I am protecting sciforums from potential legal liability.
Evidence and argument has already been supplied by numerous people in this thread refuting your position.
Enough said.
Wikipedia protest shutdown
- Thread starter arfa brane
- Start date
I am protecting sciforums from potential legal liability.
Evidence and argument has already been supplied by numerous people in this thread refuting your position.
Enough said.
Bells
Staff member
Are you saying Judge Patel got it wrong?
The ruling was actually quite clear. Fair use, in the US [and elsewhere], is legal. However distributing the technology which allows legal users to circumvent the security measures on DVD's that prevent copying is actually illegal. In fact, you can no longer purchase the technology which allows any user, legal or not, to bypass the security measures on a DVD in the United States. Hence why the websites you were promoting on this site are not based in the US.
But the contents of those sites are illegal. In other words, the law deems it illegal to promote or distribute such sites. And here you are in favour of circumventing security protection on DVD's for fair use and then we have you giving a list of sites which sell or provide software that is illegal to distribute or promote in the US.
You don't wish to promote illegal activity, do you Arthur? A fine, upstanding citizen such as yourself.
Which would depend on interpretation.
You were arguing for ripping DVD's and then provided a list of links which contained illegal content which would allow users to circumvent security measures on DVD's. There are exemptions, or safe harbors if you will, in the DMCA, but this site would not fall under said exemptions for being allowed to use or purchase such software. If we were youtube or google, for example, then certainly, we could argue that we fall under the 'safe harbor' provisions, but we are not, so isn't it best to err on the side of caution?
We do not promote illegal activity on this site and you linking a list of software which is illegal in the US has been construed as promoting illegal activity.
Do you understand now?
Who wish to buy them from over-seas. However it is illegal in the US to sell, promote or distribute such software. So why are you, a US citizen, promoting such software on this site, when we do not fall under the exemption or 'safe harbor' clause in the DMCA?
Learn to read Arthur. The promotion and distribution of any software that circumvents the security measures on DVD's is illegal in the US. Patel's ruling was clear. Fair use is not illegal. But promoting and distributing the software that allows one to circumvent the security measures on a DVD is illegal unless one falls under the exemptions in the DMCA, which this site [and you] do not.
Google falls under the exemption rules, as does youtube. You can read Viacom International Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. if you wish to see an example of the safe harbor in the DMCA. And in 2010, Association For Information Media and Equipment v. University of California also appeared to discuss the safe harbor of the legislation. But that case is yet to go to appeal. This site, however, does not fall under that safe harbor clause and you, a US citizen, could be deemed to be breaking the law by promoting websites which contain content that is illegal to sell in the US. If you were promoting sites that contained things that were illegal in any other country, the reaction would have been the same.
Sharia laws does not deem it illegal to post images of Mohammed. Just so you know.
And yes Arthur, we do go through websites that people link on this site to make sure it does not contain or promote something that is illegal and if it is brought to our attention, we do actually look it up and if it is questionable or illegal, we will remove the link to such sites and will issue a warning to members who posted them. Such as yourself.
I really shouldn't have to dumb this down any further for you, should I?
So your intent behind making the backup copy is to avoid having to pay for a copy if the one you have becomes damaged, destroyed, or misplaced?
And you don't think that this deprives the original artist of income?
BS James, there is no legal liability in posting links to those sites.
Is Google liable for doing so James?
Is Dog Patch?
Is ANY SITE ANYWHERE LIABLE?
NO
Why?
Because there is no US statute that is being broken by linking to those sites.
And I think you know it.
But come on James, don't wimp out (like usual).
NAME THE STATUTE that you claim this site could be liable under.
Bet you won't
BS, not one of them has pointed to a single legal case, civil or criminal in the 12 years since DMCA was passed, where someone using that software for making personal backups or format shifting has been either sued or prosecuted in any court.
And that's for buying, installing and using that backup software James.
To think that there is liability for posting a link to the sites that sell that software (to the world) somehow creates any potential liability for this site is in fact ludicrous.
Not just that, also for format shifting which is also widely done for Audio CDs like when people copy their CDs on to their computers and MP players or before that when people copied their records onto magnetic tape (and listened to the tape so as not to damage the record).
So no, just like records and CDs, I paid the copyright holder for the right to view the movie, as often as I want to and for as long as I want to and if the medium becomes unplayable sometime in the future, which is not necessarily because of any fault of mine, I have the right to view a backup copy and not have to repurchase the same rights to the same movie again.
That's called FAIR USE.
Which does NOT make linking to those sites illegal.
Nor was I in any way promoting them.
I can't make it any simpler for you Bells.
No law makes it illegal to link to those sites Bells.
If you think so then please show the Federal law that states that.
Bet you won't.
I'm not promoting any illegal activity.
As you have said, making copies is fair use.
But my posting a link showing a site exists and sells the software that accomplishes that is not in anyway equal to this site either using or purchasing such software.
Side of what caution?
You have not shown a link to any law which makes posting a link to those sites illegal.
Except no one has shown that the software is in fact illegal.
It's been sold for over a decade and no one has been arrested/sued for using the software, so on what legal case, decided in the courts, do you claim it is illegal?
Because it also has legal uses in the US.
For instance format shifting and making personal backup copies.
Only for a US Company Bells.
It is not illegal where it is being sold and, the way DMCA is written, it's not illegal to buy it either.
And Patel's ruling ONLY applies to US companies making or trafficking in the software, and then only those who integrate the DeCSS code within them. She did NOT rule on personal use of the software at all.
Total BS Bells, The issue was that YouTube was hosting the Copyrighted material. Safe Harbor had nothing to do with any links, it had to do with hosting copyrighted material. Nothing in that ruling had anything to do with posting a link to another site and there is no US law that makes linking to even a piracy based website illegal.
NONE.
SOPA was going to attempt to do something like that, but even then, only if the primary purpose of the Web Site was supporting Piracy, and none of the sites I linked to would fall under that definition, and even then you would be given notice to remove the link and would get a minimum of 5 days to do so.
So just having a link to a site that was primarily for Piracy, even under the proposed SOPA, wasn't illegal, you only got in legal trouble if you didn't remove the specific link that the Justice Dept got a court order and pointed out to you in the time allotted.
Actually you really need to smarten this up.
Last edited:
And yet, with one possible exception - which I suggest you're misreading/misinterpreting/misrepresenting, every source - including those that make legitimate CD/DVD replication software, state that busting/bypassing DRM for the purpose of making what may be a legitimate fair use copy, is illegal.
yes it does, you are apparently too nearsighted to see it.
there is NO valid reason to make a DVD backup EXCEPT archival purposes.
the law stating that it is illegal to descramble CSS for backup purposes has been posted.
format shifting.
i assume you mean copying a DVD to an ipod or something similar.
hmmm . . .
i would agree with that as long as you didn't let anyone else watch it.
anyone else, as in someone that didn't pay for the movie.
You claim that it is legal to make a backup copy.
Everyone seems to agree on this point.
And since the court has ruled that circumvention by busting DRM is not infringement, then if making a backup copy is legal then the Copyright holder has no basis to sue you for doing so since there is NO INFRINGMENT.
Which means the only law you might be breaking is the provision of the DMCA put there to prevent infringing the rights of Copyright holders in a digital age.
BUT as you admit, making a backup copy is NOT infringing on the copyright.
So once again all you are arguing is that the Fed could use a law designed to stop copyright infringing against someone who isn't infringing anyone's copyright.
But they wouldn't (and the proof of that is they in fact haven't done so in over a decade since the DMCA was passed) because the prosecution would fail based on the fact that the INTENT of the DMCA law wasn't to punish consumers by preventing their rights under Fair Use.
As the court said circumvention is not infringing.
So when you decrypt a DVD you are not infringing and when you then make a copy for backup or format shifting you are still not infringing.
So even though when you make a backup you are not infringing you still say the Fed is going to bust you for breaking a law designed to prevent infringement?
Why would they do that when clearly that was not the intent of the DMCA.
As the court said:
As long as you don't charge for it and viewing it isn't open to the public, then you can show it to any of your friends or family, just like any movie you buy and show at your house to your friends or family.
Bells
Staff member
And circumventing security codes on DVD's and promoting and distributing software to to circumvent the security on DVD's encrypted with such security is illegal.
I simply cannot make that any simper for you, Arthur.
I have linked you case law which discusses the statutes a couple of times now. You can read it at your leisure.
The contents provided and promoted on those sites are illegal in the US and several other countries, because they allow people to circumvent the in built security on DVD's which would allow them to be copied.
Making copies is fair use.
Now maybe in your household you believe that ignoring the law is, well, fine. But on this site, it is not fine and deliberately citing sites which not only describes but provides software on how to break the law is not fine.
The rules of this site are clear. Promotion of illegal activities (ie linking sites which promotes and distributes illegal software) can and will result in moderation.
Do you understand now?
Refer to above.
Again, refer to above. You support breaking the law and you then went on to provide links on how to break the law. Do I really have to spell it out for you?
I provided you with case law. Again, you can read it at your leisure.
Many cases and links have been provided to you which states, clearly, that distributing software which allows users to circumvent security encrypted material on DVD's is illegal. You cannot purchase such software legally in the US with only a few exceptions (ie schools and universities, for example). What part of that don't you quite understand?
With few exceptions.. ie fair use. However:
S 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems ‛(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. (DMCA, 1998).
Now, in a case cited earlier, for fair use it is deemed legal, however, distribution of the software which allows the user to circumvent the security measures on a DVD is illegal. You provided numerous links to off-shore sites which provide and distribute something that is distinctly illegal.
Which is why those links were deleted and you received a warning.
The use and/or distribution of such software from those such sites is also becoming illegal in other countries. If you are going to look at how the DMCA is written, using it is illegal.
S 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems ‛(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. (DMCA, 1998).
Case law is stating that it is legal for fair use but the distribution of the software is illegal.
To have to repeat myself again..
For fair use, ie personal use, you are legally allowed to use the DVD you purchased to make a back up copy, that is not in dispute. However the distribution of software which allows one to bypass the security measures on DVD's to allow one to rip it is illegal. Case law and the law supports that.
To put it simply for you:
So long as a DVD remains within your house and is used only by you, you are protected by these laws. However, the second a copied DVD leaves your possession, copyright laws can immediately be used against you.
To further clarify on what is definitely illegal, copying protected DVDs is not legit. DMCA has made it so that circumventing any copy protection schemes on a DVD is an illegal act, even if the copy is simply to be used as a backup. The end result of this is that most commercial DVDs cannot be copied because they are typically protected by CSS encryption. This means you must be cautious when making copies, as most DVD rippers on the market are able to bypass such security measures without issue.
In addition to copying DVD movies, it is illegal to alter a DVD copy. For example, companies like ClearPlay and CleanFlicks used to remove questionable content from mature-rated movies to make it presentable to younger audiences. This was in fact a violation of copyright law and resulted in an eventual lawsuit that prevented such services from distributing edited versions of films further.
Based on where you live, you may need to adapt how you use DVD copy software, as some activities may be quite illegal. So long as any DVD duplicates you make are kept in a safe and inaccessible place, you won’t need to worry about visitors obtaining any of those DVDs. If they were to get one, or you lent anyone a DVD, you could be facing serious charges ranging from high fines to imprisonment. In most cases, it is simply best to avoid making DVD movie duplicates just to protect yourself from violating copyright laws.
[Source]
To further clarify on what is definitely illegal, copying protected DVDs is not legit. DMCA has made it so that circumventing any copy protection schemes on a DVD is an illegal act, even if the copy is simply to be used as a backup. The end result of this is that most commercial DVDs cannot be copied because they are typically protected by CSS encryption. This means you must be cautious when making copies, as most DVD rippers on the market are able to bypass such security measures without issue.
In addition to copying DVD movies, it is illegal to alter a DVD copy. For example, companies like ClearPlay and CleanFlicks used to remove questionable content from mature-rated movies to make it presentable to younger audiences. This was in fact a violation of copyright law and resulted in an eventual lawsuit that prevented such services from distributing edited versions of films further.
Based on where you live, you may need to adapt how you use DVD copy software, as some activities may be quite illegal. So long as any DVD duplicates you make are kept in a safe and inaccessible place, you won’t need to worry about visitors obtaining any of those DVDs. If they were to get one, or you lent anyone a DVD, you could be facing serious charges ranging from high fines to imprisonment. In most cases, it is simply best to avoid making DVD movie duplicates just to protect yourself from violating copyright laws.
[Source]
Now, the sites you linked provide things that are illegal... if the DMCA is to be taken at its word or true and literal meaning.
And to further reiterate something to you. When you post on Sciforums, you agree to abide by the rules of this site. I will quote the relevant passages for you, since you seem to be having such a hard time understanding and accepting the reasons behind your warning and behind the deletions of the links you provided and the reasons provided to you by James R:
You posted links to a site which distributes something that is actually illegal to distribute and in some cases, even have in one's possession in some countries. While it is not illegal to copy a DVD for one's fair and personal use if one owns that DVD, the distribution and promotion of something illegal (such as distributing such software is illegal and in some instances, can be deemed a breach of copyright), James R, as the administrator of this site is well within his rights to act as he did towards you posting such links. One of his roles, as the administrator of this site, is to ensure that members do not post material which could have Governments raising their eyebrows at us and placing us in a legal quagmire. It is really not that difficult to understand why your links were removed and why you received a warning, because we do not want to be seen to be promoting or having a hand in the illegal distribution of software that circumvents encrypted security on DVD's.
If you have an issue with the decision made against you, you are free to PM James or any of the other administrators and owners of this site with your concerns about you being sanctioned for posting links which explains to people and provides them with the ability to circumvent security measures on DVD's to allow one to copy it.
You've mad eit abundantly clear that that is your interpretation, yes, however that interpretation is at odds with every other piece of information available, for a couple of reasons that you apparently have yet to figure out.
Go back and re-read Real Networks v MPAA.
phoenix2634
Registered Senior Member
I just want to make sure that I understand the bulk of this thread:
1. It's presumed that fair use covers a backup copy of a dvd.
2. the DMCA effectively makes it illegal for someone(or company) to make/distribute the software neccessary for an individual to exercise said fair use.
which in turn makes for
3. a bad law.
1. It's presumed that fair use covers a backup copy of a dvd.
2. the DMCA effectively makes it illegal for someone(or company) to make/distribute the software neccessary for an individual to exercise said fair use.
which in turn makes for
3. a bad law.
LIAR!!
i do not
adoucette: gajillion people buy gajillion dvd-r's and download gajillions of cloning software and make a gajillion back up copies and never in a gajillion years have ever got busted!
Last edited:
there is nothing simple about that. the author is confused
there is nothing to protect you if you circumvent any copy protection schemes in order to back up a dvd movie if you are not in any of the protected classes identified in copyright law
Last edited:
What a load of BS.
I'm discussing something trivial, the copying of DVDs and for making back-up copies, something which no one has ever been prosecuted for and I get a warning and here you are ADVISING someone who lives in your country that if they MURDER SOMEONE IN COLD BLOOD that nothing will happen to them if they simply thought that the accused had been abusing their children.
And he knows you were a DA in Australia and so your statement can actually be presumed to be legal advice.
Last edited:
That was a different ruling based on different issues.
And the Court was aware of Real Networks and said about that case (and two others):
And as you have agreed, making a backup is a legitimate use.
And when the court looked at Circumvention in relation to the issue of Copyright it stated it clearly, and several times in the ruling, that circumvention is not a new form of infringement
Indeed, that had been previously established in Reimerdes:
the traditional fair use doctrine of § 107 remains unchanged as a defense to copyright infringement under § 1201(c)(1), circumvention is not infringement.
Which is why Copyright holders have no basis to sue people who are making backups and shifting formats under Fair Use because they would have to show that the Circumvention was being done for something that would be an infringement under Copyright law.
Since back ups are Fair Use then they aren't being infringed upon and thus you can't logically construe that these people are violating the DMCA since the INTENT of that law was to protect against Copyright Infringement.
Which is why the law is different for manufacturers of software that facilitates infringement and someone who merely uses the software for making copies/format shifting under Fair Use.
If there are any question about this, there is of course the "Innocent Violations" clause of the DMCA which would effectively negate the chance of prevailing in court against someone who was using purchased software for Fair Use reasons.
As the court said:
The statutory structure and the legislative history both make it clear that the DMCA granted copyright holders additional legal protections, but neither rescinded the basic bargain granting the public noninfringing and fair uses of copyrighted materials, § 1201(c), nor prohibited various beneficial uses of circumvention technology
We conclude that 17 U.S.C. § 1201 prohibits only forms of access that bear a reasonable relationship to the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.
As we have seen, Congress chose to create new causes of action for circumvention and for trafficking in circumvention devices.
Congress did not choose to create new property rights. ....
Congress chose words consistent with its stated intent to balance two sets of concerns pushing in opposite directions. See H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, at 26 (1998). The statute lays out broad categories of liability and broad exemptions from liability. It also instructs the courts explicitly not to construe the anticircumvention provisions in ways that would effectively repeal long standing principles of copyright law. See §1201(c). The courts must decide where the balance between the rights of copyright owners and those of the broad public tilts subject to a fact-specific rule of reason.
Those of you arguing for use of the anticircumvention provisions against someone who is not infringing are construing them exactly in ways that would repeal long standing Fair Use principles of copyright law and against the rule of reason.
But the 12 years of no legal action against anyone for DVD copying/format shifting as Fair Use suggests that unlike the assertions of illegality made in this thread for Fair Use, that the legal community in the US does understand this "rule of reason".
Now here's the thing, this copying is increasing, not decreasing because of the growing capacity of hand held devices (you need ~4 GB for a movie) and so as Tablets and Smart Phones continue to expand their market more and more people will be doing this. Indeed, one of the key values of these hand held devices with excellent Video/Sound Playback but no actual embedded DVD player is based on the fact that consumers will use copy software to format shift their DVDs to this portable format for use when away from their house.
Last edited: