DVDFab website blockked - Page 17 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 29Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #481 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 03:43 PM
AVS Special Member
 
jsmiddleton4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 3,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 24
transplanted kidneys for adopted children?

Getting that off topic is hard not to at least admire.

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  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #482 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 04:55 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
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.



First you can quote me on the US law gives you permission to post on this forum? The answer is none exists!

Have you read the DMCA?

I have already answered your question by quoting the DMCA. DMCA is an amendment to copyright law. DMCA applies to any copyrighted material. The way the law works, you have to find the section that prohibits a specific action.

Fair use laws remain as they always have. Copyright holders neither lose any rights nor gain any rights.




Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
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 04:58 PM.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #483 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 10:35 PM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmiddleton4 View Post
transplanted kidneys for adopted children?

Getting that off topic is hard not to at least admire.
I wish. It was an example of things you can or cannot purchase yet possess.

Some AVS forum members state those in the USA may possess DVDFab while those same residents in the USA are not now able to purchase DVDFab with the Blu-ray decrypter function nor obtain updates via customary and once legal routes (via the software or directly from the DVDFab website).

The question is whether someone in the USA may possess/use a "blackmarket" version of DVDFab that contains the Blu-ray decrypter application post sales/update freeze.

Might a pre-freeze version, let alone a post-freeze version, become contraband?

For example, alcohol legally purchased and prior to and still in your possession once Prohibition began was not legal to remain in your possession. That most private citizens, ie non-commercial,were unlikely to suffer legal trouble for their small "stash" of alcohol was not technically a defense if brought up on charges of possession of contraband.
StratmanX is online now  
post #484 of 575 Old 06-20-2014, 10:59 PM
Senior Member
 
shortcut3d's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 479
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 21 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
I wish. It was an example of things you can or cannot purchase yet possess.

Some AVS forum members state those in the USA may possess DVDFab while those same residents in the USA are not now able to purchase DVDFab with the Blu-ray decrypter function nor obtain updates via customary and once legal routes (via the software or directly from the DVDFab website).

The question is whether someone in the USA may possess/use a "blackmarket" version of DVDFab that contains the Blu-ray decrypter application post sales/update freeze.

Might a pre-freeze version, let alone a post-freeze version, become contraband?

For example, alcohol legally purchased and prior to and still in your possession once Prohibition began was not legal to remain in your possession. That most private citizens, ie non-commercial,were unlikely to suffer legal trouble for their small "stash" of alcohol was not technically a defense if brought up on charges of possession of contraband.
This happens with injunctions on technology all the time. A mobile phone has an injunction because of a potential patent infringement and can not be sold in the US until the court decides. Current owners can continue to owners and use the product.
shortcut3d is offline  
post #485 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 12:34 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Before the balance of my post, I want to apologize for the poor formatting of this post. The QUOTE function does not appear to function properly for me. Neither do carriage returns to insert spaces after quotations in order to offset them from my commentary.


Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
First you can quote me on the US law gives you permission to post on this forum? The answer is none exists!
Start with a RIGHT stemming from the First Amendment and work your way down.

Quote:
"I have already answered your question by quoting the DMCA. DMCA is an amendment to copyright law. DMCA applies to any copyrighted material. The way the law works, you have to find the section that prohibits a specific action."
Hmm. I suppose you also believe the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

For starters, you could have quoted section 6 of the Copyright Act in its entirety instead of the single boldfaced item that deals only with public display. There are 5 other enumerations, not to mention more codes (eg 107-122) that further qualify and quantify Copyright 'penumbras and emanations', so to speak. Specific exemptions and illicit activities are documented, making your declaration that you must find a specific prohibition ridiculous since inclusion of all possibilities is impractical as well as impossible unless you are a fortune teller or from the future.

Code 107 from http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107:

Quote:
"Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include— (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
Note the use of the words "such as" is not all inclusive nor exclusionary. Also note the mention on "potential market for or value of". If you use a DRM circumvented ripped copy of the Blu-ray movie on your phone or tablet are you now in violation? Are there not legal methods sold by the copyright owners to businesses such as Netflix and Amazon so that you can view that material on those devices whether on or off your property? Would the circumvention of paying for those alternate sources be affecting the value of or market for copyrighted material?


The definition of Fair Use from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fair_use:

Quote:
"A copyright principle that excuses unauthorized uses of a work when used for a transformative purpose such as research, scholarship, parody, criticism, or journalism. When determining whether an infringement should be excused on the basis of fair use, a court will use several factors including the purpose and character of the use, amount and substantiality of the portion borrowed, and effect of the use on the market for the copyrighted material. Fair use is a defense rather than an affirmative right -- that is, a particular use only gets established as a fair use if the copyright owner decides to file a lawsuit and the court upholds the fair use defense."
Hmm, I see nothing about home use despite specific examples of when Fair Use is in play. I guess all the attorney's on staff at Nolo's Plain English Dictionary, where attorney's translate law for laypeople, missed it.

The reason you are unable to answer my question about Blu-ray, DRM and ripping, is ultimately due to no case has been decided on this issue.

Lastly, and back to your comment on whether I had read DMCA... why did you fail to read or make mention that immediately after the "Savings Clause" you quoted from come "EXCLUSIONS"? This section is quite specific and even states these exclusions apply to section 1201. What, pray tell, prevented the designers of the document from excluding private citizen, non-commercial, non-public, home use? I doubt it was because they wanted you to think that it was OK because they didn't mention it.
StratmanX is online now  
post #486 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 12:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
techflaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,024
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
What, pray tell, prevented the designers of the document from excluding private citizen, non-commercial, non-public, home use?
The fact that they already think it is okay, at least Darrrell Issa does.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Things can only get better
techflaws is online now  
post #487 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 12:52 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Smile

Quote:
Originally Posted by shortcut3d View Post
This happens with injunctions on technology all the time. A mobile phone has an injunction because of a potential patent infringement and can not be sold in the US until the court decides. Current owners can continue to owners and use the product.
Undoubtedly the drama of having 10's of thousands or millions of citizens stop using contraband of this variety would be next to impossible (see Prohibition) except for the contraband to "die on the vine" over time, eg obsolescence, through lack of tech support, further innovation, and the capricious nature of the consumer. Avoiding unruly mobs makes more sense than criminalizing the masses in these instances, not to mention that an injunction may be reversed.
StratmanX is online now  
post #488 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 01:24 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by techflaws View Post
The fact that they already think it is okay, at least Darrrell Issa does.
And yet the title of the article you linked is:

"DMCA Exemptions Announced; Exemption For DVD Ripping Rejected; Phone Unlocking Going Away"

Issa is not in charge of the Librarian of Congress who decides the excemption, does not have the juice to outmaneuver the Librarian of Congress, and obviously does not understand DMA explicit wordings devoid of language concerning home use regardless of any other vagueness within the DMA.

Additionally, it is not just Hollywood who rely on DRM, copyright and Fair Use for their livelihood. Besides, do you really think Hollywood is OK with you making copies at home for any non-commercial, non-public reason when that could lead to lost revenues? Just because Ultraviolet is not as big a generator in revenue as they would like doesn't mean something else in the future will be unsuccessful while at the same time adhering to DRM, Fair Use and copyright..

Last edited by StratmanX; 06-21-2014 at 01:26 AM.
StratmanX is online now  
post #489 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 02:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
techflaws's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,024
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 38 Post(s)
Liked: 27
No, I simply don't give a F*** about what Hollywood is OK with. And since copying apparently has become the social norm (a loong time ago, only recently more apparent through the Internet), I'm under the impression I'm not the only one seeing it this way.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Things can only get better
techflaws is online now  
post #490 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 02:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
I wish. It was an example of things you can or cannot purchase yet possess.

Some AVS forum members state those in the USA may possess DVDFab while those same residents in the USA are not now able to purchase DVDFab with the Blu-ray decrypter function nor obtain updates via customary and once legal routes (via the software or directly from the DVDFab website).

The question is whether someone in the USA may possess/use a "blackmarket" version of DVDFab that contains the Blu-ray decrypter application post sales/update freeze.

Might a pre-freeze version, let alone a post-freeze version, become contraband?

For example, alcohol legally purchased and prior to and still in your possession once Prohibition began was not legal to remain in your possession. That most private citizens, ie non-commercial,were unlikely to suffer legal trouble for their small "stash" of alcohol was not technically a defense if brought up on charges of possession of contraband.

Read the Volstead Act. "It provided further that "no person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, or furnish any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act." It did not specifically prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors."

Consumption was not regulated!

Do you see any similarities with DVDFab situation? You can use DVDFab, but you can not manufacture or sell it.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volstead_Act
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #491 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 03:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by techflaws View Post
No, I simply don't give a F*** about what Hollywood is OK with. And since copying apparently has become the social norm (a loong time ago, only recently more apparent through the Internet), I'm under the impression I'm not the only one seeing it this way.


Hollywood claimed that the manufacturing of a Video Tape Recorder was contributory copyright infringement.

They lost that case of "fair use" of copyrighted material in a private home setting.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Co..._Studios,_Inc.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #492 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 03:16 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
And yet the title of the article you linked is:

"DMCA Exemptions Announced; Exemption For DVD Ripping Rejected; Phone Unlocking Going Away"

Issa is not in charge of the Librarian of Congress who decides the excemption, does not have the juice to outmaneuver the Librarian of Congress, and obviously does not understand DMA explicit wordings devoid of language concerning home use regardless of any other vagueness within the DMA.

Additionally, it is not just Hollywood who rely on DRM, copyright and Fair Use for their livelihood. Besides, do you really think Hollywood is OK with you making copies at home for any non-commercial, non-public reason when that could lead to lost revenues? Just because Ultraviolet is not as big a generator in revenue as they would like doesn't mean something else in the future will be unsuccessful while at the same time adhering to DRM, Fair Use and copyright..

Where do people who have permission from the Librarian of Congress get the software to bypass copy technology when the sale of that same product is illegal in the US?
TeflonSoul likes this.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #493 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 03:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post


Start with a RIGHT stemming from the First Amendment and work your way down.

Hmm. I suppose you also believe the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.

You are so out of the loop. You are permitted to do anything that is not against the law. Yes, that means a law must be passed to prohibit certain actions. Whether that law is Constitutional is another matter.

If a moderator from the AVS Forum bans you from posting, are your civil rights being violated? Unconstitutional?

Can you justify hacking into the AVS Forum to assert your so called Constitutional Rights to post on the AVS Forum?

Does the DMCA prohibit you from attempting to bypass the password function for posting on the AVS Forum without permission?
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #494 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 07:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
jsmiddleton4's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Glendale, AZ
Posts: 3,264
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 57 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Given that NONE of your posts in this thread are on topic donated kidneys to adopted kids is simply more of the same off topic posting. How far off topic is commendable. But still very much off topic.

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 #495 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 09:58 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by techflaws View Post
No, I simply don't give a F*** about what Hollywood is OK with. And since copying apparently has become the social norm (a loong time ago, only recently more apparent through the Internet), I'm under the impression I'm not the only one seeing it this way.
Those in the USA are essentially committing civil disobedience if you upgrade DVDFab with the non-USA version of which any specific inconspicuous, for private use only individual is unlikely to interest Hollywood if history is our guide.
StratmanX is online now  
post #496 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 10:02 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
Read the Volstead Act. "It provided further that "no person shall manufacture, sell, barter, transport, import, export, deliver, or furnish any intoxicating liquor except as authorized by this act." It did not specifically prohibit the use of intoxicating liquors."
You are correct. I stand corrected.
StratmanX is online now  
post #497 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 10:19 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
Hollywood claimed that the manufacturing of a Video Tape Recorder was contributory copyright infringement.

They lost that case of "fair use" of copyrighted material in a private home setting.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Co..._Studios,_Inc.
Thanks to this case you can purchase Blu-ray player/recorders. Nothing about DRM. While things have evolved since the Sony VCR case, infringement is still a prime notion.

Again, you cannot show law allowing you to circumvent DRM on Blu-ray media because there is no case law yet. This is a murky area yet to be tested. Since you are so sure, why don't you become the test case and enlighten Hollywood?
StratmanX is online now  
post #498 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 10:22 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Kelson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Delaware - The First State (USA)
Posts: 10,134
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 318 Post(s)
Liked: 371
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
Before the balance of my post, I want to apologize for the poor formatting of this post. The QUOTE function does not appear to function properly for me. Neither do carriage returns to insert spaces after quotations in order to offset them from my commentary.
For some stupid reason, if you start the quote function like this:
[quote= ]
where you put an "=" sign and a "space" after it, then it works, i.e.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
this is how it will look with "= " after it
They still have a lot more to fix.
StratmanX likes this.

- 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 #499 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 10:26 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
Where do people who have permission from the Librarian of Congress get the software to bypass copy technology when the sale of that same product is illegal in the US?
How did people who had the right to possess alcohol obtain alcohol during Prohibition?
StratmanX is online now  
post #500 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 10:27 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Thumbs up

[quote=Kelson;25148946]For some stupid reason, if you start the quote function like this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by
where you put an "=" sign and a "space" after it, then it works, i.e.
Thank you Kelson!
StratmanX is online now  
post #501 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 10:42 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsmiddleton4 View Post
Given that NONE of your posts in this thread are on topic donated kidneys to adopted kids is simply more of the same off topic posting. How far off topic is commendable. But still very much off topic.
Given that the title of this thread is "DVDFab website blockked", my posts are on topic but not necessarily important to those interested primarily in obtaining updates in order to continue to use DVDFab or find an alternative.

However, I am not sure how much more can be said at this point without repeating. Plus, I need to wee-wee since my blackmarket kidneys are functioning fabulously.

(For the record, I am joking. I have OEM kidneys.)
StratmanX is online now  
post #502 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 04:18 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
Thanks to this case you can purchase Blu-ray player/recorders. Nothing about DRM. While things have evolved since the Sony VCR case, infringement is still a prime notion.

Again, you cannot show law allowing you to circumvent DRM on Blu-ray media because there is no case law yet. This is a murky area yet to be tested. Since you are so sure, why don't you become the test case and enlighten Hollywood?


There is no law that allows you to circumvent DRM. There is also no law that allows me to walk across the street. I also crossed the line painted in the middle of the street, which I suppose is against the law.

There is also no law that prohibits me from circumventing DRM, nor from buying the software that allows me to do so. That being said, what you do with the copyrighted material after you circumvent does matter.

I would love to be a test case. I could make a lot of money on a countersuit. Invasion of privacy for starters. There is no legal way for anyone to find out what is on my PC. Since I do not make copies of Blurays, nor do I store them on a server of any type for in home use, there is no case.

For those people who buy a movie disk, and bypass DRM so they can put the movie on their home server, there is no financial loss to the copyright holder. That was one of the significant issues in the Sony case.

If it is illegal to bypass DRM for home use, then why does this entire section of the AVS forum discuss ways to violate copyright law? That discussion is against the AVS Forum TOS as I recall!

The Sony case is still a landmark case. It has not been overturned (for in home use).
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #503 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 04:20 PM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
How did people who had the right to possess alcohol obtain alcohol during Prohibition?

It was not illegal to make it in your home.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #504 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 10:30 PM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
It was not illegal to make it in your home.
Not accurate. Home brewing was illegal depending on alcohol content.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrewing:

Quote:
Originally Posted by
During prohibition, home wine-making was treated more leniently as the result of a 1920 IRS ruling that loosened standards for allowable alcohol content for wine and cider but not for beer.[citation needed] Homebrewing of beer having an alcohol content higher than 0.5% remained illegal until 1978 when Congress passed a bill repealing Federal restrictions and excise taxes on the homebrewing of small amounts of beer and wine.[3]
StratmanX is online now  
post #505 of 575 Old 06-21-2014, 10:52 PM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
There is no law that allows you to circumvent DRM. There is also no law that allows me to walk across the street. I also crossed the line painted in the middle of the street, which I suppose is against the law.

There is also no law that prohibits me from circumventing DRM, nor from buying the software that allows me to do so. That being said, what you do with the copyrighted material after you circumvent does matter.

I would love to be a test case. I could make a lot of money on a countersuit. Invasion of privacy for starters. There is no legal way for anyone to find out what is on my PC. Since I do not make copies of Blurays, nor do I store them on a server of any type for in home use, there is no case.

For those people who buy a movie disk, and bypass DRM so they can put the movie on their home server, there is no financial loss to the copyright holder. That was one of the significant issues in the Sony case.

If it is illegal to bypass DRM for home use, then why does this entire section of the AVS forum discuss ways to violate copyright law? That discussion is against the AVS Forum TOS as I recall!

The Sony case is still a landmark case. It has not been overturned (for in home use).
You got nothing but blanks with this post. Pure opinion and silly comparisons. You rely on the illogic of just because no one has seen a unicorn doesn't mean they don't exist.

The injunction against DVDFab results in a de facto prohibition on purchasing the Blu-ray decrypter by those in the USA. That one can circumvent that is by no means direct, indirect or tacit approval of using that portion of the software. It has been postulated since the Sony case that governmental fear of backlash resulting from seizing property and litigating a sizable portion of citizens is what essentially protects the masses then and, by extension, those currently circumventing DRM in the USA.

What AVS Forum allows does not add or subtract from the legalities of circumventing DRM, Fair Use or anything else in these matters we have discussed. It is the OPINION of the moderator(s), who, AFAIK, are not legislators or judges with the juice to make a legal determination one way or the other, or, provide protection to its members against claims made by or against said members.

I am perfectly fine if DRM circumvention is legal for whatever is deemed acceptable by law, but you and others declaring it is legal without express proof is reckless. You BELIEVE it is legal. You do not KNOW it is legal. Potential huge difference.

Last edited by StratmanX; 06-21-2014 at 10:58 PM.
StratmanX is online now  
post #506 of 575 Old 06-22-2014, 12:45 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
Not accurate. Home brewing was illegal depending on alcohol content.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrewing:



Home brewing was legal depending on alcohol content.


Did home brew have alcohol content? Yes!


Did anyone ever have their home brew tested for alcohol content? No!


Did they sell supplies legally to make home brew? Yes!


Could you get a prescription from a doctor to legally purchase alcohol? Yes!


Did prohibition brew contempt for law! Yes!


Just wondering how many people were ever arrested and convicted of making home brew in non-commercial batches?


You should talk to your older relatives about the issue!
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #507 of 575 Old 06-22-2014, 01:09 AM
AVS Special Member
 
J_Palmer_Cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 6,441
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 255 Post(s)
Liked: 97
Quote:
Originally Posted by StratmanX View Post
You got nothing but blanks with this post. Pure opinion and silly comparisons. You rely on the illogic of just because no one has seen a unicorn doesn't mean they don't exist.

The injunction against DVDFab results in a de facto prohibition on purchasing the Blu-ray decrypter by those in the USA. That one can circumvent that is by no means direct, indirect or tacit approval of using that portion of the software. It has been postulated since the Sony case that governmental fear of backlash resulting from seizing property and litigating a sizable portion of citizens is what essentially protects the masses then and, by extension, those currently circumventing DRM in the USA.

What AVS Forum allows does not add or subtract from the legalities of circumventing DRM, Fair Use or anything else in these matters we have discussed. It is the OPINION of the moderator(s), who, AFAIK, are not legislators or judges with the juice to make a legal determination one way or the other, or, provide protection to its members against claims made by or against said members.

I am perfectly fine if DRM circumvention is legal for whatever is deemed acceptable by law, but you and others declaring it is legal without express proof is reckless. You BELIEVE it is legal. You do not KNOW it is legal. Potential huge difference.



Who asked for legal approval to do anything? None is required. I did not give you approval to contradict me, so cease and desist from doing so. No one gave me approval to take a drink of water. None is required.


Do you know the difference between an action that is not illegal and an action that is deemed legal by statute? It is not illegal to use circumvention software per the wording of the DMCA, but at the same time it is not legal to manufacture and sell that same software (in the US). I quoted the law directly from a government web site (perhaps violating a copyright by making that quote if I go by your rules)!.


You are still limited in what you can do with copyrighted content regardless whether the content is protected or not. Nothing in the DMCA changes that. You can do anything that you want to do in your own home (private use), but if you make that same content available on the web (public use) to anyone (even yourself) probably is not legal. However, that is not the issue that is being discussed.


Just wondering if anyone has ever been charged with breaking "the law" when they copy movies (or music) for personal use? I am not talking about file sharing, torrents, and the like.
J_Palmer_Cass is offline  
post #508 of 575 Old 06-22-2014, 01:36 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
Home brewing was legal depending on alcohol content.


Did home brew have alcohol content? Yes!


Did anyone ever have their home brew tested for alcohol content? No!


Did they sell supplies legally to make home brew? Yes!


Could you get a prescription from a doctor to legally purchase alcohol? Yes!


Did prohibition brew contempt for law! Yes!


Just wondering how many people were ever arrested and convicted of making home brew in non-commercial batches?


You should talk to your older relatives about the issue!
You know no one was ever arrested for alcohol content above legal limit because ...?

Some states and localities outlawed all alcohol. People were arrested. You need to do your research before posting half-baked responses.
StratmanX is online now  
post #509 of 575 Old 06-22-2014, 02:54 AM
Advanced Member
 
CinemaAndy's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Texas
Posts: 533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 327 Post(s)
Liked: 72
After a over night update, DVDFab and AnyDVD, will no longer rip a Blu-Ray disk. At least on my machine. I was told by customer support that Blu-Ray ripping was removed from US consumers. And that ticks me off. I have over $180 invested between the two, and can now only rip DVD's. Unless you missed the news, there has been a free DVD ripper around for years. Another annoying thing is that now when i play a Blu-Ray disk movie on my HTPC, i am forced to watch the previews, no more right to the movie.

What is funny, is that earlier today i was at Firestone getting my tires on my truck rotated and balanced. I was standing out side in the smokers area and a guy walks up to me with a bag full of movie disks and asks if i want to buy discount movies. His price was cam(recorded) copies of current in theater movies $2, ripped DVD $3 ripped Blu-Rays, $5. It has been a long time since i wanted to do bodily harm to some one. I think that guy noticed that and left, in a hurry. I called the police and filled a compliant. If they arrested him or not, i don't know.

I do know it is "enterprising" individuals like that who have effectively made it "illegal" for me to rip "legally" purchased content for private use more than that, it has made my HTPC that much less valuable in my media set up. Actually it has made my HTPC a huge Blu-Ray player.

In my first experience with the studios working on the distribution side with both Universal and TriStar(Now Sony) back in the day, it was preached about the massive losses studios had from copyright and piracy. At that time it was all overseas, and not to much in the US. Then DVD hit the market and that changed. The DVD CCA was formed just for this. Despite all the watermarks, DMR, you name it, piracy and copyright issues has got nothing but worse. Disney publicly projected they lost over $250 million from pirated downloads and disks of The Avengers, despite it's excellent box office and home media sales. That is serious "lost" money. If someone got me for $250 million, i would spend $50 million on lawyers so they would rot in prison. And that is what is going on now.

No pun about it, Pandora's box is now officially open for Hollywood studios. I see DVDFab and Kaleidescape as just the beginning, the get your foot in the door, of a much larger movement and stance against piracy or the act to commit piracy by the studios. And i see it as not just companies, but individuals as well.

Making a movie is not cheap. Distributing a movie is not cheap. Owning a theater is not cheap. Every dollar lost to copyright or piracy gets added onto the end user, in either ticket price or disk/download price. I would seriously pay attention to what you can and cannot do.
CinemaAndy is offline  
post #510 of 575 Old 06-22-2014, 03:00 AM
Senior Member
 
StratmanX's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by J_Palmer_Cass View Post
Who asked for legal approval to do anything? None is required. I did not give you approval to contradict me, so cease and desist from doing so. No one gave me approval to take a drink of water. None is required.

Do you know the difference between an action that is not illegal and an action that is deemed legal by statute? It is not illegal to use circumvention software per the wording of the DMCA, but at the same time it is not legal to manufacture and sell that same software (in the US). I quoted the law directly from a government web site (perhaps violating a copyright by making that quote if I go by your rules)!.
You are full of more than just strawman arguments again.


Quote:
Originally Posted by
You are still limited in what you can do with copyrighted content regardless whether the content is protected or not. Nothing in the DMCA changes that. You can do anything that you want to do in your own home (private use), but if you make that same content available on the web (public use) to anyone (even yourself) probably is not legal.
And yet the simplest of language added to the Exceptions portion of the DMCA - ie including in home, non-commercial, private use - was not done. Nor is there an explicit exception in Fair Use or copyright. But there are specific, detailed exceptions in these documents. Nor has the librarian of Congress offered home use as exception or legal. So simple to do yet never done. A murky and incomplete tease is all you have in the DMCA. In fact, DMCA refers us back to Fair Use in considering circumventing DRM:

Quote:
Originally Posted by
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.
"Appropriate circumstances" that "may be" fair use. What are these? Refer back to Fair Use, which does not provide exception for home use of the variety we are discussing.

Please give direct quotes from Fair Use which expressly allows one to circumvent DRM in the home for private, non-commercial, non-public use. If you cannot provide proof then your argument is nothing more than wishful thinking.

Yet, the more important issue, IMO, is why our politicians did not add unambiguous and simple language to the DMCA concerning this issue in the first place. It is not as if home use was an unknown at the time.
StratmanX is online now  
Reply Networking, Media Servers & Content Streaming

User Tag List



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