DMCA regulations

[Crimson Behelit]

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:

586276679[/snapback]

How about the fact that you addressed the post to me?

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

Then you continue to discuss points which I brought up.

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.

It's inaccurate for a couple reasons. The majority of which, timdorr and bangbang have already described. 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.

Then you add,

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

Surely you would have addressed everyone else if you weren't speaking to me directly :rolleyes:.

[Smigit]

What do you mean just words? Everything you type is just words. How do you know if someone is going to do something they say or not through a forum post. You don't... I for one did not like this movie enough to pay $40+ CAD for it when it comes out. The internet access was paid for; I downloaded this movie because I could and found it to not be high enough in quality of entertainment for me to purchase it later on (especially for such a high price).

I see no problem in doing the above. Next Year I want to buy a laptop, however I don't know how they all perform so I'm gona consider stealing all of them to see which one of the lot is worth buying. Since it's my petrol and all to get to the shop then theres no real problem with me robbing them. Not like all the parts in the PC are worh the RRP anyway.

[oddcrap]

Joekr, you can just stop it now.. we all know that you're always right and nobody can be smarter than you or can correct you about anything. But, the fact of the matter is you still don't know everthing about the DMCA.

It is a well know fact, that people who download files, songs, or whatever thru the internet, it can be monitored, they can get your ip number, know exactly what file you are getting, if it's copyrighted material, and who you are getting it from. Knowing all that, it would not be a monumental task for them to flag your download, if it is copyright protected material, to "inject" into your download a warning. Thus... a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs . . . to the extent that any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under that title.

Only technology will conquer technology, not laws. Nex time I suggest you read the entire DMCA.

Edited July 26, 2005 by oddcrap

[Chad]

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

Did you read about the case? It has nothing to do with this discussion. Still waiting for that proof.

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:.

586276751[/snapback]

I'll repeat myself because you missed my point....under the DMCA, Fair Use only applies to the actual copy you purchased. Your whole argument is based upon Fair Use applying only to the content, which is incorrect. Fair Use is based around each copy of something to be wholly separate. It's never been otherwise. Again, you are trying to twist the words of the DMCA to support your argument.

Until you provide some kind of proof that states Fair Use is based on the content, and not the disc, this discussion is over. Actually, it never should have started.

As far as who I address in my posts...again, you did the assuming. You were called on it, and yet again...nothin.

[linsook]

Joekr, you can just stop it now.. we all know that you're always right and nobody can be smarter than you or can correct you about anything. But, the fact of the matter is you still don't know everthing about the DMCA.

It is a well know fact, that people who download files, songs, or whatever thru the internet, it can be monitored, they can get your ip number, know exactly what file you are getting, if it's copyrighted material, and who you are getting it from.? Knowing all that, it would not be a monumental task for them to flag your download, if it is copyright protected material, to "inject" into your download a warning. Thus... a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs . . . to the extent that any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under that title.

Only technology will conquer technology, not laws. Nex time I suggest you read the entire DMCA.

586276827[/snapback]

i suggest you start reading the entire thread. they already covered the point you are trying. its obvious you are refering to bittorrents as the distribution where your ip is easily accessible. this is by no means the only way of transfer. there are other means in obtaining data where you do not share.

[FlibbyFlobby]

Interesting thread here. The only thing it highlights to me is that copyright laws are lagging behind the technology, thus impeeding growth. Personally I hold the multicorporations and companies behind the industries of entertainment for this, trying to squeeze profits from us before finally common sense takes over and the law is changed.

With electronic music and movie distribution (its coming soon I'm guessing) on a high I think copyright should allow that your music file is copied to create a backup, and its freely available to use on any platform/player. The great thing about PC's and the whole mp3 'boom' was interoperability, but Digital Rights Management is trying to cripple the way we buy and use music.

[Meshuggah]

This whole idea about entertainment should be free is ridiculous!

Do you people know how long it takes to mix a song where all the instruments sound clear and they don't get in the way?

There are many forms of 'art' in a cd. The artwork, the musicality, the lyrics, the engineering, the production, etc. These cd's don't magically produce themselves. In order to make a good sound for a band you have to have EXPERIENCE and SKILL. How would you like it if someone said "screw your job, it's not as important as someone else's and you shouldn't be paid."?

This seems to be the thing I'm getting from this thread. For some reason you think entertainment is made overnight. And you expect them to be cheap or FREE? Give me a break. If I spend 12 hours mixing ONE song, I better damn well be compensated. The band couldn't do what I do, and the listener sure as hell couldn't do it either. It's kind of like how these kids that knock down other bands and yet can't play an instrument for anything. Production of music takes a lot of knowledge in waves, how sound works and how sound can be manipulated, and how to properly use them in context.

ever heard of Audio ENGINEERING? Yes, that's right, it's an engineering degree/field and it's just as complex as any other engineering field. Should I work for free because some kid thinks that it's easy to record music? Hell no.

And the same thing goes for movies....you simply have NO right to steal things that aren't created by you. They were created for you, but at a cost.

Like I said before joekr, you'd make a hell of a lawyer, but just not in America. You would loose the case in the first day because YOU are manipulating the DMCA and taking things out of context so you can make your downloading legal. Or try to at least....

and why haven't you answered my question still? you seem to reply to everything we say, yet you haven't replied to this.

If you can burn a dvd, and you own the dvd, and apparently you have DVD media which to burn onto. Why can't you make 'backups' of your current discs? If you have all the supplies to steal a dvd-r, why can't you create your own? That's what fair-use is. You have the technology to do it, you just want to get movies you have no intention of buying. You can sit here and type whatever you want and claim that you aren't downloading. It's still obvious, even if we can't prove it.

[linsook]

This whole idea about entertainment should be free is ridiculous!

Do you people know how long it takes to mix a song where all the instruments sound clear and they don't get in the way?

There are many forms of 'art' in a cd. The artwork, the musicality, the lyrics, the engineering, the production, etc. These cd's don't magically produce themselves. In order to make a good sound for a band you have to have EXPERIENCE and SKILL. How would you like it if someone said "screw your job, it's not as important as someone else's and you shouldn't be paid."?

This seems to be the thing I'm getting from this thread. For some reason you think entertainment is made overnight. And you expect them to be cheap or FREE? Give me a break. If I spend 12 hours mixing ONE song, I better damn well be compensated. The band couldn't do what I do, and the listener sure as hell couldn't do it either. It's kind of like how these kids that knock down other bands and yet can't play an instrument for anything. Production of music takes a lot of knowledge in waves, how sound works and how sound can be manipulated, and how to properly use them in context.

ever heard of Audio ENGINEERING? Yes, that's right, it's an engineering degree/field and it's just as complex as any other engineering field. Should I work for free because some kid thinks that it's easy to record music? Hell no.

And the same thing goes for movies....you simply have NO right to steal things that aren't created by you. They were created for you, but at a cost.

586276961[/snapback]

are the people who mix and create movies paid regardless of sales? i have no idea but from you previous post i assume ur a dj. so you would know.

[joeydoo]

Hi all. I might repeat someone else. I skimmed the last two pages but I thought I might join in as this is a very interesting subject. No law suit has ever been used against a dowloader (full leecher, bit torrent upload doesn't apply with that as it's far to complicated to sue every one across mutliple copies), of any media, it's always against the uploader. To succesfull argue a case against a dowloader is very wobbly ground, at the moment. The uploader, we can all agree I think, is the one person where it's definatly illegal. Nothing more can be said until they change the law and define fair use.

The thing that media distributers need to do is attack the problem against the sheep, the everyday users who download because they can, ie. everyone, including myself. The problem has built up to the level it has now ever since the public have been able to buy media to keep for themselves. The fact that it is now only a "problem" is due to the backward media companies. This is not new and hasn't come along slowly. It doesn't take a genius to see where technology has been heading, and is heading (Massive price hikes for HD content is going to bring it to breaking point) Consumers are ****ed off, and they have shown that by doing things that make them uncomfortable, then getting used to it and not caring. The only way to fight the problem because its a fact that it isn't going anywhere. They can slap on as much DRM on everything as the like and it won't make a bit of difference. All it needs is one person in the world to crack it and then thats it for the next decade and another format update, then it will happen again all over again. If they saved the money forgot the DRM gave that saving to the consumer, with good value for money extras and quality. The people will come back.

That is If you take the arguement that they have gone at all. Which I don't. DVD sales have gone up since release. CD sales have gone up steadily since they were first introduced. DVD sales have SLOWED down in the past six months, I would attribute that to a lack of good content and savey consumers mindfull of the very soon HD versions.

Bottom line. They are competing with their own products on an Expensive/Free (but morally questionable) basis. People can get over their morals and still have money. You give some one ?100 to steal an old ladies seat on a bus. They would do, and so would I. Corporations can't beat human nature. They have to offer people something they will think is better. How many people buy bottled water.

edited for not making sense :DD

[linsook]

Hi all. I might repeat someone else. I skimmed the last two pages but I thought I might join in as this is a very interesting subject. No law suit has ever been used against a dowloader (full leecher, bit torrent upload doesn't apply with that as it's far to complicated to sue every one across mutliple copies), of any media, it's always against the uploader. To succesfull argue a case against a dowloader is very wobbly ground, at the moment. The uploader, we can all agree I think, is the one person where it's definatly illegal. Nothing more can be said until they change the law and define fair use.

The thing that media distributers need to do is attack the problem against the sheep like, I will ge this because I can tribe ie. everyone, including myself. The problem has built up to the level it has now ever since the public have been able to buy media to keep for themselves. The fact that it is now only a "problem" is due to the backward media companies. This is not new and hasn't come along slowly. It doesn't take a genius to see where technology has been heading, and is heading (Massive price hikes for HD content is going to bring it to breaking point) Consumers are ****ed of and they have shown that by doing things that make them uncomfortable, then getting used to it and not caring. The only way to fight the problem, because its a fact that it isn't going anywhere. They can slap on as much DRM on everything as the like and it won't make a bit of difference. All it needs is one person in the world to crack it and then thats it for the next decade and another format update and it will happen again. If they saved the money forgot the DRM gave that saving to the consumer with global value for money. The people will come back, if you take the arguement that they have gone at all. Which I don't. DVD sales have gone up since release. CD sales have gone up steadily since they were first introduced. DVD sales have SLOWED down in the past six months, I would attribute that to a lack of good content and savey consumers mindfull of the very soon HD versions.

Bottom line. They are competing with their own products on an Expensive/Free (but morally questionable) basis. People can get over their morals and still have money. You give some one ?100 to steal an old ladies seat on a bus. They would do, and so would I. Corporations can't beat human nature. They have to offer people something they will think is better. How many people buy bottled water.

586276989[/snapback]

i buy bottled water.... 3 bucks for a case of 24 have 6 cases downstairs.

[Meshuggah]

I'm not a DJ. I'm an engineer and I work in a real studio. I don't use stupid programs with pre-made beats that sound like crap.

Those people sometimes are paid regardless, but lately in the industry they are making people wait up to 6 months before we even get our money. They send us a check once the cd is completed, but again, lately they have been penny pinchers (the labels).

All the loss of sales kill everyone. Not just the RIAA and the bands. We get paid a lot less, and then we get rushed to do ****ty production jobs. Just imagine your boss coming up to you and saying "well, we decided were going to pay you less, but hey....there's good news.....you don't have to do as much work now!!!"

That's the situation that's currently going on with labels. we're not getting paid as well as we should be, especially for the amount of work that it takes.

[linsook]

I'm not a DJ. I'm an engineer and I work in a real studio. I don't use stupid programs with pre-made beats that sound like crap.

Those people sometimes are paid regardless, but lately in the industry they are making people wait up to 6 months before we even get our money. They send us a check once the cd is completed, but again, lately they have been penny pinchers (the labels).

All the loss of sales kill everyone. Not just the RIAA and the bands. We get paid a lot less, and then we get rushed to do ****ty production jobs. Just imagine your boss coming up to you and saying "well, we decided where going to pay you less, but hey....there's good news.....you don't have to do as much work now!!!"

That's the situation that's currently going on with labels. we're not getting paid as well as we should be, especially for the amount of work that it takes.

586276997[/snapback]

i see. i assume you blame the 'piraters' for what is taking place? are sales really taking that big of a hit?

[joeydoo]

i buy bottled water.... 3 bucks for a case of 24 have 6 cases downstairs.

586276996[/snapback]

How much is it out of the tap. Tap water has many more regulations slapped on it, and has to be of a much higher standard than bottled water. Look it up.

[linsook]

How much is it out of the tap. Tap water has many more regulations slapped on it, and has to be of a much higher standard than bottled water. Look it up.

586277015[/snapback]

water is pretty cheap where im living, flate rate fee (for now) few hundred a year. its probably cleaner, but tap water smells and taste like crap. i've grown up on boiled tap water, but ever since they bottled water and made it so cheap, i've been on that instead (past year). its jsut more convienent. go biking, do my sports.... goto work... take transit, driving. its nicely bottled and easy to take. boiling water and waiting for it to cool is now seen as hassle for me.

[joeydoo]

water is pretty cheap where im living, flate rate fee (for now) few hundred a year. its probably cleaner, but tap water smells and taste like crap.  i've grown up on boiled tap water, but ever since they bottled water and made it so cheap, i've been on that instead (past year).  its jsut more convienent. go biking, do my sports.... goto work... take transit, driving. its nicely bottled and easy to take. boiling water and waiting for it to cool is now seen as hassle for me.

586277028[/snapback]

Fair enough. Pay for convenience; that makes sense. I just don't buy bottled water, because it sounds ridiculous and if tap water is just as good (or better) taking a few seconds to fill up a bottle myself rather than paying some one to do it for me makes more sense. You do know that all they do to put water in the bottles is fill it from a tap; it doesn't flow from a mountain stream. Tap water might taste better where I live anyway. That sounds a bit bitchy reading back, that?s not how it's meant, I just hate to see people getting ripped off, myself included, I brought bottled water because of the taste, same as you but just realised it was stupid.

Anyway, bit off topic, sorry.

edit: if I am out and about I do buy it bottle form.

[FlibbyFlobby]

Fair enough. Pay for convenience; that makes sense. I just don't buy bottled water, because it sounds ridiculous and if tap water is just as good (or better) taking a few seconds to fill up a bottle myself rather than paying some one to do it for me makes more sense. You do know that all they do to put water in the bottles is fill it from a tap; it doesn't flow from a mountain stream. Tap water might taste better where I live anyway. That sounds a bit bitchy reading back, that?s  not how it's meant, I just hate to see people getting ripped off, myself included, I brought bottled water because of the taste, same as you but just realised it was stupid.

Anyway, bit off topic, sorry.

586277086[/snapback]

If you've ever tried water by Evian you'll release even their name is taking the **** out of you. After all Evian backwards is naive:p:p

[linsook]

If you've ever tried water by Evian you'll release even their name is taking the **** out of you. After all Evian backwards is naive. :p

586277101[/snapback]

lol damn... i never realized. haha. i drink nestle pure life water.

[joeydoo]

lol damn... i never realized. haha. i drink nestle pure life water.

586277106[/snapback]

Oh dear. :no: :cry:

Nestle are evil. Press here

Sorry I appear to be picking on your drinking habits a bit. Just tell me to shut up.

[Meshuggah]

i see. i assume you blame the 'piraters' for what is taking place? are sales really taking that big of a hit?

586277003[/snapback]

i dont necessarily blame them....i do blame the industry and i think they waste tons and tons of money, but still...this topic has gotten heavily off topic anyway...now we're talking about water....

someone just close this