Tweet
This is a completely worthless argument not only because you keep lying about cases you Wikipedia but also because you've agreed no one would ever be prosecuted or sued or in any way inconvenienced for making a personal backup.
-
-
Who the **** cares if the DMCA is constitutional? It is a terrible law.Comment
-
The particular facts and litigation posture of the defendants was pivotal in this case. The district court found that the "primary purpose" of the defendants' actions was to promote redistribution of DVDs in violation of copyright laws, because the defendants admitted as much. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). The finding was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the specific facts of the case, but the appellate court left open the possibility that different facts could change the result. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), at footnotes 5 and 16.
Comment
-
We're not talking about constitutionality.Comment
-
They are undesirable, and curtail what I consider to be positive civil liberties. I just think that this issue is too complex to be solved by appeal to primitive moral sentiments. The analytics are more important.Originally posted by Kuciwalker View Post12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Ultima Ratio RegumComment
-
Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos.
How long is a "short portion"?
Remove all the previews, make a short video saying "previews suck", incorporate into rest of video.
All requirements fulfilled.
ACK!
Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!Comment
-
The worst part of DMCA is that it's made Wiggie boring.
Comment
-
Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos.
They added this exemption so people could make video "mashups", etc. But yes, it's ill conceived there, also.
The DMCA is one of the worst laws to come out in quite some time (not as bad as the Patriot Act, which I'm sure HC enthusiastically supports also). It's not only worded poorly, it's draconian.
And it is illegal to rip a DVD for personal use. Period. No one has proven otherwise, and the law states it's plainly illegal to circumvent DRM except for a few cases -- none of which are personal backups."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
I can think of few things more legal than making a personal backup of a DVD.Comment
-
Singing in the shower maybe?Comment
-
Depends what song you are singing and if there is an audience."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Fifth Circuit.
You beg me to find a court that stated the obvious and I did. Wiglaf win“Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.”
In other words: Ripping a DVD to make a backup copy is perfectly legal, ripping it to sell copies is not — at least based on this decision. Maybe the DMCA is finally catching up with reality, after all. 
Comment
-
Saying "I approve of a law" is pretty meaningless as laws are so huge nowadays that all of them are going to have their good parts and bad parts. Overall you can think something is a "good law" even if it has some horribly bad parts so long as it also has a number of good aspects and that something is a "bad law" even if it has some amazingly good parts so long as it also has some bad aspects. Even better would be to establish what parts of the law you think are good or bad.
I'm wondering if Kuci dislikes DMCA because NBC busted him a while back for trying to torrent Heroes. It was about that point when I realized just what an amazing law DMCA really is
If there is no sound in space, how come you can hear the lasers?
){ :|:& };:Comment
-
That's a very recent development (late July 2010) but very encouraging. That's not what the DMCA law says at all, I don't know where they're getting that from. I suspect that would not hold up on further appeal.
It doesn't take a lawyer to realize that by illegally bypassing circumvention provisions is not itself copyright infringement so would not be subject to fair use doctrine.
This is probably why courts have come out both ways on it. There are also appeals court rulings stating that there is explicitly no fair use exemption in the DCMA, and it is therefore not legal.
AT BEST, personal backups of DVD is questionably legal. Certainly not "perfectly legal". The language in the DMCA is quite clear, it sounds like the appeals court in your case is ruling based on 'intent' rather than what's actually in the law...and I would question the intent. If the intent was to make personal backup copies legal, why the hell isn't it in the law?
Further, how could they make software to make personal backups illegal under the pretense that "some people may use it to do illegal things"? Reminds me of Minority Report's Pre-Crime..."The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
-
Do you cream yourself thinking of the Patriot Act, too?Originally posted by Hauldren Collider View PostSaying "I approve of a law" is pretty meaningless as laws are so huge nowadays that all of them are going to have their good parts and bad parts. Overall you can think something is a "good law" even if it has some horribly bad parts so long as it also has a number of good aspects and that something is a "bad law" even if it has some amazingly good parts so long as it also has some bad aspects. Even better would be to establish what parts of the law you think are good or bad.
I'm wondering if Kuci dislikes DMCA because NBC busted him a while back for trying to torrent Heroes. It was about that point when I realized just what an amazing law DMCA really is"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "Comment
Comment