Wikipedia protest shutdown

Please wait while we find an agent to assist you...
All agents are currently busy. Please stand by.
You have been connected to Diana.
Diana: Good Afternoon KKK. I will be happy to assist you .
Diana: Could you please explain your inquiry so that we can help you?
kkk: yes
kkk: are you there
Diana: Yes, I am here.
kkk: can this product rip movie dvd's with copy protection
kkk: item # 709033
Diana: Let me check on the item.
Diana: Thank you for your patience.
Diana: Yes, the product can rip movie DVD's with copy protection.
Diana: Is there anything else I can assist you with?
kkk: is it legal to circumvent copy protection contained in movie dvd's?
Diana: Yes, it is legal to circumvent copy protection contained in movie DVD's.
kkk: how do you know that?
Diana: I checked with my sources
Diana: May I be of any further assistance?
kkk: could you provide them to me for verification?
Diana: Yes, it also allows you to copy and convert Blu-ray movies to a variety of formats. you can contact our qualified Technical Customer Care Representatives, toll-free at (800) 625-9866, Mon-Fri, 8AM-8PM EST and Sat-Sun, Closed.
Diana: May I be of any further assistance?
kkk: you did not answer my question
Diana: Kkk,I have answered your question .I have provided you my Technical team contact number so that you can clarify with them in this regards.
kkk: thanks
Diana: You are welcome.
Diana: Thank you for your kindness .
Diana: Is there anything else I can assist you with?


that was a bust however i spoke to a representative and she informed me that it is company policy not to sell software then breaks encryption. when confronted with item #709033, she maintained that it does not claim to do so which is actually true on the posting in the office depot site

it does however
if the mpaa chooses file a suit, office depot will have to remove it off the shelf

since i have nothing better to do, i will write to the mpaa about office depot.
thanks for the heads up, mrdotbiz
 
adoucette said:
If no one was ever given a ticket or taken to court and found guilty of breaking a traffic law then yes.
Click to expand...

:Roll:

Again, you miss the point.

Do you know why it is legal to buy a DVD player to decrypt CSS?

Because when you buy a DVD player, as well as the hardware, you're purchasing firmware, and you're purchasing a license to use that firmware, which includes a decryption key to decrypt the CSS (these keys are available freely on the internet).

I gaurantee that if you were to start manufacturing DVD players, or writing DVD playing software, without first buying one of these licenses, that these big companies would be on you like white on rice.

And they would win, because at the moment it is illegal to do so.

The only thing being able to link to that $60 software on Amazon proves is one of two things:
1. They haven't been caught yet.
2. They purchased a license to use the decryption key in their software, and probably pay royalties, or an annual fee or some such.

So, (if we give them the benefit of the doubt), you've managed to prove that there are legal channels available by which one might back up a DVD, but you haven't actually demonstrated that it is legal for me to do so.

Kind of like there are legal channels available for me to drive at 80mph, but it's not always legal for me to do so.
 
adoucette said:
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.
Click to expand...

What "actions"? Give me where in the bill this is so I can read its content.
 
arfa brane said:
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.
Click to expand...
Funny you should mention that - we had Poppies growing in our garden, they were like weeds, couldn't get rid of the bloody things, and every year, without fail, they would vanish overnight.
 
Your first example fails because people are regularly arrested for growing pot, even small quantities.

In the second example, because the courts have allowed the defense of ornamental use explains why nobody has been busted for growing these prohibited plants because since 1960, and is exactly analogous to nobody being busted for copying DVDs for personal use because the courts have previously ruled on the defense of Fair Use when copying both analog and digital media for that limited set of conditions.
 
Gustav said:
that was a bust however i spoke to a representative and she informed me that it is company policy not to sell software then breaks encryption. when confronted with item #709033, she maintained that it does not claim to do so which is actually true on the posting in the office depot site
Click to expand...
Which is another point that I was going to raise, that seems to have been missed - not all DVD's have CSS, however, I decided against raising that point because if you go to the website of the maker of the software, it explicitly states that it copies all DVD's, which suggests that it is capable of CSS decryption (other wise they'd be making a false claim in advertising).
 
gee
some dude in texas mpaa told me that movies are no longer being encrypted so the whole issue is more or less moot. he has been with the org for 3 years

is that true?

i left a msg with the la branch
we will see what they say
 
ElectricFetus said:
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.
.
Click to expand...

More BS

Indeed, SOPA specifically identifies foreign sites as being in violation only if their PRIMARY purpose is Pirating:


(1) DEDICATED TO THEFT OF U.S. PROPERTY- An `Internet site is dedicated to theft of U.S. property' if-- the U.S.-directed site is primarily designed or operated for the purpose of, has only limited purpose or use other than


So no, a minor infringement like you suggest, does not come under the purview of SOPA.
 
adoucette said:
Your first example fails because people are regularly arrested for growing pot, even small quantities.
Click to expand...
And none of them are ever the beneficiaries of a judge's discretion? All of them are convicted because, after all, it's illegal? There is no defense?

I think most people, Arthur excluded, understand the difference between breaking a law, and a judge's discretion in applying the law. Perhaps, to avoid having this thread womble on for another twenty pages, everyone who does understand the difference should pointedly ignore Arthur, who prefers his own personal definition.

In the second example, because the courts have allowed the defense of ornamental use explains why nobody has been busted for growing these prohibited plants because since 1960
Click to expand...
Wait, do I detect a glimmer of understanding? The courts allowing a defense equals the courts applying discretion. It is still illegal to grow these plants, they are still on the schedule.
Which means someone growing them for ornamental purposes can be arrested by the police and charged. The police don't bother because they know about the "ornamental use" defense, and that a judge, although not obliged to, can use discretion. Given the number of precedents in which said discretion has been applied, it's unlikely the police will act on the perceived crime of growing illegal plants.

It's exactly analogous with the recording industry and the laws governing copyright.
 
Last edited:
adoucette said:
rotflmao
Click to expand...

Laugh all you want - it just proves that you haven't read (opr perhaps understood) what has been presented to you.

Or do you think that because it's okay to do 80mph on some roads, it's okay to do 80mph on all roads?
 
arfa brane said:
And none of them are ever the beneficiaries of a judge's discretion? All of them are convicted because, after all, it's illegal? There is no defense?

I think most people, Arthur excluded, understand the difference between breaking a law, and a judge's discretion in applying the law. Perhaps, to avoid having this thread womble on for another twenty pages, everyone who does understand the difference should pointedly ignore Arthur, who prefers his own personal definition.
Click to expand...

No, you miss the point, in the cases you are mentioning the people are arrested and tried and found guilty and then the judge exercises his discretion to not punish them.

In the case of copying DVDs for personal use no one has even been arrested.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

Because even if you are not sentenced by the judge, just being arrested, arraigned, incarcerated till you post bail, hire a lawyer and then go through a trial, is both expensive and time consuming.

So if people were being arrested for copying DVDs, even if they weren't punished, it would be a huge deterrent to anyone buying and using the software.

But that doesn't occur because Fair Use has been ruled on copying of Analog and Digital media for personal use.
 
Trippy said:
Laugh all you want - it just proves that you haven't read (opr perhaps understood) what has been presented to you.

Or do you think that because it's okay to do 80mph on some roads, it's okay to do 80mph on all roads?
Click to expand...

Well assuming one can do so safely, then if no one was ever arrested or got a ticket for doing so, well yeah.
 
KJQfV.jpg
 
adoucette said:
No, you miss the point, in the cases you are mentioning the people are arrested and tried and found guilty and then the judge exercises his discretion to not punish them.
Click to expand...
No, that's not true. The judge can apply discretion and dismiss the charges. No trial, no sentencing, no discretion applied about the punishment.
So if people were being arrested for copying DVDs, even if they weren't punished, it would be a huge deterrent to anyone buying and using the software.
Click to expand...
And if people growing opium poppies were arrested and charged, spent the night in jail and had to retain a lawyer, it would be a huge deterrent to growing poppies ornamentally?
 
arfa brane said:
The courts allowing a defense equals the courts applying discretion. It is still illegal to grow these plants, they are still on the schedule.
Which means someone growing them for ornamental purposes can be arrested by the police and charged. The police don't bother because they know about the "ornamental use" defense, and that a judge, although not obliged to, can use discretion. Given the number of precedents in which said discretion has been applied, it's unlikely the police will act on the perceived crime of growing illegal plants.

It's exactly analogous with the recording industry and the laws governing copyright.
Click to expand...

It WOULD be exactly analogous if any people had actually been arrested and the courts then used their discretion.

In this case though that has never happened so you again have nothing to support your stance that copying for personal use is in fact illegal to start with.
 
adoucette said:
In the case of copying DVDs for personal use no one has even been arrested.
Click to expand...

Dude, for about the sixth time: copying DVDs for personal use is a civil question, and so not a police matter. You can't get arrested for a civil tort. You just get sued.

The fact that nobody gets arrested for this is neither here nor there. It is a red herring, and only a fool or troll would keep harping away on it like this.

adoucette said:
But that doesn't occur because Fair Use has been ruled on copying of Analog and Digital media for personal use.
Click to expand...

For about the sixth time: Fair Use is not in dispute here. The contention is that DMCA conflicts with fair use. Get a grip.
 
adoucette said:
Well assuming one can do so safely, then if no one was ever arrested or got a ticket for doing so, well yeah.
Click to expand...

Why do you keep trotting out this dead herring when people have been successfully prosecuted under the DMCA for producing unlicensed software for decrypting and copying DVD's to enable people to make personal backups?

Or are you unable to follow the point that I have made in this regard?
 
arfa brane said:
No, that's not true. The judge can apply discretion and dismiss the charges. No trial, no sentencing, no discretion applied about the punishment.And if people growing opium poppies were arrested and charged, spent the night in jail and had to retain a lawyer, it would be a huge deterrent to growing poppies ornamentally?
Click to expand...

Still have to get arrested and held over for the arraignment.

Hasn't happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top