DMCA regulations


Recommended Posts

Im not even convinced these e-police exist

anyway lets suppose they did.?  shouldnt they need a warrant to eavesdrop on a person's internet connection.? I know phone taps arent permissable in court unless they have a warrant.

586275579[/snapback]

They don't overdrop on your internet connection, instead they can check in the server's log hosting the file(s) whose IP accessed it
Now I know that if I'm not sharing I'm ok, thanks a lot.

586275591[/snapback]

*laugh* I agree; he posted what everyone already knows, common sense information!

What's funny to me is how those against downloading illegally always use copyright laws and the like to show how they're right and we're wrong.

Not all laws are good ones you fools! Remember who gave birth to the United States of America; slave owners who wanted to be free! How f*cked up is that huh? And you're using laws set up by the government (and governments all over the world have histories marred by very negative events which they caused) to show us how what we're doing is so bad and wrong. :no: :rolleyes:

Now I know that if I'm not sharing I'm ok, thanks a lot.

586275591[/snapback]

Trying to twist people's words to defend your stance? Sounds like every other pirate I know.

As far as traffic, all the ISP has to do is report you. If you are using their lines for illegal internet traffic, they have every right to bring in authorities.

ok chad we get it.?  you're better than everyone else and you've never listened to or watched anything you didnt pay for.? in fact you've probably never broken any laws or rules ever.? great

586275663[/snapback]

Remember; if you want to become something cool in life (like a SuperMod) you have to kiss a**, obey all laws and not download anything illegally; ever!

(the above is a joke, in that it's not meant to be offensive, only humorous and silly. this is not illegal, so i cannot be sued or jailed)

Trying to twist people's words to defend your stance?? Sounds like every other pirate I know.

As far as traffic, all the ISP has to do is report you.? If you are using their lines for illegal internet traffic, they have every right to bring in authorities.

586275644[/snapback]

Haha every right but they can't, it's ****ing Family Guy not child porn, no one is going to get arrested for downloading (at least from p2p's since half the world does it). Now if you're higher up the food chain and happen to be profiting from your "downloading", then this is another story entirely.

Edited by CyberDude
You may have not said it exactly like that, but you said from what you've seen here on Neowin the "don't download" people have brough out more proper reasons and arguments for their beliefs. That means they have to be more intelligent and knowledgable (at least on this subject), so you are inferring that with your statements.

And if you cannot see how my other point/story has something to do with our talks of downloading for free, then you (under 90 IQ?) are no longer worth debating with or talking to!

586275540[/snapback]

your taking words and putting them in my mouth and then insulting me then you end it with im not worth debating?

"You may have not said it exactly like that" no i didnt say it like that at all and i dont mean it like at all either, its how you view it and without asking me to clear it for you you go on with how you viewed it.

your taking words and putting them in my mouth and then insulting me then you end it with im not worth debating?

"You may have not said it exactly like that" no i didnt say it like that at all and i dont mean it like at all either, its how you view it and without asking me to clear it for you you go on with how you viewed it.

586275744[/snapback]

in?fer?ence (noun)

1. The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.

2. The act of reasoning from factual knowledge or evidence.

(Saying that a group of individuals has better reasoning and arguments than another is also stating they are more intelligent in that regard)

(Saying that a group of individuals has better reasoning and arguments than another is also stating they are more intelligent in that regard)

586275751[/snapback]

to you, but like i already said i did not mean it that way so get off of it already and back to the topic

To all the people who think it is ok to download movies, is it ok to take a picture you didn't create, and post it on your webpage? How about create a huge page full of wallpapers you stole from deviantart, neowin, etc.? Can I create a webpage that looks exactly like yours, by using your graphics and code? Is it ok if I took your avatar, or signature, and used it for my own?

To all the people who think it is ok to download movies, is it ok to take a picture you didn't create, and post it on your webpage? How about create a huge page full of wallpapers you stole from deviantart, neowin, etc.?  Can I create a webpage that looks exactly like yours, by using your graphics and code? Is it ok if I took your avatar, or signature, and used it for my own?

586275851[/snapback]

Bad analytical examples.

To all the people who think it is ok to download movies, is it ok to take a picture you didn't create, and post it on your webpage? How about create a huge page full of wallpapers you stole from deviantart, neowin, etc.?  Can I create a webpage that looks exactly like yours, by using your graphics and code? Is it ok if I took your avatar, or signature, and used it for my own?

586275851[/snapback]

If I buy a CD, I feel I have the right to download a copy to use as a backup if I have no other way to amke one, and that without sharing it.

Now, for your exemple, it's ok if you paid for the rights.

To all the people who think it is ok to download movies, is it ok to take a picture you didn't create, and post it on your webpage? How about create a huge page full of wallpapers you stole from deviantart, neowin, etc.?  Can I create a webpage that looks exactly like yours, by using your graphics and code? Is it ok if I took your avatar, or signature, and used it for my own?

586275851[/snapback]

ok lets copyright everything even words........so u need to ask persmission to say something........mmmm where i have seen that.....comunism???? nazi??? lol

oh please....

some people download some dont get used to it........its like smokin pot and not, its like pro abortion and those who opposse.....

in fact abortion is a really bad crime and guess what? its legal!!!!

Why? Someone sat down, and created a movie. Someone sat down, and created a wallpaper. Both are products that came from someone's mind. Some sell movies, others sell wallpapers. How is that different?

586275876[/snapback]

Just by downloading a movie, you do not gain profit. Most people do not buy/sell wallpapers and ripping off someone's art or website is quite different from downloading a movie for free. Just bad analogies; that's all...

joekr...let's tone it down a bit.

Can you please clarify exactly what I should tone down? I haven't been violating any board rules. Where is Meshuggah's warning for calling me a prick? :rolleyes:

First thing, the DMCA is a US law. Why you are arguing that it applies to you in Canada, I have no idea. But given your current inaccurate stance towards that law, you best be paying attention to what Canada brings in.

The DMCA's scope is inherintly much wider than just the US. While it is a US law, the DMCA is also being held as template by other countries wordlwide who are in the process of revising their copyright laws (Canada included). It makes perfect sense to argue the DMCA as it indirectly affects the citizens of other countries too. You shouldn't have issue with me debating the DMCA because I'm Canadian... if your issue is with my alleged inaccuricies, I invite you to provide links or excerpts to/from official documents proving said allegations.

Bottom line, yeah you can make yourself a backup copy of the actual dvd you bought. No where in the DMCA does it give you the right to download another copy. What it DOES say, is that it's illegal to distribute copies of said material. When you choose to download those illegal copies, you are aiding and abetting the distributor. If you happen to be using bittorrent, you are also uploading to other users while downloading, making you fully liable for that illegal distrubution.

Since both bangbang and timdor failed to respond with sources to their claims, I guess I must place the responsibilty on you to provide evidence. "No where in the DMCA does it give you the right to download another copy.. I'm sure many of us would love to see where in the DMCA (or any other documentation) it explicitly states One does not have the right to download something one holds a license to. I'd also like to see evidence of where it says downloading (read: explicitly downloading, no uploading whatsoever) aids and abetts piraters. While you are completely accurate that torrent transfers download and upload simultaneously (leaving a chance that those who do not hold the necessary licenses to access digital content are accessing it), I never limited my argument to the use of torrents. After all, there are other methods to download that don't include simultaneous uploads/sharing.

If you are caught with those illegally obtained copies, you WILL be prosecuted under the DMCA law. You can complain and moan all day saying we are wrong, but in the end it's just a poor justification for your activities. On top of that, a very poor understanding of your rights

Which illegally obtained copies are you referring to, Chad? Have I given any direct indication that I download media? If so, I'd like to see you highlight it in this thread, soopurmoddurater. That being said, I think it would facilitate this discussion if you didn't assume anything about me or my net practices. There is an ongoing discussion here about digital rights, what is and isn't scribed in law, and the legal nature of specific instances of downloading.

Just by downloading a movie, you do not gain profit. Most people do not buy/sell wallpapers and ripping off someone's art or website is quite different from downloading a movie for free. Just bad analogies; that's all...

586275889[/snapback]

You can make a profit if you choose to re-sell that movie that you've downloaded.

Does someone have the right to borrow your copy of a dvd and back it for their personal use? No. Downloading from p2p is no different. You are downloading a backup of someone elses copy, not your own. That's what you need to understand. Fair Use only comes in to play on the actual copy you own. You're confusing the wordage used.

I should amend a post of mine though, as I don't think I clarified. According to the DMCA, you are NOT allowed to make a backup copy of a dvd if it involves breaking the encryption on said dvd. Even if you own that DVD.

As far as actual proof...joekr, you made the first insinuation that it was legal to download a copy of a movie you own. The burden of proof is on you.

Have I given any direct indication that I download media? If so, I'd like to see you highlight it in this thread, soopurmoddurater. That being said, I think it would facilitate this discussion if you didn't assume anything about me or my net practices. There is an ongoing discussion here about digital rights, what is and isn't scribed in law, and the legal nature of specific instances of downloading.

Have I given any direct indication that I was speaking to you? If so, I'd like to see you highlight it in this thread, little member. That being said, I think it would facilitate this discussion if you didn't assume anything about me or what my post says. There is an ongoing discussion here about digital rights, what is and isn't scribed in law, and the legal nature of specific instances of downloading

:rolleyes:

I should amend a post of mine though, as I don't think I clarified.  According to the DMCA, you are NOT allowed to make a backup copy of a dvd if it involves breaking the encryption on said dvd.  Even if you own that DVD.

(Jan 23, 2004) DVD CCA has dropped its case.

As far as actual proof...joekr, you made the first insinuation that it was legal to download a copy of a movie you own.  The burden of proof is on you.

586276640[/snapback]

Actually, three different mods (including yourself) have made the following statements:

- Even owning a legal copy of the disc does not grant one permission to obtain it, also, via illegal means. - bangbang23

- Downloading from these distributors includes you in the crime. - bangbang23

- Technically, the software used to rip DVD's has be deemed illegal (remember dvdcopyx?). Also, as soon as the user distributes the file and you download it, the crime moves past the DMCA and onto federal copyright grounds. - bangbang23

- Downloading isn't making a backup. You're obtaining a copy from another user. Your license entitles you to a backup of your copy, not someone else's. - timdor

- Again, you have a very warped view of how this works. You're allowed to make a backup copy of your copy of the material. Your license doesn't give you right to view the material in every form in every case. As a result, it also doesn't give you the right to obtain your backup from another user's copy (which is what you do when downloading). - timdor

- When you choose to download those illegal copies, you are aiding and abetting the distributor. If you happen to be using bittorrent, you are also uploading to other users while downloading, making you fully liable for that illegal distrubution. - you

None of these statements have been backed up with excerpts directly from the DMCA or any other document. The onus of proof is on you three... I have read the DMCA, I suggest you do the same. Nowhere does it say one cannot download a movie he/she has a license to, period. If it's not in there, it isn't a violation of the DMCA. Here's a link to the DMCA, go nuts. Until one of you can prove to us all that one may not download a movie he/she owns a license to, I don't see any further reason for us to continue this discussion... you're expecting me to just believe you :rolleyes:.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Pretty nice tool, thanks
    • Indeed. But note that this has Wifi7, HDMI 2.1, BlueTooth 5.4, and 5G Ethernet, so even in the additional features list this bundle blows the Steam Machine away. And, with the money saved, one could improve this dramatically.
    • One of the strangest galaxies in our Universe could help answer some long overdue questions by Sayan Sen Image by Pixabay via Pexels | Not representative An international team of astronomers led by the Department of Astronomy at Tsinghua University has discovered an unusually metal-poor galaxy that may contain signs of first-generation star formation. The galaxy, named Metal-Pristine Galaxy COSMOS Redshift 3 (MPG-CR3), or CR3, was identified using observations from the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST), the Very Large Telescope (VLT), and the Subaru Telescope. The findings, published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, describe CR3 as the most metal-poor galaxy known from the period known as "cosmic noon," around 11.5 billion years ago. Cosmic noon refers to a period when the universe was producing stars at its highest rate and galaxies were growing rapidly. In astronomy, "metals" refers to all elements heavier than helium, including oxygen, carbon, and iron. Because CR3 contains so few of these heavier elements, researchers say it closely resembles what scientists expect the earliest galaxies in the universe may have looked like. The discovery is significant because it could offer clues about Population III (Pop III) stars, the first generation of stars thought to have formed after the Big Bang. These stars are believed to have formed from gas made almost entirely of hydrogen and helium, before heavier elements were created inside stars and spread across the universe through supernova explosions. Hence this is why CR3 has been referred to as a "living fossil." Scientists have long believed that Population III stars existed only in the very early universe. As more generations of stars formed and died, they enriched surrounding gas with heavier elements, making the conditions needed for metal-free star formation increasingly rare. Because of this, researchers expected the formation of such stars to have largely ended after the epoch of reionization, a period when radiation from the first stars and galaxies transformed the neutral hydrogen filling the universe and made it largely transparent to ultraviolet light. CR3 appears to challenge that idea. The galaxy was observed at a redshift of z = 3.193 ± 0.016. Redshift measures how much light from a distant object has been stretched as the universe expands and helps astronomers determine how far back in time they are looking. In this case, the redshift corresponds to roughly 11.5 billion years ago during cosmic noon. Although the universe was already several billion years old by that point, CR3 shows characteristics more commonly associated with much earlier galaxies. Observations revealed exceptionally strong emissions from hydrogen and helium, including Lyα, Hα, and He I λ10830. Lyα, or Lyman-alpha emission, is a specific wavelength of light produced by hydrogen and is widely used to study distant galaxies. Hα emission is another hydrogen signature commonly used to trace active star formation, while He I λ10830 is produced by helium and can indicate the presence of very hot, young stars. The measured equivalent widths of EW₀(Lyα) = 822 ± 101 Å and EW₀(Hα) = 2814 ± 327 Å are among the highest ever observed in star-forming galaxies. Equivalent width is a measure of the strength of an emission line relative to the surrounding light, and such large values are typically associated with intense and very recent star formation. At the same time, researchers found no statistically significant detections of metal emission lines, including [O III] λλ4959, 5007 and C IV λλ1548, 1550. Emission lines act as chemical fingerprints that reveal which elements are present in a galaxy. Oxygen and carbon lines are commonly seen in galaxies that have already undergone significant chemical enrichment. Their absence in CR3 suggests an unusually pristine environment. Using abundance calibration methods developed with JWST observations, the team placed a 2σ upper limit on the galaxy's gas-phase metallicity of 12+log(O/H)<6.52, corresponding to less than 0.7% of the Sun's metallicity (Z < 7 × 10⁻³ Z⊙). Gas-phase metallicity measures the abundance of heavy elements in a galaxy's gas. A 2σ upper limit indicates that the true value is very unlikely to be higher than the quoted threshold. Even when accounting for uncertainties in the calibration methods, the most conservative limit remains 12+log(O/H)<6.95, making CR3 the most metal-poor galaxy identified at cosmic noon. The galaxy also appears to contain very little dust. Researchers measured a Lyα/Hα flux ratio of 13.9 ± 2.5, a result that suggests negligible dust attenuation, meaning very little of the galaxy's light is being absorbed or scattered by cosmic dust. Because dust is usually produced by earlier generations of stars, this finding further supports the idea that CR3 has experienced very little chemical enrichment. Further analysis using spectral energy distribution modelling, a technique that compares observed light with theoretical models, suggests that CR3 contains an extremely young stellar population only around 2 million years old. The modelling, which used Population III stellar templates, also indicates the galaxy has a stellar mass of approximately 6.1 × 10⁵ M⊙. The symbol M⊙ represents one solar mass, or the mass of the Sun. One of the key questions raised by the discovery is how such a chemically primitive galaxy could exist in a universe that had already spent billions of years producing heavier elements. To investigate this, the researchers examined CR3's surroundings. Their analysis suggests the galaxy may lie in a slightly underdense environment, with a density contrast of roughly δ ≈ −0.12. An underdense region contains less matter and fewer galaxies than average. The team suggests that this relative isolation may have helped preserve pockets of pristine gas. Metal-rich material expelled from nearby galaxies may never have reached CR3, while the lower rate of galaxy mergers and interactions could have slowed the mixing of enriched gas into the system. If future observations confirm these findings, CR3 could provide some of the strongest evidence yet that first-generation star formation continued well after the epoch of reionization. Such a result would challenge the conventional view that pristine star formation ended by z ≳ 6 and suggest that small pockets of metal-free gas survived much longer than previously thought. Researchers stress that more observations will be needed to determine the galaxy's true nature. Future spectroscopic studies with higher resolution and better signal quality could help confirm whether CR3 is genuinely hosting Population III star formation. The discovery is also expected to encourage searches for other similar galaxies, which could help astronomers better understand how the first stars formed and how galaxies evolved in the early universe. Source: Tsinghua University, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • "I think in the immediate absence of a partner to apply relief" In the words of Sterling Archer... "Phrasing!"
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Rookie
      dorf went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      454
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      161
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      107
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Steven P.
      70
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!