Wikipedia protest shutdown

Discussion in 'World Events' started by arfa brane, Jan 17, 2012.

  1. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Yawn

    You guys can continue to rant that something for which no one has ever been even arrested for, let alone convicted, is illegal.

    I on the other hand will continue to make back up copies of my favorite DVDs and CDs for my personal use using commercial software, hardware and media freely available from stores in the US.

    And based on the many court rulings giving consumers the right to make both analog and exact digital copies of media they have purchased for personal use (back up and format shifting) never give it a second thought.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    it would be a miracle if you can muster up a first


    not brick and mortar ones
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    You're avoiding answering the question I'll ask again: Is it legal to posess something that it is illegal to manufacture or create?

    You also avoided the 2004 case I linked to yesterday.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    It's not even illegal to sell Trippy

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005CELIKU/

    Because time marches on.
     
  8. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
  9. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    And yet, in 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc "The court found that the purchase of a DVD does not grant the purchaser the authority of the copyright holder to decrypt CSS. Although the purchaser of a DVD has the right to view a DVD with a licensed DVD player, the act of circumventing CSS to view the DVD on unlicensed software such as 321's is in direct violation of ยง1201(a)(2)."

    321 Studios Software was instructions and software to make backup copies of DVD's for personal use, so...
     
  10. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
  11. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
  12. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Look to the legal decisions made in 2009, particularly Patel's comment.

    Which is when all these other software solutions started to become available, and now there are lots more to choose from...

    http://www.best-dvd-burning-software-reviews.com/dvd-copy-protection.asp

    And so after YEARS of consumers buying and using this software to make personal copies and format shifting and device shifting you are still arguing that what they are doing is illegal?
     
  13. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
  14. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575
    shipped and sold by someone else

    i will inform the mpaa about office depot
    that product will be removed
     
  15. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    You don't think any MPAA officials have ever gone into an Office Depot?

    LOL

    Oh, and look to the right of the page, also sold by Amazon.

    And also sold by J&R Music World.

    I've been to their store in NYC, they should be pretty easy to find as well.

    LOL
     
  16. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    You mean besides the fact that with this much software, hardware and media for sale that millions of people are making back up copies of their DVDs and Format Shifting them and what do you know they are totally ignored by the FBI and no one is taking any of them or the software providers to court over it.

    Maybe I'm not the one who is missing something?
     
  17. Trippy ALEA IACTA EST Staff Member

    Messages:
    10,890
    If I can drive legally, does that mean that all driving is legal?
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,523
    Look the DMCA states that sites only need to be warned about having illegal material and then must remove it withing a given time, SOPA on the other hand would punished the site for content found, on the spot, no warning, thus sites have to self regulate, imagine a cloud computing site like say 'flickr' and some random asshole somewhere post copywriten shit in photos, flickr better have some fancy software or an army of shit-sifters to target the copywritten material and remove it before someone hits the SOPA button and the owners of flicker arrested, site shut down, defunded and errased from the collective memory of every search engine! SOPA makes websites anywhere (not just foreigners) responsible for user content, placing the burden of proof of innocents on them.

    DCMA so called "Safe Harbors" was and is a great idea, we should work on adding to it not replacing it with this draconian, presume guilt, SOPA. Simply add that if request to take down copywriter materials are delayed, or it has an excessive numbers of violations occurring, a court case can be brought against the offending site, and if found guilty, then it can be stripped of all funding, blocked and its DNS erased from all US search engines.
     
  19. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    If no one was ever given a ticket or taken to court and found guilty of breaking a traffic law then yes.
     
  20. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    If that BS were true, I'd also be against SOPA.

    It's not true.

    Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.
     
  21. Gustav Banned Banned

    Messages:
    12,575

    why the fuck do you want me to speculate on idiocy?
    am i you?
     
  22. adoucette Caca Occurs Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,829
    Well quit making inane comments

     
  23. arfa brane call me arf Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,832
    There is definitely a difference between discretionary application of a law and whether the law makes something illegal.

    Here's an example that even adoucette should be able to understand: it's illegal to grow marijuana, and if the police find some growing in your garden it's likely you'll be arrested and charged with cultivation of a prohibited plant. But if you claim you thought it was just a weed, you have no idea how it got there, a judge can use discretion.

    Perhaps a better example is prohibited plants* which are growing in someone's garden because they "look nice". In NZ a lot of people grow specimens of the genus Papaver, called "Shirley poppies", but they contain significant amounts of morphine and other illegal narcotics.

    Nobody has been busted for growing these prohibited plants because since 1960-something, the courts have allowed the defense of ornamental use. And sometimes people grow the true opium poppy, P. somniferum. This was a bit of a problem for the growers a while ago because junkies used to rip them off and bleed the opium, I guess they wouldn't go to all that trouble if they didn't contain narcotics.

    So even though it is still illegal to grow poppies from the genus Papaver, the courts apply discretion and allow "ornamental use". Note the two italicised phrases and how they're spelt differently. You do know how to spell, right Arthur?

    * any plant on schedule 3 of the Narcotics Act.
     

Share This Page