Wikipedia protest shutdown

[adoucette]

No. There is one legal component, and one illegal component. You can easily get the legal component (though it is pretty much useless). The only ways of obtaining the other component, are illegal. You have provided absolutely nothing in the way of evidence that the decryption components can be legally obtained, even in the face of clear, unequivocable evidence to the contrary. You are a liar.

No I'm not a liar.
I said it appears to be legal.
Because neither piece by itself appears to meet the definition of what DMCS says is illegal.
The DeCSS code that is downloaded (not sold) is useless for doing anything, it can't copy a thing, it can't by itself even decrypt anything.
And the support for this is that even the US based companies who tell you how to put the pieces together are not being prosecuted for this.
Of course your definition of what is legal appears to be different than mine.
My definition of illegal is something that some people actually get arrested or successfully sued for.
Your definition of illegal is apparently something you think someone might get arrested/sued for even if they never ever have been in the decade + since the law was passed, which I admit is a very FLUID definition of legality.

I'd like to see your citations that establishes that millions of people actually have been doing this for that period of time. My personal experience is that almost nobody does this, exactly because of the legal and practical difficulties in obtaining the requisite software. The only people that I know who routinely break CSS protections, are pirates.

Well I'd show you, but I can no longer post links to the sites.
You might however note how many millions of copies of the DVD copy software have been sold/downloaded and consider that 70 million tablets (devices with great video playback but no DVD player) were sold in 2011, or how many DVD players are in the back of SUVs or go on a couple of dozen airplane trips sometime and wander the aisles and hang around the boarding gates and see how many people are watching movies on devices that don't have a DVD player or their laptop but the DVD player light is not on (like I do in my laptop because the DVD player kills the battery, but video playback alone does not). That should give you some idea.

For about the 100th time, everything you're discussing there is a civil matter, so there would never be a DA involved. The question is what would happen if the MPAA's representatives filed a suit in civil court.

How can it be a civil manner?
The court has ruled that CIRCUMVENTION is not INFRINGEMENT.

and not one person here has suggested that it is illegal to make a copy for personal use.

So if circumvention isn't infringement and making a copy for personal use is not illegal, then what would the MPAA be suing about?

Chamberlain is a very poor precedent for the question of DVD copying.

No it's not.
It firmly dealt with the issue of property rights, the public's rights under copyright law and the intent of the DMCA, all of which are central to this issue.

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.

 

[adoucette]

Do you genuinely not understand that civil offenses are illegal, despite not carrying any possibility of arrest or prison?

Because I've already told you exactly that over a dozen times in this very thread.

Yeah, and then you know that I typically write arrested/sued.

And what software do you use to make these copies. Specifically, what software do you use to bypass the encryption, and where did you obtain it?

To avoid another warning I'm not able to mention how I do it or how I obtained it.
But then I don't use it for any non-infringing uses either so I'm not at all worried about legal action of any sort.

 

[leopold]

Let me get this right.
You claim it is illegal, but that you will never be arrested for it?

the LAW says it's illegal.

What then is your definition of illegal?

in regards to the current situation i didn't write the law.
the concept in this case is theft.
the legal defintion of theft is:
exercising unauthorized control over someone elses property

~30 or so on DVD
100s on tape (unfortunately most are on Beta and I have to get the player fixed (after 25 years it finally stopped working)

this question in combination with a previous question i asked about your use of backups clearly establishes that backups ARE NOT justified.

 

[quadraphonics]

No I'm not a liar.
I said it appears to be legal.

Yeah, I know. And that's demonstrably false, and such has been amply demonstrated to you. So, you're now lying.

Because neither piece by itself appears to meet the definition of what DMCS says is illegal.

That's preposterous, and in direct contradiction of every piece of evidence presented so far. All of which has been called to your attention several times, now. So, you are lying, still.

The DeCSS code that is downloaded (not sold) is useless for doing anything,

DMCA covers all types of "trafficking," and that DeCSS code is rather useful for bypassing CSS encryption - the specific thing that the DMCA explicitly prohibits.

it can't copy a thing, it can't by itself even decrypt anything.

It can, by itself, decrypt CSS-encoded data. That is exactly what it was designed to do.

The various other components you've variously recommended in this thread - like the DVD43 component recommended for that one copy program on Amazon - go even further. They'll do so automatically on any encrypted DVD you place in your computer's drive, and make the result appear to other programs as if it were an unencrypted disc.

And the support for this is that even the US based companies who tell you how to put the pieces together are not being prosecuted for this.

They also tell you that doing so may well be illegal in your jurisdiction, and that it's up to you to figure that out and worry about your own liabilities.

Of course your definition of what is legal appears to be different than mine.
My definition of illegal is something that some people actually get arrested or successfully sued for.

Arrest is still irrelevant to civil law.

And people have been successfully sued for trafficking in such tools and devices. We've discussed several such lawsuits in depth.

Meanwhile, you aren't entitled to your own definition of "illegal." Here's the one in the dictionary:

forbidden by law or statute​

Your definition of illegal is apparently something you think someone might get arrested/sued for even if they never ever have been in the decade + since the law was passed, which I admit is a very FLUID definition of legality.

"My" definition of "illegal" is the one in the dictionary:

forbidden by law or statute​

Meanwhile, we all routinely do things that we know to be illegal, but which we do not run any significant risk of prosecution for (slightly exceeding the speed limit, jaywalking, etc.). This doesn't render them legal. It just means that, as a matter of practice, not all laws get enforced. Which is obvious to most 10-year-olds.

Well I'd show you, but I can no longer post links to the sites.

The sites that show how many people are making personal DVD back-ups with illegal software? Why not?

Because they don't exist, I'd guess.

You might however note how many millions of copies of the DVD copy software have been sold/downloaded

How many million is that, and were they sold/downloaded in the USA, and how do we know how many of those people also went on to download the other, illegal components and actually make DVD copies?

and consider that 70 million tablets (devices with great video playback but no DVD player) were sold in 2011,

You do realize that there are ways to watch video on a computer without loading it up with ripped DVD content, right?

There's iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, and about 100 other sites where you can purchase such things.

There's also pirated content. The people I know who watch a lot of movies on their computers are, to a one, either wealthy people who buy digital content online directly, or broke students who download it all from pirate sites. I don't know anyone who walks around with copies of their own DVDs to watch on their computers.

or how many DVD players are in the back of SUVs

What the hell does that have to do with anything? Those are all licensed playback devices which can't make copies.

or go on a couple of dozen airplane trips sometime and wander the aisles and hang around the boarding gates and see how many people are watching movies on devices that don't have a DVD player or their laptop but the DVD player light is not on (like I do in my laptop because the DVD player kills the battery, but video playback alone does not).

See above - most of those people are patronizing iTunes, Netflix, Hulu, etc. And almost all of the rest are watching pirated content.

Given all of your silly sideways argumentation there, it seems clear that you do not, in fact, have any actual data substantiating your claim that millions and millions of people are making back-up copies of DVDs. So, I consider that claim forfeited. Any further unsupported repetitions of it will be considered out-and-out bullshit.

So if circumvention isn't infringement and making a copy for personal use is not illegal, then what would the MPAA be suing about?

The anti-circumvention clauses of the DMCA, obviously. Have you even been reading the contents of this thread?

It firmly dealt with the issue of property rights, the public's rights under copyright law and the intent of the DMCA, all of which are central to this issue.

But it did so in a different context, crucial parts of which are not analogous to DVD copying. It dealt with a device that had no possible infringing uses, and not with a device that has obvious infringing uses but which a user contends he wouldn't have pursued.

But since you didn't even bother to write a substantive response - you edited the meat of the issue out of your quote, and then simply repeated yourself - I'm just going to go ahead and consider that a concession of the point on your part. If you aren't even going to attempt a real rebuttal, then you forfeit the point. If you're going to pretend to be addressing the point while cheaply avoiding it, then you earn an extra designation as a coward and a liar.

 

[quadraphonics]

Yeah, and then you know that I typically write arrested/sued.

"Arrested" is irrelevant and misleading regardless of whatever other things you write near it. And you frequently use "arrested" and invoke "the DA," all alone. I wouldn't be calling you on this over and over again if you'd stop doing it. Since you keep doing it after having the situation made clear, repeatedly, there is no reasonable interpretation other than that you are making a willfull, calculated effort to mislead.

To avoid another warning I'm not able to mention how I do it or how I obtained it.

Interesting. This site's powers-that-be are, apparently, warning you to stop creating legal liabilities for them by posting links to, and instructions for the use of, software and tools that they consider to be illegal in certain jurisdictions like the USA. No?

And I'm supposed to give you a pass on substantiating your claims that such is perfectly legal, on that basis? Who do you think you're fooling?

But then I don't use it for any non-infringing uses either so I'm not at all worried about legal action of any sort.

There are plenty of people who do use it for infringing uses that also do not worry about legal action against them. So that tells us nothing.

Likewise, your own intent is not a sufficient legal justification for you to traffick in and utilize decryption technologies that are clearly outlawed by the DMCA. If there was some technical barrier to using them for infringing purposes - and not just your own intent - then you'd probably have a good precedent that Chamberlain v. Skylink means you're covered. But you don't - you're using exactly the same tools that pirates use, and then claiming this is okay because you aren't doing any actual piracy with them. They're still banned tools, regardless.

 

[Bells]

Gustav

Possibly. I think deleting that pamphlet may be prudent at this point in time.

Adoucette

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?

That's right, there is a huge difference between my saying what I would do in a hypothetical situation and you posting links to sites that distribute software that is illegal to distribute in the US and several other countries.

Really, it's not that hard.

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 arguing that circumventing encrypted material on DVD's with software that is currently illegal to distribute in the US and elsewhere is legal, and then you linked numerous websites from overseas which are selling software that is illegal to distribute in the US and elsewhere... 20 pages and you are arguing for ripping DVD's..

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

You do not construe linking how to circumvent security measures on DVD's is not promoting purchasing illegally distributed software to rip DVD's?

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

It is illegal to distribute the content of what you linked on this site in the US and other countries as well.

And that is why your links were removed and you received a warning.

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

Read above.

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)

Again, read above.

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.

You posted to sites that distribute software that is illegal to distribute in numerous countries, including the US. Those sites also described in detail how one can go about circumventing the security on DVD's to allow one to rip them.

That is why it was deleted.

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.

Again, read above.

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

You don't think posting a variety of links that would allow one to bypass the security on DVD's, something which is questionable to begin with.. those sites contain software that cannot be legally distributed in the US and other countries.

How many times does this need to be repeated?

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

You posted numerous links to sites which allows one to buy software that is illegal to distribute in many countries, software that allows one to bypass the security of copyrighted material. This actually needs to be spelled out for you further?

This is laughable really, since you earlier posted how you would never post any links which would not provide any form of renumeration to copyright holders, yet you later go on to provide links on how to rip DVD's and bypass and circumvent the security on those DVD's to make copies of them.

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.

James did tell you why he deleted your links and why you received a warning from this site. Why do you have such a problem with that?

HILARIOUS.

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

The notion of 'content' is lost on you, isn't it?

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

I didn't need that refresher to know that.

Vindictive how? Up to the point where you received your warning and your links deleted, James had not participated in this thread.

Do you think we are out to get you?

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

As much as James and I argue, a lot, about a lot of things, he's not wrong in this instance.

Notice that he keeps omitting the following part of Patel's ruling:

fair use can never be an affirmative defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access.

The fact of the matter is that the DMCA is in tension with traiditional Fair Use doctrine, and no court has ruled decisively on this particular point.

It is uncontroversial, however, that there is no legal way to obtain or create the software required to bypass CSS in the USA. Expect further inane mental contortions from one adoucette attempting to argue that it's somehow legal to download such from foreign websites (and even, pay for that!), despite the explicit language in the DMCA:

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that— (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

\
Because he is never wrong. He knows more than the judges who handed down the decisions... Did you miss the memo?

He refuses to understand that using illegally bought software to circumvent the security on DVD's does not constitute as 'fair use'.

 

[quadraphonics]

How many times does this need to be repeated?

Well, I estimate adoucette's age as mid-50's. So let's suppose he has about 30 more years with the ability to type and argue on SciForums. He issues blanket denials of these facts roughly a dozen times per day. So, 12*30*365.25 = 131,490 more times. Maybe you can write a script to do the repetitions for you...

 

[Trippy]

Likewise, your own intent is not a sufficient legal justification for you to traffick in and utilize decryption technologies that are clearly outlawed by the DMCA. If there was some technical barrier to using them for infringing purposes - and not just your own intent - then you'd probably have a good precedent that Chamberlain v. Skylink means you're covered. But you don't - you're using exactly the same tools that pirates use, and then claiming this is okay because you aren't doing any actual piracy with them. They're still banned tools, regardless.

I've had a though in this regard, a couple of them actually. Maybe I should talk to someone about them...

 

[adoucette]

Yeah, I know. And that's demonstrably false, and such has been amply demonstrated to you. So, you're now lying.

No, it has not been amply demonstrated.
Indeed you can't site an actual case where the illegality of the use of this "user combined" software has been shown to be illegal.

That's preposterous, and in direct contradiction of every piece of evidence presented so far. All of which has been called to your attention several times, now. So, you are lying, still.

No it's not preposterous.
You are relying only on your personal opinion because you have no case law on your side.

DMCA covers all types of "trafficking," and that DeCSS code is rather useful for bypassing CSS encryption - the specific thing that the DMCA explicitly prohibits.

Not by itself it is not.

It can, by itself, decrypt CSS-encoded data. That is exactly what it was designed to do.

No it can't.
It has to be integrated into another piece of software to do anything.
So the unresolved question is, can a piece of software be deemed illegal even if it can't do anything on its own.

The various other components you've variously recommended in this thread - like the DVD43 component recommended for that one copy program on Amazon - go even further. They'll do so automatically on any encrypted DVD you place in your computer's drive, and make the result appear to other programs as if it were an unencrypted disc.

I've not recommended any software.
And it is true, that combined software might be illegal in the US, but it may also depend on what it is used for, as the courts have also not ruled on that either.

They also tell you that doing so may well be illegal in your jurisdiction, and that it's up to you to figure that out and worry about your own liabilities.

So?
That is also just an opinion.

Arrest is still irrelevant to civil law.

And people have been successfully sued for trafficking in such tools and devices. We've discussed several such lawsuits in depth.

Sure, for trafficking, but not just for using in the manner we are discussing.

Meanwhile, you aren't entitled to your own definition of "illegal." Here's the one in the dictionary:

forbidden by law or statute​

"My" definition of "illegal" is the one in the dictionary:

forbidden by law or statute​

Yes but the interpretation of what is forbidden by law or statute also includes INTENT of the law.
And since no one has been charged with violation of this, and subsequently lost at trial, one can not say that the courts will agree that that is the intent of the DMCA and thus illegal.
The fact that no one is bringing suit against anyone suggests that they know they won't prevail. Your opinion means diddly squat.

Meanwhile, we all routinely do things that we know to be illegal, but which we do not run any significant risk of prosecution for (slightly exceeding the speed limit, jaywalking, etc.). This doesn't render them legal. It just means that, as a matter of practice, not all laws get enforced. Which is obvious to most 10-year-olds.

Nope, ALL of those things are in fact occasionally prosecuted, even if you can get away with it most of the time.
Not ONE of those things has NEVER been prosecuted, so they aren't the same.

The sites that show how many people are making personal DVD back-ups with illegal software? Why not?

Because they don't exist, I'd guess.

No, you have to infer that from usage patterns and numbers of copies of the copying programs sold. But a claim of millions of copies per day is certainly not unreasonable considering the number of devices that can play movies but don't have a DVD player, the number of SUVs where parents want to just keep a copy of a DVD out in the sun etc etc

How many million is that, and were they sold/downloaded in the USA, and how do we know how many of those people also went on to download the other, illegal components and actually make DVD copies?

Well from personal experience of people I know, a lot.
Simple extrapolation tells me its in the millions.

BS, BS, YAWN, BS

There's also pirated content. The people I know who watch a lot of movies on their computers are, to a one, either wealthy people who buy digital content online directly, or broke students who download it all from pirate sites. I don't know anyone who walks around with copies of their own DVDs to watch on their computers.

So? just a self serving comment.

But it did so in a different context, crucial parts of which are not analogous to DVD copying. It dealt with a device that had no possible infringing uses, and not with a device that has obvious infringing uses but which a user contends he wouldn't have pursued.

Doesn't matter.
Legal issues are still dealt with that way.

But since you didn't even bother to write a substantive response - you edited the meat of the issue out of your quote, and then simply repeated yourself - I'm just going to go ahead and consider that a concession of the point on your part. If you aren't even going to attempt a real rebuttal, then you forfeit the point. If you're going to pretend to be addressing the point while cheaply avoiding it, then you earn an extra designation as a coward and a liar.

BS, the rebuttal is you have no case law to substantiate your position.
Get back to me when you do.

 

[adoucette]

That's right, there is a huge difference between my saying what I would do in a hypothetical situation and you posting links to sites that distribute software that is illegal to distribute in the US and several other countries.

And that's NOT all you posted Bells.

You, as a known officer of the Australian Court, ASSURED another Australian, Asguard that if he killed someone in cold blood who he believed had abused his children that he would not be convicted or sent to jail.

Really, it's not that hard.

I agree, that was WAY out of line.

 

[Trippy]

Not by itself it is not.
No it can't.
It has to be integrated into another piece of software to do anything.
So the unresolved question is, can a piece of software be deemed illegal even if it can't do anything on its own.

BS.

Application of the DMCA to prohibit posting of DeCSS appears constitutional also because that posting is part of a course of conduct the clear purpose of which is the violation of law...

...As has been discussed already, it no longer is open to doubt that the First Amendment does not shield copyright infringement. The fundamental purpose of DeCSS is to circumvent the technological means, CSS, that ensures that the exclusive rights of the holders of copyright in DVD movies — including importantly the exclusive right to make copies — are protected against infringement. Even assuming that some would use DeCSS only to view copyrighted motion pictures which they lawfully possessed, and thus arguably not infringe plaintiffs' copyrights, the record clearly demonstrates that the chief focus of those promoting the dissemination of DeCSS is to permit widespread copying and dissemination of unauthorized copies of copyrighted works. The dissemination of DeCSS therefore is the critical component of a course of conduct, the principal object of which is copyright infringement.​

-Universal et al v Reimerdes et al.

Dissemination of DeCSS and its code is an infringement under the DMCA, and 2600 Magazine is still under an enjoinder, 12 years later, preventing them from publishing it.

 

[arfa brane]

I predict another 7 pages of denial. Maybe 9.

That would be cool, because that would make this thread 42 pages long.

/hums_favorite_tune (blatantly breaching several copyright laws)

I know, I know. You're going to say "man, that's lame". I suggest you read this entire thread if you want to know about lame.

 

[James R]

adoucette:

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.

This is irrelevant.

sciforums is not a law enforcement agency. We are a privately-owner web site.

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.

It has been established to my satisfaction that the links you posted provide easy access to software that can be used to illegally rip DVDs.

Clearly, you are advocating the use of this illegal software. In fact, you are spending page upon page in this thread re-iterating your support for this illegal practice.

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

The fact that for whatever reason you do not regard the illegal ripping of DVDs to be illegal or immoral is neither here nor there as far as sciforums is concerned.

We will act so as not to subject ourselves to possible legal liability.

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?

I can see a difference. Bells has not advised or encouraged anybody to kill anybody. She has merely expressed an opinion on a possible legal outcome.

As for you, by posting the links you did, you are actively enabling illegal activity. Moreover, you are apparently also encouraging, or at least condoning, such activity, assuring readers that it's not "really" illegal.

BUT, it is important to remember that two wrongs don't make a right. Even IF Bell's posts on the topic of killing turn out to be unacceptable, that in no way excuses your behaviour.

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

Here is the text of the warning you were given:

The links you have posted seem to point to software that is illegal in the United States.

Please do not encourage other people to break the law, or you may be banned.

Do you find this confusing?

HILARIOUS.

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

Again, his ban is completely irrelevant to your warning.

sciforums has no obligation to host advice to criminals.

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

Maybe you should as quadraphonics for an analysis of your personality, seeing as you hold his assessments in such esteem.

In fact, I think he has given you a few in this thread, hasn't he?

 

[Trippy]

So the unresolved question is, can a piece of software be deemed illegal even if it can't do anything on its own.

It's not unresolved, it's right there, in black and white.

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;​

Source

I'd say that interpretation of that is pretty straightforward, wouldn't you?

To paraphrase:
"No person shall import any product, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

I would say that it's pretty obviouse that that includes modules that have to be downloaded seperately, even if on their own they serve no function.

 

[quadraphonics]

No, it has not been amply demonstrated.

You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. You won't find anyone other than yourself expressing any doubts, here.

Indeed you can't site an actual case where the illegality of the use of this "user combined" software has been shown to be illegal.

What you said - the statement that I labelled as shown to be false - was that such software was "apparently legal." You provided no evidence for that, and you were provided with ample evidence of the apparent illegality of such.

This is all in black and white, just a few posts up. Are you really so unable to keep straight what you and others are (and are not) saying, or is this a calculated tactic? Either way, the result is inane. All you're doing is embrassing yourself.

No it's not preposterous.
You are relying only on your personal opinion because you have no case law on your side.

A questionable response, there, considering that the statement labelled "preposterous" was simply your own personal opinion, without any actual case law ruling directly on it.

Not by itself it is not.

Yes it is. This is very much cut-and-dried, and exactly the reason that you cannot legally obtain that software in the USA. You have provided absolutely nothing in the way of evidence in support of your contention that software like DeCSS and DVD43 are legal in the USA. And now you're issuing naked assertions, without even attempting serious argument. I count this as equivalent to a concession of defeat, and a gross display of childishness to boot.

No it can't.
It has to be integrated into another piece of software to do anything.

No it doesn't. Such might be required to arrive at a finished product that a random consumer lacking in any serious computer skills would find conveniently usable, but the code you linked to can very much "do things." Those things include descrambling CSS encryption. Your statement there is just silly.

The DVD43 software you linked and recommended (and the specific software recommended for "integration" by your recommended purveyor of DVD-copying software) doesn't require any particular "integration" at all - it runs in the background and causes any encrypted DVDs to appear as unencrypted, at which point you can use whatever software to do whatever with them.

So the unresolved question is, can a piece of software be deemed illegal even if it can't do anything on its own.

That's completely asinine, and I'll notice that no lawyer or judge in any of these cases ever suggested anything so blatantly preposterous. If your line of "reasoning" were valid, then no software of any kind could ever be deemed illegal, since no software "does anything on its own." It always has to be integrated into other software (operating system), firmware and hardware. Fortunately, nobody in our legal system is so monumentally stupid as to misconstrue the functionality of software in such a way.

I've not recommended any software.

Sure you have. You can go ahead and try to split hairs between "recommending" and "citing" or whatever, but it's not going to impress anyone.

Well, not with your point anyway. Your astounding lack of honor or shame might be considered "impressive" in some sense.

And it is true, that combined software might be illegal in the US, but it may also depend on what it is used for, as the courts have also not ruled on that either.

The courts have ruled explicitly that said "combined software" is definitely illegal (in fact, it's simply the decryption part which is illegal, which is why it's legal to sell software with that removed, and nobody sells the decryption software in the USA).

So?
That is also just an opinion.

It's an opinion from a company that has money on the line, and which presumably undertook due diligence of having a lawyer vet their position on such.

Sure, for trafficking, but not just for using in the manner we are discussing.

To use such tools, you have to obtain them. This requires "trafficking" or "manufacture," both of which are explicitly banned by the DMCA.

Yes but the interpretation of what is forbidden by law or statute also includes INTENT of the law.

There is no controversy over the intent, that I can see. There is controversy about whether such squares with other aspects of the law, such as Fair Use.

And since no one has been charged with violation of this, and subsequently lost at trial, one can not say that the courts will agree that that is the intent of the DMCA and thus illegal.

And since the text of the DMCA clearly prohibits the actions in question, one can not say that the courts will agree that such was not the intent of the DMCA and thus it is legal.

The fact that no one is bringing suit against anyone suggests that they know they won't prevail.

What it suggests, is that the benefits of bringing such a suit will not outweigh the costs. That could be because they will lose. Or it could be because it would be prohibitively expensive to build such a case (how would the MPAA find out that you'd been making back-up copies if you never distribute them, exactly?), and bad PR besides, and not provide them with significant upside. We've already covered this repeatedly, so it's unclear what you think you're proving by repeating yourself. Well, other than the fact that your extremely obstinant and argumentative, but we all already knew that.

Your opinion means diddly squat.

And your non-lawyer opinion means... what, exactly?

In the meantime, I've cited the opinions of multiple actual legal experts to establish that software like DeCSS and DVD43 are illegal in the USA. What have you provided to counter that, other than your own opinion?

Not ONE of those things has NEVER been prosecuted, so they aren't the same.

"has NEVER been" is not the same as "will NEVER be," unless you're willing to wait an infinite amount of time.

But if you don't like those examples, it isn't terribly hard to find examples of unenforced laws on the books, which are nonetheless still laws:

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...ed_laws_-_keeps_adultery,_repeals_"blue_laws"

No, you have to infer that from usage patterns and numbers of copies of the copying programs sold.

So you have nothing other than your own speculation to back your repeated claim that "millions and millions of people do this every day?"

I'll note that you haven't even provided data on "usage patterns" nor "numbers of copies of the copying programs sold [in the USA]." And certainly, not on the number of decryption softwares downloaded and used with those copy programs. So we have no basis on which to even being such inferences, nor any reliable way to do them regardless.

We only know, for sure, of exactly one person who has been making such DVD copies. That is yourself.

But a claim of millions of copies per day is certainly not unreasonable considering the number of devices that can play movies but don't have a DVD player,

You have not provided any such numbers, nor have you accounted for the proliferation of video streaming/download services (iTunes, NetFlix, Hulu, etc.). I myself routinely watch movies on devices without a DVD player, but I have never once ripped a DVD. I simply stream movies from NetFlix or whatever. This is typical of everyone I know, and is a very popular thing generally. NetFlix alone uses almost 1/3 of American internet bandwidth:

http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...etflix-uses-327-percent-of-internet-bandwidth

the number of SUVs where parents want to just keep a copy of a DVD out in the sun etc etc

You have not provided any numbers on that. And I've never seen it - everyone I know just uses the original DVDs for that purpose. They don't care if the DVDs wear out, because their kids outgrow them every year or two anyway, and nobody else is interested in watching them.

Well from personal experience of people I know, a lot.

And my personal experience of people I know says it's very few.

Simple extrapolation tells me its in the millions.

You have provided zero evidence for the implicit claim that people you know are a representative sample of the larger population, and so that "simple extrapolation" is invalid on its face.

So? just a self serving comment.

Who are my "comments" supposed to "serve?"

And let's note that you just finished asserting, without any basis, that your personal experience is representative of the larger country.

Doesn't matter.
Legal issues are still dealt with that way.

Again, nothing but naked assertions. You clearly do not have any rebuttal to my point, and are simply trying to bury it under an avalanche of trolling. Unimpressive.

BS, the rebuttal is you have no case law to substantiate your position.
Get back to me when you do.

There is no case law that rules directly on the activity at issue. Which is to say that you, likewise, have "no case law to substantiate your position." If it is your contention that such rules out any further discussion, then you will need to yourself cease making assertions unsubstantiated by case law yourself to give it any force. I wait with baited breath.

 

[quadraphonics]

I predict another 7 pages of denial. Maybe 9.

I think he'll keep going as long as he's getting attention.

For my part, I'd rather have him spending all his time and energy making an ass of himself in this one thread, than spreading it all over the place.

 

[leopold]

adoucette,
you can't fall back on the deleted links as "picking on you"

i've posted a link to an entire site that is DEDICATED to ripping CDs/ DVDs.
complete with the needed software.
the thing i noticed about my link is that YOU need to be technically proficient to use the material.
someone with just a passing interest will find the material useless.

aside:
i've noticed a "loophole" in the law.
it's legal to make a copy, it's illegal to descramble CSS.
this (apparently) means that any copyrighted nonscrambled DVD can indeed be legally copied.

 

[adoucette]

adoucette:
This is irrelevant.

sciforums is not a law enforcement agency. We are a privately-owner web site.

No it's not irrelevant.
You have claimed OVER AND OVER that posting LINKS to those sites is illegal but you can't come up with any legal basis for the position you claim.

It has been established to my satisfaction that the links you posted provide easy access to software that can be used to illegally rip DVDs.

So?
The sites are legal.

Clearly, you are advocating the use of this illegal software. In fact, you are spending page upon page in this thread re-iterating your support for this illegal practice.

No, I'm spending page upon page in this thread arguing that copying DVDs for personal use is legal under the Fair Use doctrine as established by the courts.

We will act so as not to subject ourselves to possible legal liability.

Yet you can not point to any rationale for any legal liability.
Indeed, SOPA, the actual point of this thread was the FIRST proposed law in the US that was going to deal with sites posting links to sites whose predominate function was Piracy.
It has not passed, but even with SOPA there would be no legal basis for liability as there is NO monitoring provision.

Under SOPA, if the AG determined that a site was a piracy site, it could with a court order force ISPs and SEARCH ENGINES to remove links and it could have prevented PayPal or Credit Cards from sending them money, but SOPA's authority did not extend directly to forums such as this (the ISP hosting this forum would get the removal/block order, which they could then extend to this forum, but the ISP would have no legal authority over you).

Of course, since this site isn't hosted in the US, SOPA actually had no ability to do even that.

I can see a difference. Bells has not advised or encouraged anybody to kill anybody. She has merely expressed an opinion on a possible legal outcome.

No, she ASSURED Asguard that doing what is CLEARLY ILLEGAL (and far more serious of an issue than DVD ripping, she is dealing with an offense which if committed, could land someone in prison for years if not LIFE) would not result in punishment.

What is worse is that Bells has repeatedly made it known that she is an Officer of the Court in Australia, so even her "opinion" in this matter is not the same as a lay persons, and particularly so when she gives it to another Australian.

As for you, by posting the links you did, you are actively enabling illegal activity. Moreover, you are apparently also encouraging, or at least condoning, such activity, assuring readers that it's not "really" illegal.

Oh BS.
A simple search on Google yields the exact same results.
It's NOT like the existence of this software is a secret James.
Actively enabling would be something like providing the software myself.

No, I'm simply arguing that based on the court decisions I have posted that the COURTS have said it is legal under the Fair Use doctrine of our Copyright law. Since I have never asserted that I have any legal or civil authority there is no issue of me condoning anything. I don't have that authority or ability.

BUT, it is important to remember that two wrongs don't make a right. Even IF Bell's posts on the topic of killing turn out to be unacceptable, that in no way excuses your behaviour.

And my behavior was only to post links to LEGAL SITES.

Had you PM'd me and asked me to stop doing so because you felt uncomfortable about it, I would have, but no, you gave me a 4 month long warning without notice, even though there is nothing illegal about posting links to LEGAL SITES.

Here is the text of the warning you were given:
Do you find this confusing?

The sites are LEGAL, so links to them are also legal.
Again, had you asked I would have stopped, but how is one to know ahead of time that posting links to LEGAL sites violates any rule?

Again, his ban is completely irrelevant to your warning.

sciforums has no obligation to host advice to criminals.

That wasn't the issue, it was the fact that you didn't ban others for posting a link to the same poster.

If links are the issue, then why not?

And he has posted the poster once again.
Is he to be banned again for doing so?

If not, why not?

Maybe you should as quadraphonics for an analysis of your personality, seeing as you hold his assessments in such esteem.

In fact, I think he has given you a few in this thread, hasn't he?

Even a blind pig finds an acorn now and again.

 

[adoucette]

i've posted a link to an entire site that is DEDICATED to ripping CDs/ DVDs.
complete with the needed software.
the thing i noticed about my link is that YOU need to be technically proficient to use the material.
someone with just a passing interest will find the material useless.

Did you get an official warning from James for doing so?

If not, James, then why not?

 

[adoucette]

It's not unresolved, it's right there, in black and white.

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that —

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;​

Source

I'd say that interpretation of that is pretty straightforward, wouldn't you?

To paraphrase:
"No person shall import any product, component, or part thereof, that is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

I would say that it's pretty obviouse that that includes modules that have to be downloaded seperately, even if on their own they serve no function.

No, the DMCA provides a "innocent violations" escape for this.

Since consumers are typically unaware of the inner workings of the software they run, and most have probably never heard of CSS and decryption is not something they can see, touch, hear or smell, then they would not be expected to know (thus an innocent violation) that the software they downloaded was considered importing and/or illegal.