So is that the level of discussion we are limited to Bells? If something is illegal or controlled in any area of the world we can't discuss it here? That on a Science based site it's now wrong to link to sites that explain how to make fireworks or to discuss the formulations for the flash powders used in fireworks because in some areas of the world Fireworks can't be sold to the public. Really?
NO I was very happy when the Chamberlain ruling came out because it finally shed some sanity on this issue. This was KEY: Which says your "plain language" conclusion that the DMCA makes circumvention illegal on its own is not true when the person is doing something which is an authorized use under long standing principles of copyright law No I found it, up until Chamberlain, a muddled mess, tilting towards the always restrictive desires of the MPAA, among many on the way to interpret the legislation oriented towards stopping piracy. No, I've always thought that Congress was ill advised to go after Piracy in this manner. Another poster has pointed out in another thread that this is not even technically feasible to do. And I do think the confusion over the DMCA and it's applicability toward's fair use has unfairly prevented lots of people from easily invoking their fair use rights, and always have thought so. I have no problem with actions taken against people who are pirating and making money off the work of others. Indeed I support Congress' attempt to come up with a reasonable way to make Piracy unprofitable. Fair use is NOT piracy however. I also believe in the inclusion of "innocent violations" clauses to make sure that the laws aren't in fact heavy handed, or as in SOPA, only targeting sites that have little other use besides piracy, the requirement for the AG to get a court order (no unilateral imposition of penalty), the importance of not including a burdensome monitoring provision, the inclusion or reasonable times to act after notice and not messing with the DNS system, etc. And yet I'm the main one who is arguing (over and over and over) for the existence of individual Fair Use rights in regard to DVDs in this thread and have received a warning for attempting to do so. You know by posting links to sites that you specifically claimed were possibly illegal to link to. So the only one I can see who believes in heavy handed authoritarian actions and overreach would be you, James and Bells.
No Bells, to get the streamed copy from NetFlix one has to pay for it. So one isn't stealing it. Indeed, since circumvention isn't infringement, it is no different than ordering a Movie on Demand from your Cable company and saving it to your hard drive, for time shifting reasons. Time Shifting was approved as Fair Use in the BetaMax decision. Which is why we can record things off of the air and cable. What you are advocating is that ANY copyright holder could put any trivial "lock" on their material and by doing so take away our rights under Fair Use. But the court specifically ruled against that interpretation: But you can't withhold authorization for Fair Use (to do so would indeed grant new property rights to copyright holders), proof of this is our multi-decade long ability to copy any audio/video media we buy for our personal use of backup, time shifting or format shifting. (all of which were fought by the MPAA or RIAA and in every fair use case they lost) And nearly everyone has now agreed that copies for personal use for backup, time shifting or format shifting are NON-INFRINGING. No you haven't because there IS no CASE LAW on this specific issue. If you think there is, please cite the case where someone has even been tried for making personal use backups of a DVD. And I've provided Court opinions that show that your interpretations are wrong. Specifically this: It also instructs the courts explicitly not to construe the anticircumvention provisions in ways that would effectively repeal long standing principles of copyright law Which is EXACTLY what your interpretation would do. Repeal long standing principles of copyright law. Now you are just lying Bells. I never said I did any such thing, nor have I said that distributing copies to ANYONE was a legal fair use. Not one of my arguments has been about extending our rights under Fair Use.
I don't recall saying they were, only suggesting that some, buy design, were and that the BTFA classified some as explosive devices.
Only if you are a fucking illiterate--which, obviously, YOU ARE. I'm not even gonna bother responding to the rest of that, because... well, YOU CAN"T READ. Here's a tip, Arthur. When a sentence--note: I said A SENTENCE there; rather A SENTENCE--is separated by COMMAS or SEMI-COLONS, a reader ought to consider it in entirety, and not simply pick out phrases and clauses and respond to them as though they are completely and entirely representative of what is being expressed. UNDERSTAND? DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, ARTHUR? OR NEED I USE A BIGGER FONT? i know one isn't supposed to request these things, but can a moderator please--PLEASSSSEEEE--ban this fucking idiot?
Actually, I'll respond to this bit--and take it out of context: Oh, really, retard? What, your whole fucking post and my whole fucking post isn't enough context for you? Do you need me to quote the entire fucking thread in my post? GO FUCK YOURSELF, you pathetic loser.
You wrote: So that use of the Semicolon comes under THIS description of usage: So that's how I took your use of a semicolon, to separate items in a list when some of the items themselves contain commas. So I read that tortured sentence as maybe I'm saying that one shouldn't buy major label releases as one in a list of things you are saying I shouldnt do if I think my actions are going to support the artist. More to the point, even if I did misunderstand your tortured sentence structure, you have the right to correct my misunderstanding, but that doesn't give you the right to post this childish kind of childish BS: I was being civil to you, there is no call for this kind of response.
Yes, and you believe that a copyright holder can put a cheap lock on their work and by doing so negate our long standing usage rights under the doctrine of Fair Use. BUT The court said just the opposite: the DMCA emphatically did not“fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers Well if that's the case, and consumers have been able to make back-up copies and shift formats for EVERY one of the many analog and digital audio or visual media they have bought since tape-recorders were invented, in other words over at least the last 5 decades, it is self evident that consumers would obviously have the REASONABLE EXPECTATION that they could do also so with their DVDs. Consider my 30 year old daughter. Never in her lifetime has there been any restriction on copying any of the Analog of Digital versions of audio or video or software media that she has ever purchased under Fair Use. How could the same Fair Use rights for the DVDs she buys not be a reasonable expectation? And that issue was further expounded on: The DMCA does not create a new property right for copyright owners. Nor, for that matter, does it divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public. YES, as pointed out, LONG GRANTED TO THE PUBLIC. And the Court similarly warned, that the statutes in the DMCA, were NOT intended to be used in ways to repeal these LONG STANDING PRINCIPLES It also instructs the courts explicitly not to construe the anticircumvention provisions in ways that would effectively repeal long standing principles of copyright law. Which is EXACTLY what you claim it does.
I'll say. I doubt I'll still be at this two weeks from now, but do feel free to catch up with some more of your attempts at being clever.
I understand. Take the rest of the list items out and you have: Or, maybe I'm saying that one shouldn't buy major label releases and then act as though one's actions are "supporting the artists." So you ARE saying if I want to support "the artists" I shouldn't buy releases from the major labels.
Your fondness for substandard Disney fare obviously hasn't served you well--at least, in so far as your comprehension of the English language goes.
Is that what one ordinarily does when the list includes "and"? Edit: This post does not make a whole lotta sense now, as the post to which I was responding was subsequently altered.
They were multiple items in a list separated by semicolons. I put the first item from the list (Blue) and included the and along with what follows the last item in the list(RED). So this statement should stand on it's own. It's just easier to read this way, but when I commented on your post, I did indeed deal with each item in your list. Or, maybe I'm saying that one shouldn't buy major label releases and then act as though one's actions are "supporting the artists." So you ARE saying if I want to support "the artists" I shouldn't buy releases from the major labels.
No, I just think it's insane that I wouldn't be allowed to watch my legal DVD with friends. I'm not allowed to lend someone a book a own either?
No it wasn't. You were responding to post 771 and it has not been edited. Nor has the original reply 754 been edited.
So in your idea of how the world works, you couldn't invite your girlfriend over to watch a movie legally. YIKES You sure have a very restrictive view of Fair Use.
I didn't suggest that you did alter post 754. Regardless, do you honestly think that either your formulation above or mine means the same as "So you ARE in fact saying I shouldn't support artists because they sign with major labels"? Seriously? I can only conclude one of two things from your exchanges here--both with me and with other posters: Your are simply an idiot. If this is the case, then I apologize. Your distortions and misconstruals are deliberate, in which case you are simply a prick. And I can only hope that you will be brutally ass-raped until you finally succumb to old age--figuratively speaking, of course. Either way, I'm bored.
No, you suggested I altered post 771, the one you were responding to, but it has not been edited. So the fact that your post makes no sense is all on you. How are they not the same? I want to support the artists but I only have a limited amount of money to spend on entertainment. But you say that if I spend my entertainment money on artists on major labels than I can't claim that I'm supporting "the artists". And do try to quit fantasizing about my ass.
why? how do you think such things like this are decided? adoucette claims it's legal, and it is . . . in HIS country. i think it's clearly obvious that what is needed is a universal copyright law. the only way to get that is to thrash this out, item by item.
