Wikipedia protest shutdown

[adoucette]

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

Nothing says that someone producing a work has to make it easy to be copied.

So if the industry wants to put CSS on their DVDs and Macrovision on their tapes that's their perogative.

But doing so, even with the DMCA, does not give them a new property right under the Copyright act.

Which is why the courts pointed out that: Circumvention is NOT Infringement

And since Fair Use includes making a backup copy or format shifting, circumvention for Fair Use by consumers is not infringing either.

 

[Trippy]

No Trippy, you just agreed, that it is ALSO Copy control.

Before you said:

Ho-hum:

A DVD that has been CSS-protected requires the algorithm configured by a set of CSS keys to perform a series of steps, which results in unlocking the protected content and unscrambling and playing back a motion picture or other content that has been CSSprotected on a DVD.

CSS technology requires that a DVD drive “lock” upon insertion of a CSS-protected DVD and prevent access to its contents until an CSS-authorized player engages in an authentication procedure, akin to a secret handshake, to establish mutual “trust.”

Upon the insertion of a CSS-protected DVD, a DVD drive recognizes that a disc is present, that the DVD has CSS protection technology on it, and that the DVD content cannot be released before an authentication process occurs.

CSS technology requires that players authenticate themselves to DVD drives to establish mutual trust, both to “unlock” the DVD and gain access to its protected video contents and also separately to gain access to keys stored in secure areas of the DVD, which then decrypt and descramble the DVD content.

The drive-locking and authentication steps of the CSS technology thus tie the playback of the DVD content to the DVD itself in an authorized DVD drive. Id. The process of authentication with the DVD drive, and subsequent content decryption, will fail if a DVD is not in the DVD drive.

This same system ensures that “playable,” i.e., decrypted and descrambled, copies of the DVD’s video content cannot be made.​

(all from the Real Network case).

In other words, it works exactly like I said it does - it prevents copying by preventing access to the data by unauthorized players. Unuthorized player will not be able to access the data, which is a neccessary step to make the copy.

 

[adoucette]

Yes, we all agree, it prevents copying

 

[Trippy]

Yes, we all agree, it prevents copying

BECAUSE it restricts access IE it works EXACTLY as I said it does.

 

[adoucette]

Yes, we all agree, CSS prevents copying

the broad policy implications of considering “access” in a vacuum devoid of “protection” are both absurd and disastrous.


By the way, you have STILL not linked to MPAA's suggested method of making copies of your DVDs without breaking CSS.

Can't wait.

 

[Trippy]

Yes, we all agree, CSS prevents copying

So you agree with this statement:

CSS is access control, not copy control.

It limits a users ability to copy because it limits a users access.

Good then.

 

[adoucette]

So you agree with this statement:

Good then.

Nope, it is both.

considering “access” in a vacuum devoid of “protection” are both absurd and disastrous

However I have entirely lost the point you are trying to make with this absurd distinction.

 

[quadraphonics]

adoucette's one trick pony

/snigger

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;​

 

[Trippy]

Nope, it is both.

Not it isn't, it provides copy protection because it prevents unauthorized access to the DVD. But it prevents unauthorized access to the DVD from any unauthorized player regardless of whether or not it is copying at the same time it plays back.

As opposed to (for example) ArccOS, RipGuard, and MacroVision which are specifically designed to interfer with copying without interferring with access (ArccOS and RipGuard both work because of differences in the way player software behaves when compared to recording software).

That was one of the driving forces behind DeCSS in the first place, was because DVD's couldn't be played by any Linux media player.

 

[Trippy]

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.

Which is the point that adoucette seems to refuse to aknowledge.

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;​

I was just thinking about raising that point. The law doesn't distinguish between an individual person and an incorporated person, and the DMCA draws no distinction. In downloading the software from a foreign site, you're importing it, and by buying it you're trafficing it - the definition of traffic in this context doesn't distinguish between the buyer and seller, it simply talks about the trade. So it would seem that simply purchasing the software is illegal.

 

[adoucette]

Correct.

Real did not have authorized access.

One does have authorized access when one buys the Product however (for instance, one can't make a legal copy of a DVD one rents, since you haven't purchased access to it).


As to the latter.
Possibly correct.
It may not be legal to acquire the software IN ONE PIECE.

But it does appear to be legal to get both pieces separately.

In any case, what we do know is that no one has been tried or convicted under the DMCA for doing so where they only made personal use backup copies or shifted formats with the software, even though MILLIONS of people are doing it every day and have been doing it for over a decade, so it is only conjecture how the courts would rule if a DA ever attempted to make the case that in the absence of infringing, that downloading the software in that form was the equivalent to either "importing" or "manufacturing" and more importantly, would conviction for doing so fit within the INTENT of the DMCA.

Remember:

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

So, when there is no issue of infringement it would have to be a Federal Case based solely on prosecution under the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act, for doing something which is not infringing on anyone's copyright.

I personally think the rulings cited show the courts would NOT find that was the intent of the DMCA.

Until a Federal Case comes up I'll go with the long established practices allowed under Fair Use and affirmed in Chamberlain.

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.

 

[Trippy]

By the way, you have STILL not linked to MPAA's suggested method of making copies of your DVDs without breaking CSS.

Can't wait.

Here is the MPAA demonstrating for Congress (I think) at the 2009 triennial 1201 exemption hearings how users can still gain 'fair use' without bypassing CSS: http://vimeo.com/4520463

 

[leopold]

So even though when you make a backup you are not infringing you still say the Fed is going to bust you for breaking a law designed to prevent infringement?

i never said anything about "the feds busting you".
i have however stated it is illegal to decrypt copyrighted movie DVDs for the purpose of backup.
the law which supports that statement has also been posted.

As long as you don't charge for it and viewing it isn't open to the public, then you can show it to any of your friends or family, just like any movie you buy and show at your house to your friends or family.

yes indeed.
i'll just show it one on one to about 200 of my "friends".

i believe you are just trolling adoucette.
you purchase a movie for your use does NOT mean you can let anyone view it.

i believe that you are one of those people that says "a stop sign doesn't really mean stop."

question:
how many copyrighted movies do you have backups of?
10? 50? 100? more?

 

[adoucette]

The law doesn't distinguish between an individual person and an incorporated person, and the DMCA draws no distinction. In downloading the software from a foreign site, you're importing it, and by buying it you're trafficing it - the definition of traffic in this context doesn't distinguish between the buyer and seller, it simply talks about the trade. So it would seem that simply purchasing the software is illegal.

Again, INTENT is key.

Was the INTENT of the Congress to use this clause and the terms Manufacture and Import to be applied to personal NON-INFRINGING use?

Unlikely.

 

[adoucette]

i never said anything about "the feds busting you".
i have however stated it is illegal to decrypt copyrighted movie DVDs for the purpose of backup.
the law which supports that statement has also been posted.

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

What then is your definition of illegal?

yes indeed.
i'll just show it one on one to about 200 of my "friends".

If you have a party, and invite 200 people over (by invitation is not open to the public) and don't charge admission (or get some material gain from doing so), then you are NOT infringing on the copyright.

i believe you are just trolling adoucette.
you purchase a movie for your use does NOT mean you can let anyone view it.

Well as long as it is not a public performance you can.

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

i believe that you are one of those people that says "a stop sign doesn't really mean stop."

Nope.
I believe it does mean stop.

question:
how many copyrighted movies do you have backups of?
10? 50? 100? more?

~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)

 

[adoucette]

Here is the MPAA demonstrating for Congress (I think) at the 2009 triennial 1201 exemption hearings how users can still gain 'fair use' without bypassing CSS: http://vimeo.com/4520463

LOL, yeah and since CIRCUMVENTION isn't INFRINGEMENT they are in effect admitting that one can make backup copies without infringing (and do it a whole lot easier)

 

[Trippy]

Correct.

Real did not have authorized access.

Actually, they did. They purchased a CSS license, and were granted a license to create a player.

What was not authorized was the subsequent copying of the material to the a hard drive, or the subsequent access to those copies.

One does have authorized access when one buys the Product however (for instance, one can't make a legal copy of a DVD one rents, since you haven't purchased access to it).

Only on an authorized player, which has authorized access.

As to the latter.
Possibly correct.
It may not be legal to acquire the software IN ONE PIECE.

But it does appear to be legal to get both pieces separately.

No it doesn't, because at some point you have to download (import) a module (tool), the sole purpose of which is to circumvent or otherwise bypass CSS.

In any case, what we do know is that no one has been tried or convicted under the DMCA for doing so where they only made personal use backup copies or shifted formats with the software, even though MILLIONS of people are doing it every day and have been doing it for over a decade, so it is only conjecture how the courts would rule if a DA ever attempted to make the case that in the absence of infringing, that downloading the software in that form was the equivalent to either "importing" or "manufacturing" and more importantly, would conviction for doing so fit within the INTENT of the DMCA.

The only thing that proves is that the MPAA and the DVD CCA don't consider pursuing such convictions worth the time and money, or that they've read the writing on the wall - that backups will eventually become an authorized activity.

When there is no issue of infringement it would have to be a Federal Case based solely on prosecution under the Digital Millennium COPYRIGHT Act, for something which is not infringing on anyone's copyright.

I personally think the rulings cited show the courts would NOT find that was the intent of the DMCA.

You may think otherwise, but until a Federal Case comes up I'll go with the long established practices allowed under Fair Use and affirmed in Chamberlain.

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.

As the Copyright Office knows, there is no fair use exception to the prohibition of circumvention in section 1201(a)(1)(A). Such an exception was extensively debated and specifically rejected by Congress, and the courts have consistently so interpreted the statute. By suggesting injecting a fairuse factor relating to the downstream use of copyrighted materials in order to determine whether or not a work falls within a "particular class of works" for the purposes of defining an exemption to the DMCA prohibition on circumvention, the Copyright Office is contradicting the clear and unambiguous intent of Congress to distinguish the prohibition of circumvention and the statutory defenses thereto, including fair use​

-MPAA response to the 2009 Trienial DCMA review

"Fair use can never be an affirmative defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access" - Real v DVD CAA

"The DCMA ... does not concern itself with the use of materials after circumvention has occured" - Chamberlain v Skylink

"Defendants who use devices prohibited under 1201(a)(2) may be subject to liability under 1201(a)(1) whether they infringe or not." 321 Studios v MGM Studios.

 

[Trippy]

Again, INTENT is key.

Was the INTENT of the Congress to use this clause and the terms Manufacture and Import to be applied to personal NON-INFRINGING use?

Unlikely.

I think I've covered that.

 

[quadraphonics]

Correct.

Real did not have authorized access.

One does have authorized access when one buys the Product however (for instance, one can't make a legal copy of a DVD one rents, since you haven't purchased access to it).

"Authorized access" requires two purchases - the DVD itself, and a CSS-licensed DVD player. CSS does not license consumer equipment that enables copying of the DVD contents; only playback devices are licensed. If you are using a device or tool (such as illegal foreign software) that is not licensed by CSS, then the access this grants you to a DVD is "unauthorized" totally regardless of whether you lawfully purchased the DVD in question.

As to the latter.
Possibly correct.
It may not be legal to acquire the software IN ONE PIECE.

But it does appear to be legal to get both pieces separately.

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.

In any case, what we do know is that no one has been tried or convicted under the DMCA for doing so where they only made personal use backup copies or shifted formats with the software, even though MILLIONS of people are doing it every day and have been doing it for over a decade,

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.

so it is only conjecture how the courts would rule if a DA ever attempted to make the case that in the absence of infringing, that downloading the software in that form was the equivalent to either "importing" or "manufacturing" and more importantly, would conviction for doing so fit within the INTENT of the DMCA.

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.

You may think otherwise, but until a Federal Case comes up I'll go with the long established practices allowed under Fair Use and affirmed in Chamberlain.

Chamberlain is a very poor precedent for the question of DVD copying. This is because the Chamberlain case dealt with universal garage door openers. The crux of the Chamberlain decision was:

Chamberlain, however, has failed to show not only the requisite lack of authorization, but also the necessary fifth element of its claim, the critical nexus between access and protection. Chamberlain neither alleged copyright infringement nor explained how the access provided by the Model 39 transmitter facilitates the infringement of any right that the Copyright Act protects.​

I.e., there is no application for the Skylink UGDO other than for opening your own garage door (which you have a right to do, obviously). So there was no grounds to claim that the bypassing in question gave access to anything protected.

In the case of DVD copying software, you're hanging your whole argument on your own personal intent. I.e., you say it's okay for you to obtain CSS-decryption software (which, tellingly, isn't legally available in the USA) and use that to make personal back-up copies. But you can't make an analogous argument to Skylink: that same exact process is exactly what you'd do if you were going to illegally distribute the contents of those DVDs on the internet. The decryption and copying software has no way to distinguish between somebody making personal back-up copies, and pirates. You are "trafficking" in a "device or tool" that "facillitates the infringement" of rights that the Copyright Act protects. The fact that you claim that you personally aren't going to use it for such is thin sauce. Which is exactly why the tools are not legally available.

 

[quadraphonics]

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

What then is your definition of illegal?

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.

~30 or so on DVD

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?