Wikipedia protest shutdown

[Trippy]

But apparently you don't bother to browse through the slysoft forums, where you can simply ask what the deal is. If you put "slysoft legality" into google, you get this page:

http://forum.slysoft.com/showthread.php?t=12803

Note that no SlySoft representative seems willing to come out and state that their software is legal to import into the USA, nor whether it is legal to bypass encryption in the USA.

Which has this post:

No. AnyDVD breaks "technological protection measures", and in the USA that is illegal (under the DMCA), regardless of whether its legal to create a back-up copy or not.

While that is true, click http://forum.slysoft.com/showpost.ph...1&postcount=49

Source

And links to this post:

I am not an IP attorney but have studied this issue a bit as it relates to my own collection. The bottom line is that Webslinger is right (Legally). However, so long as you personally maintain ownership of both the original AND your fair use copy, AND do not lend either out at any time, no one will prosecute and even if they did they could not succeed. The IP violations involved are "Intent" crimes and it would be required that the prosecution prove that your intent was to duplicate outside of fair use guidlines. (i.e. make a copy for sale or for someone's use while you retain the original.) In this case that would require that malum inse be proved. Fair use copies made in violation of the DMCA would be considered malum prohibitum which would be waived in light of the contridiction betheen fair use doctrine and the DMCA.


Black's Law Dictionary 1996,
malum inse - A crime or an act that is inherently immoral, such as murder, arson, or rape.

malum prohibitum - An act that is a crime merely because it is against statute, although the act itself is not necessarily immoral

WD Goldstein, J.D. (Really!)

My opinions are my own and I am not offering legal advice nor services to any person who may read this post. Whatever you choose to do is own your own head. Sorry guys but I needed to say that to CMA.

Source

And the conflict alluded to in that post is precisely what the hubub is about, precisely why people object to the DMCA, precisely what got this whole conversation started, and part of the reason why people objected to SOPA/PIPA as they were phrased.

But for some reason, some people can't see the conflict.

 

[quadraphonics]

No it doesn't.

12 Billion is not FREEFALL.

It's a damn healthy market.

A market that is declining by 10% every year, for years on end, is not "healthy" regardless of what dollar figure it currently stands at. DVD's - and BluRay - will go the way fo the dodo soon enough.

Regardless, you're - typically - pursuing an irrelevant tangent. You claimed that the proliferation of video-capable devices that lacked disc drives indicated that "millions and millions" of people are ripping DVDs. But you've been shown that video disc sales have been in serious decline for years now, and that streaming video and online sales have been surging - to the point where a single streaming service consumes 1/3 of all internet traffic - and this accounts for the proliferation of video on disc-less devices.

So you are left with zero substantial evidence for your claim of "millions and millions of people" doing DVD ripping. This is why nobody takes your unbacked claims seriously.

 

[parmalee]

Different issue.

Different, but not totally unrelated. For instance, I like these:

but since Converse was sold to Nike, and they're no longer made in New England, and they're quality has declined considerably, etc., I buy these instead:

http://www.autonomieproject.com/502-fair_trade-footwear.html

If I like the music from Artist X who of their own free will, signed onto Mega Label Y, why should I not buy it?

What if I've heard that Artist X is only getting a small share of the proceeds?
Should I not buy it then?
Is not a small share better than nothing?

I didn't say that you shouldn't buy it--you can do whatever you please.

I'm just not clear as to why you wish to cheapen the notion of "supporting" something, and render such virtually meaningless. Seriously, who buys cheap sweatshop shit from WalMart, and then claims that they are "supporting sweatshop workers"?

Other than you, that is. And perhaps your "fully grown kids" who still watch The Little Mermaid.

 

[Bells]

The DMCA has no reach outside the US.
Those sites, all outside the US, were and remain perfectly LEGAL SITES.

We have a lot of US members. The contents of those sites are also illegal in many other countries, including member States of the EU (where any software which circumvents the CSS on a DVD is illegal). And I can assure you, if a movie studio that owns the rights to a movie finds out someone is ripping their DVD's in another country, they would go after them.

BS

I said: 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.

You posted: I can assure you Asguard, no judge or jury would convict a parent to a jail term if they killed their child's abuser


Please explain where you were misrepresented.

Because, Arthur, what I said was personal and very much hypothetical. I did not once say it was legal, nor did I provide links on how to kill someone and try to claim those links were legal. I did not advocate killing paedophiles, nor did I advocate the legality of such actions. You, on the other hand, are linking sites with illegal content (and you are still doing it, even after your warning) and telling people it is legal to have such software (the software itself is illegal by the way) and saying millions of people rip DVD's.

Can you understand the difference now?

Hmmm?
Since when was making explosives illegal?
It is something I, and many thousands of others, do for fun.
I'd post a link to one of my favorite sites but.....

So now you are trying to advocate that bomb making is legal?

The software is not like Child Porn and thus universally illegal Bells.
So yes, the sites are perfectly legal.
Indeed a little bit of sleuthing would show that many of those sites have been around for YEARS.

And yet, the content of such sites are illegal.

I don't expect to be treated differently, and no James didn't have to ask, he could have told me to take them out. Is that too much to ask since the sites I linked to were NOT illegal?
As to other member's demands, since when are members the same as moderators?

More to the point, you just linked to THIS site:

http://www.pcworld.com/article/11954...lourishes.html

Which includes this:

You mean a link to a magazine which is discussing how many sites are breaking the law and naming and virtually shaming them? That's what you are going to go with? And James did tell you to remove them (and to not post more again, which it appears you have done so). That is what the warning is for.

The article also states that those sites were either removed or they deleted any mention of software that allows one to circumvent CSS on DVD's because it is illegal.

Which explains in pretty good detail where to get the software to copy DVDs and provides the links to sites telling you step by step how to do so.

How is that link you posted materially different than the links I posted?

I'm sorry, but I need to ask. Are you incapable of reading and comprehending that the article clearly states that software which bypasses the CSS encryption on DVD's is illegal to distribute in the US?

But the sites weren't in the US, and neither links to the sites or going to the sites, even from the US is not in any way illegal.

The software is also illegal in Europe. Sorry Arthur, but your argument fails.

As to Netflix, sure, but not that different.

Okay..

Why in the world are you linking a site which explains how to break the law and rip movies? I ask because you were warned about posting such links on this site already.

I buy the software and make the copies and have NO REASON to even know what the DMCA is, or to think that I may have innocently violated a provision in it that was written to stop Piracy.

So the warnings at the start of DVD's which tells you it is illegal to bypass its CSS encryption (ie do not copy and do not copy and distribute the contents of that DVD) escaped your notice?

Because what I'm doing has NOTHING to do with Piracy, and everything to do with FAIR USE.

You're just ripping DVD's and bypassing the security encryption to do it.

And apparently one of the reasons is because your grown up children like to watch The Little Mermaid. I have to say, you have no idea of the level of self control I am exerting to not comment on that.

 

[parmalee]

So now you are trying to advocate that bomb making is legal?

Heh. Towards the bottom of that article:

When lawsuits erupted over DeCSS technology available over the Internet, allowing users to "crack" DVD encryption, the founders questioned why bomb-making instructions were legal, while software cracks that simply cost corporations money were not.

What??? Wikipedia is asserting that such software is not legal. Hopefully Arthur will set them straight.

 

[adoucette]

A market that is declining by 10% every year, for years on end, is not "healthy" regardless of what dollar figure it currently stands at. DVD's - and BluRay - will go the way fo the dodo soon enough.

Don't matter for this discussion

We are talking about DVD sales since the DMCA was passed and that's a huge number.

And clearly it is still healthy, here are the Blu-Ray sales for one week.

http://www.the-numbers.com/weekly-bluray-sales-chart

Here are the DVD sales for one week.

http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/weekly/thisweek.php

Seems to be very healthy sales.

Annual sales look to be on the order of 140+ million, with over 30 million BlueRay sales

And taken with this posted from 7 years ago:

DVD Ripping Flourishes
Hollywood's attempts to stamp out DVD copying are circumvented by the proliferation of DVD-duplication tools.

Which included this tidbit:

Over one million copies of 321 Studio's DVD X Copy were sold

http://www.pcworld.com/article/119549/dvd_ripping_flourishes.html

And since then a LOT more companies and products have come into the business.

So yeah, my assertion that millions and millions of DVD copies are being made is a reasonable conclusion.

 

[Bells]

Don't matter for this discussion

We are talking about DVD sales since the DMCA was passed and that's a huge number.

And clearly it is still healthy, here are the Blu-Ray sales for one week.

http://www.the-numbers.com/weekly-bluray-sales-chart

Here are the DVD sales for one week.

http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/weekly/thisweek.php

Seems to be very healthy sales.

And taken with this posted from 7 years ago:

DVD Ripping Flourishes
Hollywood's attempts to stamp out DVD copying are circumvented by the proliferation of DVD-duplication tools.

Which included this tidbit:

Over one million copies of 321 Studio's DVD X Copy were sold

http://www.pcworld.com/article/119549/dvd_ripping_flourishes.html

And since then a LOT more companies and products have come into the business.

So yeah, my assertion that millions and millions of DVD copies are being made is a reasonable conclusion.

Millions of people also buy illicit drugs. Doesn't mean it's legal.

 

[Bells]

You obviously don't have KIDS, plural.
They don't get tired of their favorites.
My very grown kids still like to watch Little Mermaid every now and again.

So you have ripped The Little Mermaid so that your grown up children can still watch it?

Are you aware that fair use does not cover distributing the copied version? In other words, fair use is for your own personal use and not your children's?

 

[adoucette]

We have a lot of US members. The contents of those sites are also illegal in many other countries, including member States of the EU (where any software which circumvents the CSS on a DVD is illegal). And I can assure you, if a movie studio that owns the rights to a movie finds out someone is ripping their DVD's in another country, they would go after them.

So, the sites are still legal.

Because, Arthur, what I said was personal and very much hypothetical. I did not once say it was legal, nor did I provide links on how to kill someone and try to claim those links were legal. I did not advocate killing paedophiles, nor did I advocate the legality of such actions. You, on the other hand, are linking sites with illegal content (and you are still doing it, even after your warning) and telling people it is legal to have such software (the software itself is illegal by the way) and saying millions of people rip DVD's.

Can you understand the difference now?

No Bells you are an officer of the court and you assured someone that they would not be prosecuted for murder and there was nothing hypothetical about your statement.

You should be ashamed of yourself.

So now you are trying to advocate that bomb making is legal?

Really can't get it straight can you Bells.

You said making EXPLOSIVES.

Then when I point out that thousands of people legally make explosives and there are plenty of legal sites on the internet explaining how to make them you CHANGE what I posted and use BOMBS.

Not quite the same thing Bells.

And yet, the content of such sites are illegal.

In SOME places.
But the site itself is not illegal to link to.
And it was important to the discussion.
Even now our ability to even discuss this topic is hampered by this silly and totally meaningless censorship of sites anyone can find with about 15 key strokes.

Do you not see the difference?

You mean a link to a magazine which is discussing how many sites are breaking the law and naming and virtually shaming them? That's what you are going to go with? And James did tell you to remove them (and to not post more again, which it appears you have done so). That is what the warning is for.

Now you want to give me a warning for posting to a Wikipedia article?

Are you fucking kidding me?

As to the article you posted, it doesn't matter if you think it was shaming them, but it was telling those reading it (with links) exactly where to go to get the software and how to use it.

The article also states that those sites were either removed or they deleted any mention of software that allows one to circumvent CSS on DVD's because it is illegal.

No the article had LIVE links to sites that explained exactly how to make copies of DVDs and BlueRay disks.

I'd post the relevant part of the article with the hot links, but knowing the mods on this site, I'd get a warning for doing so.

Why in the world are you linking a site which explains how to break the law and rip movies? I ask because you were warned about posting such links on this site already.

I've linked to no such site, I linked to a Wiki article,which isn't selling anything.

So the warnings at the start of DVD's which tells you it is illegal to bypass its CSS encryption (ie do not copy and do not copy and distribute the contents of that DVD) escaped your notice?

Nope, the same warnings are on VHS tapes as well, they just don't apply to copies made under fair use.

You're just ripping DVD's and bypassing the security encryption to do it.

Yes, under fair use, Circumvention isn't Infringement

 

[adoucette]

So you have ripped The Little Mermaid so that your grown up children can still watch it?

Nope, it's on VHS

My youngest daughter (who is a grown woman) still lives with me.
She took the movie to the beach when we went last summer and about a dozen people watched it and had a good time doing so.

The issue I was bringing up had to do with the fact that good movies stand the test of time.

Are you aware that fair use does not cover distributing the copied version? In other words, fair use is for your own personal use and not your children's?

Yes I am aware, and I have not copied any DVDs that have left my possession.

 

[adoucette]

Millions of people also buy illicit drugs. Doesn't mean it's legal.

Of course, I've never made the claim that the fact that millions of people make copies of their DVDs means it is legal to do so.

The claim is that millions of people make personal copies or shift formats and have been doing so for over a decade since the DMCA was passed and not one of them has been taken to court for doing so.

Such is clearly NOT the case with illicit drugs.

 

[quadraphonics]

Which included this tidbit:

Over one million copies of 321 Studio's DVD X Copy were sold

So you've got one million copies sold, worldwide, and then the company gets shuttered and since then no software with CSS-bypass capabilities has been legally available in the USA. Still seems short of "millions and millions do this every day."

And since then a LOT more companies and products have come into the business.

No, it's the opposite. Since then, it has become impossible to legally purchase DVD ripping software in the USA.

Regardless, let's note that this is still a bunch of speculation and that you are trying to sneakily define down the expectations:

So yeah, my assertion that millions and millions of DVD copies are being made is a reasonable conclusion.

I didn't ask whether it was "reasonable" in the absence of real data. I asked you to provide actual citations that establish how much of this is actually going on. All you've come up with is a bunch of hand-waving about how many DVDs and and copies of a software package have been sold. This is far from conclusive.

Quite likely, you are unable to provide convincing data on usage patterns for the exact same reason as the MPAA finds it impossible to build a case against individual DVD rippers (who don't share the results): there is really no way to know such things with much certainty.

 

[quadraphonics]

Of course, I've never made the claim that the fact that millions of people make copies of their DVDs means it is legal to do so.

Yes you have. That is exactly the crux of your entire position for umpteen pages now. You are currently right in the middle of arguing major portions of it (that millions of people are doing it, and that no other comparable "unenforced law" has ever existed). You have made that claim explicitly - literally - dozens of times in this thread.

I recommend you retract this lie, before you get confronted with an avalanche of quotes of yourself making exactly the claim you deny making.

The claim is that millions of people make personal copies or shift formats and have been doing so for over a decade since the DMCA was passed and not one of them has been taken to court for doing so.

And you then infer that such implies it must be legal, or they'd be getting taken to court. You have repeatedly and emphatically rejected every other explanation for that outcome. Nobody has challenged the observation that ripping happens and that people who do so only for personal use have not been taken to court and are not likely to be.

If you make no claims beyond that - if you do not present the above as evidence of actual legality - then you are in perfect agreement with everyone else in this thread when it comes to the lack of prosecutions of such individuals.

So which is it? Do you, in fact, agree exactly with myself, Trippy, etc. or are you presenting this as evidence of legality? Because if it's the former, then one wonders why in the hell you've been making exactly that an issue of contention. And if it's the latter, well, you're telling bald-faced lies in your post there.

 

[Bells]

So, the sites are still legal.

But their contents are illegal.

No Bells you are an officer of the court and you assured someone that they would not be prosecuted for murder and there was nothing hypothetical about your statement.

Firstly, I am retired.

Secondly, I said that no judge or jury would imprison someone for doing what the father did in the OP. I have yet to find a single case where one was sentenced to prison time in the rare occasion such a crime was committed in the past. He [the father in the OP] was charged, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter and was placed on probation. Do you understand now?

I did not advocate that it was legal to do what he did, nor did I provide links on how to do what he did.

My comments about what I would do if I was ever placed in such a situation were very much hypothetical. Again, do you understand now?

Really can't get it straight can you Bells.

You said making EXPLOSIVES.

Then when I point out that thousands of people legally make explosives and there are plenty of legal sites on the internet explaining how to make them you CHANGE what I posted and use BOMBS.

Not really the same thing Bells.

So bombs don't fall under the banner of 'explosive devices'?

That's a new one.

In SOME places.
But the site itself is not illegal to link to.

Do you not see the difference?

So because it may be legal in, say, Afghanistan for example, you think you are legally justified in posting links to it here? Are you aware that some countries (including Australia) actually block such sites because the content of such sites are illegal (such as bomb making sites)?

Now you want to give me a fucking warning for posting to a Wikipedia site?

Are you kidding?

As to the article, you might have thought it was shaming them, but it was telling those reading it (with links) exactly where to go to get the software and how to use it.

I was talking about the link that comes after this comment, a link which tells readers where to go if they want to steal movies from legitimate online movie sites. I meant the link after this:

As to Netflix, sure, but not that different.

It wasn't the wiki site that I was commenting on, and you know it. So please, don't play stupid with me.

No the article had LIVE links to sites.

To sites which had the offending software removed and also to discuss how such sites were still breaking the law. Really, reading and comprehension is that hard for you to grasp?

I've linked to no such site.

Oh, so you have deleted the link which tells people how to steal movies from an online movie site?

Nope, they are on VHS tapes as well, they just don't apply to fair use.

Bypassing security encryption to rip movies is not legal and is not covered under fair use.

Yes, under fair use, Circumvention isn't Infringement

Which I guess is only in your household, since as everyone else here has spent a ridiculous amount of pages pointing out to you that is not really the case.

 

[adoucette]

I didn't say that you shouldn't buy it.

Well that's exactly what it appears you are saying.

Like I said, I have no control over the deals artists make with their labels but I don't see how NOT buying their music helps them.

And no matter how bad the deal they made with their label is, buying their music is pretty much the only way most people can show support for an artist.

 

[Bells]

Nope, it's on VHS

My youngest daughter (who is a grown woman) still lives with me.
She took the movie to the beach when we went last summer and about a dozen people watched it and had a good time doing so.

You mean she broke the law?

The issue I was bringing up had to do with the fact that good movies stand the test of time.

Right.. Because The Little Mermaid falls into the 'good movie' category...

Yes I am aware, and I have not copied any DVDs that have left my possession.

Just VHS movies which was then taken out of your possession and distributed to your daughter which was then shown to "about a dozen people"...

*Snort*

God damn precious!

Of course, I've never made the claim that the fact that millions of people make copies of their DVDs means it is legal to do so.

Yes you have.

The claim is that millions of people make personal copies or shift formats and have been doing so for over a decade since the DMCA was passed and not one of them has been taken to court for doing so.

Does not mean it is not illegal.

You have been carrying for over 20 pages now about how legal it is to rip DVD's, you provided links to websites which sell illegal software which would allow one to rip DVD's and you claimed it was legal.

Are you now changing your position?

Such is clearly NOT the case with illicit drugs.

Really? Your stance in this thread has been to say that millions are ripping DVD's because it's legal.

 

[leopold]

And I also had a friend who at one time worked for a large shoe manufacturer--Nike, in fact--and in that short time he did some very disgusting things, frankly. He was partly responsible for two television commercials which featured very brief--and consequently, covered under Fair Use--extracts from one track by Fred Frith and one by Faust. Neither artist was especially pleased by this, but they could do nothing about it.

i do not consider this as "fair use" simply because it was for monetary gain.
then again if the piece was short enough the producers could claim it came from anywhere.

i also do not consider copying movie DVDs as fair use either.
there is simply no reason for it except 3.
1. archival (historical) purposes
2. manufacturing defects.
3. user negligence.

number 2 is dealt with by the manufacturer by replacement.
number 3, i'm sorry but negligence on your part is, well, YOUR fault.

in my opinion it's also illegal to let anyone other than the purchaser to view a copyrighted movie except by arrangement with the manufacturer.

 

[quadraphonics]

Which I guess is only in your household, since as everyone else here has spent a ridiculous amount of pages pointing out to you that is not really the case.

Nah, that one's just a red herring. Nobody is claiming that circumvention is copyright infringment. The point is that there's another law - the DMCA - that makes circumvention illegal on its own, even if you don't do it to infringe a copyright. The fact that this cripples people's ability to do non-infringing things is exactly why people don't like the DMCA, and why they want it amended to clearly allow such Fair Uses, and why it has resulted in a morass of unclear legal precedents.

Adoucette, for his part, recognizes this popular distaste for the mess Congress created by engaging in a give-away to monied interests at the expense of individual Fair Use rights as an instance of threatening disrespect for authority. It follows from his authoritarian nature that such complaints must be wrong and stupid, and so he has inferred from that that there is no issue with Fair Use rights and that Congress crafted a wise and just and unproblematic law that only falls on pirates and other criminals. He must do this, or he couldn't go around demanding even more heavy-handed authoritarian actions against pirates as he is wont to do - he'd have to admit that such invites overreach, disrespect for individual rights, and corporate favoritism and so generally points out exactly the standard complaints about authority that he consistently works to minimize and disregard.

 

[Enmos]

in my opinion it's also illegal to let anyone other than the purchaser to view a copyrighted movie except by arrangement with the manufacturer.

Well..
So anytime I buy a movie I would have to watch it alone? I can't watch it with friends or family?

 

[adoucette]

But their contents are illegal.

Only in some countries Bells.
But the point is, just linking to the site is NOT illegal.
And that's what James and your claim has been, that a LINK to the site, for the purpose of showing the software exists, or as Trippy and I have been trying to do, without being able to post links, is to discuss what is on the site as far as legality.

Indeed it's obvious during this discussion that quite a few people have gone to one of these sites just for that purpose.

Were any of them violating any laws by doing so Bells?

NO THEY WEREN'T

Firstly, I am retired.

Doesn't matter, you have trotted out your qualifications to often for your legal standings to be considered a lay opinion.

Secondly, I said that no judge or jury would imprison someone for doing what the father did in the OP.

And that is absolutely not true.

I did not advocate that it was legal to do what he did, nor did I provide links on how to do what he did.

Of course you did when you ASSURED us that if one did so, one would have no fear of jail or punishment.

So bombs don't fall under the banner of 'explosive devices'?

They are one class of explosives yes, but then Fireworks are another.

Fireworks are not considered BOMBS.

So because it may be legal in, say, Afghanistan for example, you think you are legally justified in posting links to it here? Are you aware that some countries (including Australia) actually block such sites because the content of such sites are illegal (such as bomb making sites)?

Well if the nation a user is in blocks a site it wouldn't show up would it?

I was talking about the link that comes after this comment, a link which tells readers where to go if they want to steal movies from legitimate online movie sites. I meant the link after this:

You posted a link to this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2898036&postcount=664

There is no such link in that post.

To sites which had the offending software removed and also to discuss how such sites were still breaking the law. Really, reading and comprehension is that hard for you to grasp?

No Bells, the link you posted has a hot link to a site that contains this sort of thing:

In this guide we will use BD Rebuilder in order to copy a Blu-ray movie after recoding it in order to fit into a smaller disc. You can download BD Rebuilder from the link below, a

and

The 3.2 version of DVD Shrink introduced many new features, enough to make the need for a new guide essential. In this guide we are going to see how to copy a DVD using DVD Shrink and the new features and settings.
For those that do not know what DVD Shrink is: it is an application that can copy DVDs, and especially fit full DVD9 discs into cheaper DVD5 media (shrink them!).

Oh, so you have deleted the link which tells people how to steal movies from an online movie site?

I posted a link to show that Quad's saying that he downloads Netflix movies to a portable device was not dissimilar to copying DVDs.
But since there is no CSS encryption involved apparently no one here thinks doing so is illegal. But the link I posted isn't selling anything and doesn't have any instructions on doing so, like your post it has a link to a link.

For Quads case I'm sure he is basing it on the legal ruling that Circumvention isn't infringement.

Bypassing security encryption to rip movies is not legal and is not covered under fair use.

That's what's under discussion Bells.

I know that's your opinion but then no one in the US has ever been arrested/sued for doing so, so there is no court case to support your assertion of fact.

I on the other hand have shown LOTS of relevant case law that suggests the opposite is true.

Which I guess is only in your household, since as everyone else here has spent a ridiculous amount of pages pointing out to you that is not really the case.

Yeah, and when you can provide a case where someone is actually sued/arrested for doing so, then you will have a basis for your argument.

In the mean time you have nothing.