DHS/ICE seizes domain names of torrent sites

[Wiglaf]

How do you feel about single-computer product licenses? Or price segmentation in general. Do you think the fact that you bought one license of Office entitles you to make copies for your family? If so it will just make us all pay even more for Office which IS THE LAST ****ING THING THIS COUNTRY NEEDS

PS: I just spent $170 to download Office and Amazon has it for $124. This is the world you want us to live in.

[KrazyHorse]

Wiggy channeling Drake channeling me

[Asher]

How do you feel about single-computer product licenses? Or price segmentation in general. Do you think the fact that you bought one license of Office entitles you to make copies for your family? If so it will just make us all pay even more for Office which IS THE LAST ****ING THING THIS COUNTRY NEEDS

PS: I just spent $170 to download Office and Amazon has it for $124. This is the world you want us to live in.

Why would you pay $170 for Office?

Doesn't your work have Office?

If you use Office at work you can get it for home use for ~$10. Legally.

And single-computer product licenses are insipid. As are single-PROCESSOR product licenses that are common in the server world.

Single-USER are better.

For the record, I legally have 10 software keys for every edition of every version of Windows, MS Office, Visual Studio, etc...all of MS' applications. I don't find your example that useful to me.

[Asher]

I also don't think it's proper for someone to buy a DVD and be told "YOU DID NOT BUY THIS MOVIE AT DVD QUALITY! What you bought was a license to watch it or a very specific disc to watch it!"

What people are buying is where the value is. The value is not in the disc, the value is in the bits on the disc representing the content.

It should be illegal to make AND DISTRIBUTE copies of it, but it is should be considered FAIR USE to make PERSONAL backups or format shift (DVD -> iPod, DVD -> local network streamer, etc). The ONLY reason this is illegal is lobbying from the content companies that would rather you buy a copy of their movie 100 times on 100 formats.

For this reason, anyone who says "DMCA " and who does not currently work for these content companies is an immense moron who doesn't understand the law or understand why it oversteps.

[Wiglaf]

They restrict how you can use Office

What's next, are you going to accuse me of gayface. I have you beat.

P.S. Backing up DVDs is legal.

[Asher]

Similarly, if I buy a PC game and install it on my computer, I should be able to remove the CD check which does NOTHING for the content of the game. At this point I'm not even making copies of it, I just want to be able to switch games without fumbling with CDs.

But cracking it so I don't need the CD in to play makes you a criminal.

It should be patently clear that the simple acts of personal backups or personal modifications (like No-CD cracks) are illegal because the studios and labels have simply found it difficult to prosecute the actual criminal aspects (selling or distributing pirated content). They've muddled the two issues, such that simplistic Americans don't know the ****ing difference.

[Asher]

They restrict how you can use Office

What's next, are you going to accuse me of gayface. I have you beat.

P.S. Backing up DVDs is legal.

It most certainly is not, under the DMCA.

The USA has a concept of "fair use", BUT IT ONLY APPLIES TO CONTENT NOT PROTECTED BY DRM.

DVDs have CSS to protect it. To make a copy of a DVD you need to de-CSS it. This is circumventing copy protection. This is explicitly illegal under the DMCA and overrides any fair use provisions.

Similarly, removing a CD check from your own, personal binary of a PC game is illegal because it is circumventing copy protection.

http://www.ifunia.com/articles/personal-use-dvd-ripping-copying-legal-or-illegal.html

Legality depends on the country you live in, the laws will be different for every country. I know that in Canada and France you are safe, USA and UK you are not. The Canadian courts have ruled that backup copies for personal use are legal, but you are only allowed to use one copy of the item at a time.

In United States, it is legal for an individual in the United States to make a copy of media he/she owns for his/her own personal use. Fair Use grants you the right to make a backup copy of your media for your own personal use. But in the case where media contents are protected using some effective copy protection scheme, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent that copy protection scheme. This law makes it illegal to rip most commercial DVDs as they are typically protected by CSS encryption.

Look at the RealDVD case. REAL lost its cause to make and distribute RealDVD -- which make PERSONAL DVD BACKUPS -- because it was ruled in the US courts that it was illegal, as it circumvented CSS protections on DVD.

[Wiglaf]

I've read opinions from federal judges condoning fair use copying that circumvents copy protection. Find me a case that found otherwise (a prosecution of someone would be best). And you have gayface.

[Asher]

I've read opinions from federal judges condoning fair use copying that circumvents copy protection. Find me a case that found otherwise (a prosecution of someone would be best). And you have gayface.

Too easy.

http://www.eff.org/cases/universal-city-studios-v-realnetworks

RealNetworks v. DVD-CCA (RealDVD case)
In September 2008, the motion picture industry sued RealNetworks over its RealDVD software, which was designed to allow consumers to copy their DVDs to their computers for later playback. Real also had intended to launch a line of consumer electronics devices that would have combined a DVD player with a hard drive. Real had obtained a license from DVD-CCA for its products, apparently relying on earlier court rulings in the DVD-CCA v. Kaleidescape case, where a California state court ruled that Kaleidescape's licensed digital DVD jukebox was within the scope of the DVD-CCA license.

On September 30, 2008, the day Real was to formally launch its RealDVD product, the motion picture studios filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles and asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block the launch. The same day, RealNetworks filed a lawsuit in San Francisco asking the court to declare that distribution of RealDVD is lawful. The court in Los Angeles subsequently transfered the case to San Francisco, where the court granted a temporary restraining order halting distribution of the RealDVD software, which was followed by motions for a preliminary injunction to bar further distribution until the case was finally resolved.

On August 11, 2009, Judge Patel granted a preliminary injunction in favor of the movie studios and DVD-CCA. As a result, the RealDVD products remain off the market until the case concludes. The judge concluded that the RealDVD products were not authorized by the DVD-CCA license agreements, and that Real had violated the DMCA's ban on trafficking in circumvention devices when it distributed the RealDVD products.

http://gigaom.com/video/realnetworks-pays-4-5m-to-settle-realdvd-case/

RealNetworks Pays $4.5M to Settle RealDVD Case

RealNetworks has finally settled a lawsuit it filed 18 months ago against Viacom and six Hollywood studios, by agreeing to pay them $4.5 million in legal fees and to shut down any remaining services tied to its ill-fated RealDVD software. The settlement puts to rest one of the last major mistakes RealNetworks made under former CEO Rob Glaser, who resigned in January after running the company for nearly 16 years.

The case revolved around RealDVD, a DVD-copying software package that RealNetworks introduced in late 2008. The software allowed users to copy entire movies from DVDs onto PCs, external storage drives or flash drives, which Real argued was legal because it didn’t alter or compress the original file. RealDVD also added an encryption layer so that users could only play back a movies on licensed computers.

But after being pressured not to release the software, RealNetworks filed a preemptive lawsuit in September 2008 against the major motion picture studios, guessing (correctly) that they would file suit to halt sales of RealDVD. And it was all downhill from there: the studios countersued, the court stopped sales of the software, and RealNetworks ended up losing both cases against the Hollywood studios.

RealNetworks had appealed the decision while Glaser was in charge, but now it appears that cooler heads have prevailed. In addition to paying $4.5 million to settle legal fees, RealNetworks has agreed to withdraw its appeal and to halt distribution of RealDVD or “any other technology that enables the duplication of copyrighted content protected by the Content Scramble System, ARccOS, or RipGuard.” Real has also agreed to turn off the metadata service that feeds cover art and movie information to the lucky 2,700 customers who were able to snag a copy of RealDVD before the court barred its sale, and will refund those poor souls the money they paid for the software.

[Wiglaf]

If you actually read that opinion you'd realize the judge, who by the way is a bit of a creeper, was fine with personal copying for personal use. Not companies distributing software that undermined the protection. (Case had nothing to do with personal copying). Don't let your kids near Patel, if you know what I mean.

[Asher]

If you actually read that opinion you'd realize the judge, who by the way is a bit of a creeper, was fine with personal copying for personal use. Not companies distributing software that undermined the protection. (Case had nothing to do with personal copying). Don't let your kids near Patel, if you know what I mean.

Now you're just being stupid.

The act is legal, but having software that lets you do the act is illegal?

[Asher]

Additionally, in JULY of this year, the US finally added SOME sensible relaxation in the DMCA rules.

http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/26/now-legal-in-the-u-s-jailbreaking-your-iphone-ripping-a-dvd-for-educational-purposes/

It is now only legal to rip/backup a DVD for educational purposes or for criticism. NOT FOR PERSONAL USE.

You are wrong, Wiggy. A Canadian knows more about US laws than a supposed US politician.

The actual DMCA exemptions:

1. Defeating a lawfully obtained DVD’s encryption for the sole purpose of short, fair use in an educational setting or for criticism

2. Computer programs that allow you to run lawfully obtained software on your phone that you otherwise would not be able to run aka Jailbreaking to use Google Voice on your iPhone

3. Computer programs that allow you to use your phone on a different network aka Jailbreaking to use your iPhone on T-Mobile

4. Circumventing video game encryption (DRM) for the purposes of legitimate security testing or investigation

5. Cracking computer programs protected by dongles when the dongles become obsolete or are no longer being manufactured

6. Having an ebook be read aloud (ie for the blind) even if that book has controls built into it to prevent that sort of thing.

As you can see, no-CD cracks and backing up DVDs for personal use are still quite illegal.

[Wiglaf]

Now you're just being stupid.

The act is legal, but having software that lets you do the act is illegal?

Of course. Bittorrent allows you to do some legal things, but many illegal things.

Personsal copying is and always will be fine.

[Wiglaf]

I AM NOT A SUPPOSED AMERICAN POLITICIAN I AM AN AMAERICAN POLITICAN

[Elok]

This is pretty tangential, but you know how sometimes a DVD will tell you "operation currently forbidden by disc?" Is there a way to tell it "screw you, do it anyway," seeing as the disc is a solid hunk of plastic? It's not really onerous, but I don't feel bound to respect the manufacturer's wishes that I skip through the damn previews instead of going directly to the menu.