does not appear to give any weight to your opinions on the matter, and it's difficult to blame him given the way you comport yourself (both on this specific subject and in general). I certainly wouldn't stake the legal fate of a site I was responsible for on such transparently argumentative, amateur positions. He's not going to be able to point to you as an expert legal consultant to shield himself from any liability for mismanaging affairs, should it come to that. Does it make him an oppressive authoritarian that he takes administrative actions against you without first convincing you that your (argumentative, unchangeable) position is wrong? Maybe. But I don't see where he has much alternative in this case.
You can go ahead and stop repeating yourself. This has been done to death already, and you don't seem to have anything new to say. You're just repeating yourself with increasing amounts of bolding, italics and all-caps. Nobody disagrees that Fair Use rights exist and are good things. The argument is over to what extent the DMCA tramples them. You believe that the benevolent authorities have fixed all the problems and restored Fair Use. Everyone else contends that serious problems remain. Your position is "shut up and stop questioning the benevolent authorities, there is nothing to see here." Everyone else is far more cynical about them, and demanding a clear, unequivocable restoration of Fair Use rights. As I've already mentioned, you leave JamesR no choice. You can't be reasonably, politely prevailed upon to cease creating legal liabilities for SciForums, nor is your - unique - opinion on the absense of legal liabilities convincing to anyone else. If I were you, I'd count myself lucky that I haven't already been banned like Gustav.
i am offering my opinion on this matter. what would be the cutoff on the number of friends you could show the movie to? 6? 60? more? why not invite the entire city to your "private" showing? in my opinion, if it's copyrighted no. i also believe that this should be stated on the very first page of the book. if it isn't stated then yes, you can loan the book.
Here's an interesting point. Nobody can point to the statute legislation, or case law that states that making a backup copy for personal use is fair use. There's no statute legislation that specifically deals with it, and there's no case law because it's never been tested. I mean sure, you can argue and infer until your blue in the face regarding Sony v Universal, or RIAA v Diamond or what have you, but they all dealt with time shifting, space shifting, or format shifting. Creating an exact, byte for byte copy of a DVD onto another DVD is none of these, regardless of how one might choose to justify it in their own mind. I has never been tested in court. It is an assumption, nothing more, that as near as I can tell comes about based on the assumption that the backup copy is for personal use, which combined with the de minimis argument means that duplicating it in its entirety is acceptable because that's the minimum required for backing it up for personal use. But then, that isn't neccessarily true as the MPAA demonstrated in their congressional hearing. Just a thought on the matter anyway.
Yeah, the "personal copy" aspects of Fair Use have always been something of a grey area, since well before DVDs or DMCA or anything like that. Which is exactly why everyone has been so sensitive about the impact of changes in laws with respect to them - there is no clear, unequivocable law that says it's okay, so it's in constant danger of erosion. Contrast this with the more established elements of Fair Use (excerpts for education/criticism, parody, etc.) which are explicitly excempted in the DMCA. Copyright exemptions for things like back-up copies of CDs is actually not covered by Fair Use, but rather by the Audio Home Recording Act, which has provisions for collecting a royalty tax on digital recording media which is then distributed back to copyright holders.
adoucette: I'm glad that some of what I wrote is starting to trickle through, although only gradually. Now, go back and read it one more time and see if you can absorb more about what I do and do not care about.' You have not been censored. You have been reiterating the same claims over and over in this thread. The only thing that was deleted were links to sites offering easy access to potentially illegal software. I'm not that interested in judging your morals, adoucette. As I have said - repeatedly - I am interested in protecting sciforums from potential legal liability. What is it that you find so hard to understand about that? I'd tread carefully if I were you. At some point you may step across a line. You have been warned. If that, plus several repeated explanations and elaborations, turn out to be insufficient to get through to you, then the next step is a temporary ban from sciforums.
Of course you are censoring when you are deleting the links and more importantly, you now effectively pre-censor by making people wonder what they can post, since posting a link to a site that isn't illegal can get one a warning. That when asked you can't point to any law that would in any way shape or form cause any potential legal liability for posting those links and in fact you admitted that isn't the reason: I DON'T CARE whether posting links to sites is legal or illegal. So that's a problem James since there is nothing illegal with posting those links but you give out a warning anyway. Indeed the immediate effect is for Bells to suggest that one can't post a link to sites that discuss making explosives, because the information COULD be used for making Bombs. When pushed, that the information can also be used for making Fireworks, I'm reminded that Fireworks are illegal in some countries. So that is indeed CENSORSHIP because the climate you and Bells area creating is that one can't be sure if a post crosses your invisible lines. I'd ask Gustav if he agrees with this assessment, but you banned him for 2 weeks for posting something that was widely published in the free press and that another poster linked to with impunity. But too bad for Gustav because, though totally legal, it didn't meet JAMES R's personal test of impropriety. Now you are threatening me with a ban for simply going on with posting on this issue because I may step across one of your invisible lines? And you don't think that's censorship? Friggin Amazing. So For those of you who were maybe waiting on responses to your posts, sorry. James has now upped the anti to a ban and since I can't be sure where James' lines are, I have no alternative but to exit this thread. So For all of you who continue to promote the idea that the DMCA allows a copyright holder to put a cheap lock on their property and thus override consumer's long established Fair Use rights, continue to spread that word, the MPAA really appreciates your unconditional support.
well see, that's the thing, fair use. you cannot legitimately call copying a manufactured DVD as fair use. you are essentially trying to apply the reasons for copying a floppy to copying a DVD.
Clearly the difficulty is that, in order to aknowledge such, he'd have to concede that there are potential legal liabilities associated with the software he's been promoting. And he is never going to do anything like that, argumentative as he is. As we've just seen, he'll take his ball and go home in a huff before he'll countenance admitting error. Promoting the idea that the MPAA has purchased a means of trampling individual rights from a compliant Congress is the opposite of unconditional support for them. It is a direct attack on their efforts. Promoting the idea that Congress (and the courts) can be relied upon to wisely protect individual rights from the overtures of monied, connected commercial interests - and especially, working to silence criticism of such - is exactly unconditional, vigorous support for the most nefarious aspects of the MPAA's agenda. You're a shill for authority - both government and corporate - and your silly attempt at inverting that obvious state of affairs is little more than an embarassment.
adoucette: Ok. Call it what you like. I don't mind. Your links to illegal software will be censored. Are we clear now? Right! Now you're getting it. Take a look at the sciforums site rules. In particular, look at the list of things that can get you a warning or a ban. Now ask yourself: how many of those are illegal? Is insulting people illegal? Is cross-posting to multiple forums illegal? Is creating a sock puppet illegal? Is preaching illegal? Answers, in case you're still confused: NONE of these things is illegal. But (surprise!) you can STILL be BANNED from sciforums if you do these things here. Ooh err! Censorship! Run away, run away! :runaway: Get this, adoucette: sciforums is a private website. If you post here you agree to abide by OUR rules. We will NOT be bullied by you. We are NOT obliged to allow you the "free speech" you are used to in the outside world. You came to us. We didn't come to you. You are here at our invitation, and if we decide you are no longer required we can ban you. Are you starting to understand? Correct. Yes. If you think you can't cope, maybe you should stop posting here all together. Strangely enough, many people get by here without ever receiving a warning or a ban. I wonder why. Maybe they're just smarter than you or something. He was banned TWICE previously for posting the same material. If he hasn't got the message yet, that's his problem. As for the other poster you refer to, he posted links to news stories about the offensive material, and not to the material itself. Right. It's too bad for poor Gustav that he couldn't learn the site rules after two previous instances of being banned for the same breach. Poor Gustav. I have clearly explained the lines to you. They are not invisible. I have not threatened you. If you are banned, it will be entirely as a result of your own actions. Pointing out a potential outcome is not a threat. Also, if I wanted to ban you, I would simply ban you and be done with it. There's no reason for me to make threats. sciforums is not a democracy. Nor are you entitled to absolute "free speech" here. Get used to it. If you want to toss around terms such as "censorship" in a hissy fit, then be my guest. But you won't get a policy change that way. Bye!
