Question about rule 6

[loopyloops]

While I totally agree posting cracks, etc. is disgusting, it's apparently not the illegal aspect of it that makes it prohibited on the site (what is it?) as other illegal acts (at least in the U.S.) are not only allowed but the focus of much of the content. What gives? Is it that most of the members live in places where certain practices aren't an issue legally?

[Mug Funky]

it's more that there's the fair use loophole that can (theoretically, but not really tested in court yet) allow us to make copies of DVDs for fair use reasons only - for example a backup in case the original goes bad. anyone with kids who have a favourite DVD will want to back their discs up, and many many people do it for this reason.

also, some law can be considered moot, as it's either completely ignored or completely unenforceable. for example, in australia there's no fair use at all, but plenty of aussie members of this board. it's also illegal here to rip music you own so you can play it on your iPod, it's illegal to tape shows off TV to watch later (or archive - this is more culturally important than a lot of people realise... shows can literally be lost or destroyed, and in these cases "amateur archivists" are a positive boon).

however, nobody in australia ever went down for using an iPod.

[loopyloops]

it's more that there's the fair use loophole that can (theoretically, but not really tested in court yet) allow us to make copies of DVDs for fair use reasons only - for example a backup in case the original goes bad. anyone with kids who have a favourite DVD will want to back their discs up, and many many people do it for this reason.

also, some law can be considered moot, as it's either completely ignored or completely unenforceable. for example, in australia there's no fair use at all, but plenty of aussie members of this board. it's also illegal here to rip music you own so you can play it on your iPod, it's illegal to tape shows off TV to watch later (or archive - this is more culturally important than a lot of people realise... shows can literally be lost or destroyed, and in these cases "amateur archivists" are a positive boon).

however, nobody in australia ever went down for using an iPod.


But in the U.S., for example, it's fair use to back up - but illegal to break encryption - silly stuff, I realize, but no less illegal. I guess no forum ever went down for this but they have for cracks, etc.? Not to mention that actual stealing is just wrong where as my backing up my kids wiggles DVDs because my daughter insists on putting her fingers on the readable surface makes good sense.

[Mug Funky]

But in the U.S., for example, it's fair use to back up - but illegal to break encryption - silly stuff, I realize, but no less illegal.

yeah, it's weird. of course, posting cracks is far far more severe, and also points to the forum as a source of illegal material, wheras as it is now, it's merely a source of advice on how to make backups of legally obtained (and not necessarily encrypted) discs.

of course, there's the decryption section...

there is the part of the DMCA that says "an effective technological measure...", and it can be argued that CSS is in fact completely ineffective because it was broken so soon and code to break it is so readily available (it's even on t-shirts!).

btw, if you're interested in unencrypted DVDs, you might want to look at Rightstuf releases :). i believe they have a policy of not using it unless they have to (i think it costs a little more per disc to include CSS).

[Doom9]

The DMCA also has a fair use loophole. There's a pretty simple reason why we go beyond the most obvious copyright infringement in some areas: it attracts unwanted attention. If you want to download video of questionable legality, that's your own business, but don't make it ours.. this forum has enough of a hacker reputation (which is baseless of course) already, and while hacker can be a good thing, people downloading hollywood movies off P2P services definitely is no good for a forum. And in addition, those who do that often have no clue what they're doing when they're trying to put their downloaded DivX releases in another format, and are thus not exactly the clientele we're looking for.

[setarip_old]

@Doom9

Unfortunately, from what I've seen at these forums, interpretation of "Rule #6" has been very inconsistent. As an example, a search for "backup copy", "multiple copies", "disc to disc", and "disk to disk" yields approximately 20 threads with full, unchallenged, discussions of how to make a DVD copy from an already decrypted copy (NO mention of not owning the original DVD). And yet, on occasion, posters seeking the same information have had their threads closed - and some of us have been chastized/"struck" for responding to such posts.

Personally, I don't see that such a question could pose a threat to this great forum. Would you be good enough to provide your insight?

Thanks ;>}

[Doom9]

Frankly, the mod team is comprised of about 50 volunteers, who are in charge of 78'000 people. It's only natural that somet things slip through.. it would be unreasonable that moderators pick up everything.. even for their assigned forums, it would be unreasonable to expect that the moderators would pick up on every new post. We do what we can about things we do pick up and when we are being notified.. I think you can't expect more of a team of volunteers. And if you look at the world of professionals to keep up law and order, it's not like justice is completely blind, either, but I would hope it's normally not due to ill will but oversight and human nature.

And the rules do not mention anything about making a copy of a copy.. you could still own it. Downloads carry a much higher possibility of infringement, that's why there are stricter guidelines with regards to those. In the end, it's up to each mode to decide what infringes the rules, but there's a single instance where any objects are being handled. If we were to switch roles for a moment, you'd suddenly be confronted by many difficult choices, and it's not like many cases are very clear cut.. and in the end you have to make a black and white decision anyway.

[setarip_old]

@Doom9And the rules do not mention anything about making a copy of a copy.. you could still own it.Thank you for confirming my interpretation of such postings.

Perhaps my being "doublestruck" and publicly "taken to task" for answering such a posting can, therefore, be corrected/reversed?

[Doom9]

Perhaps my being "doublestruck" and publicly "taken to task" for answering such a posting can, therefore, be corrected/reversed?The rules are very clear about such posts:
By publicly complaining about a strike in any way (starting with pointing out "I've been striked for this and that"), or go badmouthing this forum and its members on another board you also forfeit your rights to an appeal and the strike will be permanent without exception.
So the answer is a resolute no.

[setarip_old]

So be it...

[loopyloops]

"of course, there's the decryption section...

there is the part of the DMCA that says "an effective technological measure...", and it can be argued that CSS is in fact completely ineffective because it was broken so soon and code to break it is so readily available (it's even on t-shirts!)."




Well that's an interesting way of looking at it - that CSS is ineffective, etc. :-) Tell that to the judge.

There's a certain similarity bet. this whole issue - you can get away with teaching someone how to decrypt... and when head shops were allowed to sell bongs but they were supposed to pretend they were used for tobacco - and if they mentioned the illegal substance they could get a fine or be shut down or whatever. Not sure what that accomplished or if that's still the law (I think it changed).


Anyway, I work in copyright, make my living from intellectual property and see the stealing of intellectual property as extremely serious. I also don't feel technology is what's going to stop people from doing it (too many teens on forums who are going to crack this stuff the day it comes out) - it's the ramifications of stealing that will, and until people are very, very nervous about what will happen to them if they do steal movies, music, etc., they'll continue.

The way the music business has attempted to stop people from stealing is insane, i.e. the Sony rootkit debacle. I was on the ugly end of that one in that I work with an artist/writer whose Cds were pulled from the shelves because of it, and that swift move hurt not only the consumer but the artists and the industry - and I can't imagine it made anyone feel the least bit sympathetic to the cause. And the Grokster case didn't help anyone much as it was kind of an empty victory as it had to do with the promotion of the service and not the service itself. People get all hot and bothered about throwing 12 year olds in jail - have any gone to jail? - but I really think thus far the studios talk a good game but don't bust enough people for the right reasons.

I'm also a firm believer in fair use and have made it a habit of backing up not only my kids DVDs but converting my own to Divx, etc., and I see nothing wrong with it as I only do this with product I own. The fact that it's not legal (as far as I can tell - don't see that DMCA loophole) is not only ridiculous, in my opinion, but also misses the point - and that is to stop people from stealing that which they do not own.

[dragongodz]

if they do steal movies, music, etc
pet peeve annoyance. making a copy of a dvd or cd etc when illegal is NOT stealing, its NOT piracy, it IS copyright infringement. i wish to god people would stop calling it stealing or piracy. doesnt help i know that they are putting those damn warnings on the start of dvds where they show a person stealing a car and then a person stealing a handbag and then equate that with copying a dvd when anyone with even a little bit of common sense would realise it isnt.

[theReal]

(i think it costs a little more per disc to include CSS) I think it's even more than a few cents (depending on how many DVDs you are going to make, probably ). A customer of my workplace wanted "copy protection" on his 1000 image-film DVDs but it would have cost around 3000 Euros licencing fees. My colleague then talked the customer out of it by showing him how easy a CSS "protected" DVD could be copied on any PC or Mac...

The licencing is probably less expensive the more DVDs you are going to produce, but 3000 Euro for 1000 DVDs, for a useless protection is definitely too much!

[loopyloops]

pet peeve annoyance. making a copy of a dvd or cd etc when illegal is NOT stealing, its NOT piracy, it IS copyright infringement. i wish to god people would stop calling it stealing or piracy. doesnt help i know that they are putting those damn warnings on the start of dvds where they show a person stealing a car and then a person stealing a handbag and then equate that with copying a dvd when anyone with even a little bit of common sense would realise it isnt.

First off, nice quote!

We, in the music business, look at it as stealing. Example - a record company releases a CD with your songs on it - intellectual property - and doesn't pay mehcanical royalties - that's stealing. If we - and we do - look at stealing as taking that which isn't yours, copying a DVD (for which you have no copy"right") is stealing. I think the part that throws people is that intellectual property isn't tangible in the sense that you can hold it. Sure, you can hold a DVD or a CD but that's not the part - unless of course it is or was - that's being stolen.

[Wilbert]

We, in the music business, look at it as stealing.
Yeah yeah, we know. You bend the definition of stealing in such a way that copyright infringment is stealing. Your Supreme Court (assuming you are American) said the following about it in 1985:
The notion of copyright infringement as theft was clearly addressed in the 1985 Supreme Court decision of Dowling v. United States. While this case involved hard goods (phonograph records), Justice Harry Blackmun was most certainly speaking of abstract property (copyrights) when he wrote these words in his majority decision overturning Dowling's conviction of interstate transport of stolen property: "(copyright infringement) does not easily equate with theft, conversion, or fraud... The infringer invades a statutorily defined province guaranteed to the copyright holder alone. But he does not assume physical control over copyright; nor does he wholly deprive its owner of its use."
see, copyright infringment is not stealing.

source: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11662

[loopyloops]

Yeah yeah, we know. You bend the definition of stealing in such a way that copyright infringment is stealing. Your Supreme Court (assuming you are American) said the following about it in 1985:

see, copyright infringment is not stealing.

source: http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=11662


It's kind of besides the point. The effect it has on us is as if we were stolen from (if, to you, it's not steaing). If someone makes a copy of a CD with songs I own on it w/o paying for it, it's the same to me as if I had a chair store and someone walked out with a chair w/o paying. Point is, it's wrong no matter what you call it.

For those of us who make their living from intellectual property, this is a very paycheck to paycheck real issue.

I will read that article - thanks!

[mpucoder]

The industry sees it as theft because they attach a monetary value to the intellectual property. Copyright infringement has nothing to do with money or monetary losses, real or otherwise.
Copyright infringement takes place before any money is involved, it is the next act, fraudulently selling the copyrighted material, that involves money for the infringer. Giving away (as in p2p) copyrighted material without permission also does damage to the copyright holder, but this is still not theft.
True, this to some seems like only semantics, but to the legal system, semantics are very important.

This does not mean I condone the act, but let's use the right language to describe it. btw, this page (http://soundware.mpucoder.com/music.html) is from the leasing service I ran for years, check the last paragraph.

[loopyloops]

The industry sees it as theft because they attach a monetary value to the intellectual property. Copyright infringement has nothing to do with money or monetary losses, real or otherwise.
Copyright infringement takes place before any money is involved, it is the next act, fraudulently selling the copyrighted material, that involves money for the infringer. Giving away (as in p2p) copyrighted material without permission also does damage to the copyright holder, but this is still not theft.
True, this to some seems like only semantics, but to the legal system, semantics are very important.

I - my peers as well - do attach a monetary value to it, but that's not the only reason we see it as theft. A record label - under the copyright act and according to the negotiated licences we normally use (as opposed to compulsery licenses) - must pay a mechanical royalty for records manufactured and distributed - whether sold or not. I.e., if a record company wants to manufacture and distribute a promotional sampler that they sell for 2 bucks or give away at Ozzfest or something like that, and they don't get a license, we look at them as thieves.


Btw, I'm not a big fan of the RIAA or their handling of these issues or the way they (or their member labels) treat the artists or (an particularly this one) the way the labels would like to compensate the writers/publishers for digital downloads- this is a big fight which basically goes they think we should get less, and we think we should get more - and we should :-)

Actually (and please let me know what I'm missing - I'm fairly well versed in copyright law as it pertains to music), regarding the manufacture and distribution of phono records, it's precisely the money that causes the infringement. Anyone can release a song on a record (if it's been released before and is not a first use) if they obtain a mechanical license and pay the statutory mechanical rate per unit. Well, on second thought, technically, the first infringing act would occur by the failure to obtain a license before manufacturing - then, the failure to pay would be the second.

Also, if a production company wants to sync a song to a film/TV show, and they do this w/o permission, they'd be taking from us our right - the right to copy. The money is what we determine it should be. So, again, they need a license and they need to pay according to the license.

It's also copyright infringement to publicly perform a copyrighted work in a venue unlicensed by the 3 peerforming rights societies (ASCAP, BMI & SESAC), and it's hard to sepereate the infringement from the financial ramifications, i.e. when a venue is licensed by the societies, it pays them a yearly fee - if they fail to pay, their license will no longer be valid.

I'm no fan of the RIAA or its member labels especially as it pertains to how publishers/writers should get paid for digital downloads - we should get more:-)

Too bad, we - music rights owners - don't get a royalty for DVD sales - the movie industry might get more help in fighting their battles.

Sorry to go off topic here, but if anyone's interested in copyright infringement cases - especially sampling - this is a terrific link - http://ccnmtl.columbia.edu/projects/law/library/song.html

[dragongodz]

loopyloops - i think your post shows exactly the type of thinking thats spawned those warning on the start of dvds that shows people stealing handbags as the same as copying a dvd. the fact is no physical property has been taken from you by that. your copyright has been infringenged pure and simple. you still have the physical property to make money off of. there is a difference.

also about money, ye i am sure people love the "magic" numbers spouted by the RIAA and MPAA etc. to claim that if a person was to copy a single dvd or cd that that would equate with a definate lost sale is a fantasy. neither you nor i nor anybody but the person who did the copying knows if they would have bought it or not. also the fact you still have the dvd/cd means it can still be sold making money. does this mean there isnt sales being lost ? of course it doesnt but it also does mean the values spouted as lost are F.U.D and gain no respect from anyone who bothers to seriously think about it.

anyway i have no interest in having a long drawn out debate over this. things like this have actually been discussed many times before and i somehow doubt you will change my mind or i yours. so i will end on an important quote.
True, this to some seems like only semantics, but to the legal system, semantics are very important.

[loopyloops]

loopyloops - i think your post shows exactly the type of thinking thats spawned those warning on the start of dvds that shows people stealing handbags as the same as copying a dvd. the fact is no physical property has been taken from you by that. your copyright has been infringenged pure and simple. you still have the physical property to make money off of. there is a difference.

also about money, ye i am sure people love the "magic" numbers spouted by the RIAA and MPAA etc. to claim that if a person was to copy a single dvd or cd that that would equate with a definate lost sale is a fantasy. neither you nor i nor anybody but the person who did the copying knows if they would have bought it or not. also the fact you still have the dvd/cd means it can still be sold making money. does this mean there isnt sales being lost ? of course it doesnt but it also does mean the values spouted as lost are F.U.D and gain no respect from anyone who bothers to seriously think about it.

anyway i have no interest in having a long drawn out debate over this. things like this have actually been discussed many times before and i somehow doubt you will change my mind or i yours. so i will end on an important quote.


Look, I'm all ears and welcome others views. Also, I agree, there's no real way to quantify it like you could if we were talking about pirated product that people purchased in stores or on the street or online as legit.

Really, in a nutshell, I do feel strongly that it's stealing - but no, not in the same way as when I bump into you and snag your wallet. When I hold the copyright to a song, it's my right and my property, and I'm the only one (unless I license it elsewhere) who has the right to copy it, so in that sense, it's stealing my right. Whether the person who copied the CD would have purchased the CD if there were no way to make a copy illegally, that's their business - I couldn't care less. They're willful copyright infringers and should be treated as such vis a vis statutory damages. If I patent a drug and have an exclusive right to produce said drug for 5 years, and someone produces it on the black market and sells it for a lot less - or gives it away, you don't know if the people buying from this person would have paid full price from the legitimate manufacturer, and the legitimate manufacturer can still produce, market and sell his product, but that doesn't mean the black market guy shouldn't get sued and pay damages - he, in effect, stole (we'll, he didn't actually 'cause the original guy still has the patent) or really disregarded the rights of the guy who holds the patent. Look, there's some confusion here re: this point - just because someone has more left (and I guess intellectual property can regenerate itself - let's think of it like that) doesn't mean they weren't stolen from. If I was Samantha from Bewitched - well, I might stand in front of the mirror naked for a few minutes 40 years ago, first - and I could make things appear with the twitch of my nose, and someone took those things, they wouldn't be less mine 'cause I could keep churning thenm out. With songs or movies or whatever, it should be up to the owners of this property what gets done with it - if they say nothing, so be it.

The point here is, if I have exclusive rights in intellectual property, they're mine, and nobody, w/o my permission, has the right to exercise those rights. I'm an independent music publisher, and as such, every little bit counts. I have a wife, children, a mortgage, and I depend on the income our copyrights generate to live. I less worried about quantifying the losses as I am stopping them, whatever they be. To me, it's a very real issue, and there's nothing more repugnant to me than some scumbag deciding for himself the destiny of what's mine. Right or wrong (we are that sometimes), our intention is for our music to be used in a manner I see fit, and if I'm wrong, that's my problem. It's also my problem when someone has such disregard for what's mine that he/she decides to make such decisions for me - that's what had to be stopped.

That said, I believe on fair use and also believe there might be ways to make everyone fairly happy. But until such time, it should be up to us to decide the fate of our intellectual property - the physical property isn't the point.

Please don't lump me into the RIAA and MPAA fold - the NMPA is ok:-) I'm not them. Re: you comment that "your copyright has been infringed pure and simple", you say that as if that's less of a crime than stealing a handbag - it's not. Our copyrights are all we have - they are our "handbags".

I honestly think talking about these issues can be productive as long as we keep it civil - you $%%&! :-) Really, we're all people trying to make a living and until the copyright owners become regular folks in some peoples eyes as opposed to nasty organizations with their own agendas, we'll make no progress and will truly be divided.

Also, I see what you're getting at, and it's a valid point, but in the scheme of things, that's not an important quote.

[Rockas]

First of all I'd like to say it clear... this is my own oppinion... based on my beliefs not in laws, articles, lawyers, judges, whatever...

If you make a copy of something that you bought... very well... you contributed and invested on something and just don't want to loose your investement...

Any other situation... well... anyone can call it whatever... for me is STEALING... just easy as that.

There are many developers in this forum that may not agree with me... believe me... they will think that way until the day they try to get some (WELL DESERVED) money of their work and see that people don't care about it if thay can get a "free" copy of it...

I agree on tests, trials, etc... I even agree that people can download 1, 2, 3, even 10 musics (just an example) from an album just to make sure if its worth it... then you like you buy... don't like... erase the musics... don't listen to them.

There are no nice names for acts like stealing... stealing is stealing... stealing from a rich guy is no different from stealing from a poor guy... the result may be a different... but the "Steal" will be there.

Sorry... as I said, just my humble oppinion... To me words have a meaning... there's no need to "bend" their meaning just because it seems fair when we don't have anything to loose from them and later change the oppinion.

[Doom9]

But until such time, it should be up to us to decide the fate of our intellectual propertyAre you not conveniently forgetting about the first sales doctrine? Once you buy a CD in a store, it's up to you to do with it as you please.. the copyright holder cannot dictate you what you should do with it (e.g. you could smash it, throw it against a wall, write on it, have your kids take bites out of it, etc.). On top of that, the AHRA (http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm) even establishes the right to make digital copies as clearcut as it gets. In many countries (especially in Europe), those provisions are more generic and also include visual works, and the levy is reaching much further (copiers, DVD recorders, blank media for computer use, harddisks, etc.). So on one hand, you get a percentage of that money regardless of the use of the thing I bought and had to pay the levy on, and on the other hand despite first sale, AHRA & Co and levies you want me to buy another copy for my car, another one for my iPod, another one for my MP3 only audio player, another one for my computer?

[Wilbert]

Any other situation... well... anyone can call it whatever... for me is STEALING... just easy as that. (...) Sorry... as I said, just my humble oppinion... To me words have a meaning... there's no need to "bend" their meaning just because it seems fair when we don't have anything to loose from them and later change the oppinion.
Nice try. It is you and loopyloops who are bending its meaning, not us. I'm talking about the legal meaning here, not what we think or want it to mean. Just read what the Supreme Court had to say about it in my first post.

[loopyloops]

Are you not conveniently forgetting about the first sales doctrine? Once you buy a CD in a store, it's up to you to do with it as you please.. the copyright holder cannot dictate you what you should do with it (e.g. you could smash it, throw it against a wall, write on it, have your kids take bites out of it, etc.). On top of that, the AHRA (http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm) even establishes the right to make digital copies as clearcut as it gets. In many countries (especially in Europe), those provisions are more generic and also include visual works, and the levy is reaching much further (copiers, DVD recorders, blank media for computer use, harddisks, etc.). So on one hand, you get a percentage of that money regardless of the use of the thing I bought and had to pay the levy on, and on the other hand despite first sale, AHRA & Co and levies you want me to buy another copy for my car, another one for my iPod, another one for my MP3 only audio player, another one for my computer?


I agree - maybe I didn't make this clear - that you should, in fact, be able to buy one copy of a CD and rip it to your ipod, make a casette, whatever.

[Rockas]

I'm talking about the legal meaning here, not what we think or want it to mean.
Yes... but I do :) – and if you people are only discussing legal terms… I won’t bug you anymore :)

Anyway... I don't agree... politicians make the laws... they are the ones that "bend" the meaning of the words... "Supreme courts" only speak from the laws... law is not the same thing as justice, right?

English is not my mother language so I have some difficulty to express my point of view but here it goes...

When I referred the word "Bend" I was only trying to explain that we don't have to be playing with words here... I like to think that this community is ruled by friendship and reasonable persons (ok, not all but lets be positive about this :D)... we can't get into radical thoughts but we can't camouflage situations either.

If a guy grabs a gun, fires and kills someone it's not because the coroner says on his report that the dead has died 'cause the bullet hit the heart of the victim, that the bullet is going into trial and the shooter doesn't, right? - A man killed another and there's no legal terms presented by his lawyer that will change the fact... a man killed another (yes... the dead could be Bill Gates... I would continue to consider him as a dead man lol).

So... things are quite simple... if something is out there on sale... any kind of "workaround" that prevents people from getting the money they think, deserved (I'm not saying fair)... is stealing... there's no workaround for this... we all need/want money but this isn't ALL ABOUT MONEY... there are many freeware applications out there that are stolen too... if I get a GPL and change a few things and release it as mine I will be (you may call it Copyright Infringement but I call it...) stealing the Author right to be the Author of something he created simply by erasing his reference from the software... no money involved :)
I think everybody has read this: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=47777 - if you don't want to use the word "Stealing" that's ok... "ripping" will be fine to me... see what I mean about "bending"? I didn't read anyone on that post stating that the term "ripping" should not be used but "Copyright Infringement" :confused: ... semantic... semantic...


Well... all the small talk just to say that... leave the complicated semantics for politicians, lawyers and judges... we must learn to simply protect us, "our community", "our developers" - for that we must face the facts and final results from the actions taken... we can not hide ourselves behind "Legal terms" or soft interpretations.

Two Side Notes:
1st - Please believe me... I don't have anything to do with any of the industries we talked about on this issue... I'm a furniture designer and CAD/CAM programmer... I work on a furniture factory... yes... I was once a song writer and singer lol... left it when I was 24 (on another life) and never published any of my songs :)

2nd - I believe in FAIRUSE and I stand for it... even if, what we call FAIRUSE, was forbidden, I would still use it... what I'm talking about is users' FAIR(AB)USE - of course I could talk about the ABUSES from the industry (that I think is worst), but I don't think vBulletin allows a post that big if I was saying all I want to say about them, and Rule #4 also restricts my feelings about them - I'm only defending authors and their rights not the pimps (ooops… will I be stricken for this? :))

Again… sorry for my poor English.

Uaaauuuu…. This the longest post I ever made :D

keep it UP

[dragongodz]

I do feel strongly that it's stealing - but no, not in the same way as when I bump into you and snag your wallet.
and this was my whole point and what i said annoyed me. watch enough of those damn warnings they are putting on dvds showing stealing a handbag or a car as being the same and you too may start to be annoyed when you see it called stealing all the time. ;)

Re: you comment that "your copyright has been infringed pure and simple", you say that as if that's less of a crime than stealing a handbag - it's not. Our copyrights are all we have - they are our "handbags".
nowhere did i say, or mean to imply, it was less of a crime just that it is a different crime. infact i know here if you get caught stealling a handbag you are more likely to get punished by community service or maybe a small fine etc. compare that to what the MPAA and RIAA are pushing for copying a cd/dvd(the maximum amounts are given on the start of dvds here atleast) and you will see its probably better for the person to have stolen the physical cd/dvd because if they are caught they will probably get off lighter. :D

if you don't want to use the word "Stealing" that's ok... "ripping" will be fine to me
yes ripping off doesnt have quite the same conotations as stealing but still gives the meaning to what is happening without equating it to a different crime. so as you can see i call the prohrams in the thread you gave as rippoffs.

If a guy grabs a gun, fires and kills someone it's not because the coroner says on his report that the dead has died 'cause the bullet hit the heart of the victim, that the bullet is going into trial and the shooter doesn't, right? - A man killed another and there's no legal terms presented by his lawyer that will change the fact... a man killed another (yes... the dead could be Bill Gates... I would continue to consider him as a dead man lol).
the guy is charged with murder. however if 2 freinds are being stupid and playing and the gun goes off and kills 1 then the other may be charged with manslaughter. why ? because there is a distinction made that the 2 acts while sharing similarities are not exactly the same and are not looked at or treated as such. the fact a person was killed doesnt mean how should be ignored or you could end up with people spending life in prison for an accident. so the distinction is made to clarify what the exact crime was. is it too much to simply want some of the same clarity so that F.U.D. that is already being pushed in media is not accepted or passed on to newbies here as being correct ?

[loopyloops]

Yes... but I do :) – and if you people are only discussing legal terms… I won’t bug you anymore :)

Anyway... I don't agree... politicians make the laws... they are the ones that "bend" the meaning of the words... "Supreme courts" only speak from the laws... law is not the same thing as justice, right?

English is not my mother language so I have some difficulty to express my point of view but here it goes...

When I referred the word "Bend" I was only trying to explain that we don't have to be playing with words here... I like to think that this community is ruled by friendship and reasonable persons (ok, not all but lets be positive about this :D)... we can't get into radical thoughts but we can't camouflage situations either.

If a guy grabs a gun, fires and kills someone it's not because the coroner says on his report that the dead has died 'cause the bullet hit the heart of the victim, that the bullet is going into trial and the shooter doesn't, right? - A man killed another and there's no legal terms presented by his lawyer that will change the fact... a man killed another (yes... the dead could be Bill Gates... I would continue to consider him as a dead man lol).

So... things are quite simple... if something is out there on sale... any kind of "workaround" that prevents people from getting the money they think, deserved (I'm not saying fair)... is stealing... there's no workaround for this... we all need/want money but this isn't ALL ABOUT MONEY... there are many freeware applications out there that are stolen too... if I get a GPL and change a few things and release it as mine I will be (you may call it Copyright Infringement but I call it...) stealing the Author right to be the Author of something he created simply by erasing his reference from the software... no money involved :)
I think everybody has read this: http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=47777 - if you don't want to use the word "Stealing" that's ok... "ripping" will be fine to me... see what I mean about "bending"? I didn't read anyone on that post stating that the term "ripping" should not be used but "Copyright Infringement" :confused: ... semantic... semantic...


Well... all the small talk just to say that... leave the complicated semantics for politicians, lawyers and judges... we must learn to simply protect us, "our community", "our developers" - for that we must face the facts and final results from the actions taken... we can not hide ourselves behind "Legal terms" or soft interpretations.

Two Side Notes:
1st - Please believe me... I don't have anything to do with any of the industries we talked about on this issue... I'm a furniture designer and CAD/CAM programmer... I work on a furniture factory... yes... I was once a song writer and singer lol... left it when I was 24 (on another life) and never published any of my songs :)

2nd - I believe in FAIRUSE and I stand for it... even if, what we call FAIRUSE, was forbidden, I would still use it... what I'm talking about is users' FAIR(AB)USE - of course I could talk about the ABUSES from the industry (that I think is worst), but I don't think vBulletin allows a post that big if I was saying all I want to say about them, and Rule #4 also restricts my feelings about them - I'm only defending authors and their rights not the pimps (ooops… will I be stricken for this? :))

Again… sorry for my poor English.

Uaaauuuu…. This the longest post I ever made :D

keep it UP


Very good points!! It's very important that the creators of intellectual property are treated with respect as we all enjoy what they (or some of them depending on your taste) do. Without them, they'd be nothing to rip, burn, steal, whatever. If I, as a copyright owner, feel like I'm being stolen from, and some judge one day (and these things change all the time) says in his infinite ignorance "it's not stealing 'cause you can still make money off it, (like if someone puts graffiti all over your house and covers the floors with dirt - "that's not vandalism, you can still live in it), so what. If this judge's words make people feel better about doing something low brow, slimy and morally repugnant because some judge says "look at my groovy example, it's not stealing", well I can't fault anyone for enjoying a good rationalization. But the fact remains, having a disregard for copyrights is having a disregard for writers, artists and copyright owners - all of whom should have the right to create and have their creations protected and utilized as they see fit - point blank. These people add a lot of joy to this world - hey, lots of people here enjoy encoding - they'd have nothing to encode if it weren't for the creators and providers of enjoyable content. Content is king.

What happens is we get distracted by the large record companies and industry organizations making foolish choices that alienate the consumer - who blame their lack of sales exclusively on illegal downloading as opposed to taking responsibility for releasing dreck. We need to get past that and do what's right - even if some rights owners do things that piss you off. At the end of the day, mutual respect will bring us to the place we want to be.

[Inventive Software]

Anybody remember when VHS was in it's infancy? There was a dual-VHS recorder that eventually got out-lawed by Hollywood because they called it a "basic tool for piracy". The fact that VHS degraded the more you used it was of no consequence to them at the time, OK they might not have known about it. :D

[Rockas]

the guy is charged with murder. however if 2 freinds are being stupid and playing and the gun goes off and kills 1 then the other may be charged with manslaughter. why ? because there is a distinction made that the 2 acts while sharing similarities are not exactly the same and are not looked at or treated as such. the fact a person was killed doesnt mean how should be ignored or you could end up with people spending life in prison for an accident. so the distinction is made to clarify what the exact crime was. is it too much to simply want some of the same clarity so that F.U.D. that is already being pushed in media is not accepted or passed on to newbies here as being correct ?
@dragongodz
You are completly right but you missed my point :)
I pointed out the result... a man is died, right?

I'm defending the "Author" point of view here... we can't argue about semantics and/or conotations... as I said... I'm not dicussing about legal terms... i also stated that if it's the only thing you want to talk about I'll stop buggin' you :)

What I clearly what to say is... me as an author (yeah... I wish :D) will feel robbed if anything done by me is a victim of copyright infringement or rip off...

My dear friend... what I'm saying is (by reading your posts on the thread I pointed out) that I think you wouldn't react or talk or feel a different way if someone steals your wallet...

I guess it's just a manner of attitude... we simply shouldn't soft acts because legally they have different conotations...
Since the time I first entered on this forum, I learn to respect all the Great/Genius developers (this is just an example... there are many around the world) we have around, members of our "family"... if the community (that gets the results from their hard work) doesn't protect them who will? All I want to say is that if a newby reads this post... he must know that if he "messes up" (on a negative way, of course) with the work of an author, he'll be commiting copyright infringement or rip off for some... but to me... he'll be stealing and sucking on someone's hard work..., simple as that :)

[dragongodz]

It's very important that the creators of intellectual property are treated with respect as we all enjoy what they (or some of them depending on your taste) do.
I guess it's just a manner of attitude... we simply shouldn't soft acts because legally they have different conotations...
of course. nobody has suggested otherwise. there was no suggestion made that it should be treated lighter than physically stealing and as i said here its more likely to be treated more seriously if it got to court.

I'm defending the "Author" point of view here
My dear friend... what I'm saying is (by reading your posts on the thread I pointed out) that I think you wouldn't react or talk or feel a different way if someone steals your wallet...
well as you point out with that thread i am one of the authors who has been ripped off. so yes i know exactly how it feels already and yes having my wifes car stolen last years pissed me off no end aswell.
however as an author who has had this happen i give my point of view aswell and that is i call it a rippoff, a breach of license and copyright infringement. i do not like the use of the words stealing and piracy because they are not the correct terms to say what the actual crime is. yes those damn adds have probably made me more sensative to it with their extreme annoyance factor but that doesnt hange my opinion on it. i dont expect how people feel to that happening to them to change but simply said it annoyed me to constantly see it called stealing and hardly ever called copyright infringement, which is what it is.

hmm i think this is starting to all go around in circles. so ok i think i have made my feelings well enough known by now so i will leave my point of view at that. ;)

[Rockas]

hmm i think this is starting to all go around in circles. so ok i think i have made my feelings well enough known by now so i will leave my point of view at that.
me too but let me just say one more/last thing :)

I think that the main problem here is that someone someday remembered to create a thing called "copyright"... now imagine that the same (or other) someone remembers to create a law called "SalaryRight"... meaning...
you work a whole month or week (here in Portugal we have monthly payments) and at the end you boss don't pay your salary, even if he used/uses the result of it... now... would you call him a thief or just someone that commited a "SalaryRight Infringement"?

hummm... let's see... you worked but you haven't been paid... but you still have your hands, arms, legs, feet and brains to "sell" to another (hopefully someone that respects the "SalaryRight") employer ;)

[adam]

My posts usually don't go over so well on this site but I have to address some of what has been said here because it is just so off base.

First off, "an effective technological measure" is actually defined in the definitions portion of the DMCA. It has absolutely nothing to do with how well it works or how easily it is broken. It just means that it doesn't stop you from doing authorized things, like playing the movie, but does stop you from doing unauthorized things, like copying it to your hard drive. There are already many US rulings holding that CSS does in fact fall within this language and is protected by the DMCA.

Also it is not legal to backup but illegal to break encryption. There is no catch-22. As someone mentioned before, the DMCA has a safe harbour provision. If you are engaging in Fair Use than the DMCA does not apply. So if what you are doing is clearly Fair Use (parody, etc..) and decryption is not otherwise expressly prohibited (ex: portions of Teach Act when engaging in Fair Use educational purposes) than you can bypass encryption to your heart's content. The question though is whether backing up a DVD falls within Fair Use or not. I have addressed this issue on this board before and all I will say is that it is an undecided matter but that I would not want to be the one to test this defense. As for the original poster's question I can see your point. The right to backup computer software in the US is actually quite express. It has nothing to do with Fair Use, there is a specific exemption for it. But nevertheless, cracks just tend to attract negative attention on web sites I think so its not a bad idea to limit their discussion. After all, there are other sites specifically dedicated to them so you might as well just get your information/files there.

As for stealing, theft, copyright infringement, piracy, etc... These are terms defined by law under the specific statutes that make the action a crime/civil offense, and are not open to debate.

Stealing is defined as the taking of another's property without legal justification. Stealing is a broad category, it is NOT a crime in an of itself. Included within stealing are things like theft which is the taking of personal (tangible) property with the intent to deprive the owner of that property. Also included are more intangible things like appropriation of name or likeness (Hi, I'm Joe Celebrity and I buy Brand X) and YES copyright infringement. You do not have to take physical property for it to be stealing! Copyright infringement is stealing by definition. If you read that US Supreme Court quote above they are clearly stating that copyright infringement is not necessarily theft (taking of tangible property,) they do not say anything about it not constituting stealing. There's really no point in bringing up "stealing" since it is an all encompassing term. It refers to virtually any crime or act against property where the person takes possession of something, whether its tangible or not.

As for piracy this is defined in Title 17. Copyright infringement means the infringing on one of the exclusive rights granted by copyright. Piracy is a more specific form of this defined as the infringing specifically on the exclusive right to copy and to authorize copying. Both piracy and copyright infringement are forms of stealing by definition. There is no disputing this and there is no reason to, they are legal classifications. We all know that copyright infringement doesn't have to deprive the copyright holder or anyone else of their physical property and that in the eyes of most people this makes it less sinister than theft, which does deprive someone of their physical property. But both are still considered "stealing."

To summarize, piracy is a specific form of copyright infringement. Copyright infringement and theft are both specific forms of stealing. Stealing is just a catch all term and not a crime or civil offense in and of itself.

[mg262]

Adam,

My posts usually don't go over so well on this siteFor what it's worth, I find your posts to be extremely readable and informed and make a point of reading any I see. So please don't let any stray fire from flame wars dissuade you from posting!

[Shinigami-Sama]

Adam,

For what it's worth, I find your posts to be extremely readable and informed and make a point of reading any I see. So please don't let any stray fire from flame wars dissuade you from posting!

I agree with clouded, I enjoy your mostly unbaised posts, if the readers who can't enjoy them and see the logic then its their loss.

that said:goodpost:

[adam]

Mostly unbiased...I can live with that. Thanks.

[Shinigami-Sama]

Mostly unbiased...I can live with that. Thanks.
nothing in the know unierse is unbaised that I'm aware of, and we're part of the universe so.. :P

[dragongodz]

My posts usually don't go over so well on this site
tut, tut adam. very few people have problems with your posts here i would say. look back at some of the discussions you and i have had in threads and even though we didnt always agree they were always cordial.

[Rockas]

Completly right :)
Education and cordiality don't mean agreement :)

[loopyloops]

My posts usually don't go over so well on this site but I have to address some of what has been said here because it is just so off base.

First off, "an effective technological measure" is actually defined in the definitions portion of the DMCA. It has absolutely nothing to do with how well it works or how easily it is broken. It just means that it doesn't stop you from doing authorized things, like playing the movie, but does stop you from doing unauthorized things, like copying it to your hard drive. There are already many US rulings holding that CSS does in fact fall within this language and is protected by the DMCA.

Also it is not legal to backup but illegal to break encryption. There is no catch-22. As someone mentioned before, the DMCA has a safe harbour provision. If you are engaging in Fair Use than the DMCA does not apply. So if what you are doing is clearly Fair Use (parody, etc..) and decryption is not otherwise expressly prohibited (ex: portions of Teach Act when engaging in Fair Use educational purposes) than you can bypass encryption to your heart's content. The question though is whether backing up a DVD falls within Fair Use or not. I have addressed this issue on this board before and all I will say is that it is an undecided matter but that I would not want to be the one to test this defense. As for the original poster's question I can see your point. The right to backup computer software in the US is actually quite express. It has nothing to do with Fair Use, there is a specific exemption for it. But nevertheless, cracks just tend to attract negative attention on web sites I think so its not a bad idea to limit their discussion. After all, there are other sites specifically dedicated to them so you might as well just get your information/files there.

As for stealing, theft, copyright infringement, piracy, etc... These are terms defined by law under the specific statutes that make the action a crime/civil offense, and are not open to debate.

Stealing is defined as the taking of another's property without legal justification. Stealing is a broad category, it is NOT a crime in an of itself. Included within stealing are things like theft which is the taking of personal (tangible) property with the intent to deprive the owner of that property. Also included are more intangible things like appropriation of name or likeness (Hi, I'm Joe Celebrity and I buy Brand X) and YES copyright infringement. You do not have to take physical property for it to be stealing! Copyright infringement is stealing by definition. If you read that US Supreme Court quote above they are clearly stating that copyright infringement is not necessarily theft (taking of tangible property,) they do not say anything about it not constituting stealing. There's really no point in bringing up "stealing" since it is an all encompassing term. It refers to virtually any crime or act against property where the person takes possession of something, whether its tangible or not.

As for piracy this is defined in Title 17. Copyright infringement means the infringing on one of the exclusive rights granted by copyright. Piracy is a more specific form of this defined as the infringing specifically on the exclusive right to copy and to authorize copying. Both piracy and copyright infringement are forms of stealing by definition. There is no disputing this and there is no reason to, they are legal classifications. We all know that copyright infringement doesn't have to deprive the copyright holder or anyone else of their physical property and that in the eyes of most people this makes it less sinister than theft, which does deprive someone of their physical property. But both are still considered "stealing."

To summarize, piracy is a specific form of copyright infringement. Copyright infringement and theft are both specific forms of stealing. Stealing is just a catch all term and not a crime or civil offense in and of itself.


Well put!! And correct me if I'm wrong, but an example of piracy would be duplicating and distributing the Nirvana Nevermind album while bootleging would be duplicating and distributing an unathorized recording of a Nirvana concert.?

[adam]

That's correct but bootlegging is just the unauthorized distribution of illegitimate goods so your first example would be both piracy and bootlegging.

[Mug Funky]

watch enough of those damn warnings they are putting on dvds showing stealing a handbag or a car as being the same and you too may start to be annoyed when you see it called stealing all the time.

what gets my goat is there's not much choice - those bastards gave an ultimatum - either pay them a fee (for god knows what) or put that bloody stupid warning on every disc. they even complained because we were putting it at the end of the trailer reel instead of the start (it's on the start now...).

i swear, if i had any sway in the industry... i'd pwn the OFLC and then these guys. i forget their name, but they're strongly affiliated with the MPAA (so much so that the video is called "MPAA anti-piracy trailer" in our system). anyhoo, both of these organisations are completely useless and a massive hinderance to the industry.

well, that's enough rant from me. as far as "copy = stealing", it doesn't work out for me. it's just a sign that the IP owners don't have an adequate distribution system. otherwise people wouldn't download - they'd be able to get a better version cheaply.

it's a simple matter of supply and demand as far as i see it. there's huge demand for culture. think about it... we're being drained of culture and filled with empty bullcrap monoculture from america, that everyone is sick of but can't stop watching. so then the internet comes along on the shining white horse of p2p, and suddenly people can see what's going on somewhere else in the world. of course, a lot of people just download the same crap they could watch on TV. i say they're stupid and should be sued for stupidity :).

in the industry i'm in, downloading is a grey area. there's no doubt in my mind that naruto or half the new acquisitions made in the last year would never have been licensed if they hadn't already been "released" by fansub groups. naruto is blindingly popular, and it hasn't even been screened yet (or has it? last i heard they'd dubbed the first 15 or so eps in the US). that's going to be one big massive profit for the licensors, and it's all due to pirates providing what people want. to the US license holders, this is like free market research and publicity. for them to do the same on their own would cost them buckets which might not be recouped by DVD sales, but thanks to the fansubbers they don't have to lift a finger.

okay, i'm getting into tl;dr territory, so i'll stop now :)

[loopyloops]

That's correct but bootlegging is just the unauthorized distribution of illegitimate goods so your first example would be both piracy and bootlegging.

Word.

[Dayvon]

Just a quick question to stir the pot a bit. What about sharing/downloading TV shows that have been recorded off of air time. Do many of you feel the same about this as you do about music/movies in that it is copyright infringement/theft?

And for that matter what about recordings off of broadcast radio?

[bern]

The copying of ANY intelectual material without the copright holders written consent is THEFT and that includes fair use. But then making people pay over and over again for the same thing is ALSO theft. The big thieves are big buiness so they are above the law. However two wrongs don't make a right, just keep your heads down and obey the law. Do as I do and boycott the ba****s that way you CAN get things changed and legally (at the moment).
As long as you buy their products they are in control. It's worth the sacrafice to bring them down and end up with a sensibly priced product that's not worth the piraters trouble to copy and resell.

[adam]

The right to record television broadcasts falls under time-shifting which has been ruled a Fair Use. This is intended to be a limited exemption and does not permit sharing or distributing the recording online. Most people probably don't realize this but in the US time-shifting actually only allows a single viewing, and then you are supposed to erase it.

Again, none of this stuff is theft but it is copyright infringement.

[dragongodz]

The right to record television broadcasts falls under time-shifting which has been ruled a Fair Use.
of course we dont have fair use here in Australia so taping tv shows is actually illegal even though the government are happy to take their cut(tax) from sales of recorders. same thing with converting your cds to mp3's for a player(ipod for example), illegal under our law.

however these are ignored laws. that is the police do not go after people for them, nobody is ever arrested for taping a tv show, so ignored by not only the average person but government and law enforcement aswell. infact i did a post not that long ago where a minister said they were looking at ammending the copyright laws to allow the legal taping of tv shows and converting of cds to mp3 for players. video recorders have been available for how long now ? ye Aussie law is REAL quick to keep up with the times. ;)

[loopyloops]

The right to record television broadcasts falls under time-shifting which has been ruled a Fair Use. This is intended to be a limited exemption and does not permit sharing or distributing the recording online. Most people probably don't realize this but in the US time-shifting actually only allows a single viewing, and then you are supposed to erase it.

Again, none of this stuff is theft but it is copyright infringement.


Can you burn'm to DVD to watch? If so, are you then supposed to destroy the copy?

[Dayvon]

It seems odd that there can be such a huge market for PVR, Tivo type stuff and and yet it is essentially illegal. Yes, the recording part isn't, but the fact that you can Tivo something or PVR it and watch it an infinite number of times, that's copyright infringement legally, right?

Personally I think that if it hits airwaves, it's public domain. They have made their money off the product (advertising) and what they air for free to the public, that actual broadcast or a recording of it should be unrestricted. Now, the copyright holder should feel free to release their product again (DVD, downloading service, etc.), however the fact that they can shouldn't mean that the right to record/view/copy the broadcast product should be restricted. Why? 'Cause its already been paid for.

[Shinigami-Sama]

It seems odd that there can be such a huge market for PVR, Tivo type stuff and and yet it is essentially illegal. Yes, the recording part isn't, but the fact that you can Tivo something or PVR it and watch it an infinite number of times, that's copyright infringement legally, right?


ok
walk into a head shop, can you use any of the stuff there for what it was intended for?
nope :)
but the selling and distrubution of paraphinatial<SP?> is legal and as such VC/PRVs are legal and other such devices

[setarip_old]

walk into a head shop, can you use any of the stuff there for what it was intended for?
nope but the selling and distrubution of paraphinatial<SP?> is legalTommy Chong might personally agree with your belief about paraphernalia, but the hard time he did because of it would seem to refute this...