You can say that all you want, but it doesn't make it true. You won't find anyone other than yourself expressing any doubts, here.
So?
Millions of people run the software outside this forum.
So they apparently don't have much doubt.
What you said - the statement that I labelled as shown to be false - was that such software was "apparently legal." You provided no evidence for that, and you were provided with ample evidence of the apparent illegality of such.
It's "apparently legal" because no one is being arrested/sued for selling it to Americans nor are any Americans being arrested/sued for using it.
Yes it is. This is very much cut-and-dried, and exactly the reason that you cannot legally obtain that software in the USA. You have provided absolutely nothing in the way of evidence in support of your contention that software like DeCSS and DVD43 are legal in the USA. And now you're issuing naked assertions, without even attempting serious argument. I count this as equivalent to a concession of defeat, and a gross display of childishness to boot.
Yes, I've agreed that you can't sell some specific software in the US, because of the trafficking provisions of the DMCA, but that doesn't necessarily translate to buying the software is an illegal activity.
The DMCA also includes this in the same section that makes DeCSS illegal to sell:
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
Which essentially says that you can use the software for Fair Use.
No it doesn't. Such might be required to arrive at a finished product that a random consumer lacking in any serious computer skills would find conveniently usable, but the code you linked to can very much "do things." Those things include descrambling CSS encryption. Your statement there is just silly.
The DVD43 software you linked and recommended (and the specific software recommended for "integration" by your recommended purveyor of DVD-copying software) doesn't require any particular "integration" at all - it runs in the background and causes any encrypted DVDs to appear as unencrypted, at which point you can use whatever software to do whatever with them.
You're a LIAR.
I have recommended no software.
Failure to post a link to this supposed recommendation will be proof that you are indeed a LIAR.
Sure you have. You can go ahead and try to split hairs between "recommending" and "citing" or whatever, but it's not going to impress anyone.
It's not splitting hairs to post a link in a debate to show that said software exists and to actually recommend any specific software. I haven't said what I use or even commented on how well any of that software works and thus I have made no recommendations at all.
The courts have ruled explicitly that said "combined software" is definitely illegal (in fact, it's simply the decryption part which is illegal, which is why it's legal to sell software with that removed, and nobody sells the decryption software in the USA).
They have only ruled that it is not legal for US Companies to MAKE or TRAFFIC in the software.
Not the same as USE.
It's an opinion from a company that has money on the line, and which presumably undertook due diligence of having a lawyer vet their position on such.
So?
It's still just an opinion.
I'll stick to actual legal rulings.
To use such tools, you have to obtain them. This requires "trafficking" or "manufacture," both of which are explicitly banned by the DMCA.
Only for US companies.
There is no controversy over the intent, that I can see. There is controversy about whether such squares with other aspects of the law, such as Fair Use.
Sure there is.
From the Chamberlain ruling:
Congress chose words consistent with its stated intent to balance two sets of concerns pushing in opposite directions. See H.R. Rep. No. 105-551, at 26 (1998).
The statute lays out broad categories of liability and broad exemptions from liability. It also instructs the courts explicitly not to construe the anticircumvention provisions in ways that would effectively repeal longstanding principles of copyright law. See §1201(c).
The courts must decide where the balance between the rights of copyrightowners and those of the broad public tilts subject to a fact-specific rule of reason.
And since the text of the DMCA clearly prohibits the actions in question, one can not say that the courts will agree that such was not the intent of the DMCA and thus it is legal.
The DMCA also says in that same section:
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
What it suggests, is that the benefits of bringing such a suit will not outweigh the costs. That could be because they will lose. Or it could be because it would be prohibitively expensive to build such a case (how would the MPAA find out that you'd been making back-up copies if you never distribute them, exactly?), and bad PR besides, and not provide them with significant upside.
And yet the Feds could care less about the cost/benefits.
In the meantime, I've cited the opinions of multiple actual legal experts to establish that software like DeCSS and DVD43 are illegal in the USA. What have you provided to counter that, other than your own opinion?
To manufacture or Traffic in.
But time moves on....
libdvdcss is a open source software library for accessing and unscrambling DVDs encrypted with the Content Scramble System (CSS). libdvdcss is part of the VideoLAN project and is used by VLC media player and other DVD player software such as Ogle, xine-based players, and MPlayer.
Unlike DeCSS, libdvdcss has never been legally challenged.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss
Distributions which come pre-installed with libdvdcss include BackTrack, CrunchBang Linux, LinuxMCE, Linux Mint, PCLinuxOS, Puppy Linux 4.2.1, Recovery Is Possible, Slax, Super OS, Pardus, and XBMC Live.
http://www.linuxmce.org/index.php/developer/svn
http://wiki.linuxmce.org/index.php/Main_Page
"has NEVER been" is not the same as "will NEVER be," unless you're willing to wait an infinite amount of time.
Sure, but after a decade of not doing anything, and in an environment of increasing usage of the software, it's still a very reasonable assumption.
But if you don't like those examples, it isn't terribly hard to find examples of unenforced laws on the books, which are nonetheless still laws:
http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.p...ed_laws_-_keeps_adultery,_repeals_"blue_laws"
But it WAS enforced when it was written.
This has never been.
Big difference.
I'm curious though, how much time has to go by where it's never inforced before you concede the point that it isn't actually illegal to make personal copies for fair use?
So you have nothing other than your own speculation to back your repeated claim that "millions and millions of people do this every day?"
Sure, millions have bought/downloaded the software, presumably to use the software.
We only know, for sure, of exactly one person who has been making such DVD copies. That is yourself.
Nah, look back in this thread, you'll see a post of a ripped DVD by someone other than me.
You have not provided any such numbers, nor have you accounted for the proliferation of video streaming/download services (iTunes, NetFlix, Hulu, etc.). I myself routinely watch movies on devices without a DVD player, but I have never once ripped a DVD. I simply stream movies from NetFlix or whatever. This is typical of everyone I know, and is a very popular thing generally. NetFlix alone uses almost 1/3 of American internet bandwidth:
http://technolog.msnbc.msn.com/_new...etflix-uses-327-percent-of-internet-bandwidth
Bandwidth has nothing to do with purchased DVDs that are then format shifted of copied.
In 2007 consumers spent more than $16 billion purchasing DVDs ,according to TDG Reports & Screen Digest and Hollywood alone shipped 1.1 billion DVD discs in 2007 (30 million more than in 2006) again according to Screen Digest
http://www.the-numbers.com/dvd/charts/annual/2011.php
As to Netflix, sure, but not that different.
http://lifehacker.com/287505/rip-netflix-watch-now-movies-to-your-hard-drive
You have not provided any numbers on that. And I've never seen it - everyone I know just uses the original DVDs for that purpose. They don't care if the DVDs wear out, because their kids outgrow them every year or two anyway, and nobody else is interested in watching them.
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.
And let's note that you just finished asserting, without any basis, that your personal experience is representative of the larger country.
Why not? I know lots of people who do it, and they are all pretty average people. Nothing to suggest that they aren't typical.
There is no case law that rules directly on the activity at issue. Which is to say that you, likewise, have "no case law to substantiate your position."
Well I have provided plenty of case law that directly supports my assertion that copying for personal use is non-infringing under existing Copyright law and that the intent of the DMCA wasn't to apply to personal use that is non-infringing.
I have no case law directly on the someone charged/sued for doing so because in over a decade only because no one has been.
You on the other hand, claim that though this use is illegal, and has been for over a decade, there is no case law because it's simply not worth it to anyone to actually apply the law.
Of course this appears to be a unique property of this legislation since you haven't provided an example of any other law which was passed recently , that is routinely violated, but has never been enforced.
