Wikipedia protest shutdown

[Bells]

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

If you rip a movie from a DVD and then show it all your friends and family...

See the difference?

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

The content of those sites are illegal in the US, EU States, parts of Asia, Canada, some countries in South America, etc..

Just because the content of such sites may be legal in some parts of the world does not mean that it is acceptable to post it here and tell people it's legal to rip DVD's.

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

And I bet you will never find a post where I gave legal advice on this site because of my qualifications.

And that is absolutely not true.

You know of cases where they have? Excellent. Can you please post them in that thread?

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

Citing recent cases and the one in the OP as an example. Really, it's not that hard.

I never once, not once, did I claim it was legal to kill someone else in the hypothetical situation we discussed in that thread. Not once.

So please, try again.

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

Fireworks are not considered BOMBS.

And in many areas of the world, fireworks are controlled substances and in some instances, it is illegal to sell to the public.

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

You are kind of missing the point.

And I suspect it is deliberate.

You posted a link to this post: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=664

There is no such link in that post.

Actually there is. Look again. Scroll down to where you comment on Netflix..

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

The link I posted discusses how sites are still selling illegal software.

Try again though.

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.

The site you linked comments about how Netflix does not approve of people hacking their system to steal their movies without paying after telling people that there is a way to do it and then linking to the site that tells people who to steal movies online.

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

I provided case law which proves that your position is actually wrong. Legislation was also provided to you numerous times by myself and others showing that what you are actually doing is illegal. But hey, those grown up kids of yours have to watch The Little Mermaid and then show it to all their friends so rip movies you will to show and distribute to your adult daughter's friends you will...

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.

You miss the point.. it still does not mean what you are doing is legal. What you are doing is very much illegal and you are advocating it being legal on this site and providing people with the means to copy your illegal behaviour.

 

[quadraphonics]

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.

I didn't say that I "download" Netflix movies to a portable device. I said that I stream them directly to a mobile device. There is no copy made, and the data is thrown away as soon as it is decoded and displayed.

Are you genuinely unaware that Netflix can run on tablets and smartphones?

But since there is no CSS encryption involved apparently no one here thinks doing so is illegal.

Actually I'm pretty sure that Netflix streams are encrypted in some way. But I don't bypass any of that, nor make any copies. I just stream licensed content to an authorized playback system.

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

No, I'm "basing it" on the fact that no circumvention is taking place. Nor is any copying, for that matter. I'm not doing anything that isn't explicitly approved by all of the copyright holders involved.

And, for the 100th time, the fact that circumvention isn't infringement doesn't mean that circumvention isn't illegal in its own right. Breaking and entering isn't theft, but it's still illegal.

 

[Trippy]

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

Fireworks are not considered BOMBS.

Some are.
Salute (pyrotechnics)
Cherry Bombs are now even classed as explosive devices in the US under the BTFA

In NZ Salutes roughly equivalent to the M80, and some smaller versions have only in my life time become unavailable to the public. I can remember breaking them in half and lighting the as 'Fizzers'. We had Tomb Thumbs, Fire Crackers and Double Happy's - Bells may remember them, I imagine they were called something similar over the ditch.

 

[quadraphonics]

I imagine they were called something similar over the ditch.

LOL is that the local slang for the Tasman Sea?

 

[parmalee]

Originally Posted by me
I didn't say that you shouldn't buy it.

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

?

Or, maybe I'm saying that one shouldn't buy major label releases; speak dismissively of independent label releases ("Reasonable quantities"? So the artists who sell ten or twenty thousand copies of a release do not merit your concern or "support"?); claim that legislation such as SOPA is largely favored by "artists" when the links that you provided list primarily interest groups, NGOs, major labels, ASCAP/BMI, and the RIAA; and then act as though one's actions are "supporting the artists."

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.

Or, one could always try supporting artists by purchasing releases on independent labels, for which the likelihood of the artists getting a raw deal is lessened enormously.

 

[James R]

adoucette:

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.

You're not getting it.

I DON'T CARE whether posting links to sites is legal or illegal. Your links point to sites where one can obtain software that is made explicityl to allow users to engage in illegal activity. By linking to those sites, you are enabling and condoning such illegal activities, as in fact you are explicitly doing in your posts to this thread.

sciforums has no obligation or desire to provide free advice to criminals or to make it easier for criminals to carry out illegal acts.

If you wish to promote illegal acts, you can do so on some other forum.

Get it?

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.

One can also google search for "child porn" or for "bomb making" or for "arson", "theft" or "murder" and thereby find all manner of resources that might help in such endeavours.

sciforums is not obliged to assist criminals, no matter how much you may want us to.

Get it?

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?

I cannot and do not read every post on sciforums, or every thread. If something is missed by the moderators a brief amount of thought may lead you to conclude that (a) the moderators are unaware of the offending material; and (b) nobody has drawn the attention of the moderators to the offending material.

Clear?

Also, recall the point I made to you above: two wrongs don't make a right. The fact that you don't get away with posting unacceptable material and somebody else does (for whatever reason) doesn't make your material any more acceptable. Nor does it leave you in the clear from moderator action.

Understand?
---

One more thing: I am quite capable of following the discussions in this thread myself. You do not need to repeat your arguments to me, especially given that you are endlessly and desperately rehashing them to the other people who are actually engaging with you in this thread.

I am not interested in your claims. My interest in this thread is to protect sciforums for possible legal liability. I do not wish to engage with you in a debate, so please don't waste any more of my time.

Clear?

 

[Trippy]

LOL is that the local slang for the Tasman Sea?

More or less, yeah.

 

[leopold]

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

almost.
family yes, friends no.

there is a reason for the law in this case.
a movie doesn't "run out" like a gallon of gas, it doesn't get "used up" when you watch it.
finding comparisons for this scenario is tough to do.

if you look at this objectively you will see the reasoning behind it.

 

[Bells]

Some are.
Salute (pyrotechnics)
Cherry Bombs are now even classed as explosive devices in the US under the BTFA

In NZ Salutes roughly equivalent to the M80, and some smaller versions have only in my life time become unavailable to the public. I can remember breaking them in half and lighting the as 'Fizzers'. We had Tomb Thumbs, Fire Crackers and Double Happy's - Bells may remember them, I imagine they were called something similar over the ditch.

Vaguely. I remember them but we weren't allowed to play with them and when I was very little and before we migrated to Australia, we used to fire the small fire crackers, but only with adult supervision (which amounted to my father or uncle(s) lighting the fuse and making us stand back).. I remember they (small fire crackers) being nearly impossible to buy when we came to Australia and fireworks even more so.

LOL is that the local slang for the Tasman Sea?

Yes.

Australians and New Zealanders often refer to the Tasman Sea as 'The Ditch'. Why my husband's family come to visit from New Zealand, they would tell us they were 'crossing The Ditch' on such and such date.:m:

 

[Enmos]

almost.
family yes, friends no.

there is a reason for the law in this case.
a movie doesn't "run out" like a gallon of gas, it doesn't get "used up" when you watch it.
finding comparisons for this scenario is tough to do.

It's easily found. What about the TV? If I buy a TV I can let everyone use it. I can even give or sell it to someone else.
Or how about a painting for an even closer comparison?

 

[Enmos]

If you rip a movie from a DVD and then show it all your friends and family...

See the difference?

Yes, there is a huge difference. Bought vs. ripped.
I don't see where you're going with this.

 

[Bells]

Yes, there is a huge difference. Bought vs. ripped.
I don't see where you're going with this.

One is legal and one is illegal. Adoucette believes that ripping a DVD (ie circumventing the encrypted and protected contents of the DVD) is legal and he has been linking sites which distribute illegal software to allow one to circumvent the encrypted coding on DVD's which are designed to protect copyright.

 

[leopold]

It's easily found. What about the TV? If I buy a TV I can let everyone use it. I can even give or sell it to someone else.
Or how about a painting for an even closer comparison?

the above examples do not fit a single owner copyrighted work.

on the other hand both TVs and cars contain patented devices that MUST be paid for by the manufacturer before they can be used.

are you actually arguing FOR theft?

aside:
another interesting aspect of this is "reverse engineering".
would it be illegal if you or i seen a device and thought "hmmm . . . this would work wonders on the ol' junker outside" and then proceded to build the device from scratch.
would this be theft?

what about innovation or improvements?
in the example above what if instead of "reverse engineering" you actually improved its design.
what about that? is that theft?

 

[adoucette]

?

Or, maybe I'm saying that one shouldn't buy major label releases;

So you ARE in fact saying I shouldn't support artists because they sign with major labels.

Sorry, if I like an artist's material the way I can support that artist is by buying their releases and unlike you I don't think I should penalize the artist for the label they choose to promote their work.

speak dismissively of independent label releases ("Reasonable quantities"? So the artists who sell ten or twenty thousand copies of a release do not merit your concern or "support"?);

That is taken out of context, I said that if artists expected to sell a reasonable large quantity of copies of their material they wouldn't do it with only a handshake to cover the details of the deal. It is not at all dismissive of their work. Almost everyone starts small.

claim that legislation such as SOPA is largely favored by "artists" when the links that you provided list primarily interest groups, NGOs, major labels, ASCAP/BMI, and the RIAA; and then act as though one's actions are "supporting the artists."

Some artists have come out against it, some have come out for it, but the vast majority of artists have said nothing about it. For obvious reasons, they don't want to alienate those who buy their records but may not agree with their position, but still these associations understand what the artists they represent want and wouldn't typically go against a strong majority position. So yes, the lists do indicate that their was a lot of artist support.

Or, one could always try supporting artists by purchasing releases on independent labels, for which the likelihood of the artists getting a raw deal is lessened enormously.

I buy what I like and I don't care what he label is if I like the material, and
I have no reason to think that just because a label is large it is bad or if it is small (independent) it is necessarily good to the artists it signs.

If you have actual evidence to suggest I shouldn't buy material from a particular label you certainly haven't produced any.

 

[adoucette]

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 that was 7 years ago and only one maker of software.
So they moved off shore and they came up with the "user integration" approach to avoid being challenged under the DMCA and as my deleted links showed, now major sites are running consumer comparisons of the TOP DVD copy software and providing links to them, so clearly there is large demand and lots of annual sales.
Remember this is a Cumulative process, so when you add up all the sales by year, it is now pretty common software.

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

Only partially true.
You can't sell the integrated version from a retail sale, but that hasn't stopped selling it to Americans.

As the article in the link that Bells posted pointed out:

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

The article pointed out that the software is readily available at retail stores such as Best Buy, Target and Wal-Mart and they all show you how to easily enable it to copy your DVDs.

And the article also pointed out: Experts say this thriving software market exists because current DVD copy protection is no longer relevant when it comes to protecting DVDs from being copied. This is because DVD ripping software (as it is called) is so easily purchased online and, in many cases, is available for free on specialty Web sites.

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

Bull.
As the 7 year old article showed this was, even back then, a "thriving software market", and it's only grown since then.

 

[adoucette]

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.

Nope, 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.

As many people point out, millions of people do illegal things without being caught, but that's not the issue, in those cases there are at least some who have in fact been charged/arrested/fined for doing so.

That is NOT the case with making Fair Use copies of DVDs.

 

[adoucette]

You mean she broke the law?

Of course not.
What law did you think she broke Bells?
She brought her personal VHS tape of Little Mermaid and showed it in a private setting to her friends and family.
All perfectly legal.

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

No, because it was well made, had good music, had plenty of laughs and drama and was a good story.
Not that is my personal favorite, but I find that most girls especially seem to like it.
My cup of tea runs more to movies like Quiggley Down Under, Dead Calm, The Great Lebowski, The Ref, Stealing Heaven, BC & the SDK, Sometimes a Great Notion etc etc

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!

It was HER movie, she got it as a present when she was a kid.

Yes you have.

Nope, as you pointed out millions of people do lots of illegal things and aren't caught.

The Difference is subtle, but what I've said 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.

It's the BOLD part that makes the statement different than your first abbreviated quote.

Does not mean it is not illegal.

I'm curious then, if something that millions of people do is NEVER EVER prosecuted, how long before you will conclude that the action is legal?

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?

Nope.
The DMCA has specific laws that prevent US companies from trafficking in software that decrypts DVDs.

But making backup copies and format shifting under fair use, which most have now agreed, is in fact legal.

But that puts one in conflict with a "plain reading" of the DMCA

But the courts have spoken to that:

Circumvention is NOT infringement and just to make sure that's clear:

It also instructs the courts explicitly not to construe the anticircumvention provisions in ways that would effectively repeal long standing principles of copyright law


And it is indeed a long standing principle of copyright law.

And so we circumvent encryption to invoke our Fair Use rights, and the courts have ruled on that:

A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused circumventor must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the circumvention at issue and a use relating to a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization.

But US consumers for many DECADES have had Fair Use Authorization for copying records onto reel to reel tape and onto cassettes and DAT tapes and taping and copying movies with their VCRs and making copies of their CDs and copying CDs onto their Laptop and Music player, in fact they have made backup copies and format shifted EVERY Audio or Video media they have owned prior to DVDs.

The very definition of long standing principles of copyright law

Indeed, as the link Trippy posted showed, the MPAA had explicitly shown how owners of DVDs can make copies of their DVDs, so they acknowledge that making copies is indeed a Fair Use.

So to construe that making a fair use copy is illegal under the DMCA would mean you are NOT following the court's instruction and you are indeed ignoring these long standing principles of copyright law.

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

And because it's fair use and is in line with our fair use for every other type of audio/video/software media we buy.

 

[adoucette]

almost.
family yes, friends no.

there is a reason for the law in this case.
a movie doesn't "run out" like a gallon of gas, it doesn't get "used up" when you watch it.
finding comparisons for this scenario is tough to do.

if you look at this objectively you will see the reasoning behind it.

And you are WRONG.

Will you not take the MPAA's word on it?

What is a Public Performance?
Suppose you invite a few friends over to watch a movie or a TV show that’s no longer available on TV. You buy or rent a DVD or Blue-ray disc from the corner store or a digital video file from an online store and show the film or TV episode in your home that night. Have you violated copyright law by illegally "publicly performing" the movie or show? Of course not.

http://www.mpaa.org/contentprotection/public-performance-law

 

[adoucette]

Some are.
Salute (pyrotechnics)
Cherry Bombs are now even classed as explosive devices in the US under the BTFA

In NZ Salutes roughly equivalent to the M80, and some smaller versions have only in my life time become unavailable to the public. I can remember breaking them in half and lighting the as 'Fizzers'. We had Tomb Thumbs, Fire Crackers and Double Happy's - Bells may remember them, I imagine they were called something similar over the ditch.

No, Fireworks are not the same thing as a BOMB.

Indeed they are designed specifically to minimize damage and injury if they go off accidentally. This is not to say they can't hurt you, indeed very large salutes could kill you, but the various chemical mixes used are designed to burn at rates that cause them to deflagrate, not explode and finally they don't use any metal in their construction to minimize any personal injury, just paper and glue.

And with the proper licence (You have to have the proof that you can make, store and transport them safely) you can make them anywhere in the US.

This also extends to making rocket motors, which was more my thing.

At one time you had to make your large motors (anything over F size) yourself.
Now you can buy them.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDppJZ4V5K4&feature=related
http://tripoli.org/Motors/tabid/59/Default.aspx
http://www.gorocketry.com/brs/LDRS23/

My licence has expired some time ago and I no longer make them, but back in the day....

Comparison to Explosives

Though both news reporters and black-market dealers often make comparisons between the power of salutes and a particular quantity of dynamite ("1/4 stick" or "as powerful as a fourth of a stick of dynamite"), such comparisons are not grounded in reality.

For reference, a typical stick of dynamite contains over 10 times more explosive material than an M-80 (35 grams of nitroglycerin versus 3 grams, typically of chlorate/sulfur powder).

Nitroglycerin explodes with a shockwave faster than the speed of sound, whereas the powders used in various salutes deflagrate (burn) at a slower rate and below the speed of sound.

This distinction is the difference between High Explosive and Low Explosive.
More to the point, dynamite undergoes detonation whereas flash powder in any quantity undergoes deflagration.

Because flash salutes do not generate a detonation wave, they have a very low brisance and they do not exhibit the Munroe effect.

 

[adoucette]

I DON'T CARE whether posting links to sites is legal or illegal. Your links point to sites where one can obtain software that is made explicityl to allow users to engage in illegal activity. By linking to those sites, you are enabling and condoning such illegal activities, as in fact you are explicitly doing in your posts to this thread.

It's quite obvious you don't care that there was nothing illegal about what I posted James.

So what you are saying is you are CENSORING our ability to even discuss the legality of this issue by not allowing us to point to sites and their language as points of the discussion.

As if merely pointing providing the links to the same sites that one can find via a simple Google search is somehow WRONG.

So to have the discussion we are left with having to give hints to the name of the site and let people hit a dozen key strokes or so to find it on their own to get around this silly and childish restriction.

And yet, because I posted those links, others went to those sites and found out information I (and I presume others as well) was not aware of.

But clearly you would prefer that we not have this level of discussion.

Yeah, got it.