VPN's. Who's using what? - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 05:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
WonHung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekeiiy View Post

I may be able to answer this part of question. Plenty of others have address the technology part of it. Yes, it's true part of the reason some people use it is to hide their activities. In places such as China, UAE, the national firewalls really limit what you can do on the net. And getting caught going on a site's the government does like, can get in some pretty big trouble.
In the USA, it's a slightly different story. One use would be if one is using public WiFi and want an extra level security, say like having a paying to bill you forget to do that is due now. Another use, the one I do, is to get access to services outside the USA. This is stuff like a lot online broadband sports packages such as NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB to name a few. I'm able to watch my local teams, not have to worry able blackouts, and cut the cord.
The video below shows the NFL Game Pass service, it's like DirectTVs Sunday Ticket, but from the NFL and cheaper, and a local broadcast via HDHomerun and Media Center. The system was choking from trying to display two HD feeds.This isn't illegal, but a TOS voilation because I'm circumventing the blackout rules. Since I'm not publcly showing the game, the odds of being caught are next to nil. If caught, they cancel my service, and charge an extra $100 to $150. If I was a bar, then I would have to worry about being sued.
This same concept is used for other services such as BBC iPlayer, CBC online service. Others use this to access USA services such as Netflix and Hulu.
It's not always about hiding your hiding activity, but accessing content.
As for worth, that's purely subjective. I pay $100/yr for my service. I still get the sports packages so that cost is even. But I don't have to pay $50 or more a month to have access to what little content I want to see (I got sick of having to have 100 plus channels I don't watch to have 10 I did.. Heck, one package was free based on location and saved me $280. Plus, being able to access this content any time, any where I have internet, is worth it to me.
Hopefully that helps.

I'm sorry, but you ARE hiding your activities with what you're doing by circumventing the TOS of the media content provider and ultimately the owner of the actual content. How can you say it's not illegal and under the same breath say you're knowingly violating the TOS?

The only thing you've said of merit is in the situation where one wants to use a public hot spot and want to do something sensitive like online banking. But there have been cases where the use of public hot spots posed other security risks as there have been known honey pot or man in the middle attacks.
WonHung is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 09:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonHung View Post

How can you say it's not illegal and under the same breath say you're knowingly violating the TOS?
A TOS violation does not mean something is criminal/illegal. It's not illegal to use a fake name for a Facebook account but it is against their TOS.
vladd is offline  
post #93 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 09:33 AM
AVS Special Member
 
WonHung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

A TOS violation does not mean something is criminal/illegal. It's not illegal to use a fake name for a Facebook account but it is against their TOS.

The remedy for Facebook is to terminate your access.

With regards to this topic, it is protected content and I'm willing to bet dollars that the fine print says there are legal consequences. So yes, it is ILLEGAL.
WonHung is offline  
post #94 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 09:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 36
I didn't say that downloaded copyrighted content isn't illegal. I was directly addressing your claim that violating a TOS is illegal. While the TOS may address illegal/criminal matters, stating something in a TOS does not make it illegal.A TOS can claim legal consequences all day long but it does not make it law.

Downloading copyrighted content is illegal because of laws passed by government, not because of a TOS.
vladd is offline  
post #95 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 09:51 AM
AVS Special Member
 
WonHung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
And I never said anything about downloading copyrighted material now did I? The example being used by lovekeiiy is a violation of protected content. The owners of that content made a decision to not allow access to the material outside of a geographical area. So if you violate or attempt to bypass those controls, you are breaking the law. And since you brought up the Facebook example, let me bring up another that DOES NOT involve downloading or even copyrighted material. The TOS of home Internet services explicitly prohibits sharing of the Internet pipes to a physical residence with others that are not within the definition of the confines of that physical residence. So you're telling me that it's OK to share your Internet connection to your neighbor. After all, we're not downloading copyrighted material.

Spin it any way you want to justify these illegal activities, it's still ILLEGAL.
WonHung is offline  
post #96 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 10:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonHung View Post

And I never said downloading copyrighted material now did I? The example being used by lovekeiiy is a violation of protected content. The owners of that content made it a decision to not allow access to the material outside of a geographical area. So if you violate or attempt to bypass those controlls, you are breaking the law.
Copyrighted/protected, it doesn't matter. The legality/illegality is because of laws, not because of a TOS.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonHung View Post

And since you brought up the Facebook example, let me bring up another that DOES NOT involve downloading or even copyrighted material. The TOS of home Internet services explicitly prohibits sharing of the Internet pipes to a physical residence with outhers that are not within the definition of the confines of that physical residence. So you're telling me that it's OK to share your Internet connection to your neighbor. Afterall, we're not downloading copyrighted material.
Nowhere did I say it was okay. What's "okay" and what's "illegal" are two different things, even if they sometimes overlap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonHung View Post

Spin it any way you want to justify these illegal activities, it's still ILLEGAL.
I'm not spinning anything (I frankly don't know whether bypassing black out restriction is illegal or not). I was not even addressing whether or not downloading content is illegal. I was directly addressing why you say it's illegal. Downloading child porn is illegal (and the punishment is nowhere near enough IMO), but it's illegal because of laws, not because some TOS says it is.
vladd is offline  
post #97 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 11:01 AM
AVS Special Member
 
WonHung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

Copyrighted/protected, it doesn't matter. The legality/illegality is because of laws, not because of a TOS.
Nowhere did I say it was okay. What's "okay" and what's "illegal" are two different things, even if they sometimes overlap.
I'm not spinning anything (I frankly don't know whether bypassing black out restriction is illegal or not). I was not even addressing whether or not downloading content is illegal. I was directly addressing why you say it's illegal. Downloading child porn is illegal (and the punishment is nowhere near enough IMO), but it's illegal because of laws, not because some TOS says it is.

TOS spells out what is acceptable and what is not with a service/product or what have you being provided. It puts you on notice as to what the originator/owner of content/product/service stats is acceptable. I have very rarely ever seen a company put out a document that lists the exact laws or statutes you would be violating. It allows them to prosecute you if they spell it out in their TOS or deem fit if you violate this agreement. It's the same thing with corporate/government networks. There are security banners that are put up when you login to those networks which spell out what is acceptable use. So are you saying that because someone violates a TOS on these networks it's not illegal?
WonHung is offline  
post #98 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 12:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonHung View Post

So are you saying that because someone violates a TOS on these networks it's not illegal?
Um, no. That's not what I said:
Quote:
I frankly don't know whether bypassing black out restriction is illegal or not

Companies cannot prosecute criminal cases, only the government can. If bypassing black out restriction is illegal, a person would be prosecuted for the law that they broke (most likely the DMCA's protection bypassing clauses) but they would not face criminal charges of "Violation of a Terms of Service". See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/court-violating-terms-service-not-crime-bypassing

Companies can file civil charges for violating their TOS and losing a civil case does not make you a criminal.
vladd is offline  
post #99 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 12:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
WonHung's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,007
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

Um, no. That's not what I said:
Companies cannot prosecute criminal cases, only the government can. If bypassing black out restriction is illegal, a person would be prosecuted for the law that they broke (most likely the DMCA's protection bypassing clauses) but they would not face criminal charges of "Violation of a Terms of Service". See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/07/court-violating-terms-service-not-crime-bypassing
Companies can file civil charges for violating their TOS and losing a civil case does not make you a criminal.

So this is the last I'm going to comment on this as you love to do some lovely tap dancing and double talk. Your last response quoted is just and example of you contradicting yourself. So did I say breaking the law equates to only a felony prosecution? No. There are tons of civil statutes which provides for monetary damage recovery without having a person convicted serve any jail time. These civil statutes, the last time I checked, are also laws which you seem to have only focused on the felony aspect just to be argumentative. When you break either laws, this is illegal. Let me also provide you with a source that defines what ILLEGAL is:

From Meriam-Webster:

Definition of ILLEGAL

not according to or authorized by law : unlawful, illicit; also : not sanctioned by official rules (as of a game)
— il·le·gal·i·ty \ˌi-li-ˈga-lə-tē\ noun
— il·le·gal·ly \(ˌ)i(l)-ˈlē-gə-lē\ adverb

I don't see in that definition where it states you have to commit a felony to fall under the category of being illegal.
WonHung is offline  
post #100 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 01:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,662
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mfusick View Post

basically screw homegroups- they reset permissions too crazy style.

LOL, notice your picture indicates that you are logged into a homegroup that at the time consisted of Home Server (server), HTPC, and Administrator (server)

Thanks for the help though, but it wasn't just mapping network drives (I was pretty fluent in that)

If I were to map a network drive or attempt to explore a networked machine, I would be prompted to login (Windows would rememeber login credentials, but I despise this requirement on my local network)

The other problem was even though I was running a W7 box that was previously a homegroup member, after starting a VPN client app, the same W7 box couldn't find a homegroup on the local network

And the problem was . . . .

The networked machine that started the homegroup wasn't the one I was using a VPN client app on, and it was turned off smile.gif

It might not be the height of security, but as long as the Homegroup "Originator" machine was running I could start the VPN client and tell Windows that the newly joined network was a "Home" network and all of my shares continue as they worked before.

Thanks to WonHung for further clarifying Tunneling, Split-tunneling, and Hairpinning
Dark_Slayer is online now  
post #101 of 138 Old 11-06-2012, 01:17 PM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 36
Please provide even a single quote where I used the word "felony" (other than this post of course).
Quote:
There are tons of civil statutes which provides for monetary damage recovery without having a person convicted serve any jail time.
And under those statutes, there is also no guilt or innocence established. The defendant is found either liable or not liable for damages which is not the same as being found either guilty or innocent of a crime (as with criminal cases). There is a very important legal distinction.

And once again, (third or fourth time I believe), Violating a TOS is not a crime (and therefore not illegal). Whatever action you do to violate that TOS might be a crime (depending on the law) but the act of violating the TOS is, in itself, not.
vladd is offline  
post #102 of 138 Old 11-07-2012, 05:27 AM
Advanced Member
 
BobSalita's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: CHI, CLD, PAR, PHX, PDX, NKC, AUK, MEL, SYD, BUE, SCL
Posts: 939
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 12
+1 for HMA. They have servers all over the world. I use it with Windows, iOS, Android (Nexus 7). Reliability seems to be pretty good now. Only neg is that I would like a load balancing IP per city so I'm directed to the most performant server.

Former Top 1000 Amazon reviewer bemoaning the loss of objective user reviews. Amazon, stop your complacency!
BobSalita is offline  
post #103 of 138 Old 11-07-2012, 07:42 AM
EAS
Advanced Member
 
EAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by WonHung View Post


I don't see in that definition where it states you have to commit a felony to fall under the category of being illegal.

You guys are getting away from the topic a bit. As a reader its clear to me you guys are struggling with semantics and there is some gray area here.

Generally speaking (in the US) when we use the term "Illegal" when we are talking about statutes etc we are speaking of criminal law. Civil law covers things like TOS ontracts. That being said the gray area I referred to is that a TOS can contain wording that includes items of criminal law statutes. So, while we can often say that breaking a contract isn't "illegal" even though there could be a "legal" issue to sort out it is still possible to commit Illegal acts that would be Illegal without wording in the TOS, but since the TOS calls them out a person could both commit an illegal act and violate a TOS. To be clear the TOS does not make anything "illegal" that wasn't already "illegal" as a TOS isn't creating Statute.

WonHung, I don't think you guys are going to agree on the morality aspect of working in the gray area of using proxy or vpn solutions as a method of enjoying available technologies with the desired level of privacy and security at a global scale. Its clear you would not approve of using something like a slingbox to watch US TV when traveling abroad. I support your right to live and use technology with strict adherence to criminal and civil law and to over compensate to be on the safe side. Life is risk management at the end of the day....
EAS is offline  
post #104 of 138 Old 11-07-2012, 07:56 AM
Advanced Member
 
DanPackMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: NC
Posts: 534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 8 Post(s)
Liked: 31
I run through stop signs. Not immoral, but it is illegal. Trick is not getting caught. Hence VPN.

Let he who has never copied an album onto cassette cast the first stone.
DanPackMan is online now  
post #105 of 138 Old 11-07-2012, 10:14 AM
Advanced Member
 
lovekeiiy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

A TOS violation does not mean something is criminal/illegal. It's not illegal to use a fake name for a Facebook account but it is against their TOS.

What I meant by illegal was criminal statutes. That doesn't mean those companies can't try to bring a civil suit against those who use the product in ways the owners do not intend.

As far as I know, there is no criminal statutes saying it is illegal for circumvent a blackout rule. I agree it is copyright materials, but I paid for the services being used and they accepted my money. Really, it's a breach of contract.

I found the article form the Huffing Post regarding the last Super Bowl and sites being siezed such as frontrowsports.tv. Based on the article, because I can't the criminal filing to see what laws are used, those sites were tagged because they were distributing material they did not own. This is either they didn't have approval for distribution or stole the content.

And from what I read, this article, from Sports Video Group, where the NFL will seek civil damages. Doesn't mention criminal action being sought.

If it's criminal, there will be some sort of stated punishment (imprisonment or fine), which I wasn't able to find. Here's the wiki on Copyright Act: Linky. But yes, you are right, it's illegal in regards as a tort, but not against the State/Government.
lovekeiiy is offline  
post #106 of 138 Old 11-07-2012, 10:38 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vladd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 5,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 36
This is all I've been saying:
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAS View Post

Generally speaking (in the US) when we use the term "Illegal" when we are talking about statutes etc we are speaking of criminal law. Civil law covers things like TOS ontracts. That being said the gray area I referred to is that a TOS can contain wording that includes items of criminal law statutes. So, while we can often say that breaking a contract isn't "illegal" even though there could be a "legal" issue to sort out it is still possible to commit Illegal acts that would be Illegal without wording in the TOS, but since the TOS calls them out a person could both commit an illegal act and violate a TOS. To be clear the TOS does not make anything "illegal" that wasn't already "illegal" as a TOS isn't creating Statute.
I never addressed whether using a VPN to circumvent blackout rules was legal or not and I stated as much.
vladd is offline  
post #107 of 138 Old 11-07-2012, 11:47 AM
EAS
Advanced Member
 
EAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Yup. Just helping you clarify for the other reader. I'm right there with you.
EAS is offline  
post #108 of 138 Old 11-08-2012, 09:00 AM
Advanced Member
 
lovekeiiy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by vladd View Post

This is all I've been saying:
I never addressed whether using a VPN to circumvent blackout rules was legal or not and I stated as much.

The first sentence was a response to your question. The rest for a lot of the others who were commenting about "illegal" in regards to media consumption within the use of a VPN. I didn't mean to make it like I was calling you out. I agree with what you quoted in the post two above this.

On a side note, it would be interesting to read some case law on the matter in regards to just consuming, not distributing if any exists.
lovekeiiy is offline  
post #109 of 138 Old 11-09-2012, 02:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekeiiy View Post

On a side note, it would be interesting to read some case law on the matter in regards to just consuming, not distributing if any exists.

While USC Title 17 is a huge pile of spaghetti law, chances are there are no such cases because copyright is about restricting the act of copying and more generally distribution. The consumer does neither so is unlikely to ever run afoul of the law (at least in the USA).

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #110 of 138 Old 11-12-2012, 11:11 PM
Advanced Member
 
lovekeiiy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 998
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I agree. But there may be something towards other media. The other part, not many get caught consuming only. And if they did, probably not likely they challenged it
lovekeiiy is offline  
post #111 of 138 Old 11-13-2012, 09:03 AM
EAS
Advanced Member
 
EAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
The area of law of interest here is: Anti-Circumvention

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention
EAS is offline  
post #112 of 138 Old 11-13-2012, 01:14 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Dark_Slayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 2,662
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 239 Post(s)
Liked: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAS View Post

The area of law of interest here

There is no interest here at all anymore

This thread started as a nice informal poll of who's using what

I came in much later and threadjacked because I was having problems testing out a vpn client, and I thought someone else would have experienced the same.

Then what appears to be several law school dropouts came in trolling on intent and legality of using vpns

Nobody cares anymore, maybe this thread could just be locked
Dark_Slayer is online now  
post #113 of 138 Old 11-13-2012, 11:25 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Mfusick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Western MA
Posts: 24,237
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 197 Post(s)
Liked: 1018
http://torrentfreak.com/usenet-feels-the-heat-as-copyright-holders-try-to-strip-away-content-121109/

Interested read

-

"Too much is almost enough. Anything in life worth doing is worth overdoing. Moderation is for cowards."
Mfusick is online now  
post #114 of 138 Old 11-14-2012, 01:24 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAS View Post

The area of law of interest here is: Anti-Circumvention
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention

No. What you linked to refers to circumvention of copy-prevention - stuff like decrypting a bluray in order to make an unauthorized copy. Fooling a web server so that it will make an authorized copy and then give it to you is not the same concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dark_Slayer View Post

Nobody cares anymore, maybe this thread could just be locked
We sure are lucky to have you around to tell us all what we think.
Obviously what bores you is of no consequence to anyone else.

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #115 of 138 Old 11-14-2012, 07:14 AM
EAS
Advanced Member
 
EAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

No. What you linked to refers to circumvention of copy-prevention - stuff like decrypting a bluray in order to make an unauthorized copy. Fooling a web server so that it will make an authorized copy and then give it to you is not the same concept.

Sure, but if you read up thread a little there is discussion about using VPN to use a different geo location as a point of presence. The content provider could make a very strong argument that the technology they are using to geo-fence their content distribution is being circumvented.

I'm not interested in arguing the point, but if people are interested in the topic anti-circumvention would be the way anyone might be getting into the criminal gray area with using VPN for content consumption. If you know another area of law that might come into play please offer to the discussion.

Obviously, you are free to disagree that anyone would ever consider using this to enforce TOS. I'm about freedom and understanding. Did you read the article?
EAS is offline  
post #116 of 138 Old 11-14-2012, 05:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by EAS View Post

Sure, but if you read up thread a little there is discussion about using VPN to use a different geo location as a point of presence. The content provider could make a very strong argument that the technology they are using to geo-fence their content distribution is being circumvented.
I am not saying that a VPN can't be used to fool a geo-locator. I am saying that all of the laws regarding anti-circumvention are predicated on making an unauthorized copy. Fooling a geo-locator may convince the copyright owner to make a copy, but by definition it will be an authorized copy because there are no legal restrictions on the owner's right to make copies and distribute them. The VPN user is neither making a copy nor distributing it.
Quote:
I'm not interested in arguing the point
I'm happy to argue the point. That's why I posted. Why did you post?

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #117 of 138 Old 11-14-2012, 05:32 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
assassin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 12,961
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 241
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

I'm happy to argue the point. That's why I posted. Why did you post?

Good post!
assassin is offline  
post #118 of 138 Old 11-14-2012, 06:38 PM
EAS
Advanced Member
 
EAS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 600
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerryW View Post

I am not saying that a VPN can't be used to fool a geo-locator. I am saying that all of the laws regarding anti-circumvention are predicated on making an unauthorized copy. Fooling a geo-locator may convince the copyright owner to make a copy, but by definition it will be an authorized copy because there are no legal restrictions on the owner's right to make copies and distribute them. The VPN user is neither making a copy nor distributing it.
I'm happy to argue the point. That's why I posted. Why did you post?

I posted to discuss and offer references for the thread.

If you read the wikipedia article there is some interesting bits regarding "access". Did you read the article? If you didn't please read it and then consider again whether its applicable or a reference for legal topics related to using VPN's in the way being discussed.
EAS is offline  
post #119 of 138 Old 11-14-2012, 08:03 PM
AVS Special Member
 
JerryW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 1,025
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 7 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Yes, I read it the first time. There was nothing new there. The word "access" has different meanings in different contexts - in the context of the DMCA it does not mean what you have been implying it means.

To quote from the linked article and effectively from the DMCA itself:

Circumvention of Access Controls

Section 103 (17 U.S.C Sec. 1201(a)(1)) of the DMCA states:

"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."

The Act defines what it means in Section 1201(a)(3):

"(3) As used in this subsection— (A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and (B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."


As I said twice before, spoofing a geoblocker causes the copyright owner to exercise their authority to make a copy and distribute it to you. Ergo it is not a circumvention of access control under the DMCA. If you know another area of law that might come into play please offer to the discussion with the actual language you think applies and not just vague hand-waving.

Copyright is not property, it is merely a temporary loan from the public domain.
JerryW is offline  
post #120 of 138 Old 11-14-2012, 11:01 PM
Member
 
fventura03's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
OpenVPN on my Ubuntu Server 12.10
fventura03 is offline  
Reply Home Theater Computers

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