Wikipedia protest shutdown

[adoucette]

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.

I asked you to point to the statute that makes posting a link to a legal site illegal in the US (or Australia for that matter)
YOU CAN NOT DO SO BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.

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.

Again, show the statute that makes posting a link to a legal site illegal in ANY country.

You can not do so because there is none.

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.

I have but of course nothing will be done about this BS action.
Anyone doing a simple search on DVD Copy Software gets all those links and lots more and so there is nothing illegal with the links and you know it, you are just being petty.

 

[adoucette]

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.
.

They are only illegal if used for illegal purposes.
They can also be used for legal purposes.

As to the "true and literal" meaning, NO NO NO.

It's all about the INTENT of the law.


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.

Which is what you get from a "plain language" interpretation.

Which the court points out, what you are suggesting, makes no sense :

Under Chamberlain’s proposed construction, explicated at oral argument, 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

So no, courts don't look at the "true and literal" meaning to construe laws in ways they were not intended.

 

[adoucette]

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.

Well not everyone agrees with that, so you have to decide for yourself, but the court said in 2004 about the DMCA:

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.

So considering this and the fact that no one has been able to find a case where someone has been sued/charged with violating the DMCA for making a back up copy I find that is a reasonable conclusion.

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.

Yes, unfortunately the DMCA does prohibit that for US companies.
But even US companies have found easy ways around that clause in the DMCA by not selling the readily available decryption tool as part of their copy program.
Companies in other countries, like the UK, could care less about the US's DMCA and sell their products fully integrated with the decryption function.

I'd give you a link but the administrators on this site have the mistaken impression that a link to a site selling software that is legal in the country they hail from is illegal to be posted here if any of the software they are selling can't be sold in the US.

which in turn makes for

3. a bad law.

Well yes, but then it does provide a provision for non-punishment for "innocent violations" to shield consumers who are not using the software for infringing anyone's copyright.

 

[Bells]

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.

Are you equating my saying that if someone raped my children, that I would kill them as being the same as you seeming to have this pathological need to rip DVD's and then proceed to linking numerous sites which provide software and instructions on how to circumvent in built security on said DVD's as being somewhat the same?

I did not encourage anyone else to follow suit, nor did I provide links on how one can go about it.

Do you see the difference?

Now you may wish to try and twist what I said around as much as you desire. Guess what? My comments applied to me and me alone in regards to a hypothetical scenario. At no time did I ever encourage anyone else to do the same as I said I would do if such a hypothetical situation arose. I never said what I would do if such a hypothetical situation arose was not criminal. Quite the contrary. But again, the difference here is that I was very very clear that that applied to me and at no time did I say that others should do the same. At NO time did I ever offer legal advice to anyone about any criminal act they may be inclined to commit at any point in their life. I was also very very clear about the circumstances of the hypothetical situation I posed, so you can stop lying now.

You, on the other hand, are not only defending in breaking the law, but you also provided people on this site and any person who wished to view this site, with the means to break the law.

Just self serving BS.
I asked you to point to the statute that makes posting a link to a site illegal in the US (or Australia for that matter)
YOU CAN NOT DO SO BECAUSE THERE IS NO SUCH LAW.

Self serving bullshit?

You are promoting ripping DVD's and circumventing security on the DVD's to do so and you are accusing me and this site of being self-serving?

This is the point where I chuckle at you.

I frankly don't give an inch about how you personally feel on this matter. Many links were provided to you, which you seem to misconstrue and ignore because you may possibly want to break the law in your own home. Which is fine. That is your little kingdom and if you wish to rip DVD's and try to convince others that it is for 'personal use', knock yourself out. However, when you post on this site, you have to abide by the rules of the owners and the administrators of this site. One of whom advised you that your posting links which provide illegal software to allow one to bypass encrypted material on DVD's so as to make a 'back up' of it is not permitted on this site.

I really cannot make it simpler for you Arthur. You provided links to illegal software, software which is illegal to distribute in the US and numerous other countries. This site is not a safe harbor site as per the DMCA. I am sure the owners of this site would like to not be barred from particular countries because their site was found to be posting links to illegal software. I am fairly sure they and those who advertise on this site would not look too kindly on that. If you do not like the fact that the adminstrator will not allow you to post links which promote and distribute software which is illegal to distribute in many parts of the world (and I provided you with case law for the US on that part), you are free to toddle off and find a site which will allow you to post how to rip DVD's to your heart's content.

Again, show the statute that makes posting a link to a legal site illegal in ANY country.

You can not do so because there is none.

Frankly, I don't even need to. What I have provided you with is case law which deems the software being distributed in those links you were promoting on this site as illegal.

Quite recently, a member provided an image of a leaflet which was widely distributed in the media. That leaflet encouraged breaking the law. That member was banned. While his posting it is not a breach of the law, per se, but posting material which encourages or would allow one to break the law is against this site's rules. Do you understand now?

Anything that could pose a legal threat to this site will be deleted.

I have but of course nothing will be done about this BS action.
Anyone doing a simple search on DVD Copy Software gets all those links and lots more and so there is nothing illegal with the links and you know it, you are just being petty.

And you are being obstinate and demanding we allow you to post links to software that is actually illegal to sell.

 

[keith1]

The reason why it is common knowledge the Earth is not flat and the centrally located in the Universe:
Some moderating authority allowed contrary evidence to be publicly displayed and freely interpreted.

One may be allowed ownership of a knife to cut string, and never use it to intimidate or take life. There are rules of conduct already in place for such. One need not harass the knife owners with threats of confiscation.

 

[Trippy]

And the Court was aware of Real Networks and said about that case (and two others).

You seem confused.

The Judgement for Chamberlain v Skylink was in 2003/2004.
Real Networks v MPAA was in 2008/2009.

The court could not possibly have been aware of Real Networks v MPAA.

 

[adoucette]

Are you equating my saying that if someone raped my children, that I would kill them as being the same as you seeming to have this pathological need to rip DVD's and then proceed to linking numerous sites which provide software and instructions on how to circumvent in built security on said DVD's as being somewhat the same?

I did not encourage anyone else to follow suit, nor did I provide links on how one can go about it.

Do you see the difference?

Now you may wish to try and twist what I said around as much as you desire. Guess what? My comments applied to me and me alone in regards to a hypothetical scenario. At no time did I ever encourage anyone else to do the same as I said I would do if such a hypothetical situation arose. I never said what I would do if such a hypothetical situation arose was not criminal. Quite the contrary. But again, the difference here is that I was very very clear that that applied to me and at no time did I say that others should do the same. At NO time did I ever offer legal advice to anyone about any criminal act they may be inclined to commit at any point in their life. I was also very very clear about the circumstances of the hypothetical situation I posed, so you can stop lying now.

Bull Shit Bells.

You might not have encouraged anyone to do anything illegal BUT then neither did I.

But, in your case instead of just posting a link to a LEGAL site, you ASSURED Asquard that he would not be prosecuted or given jail for killing someone in cold blood if he believed they had abused his kids.

Do you not see the HUGE difference?

You, on the other hand, are not only defending in breaking the law, but you also provided people on this site and any person who wished to view this site, with the means to break the law.

Not at all Bells, I am not defending breaking the law, I've been arguing that making copies under fair use is not breaking the law.

Do you not see the differerence?

You are promoting ripping DVD's and circumventing security on the DVD's to do so and you are accusing me and this site of being self-serving?

I have NOT promoted anything.
Not one post of mine has suggested to others that they do anything.

I frankly don't give an inch about how you personally feel on this matter. Many links were provided to you, which you seem to misconstrue and ignore because you may possibly want to break the law in your own home. Which is fine. That is your little kingdom and if you wish to rip DVD's and try to convince others that it is for 'personal use', knock yourself out. However, when you post on this site, you have to abide by the rules of the owners and the administrators of this site. One of whom advised you that your posting links which provide illegal software to allow one to bypass encrypted material on DVD's so as to make a 'back up' of it is not permitted on this site.

BS, no administrator advised me of anything.
I was given a warning for posting "illegal information", even though nothing I posted was illegal.

I really cannot make it simpler for you Arthur. You provided links to illegal software, software which is illegal to distribute in the US and numerous other countries. This site is not a safe harbor site as per the DMCA.

Links are not copyrightable and thus DMCA has no applicability to the posting of LINKS and thus requires no Safe Harbor.

I am sure the owners of this site would like to not be barred from particular countries because their site was found to be posting links to illegal software.

The links weren't to illegal software.
They were to totally LEGAL sites.
More importantly, there is NO LAW that makes Links to any site illegal in the US. (If SOPA had passed, it would allow the AG to tell you to remove a link to a site whose predominate purpose was Piracy within 5 days, but only if you did not comply would you be in violation of SOPA, there was no monitoring requirement in SOPA)

I am fairly sure they and those who advertise on this site would not look too kindly on that. If you do not like the fact that the adminstrator will not allow you to post links which promote and distribute software which is illegal to distribute in many parts of the world (and I provided you with case law for the US on that part), you are free to toddle off and find a site which will allow you to post how to rip DVD's to your heart's content.

I have not posted anything about how to rip DVDs.
I have not recommended any software either.
I posted the links to simply show that the software to do so exists.
Linking to a legal site is not illegal.

Frankly, I don't even need to. What I have provided you with is case law which deems the software being distributed in those links you were promoting on this site as illegal.

So?
A link to a site which may be selling software that may be illegal under the DMCA is still not illegal under any existing US law.

Quite recently, a member provided an image of a leaflet which was widely distributed in the media. That leaflet encouraged breaking the law. That member was banned. While his posting it is not a breach of the law, per se, but posting material which encourages or would allow one to break the law is against this site's rules. Do you understand now?

No idea what you are talking about.
What leaflet was that?

Kind of besides the point though since there is not one post where I have encouraged anyone to break any law.

Anything that could pose a legal threat to this site will be deleted.

I've no problem with that.
You have not shown however, how posting a link to a legal site could be a legal threat.

And you are being obstinate and demanding we allow you to post links to software that is actually illegal to sell.

More BS, I have made no such demand.
What I complained about is getting an official warning for having posted links to legal sites.

If James was to tell me he wasn't comfortable with the links and not to post those links again, then I wouldn't, but that's not what happened was it?

You guys are all "shoot first and ask questions latter" mentality.

 

[Gustav]

No idea what you are talking about.
What leaflet was that?

i think it would be worth your time to get to the bottom of that particular incident

 

[adoucette]

You seem confused.

The Judgement for Chamberlain v Skylink was in 2003/2004.
Real Networks v MPAA was in 2008/2009.

The court could not possibly have been aware of Real Networks v MPAA.

My Bad, the Real Networks in Chamberlain was against Streambox, not MPAA.

But you are not helped by the RealN vs MPAA

Real lost because it is not a User but a software maker, indeed most of the issues have to do with CSS license issues.

Fair use is not a defense to trafficking in products used to circumvent effective technological measures that prevent unauthorized access to, or unauthorized copying of, a copyrighted work under sections 1201(a) or (b), respectively. But, fair use enters into the picture in the context of the act of circumvention itself. Fair use is prohibited in the access-control provision of section (a) but not in the copy-control provision of section (b). The copy-control provision “prohibits trafficking in devices that circumvent technological measures tailored narrowly to protect an individual right of the copyright owner while nevertheless allowing access to the protected work.

Though [section] 1201(b) parallels the anti-trafficking ban of [section] 1201(a)(2), there is no narrowly tailored ban on direct circumvention to parallel [section] 1201(a)(1). This omission was intentional.” Chamberlain Group, 381 F.3d at 1195. It was intentional because copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances. The U.S. Copyright Office has formally acknowledged this legal truth. See The Digital Millenium Copyright Act of 1998, U.S. Copyright Office Summary (Dec. 1998) at 4 (explaining that the distinction between section 1201(a) and (b) as to the act of circumvention in itself was “to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying.”)

In other words, fair use applies to section 1201(b) under the DMCA because it does not speak to, and thus does not prohibit, appropriate individual uses of circumvention devices. The prohibition on individual circumvention conduct only applies with respect to access protection technologies (because fair use can never be an affirmative defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access), not to technologies that prevent copying. Real is correct that Congress did not intend to regulate the conduct of individual users with authorized access to copyrighted works

Because as Chamberlain pointed out, Circumvention is not Infringement.

 

[Gustav]

Quite recently, a member provided an image of a leaflet which was widely distributed in the media. That leaflet encouraged breaking the law. That member was banned. While his posting it is not a breach of the law, per se, but posting material which encourages or would allow one to break the law is against this site's rules. Do you understand now?

Anything that could pose a legal threat to this site will be deleted.

are you referring to this......

[previously deleted material removed.]

Moderator note: Gustav has been banned for 2 weeks.

....??

 

[Trippy]

My Bad, the Real Networks in Chamberlain was against Streambox, not MPAA.

But you are not helped by the RealN vs MPAA

Real lost because it is not a User but a software maker, indeed most of the issues have to do with CSS license issues.

Right, Real lost because they were producing software, being sold in the US, that circumvented CSS, and that act creates an offense under the DMCA, therefore the software is illegal to sell (or Traffick) in the US.

Because as Chamberlain pointed out, Circumvention is not Infringement.

We've been over this, I disgree with your interpretation of the facts of Chamberlain v Skylink, and your interpretation of the judgement.

CSS is access control, not copy protection, that's one point that has been made clear in every case, however, there's a point that you miss every time you trot out this red herring.

The presence of CSS does not stop you from exercising your fair use rights. It is possible to exercise your fair use rights without circumventing CSS, therfore circumventing CSS is not covered under the fair use harbour.

 

[adoucette]

Quite recently, a member provided an image of a leaflet which was widely distributed in the media. That leaflet encouraged breaking the law. That member was banned. While his posting it is not a breach of the law, per se, but posting material which encourages or would allow one to break the law is against this site's rules.

HILARIOUS.

Gustav gets banned for a week for posting a picture of a leaflet that has already been widely publicized.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2795839&postcount=150

A few posts latter Capt K posts a few LINKS to the same leaflet and of course nothing happens.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2799331&postcount=228

Do you understand now?

Yeah that the typical moderation on this site is both capricious and vindictive?

I didn't need that refresher to know that.

I think Quad however summed it up the best in his lengthy description of James:

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2799225&postcount=224

 

[Gustav]

oh dear me

 

[adoucette]

Right, Real lost because they were producing software, being sold in the US, that circumvented CSS, and that act creates an offense under the DMCA, therefore the software is illegal to sell (or Traffick) in the US.

I agree.

But that doesn't necessarily make owning or even using the software illegal.

It's what you use it for that matters.

If you use it for non-infringing uses then you aren't breaking a law written to prevent infringing.

We've been over this, I disgree with your interpretation of the facts of Chamberlain v Skylink, and your interpretation of the judgement.

And yet the ruling was quite strong in providing legal grounds for Fair Use under the DMCA by pointing out that Circumvention is NOT infringement.

Which of course may be why no one is being arrested/sued for what you claim is illegal.

CSS is access control, not copy protection, that's one point that has been made clear in every case, however, there's a point that you miss every time you trot out this red herring.

No, CSS is the Content Scrambling System, which is indeed COPY PROTECTION.

The presence of CSS does not stop you from exercising your fair use rights. It is possible to exercise your fair use rights without circumventing CSS, therfore circumventing CSS is not covered under the fair use harbour.

No it is not possible, if it were we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Content Scramble System (CSS) is a Digital Rights Management (DRM) and encryption system employed on almost all commercially produced DVD-Video discs. CSS utilizes a proprietary 40-bit stream cipher algorithm. The system was introduced around 1996 and was first compromised in 1999.

The purpose of CSS is twofold:
1.CSS prevents byte-for-byte copies of an MPEG (digital video) stream from being playable since such copies do not include the keys that are hidden on the lead-in area of the restricted DVD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_Scramble_System

 

[Trippy]

No it is not possible.

If it were we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yes it is, the MPAA has even made suggestions on how to do it.
But like photocopying part of a book, dubbing a cassette or record, or ripping a CD to MP3, there's a loss of quality associated with it.

Incidentally, there's another point that that you seem to have overlooked, and that'd the context of the quote from Chamberlain v Skylink.

Chamberlain failed to demonstrate the 4 parts that are required to demonstrate an infringment of their rights, they relied exclusively on the argument that bypassing their security generated a DMCA offense, and argued that the burden of proof was on Skylink to prove that the use was fair use. Hence the comments the judge made - IE, the 4 parts of a copyright infringement still need to be demonstrated.

Chamberlain also failed to demonstrate that bypassing their encryption was the sole purpose of Skylinks product (Skylinks product worked on a wide variety of garage door openers).

 

[adoucette]

Yes it is, the MPAA has even made suggestions on how to do it.

Source?

But like photocopying part of a book, dubbing a cassette or record, or ripping a CD to MP3, there's a loss of quality associated with it.

Oh, bull.

You can make an exact copy of a CD.

You can make as an exact copy of an analog source as the equipment allows, which if you are using good equipment, from a human perspective, would be identical to the original.

 

[adoucette]

Incidentally, there's another point that that you seem to have overlooked, and that'd the context of the quote from Chamberlain v Skylink.

Chamberlain failed to demonstrate the 4 parts that are required to demonstrate an infringment of their rights, they relied exclusively on the argument that bypassing their security generated a DMCA offense, and argued that the burden of proof was on Skylink to prove that the use was fair use. Hence the comments the judge made - IE, the 4 parts of a copyright infringement still need to be demonstrated.

No, the judge was quite clear about this.

The DMCA did not create new property rights.

Which is what it would do if circumvention was infringing.

 

[Trippy]

Seeing as how you've altered your post...

No, CSS is the Content Scrambling System, which is indeed COPY PROTECTION.

No it isn't, and that's not how the courts have recognized it. CSS is access control, not copy control. That's one of the reasons why the Librarian has refused (up until now) to include it in the exemptions, because CSS doesn't limit copying, it limits access which has the followon effect of limiting copying.

You originally posted this:

CSS, which includes both player-host mutual authentication and data encryption, is used to protect the content of DVDs from piracy and to enforce region-based viewing restrictions.

One good thing about NZ Copyright law. It is (AFAIK) the most progressive law among any of the WIPO signatories.

It explicitly aknowledges a variety of fair use applications, including format shifting, it explicitly allows the copying of CD's to MP3 formats for personal use, and it virtually requires DVD players in NZ to be sold capable of playing DVD's from all regions.

 

[Trippy]

No, the judge was quite clear about this.

The DMCA did not create new property rights.

Which is what it would do if circumvention was infringing.

No.

You're wrong.

You're either misinterpreting the decision, or misrepresenting it, and I can't decide which it is.

 

[adoucette]

No.

You're wrong.

You're either misinterpreting the decision, or misrepresenting it, and I can't decide which it is.

No I'm not wrong:

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.