Thread: Wikipedia protest shutdown

  1. #521
    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    She did not mention "a company." What she said was, verbatim:



    This is very clear: any entity (company, individual, or otherwise) who manufactures or traffics in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies, is violating the DMCA.
    And I don't believe that any court in the country would consider your installation of the copy program "manufacturing".

    Support for that conclusion is that no one has ever been taken to court/sued for doing so.


    No, what you are describing is exactly the (prohibited) manufacture of such a tool. Which the judge just clearly indicated is a violation of the DMCA.
    Only with a very LIBERAL definition of manufacture.

    But the laws are taken in context, as the previous ruling indicates that consumers weren't expected by congress to lose their rights of making back-up copies, and so your interpretation clearly goes 180 degrees against what the court has said was the INTENT of the law.

    Courts are loathe to split hairs such as you are doing and find someone guilty (of a potentially huge fine and long term imprisonment) for something which they have ALWAYS HAD THE RIGHT TO DO on such a bizarre interpretation of a law. Particularly when no one is being harmed by them doing so.
    Which is KEY to any interpretation of the law.
    No one is being harmed by someone making backup copies of a DVD for their personal use and more importantly for the interpretation of the DMCA there is NO INDICATION that this practice is what congress was attempting to prevent.

    READ THE RULING I POSTED.
    The judges make it quite clear that they are concerned with INTENT of the law.

    Do you really think Congress meant for people to lose the ability to make backups and shift formats of the digital data they legally purchased?
    Which are EXACTLY THE SAME THINGS they can do with all OTHER entertainment or Software media data they purcase, like Programs, Audio CDs and VCR tapes?

    Of course that wasn't their intent.
    As explained in the previous cited ruling.
    Your opinion to the contrary means diddly squat.

    It does not, liar. For about the 20th time: both our interpretations hold that individual users being taken to court for making back-ups is extremely unlikely. There is no difference between our positions in that regard, and so no way to use such as a razor to distinguish them.
    Sure there is.
    I say they aren't being taken to court because what they are doing is not illegal.
    You are saying that millions of people are doing illegal things every day but none of them are ever taken to court because all the DAs of the country and all the Copyright holders have gone to sleep.
    Last edited by adoucette; 01-27-12 at 08:58 PM.

  2. #522
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,317
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    And I don't believe that any court in the country would consider your installation of the copy program "manufacturing".
    ...
    Only with a very LIBERAL definition of manufacture.
    No, not really, we can go with the Merriam Webster definition:

    1: something made from raw materials by hand or by machinery

    3: the act or process of producing something

    In installing software, you are manufacturing (by assembly) a new tool from its component parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    You are saying that millions of people are doing illegal things every day but none of them are ever taken to court because all the DAs of the country and all the Copyright holders have gone to sleep.
    Or, the copyright holders have read the writing on the wall, and have given up chasing them because of 10A and 10B.

  3. #523
    One more time.

    D.The Statute and Liability under the DMCAThe essence of the DMCA’s anticircumvention provisions is that §§ 1201(a),(b)establish causes of action for liability. They do not establish a new property right.

    The DMCA’s text indicates that circumvention is not infringement, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(c)(1)(“Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.”), and the statute’s structure makes the point even clearer.

    This distinction between property and liability is critical. Whereas copyrights, like patents, are property, liability protection from unauthorized circumvention merely creates a new cause of action under which a defendant may be liable.


    Like all property owners taking legitimate steps to protect their property, however, copyright owners relying on the anticircumvention provisions remain bound by all other relevant bodies of law. Contrary to Chamberlain’s assertion, the DMCA emphatically did not“fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers

    The most significant and consistent theme running through the entire legislative history of the anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA, §§1201(a)(1),(2), is that Congress attempted to balance competing interests, and “endeavored to specify, with as much clarity as possible, how the right against anti-circumvention would be qualified to maintain balance between the interests of content creators and information users.” H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, at 26 (1998).

    The Report of the House Commerce Committee concluded that § 1201 “fully respects and extends into the digital environment the bedrock principle of ‘balance’ in American intellectual property law for the benefit of both copyright owners and users.”

    CONCLUSION

    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. The anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA create new grounds of liability. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused circumventor must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the circumvention at issue and a use relating to a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization—as well as notice that authorization was withheld. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused trafficker must demonstrate that the trafficker’s device enables either copyright infringement or a prohibited circumvention.
    EVERYONE HAS AGREED that Users have the right to make backup copies of their Digital Media.

    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics View Post
    For about the tenth time now, nobody disputes that back-up copies count as Fair Use.
    (bolding mine)

    YES.
    It is allowed as Fair Use under Copyright law and Courts have affirmed it for Digital data (exact copies) and for Software and both as backup and for format shifting.

    This ruling also made it CLEAR that from a Copyright holders perspective they could NOT sue for CIRCUMVENTION because:

    circumvention is not infringement

    Thus if you are making copies of your DVDs for personal use or time shifting, there is NO LEGAL BASIS to be sued by the holder of the Copyright.

    Which leaves the Feds to bring charges based only on circumvention.

    But the whole POINT of the DMCA was to protect the rights of the holders of Copyright.

    As Gustav's post made clear:



    BUT, as explained above it is CLEAR that one is NOT infringing on the Copyright when one circumvents the CSS to make a copy of a DVD or shifts it to another format.

    So one DOESN'T come under this FBI posted warning because one is NOT infringing.

    WHICH IS THE KEY TO THIS.

    There is NO LEGAL BASIS for the Feds to charge someone under a Copyright Protection act for doing something that is NOT INFRINGING someone's copyright..

    Only a BIZARRE and very anti-Consumer interpretation of the DMCA (like several of your are suggesting) would justify using that law that was designed to prosecute Copyright violations against someone who is NOT violating anyone's Copyright.

    More to the point, that Court ruling points out that isn't the intent of the DMCA law at all:

    the DMCA emphatically did not“fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers

    And

    Nor, for that matter, does it divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public.

    Which clearly indicates the courts would not permit that kind of a bizarre interpretation to stand (the courts look at INTENT, not just the actual words)

    Indeed, as an added measure to prevent that possible interpretation, the safe harbor of the "Innocent Violations" clause was inserted in the DMCA by Congress and there is nothing more innocent than using a copy program to make Fair Use backups of your DVDS.
    Last edited by adoucette; 01-29-12 at 12:33 PM.

  4. #524
    Omg! Omg!

    Lolololol!

  5. #525
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    One more time.
    a proposal made in 2000 by a slew of adoucette's comrades....





    ended with a desperate plea to rape content creators up the ass.....




    funny how mr dotbiz passes that off as a ruling by a librarian

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    EVERYONE HAS AGREED that Users have the right to make backup copies of their Digital Media.
    yeah
    so you commies go to a bar, get drunk and agree on something
    that is miraculously enacted into law instantly

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    It is allowed as Fair Use under Copyright law and Courts have affirmed it for Digital data (exact copies) and for Software and both as backup and for format shifting.

    bullshit
    cite the specific court cases. copyright law only allows certain classes of people in certain instances in a very specific manner to circumvent and reproduce......

    (1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

    (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;

    (ii) Documentary filmmaking;
    (iii) Noncommercial videos
    http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/L...Statement.html



    short portions not entire movies. as the librarian affirmed in his ruling in july 2010......

    This is the fourth time that I have made such a determination. Today I have designated six classes of works. Persons who circumvent access controls in order to engage in noninfringing uses of works in these six classes will not be subject to the statutory prohibition against circumvention.


    circumvention is allowed under very specific circumstances.

    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    So one DOESN'T come under this FBI posted warning because one is NOT infringing.
    read
    did you get authorization to backup?

  6. #526
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,317
    It seems to me that Chamberlain v Skylink has either been misunderstood, or misrepresented.

    Also note that Chamberlain v Skylink is 2003/2004 where the Real Media case was from 2009.

    Some additional info on Chamberlain v Skylink and what it actually means:
    http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/Chamberlain_v_Skylink/

    Chamberlain v Skylink might justify busting the region key on a DVD player (a form of DRM included under the DMCA) to play a legally imported DVD, however...

    Meanwhile, Roxio, a major manufacturer of CD and DVD writing software have this to say on the matter:
    http://forums.support.roxio.com/topi...o-back-up-dvd/

    Presumably Roxio have sought legal advice on this matter to find out where they stand in relation to the DMCA.

  7. #527
    from the roxio forums by brendon......

    For this reason Roxio software cannot break protection on DVDs, and people on the Roxio boards are not allowed to discuss ways which might encourage or help you to break that law.

    Thanks very much for your understanding on this awkward matter. I need to lock this topic now, in case someone says something that we might be prosecuted for.



    remove all links provided by adoucette that point towards hacks.
    then hang him
    thanks

  8. #528
    since you mods are thick as bricks...that would be a metaphorical hanging
    a rhetorical flourish
    pretend
    virtual
    figure of speech

  9. #529
    Moderator note: adoucette has been officially warned for promoting illegal activities.

    Several posts have been edited to remove links to sources of illegal software.


    ---

    Further advocacy of lawbreaking may lead to a ban from sciforums.

  10. #530
    Quote Originally Posted by James R View Post
    Moderator note: adoucette has been officially warned for promoting illegal activities.

    Several posts have been edited to remove links to sources of illegal software.


    ---

    Further advocacy of lawbreaking may lead to a ban from sciforums.
    How vindictive can you get James?

    This really is a new low for you.

    There was NOTHING illegal about posting those links James nor can you produce ANY evidence to support your assertion that the software they sell is illegal.

  11. #531
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post
    read
    did you get authorization to backup?
    Except Fair Use does NOT require authorization.

    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics
    For about the tenth time now, nobody disputes that back-up copies count as Fair Use.

  12. #532
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    It seems to me that Chamberlain v Skylink has either been misunderstood, or misrepresented.
    Not at all.

    What part of circumvention is not infringement did you not understand?

    Now combine that with several previous rulings I've posted that upheld the right for consumers to make exact digital copies of their digital media for personal use or format shifting and tell me what legal basis would a Copyright holder have to sue someone for making a fair use copy of their DVD?

    Can they sue for infringement because someone circumvented the CSS?

    NO

    Because the ruling specifically said that: circumvention is not infringement.

    Could they sue because they didn't give authorization for making a copy?

    NO

    What the court said regarding that in relation to the Copyright holder:

    A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused circumventor must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the circumvention at issue and a use relating to a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization


    But as has been pointed out over and over:

    Quote Originally Posted by quadraphonics
    For about the tenth time now, nobody disputes that back-up copies count as Fair Use.
    Which means that is a use that the Copyright holder can't withhold authorization for.

    Which brings us to the DMCA

    The intent of Congress for this law which was to protect Copyright holders against Copyright Violations:

    But as the ruling points out that isn't a legal issue since Consumers making Fair Use copies is not a Copyright violation.

    The Court also makes this clear that this was NOT the intent of the DMCA.

    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.

    So where are we left?

    I've proved via Federal Court Rulings the following:

    Making Exact Digital Copies of Digital Media you own for your personal use, for either backup or format Shifting is legal.

    That circumvention by itself does not equal infringement of Copyright.

    That: a copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused circumventor must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the circumvention at issue and a use relating to a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization.

    But: 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.

    So a Copyright holder can not withhold authorization for making personal backups or format shifting.

    Thus the DMCA does not apply to people doing so since they aren't in fact infringing on anyone's copyright because as the judge ruled: the DMCA emphatically did not “fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers.

    Which explains why there has been no legal action of any sort against anyone for making personal use backups/format shifting of their DVDs.

    In over a decade since the passage of the DMCA.

    Since if I continue James will probably use this as his pathetic excuse to ban me so you can continue with this discussion on your own.

  13. #533
    Quote Originally Posted by Gustav View Post


    funny how mr dotbiz passes that off as a ruling by a librarian

    Nope, that issue was covered in the previous cited case:

    disabling a burglar alarm to gain “access” to a home containing copyrighted books, music, art, and periodicals would violate the DMCA; anyone who did so would unquestionably have “circumvent[ed] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].” § 1201(a)(1). The appropriate deterrents to this type of behavior lie in tort law and criminal law, not in copyright law.

    Yet, were we to read the statute’s “plain language” as Chamberlain urges, disabling a burglar alarm would be a per se violation of the DMCA.

    In a similar vein, Chamberlain’s proposed construction would allow any manufacturer of any product to add a single copyrighted sentence or software fragment to its product, wrap the copyrighted material in a trivial “encryption” scheme, and thereby gain the right to restrict consumers’ rights to use its products in conjunction with competing products.16

    In other words, Chamberlain’s construction of the DMCA would allow virtually any company to attempt to leverage its sales into aftermarket monopolies—a practice that both the antitrust laws, see Eastman Kodak Co. v. ImageTech. Servs., 504 U.S. 451, 455 (1992), and the doctrine of copyright misuse, normally prohibit.

  14. #534
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    How vindictive can you get James?

    This really is a new low for you.

    There was NOTHING illegal about posting those links James nor can you produce ANY evidence to support your assertion that the software they sell is illegal.
    You posted links which would allow someone to copy DVD's.. ie.. cloning or 'ripping' tools to back up a DVD for example. I will assume you linked to 'back up' one you purchased yourself. Now, for private use, creating a back up is not illegal. But in the US, owning software which allows for said 'cloning/ripping/back-up' is illegal.

    In the case of RealNetworks Inc v DVD-Copy Control Association Inc (2009), Judge Patel granted the injunction to the movie studios and Judge Patel was clear in granting that injunction:

    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. See id. at 1125 (“while it is not unlawful to circumvent for the purpose of engaging in fair use, it is unlawful to traffic in tools that allow fair use circumvention.”).


    Page 39


    Do you understand now why your posting links to software that allows one to make back-up copies of DVD's, for example, could be deemed illegal? You don't want to be seen to be trafficking such software on this site, do you? After all, you provided several links to different sites which offered a range of services which would allow people to copy DVD's.. The distribution of such software is illegal in the US, so I am curious as to why you are linking them here, knowing there are many members who are from the US..

    That is why your links were deleted. Because the content of those links could constitute a breach of US Federal law.

  15. #535
    Quote Originally Posted by Bells View Post
    But in the US, owning software which allows for said 'cloning/ripping/back-up' is illegal.
    No such US law exists, indeed none can because there are in fact DMCA exemptions that specifically allow making copies.

    Indeed what the act say has nothing to do with owning the software, only its use:

    `(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
    `(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).
    Nothing about owning, only about use, and as explained by the 2004 case law, Fair use is NOT infringing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bells
    Do you understand now why your posting links to software that allows one to make back-up copies of DVD's, for example, could be deemed illegal?
    No Bells, there is no US law which makes linking to those sites illegal.

    That's really pretty silly.

    But the fact is just posting a few of the results of a Google search on "DVD Copy Software" is what got me a warning?

    Really?

    I'm curious can you think of ANY OTHER CASE where posting some of the results of a Google Search would get me a warning?

    I mean I've seen just about EVERYTHING imaginable linked to on this forum, including personal nudity by the members, but it would seem that if you don't put the image in-line no one is slapped down for any links.

    Was this a FIRST, or do you have any case, outside of spam, where someone else has gotten a warning for posting a link to a site?

    You don't want to be seen to be trafficking such software on this site, do you?
    No more than posting a link to any site means one is trafficking in what ever they may be selling.
    Clearly a totally BS interpretation of the term "trafficking"

    After all, you provided several links to different sites which offered a range of services which would allow people to copy DVD's..
    Yes, to show they are available for purchase by American consumers.
    So?

    The distribution of such software is illegal in the US, so I am curious as to why you are linking them here, knowing there are many members who are from the US..
    Except Patel's ruling had to do with a US company making the software. DMCA however has no reach outside the US and unlike Real-Networks, US consumers aren't making anything. What is true is that Consumers are NOT the same as manufacturers and what they do as PERSONAL USE is not the same as the restrictions in TRAFFICKING and clearly the Copy software is being purchased and used by Americans with no repurcussions so your claim that to purchase the software is illegal is made with no evidence to back up your claim.

    That is why your links were deleted. Because the content of those links could constitute a breach of US Federal law.
    Pretty funny.

    Now SciForum moderators are going to look at linked sites to see if they could possibly have some content or be selling something that could possibly be used to do something illegal in the US?

    How about something which breaks Chinese Law, Indian Law, Israeli Law, Iranian Law? British Law, Canadian Law, Burmese Law? Sharia Law (no more pictures of Muhammed I guess)?

    Hilarious.

    How about this Bells?

    Is Google breaking any US laws?

    http://lmgtfy.com/?q=DVD+Copy+Software
    Last edited by adoucette; 01-30-12 at 11:17 AM.

  16. #536
    keith1
    Guest
    Thank you Google! Over-bearing moderation warnings need to be monitored, James R.
    Last edited by keith1; 01-30-12 at 10:30 AM.

  17. #537
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,317
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Not at all.

    What part of circumvention is not infringement did you not understand?
    No part of it. But, at the same time I also understand the difference between circumvention, which is what happened in the Chamberlain case, and circumvention without authority, which is what we are discussing.

  18. #538
    Quote Originally Posted by Trippy View Post
    No part of it. But, at the same time I also understand the difference between circumvention, which is what happened in the Chamberlain case, and circumvention without authority, which is what we are discussing.
    Except you don't need authority from the holder of the Copyright for Fair Use.

    Never have required it for any other media for personal use or Format Shifting.

    To require that for encrypted DVDs would in fact grant the holder of the Copyrights new property rights.

    But the court made it clear, that with the DMCA we didn't lose our Fair Use rights to copyrighted works we own and we didn't need any new permissions:

    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.


    In fact what they said was just the opposite:

    the DMCA emphatically did not “fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers.
    Last edited by adoucette; 01-30-12 at 11:26 AM.

  19. #539
    Why is the rum gone? Trippy's Avatar
    Posts
    9,317
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    Except you don't need authority from the holder of the Copyright for Fair Use.

    Never have required it for any other media for personal use or Format Shifting.

    To require that for encrypted DVDs would in fact grant the holder of the Copyrights new property rights.

    But the court made it clear, that with the DMCA we didn't lose our Fair Use rights to copyrighted works we own and we didn't need any new permissions:

    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.


    In fact what they said was just the opposite:

    the DMCA emphatically did not “fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers.
    So according to you, the librarian is wrong to include 10A and 10B?

    There's a point in amongst all of this that you're missing, several in fact, for example, the fact that the 'fair use' right to make a backup (assuming that was ever granted in the first place) does not neccessarily imply the right to remove DRM to do so.

    There's no need to use large font - under the circumstances it is simply obnoxious, and somewhat annoying. I've read the decision, in its entirety, thankyou, and its not the first decision I've read.

  20. #540
    Quote Originally Posted by adoucette View Post
    the DMCA emphatically did not “fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers.

    can the conflation kiddo


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
  •