PDA

View Full Version : DVD copy...ooops!


MDA
10-05-2004, 11:41:24
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=15764

zmama
10-05-2004, 15:14:20
:lol: Not very clever are they

No longer Trippin
11-05-2004, 04:59:32
All it would have taken is two different ISP's... not that hard to do. Idiots.

Gary
11-05-2004, 15:20:09
:D

I presently have no need for DVD copying software since I don't think I've ever had a decent flawless DVD that I wanted to copy, but I'd love to own this software simply because some bullying authority thinks it should be able to deny ownership of it to me.

Freedoms are gradually being removed from the world by those with power.

IIRC the cost of that software was quite exorbitant anyway, wasn't it ? Only justifiable if you were either to go into the illegal mass copy & sell industry, or was willing to 'share' the application with dozens of your mates who'd 'chipped in' to purchase it.

King_Ghidra
11-05-2004, 15:46:32
Originally posted by Gary
[FONT=times new roman]:D
Freedoms are gradually being removed from the world by those with power.

FONT]

:rolleyes: oh please

Gary
11-05-2004, 15:54:46
Oh please what ?

Sir Penguin
11-05-2004, 17:54:54
I remember in one of my second-year computer science classes one of my teachers would occasionally take 10 minutes at the end of class to expound on something like the evils of Microsoft and how great open source is. One day he walked us through cracking the encryption on the FotR DVD and ripping it to disk. It was quite trivial. Anyway, he made a point of saying that if we had been in the US, he could have been arrested under the DMCA for doing that demonstration, even though he owned the DVD and didn't plan on doing anything that would have infringed on the copyright.

SP

King_Ghidra@home
11-05-2004, 19:12:06
Originally posted by Gary
Oh please what ?

oh please spare us the victimisation act - your 'freedoms' are a fucking joke. Many millions of people in the world don't have enough food, or water or medicine, or risk death from war or persecution every day. Talking about freedoms in relation to copying DVD's is a motherfucking bad joke

And the statement 'freedoms are gradually being removed from the world by those with power'?? :lol: well that is the most sweeping generalisation i have heard for a long time.

In case you didn't notice, this article is about some dumbfucks trying to make a fast buck and evade the law. It wouldn't matter whether they were selling knocked off watches or DVD copying software, they're still just cheap businessmen/criminals, not some kind of fucking human rights activists.

Chris
11-05-2004, 19:43:12
You are taking away Gary's freedom to be absurd!

Sir Penguin
11-05-2004, 19:57:49
Originally posted by King_Ghidra@home
oh please spare us the victimisation act - your 'freedoms' are a fucking joke. Many millions of people in the world don't have enough food, or water or medicine, or risk death from war or persecution every day.
Name one.

The fact that other people's lives suck worse than our's doesn't mean that we should feel sorry for them to the extent that we ignore people who are taking our own freedom, as some kind of guilty apology for being well-off.

That said, this article isn't a great case for arguing against ignorant legislation like the DMCA.

SP

Darkstar
11-05-2004, 20:00:13
KG, Gary is right.

And we don't know that they are criminals. There are many nations in the world where a consumer has the legal right to back up any digital content they buy, regardless of the transport/storage medium. Like Russia, for instance. It's Hollywood and its lobby that has pressured the US Congress to pass such crazy legal items (and who are pressuring the world to "catch up" with the US on digital rights). As consumers in the USA, we have the RIGHT to copy a movie we buy on tape or disk. It's the basic compression algorithms on the DVDs that make it illegal to COPY or "get around" them. You still have the legal right to make copies of the content for your own usage (like, making a few copies of "The Little Mermaid" and letting your wee ones put that into the player... and scratch it up, etc etc etc) So go figure. It's like saying you have the right to drive your car, but not to get into it by opening a door or climbing in the window.

And for what? Hollywood is worried that they won't make as much money in the future. They are afraid they are going to go into a major slump like the Record Industry has. The Record Industry tells them it's all those freeloaders swapping around songs for free that is costing them sales. But that's not true. Their audience is spending their money elsewhere... like on movies/DVDs and games. Song swapping has been shown to increase, not decrease, sales. And those people with 50,000 songs on their hard-drive stack that the RIAA count as lost sales? They'd never buy any of those songs. They are just having fun collecting all the can of something that's available for free. That's what all the studies have been shown. But the RIAA would prefer to think different. Cause they cannot compete with movies, or your game machine, or the offering of indy music being offered for cheap or free over the Net.

Chris
11-05-2004, 20:36:09
Heaven forbid that anyone should actually be deprived of making copies of copywrited materials.

Gary
11-05-2004, 20:57:59
your 'freedoms' are a fucking joke. Many millions of people in the world don't have enough food, or water or medicine, or risk death from war or persecution every day

So because other people have to endure worse, we should be happy those in power screw up what's been fought for and won here ? What sort of logic is that ? The problems of other places in the world is a different subject and can not be used to turn a blind eye to the erosion of rights elsewhere.

that is the most sweeping generalisation i have heard for a long time.

How so ? It's a simple statement hardly deniable. And so what if were a sweeping generalistain so long as it is true ?


In case you didn't notice, this article is about some dumbfucks trying to make a fast buck and evade the law

In case you hadn't noticed that's hardly the point even if true. It is perfectly reasonable to expand from the specifics of that case to look at the what caused them to try to get around the restrictions.


Heaven forbid that anyone should actually be deprived of making copies of copywrited materials.

Thanks for the humour, but I understand you have fair use legislation applicable to copying ? In which case, having accepted that, there is no justification for even considering a ban on this particular application. But as I implied, the removal of rights go further than just the copy programme.

King_Ghidra@home
11-05-2004, 21:29:26
It certainly is the point: the article is very specifically about thse guys making a very pathetic attempt to get round DVD copying legislation (with the aim of making cash) - it is you who have decided to use it as an example of how freedom is being eroded, and it is a very very poor example of that.

your statement that you are so proud of: 'Freedoms are gradually being removed from the world by those with power' is so ridiculous i hardly know where to start. The average citizen of the western world is so fucking free he doesn't know what to do with himself. We have freedom of speech, of movement, of thought, of association - we have a thousand freedoms that our ancestors could not necessarily take for granted. DVD copying is the absolute most unimportant pile of shit compared to any of these things.

If you want to talk about freedom in 'the world' then i can quite well mock your statement by pointing out that freedoms we take for granted are not freedoms in other parts of the world. Do you think DVD copyright law is a hot topic in Iraq?

Darkstar
11-05-2004, 21:44:13
Originally posted by Chris
Heaven forbid that anyone should actually be deprived of making copies of copywrited materials.

Look Chris, I make a fair bit of money on making content for others. I don't pirate other people's stuff.

But I think it's a weasley and very sneaky thing that the Hollywood, and the RIAA have done with the DMCA. They truly did their best to make it illegal for you to be able to use what you've paid for. The courts long ago settled what "fair use" and "licensed rights" are for people that buy content is. That's what ticks me off about the deal. Several Supreme Court members have stated that they believe the DMCA is unconstitutional... but that just means they will have to "recuse" themselves when something *finally* makes it that far. If anyone has the pockets deep enough to get something that far.

Darkstar
11-05-2004, 21:51:21
Go ahead and point it out, KG. But if you do, how shocked would you be to find out that the RIAA and the Hollywood equivalent had already sent in teams of lobbyists to wine and dine certain Iraqi leaders on the importance of controlling all recorded media? That's straight up, KG.

And the eroding of "fair use" is very minor considered the other rights that have effectively been done away with. Such as the protection from unreasonable search and seizure here. Of course, the Iraqi haven't that, but they aren't yet their own country. And what rights they will have will be determined by what sort of system they truly settle on.

Gary
11-05-2004, 21:57:57
Certainly it is me who has used it as an example of how freedom is being eroded. And there's no reason why I should not, although I fail to see why you got so 'anti' because of it. And I have to say I do not share your opinion of it being a poor example. I think it an excellent example, as your ereaction seems to imply.

The average citizen of the western world is so fucking free he doesn't know what to do with himself

Well you can speak for yourself, but from my point of view it seems that having achieved certain freedoms all the more reason not to erode them. And why come back to the one example of this thread again. Is it because you know that the statement is true and you have to mock the DVD copying example having seen it as some sort of weak link ?

Do you think DVD copyright law is a hot topic in Iraq?

I wouldn't know and do not consider it as relevant. What has Iraqi views on DVD copyright got to do with eroding rights here in the western world ? Not a thing I'd suggest. So is it just a distraction to take the readers' eye off of the point I made ? I suspect it must be.

Darkstar
11-05-2004, 23:25:33
Actually, the argument that the company is up to something dodgy still isn't a good one. If they distribute their product internationally, then having a patch available would be a cheap way of providing what is legal functionality to those places that do not have a DMCA sort of law.

Now, if we could get some email or something that shows that they are targetting their product to the casual "pirate" (the people that want to rip a few copies of something for their friends and family), then we know they are being criminals. But without some proof or at least more suggestive evidence, it seems to me that it could go either way.

King_Ghidra
12-05-2004, 08:34:02
Originally posted by Gary
Certainly it is me who has used it as an example of how freedom is being eroded. And there's no reason why I should not, although I fail to see why you got so 'anti' because of it. And I have to say I do not share your opinion of it being a poor example. I think it an excellent example, as your ereaction seems to imply.

Ah i get it, so because i think your argument is ridiculous then it must be a good argument. That is truly inspired reasoning.

The average citizen of the western world is so fucking free he doesn't know what to do with himself

Well you can speak for yourself, but from my point of view it seems that having achieved certain freedoms all the more reason not to erode them. And why come back to the one example of this thread again. Is it because you know that the statement is true and you have to mock the DVD copying example having seen it as some sort of weak link ?

Yes it must be, i know your statement is true, hence the reason i continue to ridicule it. Your reasoning is spot on again.

Do you think DVD copyright law is a hot topic in Iraq?

I wouldn't know and do not consider it as relevant. What has Iraqi views on DVD copyright got to do with eroding rights here in the western world ? Not a thing I'd suggest. So is it just a distraction to take the readers' eye off of the point I made ? I suspect it must be.

You chose to use DVD copying as a launching point to claim that freedoms were being eroded all over the world. I was trying to point out that your concept of freedom is a very particular, localised and ludicrous kind. The Iraqi example was chosen to indicate the relative value of the freedoms you hold dear. I would have thought this was self-evident, but once again you prove that the only mental leap you can make is the paranoid kind.

Funkodrom
12-05-2004, 09:29:33
K_G you fascist, we've had the freedom to copy as many DVDs as we want since Roman times! ;)

Chris
12-05-2004, 11:31:55
Or new times Roman, as the case may be.

King_Ghidra
12-05-2004, 11:40:13
:lol: very clever

Gary
12-05-2004, 16:22:02
because i think your argument is ridiculous then it must be a good argument.

On the contrary, if you think it was worth reacting to as you did then it canít be as insignificant as you imply.


I was trying to point out that your concept of freedom is a very particular, localised and ludicrous kind.

I chose to point out that freedoms were being eroded in a thread which held one such example. This is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. I can see nowhere here where you have made an attempt to point out that my concept of freedom is particular. All you have done is try to ridicule the self evident point I made by comparing it with other freedoms. Something which achieves nothing.

As an analogy itís like ridiculing the statement that lemons are fruit because you want to point out that melons are fruit. Whatís the point ?


The Iraqi example was chosen to indicate the relative value of the freedoms you hold dear. I would have thought this was self-evident, but once again you prove that the only mental leap you can make is the paranoid kind

Yes the Iraqi example is about freedoms too, but to state for the umpteenth time, what has it got to do with the erosion of freedom I referred to ? That the thread itself refers to ? Nothing. It is a mere distraction.

As for paranoiaÖ youíre not losing it are you ? I know you have yet to make a case for anything here in this thread, but you donít need to feel that bad about it.

King_Ghidra@home
12-05-2004, 18:48:55
Originally posted by Gary


I chose to point out that freedoms were being eroded in a thread which held one such example.

what i have been saying is that you consider DVD copying to be some kind of freedom and i consider it to be an absolute trifle

you see this trifle in the same sense in which you see other freedoms and i see it as being of absolutely no relevance whatsoever

you see this trifle as some convenient leg up to talk about freedoms being eroded across the world - i find that the most bizarre association to make; in fact the argument it most closely resembles is that of a grounded teenager calling their parents facists: it is grossly out of proportion

Gary
12-05-2004, 18:53:03
It believe it beggars belief that anyone could make such an extreme comparison. Yet alone argue it for a whole thread.

Debaser
12-05-2004, 22:46:03
Gary, was there ever a time when you were legally allowed to freely copy DVDs which contained copyrighted material? The answer is no (otherwise what would be the point of them being copyrighted, right?). So if you were never allowed to do this in the past, and you're not allowed to do it now, what freedoms are being removed? None.

KrazyHorse
12-05-2004, 23:07:07
5k

:shoot:

Sir Penguin
13-05-2004, 05:57:25
Debaser, ever heard of fair use and backup copies? Canadian copyright law allows those, as did American law before the DMCA.

SP

Gary
13-05-2004, 06:10:26
Missing the point. The point is not whether you are allowed to copy or not (and some are anyway, for specific purposes) but that a piece of software is now banned form being sold to you, and that's a step too far. (And as I merely tried to point out before some folk decided to object/poke fun, is that this symptomatic of the whole attitude of late.) Forget the specifics spot the trend.

PS Tell you what, to put the proverbial cat amongst the pigeons. It's rather like saying you can't buy a hand gun, and your rights haven't been taken away since you're not allowed to shoot people anyway :)

Darkstar
13-05-2004, 21:17:38
Originally posted by King_Ghidra@home
what i have been saying is that you consider DVD copying to be some kind of freedom and i consider it to be an absolute trifle

you see this trifle in the same sense in which you see other freedoms and i see it as being of absolutely no relevance whatsoever

In other words, KG is saying shut the fuck up, he doesn't care to hear about. And he doesn't care what the fuck is legal or not or anything. He is not concerned that the history of democracies show that the citizenry start with enormous pile of rights, and slowly lose them all in very small, slight chips until only a ruling Ceaser for life is left, ruling a totalitarian police state with an powerless appendix of duly elected represantational body.

Yep. You should just call "Poly/I don't give a fuck" rather then keep talking on a matter you won't give a browncarded rat's ass on, KG. It would leave you more posting time for better entertaining yourself. Unless you want to really wind up Gary?

Darkstar
13-05-2004, 21:29:59
Originally posted by Sir Penguin
Debaser, ever heard of fair use and backup copies? Canadian copyright law allows those, as did American law before the DMCA.

SP

They still do. The DMCA merely makes it a crime to copy or get around any copy protection/Security/data compression scheme. Which technically makes it illegal to copy tars, gifs, jpegs, mp3s, wavs, windows documents, etc etc etc. Anything that uses any form of data compression is technically encrypting.

The DMCA has been used to sue to security companies to be quiet about security holes, as they were 'describing' ways to get around digital security protections. An act made illegal in the DMCA.

Lexmark used the DMCA to successfully press a case against a company that made generic ink cartridges... because their generics did not have Lexmark's special chips in them. This was "getting around" Lexmarks "security" features. A real word product with no IP involved... just ink cartridges. That case did later get overturned, but the precendent has now been used in other cases for real world items.

There's a lot more issues involved in the DMCA. And there's already laws in most countries that spell out when you can and cannot legally make copies of copyrighted material. And yet, the European Union, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, (etc etc etc) are all required, via WTO, copyright, and patent agreements and treaties, to pass their own, effectively identical DMCA. But hey... no reason for anyone to really be concerned, is there? Just cause anything that uses or stores data via some form of encryption is now outlawed from being copied, that's no cause for concern, is it? And just cause companies are catching on that they can leverage that legal defination to there own benefit and screw over everyone, again, why worry?

Darkstar
13-05-2004, 21:47:28
Originally posted by Debaser
Gary, was there ever a time when you were legally allowed to freely copy DVDs which contained copyrighted material? The answer is no (otherwise what would be the point of them being copyrighted, right?). So if you were never allowed to do this in the past, and you're not allowed to do it now, what freedoms are being removed? None.

Legally speaking, Fair Use is an exception to copyright and copy-protection laws, Debaser. It's not a right. It's a legally recognized suspension of the copyright holders protections, which has evolved out of the public's desire to quote parts of a copyrighted text. Like I just did to your post. (Legally speaking, it's your copyrighted material. My quoting of it here falls under Fair Use though, and is therefore not legally cupable so long as I don't plagerism it or whatnot.)

Fair use really goes further then just you making a copy though. Fair use actually covers the Internet... When you buy a song from Apple's iTune, you only pay a license for one song. But that song exist in multiple copies along the path to your iPod. Fair Use actually covers that. But that's something that is being rolled back. If the big content providers get their way, you'll have to buy 20 licenses of that one song, because there were 20 copies of that song along it's path to your iPod. And if you pay attention to the boring DMCA and other copyright versus fair use cases that only get mentioned as filler on major news sites, you'll see that they've gone far along that legal path. Including getting tons of money from ISPs like AOL because of those song bits cached along the way to your machine.

Sir Penguin
14-05-2004, 02:11:25
Originally posted by Darkstar
They still do. The DMCA merely makes it a crime to copy or get around any copy protection/Security/data compression scheme. Which technically makes it illegal to copy tars, gifs, jpegs, mp3s, wavs, windows documents, etc etc etc. Anything that uses any form of data compression is technically encrypting.
Data compression is encoding, not encryption (except in the most extremely loose interpretations of the word). In any case, if encoding and encryption were the same, my understanding is that it wouldn't be illegal to copy the archives; it would be illegal to open them and extract data from them.

As far as I know, you have to crack a trivial encryption algorithm to copy most DVD releases, thus doing so is a violation of the DMCA.

SP

Darkstar
14-05-2004, 19:06:05
Encryption is legally defined as encoding, SP. The only specification for a difference is attempted is concerning the exportation of software and hardware, and even then, they don't often make the distinction clearly. That's why the ammunitions contraband list had to be updated, to allow 64 bit OSes and applications to be legally exported.

You don't have to crack the encoding of the DVD to copy it. You have to crack it to translate it to a normal, viewable video stream so you can PLAY it on your Linux box. Check the history of the DeCSS and DeCSS Jon (IIRC) on how that whole bit got started.

And for legal rulings that merely copying the whole work, encoding and all, is illegal, check out the case against 321 Software (I think it was Software... it was definately 321 *something*). They had released a sofware package that didn't crack the DVDs or CDs... it merely copied whatever was on the discs exactly. They were found to ran afoul of the "bypass" terms of the DMCA... because their XCopy software created an exact duplicate of the disc, encoding in all.

321 said the history of their product was that it was an in-house developed solution to copy their DVD software, and it occured to them that there was going to be a market for the home consumer to want to make back ups of there DVD software as well as there DVD home movie archives (that were formatted to play on any standard DVD player). And they had the only product that they knew of to do that. Smelling new product sales, they dressed up there product, called it XCopy in a nod to the old MS-Dos nuts, and released it as a new product. The MIAA (or whatever their inits are) had been suing them to stop the product since before the initial press release announcing they were working on the product. 321 didn't think they had a case, as it only did a raw copy (just like a tape to tape machine does). Eventually, the stars aligned right and the courts ruled that the POTENTIONAL copyright infringement that COULD happen outweighed 321's right to produce a useful product that would enable people to burn copies of their wedding videos on DVD easily or back up their Mega-Myst DVD bundle. That and the fact that it did not examine the files or formating on the DVD being copied to see if they or the disk was encoded, and just copied them regardless, was a violation of the DMCA act, as it specifically makes it illegal to copy anything encoded.

That 321 ruling itself has already been used in multiple cases now. Both the "potiental to infringe" part, as well as the "DMCA outlaws the copying of anything encoded". That's how the modern legal system works. Judges look at what's been decided before as a guide to how they should rule on similar things... if they haven't already made up their mind on how things should be. ;)

Eventually, I expect a few courts to make a distinction on whether encoding was done for compression, or for security. It's security encoding that concerns the DMCA. But American courts are not currently drawing a distinction at this time.