Wikipedia protest shutdown

[parmalee]

That's right: Appropriation Art (and Richard Prince be the artist--well, one of them: Shields was also photographed by Gary Gross in a like manner)

 

[adoucette]

There are at least three scenarios in which "innocent intent" may be applied to infringing content:

The defendant’s work is copied from the plaintiffs’, but was done subconsciously and in good faith, having forgotten that the plaintiffs’ work was the source.[3]
Defendant’s work is based upon an infringing work furnished by a third party.[4]
Defendant consciously and intentionally copies from the plaintiff’s work, with a good faith belief that the conduct is not infringing.[5]

It says there are AT LEAST 3 scenarios.
It doesn't limit it to those 3 scenarios.

But, if someone has grown up 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 EVERY Audio or Video media they owned prior to DVDs and then types in a search for DVD Copy Software and finds a link to Slysoft's site, and goes to the site, which has NO MENTION that it is not a US site and NO MENTION that there is any legal issue with copying a DVD, and the person buys and pays for the software with US funds and downloads and installs the software.
Then goes down to Best Buy and buys a DVD Recorder and a pack of DVD-R disks.
Comes home and makes back up copies of the DVDs his kids like to watch in the back seat of his SUV and also copies some of his favorite DVDs on to his Tablet PC.

You don't think that doesn't come under "good faith belief that the conduct is not infringing"?

Of course it would.

But it would never get that far.

As the Court said:

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, as I outlined the many ways people have excercised their Fair Use rights to make digital backups for personal use and format shifting, it is clear that that is a LONG STANDING PRINCIPLE of Copyright law.

 

[adoucette]

Irrelevant.

No it's not.
One can buy software based on a review or someone's recommendation, and in which case may feel no need to read FAQs
And besides, I pointed you to a site that has no such FAQs.

 

[adoucette]

I asked him that yesterday as well - I mean, if you bought a Statue, or a painting, under Arthur's interpretation of the law, we're entitled to commission a forger to duplicate it, and show the duplicate.

Sure, you can duplicate the work if you've bought it.

You can make a cast of it and have at it.

You can make dozens of them if you want.

What you can't do is SHOW it in a public performance.

As in copies of movies you made with your VCR.
You could make dupes of tapes you bought or you could copy them from the broadcast for the purpose of time shifting, and you could watch the movie with friends, even dozens of friends, over an over, but Fair Use doesn't give you the right to show the movie in public.

 

[adoucette]

I'm also not clear as to how this matter of making back-up copies is consistent with Adoucette's claim that he "supports the artists." Of course, by "support(ing) the artists," he means that he supports the industry which routinely fucks over artist, as is evident by this statement amongst countless others:

IOW artists who sell less than 50 thousand units per title--which is the overwhelming majority of artists--are of no concern to Arthur, as is made abundantly clear by his notion of "reasonable."

But methinks the industry would prefer that one would replace the damaged, lost, or stolen article rather than simply duplicate it, no? How is this behavior an exemplary of supporting the "artists"?

I have no control over what kind of deal the Artist makes with the Label/Producer, nor would I have any way of knowing if it's a great deal or a sucky deal, but that issue is not at all related to my rights of Fair Use of copyrighted works for which I paid the asking price.

More to the point, over a Billion DVDs were sold last year, and virtually all of them were from major labels, and the income from those sales indeed supports Millions of Artists and workers in the Movie Business. So when I buy a DVD of a movie, yes I am supporting the Artists and industry workers involved.

When I format shift the movie I purchased I am simply excercising my fair rights under Copyright law, just like we have been doing for decades with other digital media.

 

[adoucette]

Or import.

Again, you go to these sites and there is no indication that it is not a US site.
And from a consumer's point of view, you don't import, you download.

Here's the thing though. I was talking to a friend of mine lastnight who works with Linux about this, and it turns out that when you install it, it gives you the option of installing the components required to decrypt CSS, and fully informs you of the potential consequences of doing so. They advise you that it is illegal to instal it in some jurisdictions, so whether or not it has been challenged yet is indicative of precisely nothing.

As the site I linked to says, some Linux Operating systems make it an optional install, for others though (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.) it is built in.

 

[adoucette]

But your question was framed this way: "Can you name any other activity that has been illegal to do for over a decade... ?" And please STOP YELLING.

And that no one has been "charged/sued" is irrelevant to the matter of whether or not there is such a law.

Yes it is exactly relevant.

There are probably plenty of laws on books that are no longer enforcable, but they were when they were enacted.

In this case the assertion is that a law enacted 12 years ago, for something which millions of people do, on a relatively frequent basis, is illegal, even though no one has ever been arrested/sued for doing so.

But the matter of purchasing something and feeling entitled to duplicate such to allow for limitless usage interests me somewhat: when you go to a restaurant, do you demand a back-up copy of your meal to protect against possible consumption of the original?

No, but then one can't copyright a meal, so you might try sticking to things which are in fact copyrighted.
And it's certainly not for "limitless usage".
We are talking about very specific issues of FAIR USE under existing copyright laws.

If a DVD becomes damaged, why should you be entitled to a free replacement?

I don't think I'm entitled to a free replacement.
I think if I want a backup then it's up to me to incur the costs and effort to make it.
And the damage may have nothing to do with my actions, it could just be a disk which goes bad (they don't last forever you know, and some last much less then others).

As an aside, no one ever had a problem with this thinking when we were copying our new Albums onto Cassettes so as to help preserve the record and not have to always use our turntable (and we could drop songs we didn't like), or for use in our car, or when dealing with Albums we purchased on Cassette tapes.
Because Cassette players in our cars were notorious for eating our tapes. So when you bought a new album on Cassette, you would always make a dupe of it, and play the dupe. Indeed a very common version of a Cassette player/recorder was to have two drives and it would DUPE in high speed with the push of just one button to make this a fast and easy process.

http://store.sony.com/webapp/wcs/st...51&storeId=10151&langId=-1&partNumber=TCWE475

Of course, based on the link Trippy posted, the MPAA says you can make a backup of your DVD, they just want you to go through a very convoluted process of projecting the movie and taping it via a Video Camera.

So they have in fact conceded that you do have the right to make a back-up copy (or format shift) of DVDs you buy.

But it's not just copies, format shifting is just as, if not more important,.
Maybe I want to watch a movie I bought on my Laptop while flying cross country, but if I use the DVD player my battery doesn't last the whole flight.
So I copy the DVD to one of many Flash Drives I have for that purpose, and my battery now lasts the whole flight.

I think it's a question of feasibility and practicality here.

Why?
The Feds bust bunches of people for all sorts of crimes and get access to their computers, and yet you are saying not once did they not find a copied movie?

Not likely.

Sure you could make this argument the first year after the DMCA was passed, but 12 years later, that lame argument has worn itself pretty thin.

 

[Trippy]

So if someone has grown up taping movies with their VCR and Coping CDs onto their Laptop and Music player and then types in a search for DVD Copy Software.
And finds a link to Slysoft's site.
And goes to the site, which has NO MENTION that it is not a US site and NO MENTION that there is any issue with copying a DVD.
Buys and pays for the software with US funds.
Installs the software.
Goes down to Best Buy and buys a DVD Recorder and a pack of DVD-R disks.
Comes home and makes back up copies of the DVDs his kids like to watch in the back seat of his SUV and also copies some of his favorite DVDs on to his Tablet PC.

You don't think that doesn't come under "good faith belief that the conduct is not infringing"?

Of course it would.

Now go back and read what I actually said, and try and address it honestly:

I think I would be genuinely surprised if anybody managed to successfully argue even the third point in relation to copying a protected DVD.

Given that the first page of results contain software reviews, and those reviews make mention of the potential legality issues, and I would expect a first time user to access software through such a review, then yeah. I think I would be genuinely surprised.

 

[adoucette]

Now go back and read what I actually said, and try and address it honestly:

Given that the first page of results contain software reviews, and those reviews make mention of the potential legality issues, and I would expect a first time user to access software through such a review, then yeah. I think I would be genuinely surprised.

I did address it honestly.

We can't be sure of the outcome because apparently no one has ever had to make that case.

Which was also what I pointed out.

If someone has grown up 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 EVERY Audio or Video media they owned prior to DVDs and then goes to a site and buys and pays for the software with US funds and downloads and installs the software and then makes back up copies of the DVDs. There is ample evidence that this would be a "good faith belief that the conduct is not infringing"

But it would never get that far.

As I outlined the many ways people have excercised their Fair Use rights to make digital backups for personal use and format shifting, for every audio and video medium they have used FOR DECADES, it is clear that that is a LONG STANDING PRINCIPLE of Copyright law.

And as the Court said:

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

 

[Trippy]

Again, you go to these sites and there is no indication that it is not a US site.
And from a consumer's point of view, you don't import, you download

From the slysoft website:

SlySoft Ltd. of Mahon, Cork, Ireland, may ask you to provide information that ​

These are the same terms and conditions, incidentally, that you're supposed to confirm as having read before you download the software.

Not having read them is irrelevant, skipping them is irrelevant, you've confirmed them, and agreed to them.

Also note:

It started with the simple desire to call SlySoft, makers of software that lets you copy HD DVDs, to find out what their legal strategy was. Given how many jurisdictions using their software is illegal in, including the US, I was curious to see how they would handle angry media companies trying to shut them down.
...
Why is your software not available in stores?

Our software is distributed online only. Due to legal regulations, sale is not allowed in most European countries.
​

Source

Antigua's obligations to the US in respect of patents, copyright, and trademarks are affected. In particular, Berne Convention copyright is in question, and also material NOT covered by the Berne convention, including TRIPS accord obligations to the US. Antigua may thus disregard the WIPO treaty on intellectual property rights, and therefore the US implementation of that treaty (the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA)—at least up to the limit of compensation.
...
Software company SlySoft is based in Antigua, allowing it to avoid nations with laws that are tough on anti-circumvention of technological copyright measures, in particular the DMCA in the United States.​

Source

They showup in the first page of a google search for Slysoft DMCA.

The keypoint here, though, is that Slysoft are precisely aware that the sale of their software is illegal in some jurisdictions, and the company, or the CEO is based in a country that is not obliged to do anything under WIPO.

Hence the drive for PIPA and SOPA, under which your access to Slysoft would be blocked.

 

[Trippy]

I did address it honestly.

Do you really think it's good form to edit a post after it has been replied to?

We can't be sure of the outcome because apparently no one has ever had to make that case.

Because the MPAA and DVD CAA have yet to take it that far.

Which was also what I pointed out.

An my point was that I'm not sure how anyone can genuinely claim innocence in this matter.

There is ample evidence that this would be a "good faith belief that the conduct is not infringing"

I'm not sure I agree with this.

"Blah blah, we've always done it"
And as the Court said:

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

Yes, and as the court has also said:
"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.

 

[adoucette]

From the slysoft website:

SlySoft Ltd. of Mahon, Cork, Ireland, may ask you to provide information that ​

These are the same terms and conditions, incidentally, that you're supposed to confirm as having read before you download the software.

Not having read them is irrelevant, skipping them is irrelevant, you've confirmed them, and agreed to them.

And not one word about it being illegal in the US.

Indeed it says something quite different:

SlySoft Ltd. respects the rights of artists and film companies, and the proper use of the software does not violate those rights. You cannot copy DVDs in order to sell or give away copies, or for any commercial purpose.

SlySoft Ltd. discourages any attempt to copy rented DVDs. It is illegal to make a copy of a DVD for most purposes other than your own personal use. SlySoft Ltd. respects the rights of artists and film companies, and asks that You do the same.

Using the SOFTWARE will create backup copies of DVDs. The copy will be an archival backup copy of a DVD, created solely for the private and personal use of the owner of the DVD from which it was made.

Federal copyright laws prohibit the unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or exhibition of copyrighted materials, if any, contained in the archival backup copy. The resale, reproduction, distribution, or commercial exploitation of the archival backup copy is strictly forbidden. We ask you to respect the rights of copyright holders.

 

[Trippy]

Of course, based on the link Trippy posted, the MPAA says you can make a backup of your DVD, they just want you to go through a very convoluted process of projecting the movie and taping it via a Video Camera.

So they have in fact conceded that you do have the right to make a back-up copy (or format shift) of DVDs you buy.

But not to perform an unauthorized decryption of CSS.

 

[adoucette]

Do you really think it's good form to edit a post after it has been replied to?

I was unaware that you had replied, I was editing it while you were posting Trippy.

 

[adoucette]

But not to perform an unauthorized decryption of CSS.

And yet since Circumvention is NOT infringement they have no right to sue for infringement because of that.

They could try to sue you for breaking CSS encryption, but if you do it for a use that is protected under Fair Use, that would also fail.

 

[parmalee]

I have no control over what kind of deal the Artist makes with the Label/Producer, nor would I have any way of knowing if it's a great deal or a sucky deal, but that issue is not at all related to my rights of Fair Use of copyrighted works for which I paid the asking price.

Perhaps not, but it is very much related to your claim that you "support the artists."

A typical major (record) label arrangement is outlined in post #310. The typical independent label arrangement is much more straightforward: post-costs (production, distribution, promotion, etc.), 50 percent of profits go to the label, 50 percent of profits go to the artists.

There are some variations on this, of course, like whether the artists or the label pays for studio time, etc. And when the artists pay, oftentimes an "arrangement" of sorts is made: the times I've paid in recent years, we ended up only paying about 20 dollars an hour for 50+ hours of studio time--and 2 or 3 engineers were present at all times. Obviously, the studio wasn't make a whole lot--if any--money off of us; rather, they make money off of those with the means, whom will end up paying upwards of 75 to 100 dollars per hour.

With major record labels, it has been more than amply documented that in the overwhelming majority of instances, the bulk of the profits are NOT going to the actual "content creators," but to media moguls. So how is it that you believe that you are "supporting the artists" by purchasing major label products?

If you give money to a charity--say one of those ridiculously nebulous ones like for "starving children in Africa"--and you are fully aware that 99 cents out of every dollar you give is going directly to someone/something other than feeding the "starving children," do you still claim that you are "supporting starving children in Africa"?

 

[Trippy]

And not one word about it being illegal in the US.

What's your point?

And is there any reason you're ignoring the rest of the information I posted?

Like they fact that they have explicitly aknowledged that their software isn't available in shops because it's illegal to sell there?

Indeed it says something quite different:

:roll:

Our software is distributed online only. Due to legal regulations, sale is not allowed in most European countries.

(see, I can do that to).

 

[Trippy]

And yet since Circumvention is NOT infringement they have no right to sue for infringement because of that.

They could try to sue you for breaking CSS encryption, but if you do it for a use that is protected under Fair Use, that would also fail.

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

I keep telling you, you have either misunderstood, or are deliberately missrepresenting that judgement, and it has been suggested and/or demonstrated that you're presenting it out of context.

 

[parmalee]

Likewise, when you purchase a shit product made in a sweatshop in wherever, do you claim that you are "supporting the sweatshop workers in wherever"? After all, they are being paid--even if it's only a few dollars a week for 100 hours of work, right?

 

[adoucette]

An my point was that I'm not sure how anyone can genuinely claim innocence in this matter.

Sure you can, as I pointed out, someone like me has many decades of Fair use of making copies of EVERY movie and audio recording I have ever bought.

Then comes DVD.

Why would I presume that the rules are different?

It's Audio and Video, but so were VCR tapes.

It's Digital, but so were DAT tapes and CDs

I want to make a copy, I type in to the Search Engine for DVD Copy Software and there is a full page of software to do just that.

There is NO mention on that page about any illegality.

I click on Slysoft because I've got a friend that I know that likes it (making that up)

I go to the page and it promises to do everything I want.

I can try before I buy.

I read the Terms and Conditions and nothing in it about being illegal.

Indeed what it says agrees with my basic understanding of Fair Use:

SlySoft Ltd. respects the rights of artists and film companies, and the proper use of the software does not violate those rights. You cannot copy DVDs in order to sell or give away copies, or for any commercial purpose.

I buy the software and make the copies and have NO REASON to even know what the DMCA is, or to think that I may have innocently violated a provision in it that was written to stop Piracy.

Because what I'm doing has NOTHING to do with Piracy, and everything to do with FAIR USE.

Yes, and as the court has also said:
"Fair use can never be an affirmative defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access" - Real v DVD CAA

Not the same.
I purchased the software, I have authorized access.

"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.

Absolutely.

Because Circumvention isn't infringement.

But if you make 10,000 copies you will have a hard time convincing them that it is for backup, but if you haven't sold them, you haven't actually infringed.

That's what the MAY is all about.