Thread: Wikipedia protest shutdown

  1. #481
    Quote Originally Posted by ElectricFetus View Post
    First action, is that why its label #3? Show the whole section not a snip-bit.
    LOL, because the others had nothing to do with any actions.
    What part of UPON COMMENCING did you not understand?

    And what actions are those?, again snip-bit tells us nothing.
    The actions were listed in my previous post to you, (do try to keep up)

    This snip was to point out that the actions were already based on a Court Order (you implied that should be a change to SOPA).

  2. #482
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
    only in certain instances and by certain classes of people
    if you assert that the general public can do so by a ruling, please cite the source and highlight the specific text
    Several already posted.
    Not going to repeat myself.
    The right to make back-up copies for personal use of digital media has indeed been ruled on.

    Even Quad admits to that.

    The only contention left is, is that right superseded by the provisions of the DMCA?
    My contention is that it is not.

    The fact that no one has been prosecuted or sued under the DMCA in 12 years and the fact that the software to make these copies is readily available and has been purchased by millions of people from stores like Office Depot and Amazon supports that conclusion.

    Those who argue that it is illegal to make backup copies of DVDs have no actual court cases to justify their conclusion and thus use their own interpretation of how the courts would interpret the DMCA as it relates to non-technical users using purchased software to make fair use backup copies for their personal use and simply say that the reason it's never gone to a trial is that it's not worth it to the copyright holders or the DAs of the country to do anything about it.

    Well the other equally valid argument is that no one has been sued/arrested is simply because no one thinks they would prevail in court.

    In any case we can argue forever about what the legal result would be for a court case that has never happened, but it won't resolve the issue.

    In the meantime, given the 12 year history, it's clear that the legal system and the copyright holders are acting exactly like they would if back-up copies are legal, which leads to the conclusion that they are in fact legal, even if it is just "de facto".

  3. #483
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Several already posted.
    Not going to repeat myself.
    The right to make back-up copies for personal use of digital media has indeed been ruled on.

    please post again

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    In the meantime, given the 12 year history, it's clear that the legal system and the copyright holders are acting exactly like they would if back-up copies are legal, which leads to the conclusion that they are in fact legal, even if it is just "de facto".

    try doing 5 over the 25mph in school areas


    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    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.

    yes
    the cops are versed in copyright law




    when they see that they automatically ask if it is a legal copy
    that is the scenario that should allegedly transpire if backup copies are illegal. if it does not, backup copies are legal

    what the law says is inconsequential
    ------------------------------

    some really addlebrained shit adoucette
    i am so glad i am me
    Last edited by Gustav; 01-26-12 at 01:37 PM.

  4. #484
    Quote Originally Posted by Asguard View Post
    In what other product would we accept being told what to do with something we buy? For instance my washing machine doesn't tell me whos clothes i can wash or when or where, i can even make money washing everyones clothes if i want. Same with every product i buy

    you struggle with the concept of copyright?

  5. #485
    Valued Senior Member
    Posts
    6,956
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    The fact that no one has been prosecuted or sued under the DMCA in 12 years and the fact that the software to make these copies is readily available and has been purchased by millions of people from stores like Office Depot and Amazon supports that conclusion.
    One of the main providers of that SW - RealNetworks/RealDVD - was in fact sued under DMCA. They lost and can no longer sell their product. They also lost $4.5 million in court fees.

    So now there's precedent. The government can, and does, win lawsuits against DVD copying software companies. What effect do you think that will have on the "readily available" software?

  6. #486
    adoucette: "millions of people"


    LOLOLOLOLOL

  7. #487
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,081
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    One of the main providers of that SW - RealNetworks/RealDVD - was in fact sued under DMCA. They lost and can no longer sell their product. They also lost $4.5 million in court fees.
    http://sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=...&postcount=472

    They were going to appeal it, but ended up settling out of court - their end of the bargain was that they would retain the injunction against their software, pay DVDCCA et al 4.5M in costs, and refund their 20,000 odd customers the $19.95 they paid to purchase the software.

  8. #488
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    The right to make back-up copies for personal use of digital media has indeed been ruled on.
    For about the tenth time now, nobody disputes that back-up copies count as Fair Use. The entire point of objections to the DMCA is exactly that it abridges your ability to actually do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Even Quad admits to that.
    ... and reminds you that such is irrelevant every time you keep trying to derail back into it. Which is many times, now. Grow the fuck up.

    And my username is "quadraphonics." Do not apply any pet names to me, or you will be reported. And while you're at it, do not go around telling people what I do or do not think or say. Speak for yourself, only.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    The only contention left is, is that right superseded by the provisions of the DMCA?
    My contention is that it is not.
    The right is not superseded, but the ability to actually exercise this right is abridged. If someone sells you a DVD without copy protection, then you can make a back-up copy of that without any issues. If someone sells you a DVD with copy protection, then bypassing that protection without a waiver from the Copyright Board is a violation of the DMCA. The fact that you might have legal, Fair uses for the decrypted content is irrelevant. It's the decryption that is covered by the DMCA, not the copying.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    the fact that the software to make these copies is readily available and has been purchased by millions of people from stores like Office Depot and Amazon supports that conclusion.
    Stop lying. It has already been amply demonstrated that you cannot legally obtain decryption software from American entities. You have to illegaly acquire software from a foreign and/or black market source to decrypt DVDs. You have provided nothing material to dispute these facts.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Those who argue that it is illegal to make backup copies of DVDs have no actual court cases to justify their conclusion
    And since nobody has argued that, you are - still - attacking a strawman.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    and thus use their own interpretation of how the courts would interpret the DMCA as it relates to non-technical users using purchased software to make fair use backup copies for their personal use
    I have cited multiple expert opinions concurring with that. Stop lying.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    and simply say that the reason it's never gone to a trial is that it's not worth it to the copyright holders or the DAs of the country to do anything about it.
    DAs are - still - irrelevant to civil matters. Stop invoking irrelevancies, and instead try to develop a modicum of honor.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Well the other equally valid argument is that no one has been sued/arrested is simply because no one thinks they would prevail in court.
    Arrest remains irrelevant.

    And the validity is not equal, because it is not backed by any actual legal texts or expert opinions. That is simply your own, personal, non-expert view, which you have been noteably unable to provide any support for.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    In any case we can argue forever about what the legal result would be for a court case that has never happened, but it won't resolve the issue.
    The issue doesn't require "resolution." Everyone except you has long since seen that you are talking out of your ass, and the purpose of continued discussion is not to pursue any common position - obviously you are never, under any circumstances, going to admit to your error - but rather to further trash your general standing at SciForums by leveraging your pig-headedness to provoke pathetic displays of the sort you are so readily supplying. You should get a clue, and cut your losses by quietly retreating from this issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    In the meantime, given the 12 year history, it's clear that the legal system and the copyright holders are acting exactly like they would if back-up copies are legal, which leads to the conclusion that they are in fact legal, even if it is just "de facto".
    Hmm... I'm guessing that the above is about as close to an explicit concession of defeat as anyone is likely to extract from adoucette. I'll take it.

  9. #489
    Quote Originally Posted by billvon View Post
    One of the main providers of that SW - RealNetworks/RealDVD - was in fact sued under DMCA. They lost and can no longer sell their product. They also lost $4.5 million in court fees.

    So now there's precedent. The government can, and does, win lawsuits against DVD copying software companies. What effect do you think that will have on the "readily available" software?
    No what they did was get explicit instructions on how to sell the required software without violating DMCA.

    Let the user combine the pieces during install, since the copy program without the decryption code is legal and the govt lost the court case to prevent publishing the decryption code, so it is also readily available, and for free.

    Which is why you can buy and install software that, during the install, adds the decryption logic and then does the same thing that the Real Networks software did.

    From Amazon or Office Depot.

    And the Government isn't taking them to trial.

    Remember the magic (and the money) is in the Copy piece, not the public domain decryption logic, so the business model works just fine.

    Indeed today there are many different Copy programs to choose from with advanced features and the good ones work for all movies, including Blu-Ray.

    And of course, it was in that trial that the Judge agreed that the issue wasn't that consumers didn't have the right to make backups under fair use, only that Real Networks couldn't sell the entire PACKAGE to do it for them.

    The KEY though is the Judge made it clear to everyone listening that the issue was in selliing the decryption code, not that making backups wasn't legal, so all that remained was to figure out how to do it in a way as to not run afoul of the DMCA.

    That was easily accomplished.

    Of course I see that a few haven't heard the news, but so?

    Millions of people have and do it every day.

  10. #490
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,081
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    Arrest remains irrelevant.

    And the validity is not equal, because it is not backed by any actual legal texts or expert opinions. That is simply your own, personal, non-expert view, which you have been noteably unable to provide any support for.
    Having said that, Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested and detained for 5 months under the DMCA after talking at a DefCon Conference, Russia went as far as issuing a travel advisary against travelling to the US if you were a computer programmer because of the risks faced in doing so under the DMCA, and there was even talk of boycotting American security conferences because of this event, and the fact that companies were using the DMCA to threaten researchers and stopping them from publishing their findings.

  11. #491
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,081
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Let the user combine the pieces during install, since the copy program without the decryption code is legal and the govt lost the court case to prevent publishing the decryption code, so it is also readily available, and for free.
    That's not what the Judgement had to say:

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc
    Thus, to whatever extent CSS may have been cracked and certain CSS keys and algorithms have been compromised by hackers and made available on the Internet, this “availability” is not sufficient, under the DMCA’s language that the measure gives access “in the ordinary course of its operation” and “with the authority of the copyright owner.”
    ...
    The court has found the only copying the copyright owners have “authorized” is temporary copying, i.e., buffering or caching, because it is a necessary part of the playback process in all DVD players.
    ...
    Because RealDVD makes a permanent copy of copyrighted DVD content, there is no exemption from DMCA liability, statutory or otherwise, that applies here. Whatever application the fair use doctrine may have for individual consumers making backup copies of their own DVDs, it does not portend to save Real from liability under the DMCA in this action.

  12. #492
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Having said that, Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested and detained for 5 months under the DMCA after talking at a DefCon Conference, Russia went as far as issuing a travel advisary against travelling to the US if you were a computer programmer because of the risks faced in doing so under the DMCA, and there was even talk of boycotting American security conferences because of this event, and the fact that companies were using the DMCA to threaten researchers and stopping them from publishing their findings.
    Well it's not relevant in that he wasn't arrested for making backup copies of his DVDs but for distributing a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures.

    Why did you leave out that he was found not guilty of doing so?

  13. #493
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    No what they did was get explicit instructions on how to sell the required software without violating DMCA.
    And that was to remove any components capable of decrypting DVDs.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Let the user combine the pieces during install, since the copy program without the decryption code is legal
    That much is true.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    and the govt lost the court case to prevent publishing the decryption code, so it is also readily available, and for free.
    That case is, as a matter of fact, still open. What was lost was an injunction on publicizing the code - due to its status as a trade secret - until the final ruling occurs.

    Meanwhile, even if it is legal to distribute the source code for DeCSS, it remains illegal to compile it into a usable program, or to use that to decrypt DVDs.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Which is why you can buy and install software that, during the install, adds the decryption logic and then does the same thing that the Real Networks software did.
    But only by illegally obtaining the decryption components from foreign sources.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    From Amazon or Office Depot.
    You cannot buy any products with the ability to decrypt DVDs from Amazon or Office Depot. This has been made abundantly clear many, many times in this thread.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    And the Government isn't taking them to trial.
    Because they do not distribute any products capable of decrypting DVDs. You have to add in extra, illegal software from other parties in order to do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    And of course, it was in that trial that the Judge agreed that the issue wasn't that consumers didn't have the right to make backups under fair use, only that Real Networks couldn't sell the entire PACKAGE to do it for them.
    Moreover, nobody can legally sell (or give) the piece that decrypts the DVDs to anyone in the USA.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    The KEY though is the Judge made it clear to everyone listening that the issue was in selliing the decryption code, not that making backups wasn't legal
    Which is exactly what I've been pointing out to you every time you invoke the "copies are Fair Use" red herring, note.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    , so all that remained was to figure out how to do it in a way as to not run afoul of the DMCA.

    That was easily accomplished.
    But not in a way that leaves the end users doing the decrypting free of the DMCA.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Millions of people have and do it every day.
    And they're all breaking the law by doing so. Which is why the law is stupid and should be changed.

  14. #494
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Well it's not relevant in that he wasn't arrested for making backup copies of his DVDs but for distributing a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures.
    Which is what all of those foreign websites offering DVD43 and similar products, which you keep pointing us to, are doing. But now you agree that such distribution is, in the eyes of US law enforcement authorities, illegal on its face?

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Why did you leave out that he was found not guilty of doing so?
    No he wasn't. The charges against him were dropped in exchange for his testimony against his employer (the company actually distributing the product in question).

    It is true that his employer was subsequently found not guilty, but this was not because the product in question was determined to be legal. Rather, it was because the criminal portions of the DMCA require willfull intent to infringe, and the jury didn't find evidence of such. The result was not that Elcomsoft was allowed to continue selling the software in question without any legal worries - in fact, they had ceased doing so years before, as soon as they got a complaint from Adobe, and never resumed. For them to do so now that they are clearly aware that it is illegal, would be a willful violation and so incur criminal penalties. They, technically, still be sued in civil court, except there would be no grounds to collect any damages - as part of the investigation in the criminal case, it was discovered that their software was never used to make any actual illegal copies (probably because it was pulled off the market so quickly in the first place). For that matter, Adobe had actually withdrawn its initial complaint long before the trial ever commenced, exactly because the offending software had been removed (and the thing was turning into a PR disaster).

    http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-978176.html
    Last edited by quadraphonics; 01-26-12 at 04:51 PM.

  15. #495
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    That's not what the Judgement had to say:
    Yeah it was.

    The ruling was against Real for providing the software that could do the complete job, but she also said:

    “So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies,”

    So she zeroed in on what was illegal in the Federal Law, not the consumer making a backup, but that it was specifically the manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies that was illegal under Federal Law

    And so now none of the Domestic programs, come with the readily available decryption code embedded in the program.

    But it's no biggy, because they put the hooks in the program to call a decryption routine and the installer they supply goes ahead and puts them together, and so the company stays just outside the legal definition that Patel gave them.

  16. #496
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    Which is what all of those foreign websites offering DVD43 and similar products, which you keep pointing us to, are doing.
    Yeah, and that matters why?

    No he wasn't. The charges against him were dropped in exchange for his testimony.
    LOL,

    He worked for ElcomSoft, and a federal jury found ElcomSoft not guilty of all four charges under the DMCA.

  17. #497
    ALEA IACTA EST Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    10,081
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Well it's not relevant in that he wasn't arrested for making backup copies of his DVDs but for distributing a product designed to circumvent copyright protection measures.

    Why did you leave out that he was found not guilty of doing so?
    Why do you keep leaving out the fact that 2600 magazine is still under an enjoinder preventing them from publishing the DeCSS code?

    Why do you keep leaving out the fact the Johanssen was tried under Norwegian Law, in a Norwegian Court, and Norway is not party to the WIPO treaty that the DMCA was enacted under?

    He was still arrested. He was still held in Jail for several weeks, and detained in the US for 5 months, under the DMCA, for his role in producing the ElcomSoft E-book reader to enable users of their fair use rights.

    Aside form that - see Quad's response.

  18. #498
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    Meanwhile, even if it is legal to distribute the source code for DeCSS, it remains illegal to compile it into a usable program, or to use that to decrypt DVDs.
    Please show the ruling that says that compiling DeCSS is illegal.

  19. #499
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    Why do you keep leaving out the fact that 2600 magazine is still under an enjoinder preventing them from publishing the DeCSS code?
    LOL

    http://web.cs.dal.ca/~hannon/decss.c

    Why do you keep leaving out the fact the Johanssen was tried under Norwegian Law, in a Norwegian Court, and Norway is not party to the WIPO treaty that the DMCA was enacted under?

    He was still arrested. He was still held in Jail for several weeks, and detained in the US for 5 months, under the DMCA, for his role in producing the ElcomSoft E-book reader to enable users of their fair use rights.
    I know, it sucks to be the trial case, but Caca Occurs.

    ElcomSoft was found NOT GUILTY of violating the DMCA.

  20. #500
    Bloodthirsty Barbarian
    Posts
    9,391
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    The ruling was against Real for providing the software that could do the complete job, but she also said:

    “So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies,”

    So she zeroed in on what was illegal in the Federal Law, not the consumer making a backup, but that it was specifically the manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies that was illegal under Federal Law

    And so now none of the Domestic programs, come with the readily available decryption code embedded in the program.

    But it's no biggy, because they put the hooks in the program to call a decryption routine and the installer they supply goes ahead and puts them together, and so the company stays just outside the legal definition that Patel gave them.
    So you now unambiguously agree with everything that I've been saying for these past several pages, which you'd been petulantly insisting was all wrong.

    Progress?

Similar Threads

  1. By Trooper in forum Politics
    Last Post: 01-17-12, 11:56 PM
    Replies: 12
  2. By dbnp48 in forum Computer Science & Culture
    Last Post: 02-27-11, 08:25 AM
    Replies: 6
  3. By Ziad S Homsi in forum World Events
    Last Post: 06-23-10, 04:13 PM
    Replies: 1746
  4. By James R in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 11-21-09, 07:29 PM
    Replies: 28
  5. By madanthonywayne in forum Ethics, Morality, & Justice
    Last Post: 03-03-09, 01:37 AM
    Replies: 19

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •