Linking to rippers legal in the US?

[Chetwood]

As you may know the industry also managed to buy their laws in Germany which means you are no longer allowed to post a link to the homepage of Slysoft (AnyDVD) or DVDfab since those tools are designed to circumvent copy protection schemes. I was wondering if it's the same in the US already?

[fibbingbear]

I don't think it's like that in the US. The applicable law is the DMCA, and I think that would only apply if you were distributing code directly, or if the link went directly to the code. IANAL though.

[Doom9]

Actually - German law is pretty much like the DMCA.. it's the crazy C&D culture (where you have to pay thousands of dollars just to get a C&D) that has people acting in more extreme ways than the law really says. In the US.. if you get a C&D usually it's take down the software, don't do it again and you're fine. In Germany.. it's take down the software, sign a binding statement that you'll never do it again and pay a couple thousand dollars.. (or risk going to court which is going to cost you more no matter if you win or not)... so in that culture of fear we see the outcome being more extreme than in the US even thought the letter of the law says the same thing

[Chetwood]

Like always Germany had to be a bit thorough on this so I'm really glad dvdshrink agreed to release my german version in 2 flavors, one with and another one without DeCSS so we can host/link to it on German sites.

Still I'm wondering what's allowed and what isn't. Dvdshrink.org does not host Dvd Shrink anymore, by request from lawyers. Digital Digest deleted all their ripping forums including their great FAQs on Shrink which to my knowledge haven't shown up anywhere else yet. But ok, if you 'just' get a C&D here and remove a link and be done with it I guess it's ok to keep on posting links till someone notices ;)

[Doom9]

Digital Digest's actions have nothing to do with copyright law/DMCA style legislation.

[Chetwood]

Well, at least that's how I interpreted this announcement (http://forum.digital-digest.com/showpost.php?p=528643&postcount=1) from back then. Also the only reason I could think of for not letting out any details was an agreement with lawyers. Of course I could be wrong.

[CruNcher]

Knowledge is killed all over the Web in this age in some years they will nothing to be feared anymore because the knowledge is gone (at least that's what they think) but we all know this self protecting/restriction tactic is bound to fail the Internet isn't Real Life never will be only a change of the Internet itself (and maybe that's what we facing) can make these hidden dreams come true :)

There only 2 ways either our Real Life adapts to the Internet or the Internet to our Real Life :) and we in that age of change now the Internet is adapted to our Real Life.

[blutach]

The agreements were with a certain member of the MPAA who forced severe financial penalties on Digital Digest and others (i.e. legal action - "we are big, you are little, so do what we say or we'll bankrupt you, sieg heil!"); and so the ripping forums were taken down by agreement, and not to comply with a law.

As for the b&stards who forced this, they can rot in hell with their PS3, BluRay Discs and other paraphenalia that they sell and that I will never buy again. I am happy to see their lack of financial success and squabbling in senior management ranks over such a long period and can hardly feel sorrow for their dumb, long-suffering shareholders, who, IMO, should dump the bloody stock. My one true hope is that this company loses so much of its R&D investment on BD, which is hardly taking the world by storm is it? Teach them a bit of humility.

Regards

[CruNcher]

blutach they don't care about BD @ all they have much newer stuff in their Research Labs ready to profiteer from in the future then BD today

[blutach]

Funny you mention that. Cos I saw some sales forecasts recently that says BD hopes to be 50-50 with SD-DVD by 2012 (and, of course, by that time a new format will have appeared). I have all but decided to by-pass BD.

Regards

[setarip_old]

@blutachMy one true hope is that this company loses so much of its R&D investment on BD, which is hardly taking the world by storm is it? Teach them a bit of humility.Dream on. The company has so many "irons in the fire" in the way of both consumer and commercial products, as well as its huge presence in movie production, that one or several products that prove to be poor performers/failures means nothing...

[Chetwood]

The agreements were with a certain member of the MPAA who forced severe financial penalties on Digital Digest and others (i.e. legal action - "we are big, you are little, so do what we say or we'll bankrupt you, sieg heil!"); and so the ripping forums were taken down by agreement, and not to comply with a law.
Sounds like a technicality to me. I mean, the law must have given Sony at least some leverage to pull a stunt like that. I'm not sure what I would have done being threatened on baseless grounds given the kind of money involved but is it actually legal for them to force anyone not to mention them by name? Are they "them-who-must-not-be-named" or something?

I'm pretty sure though I would have uploaded the DVD Shrink FAQ elsewhere, be it torrent or what not.

[Shinigami-Sama]

Sounds like a technicality to me. I mean, the law must have given Sony at least some leverage to pull a stunt like that. I'm not sure what I would have done being threatened on baseless grounds given the kind of money involved but is it actually legal for them to force anyone not to mention them by name? Are they "them-who-must-not-be-named" or something?

I'm pretty sure though I would have uploaded the DVD Shrink FAQ elsewhere, be it torrent or what not.

it just a legal form of blackmail
as in: if you don't do what we say we'll launch a series of expensive and timely lawsuits untill you can no longer afford to pay your bills

[blutach]

@Chetwood

Anyone can sue anyone else alleging loss of profits due to the 2nd party's actions. Given that defending the action is expensive for party #2 and initiating it is inexpensive for party #1, already there is a bias. But if #2 loses, it gets worse, as at least part of #1's legal and court costs are awarded against him. So, unless you have a multi-millionaire big brother, who is prepared to spit in the face of corporations with a virtually limitless legal bag of funds, you're sunk before you start.

And because the corporations get ex-parte injunctions (meaning you're not there to begin with to even defend or even know of the action before it starts - this for "security reasons"), which include the prohibition from talking to anyone except your legal advisers, you can't go to (admittedly toothless) foundations like the EFF to see if they'd fund the defence.

So, you're stuffed before you start and the best thing you can do is negotiate a decent settlement with the corporation, which basically says, "we can continue on just so long as we don't give out info on (insert what the MPAA wants here)". So goodbye, DVD Shrink, FAQs, ripping etc. from Digital Digest. Geez, they even called VobBlanker, DVD2One and DVD Rebuilder ripping tools until it was proved to them they had no ripping capability.

This is hardly a "technicality". It's the way the legal system works. It is biased against the little guy and it is wrong. But it is what we have. In order for this sort of thing to stop, someone (i.e. another big corporation interested in profiting from a product) needs to take up the defence. Might that be Google (http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?no_d2=1&sid=08/09/23/2150228)? I hope so, cos it sure wasn't going to be little old Digital Digest or anyone else that the MPAA liked to bully.

Regards

[setarip_old]

@blutachAnd because the corporations get ex-parte injunctions (meaning you're not there to begin with to even defend or even know of the action before it starts - this for "security reasons")Just to clarify - Certainly, there must have been some evidence presented to the court that prompted the court to authorize search warrants regarding people's homes...

[Chetwood]

Exactly and I'd like to see them produce compelling evidence on loss of profits due to the 2nd party's actions especially from tools like FixVTS.

It's the way the legal system works. It is biased against the little guy and it is wrong.
I wasn't aware that it had reached this state already in the US.

Still, because of that bullying I would have PDFed the FAQ and spread it everywhere with a nice F*** you-MPAA & Co. footer, of course.

[setarip_old]

@ChetwoodI wasn't aware that it had reached this state already in the US.I don't believe "blutach" has said anything about the U.S.

[Shinigami-Sama]

I wasn't aware that it had reached this state already in the US.


US
Canada
EU too

also blu is from down under ;)

[blutach]

Still, because of that bullying I would have PDFed the FAQ and spread it everywhere with a nice F*** you-MPAA & Co. footer, of course.
In which case, you would have gone against a court order. With all your bravado, I doubt you'd want to be cited for contempt (with its attendant costs and possibly jail time). And for what? An FAQ? Get real.

Just to clarify - Certainly, there must have been some evidence presented to the court that prompted the court to authorize search warrants regarding people's homes... Yes, I'm sure.

I'd like to see them produce compelling evidence on loss of profits due to the 2nd party's actions especially from tools like FixVTS.
FixVTS was an integral part of RipIt4Me. What I'd like to know is what was so wrong with MenuShrink? Their overbloated menus was a protection tool? As Penn & Teller would say - Bullsh!t!!

Regards