Will Cinavia kill PC Blu-ray Playback Software? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 160 Old 03-30-2013, 09:21 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
No need to defeat cinavia when they can simply tell the players to ignore it. smile.gif I can picture AnyDVD HD as a Jedi Master "this is not the cinavia signal you are looking for...play the movie"
cybrsage is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 160 Old 03-30-2013, 03:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
qz3fwd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,853
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Yes-AnyDVD likely just hooks or patches the executable in memory of PDVD/TMT/whatever and they have found the function(s) which detect the protection and tell the player to respond accordingly.

Now there will be a cat and mouse game of the software players changing their code so as to hide this functionality and/or protect/obfuscate the code to hinde slysofts ability to negate the protection measures....

Good for sylsoft. Hope they keep up the good work.
jim2100 likes this.
qz3fwd is offline  
post #93 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 09:39 AM
AVS Special Member
 
agogley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post

What sucks is I converted the ISOs to MKVs and when I did handbrake the defualt setting left off the commentary track. I listened to them in the interim and heard it so though all was good. Then I found I had left off the audio streams. I went to get my discs and Blood Diamond won't load... so I actually lost part of one movie in this whole snafu. That an now TMT won't even launch for some reason. I don't need it for MKVs, but it is handy sometimes to be able to just stick a disc in and watch, but no more I guess.

edit:

So btw add me to the list of people that Cinavia fubared. It was probably Arcsoft's fault obviously, but I have uninstalled, reinstalled etc... and nothing is fixing it. TMT launcher just sits there hanging and never loads. Pretty annoying. I don't want to have to reinstall windows to fix it. I have to imagine the update fubared the registry or something. Maybe it is simply a problem of codecs who the heck knows, but it is annoying when stuff is just working perfectly and you have to update and screw it all up for more DRM which has a disproportionate impact on legitimate HTPC users.

From the perspective of Sony, this doesn't affect legitimate HTPC users since those users would have the original disc.

But I do agree, I hate DRM.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
agogley is offline  
post #94 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 09:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
agogley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 1,643
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 18
Quote:
Originally Posted by qz3fwd View Post

Yes-AnyDVD likely just hooks or patches the executable in memory of PDVD/TMT/whatever and they have found the function(s) which detect the protection and tell the player to respond accordingly.

Now there will be a cat and mouse game of the software players changing their code so as to hide this functionality and/or protect/obfuscate the code to hinde slysofts ability to negate the protection measures....

Good for sylsoft. Hope they keep up the good work.

Do you think the Software players such as Arcsoft really want to support Cinavia? Or do you think they were pretty much forced to do so? If it is the former, it may be a cat and mouse game (one that Arcsoft and others will lose). If it is the latter, they may just choose to ignore it. I've got to think Arcsoft must recognize the potential threat from freeware solutions to media player software.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
agogley is offline  
post #95 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 10:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,835
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by agogley View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by sxotty View Post

What sucks is I converted the ISOs to MKVs and when I did handbrake the defualt setting left off the commentary track. I listened to them in the interim and heard it so though all was good. Then I found I had left off the audio streams. I went to get my discs and Blood Diamond won't load... so I actually lost part of one movie in this whole snafu. That an now TMT won't even launch for some reason. I don't need it for MKVs, but it is handy sometimes to be able to just stick a disc in and watch, but no more I guess.

edit:

So btw add me to the list of people that Cinavia fubared. It was probably Arcsoft's fault obviously, but I have uninstalled, reinstalled etc... and nothing is fixing it. TMT launcher just sits there hanging and never loads. Pretty annoying. I don't want to have to reinstall windows to fix it. I have to imagine the update fubared the registry or something. Maybe it is simply a problem of codecs who the heck knows, but it is annoying when stuff is just working perfectly and you have to update and screw it all up for more DRM which has a disproportionate impact on legitimate HTPC users.

From the perspective of Sony, this doesn't affect legitimate HTPC users since those users would have the original disc.

But I do agree, I hate DRM.

It actually does because you cannot rip your disc to a library and play it back using a licensed player. You can put the disc in a drive on the HTPC but that completely defeats the purpose of having your media in a library.

Sammy2 is offline  
post #96 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 11:33 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
In the US, it is not legal to copy your DVD/BR to anywhere at all if you have to defeat copy protections to do so (which is almost always the case). The only exception is if you are a library - they are allowed to make as copies as needed and use them instead of the original discs. Fair use and copy protection laws allow libraries to do it, but forbid everyone else. Fair use says we can copy the disc, but copy protection law says we cannot break copy protection to do it.

I am waiting to see if a library sues over cinavia...
cybrsage is offline  
post #97 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 02:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
sebberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,261
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 27
You're right, seeing how it's illegal in the first place to rip your legally owned discs to your PC (should it require breaking copy protection) this is all a moot point.

The only time Cinavia be an issue is if you're trying to play back a ripped disc with a licenced player.

Easy solution is to use a non-licenced player and you've presumably already removed the protection during ripping.
sebberry is offline  
post #98 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 03:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,835
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 189
In the U.S. it is not legal to possess more than 400 pounds of ammonium nitrate without a permit from the Department Homeland Security. A fertilizer plant in TX had 190 tons without the proper permit and blew up last week. We've got bigger fish to fry than whether or not somebody has illegally broken the DRM to store their Blu-ray disc in the fashion that they see fit.

Sammy2 is offline  
post #99 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 05:42 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

In the US, it is not legal to copy your DVD/BR to anywhere at all if you have to defeat copy protections to do so (which is almost always the case)

That is incorrect. It is perfectly legal for you to make copies for yourself even if it does require that you defeat a copy prevention scheme to do so.

Don't believe me? Try to find the statute or case law that supports your claim - not some blogger, the actual law or court ruling.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

A fertilizer plant in TX had 190 tons without the proper permit and blew up last week. We've got bigger fish to fry than whether or not somebody has illegally broken the DRM to store their Blu-ray disc in the fashion that they see fit.
That's a false dichotomy. The legal system is not single-tasking.
Nethawk likes this.

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #100 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 06:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 225
Quote:
Don't believe me? Try to find the statute or case law that supports your claim - not some blogger, the actual law or court ruling.
Quote:
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law that implements two 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself. In addition, the DMCA heightens the penalties for copyright infringement on the Internet.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf

(assuming you live in the USA) wink.gif


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Just as big an idea thief as)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
olyteddy is online now  
post #101 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 06:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,835
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

In the US, it is not legal to copy your DVD/BR to anywhere at all if you have to defeat copy protections to do so (which is almost always the case)

That is incorrect. It is perfectly legal for you to make copies for yourself even if it does require that you defeat a copy prevention scheme to do so.

Don't believe me? Try to find the statute or case law that supports your claim - not some blogger, the actual law or court ruling.

http://www.avsforum.com/t/1436730/new-ruling-confirms-copying-dvds-is-illegal

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/digital-copy/feds-deny-dvd-copying-exemption-28711
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

A fertilizer plant in TX had 190 tons without the proper permit and blew up last week. We've got bigger fish to fry than whether or not somebody has illegally broken the DRM to store their Blu-ray disc in the fashion that they see fit.
That's a false dichotomy. The legal system is not single-tasking.

Maybe it is but with limited resources there is more pressing issues.

Sammy2 is offline  
post #102 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 07:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 32

Like I said, cite statute or case law, not a blogger. You have confused copy prevention with access control.

Here are the words from the horse's mouth - the actual ruling that those web pages are referencing:
The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls,
and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html

Quote:
Maybe it is but with limited resources there is more pressing issues.
That is not a defense that will ever hold up no court.
Don't prosecute me for shop-lifting, you guys have all those unsolved murders you should be worrying about instead!

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #103 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 07:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,835
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 189
I am not talking about using it as a defense in court. JEEZ. I am making a statement about the fact that the priorities of this country are all wrong and we allow it. It is sickening sometimes.

Sammy2 is offline  
post #104 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 08:00 PM
Member
 
dmarqueset's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Murfreesboro, TN
Posts: 154
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I just glanced through the attached document below but it doesn't seem like the general user qualifies for the copying exemptions. This may be an old document as well.

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf
dmarqueset is offline  
post #105 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 08:07 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

That is incorrect. It is perfectly legal for you to make copies for yourself even if it does require that you defeat a copy prevention scheme to do so.

Don't believe me? Try to find the statute or case law that supports your claim - not some blogger, the actual law or court ruling.

Your wish is hereby fulfilled. You can find it here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

§ 106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;


That section says the only people who can copy the copyrighted works is the copyright owner.

§ 107 · Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use

Unless we are using the copyrighted material for teaching, this does not apply. Storing the material on the server does not count as teaching.

The next section grants special rights to libraries and archives, saying they CAN copy materials for storage, preservation, protection, etc.

§ 108 · Limitations on exclusive rights:
Reproduction by libraries and archives


We would be hard pressed to show we are either of those - since specific things need to be met to say you are a library or an archive.



Even if all of the above was not true, the DMCA is cited in the Copyright Law as a binding law. olyteddy already covered that here: http://www.avsforum.com/t/1381832/will-cinavia-kill-pc-blu-ray-playback-software/90#post_23264882


Copying your movies to a hard drive violates the law in both that you have to defeat protections to do it and you do not have the right to copy it if you are not the owner of the copyright. However, driving 56 in a 55 breaks a law as well. There are so many laws, you are guaranteed to violate at least one a day without even realizing it.
cybrsage is offline  
post #106 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 08:11 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

Maybe it is but with limited resources there is more pressing issues.

As long as you are not making money on their product, or preventing them from making money off others (file sharing), then the copyright holders really do not care what you do in the privacy of your own home.
cybrsage is offline  
post #107 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 08:14 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
The government website is not working for me any more, but here is the UCLA's take on the DMCA:
Quote:
On October 12, 1998, the U.S. Congress passed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, ending many months of turbulent negotiations regarding its provisions. Two weeks later, on October 28th, President Clinton signed the Act into law.

The Act is designed to implement the treaties signed in December 1996 at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Geneva conference, but also contains additional provisions addressing related matters.

As was the case with the 'No Electronic Theft' Act (1997), the bill was originally supported by the software and entertainment industries, and opposed by scientists, librarians, and academics.

Highlights Generally:

· Makes it a crime to circumvent anti-piracy measures built into most commercial software.
· Outlaws the manufacture, sale, or distribution of code-cracking devices used to illegally copy software.
· Does permit the cracking of copyright protection devices, however, to conduct encryption research, assess product interoperability, and test computer security systems.
· Provides exemptions from anti-circumvention provisions for nonprofit libraries, archives, and educational institutions under certain circumstances.
· In general, limits Internet service providers from copyright infringement liability for simply transmitting information over the Internet.
· Service providers, however, are expected to remove material from users' web sites that appears to constitute copyright infringement.
· Limits liability of nonprofit institutions of higher education -- when they serve as online service providers and under certain circumstances -- for copyright infringement by faculty members or graduate students.
· Requires that "webcasters" pay licensing fees to record companies.
· Requires that the Register of Copyrights, after consultation with relevant parties, submit to Congress recommendations regarding how to promote distance education through digital technologies while "maintaining an appropriate balance between the rights of copyright owners and the needs of users."
· States explicitly that "[n]othing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use..."
http://legacy.gseis.ucla.edu/iclp/dmca1.htm

Fair Use is covered by my previous post.


EDIT: You can find the DMCA bill (which was then signed into law) here:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c105:H.R.2281.ENR:
cybrsage is offline  
post #108 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 08:21 PM
AVS Special Member
 
olyteddy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,330
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 104 Post(s)
Liked: 225
I don't know what your opinions based on but...
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html 
(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;

(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos.
from an article written by:
Quote:
James H. Billington
Librarian of Congress
July 26, 2010
Is not giving you permission to circumvent AACS to make a 'backup copy' of a bluray from RedBox (or anywhere else) ...
Especially when this law is still on the books:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ304/pdf/PLAW-105publ304.pdf 
‘‘§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
‘‘(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES.—(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence
shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on
the date of the enactment of this chapter.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(Just as big an idea thief as)

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
olyteddy is online now  
post #109 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 09:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Your wish is hereby fulfilled. You can find it here: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/

§ 106 · Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

First, to clarify, you are not citing anything to do with the DMCA - that is up around USC 17§1201 and you've cited USC 17§106. Since the DMCA is not involved, anything that would apply in this section of the law would apply equally to all content, regardless of whether or not there are any copy prevention schemes in place. So CDs DVDs, books, magazines, photos, etc -- all are covered by the statutes you've cited.

You glossed over the fair use provision in USC 17§107, probably because you do not understand it. But rather than argue about the specifics of fair use, I am going to quote a lawyer for MGM testifying before the SCOTUS in the case of MGM versus Grokster. I'm sure you can agree that If anyone would have incentive to say that personal copying is a violation of USC 17§106 it would be this guy.

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-480.pdf

So, that establishes that USC 17§107 does not say what you thought it said.

Everybody else who has responded with any substance has referred to the DMCA. The DMCA only forbids the circumvention of ACCESS controls, not COPY controls.

That is all spelled out in USC 17§1201(a). For those of you who think access control equals copy control, that is incorrect and the DMCA itself distinguishes between the two. It forbids the distribution of tools to circumvent access controls USC 17§1201(a) and then it goes on in USC 17§1201(b) to forbid the distribution of tools that circumvent "a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under [title 17]." Note that there is no similar prohibition on actually circumventing copy controls, only on distributing tools that enable the circumvention of copy controls.

If you think that I am playing fast and loose and misrepresenting what the DMCA says, then I will cite the head of the US copyright office (for the second time in this thread):
"The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls,
and therefore this rulemaking proceeding is not about technologies that control copying."

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

I am not talking about using it as a defense in court.
Well, when we are talking about the law, all that matters is what will hold up in court.

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #110 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 11:09 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

First, to clarify, you are not citing anything to do with the DMCA - that is up around USC 17§1201 and you've cited USC 17§106. Since the DMCA is not involved..

I had to stop you there because it is obvious you did not bother to actually look at the law. If you did, you would have noticed this:
Quote:
Appendix B
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 1
Section 1 · Short Title.
This Act may be cited as the “Digital Millennium Copyright Act”.
Title I — WIPO Treaties Implementation
Sec. 101 · Short Title.
This title may be cited as the ‘‘WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appb.pdf

So yeah, it actually does have to do with the DMCA - enough so that it references it in Appendix B. Enough that it alters definitions used in the rest of the Title. Laws do not exist in a vacuum, many times they overlap in areas.


All that said, you are still not a library or archive, so you are not exempted from Section 106 of Title 17, a section which gives the copyright holder the exclusive rights to reproduce the item. You may wish this all away, but wishing will not make it so. You need to contact your congressmen and also give a ton of money to their election campaigns and then you have a very small chance of making it go away.


EDIT: I will address this other mistake you made:
Quote:
"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/04-480.pdf

The copyright holder (the record companies) have given permission to copy the contents of the CD onto the computer and ipod. As the copyright holders, they could give you permission to upload the music onto file sharing sites...they can give permission for any level of copying they please. This does not mean you automatically can copy anything anyone ever created at your whim. You need permission. The item I quoted showed the owners of the right gave that permission.
cybrsage is offline  
post #111 of 160 Old 04-30-2013, 11:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

I had to stop you there because it is obvious you did not bother to actually look at the law. If you did, you would have noticed this:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appb.pdf

I'm sorry, what? USC Title 17 encompasses copyright and a whole bunch of other related issues. The DMCA was incorporated into USC TItle 17 in sections 1201-1205, 1301-1332 and some others. All bills are incorporated into statute in a similar fashion. §1201 is the DMCA for purposes of this discussion, ok? Not some appendix. You cited 106,107 and 108 and that is what I addressed.

You can "stop me there" but it doesn't change the way the law is written. When even a lawyer for a copyright maximalist like MGM acknowledges a more liberal interpretation of fair use than you, it should be clear that you need to revisit your understanding.

PS - I wrote letters of protest to my reps in congress when the DMCA was up for vote, don't try to tell me that I have not "actually looked at the law." There is more here than you understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

The copyright holder (the record companies) have given permission to copy the contents of the CD onto the computer and ipod.
No they haven't. They have accepted that the law does not forbid personal copying. Read the context of the quote if you don't believe it - he's saying that ipods have a lawful use - it isn't lawful if it depends on permission - there could be plenty of copyright holders who do not give permission. It is lawful because the law does not forbid it.

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #112 of 160 Old 05-01-2013, 05:49 AM
Advanced Member
 
ncarty97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Copying for your own purposes is perfectly legal. Breaking the encryption though violates the DMCA. I can't believe we're even having this discussion.

Now, if you can make a copy without breaking the encryption, that is perfectly legal and does not violate the DMCA. For instance, the 'analog' work around is a perfectly legal way to make a copy of a Blu-Ray movie (assuming that your BluRay player actually has an analog out on it).
ncarty97 is offline  
post #113 of 160 Old 05-01-2013, 08:30 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,835
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncarty97 View Post

Copying for your own purposes is perfectly legal. Breaking the encryption though violates the DMCA. I can't believe we're even having this discussion.

Now, if you can make a copy without breaking the encryption, that is perfectly legal and does not violate the DMCA. For instance, the 'analog' work around is a perfectly legal way to make a copy of a Blu-Ray movie (assuming that your BluRay player actually has an analog out on it).

My 2007 Samsung BD P2500 does, including 8 channel analog out. So if I have a capture box I can legally copy a Blu-ray with an LPCM soundtrack with it?

Sammy2 is offline  
post #114 of 160 Old 05-01-2013, 09:19 AM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

No they haven't. They have accepted that the law does not forbid personal copying. Read the context of the quote if you don't believe it - he's saying that ipods have a lawful use - it isn't lawful if it depends on permission - there could be plenty of copyright holders who do not give permission. It is lawful because the law does not forbid it.

You are again confusing the permission given to you by the holder of the right to copy (the copyright holder) with being able to copy at your whim. Go ahead, copy your music onto a file sharing site for your own personal storage and see just how far your "lawful copy" defense gets you.
cybrsage is offline  
post #115 of 160 Old 05-01-2013, 10:20 AM
Advanced Member
 
ncarty97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncarty97 View Post

Copying for your own purposes is perfectly legal. Breaking the encryption though violates the DMCA. I can't believe we're even having this discussion.

Now, if you can make a copy without breaking the encryption, that is perfectly legal and does not violate the DMCA. For instance, the 'analog' work around is a perfectly legal way to make a copy of a Blu-Ray movie (assuming that your BluRay player actually has an analog out on it).

My 2007 Samsung BD P2500 does, including 8 channel analog out. So if I have a capture box I can legally copy a Blu-ray with an LPCM soundtrack with it?

Add long add it is for personal use, it falls under the fair use doctrine.
ncarty97 is offline  
post #116 of 160 Old 05-01-2013, 11:06 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Sammy2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Right next to Wineville, CA
Posts: 9,835
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 115 Post(s)
Liked: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncarty97 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by ncarty97 View Post

Copying for your own purposes is perfectly legal. Breaking the encryption though violates the DMCA. I can't believe we're even having this discussion.

Now, if you can make a copy without breaking the encryption, that is perfectly legal and does not violate the DMCA. For instance, the 'analog' work around is a perfectly legal way to make a copy of a Blu-Ray movie (assuming that your BluRay player actually has an analog out on it).

My 2007 Samsung BD P2500 does, including 8 channel analog out. So if I have a capture box I can legally copy a Blu-ray with an LPCM soundtrack with it?

Add long add it is for personal use, it falls under the fair use doctrine.

Here's the back panel:


Sammy2 is offline  
post #117 of 160 Old 05-01-2013, 11:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,023
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by cybrsage View Post

Go ahead, copy your music onto a file sharing site for your own personal storage and see just how far your "lawful copy" defense gets you.

Come on man, don't be that guy. "File sharing site" and "personal storage" are mutually exclusive concepts. You can't honestly believe that what you wrote is meaningful, right? This debate has only ever been about copies for personal use, not file sharing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ncarty97 View Post

Copying for your own purposes is perfectly legal. Breaking the encryption though violates the DMCA. I can't believe we're even having this discussion.

Now, if you can make a copy without breaking the encryption, that is perfectly legal and does not violate the DMCA.

Also if your copy includes the original encryption you are good too. So an .ISO file that is a dvd or bluray image that is still encrypted is perfectly fine with the DMCA. If you can convince an authorized software player to decrypt and play that .ISO file for you, you are 100% legal from start to finish.

FWIW, it isn't too unbelievable - media companies inherently have the loudest voice in the discussion so their perspective of, "you have no rights, they have all the rights" is all that most people hear. If we don't speak up about the actual laws on the books, people will naturally be persuaded to the viewpoint of the copyright maximalists.

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #118 of 160 Old 05-01-2013, 12:20 PM
Advanced Member
 
ncarty97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sammy2 View Post

Here's the back panel:


It may have some mechanism to not display copy protected content over analog, I don't know, but if not, they you certainly could legally use that to archive you Blu-Rays. A PITA for sure, and not as good quality as a digital copy, but still very good.
ncarty97 is offline  
post #119 of 160 Old 05-01-2013, 12:22 PM
Advanced Member
 
ncarty97's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 746
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

Come on man, don't be that guy. "File sharing site" and "personal storage" are mutually exclusive concepts. You can't honestly believe that what you wrote is meaningful, right? This debate has only ever been about copies for personal use, not file sharing
Lockers like Amazon have already been ruled legal (at least for now).

.
Quote:
Also if your copy includes the original encryption you are good too. So an .ISO file that is a dvd or bluray image that is still encrypted is perfectly fine with the DMCA. If you can convince an authorized software player to decrypt and play that .ISO file for you, you are 100% legal from start to finish.

True. I think AnyDVD can make an encrypted ISO copy, but never tried it myself.
ncarty97 is offline  
post #120 of 160 Old 05-01-2013, 12:52 PM
 
cybrsage's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 8,074
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 148
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

Come on man, don't be that guy. "File sharing site" and "personal storage" are mutually exclusive concepts. You can't honestly believe that what you wrote is meaningful, right? This debate has only ever been about copies for personal use, not file sharing.
Also if your copy includes the original encryption you are good too. So an .ISO file that is a dvd or bluray image that is still encrypted is perfectly fine with the DMCA. If you can convince an authorized software player to decrypt and play that .ISO file for you, you are 100% legal from start to finish.

Megaupload was shut down because people stole what others put up there for their own personal storage. I used this as an example to show that you only have the specific copying rights you were given by the holder of the copyright. They decided you can copy them for your PC, iPod, etc, but NOT copy them and store them online. Not on any site that does not prevent others from accessing it. The music industry decided to give you the right to copy - which only they (and the Librarian of the Library of Congress) have the ability to give.
Quote:
FWIW, it isn't too unbelievable - media companies inherently have the loudest voice in the discussion so their perspective of, "you have no rights, they have all the rights" is all that most people hear. If we don't speak up about the actual laws on the books, people will naturally be persuaded to the viewpoint of the copyright maximalists.

They wrote those laws, giving themselves a lot of power to control that which they created. They went too far, imo, but money talks. You can copy the encrypted disc, but cannot buy a program to do it (as they are all illegal in the US at least) - and then cannot play back the copy for more than 20 minutes.
cybrsage is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off