Wikipedia protest shutdown

[adoucette]

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

So is that the level of discussion we are limited to Bells?

If something is illegal or controlled in any area of the world we can't discuss it here?

That on a Science based site it's now wrong to link to sites that explain how to make fireworks or to discuss the formulations for the flash powders used in fireworks because in some areas of the world Fireworks can't be sold to the public.

Really?

 

[adoucette]

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.

NO

I was very happy when the Chamberlain ruling came out because it finally shed some sanity on this issue.

This was KEY:

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

Which says your "plain language" conclusion that the DMCA makes circumvention illegal on its own is not true when the person is doing something which is an authorized use under long standing principles of copyright law

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.

No I found it, up until Chamberlain, a muddled mess, tilting towards the always restrictive desires of the MPAA, among many on the way to interpret the legislation oriented towards stopping piracy.

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.

No, I've always thought that Congress was ill advised to go after Piracy in this manner. Another poster has pointed out in another thread that this is not even technically feasible to do. And I do think the confusion over the DMCA and it's applicability toward's fair use has unfairly prevented lots of people from easily invoking their fair use rights, and always have thought so.

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

I have no problem with actions taken against people who are pirating and making money off the work of others. Indeed I support Congress' attempt to come up with a reasonable way to make Piracy unprofitable. Fair use is NOT piracy however.

I also believe in the inclusion of "innocent violations" clauses to make sure that the laws aren't in fact heavy handed, or as in SOPA, only targeting sites that have little other use besides piracy, the requirement for the AG to get a court order (no unilateral imposition of penalty), the importance of not including a burdensome monitoring provision, the inclusion or reasonable times to act after notice and not messing with the DNS system, etc.

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.

And yet I'm the main one who is arguing (over and over and over) for the existence of individual Fair Use rights in regard to DVDs in this thread and have received a warning for attempting to do so. You know by posting links to sites that you specifically claimed were possibly illegal to link to. So the only one I can see who believes in heavy handed authoritarian actions and overreach would be you, James and Bells.

 

[adoucette]

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.

No Bells, to get the streamed copy from NetFlix one has to pay for it.
So one isn't stealing it.
Indeed, since circumvention isn't infringement, it is no different than ordering a Movie on Demand from your Cable company and saving it to your hard drive, for time shifting reasons.

Time Shifting was approved as Fair Use in the BetaMax decision.

Which is why we can record things off of the air and cable.

What you are advocating is that ANY copyright holder could put any trivial "lock" on their material and by doing so take away our rights under Fair Use.

But the court specifically ruled against that interpretation:

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 you can't withhold authorization for Fair Use (to do so would indeed grant new property rights to copyright holders), proof of this is our multi-decade long ability to copy any audio/video media we buy for our personal use of backup, time shifting or format shifting. (all of which were fought by the MPAA or RIAA and in every fair use case they lost)

The statutory structure and the legislative history both make it clear that the DMCA ...neither rescinded the basic bargain granting the public noninfringing and fair uses of copyrighted materials,

And nearly everyone has now agreed that copies for personal use for backup, time shifting or format shifting are NON-INFRINGING.

I provided case law which proves that your position is actually wrong.

No you haven't because there IS no CASE LAW on this specific issue.
If you think there is, please cite the case where someone has even been tried for making personal use backups of a DVD.

Legislation was also provided to you numerous times by myself and others showing that what you are actually doing is illegal.

And I've provided Court opinions that show that your interpretations are wrong.

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

Which is EXACTLY what your interpretation would do.

Repeal long standing principles of copyright law.

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...

Now you are just lying Bells.
I never said I did any such thing, nor have I said that distributing copies to ANYONE was a legal fair use.

Not one of my arguments has been about extending our rights under Fair Use.

 

[Trippy]

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

I don't recall saying they were, only suggesting that some, buy design, were and that the BTFA classified some as explosive devices.

 

[parmalee]

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

Only if you are a fucking illiterate--which, obviously, YOU ARE.

I'm not even gonna bother responding to the rest of that, because... well, YOU CAN"T READ.


Here's a tip, Arthur.

When a sentence--note: I said A SENTENCE there; rather A SENTENCE--is separated by COMMAS or SEMI-COLONS, a reader ought to consider it in entirety, and not simply pick out phrases and clauses and respond to them as though they are completely and entirely representative of what is being expressed.

UNDERSTAND?

DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, ARTHUR? OR NEED I USE A BIGGER FONT?

i know one isn't supposed to request these things, but can a moderator please--PLEASSSSEEEE--ban this fucking idiot?

 

[parmalee]

That is taken out of context,

Actually, I'll respond to this bit--and take it out of context:

Oh, really, retard? What, your whole fucking post and my whole fucking post isn't enough context for you? Do you need me to quote the entire fucking thread in my post?

GO FUCK YOURSELF, you pathetic loser.

 

[adoucette]

Only if you are a fucking illiterate--which, obviously, YOU ARE.

I'm not even gonna bother responding to the rest of that, because... well, YOU CAN"T READ.


Here's a tip, Arthur.

When a sentence--note: I said A SENTENCE there; rather A SENTENCE--is separated by COMMAS or SEMI-COLONS, a reader ought to consider it in entirety, and not simply pick out phrases and clauses and respond to them as though they are completely and entirely representative of what is being expressed.

UNDERSTAND?

You wrote:

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."

So that use of the Semicolon comes under THIS description of usage:

It is used as a stronger division than a comma, to make meaning clear in a sentence where commas are already being used for other purposes. A common example of this use is to separate the items of a list when some of the items themselves contain commas. http://www.the-semicolon.com/

So that's how I took your use of a semicolon, to separate items in a list when some of the items themselves contain commas.

So I read that tortured sentence as maybe I'm saying that one shouldn't buy major label releases as one in a list of things you are saying I shouldnt do if I think my actions are going to support the artist.

More to the point, even if I did misunderstand your tortured sentence structure, you have the right to correct my misunderstanding, but that doesn't give you the right to post this childish kind of childish BS:

Oh, really, retard? What, your whole fucking post and my whole fucking post isn't enough context for you? Do you need me to quote the entire fucking thread in my post?

GO FUCK YOURSELF, you pathetic loser.

I was being civil to you, there is no call for this kind of response.

 

[adoucette]

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.

Yes, and you believe that a copyright holder can put a cheap lock on their work and by doing so negate our long standing usage rights under the doctrine of Fair Use.

BUT

The court said just the opposite:

the DMCA emphatically did not“fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers

Well if that's the case, and consumers have been able to make back-up copies and shift formats for EVERY one of the many analog and digital audio or visual media they have bought since tape-recorders were invented, in other words over at least the last 5 decades, it is self evident that consumers would obviously have the REASONABLE EXPECTATION that they could do also so with their DVDs.

Consider my 30 year old daughter.
Never in her lifetime has there been any restriction on copying any of the Analog of Digital versions of audio or video or software media that she has ever purchased under Fair Use.

How could the same Fair Use rights for the DVDs she buys not be a reasonable expectation?

And that issue was further expounded on:

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.

YES, as pointed out, LONG GRANTED TO THE PUBLIC.

And the Court similarly warned, that the statutes in the DMCA, were NOT intended to be used in ways to repeal these LONG STANDING PRINCIPLES

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

Which is EXACTLY what you claim it does.

 

[adoucette]

oh dear me

I'll say.

I doubt I'll still be at this two weeks from now, but do feel free to catch up with some more of your attempts at being clever.

 

[parmalee]

to separate items in a list when some of the items themselves contain commas

Exactly. And the final item is preceded by an "and."

Your point, idiot?

 

[adoucette]

Exactly. And the final item is preceded by an "and."

Your point, idiot?

I understand.

Take the rest of the list items out and you have:

Or, maybe I'm saying that one shouldn't buy major label releases and then act as though one's actions are "supporting the artists."

So you ARE saying if I want to support "the artists" I shouldn't buy releases from the major labels.

 

[parmalee]

Your fondness for substandard Disney fare obviously hasn't served you well--at least, in so far as your comprehension of the English language goes.

 

[parmalee]

Take the rest of the list items out and you have:

Is that what one ordinarily does when the list includes "and"?

Edit: This post does not make a whole lotta sense now, as the post to which I was responding was subsequently altered.

 

[adoucette]

Is that what one ordinarily does when the list includes "and"?

They were multiple items in a list separated by semicolons.

I put the first item from the list (Blue) and included the and along with what follows the last item in the list(RED).

So this statement should stand on it's own.

It's just easier to read this way, but when I commented on your post, I did indeed deal with each item in your list.

Or, maybe I'm saying that one shouldn't buy major label releases and then act as though one's actions are "supporting the artists."

So you ARE saying if I want to support "the artists" I shouldn't buy releases from the major labels.

 

[Enmos]

are you actually arguing FOR theft?

No, I just think it's insane that I wouldn't be allowed to watch my legal DVD with friends.
I'm not allowed to lend someone a book a own either?

 

[adoucette]

Is that what one ordinarily does when the list includes "and"?

Edit: This post does not make a whole lotta sense now, as the post to which I was responding was subsequently altered.

No it wasn't.

You were responding to post 771 and it has not been edited.

Nor has the original reply 754 been edited.

 

[adoucette]

almost.
family yes, friends no.

So in your idea of how the world works, you couldn't invite your girlfriend over to watch a movie legally.

YIKES

You sure have a very restrictive view of Fair Use.

 

[parmalee]

Or, maybe I'm saying that one shouldn't buy major label releases and then act as though one's actions are "supporting the artists."

So you ARE saying if I want to support "the artists" I shouldn't buy releases from the major labels.

I didn't suggest that you did alter post 754.

Regardless, do you honestly think that either your formulation above or mine means the same as "So you ARE in fact saying I shouldn't support artists because they sign with major labels"?

Seriously?

I can only conclude one of two things from your exchanges here--both with me and with other posters:

Your are simply an idiot. If this is the case, then I apologize.

Your distortions and misconstruals are deliberate, in which case you are simply a prick. And I can only hope that you will be brutally ass-raped until you finally succumb to old age--figuratively speaking, of course.

Either way, I'm bored.

 

[adoucette]

I didn't suggest that you did alter post 754.

No, you suggested I altered post 771, the one you were responding to, but it has not been edited. So the fact that your post makes no sense is all on you.

Regardless, do you honestly think that either your formulation above or mine means the same as "So you ARE in fact saying I shouldn't support artists because they sign with major labels"?

Seriously?

How are they not the same?

I want to support the artists but I only have a limited amount of money to spend on entertainment.

But you say that if I spend my entertainment money on artists on major labels than I can't claim that I'm supporting "the artists".

And do try to quit fantasizing about my ass.

 

[leopold]

i know one isn't supposed to request these things, but can a moderator please--PLEASSSSEEEE--ban this fucking idiot?

why?
how do you think such things like this are decided?

adoucette claims it's legal, and it is . . . in HIS country.

i think it's clearly obvious that what is needed is a universal copyright law.
the only way to get that is to thrash this out, item by item.