I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but here we are halfway to another 20 pages, and the adoucette show seems to be hitting its stride. Do we really, really need to get to page 40?
Wikipedia protest shutdown
- Thread starter arfa brane
- Start date
wtf are you talking about?
new property rights?
Most video tapes come with a copy protection signal embedded on the tape. One popular product in this arena is made by Macrovision. According to Macrovision, "The technology is applied to over 550 million videocassettes annually and is used by every MPAA movie studio on some or all of their videocassette releases. Over 220 commercial duplication facilities around the world are equipped to supply Macrovision videocassette copy protection to rights owners." Also, "The study found that over 30% of VCR households admit to having unauthorized copies, and that the total annual revenue loss due to copying is estimated at $370,000,000 annually." So, it's a pretty big problem.
the era of vhs
css is a logical extension of old tech to new media
And you illustrate one of the other points that I have been skirting around that Adoucette has missed.
If Adoucette is right, then the problem of piracy is overstated.
Yes you are, because my interpretation is inline with Patels interpretation per Real Networks v MPAA, which in turn considered Chamberlain and still came to the conclusion that it did - that circumventing CSS to copy a DVD generates an offense under the DMCA.
hey
did anyone like that play on words?
nero fiddles...adoucette rips movie dvd's
/proud
lame?
Just to get a better definition of CSS, which is copy protection.
No!
It has been well established in every relevant case linked to AND in the last 3 or 4 decisions made by the Librarian of Congress that CSS is access control, not copy control.
It limits a users ability to copy because it limits a users access.
Yes, but Real Networks issue wasn't about someone making copies but about making something that breaks CSS.
Not the same thing at all.
As far as "circumventing CSS to copy a DVD generates an offense under the DMCA", is not quite true. As the court said it only creates "new grounds for Liability", but, the DMCA doesn't apply if you aren't making or trafficking in a device that infringes (as in Real Nets case) or what you are doing by circumvention isn't infringing, as in the case of making Fair Use backups or shifting formats.
The anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA create new grounds of liability. 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
I don't know about this.
I would suggest that if one were using mediocre equipment for playback, and good equipment for reproduction, then yes--the copy would be virtually identical, from a human perspective.
But if one were to use good equipment for playback--for both the original and the reproduced--the copy would be different, though not necessarily inferior, from the original, from many a human perspective.
Unless by "good equipment" you mean like using a 40 thousand dollar lathe to "copy" a record...
Please cite the case law for this preposterous conclusion.
Split hairs much?
Besides, this issue was addressed in Chamberlain:
Chamberlain’s proposed severance of “access” from “protection” in § 1201(a) creates numerous other problems. Beyond suggesting that Congress enacted by implication a new, highly protective alternative regime for copyrighted works; contradicting other provisions of the same statute including § 1201(c)(1); and ignoring the explicit immunization of interoperability from anticircumvention liability under § 1201(f); the broad policy implications of considering “access” in a vacuum devoid of “protection” are both absurd and disastrous.
Under Chamberlain’s proposed construction, explicated at oral argument, disabling a burglar alarm to gain “access” to a home containing copyrighted books, music, art, and periodicals would violate the DMCA; anyone who did so would unquestionably have “circumvent[ed] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].” § 1201(a)(1). The appropriate deterrents to this type of behavior lie in tort law and criminal law, not in copyright law. Yet, were we to read the statute’s “plain language” as Chamberlain urges, disabling a burglar alarm would be a per se violation of the DMCA.
Already posted, if you had bothered clicking on any of the links that have been spoonfed to you.
Which was considered in Real Networks v MPAA, which if you had bothered to read supports my assertion.
K
keith1
Guest
Keep close to mind that it is most likely that all artistic and religious activities may be worthless, time-slot stuffing, self-aggrandizements, and petty amusements of the insane.
--keith1
--keith1
So that someone can make a copy. Patel said that supporting users to exercise their fair use rights (if it was accepted that making a back up of a DVD was fair use) was not a defense in the eyes of the law.
It precisely does, because this is precisely what Real Networks argued their software did and lost in spite of it.
Right, because the law is quite different in regards to making or trafficing in something that allows infringement then it is in regards to someone using that software.
Real tried to argue that since consumers had fair use to copy, they should be allowed to make something that could be used for that purpose.
But that led to Patel's famous quote:
“The court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use,” she wrote. “While it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.”
So no, Patel's ruling applies to Real for "making and trafficing, and NOT to consumers for their fair use.
But software makers found a way around that.
By no one making and trafficking in a single device which did so.
Oh come on Trippy.
I don't just point to a court case and say FIND IT, I post the relevant sections that pertain to the issue.
You can do the same and that isn't being "spoon fed"
What is the specific language in what court case that supposedly supports your position?
Failure to post said language indicates it doesn't actually exist.
Which, aside from a breif diversion questioning whether or not making a backup actually constitutes fair use, is what I have argued.
I even went as far as asking you if you thought it was legal to buy something that it was illegal to sell, which sent you on your little "But millions of people are using it and not getting arrested" tirade.
"The Studios have established that CSS is a technological measure that effectively controls access to copyrighted works, namely, copyrighted DVD content."
"Here, the court finds that CSS technology still effectively controls access to DVD content for the average consumer."
"CSS is a “technological measure” that effectively controls access to copyrighted DVD content and RealDVD permits the access of that content without the authority of the copyright owner."
"Real has violated section 1201(a) of the DMCA by trafficking in RealDVD products for the purpose of circumventing CSS technology."
Even this:
"The court has found that CSS technology was developed to create a secure system for the dissemination and playback of copyrighted content on DVDs, and that the CSS system accomplishes this by combining multiple layers of encryption with an authentication process to protect a DVD’s content from unauthorized access as well as from unauthorized consumer copying."
Supports my argument because it states that it does both (which I have aknowledged).
Note that 1201(a) is the access control provision, not the copy control provision:
The only person being preposterous here is you.
It's right there, as quoted, in the Real case.
Last edited:
No Trippy, you just agreed, that it is ALSO Copy control.
Before you said:
the broad policy implications of considering “access” in a vacuum devoid of “protection” are both absurd and disastrous.
By the way, you have not linked to MPAA's suggested method of making copies of your DVDs without breaking CSS.
Can't wait.
Before you said:
As far as this being logical way to deal with it, as the Court said:Trippy said:
the broad policy implications of considering “access” in a vacuum devoid of “protection” are both absurd and disastrous.
By the way, you have not linked to MPAA's suggested method of making copies of your DVDs without breaking CSS.
Can't wait.
Last edited:
The DMCA does not make buying copy software illegal.