Wikipedia protest shutdown

[adoucette]

yeah
just one in a series of takedowns and convictions sans sopa and pipa, mind you

Yeah, Feds didn't need SOPA because they had a server in Virginia.

SOPA targets pirate sites totally off-shore.

[Gustav]

Nope.
Unlike your rants, I actually produce external support for my position.

And Fair Use is determined by the courts

yeah?
and what has been established?

4. What's been recognized as fair use?

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

do you see proprietary content from movie studios included?
why do you pretend it has?

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

and just who do these lawyers represent?
communists like you right?

[Gustav]

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

the networks do reruns. the studios release on dvd. it is still not enough for communists like adoucette. they demand with a warped sense of entitlement, that they decide when, where and how they view commercial and proprietary content.

[Gustav]

edit:
another interesting point is the region code.
i remember when the monkey was still here he started a thread that requested a way to circumvent the region code.
when he was in the US he purchased some DVDs that he was taking back to finland with him and therefor would be unplayable.
i personally felt he had every right to circumvent the code in this situation.
due to sciforums policy he had to get the info through PM, apparently **. ********* gave it to him.
i stand behind the monkey AND **. ********* in this regard.

i see
we have a legal precedent

Mr Adoucette Dotbiz is peddling software that circumvents encryption
what do the powers that be do now?

[leopold]

i see
we have a legal precedent

not so fast.
i also feel he should treat those DVDs as if he still lived here.
US law pertains to them, not finlands.

[adoucette]

yeah?
and what has been established?

4. What's been recognized as fair use?

Courts have previously found that a use was fair where the use of the copyrighted work was socially beneficial. In particular, U.S. courts have recognized the following fair uses: criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, research and parodies.

In addition, in 1984 the Supreme Court held that time-shifting (for example, private, non-commercial home taping of television programs with a VCR to permit later viewing) is fair use. (Sony Corporation of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984, S.C.)

do you see proprietary content from movie studios included?
why do you pretend it has?

Movies are shown as television programs Gustav, so yes they are included.

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

and just who do these lawyers represent?
communists like you right?

Nope, you too can copy a DVD to make a backup.

[adoucette]

i see
we have a legal precedent

mr adoucette dotbiz is peddling software that circumvents encryption

liar

[Gustav]

liar

alright
Mr Adoucette Dotbiz encourages circumventing copyright protection schemes by advocating the use of illegal software

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

(3) As used in this subsection —

(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

i believe adoucette and his comrades are plotting the downfall of western civilization in order to establish a socialist paradise

[adoucette]

Nope, as previously pointed out:

The basic message of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is that it is illegal to break the CSS copy-protection mechanism employed in commercial DVD movies. Since this in some ways contradicts U.S. Copyright Law, this creates some confusion as to what you can and can’t do. DMCA states that not only is it illegal to copy protected DVDs, but you cannot copy a commercial DVD, even for personal use, give a copied DVD to someone to use or watch copied DVD files on your computer.

In recent years, DMCA has slackened its stance on copying protected DVDs for personal use, though it stills remain adamant about the distribution of copied DVDs. The stance is now much the same as the U.S. Copyright Law, in that you can copy protected DVDs for personal use.

[leopold]

In recent years, DMCA has slackened its stance on copying protected DVDs for personal use, though it stills remain adamant about the distribution of copied DVDs. The stance is now much the same as the U.S. Copyright Law, in that you can copy protected DVDs for personal use.

the notion of a "backup copy" comes from the floppy disk era.
there was a real and legitimate concern over loss of data with such media, even when kept in its protective case.

a DVD will experience no such loss if kept in its protective case.

[leopold]

another real life scenario:
some time ago i purchased visual basic.
after installing said purchase i laid the CD on the couch.
along came my big fat butt and promptly sat on it.
i heard the muffled sound of the CD breaking and wondered "what the hell did i sit on?"
anyway, the CD was ruined, useless.
i found someone here at sciforums that was willing to help me.
so, through a series of PMs that gave the particulars including my key code for the original CD, i was able to get my software replaced free of charge.

in my opinion nothing illegal happened here.

[Gustav]

In recent years, DMCA has slackened its stance on copying protected DVDs for personal use, though it stills remain adamant about the distribution of copied DVDs. The stance is now much the same as the U.S. Copyright Law, in that you can copy protected DVDs for personal use.

if that involves circumventing encryption, no you cannot
that is what has been ruled illegal. it is pointless to blather about fair use when that involves criminal conduct.

please stop sabotaging our economy with socialist plots and schemes
stop destroying the livelihood of hard working american families
what the hell is wrong with you!!

[adoucette]

Nope.

The DCMA included this escape clause:

(5) Innocent violations. —

(A) In general. — The court in its discretion may reduce or remit the total award of damages in any case in which the violator sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a violation.

And it included criminal penalties ONLY for copying for profit.

1204. Criminal offenses and penalties5

(a) In General. — Any person who violates section 1201 or 1202 willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain —

So the net effect is simply that backups for your own use are not prosecuted under the DCMA.

If you think they have been, then post a case where someone has been charged with violating the DCMA by making a backup copy for only their personal use.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html#1201

[leopold]

So the net effect is simply that backups for your own use are not prosecuted under the DCMA.

"not prosecuted" is not the same as "not illegal".
there have been a number of times, not many, that i have had a joint confiscated and was not prosecuted for it.

let's not confuse justice with legality.

[adoucette]

"not prosecuted" is not the same as "not illegal".
there have been a number of times, not many, that i have had a joint confiscated and was not prosecuted for it.

let's not confuse justice with legality.

I don't.

But marijuana laws don't have an "Innocent violations." clause like the DMCA does

(A) In general. — The court in its discretion may reduce or remit the total award of damages in any case in which the violator sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a violation.

Because backups for personal use ARE specifically allowed under US Copyright laws this provides a "safe harbor" for anyone making of personal copies just for backup use.

[leopold]

I don't.

But marijuana laws don't have an "Innocent violations." clause like the DMCA does

(A) In general. — The court in its discretion may reduce or remit the total award of damages in any case in which the violator sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a violation.

this is an act of justice.

Because backups for personal use ARE specifically allowed under US Copyright laws this provides a "safe harbor" for anyone making of personal copies just for backup use.

i believe i have already pointed out the original intent of "backup copy".
in this circumstance a backup is totally unwarranted.
the ONLY conceivable reason for a DVD backup is against breakage.
negligence isn't the fault of the courts or the copyright owner.

[adoucette]

this is an act of justice.


i believe i have already pointed out the original intent of "backup copy".
in this circumstance a backup is totally unwarranted.
the ONLY conceivable reason for a DVD backup is against breakage.
negligence isn't the fault of the courts or the copyright owner.

LOL, you obviously don't have kids.

There are legitimate reasons for making a back-up copy of any digital media, which is why a personal copy is allowed under Fair Use.

[leopold]

LOL, you obviously don't have kids.

There are legitimate reasons for making a back-up copy of any digital media, which is why a personal copy is allowed under Fair Use.

unfortunately i must agree with you, but not for what you may think.
i do believe backups should be allowed, but only for historical reasons, to preserve history.

as far as children go, i believe i've mentioned negligence isn't the fault of no one except the purchaser.
my child would either take care of the DVD or they would do without.

[Trippy]

my child would either take care of the DVD or they would do without.

...I would never...

You know most of those 'I would never' statements change once you have kids, right?

[Trooper]

...I would never...

You know most of those 'I would never' statements change once you have kids, right?

The one that really turns around and bite you in the ass is "My kids would never do that."