DVDFab website blockked - Page 16 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 29Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #451 of 575 Old 06-18-2014, 05:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kelson View Post
I won't argue your feelings. Whatever puts you in your personal comfort zone is the right course of action for you. If that means clearing your server then go for it.

I am in my comfort zone. My profile is below the radar. I'm not public in any way and I don't advocate piracy. I don't sell copies, I don't give away copies. I don't upload or offer them for download via peer network or torrents and neither do I download. The disks come into my private residence and never leave. I have little reason to suspect the FBI, MPAA or HSI will be knocking on my door because of my private video use practices.

You are not violating any copyright law by doing what you are doing. Settled law on the copyright issue.

Movie Copyrights

Congress granted movies copyright protection in 1912. In the 1970s, the movie industry tried to stop people from copying films on video recorders. Consumers won a victory in 1984 when the U.S. Supreme Court exempted video "home recording" from copyright infringement, another example of fair use.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #452 of 575 Old 06-18-2014, 05:34 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 10,281
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 408 Post(s)
Liked: 409
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmiddleton4 View Post
9.1.5.2 is buggy. Not worth installing. Neither is 9.1.5.1.
I never keep up with the latest version. I use what I have installed until I get to a movie that has new protections that cannot be handled by the server feed and it won't rip. Only then do I download and install the latest release version in a separate folder.

- kelson h

The bitterness of poor quality lasts long after the sweetness of the low price is forgotten . . . life is too short to drink bad wine

Kelson is offline  
post #453 of 575 Old 06-18-2014, 06:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
halfelite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,209
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 36 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
You are not violating any copyright law by doing what you are doing. Settled law on the copyright issue.

Movie Copyrights

Congress granted movies copyright protection in 1912. In the 1970s, the movie industry tried to stop people from copying films on video recorders. Consumers won a victory in 1984 when the U.S. Supreme Court exempted video "home recording" from copyright infringement, another example of fair use.
Correct you can copy a movie. But false you can do it legally for the fact the copy protection that is used on dvd/bluray is illegal to crack yourself and hence were the legal issue is. That is why RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. in 2009 took place.
halfelite is offline  
post #454 of 575 Old 06-18-2014, 07:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfelite View Post
Correct you can copy a movie. But false you can do it legally for the fact the copy protection that is used on dvd/bluray is illegal to crack yourself and hence were the legal issue is. That is why RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. in 2009 took place.

It is not illegal for an individual to bypass copy protection to make fair use copies available in a home setting. There is no change to the existing rights of copyright holders in this case (neither an increase nor a decrease in rights of copyright holder).


At the same time, no one can legally manufacture, distribute or sell that same software. That was the legal issue in the case that you quoted. There is no law that says that you can not buy that same software.


From Wiki:

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an amendment to United States copyright law, passed unanimously on May 14, 1998, which criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology that allows users to circumvent technical copy-restriction methods.

Under the Act, circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work is illegal if done with the primary intent of violating the rights of copyright holders.[verification needed] (For a more detailed analysis of the statute, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.)"
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #455 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 01:18 PM
Member
 
WMConey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
It is not illegal for an individual to bypass copy protection to make fair use copies available in a home setting. There is no change to the existing rights of copyright holders in this case (neither an increase nor a decrease in rights of copyright holder).


At the same time, no one can legally manufacture, distribute or sell that same software. That was the legal issue in the case that you quoted. There is no law that says that you can not buy that same software.


From Wiki:

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an amendment to United States copyright law, passed unanimously on May 14, 1998, which criminalizes the production and dissemination of technology that allows users to circumvent technical copy-restriction methods.

Under the Act, circumvention of a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work is illegal if done with the primary intent of violating the rights of copyright holders.[verification needed] (For a more detailed analysis of the statute, see WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act.)"
So now I'm confused:

I was under the impression that the current law was a catch-22 absurdity. Yes its legal for me to make a backup or copy for my personal use BUT its illegal to break the encryption [or to use software that breaks the encryption] for any reason, even personal use.

This post seems to say that breaking the encryption is only illegal IF the intent is to do something other than fair use.

I'm a little hard - pressed to believe the latter interpretation as it suggests DVD Fab are being chased because their software could "maybe" be used for other than personal / fair use. By that logic, I could arrested by the police because my car "could " or "might" speed or be driven recklessly.
WMConey is offline  
post #456 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 02:28 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by WMConey View Post
So now I'm confused:

I was under the impression that the current law was a catch-22 absurdity. Yes its legal for me to make a backup or copy for my personal use BUT its illegal to break the encryption [or to use software that breaks the encryption] for any reason, even personal use.

This post seems to say that breaking the encryption is only illegal IF the intent is to do something other than fair use.

I'm a little hard - pressed to believe the latter interpretation as it suggests DVD Fab are being chased because their software could "maybe" be used for other than personal / fair use. By that logic, I could arrested by the police because my car "could " or "might" speed or be driven recklessly.

It is not legal to manufacture or sell software that breaks encryption. Plenty of established law on this issue.

It is not illegal to purchase and use that same software.

It is legal to copy copyrighted video content for limited personal fair use per a US Supreme Court decision.


Note that there has not been even one lawsuit against any individual for breaking encryption for personal fair use of copyrighted material.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #457 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 02:37 PM
Member
 
WMConey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 44
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
It is not legal to manufacture or sell software that breaks encryption. Plenty of established law on this issue.

It is not illegal to purchase and use that same software.

It is legal to copy copyrighted video content for limited personal fair use per a US Supreme Court decision.


Note that there has not been even one lawsuit against any individual for breaking encryption for personal fair use of copyrighted material.
OK - what you're saying makes sense. DVD Fab is the lawbreaker, not me.

Hard to believe I'm not "aiding and abetting" or in some way "facilitating" by the use of this illegal product. I believe you that there have been no lawsuits against "fair use" decrypters but has there been an established case where a user of illegal software of this type has had his "fair use" actions declared legal? The fact that lawsuits have targeted software makers thus far doesn't guarantee anything for their users.
WMConey is offline  
post #458 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 02:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 94
He pops in every few months with this nonsense. Fair Use was struck down with the famous 321 case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Stu...r_Studios,_Inc.
Gary J is offline  
post #459 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 03:24 PM
Member
 
martig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Central New Jersey
Posts: 171
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by halfelite View Post
Correct you can copy a movie. But false you can do it legally for the fact the copy protection that is used on dvd/bluray is illegal to crack yourself and hence were the legal issue is. That is why RealNetworks, Inc. v. DVD Copy Control Association, Inc. in 2009 took place.

With this in mind what do you think of SlySoft, AnyDVD HD, chances of winning an appeal. Although in this case I think in involves Antigua law.

Ray
martig is offline  
post #460 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 03:44 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jsmiddleton4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 3,269
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 59 Post(s)
Liked: 24
This is a thread about DVDFab's web site being blocked and the issues we have as a result and how we are having to manage that reality. Please feel free to take your sea lawyer discussion and your discussions about sea lawyers discussing sea lawyers and their view of the law to a dedicated thread for that topic.

This is not that thread.

E.B. White said, "I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day."
jsmiddleton4 is offline  
post #461 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 03:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 94
feel free to scan/skip/ignore posts or tell it to a mod
Gary J is offline  
post #462 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 03:55 PM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
He pops in every few months with this nonsense. Fair Use was struck down with the famous 321 case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Stu...r_Studios,_Inc.
Your link was broken for me. Fair Use does not allow the copying of an entire copyright protected book. Why should it cover copying an entire Blu-ray movie? It is illegal to subvert DRM in the USA without express consent of the copyright holder. This is an immutable fact. Why do you think DVDFab changed the function of their software they make available in the USA? That people have not received letters from attorney's is purely based on the pleasure of the copyright holders to not pursue you. Everyone needs to accept these facts until the law is changed and stop beating a dead horse with wishful thinking.

Last edited by StratmanX; 06-19-2014 at 03:58 PM.
StratmanX is offline  
post #463 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 03:58 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
He pops in every few months with this nonsense. Fair Use was struck down with the famous 321 case.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Stu...r_Studios,_Inc.


Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Stu..._Studios,_Inc.


"Court's Holding[edit]

The court held that both of DVD Copy Plus and DVD-X Copy violated the DMCA and that the DMCA was not unconstitutional. The court enjoined 321 Studios from manufacturing, distributing, or otherwise trafficking in any type of DVD circumvention software."
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #464 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 04:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Gary J's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: 4000' or sea level
Posts: 7,636
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 61 Post(s)
Liked: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
Not true.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/321_Stu..._Studios,_Inc.


"Court's Holding[edit]

The court held that both of DVD Copy Plus and DVD-X Copy violated the DMCA and that the DMCA was not unconstitutional. The court enjoined 321 Studios from manufacturing, distributing, or otherwise trafficking in any type of DVD circumvention software."
Google Dictionary
en·join
LAW
prohibit someone from performing (a particular action) by issuing an injunction.
Gary J is offline  
post #465 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 04:07 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmiddleton4 View Post
This is a thread about DVDFab's web site being blocked and the issues we have as a result and how we are having to manage that reality. Please feel free to take your sea lawyer discussion and your discussions about sea lawyers discussing sea lawyers and their view of the law to a dedicated thread for that topic.

This is not that thread.

What is left to discuss? You DVDFab lifetime (of updates) is over.

I guess that most of you who post here are admitting to criminal behavior. I guess I should turn over the evidence to the police!

I thought that this entire thread was a violation of the AVS Forum TOS, so what is there complain about!
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #466 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 04:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary J View Post
Google Dictionary
en·join
LAW
prohibit someone from performing (a particular action) by issuing an injunction.

That particular action (manufacturing and distributing) is what that case was all about. There is no prohibition on any individual using that same software.

To be specific:

"321 Studios also argued that their software did not violate 1201(b)(1) because many uses of the software were legitimate uses sanctioned by copyright law, such as accessing public domain DVDs or DVDs without CSS, making a fair use of DVD content, or making a single archival copy. The court dismisses this argument, asserting that the downstream uses of the software are irrelevant in determining whether or not 321 Studios itself was violating 1201(b)(1). The court said that, while there are legitimate uses that some users might engage in, 321 Studios itself was distributing software which had the primary purpose of circumventing CSS.[1]"



A lot of you people are self admitted criminals according to your own "legal decisions".

Last edited by J_Palmer_Cass; 06-19-2014 at 04:21 PM.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #467 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 04:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
wuther's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 117 Post(s)
Liked: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
A lot of you people are self admitted criminals according to your own "legal decisions".
Yeah everybody who disagrees with you is a 'criminal'. You sound like the 'patriots' who want to imprison everybody connected to wikileaks, Snowden and the putizler prize committee for giving the Public Service award to them. And of course you assume US laws applies to the rest of the planet.
wuther is offline  
post #468 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 04:40 PM
Member
 
barleyguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 52 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
Your link was broken for me. Fair Use does not allow the copying of an entire copyright protected book. Why should it cover copying an entire Blu-ray movie? It is illegal to subvert DRM in the USA without express consent of the copyright holder. This is an immutable fact. Why do you think DVDFab changed the function of their software they make available in the USA? That people have not received letters from attorney's is purely based on the pleasure of the copyright holders to not pursue you. Everyone needs to accept these facts until the law is changed and stop beating a dead horse with wishful thinking.
What do books have to do with it? It is explicitly legal under copyright law to make a backup copy of an electronic medium for personal use. There is significant case law over the last 30 years regarding backups.

The DMCA prohibits to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" (word for word) in circumvention technology. Do you see anything about using it? Neither the word of the law in question nor any historical case law prohibit using software to make backups.
barleyguy is offline  
post #469 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 09:33 PM
AVS Special Member
 
techflaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by WMConey View Post
OK - what you're saying makes sense. DVD Fab is the lawbreaker, not me.
No, they're not. They abide by Chinese laws. If you use their software in the US, YOU break the law.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
You DVDFab lifetime (of updates) is over.
Or not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
I guess I should turn over the evidence to the police!
Ooh, scary.

Tech Flaws
Things can only get better
techflaws is offline  
post #470 of 575 Old 06-19-2014, 11:20 PM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by barleyguy View Post
What do books have to do with it? It is explicitly legal under copyright law to make a backup copy of an electronic medium for personal use. There is significant case law over the last 30 years regarding backups.

The DMCA prohibits to "manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic" (word for word) in circumvention technology. Do you see anything about using it? Neither the word of the law in question nor any historical case law prohibit using software to make backups.
The issue was of Fair Use. I gave an example where a complete copy of the copyrighted material may not be legal without permission. The same holds for Blu-rays with DRM protection. If the technology utilized to circumvent DRM is illegal then it does not take a genius to understand that use of that illegal technology may be deemed criminal.

From http://www.miraizon.com/support/info...otection.html:

"Many believe that removing DVD and Blu-ray disc encryption is reasonable and lawful because they feel the "fair use" provision of copyright law should override any provisions against removing encryption. In fact, to our knowledge no individual has ever been prosecuted for removing DVD or Blu-ray disc copy protection.
In 2010, the US Librarian of Congress specified several exemptions from the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA law. These are described as:
  • The incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment
  • Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students
  • Documentary filmmaking
  • Noncommercial videos
Individuals that meet these exemptions are permitted to circumvent the copy protection on DVD discs. Whether this applies in the case of Blu-ray discs is unclear. In most aspects, however, these exemptions follow the standard "fair use" provisions of traditional copyright law."

Who are these "many"? Regardless of what "many" believe, it is what a few judges believe that count.


Quote:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."
- Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.


Hollywood swings the hammer first on software companies and will pound their way down to the citizen circumventor eventually if needed.
StratmanX is offline  
post #471 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 04:05 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
The issue was of Fair Use. I gave an example where a complete copy of the copyrighted material may not be legal without permission. The same holds for Blu-rays with DRM protection. If the technology utilized to circumvent DRM is illegal then it does not take a genius to understand that use of that illegal technology may be deemed criminal.

From http://www.miraizon.com/support/info...otection.html:

"Many believe that removing DVD and Blu-ray disc encryption is reasonable and lawful because they feel the "fair use" provision of copyright law should override any provisions against removing encryption. In fact, to our knowledge no individual has ever been prosecuted for removing DVD or Blu-ray disc copy protection.
In 2010, the US Librarian of Congress specified several exemptions from the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA law. These are described as:
  • The incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment
  • Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students
  • Documentary filmmaking
  • Noncommercial videos
Individuals that meet these exemptions are permitted to circumvent the copy protection on DVD discs. Whether this applies in the case of Blu-ray discs is unclear. In most aspects, however, these exemptions follow the standard "fair use" provisions of traditional copyright law."

Who are these "many"? Regardless of what "many" believe, it is what a few judges believe that count.


- Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) was a prominent Protestant pastor who emerged as an outspoken public foe of Adolf Hitler and spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps.


Hollywood swings the hammer first on software companies and will pound their way down to the citizen circumventor eventually if needed.


Why don't you guys read the DMCA instead of making things up?


QUOTE:

Section 103 of the DMCA adds a new chapter 12 to Title 17 of the U.S. Code.

New section 1201 implements the obligation to provide adequate and effective protection against circumvention of technological measures used by copyright owners to protect their works.

Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying (definition in note 2) of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.

Section 1201 proscribes devices or services that fall within any one of the following three categories:

1. they are primarily designed or produced to circumvent;

2. they have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or

3. they are marketed for use in circumventing



Note 2

"Copying” is used in this context as a short-hand for the exercise of any of the exclusive rights of an author under section 106 of the Copyright Act. Consequently, a technological measure that prevents unauthorized distribution or public performance of a work would fall
in this second category
.


and regarding changes to established "legal fair use"


QUOTE

Savings clauses

Section 1201 contains two general savings clauses. First, section 1201(c)(1) states that nothing in section 1201 affects rights, remedies, limitations or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use
. Second, section 1201(c)(2) states that nothing in section 1201 enlarges or diminishes vicarious or contributory copyright infringement.

Last edited by J_Palmer_Cass; 06-20-2014 at 04:35 AM.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #472 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 04:19 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by techflaws View Post
No, they're not. They abide by Chinese laws. If you use their software in the US, YOU break the law.


I repeat, there is no US law against using that software. It is against US law to sell that same software.

For some reason DVDFAB did not even contest the lawsuit against them. They had a default judgement issued against them with no defense of any type being offered.


Quote:
Originally Posted by techflaws View Post

Or not.


Ooh, scary.


So you don't appreciate sarcasm?

How about this for scary?

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	scared.jpg
Views:	147
Size:	18.9 KB
ID:	127882  
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #473 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 07:14 AM
AVS Special Member
 
techflaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,036
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 44 Post(s)
Liked: 28
I appreciate sarcasm but given the inanity of some posters (here), it's sometimes easier (albeit disappointing) to assume they mean it.

Tech Flaws
Things can only get better
techflaws is offline  
post #474 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 12:12 PM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying (definition in note 2) of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.
If one may make an exact copy for personal use as long as DRM remains intact in the copy but cannot strip out DRM from the copy, then, by in large, wouldn't most people using DVDFab and other similar applications to strip DRM in fact be making prohibited "copies"? For example, people use DVDFab to strip DRM in order to use the resultant file in some other device other than a Blu-ray player for which DRM would prevent playing of that file.

Is it possible to make a functioning copy of a Blu-ray disk without touching DRM? If so, would that copy only play in a Blu-ray player?

Last edited by StratmanX; 06-20-2014 at 12:21 PM.
StratmanX is offline  
post #475 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 12:58 PM
Senior Member
 
elario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
If one may make an exact copy for personal use as long as DRM remains intact in the copy but cannot strip out DRM from the copy, then, by in large, wouldn't most people using DVDFab and other similar applications to strip DRM in fact be making prohibited "copies"? For example, people use DVDFab to strip DRM in order to use the resultant file in some other device other than a Blu-ray player for which DRM would prevent playing of that file.

Is it possible to make a functioning copy of a Blu-ray disk without touching DRM? If so, would that copy only play in a Blu-ray player?
No. You can make a 1:1 copy without touching the DRM but a Bluray player will refuse to play it. That's the whole point of DRM.

And it will be unplayable in any software player that does not have Bluray decryption capabilities (or something like AnyDVD in the background).
elario is offline  
post #476 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 01:25 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,462
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 270 Post(s)
Liked: 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
If one may make an exact copy for personal use as long as DRM remains intact in the copy but cannot strip out DRM from the copy, then, by in large, wouldn't most people using DVDFab and other similar applications to strip DRM in fact be making prohibited "copies"? For example, people use DVDFab to strip DRM in order to use the resultant file in some other device other than a Blu-ray player for which DRM would prevent playing of that file.

Is it possible to make a functioning copy of a Blu-ray disk without touching DRM? If so, would that copy only play in a Blu-ray player?


Read the part of the DMCA that I quoted again. The part of the quote that you noted in bold has nothing to do with making a copy of anything.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #477 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 01:50 PM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by elario View Post
No. You can make a 1:1 copy without touching the DRM but a Bluray player will refuse to play it. That's the whole point of DRM.

And it will be unplayable in any software player that does not have Bluray decryption capabilities (or something like AnyDVD in the background).
If I understand you correctly, no copy or rip of a DRM protected Blu-ray disk is playable without circumventing DRM.
StratmanX is offline  
post #478 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 02:15 PM
Senior Member
 
elario's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 231
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 34 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
If I understand you correctly, no copy or rip of a DRM protected Blu-ray disk is playable without circumventing DRM.
Correct. To make a playable disc or a playable file, you inevitably need to decrypt it at some stage in the process. Either at the ripping stage or the playback stage.
elario is offline  
post #479 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 02:16 PM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
Read the part of the DMCA that I quoted again. The part of the quote that you noted in bold has nothing to do with making a copy of anything.
I read it several times.

Concerning my boldfaced quote... It appears you can copy but not circumvent. Circumventing means using a potentially illegal tool such as DVDFab with the the Blu-ray decryptor in DVDFab (non-US versions currently). Without circumventing DRM you have a copy that is unplayable.

Please quote the language or law that gives express authorization to circumvent DRM protected Blu-ray disks.

Unlike adopted children and donated kidneys that cannot be bought but may be possessed legally, the blackmarket versions are illegal to buy and possess. DVDFab with Blu-ray decryption in the USA more closely fits which category?

Interestingly, I have read that one may purchase and possess lock picking tools but may not have them in public or else be prepared to defend yourself at your expense with the Police and courts, ie a damn good reason.

Last edited by StratmanX; 06-20-2014 at 02:26 PM.
StratmanX is offline  
post #480 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 02:21 PM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 256
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 32 Post(s)
Liked: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by elario View Post
Correct. To make a playable disc or a playable file, you inevitably need to decrypt it at some stage in the process. Either at the ripping stage or the playback stage.
That is what I thought. Thank you.

Now let's see if J_Palmer_Cass can provide the precise language of law, code, or ruling, etc that expressly allows for the private, non-commercial, legal owner of a DRM protected Blu-ray disk to circumvent said DRM protection.
StratmanX is offline  
Reply Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

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