and if indeed this has never happened is because these crimes take place behind closed doors....your house to be exact. we do not know so please go confess to the mpaa of your activities Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! you belong behind bars, pinko liberal
Right Gustav, 12 years and yet never one case presented itself to a single DA in any of the 50 states. LOL No, it's not just because it happens behind closed doors. The police raid too many houses too often and for too many reasons to not have run across this. As to your "sign", absolutely. If the FBI catches me with 10,000 copies of the latest hit in my basement, the fact that I haven't sold any yet is not a defense. Intent is KEY to the Copyright law. And a single copy for backup purposes is not illegal and that's why no one has ever been prosecuted for that.
Irrelevant. The question was whether this stuff is illegal, not whether anyone had been sued for it. And the distinction matters a whole lot. Corporate legal policies can change at any moment - the fact that the MPAA has refrained from suing people, doesn't indicate that they will not decide to do so in the future. It also doesn't mean that the DMCA doesn't give them grounds to do so. It's a red herring you are harping on for cheap rhetorical points. Silly standard - the DMCA only provides criminal penalties for circumvention that is both willful and undertaken for financial gain. Circumventing to make a back-up copy does not qualify for such, and so only exposes the circumventer to civil penalties. The fact that MPAA members don't make a habit of suing people for making back-up copies (how would they even know?) doesn't mean that the DMCA isn't on their side, should they wish to do so. Irrelevant. The question is not whether back-ups of legally-purchased DVD's constitute fair use. The question is whether the requisite bypassing of content protection systems incurred in making such a back-up is prohibited by the DMCA. Which it is - the DMCA includes several explicit expections, and making personal back-ups is not one of them. No, the assertion is that bypassing content protection for that purpose is illegal. The fact that movie studios have not seen an advantage to them in pursuing individuals who bypass content for back-up purposes - despite such being a clear violation of the DMCA - is just that.
how many posts has he made? double that number Now a more interesting challenge, how many red herrings has he made in his time on sciforums, well same formula applies.
“Although certain types of infringement scenarios are allowed as fair use and thus are effectively considered non-infringing, "personal use" copying is not explicitly mentioned as a type of fair use, and case law has not yet established otherwise.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripping#Legality According to Jessica Litman, who is a widely known expert on copyright law, even though copyright owners have always agreed that some uses are lawful, they are neither exempted or privileged in the copyright statue, nor recognized as legal by any judicial decision. http://works.bepress.com/jessica_litman/7/
Northern District Court of California Finds DVD Copying Violates the DMCA The court found that the purchase of a DVD does not grant the purchaser the authority of the copyright holder to decrypt CSS. 321 also contended that the DMCA unconstitutionally burdened the fair use rights of users of the copyrighted material. Specifically, 321 argued that users have a First Amendment right to make fair use of copyrighted works based on Eldred v. Ashcroft, 123 S. Ct. 769 (2003). The court found that this claim was too sweeping as there is no obligation that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act or the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original. Id. at 13, quoting Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F. 3d 429, 459 (2nd Cir. 2001). Thus, although the court recognized the fair use right of users, it established clear boundaries of its application. RIAA et al. says CD ripping, backups not fair use The [submitted arguments in favor of granting exemptions to the DMCA] provide no arguments or legal authority that making back up copies of CDs is a noninfringing use. In addition, the submissions provide no evidence that access controls are currently preventing them from making back up copies of CDs or that they are likely to do so in the future. Myriad online downloading services are available and offer varying types of digital rights management alternatives. For example, the Apple FairPlay technology allows users to make a limited number of copies for personal use. Presumably, consumers concerned with the ability to make back up copies would choose to purchase music from a service that allowed such copying. Even if CDs do become damaged, replacements are readily available at affordable prices. Similar to the motion picture industry, the recording industry has faced, in online piracy, a direct attack on its ability to enjoy its copyrights. And, as the Register stated in 2003, to endorse copying for the convenience of travel “as noninfringing would be tantamount to sanctioning reproduction of all works in every physical location where a user would like to use the work, e.g., the purchase of a book would entitle the user to reproduce copies for multiple locations.” Id. source In 2003, the Register based her finding that “no authority under current law … would justify an exemption to enable the making of backup copies of motion pictures on DVDs” on several features of the emerging DVD market. Id. at 107. The state of the more fully developed DVD market today has only made the argument against an exemption stronger. In my next article, I’ll really talk about converting video formats from DVD and Blu-ray to streamable media, but I’ll remind you that it is illegal today to decrypt copyrighted materials that are encrypted. Whatever the purpose, it’s simply illegal to do it. Fair use doesn’t come into play at all. The only consolation is the fact that, regardless of the power with which they are endowed, copyright holders are not likely to prosecute you for making personal backup copies, or for converting your movies to different formats so you can view them the way you want to. Source Similarly, the publisher of 2600 magazine was sued by motion picture studios for providing a link to a Web site that contained the DeCSS code, which can be used to defeat the industry-standard DVD copy protection system enabling movies to be played on a Linux-based operating system. After losing at the trial level, the magazine publisher appealed, trying to preserve his right to link to sites without being held responsible for everything on those sites. Unfortunately, the federal courts in these cases did not uphold the First Amendment rights of these publishers. In the 2600 case, the appellate court circumscribed traditionally accepted fair-use rights by declaring that these rights did not apply to the most convenient, highest-quality formats available to consumers. These examples of the content community successfully threatening and hauling into court individuals seeking to exercise traditional free speech rights demonstrate how the DMCA is flawed, and has tipped the copyright balance in a damaging way against traditional fair-use rights. Section 1201 (a)(1), for example, prohibits unauthorized access to a work by circumventing an effective technological protection measure used by a copyright owner to control access to a copyrighted work. Because the law does not limit its application to circumvention for the purpose of infringing a copyright, all types of traditionally accepted activities may be at risk. Any action of circumvention without the consent of the copyright owner is made criminal. Source The long and the short of it - DMCA makes busting encryption for ANY reason - INCLUDING making backup copies, and watching DVD's on your linux computer criminal offenses, and the film and music industry big players agree with this - they don't even want you ripping CD's that you have legitimtely purchased because they're cheap and easily replaced.
That last bit is interesting because if you play a CD with media player now it AUTOMATICALLY rips the thing to your computer (whether you want it to or not) so the question is when is "insert record company here" v Microsoft going to start?
Yes, that's what it was like back when that first case came up in 2004, but still the court only ruled on the Software. Patel 5 years later stated that users had the right to make copies based on fair use. And as to the REALITY of it, they no longer even bring the copy software makers to court on it (which is why you can buy software to copy DVDs) and no one is being prosecuted for making personal use copies of DVDs after 12 years of the DMCA.
Only, as of 2006 the following organizations: AAP: ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN PUBLISHERS AAUP: ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY PRESSES ASMP: AMERICAN SOCIETY OF MEDIA PHOTOGRAPHERS THE AUTHORS GUILD, INC. BSA: BUSINESS SOFTWARE ALLIANCE DGA: DIRECTORS GUILD OF AMERICA ESA: ENTERTAINMENT SOFTWARE ASSOCIATION IFTA: INDEPENDENT FILM & TELEVISION ALLIANCE MPAA: MOTION PICTURE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA NMPA: NATIONAL MUSIC PUBLISHERS’ ASSOCIATION PPA: PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHERS OF AMERICA RIAA: RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA SAG: SCREEN ACTORS GUILD SIIA: SOFTWARE AND INFORMATION INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION All maintained that it was their official, considered, and legal opinion that making a copy for a backup, or ripping an MP3 to take to work on an MP3 player were non fair use activities. They are of the opinion that the (unscrambling of CSS) to make a backup whether it be CD, DVD, or software Simply isn't neccessary under any circumstances. As of 2009, as a science teacher if I used scenes from a movie to teach my class, I could be held liable, because the exemption only applies to drama classes. Oh yeah, and finally this: B. Other Exemptions Considered, But Not Recommended A number of other proposed exemptions were considered, but rejected. They are briefly discussed below. Similar proposed exemptions are discussed together... ...9. All works protected by access controls that prevent the creation of back–up copies. A number of commenters sought an exemption for a class that, while described in various ways, can be summarized as “works protected by access controls that prevent the creation of back–up copies.” Proponents made assertions such as that it is common sense to make back–up copies of expensive media such as CDs and DVDs due to their alleged fragility. However, the proponents offered no legal arguments in support of the proposition that the making of backup copies is noninfringing, and the Register is aware of no authority (apart from section 117 of the Copyright Act, which relates to computer programs) in support of that notion. Nor did proponents offer facts that would warrant a conclusion that media such as DVDs and CDs are so susceptible to damage and deterioration that the practice of making preventive backup copies should be noninfringing. The unauthorized reproduction of DVDs is already a critical problem facing the motion picture industry. Creating an exemption to satisfy the concern that a DVD may become damaged would sanction widespread circumvention to facilitate reproduction for works that are currently functioning properly. The Register finds that the record does not justify the proposed exemption. Source So, breaking CSS to make back up copies of DVD's is NOT EXEMPTED under the DMCA by the government. Neither is space shifting - ripping MP3's from legitimately purchased audio CD's so you can put them on an MP3 player. I'm still digging to find out whether this was changed in 2009, but the initial indications seem to be that it was not.
i have no idea why you keep saying that making a DVD backup is legal. the above clause that you posted makes it perfectly clear.
mr dotbiz has a house full of contraband naturally he is desperate to justify his criminal activities by blaming it on his brood of vagabonds
And of course the government and the entertainment industry recognise that, at best, they can prosecute a very small percentage of infringers because DMCA is unenforceable except notionally. That is, the courts recognise the legal status of copyright (not copy write) holders and rule accordingly. I guarantee that any judge who does so also recognises that enforcement would likely mean bringing charges against millions of people. The original legal status of copyright hasn't changed despite technology allowing everyone to infringe it. Most infringers probably don't even think about it. They don't "conspire" to defeat encyption, they just download "some software". How guilty are they, and of what? Of ignoring a centuries old legal definition? Simplistic arguments, such as: "theft is theft" are pretty meaningless really.
not in regards to the law. justice is an entirely different concept. do not confuse the two. the only possible defense to the DVD question is fair use which falls under the category of justice.
Just to prove my point: Exemption to Prohibition on Circumvention of Copyright Protection Systems for Access Control Technologies The proposed classes of works listed below were received on or before December 1, 2011. The grouping of the classes mirrors the structure contained in a forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments on these proposed classes of works will be due by 5:00 PM E.S.T., February 10, 2012. ...10B Legally acquired digital media (motion pictures, sound recordings, and e-books) for personal use and for the purposes of making back-up copies, format shifting, access, and transfer. Source In other words, as of February 2012, breaking CSS to make backup copies of legally acquired digital recordings is not yet legal, but is being considered for exemption. Fingers crossed that it actually goes through this time.
an acceptable level of collateral damage the important thing here is to throw adoucette's ass in to jail and throw away the key. ja us doing the right thing for the sake of future generations the fate of the universe depends on this
