DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[Asher]

Personsal copying is and always will be fine.

Show me the DMCA exemption for personal copying.

[Wiglaf]

You provided a case that did the work for me. The judge's interpretation of the federal law, which still stands, is that trafficking in software that removes copy protection is illegal, but ripping the media for personal use is fine.

And I bought Office for my mac, not my office. I do not do any work on my Mac nor would I know how to. It has a dent I need to repair

[Asher]

There is no exemption for personal backup under the DMCA.

Personal backup that involves circumvention of DRM is explicitly illegal under the DMCA.

The US congress had an opportunity to provide such an exemption in July of this year when they created some other exemptions, but they CHOSE NOT TO.

The letter of the law is it's illegal. Period. You lose, Wiggy.

[Wiglaf]

I do not have time to educate you in statutory interpretation. The fact that there is no exemption is just as much evidence of there being an exemption as it is evidence that copying for personal use is illegal.

The courts have this view, even if it is a pedophile judge who wrote the leading opinion, and it's enforced this way, so then that is the law. Sorry that this does not jive with what you read on dweeb message boards or heard about at Twink hang out sites (the YMCA is not a twink hang out site for the record), but that is fact.

[Wiglaf]

**** Nikolai is reading this thread. We don't want anymore Jesus we have plenty thanks. Come again some other time.

[Asher]

Can you quote the line of some ruling, which by the way WAS A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION ONLY and did not directly relate to the personal copying for personal use, but distribution of a product to do so.

If you can have some judge make a simple one-line statement about an issue not directly related to their case and have it trump the quite explicit letter of the law, your country is more ****ed up than ever imaginable.

[Wiglaf]

“Because RealDVD makes a permanent copy of copyrighted DVD content, there is no exemption from DMCA liability, statutory or otherwise, that applies here. Whatever application the fair use doctrine may have for individual consumers making backup copies of their own DVDs, it does not portend to save Real from liability under the DMCA in this action.

So, while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies

I don't know if there's been a ruling on this from a judge who isn't interested in the unmentionable, but I do not think there has been. Enforcing it would be impossible anyway. Also, there is nothing explicit in the law about this.

[Asher]

Epic fail Wiggy. He says "may" every single time.

The DMCA is quite explicit here. Circumventing digital locks/DRM is completely illegal except in the case of explicit exemptions listed, of which personal backup copies is not one.

That is the letter of the law, and there is no court precedent stating that it is a legal exemption (even though the law does not mention it).

Considering that US congress, just a few months ago, went out of their way to specify some very specific exemptions (education + critique), they LEFT OUT personal backups. This is NOT an oversight, it is quite clearly their intent with the law.

[Hauldren Collider]

I trust Wiglaf a little more in this instance than stubborn OMFG POLICE STATE AMERICA Asher. Which says something because usually Wiggy is the one going OMFG.

[Asher]

The fact that you choose to be ignorant doesn't make you any less ignorant.

It is simply illegal to break DRM to make personal backups or modifications.

It's really that simple. Wiglaf, like most Americans, had no idea how absurd the DMCA actually is and assumed it had sensible exemptions for fair use. It does not.

This isn't "OMFG POLICE STATE AMERICA". It's a simple statement of fact.

[DaShi]

I trust Wiglaf a little more in this instance than stubborn OMFG POLICE STATE AMERICA Asher. Which says something because usually Wiggy is the one going OMFG.

That's because you prefer a police state.

[Elok]

I don't think annoying, easily-dodged regulations governing the distribution of entertainment constitute a "police state."

[Asher]

There is widespread (ignorant) claims online that "judges have said it's legal". That's horse****.

They all quote the same thing Wiglaf did, with one judge saying it "may" be legal and no more. If you actually read the ****ing DMCA, HC, you will see that I am correct here. It's not a matter of trusting a communal troll DL vs me, it's a matter of taking the time to actually read the ****ing laws you so enthusiastically support.

[giblets]

I don't think annoying, easily-dodged regulations governing the distribution of entertainment constitute a "police state."

Easily-dodged is the key thing here. If they wanted to actually enforce this stuff they would need a police state. So basically they're just making a mockery out of the law by legislating things they have no intention of actually enforcing, or it's a foot in the door for a more invasive government in the future.

[Asher]

As for the people who will undoubtedly claim "the DMCA only makes the devices/methods for removing DRM illegal, not the copying of the DVDs for personal use!"

How the **** do you remove the DRM without a device/method to do so?

Also, can anyone explain why Real Networks was forbidden from releasing a product that was explicitly designed around making fair use personal backups? Their software even included its own DRM to ensure you could not distribute that rip to anyone else.