DMCA takedown notice for BackupHDDVD at SF.net

[Bathrone]

Good post Adam. People have to accept the basis of law that exists now.

I saw a news report today for a bill on fair use to be discussed with congress.

I find it objectionable that property rights has extended so far in the USA that circumventing copy restrictions for fair use personal backups is an offence. Its time for the law to change.

[johndmes]

Originally Posted by Galileo2000

Overall, www.sendspace.com has been great so far.



..On a different tune, SlySoft lets people download AnyDVD HD for $$$ from their website with no fear whatsoever.

Makes me think..Double standards?

No double standards at all in this case -

SlySoft is based in Antigua, one of the few places on the earth where DMCA-like legislation does not exist. It's perfectly legal to sell the software there.

Might want to look into a Web-page hosting company based there as well. From what I understand, Sweden may also be a safe place to host the source code as well, their version of DMCA regards hosting binaries, not source from which a binary may be created.

[Doom9]

While this is a slipperly slope, in a free society it is the duty of the informed citizen to regard what is "imposed from above" with a certain amount of scepticism and act accordingly. Civil disobedience not only has negative effects - just consult your history books (as a good example read up on Ghandi). Your home country was founded on the notion that the English rule was oppressive and unfair (although the liberation process was somewhat less than peaceful).

When I went into basic training, we were told that even though the chain of command is holy, if your superiors demand that you do something outright extremely stupid and or that needlessly puts the our own life and or that of your comrades in arms into danger, you have the right to refuse. You are likely to be thrown into the brig for starters and have to fight for your right to refuse a stupid order, but nontheless those are the words of the head of our training unit. Needless to say we never had to resort to such measures (there was plenty of complaining, but that's just part of the normal process).

Hence, you see people doing perfectly normal activities every day, whether they are explicitly allowed by law or not (there's no fair use in the UK and Australia just as two prominent examples.. yet there's no financial loss whatsoever that they incurr as long as people keep their copies within the same 4 walls).

The phrase, "circumvent a technological measure" is defined as "descramb(ling) a scrambled work or decrypt(ing) an encrypted work, ... without the authority of the copyright owner."

The thing is.. the copyright owner gave you that authority.. you have parts of that authority sitting in your HD DVD drive, and parts on the disc. You even have to present that authority (the vuk) to backuphddvd for it to work (this is not considering keyfinder applications and any AACS licensing issues but at least the latter clearly isn't a matter for the DMCA but for patent law)

Furthermore, you cannot argue away the right to use parts of a copyrighted work for academic purposes. No matter where you stand on how much fair use goes, that one is a given. But, any teacher or researcher needs to go through the same descrambling process that Joe Average needs to go through to make a copy of their discs. And I dare you to try and get a studio to grant you written authority for just that purpose - it's been tried before and you'll be laughed at. So, if studios continually violate the law by not enabling those who beyond a shred of a doubt have the right to descramble, why should anybody adhere to a law that clearly was passed against the interest of the people?
Also, an interesting notion to ponder on: if I have a DVD with CSS pressed from content that is public domain or whose copyright has run out.. do you have the authority to decrypt now since I don't enjoy copyright protection for that work?

[dragongodz]

whether they are explicitly allowed by law or not (there's no fair use in the UK and Australia just as two prominent examples.. yet there's no financial loss whatsoever that they incurr as long as people keep their copies within the same 4 walls).

yes the only people i have heard of that have been gone after or arrested are those selling copies etc.
i think the police and to some degree the government realise how out of touch certain laws are. so some are ignored. for example taping a tv show to watch later is illegal for instance but video and dvd recorders are sold no worries. nobody is charged with this though so as i said its ignored, even by the police.

you cannot argue away the right to use parts of a copyrighted work for academic purposes

Australian law actually has "fair dealings" exceptions.

The "fair dealing" exceptions to infringement
A person can make a "fair dealing" with copyright material for any of the following purposes:
·
research or study;
·
criticism or review;
·
parody or satire;
·
reporting news; or
·
professional advice by a lawyer, patent attorney or trade marks attorney.

What does "fair dealing" mean?
In this context, a "dealing" with copyright material means using the material in any of the ways reserved to the
copyright owner.

there was talk of also introducing exceptions based on fair use aswell. however that has basically gone nowhere at the moment. as you would imagine groups like aria(Aus version of riaa) are totally against it.

[greath]

Originally Posted by Bathrone

I find it objectionable that property rights has extended so far in the USA that circumventing copy restrictions for fair use personal backups is an offence. Its time for the law to change.

And which way do you think the law will change - keeping fair use rights and relaxing copy protection avoidance, or reducing fair use rights...................?

[HeadBangeR77]

Having just a vague knowledge on Anglo-Saxon system of law (just telecommunications, mainly FCC's rules and regulations), I'm still kind of shocked by this statement:

Neither the fear of malfunction or damage nor the conveniences enabled by backups satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a noninfringing one.

If someone has committed a crime, he's treated as not guilty until it's been proven before a court. No matter how strong the gathered evidences are, a trial is needed. The rule is considered to be common for all civilized countries' criminal law. The above statement is just an opposite, a contradiction to what's commonly acknowledged as one of the basic rules of law.

Just a remark,
cheers,
HDBR77

[setarip_old]

@HeadBanger77

Hi!

Neither the fear of malfunction or damage nor the conveniences enabled by backups satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a noninfringing one.

This statement only defines what will not be accepted as legal justification for making backup copies under this particular law.

If someone is brought to trial for allegedly breaking this particular law for this reason, that person will still be presumed innocent of making illegal backup copies unless/until proven guilty of having done so...

This concept is no different than a law that defines murder as being illegal...

[HeadBangeR77]

Yeah, I misunderstood this sentence, pardon me.

Correct me then, if I'm wrong:
If fear of malfunction or damage or the conveniences enabled by backups don't satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a non-infringing one, then what's left? I can't even think of anything that could potentially be considered as a non-infringing use, except the mentioned above scientific /educational purposes, which, as stated, aren't treated seriously by large (or any) corporations. It's tricky then: if you can't think of any other reason, they can easily prove your backups are copyrights infringement. It's almost the same as: "All backups are forbidden under the penalty of ...", but said more politely.

Hence, if they catch you with your original DVD and one backup copy of it, you will be treated almost as badly as a pirate (with all circumstances that could milden the potential punishment in such a case) (?) Scale and consequences of such an infringement will surely be smaller, but your reasons for making a copy are treated as almost as evil as illegal (internet) distribution, aren't they?


***

Although it's certainly possible (and a rare one or two such events have occurred in the past), I'd suggest that it's highly unlikely that any of "the powers that be" have any interest in someone who makes one backup of each of his/her purchased DVDs...

I agree with you. It resembles the above example with taping TV-shows for home use. Yet under the banner of fighting the piracy they tend to forbid all kinds of backups, no matter if it's just one back-up copy for safety reasons or large-scale piracy, thus putting "=" between those two, in certain sense.

[setarip_old]

It's almost the same as: "All backups are forbidden under the penalty of ...", but said more politely.

I absolutely agree with your interpretation!

if they catch you with your original DVD and one backup copy of it, you will be treated almost as badly as a pirate

Although it's certainly possible (and a rare one or two such events have occurred in the past), I'd suggest that it's highly unlikely that any of "the powers that be" have any interest in someone who makes one backup of each of his/her purchased DVDs...

[Lord_KiRon]

http://files-upload.com/

[manusse]

Neither the fear of malfunction or damage nor the conveniences enabled by backups satisfy the requirement that the intended use be a noninfringing one.

If the studio want it to be accepted what they should do is guarantee that if the DVD that you've bought is damaged or malfunctioning they will exchange it with a working copy for free with an unlimited period. It's also the same for software. I remember some friends of mine that had bought a PC a few years ago. The PC was bundled with Office 2002. However the kids didn't pay attention and they damaged the DVD (they walked on it, I think).

Some time later, when the PC was infected by a virus, I had to reinstall everything. However I couldn't reinstall Office 2002. I phoned Microsoft support to ask what I could do (the PC was still under warranty). They answered me nothing was possible.

Those guys want to sell you a licence, forbid you to copy the software and you have no guarantee when your DVD or CD is damaged. THIS should be illegal.

Either you can make a backup copy or they allow you to exchange your support if it's damaged.

Manusse

[setarip_old]

@manusse

Hi!

The PC was bundled with Office 2002. However the kids didn't pay attention and they damaged the DVD (they walked on it, I think).

I presume, as is typical, the PC came with "Office2002" pre-installed or,if not, I'm sure someone immediately installed it using the provided CD/DVD. Either way, the end result is the same - The PC owner initially had a functioning version of "Office 2002" installed on the PC and still had the CD/DVD available for reinstallation, if necessary. In this situation, I for one don't see why you would expect the software company (That actually initially licensed the PC manufacturer, not the end user) to be obligated to provide yet another copy of its software.

On the other hand, if the software had not been pre-installed and the CD/DVD proved to be faulty, I'm sure either the PC seller or the software provider would be willing to TAKE IT BACK and provide a viable replacement - which is the same behavior we all have a right to expect if, instead, we had purchased a flawed commercial DVD...

[Mug Funky]

in the office 2002 example, i believe OEM software comes with an end-user license agreement. so i see no problem with the user asking for another copy (maybe they could send a burnt disc in the mail? or even give a download link to an encrypted rar with a password sent via email) so long as they can quote the license details.

in this case, there's not much difference between just making a backup originally, except less hassle.

after all, the content is what is licensed, not the disc it is on.

[int 21h]

You aren't necessarily licensed to use the content as you see fit (in the case of software, especially Microsoft software). You're actually granted installation and use rights on a specific number of copies of the software and the exact nature of those installations and uses is strongly defined. (See here.)

Given that EULAs have already been shown to be enforceable (Blizzard v. BnetD), how long before we have much more visible EULAs accompanying our DVDs?

US Copyright has always been vastly skewed towards content producers (Mickey Mouse... hello?), if you don't agree with how they are distributing their content, don't buy it. But chances are that if you visit this forum, you knew well before now that if you bought any sort of movie or film on digital media that you are unable to exercise your fair use rights on them (legally in the US anyways).

Even if this DMCA route doesn't work out for the MPAA, there are still many legal avenues for them.

[foxyshadis]

Originally Posted by int 21h

Given that EULAs have already been shown to be enforceable (Blizzard v. BnetD), how long before we have much more visible EULAs accompanying our DVDs?

And in the grand tradition of EULAs, they'll be placed inside the DVD case and begin with, "The act of breaking the seal upon this case you signal acceptance of the terms of this license," or some such nonsense. The more progressive might include the license on the DVD, requiring acceptance to watch or "If you choose not to accept the terms, remove this disc and return the package to the point of purchase," but as we've seen in the software world, once a package is opened what retailer will ever take it back?

[HyperHacker]

Originally Posted by foxyshadis

And in the grand tradition of EULAs, they'll be placed inside the DVD case and begin with, "The act of breaking the seal upon this case you signal acceptance of the terms of this license," or some such nonsense.

"This product is subject to the end user license agreement ("EULA") included on the enclosed media. By opening this envelope or installing or using the product, you agree to the terms of the EULA."
Written on an envelope containing a Simply Accounting software update I found at work. You agree to the license by opening the package so you can view the license! Why is this sort of thing legal?

as we've seen in the software world, once a package is opened what retailer will ever take it back?

Shows how much store managers believe in DRM, hm?

[Xayd]

Originally Posted by cypher_soundz

create a torrent, uplaod to http://www.megashares.com/, buy a rapidshare.com account and uplaod to it, (it will never expire and you get points per download ), share via p2p and paste magnet links / ed2k links.
purchase an off shore host , there are some cheap ones around

Regards
cyph

paying for and/or using third party file sharing services is silly. if you want to pay for something, pay for usenet access and use that for distribution of whatever you want to distribute.

using google, or rapidshare, or any other third party doesn't do anything to solve your problem. the only difference is those third parties will get the takedown notices instead of sourceforge, so you've made zero progress.

usenet can be used anonymously, and doesn't concern itself with takedown notices because they are common carriers and not liable for content.

[Doom9]

Given that EULAs have already been shown to be enforceable

just in countries where lawyers dominate over reasonable people You can even sell OEM software without a PC in Europe.

there are still many legal avenues for them.

trade secret won't cut it if the specs are out in the open for everybody to read.

[Mistar Muffin]

My host for hdkeys.com, Layered Technologies received and forwarded me a DMCA takedown notice they received for the modified copy of BackupHDDVD I was hosting. The takedown notice only requested that I remove the file, but my host demanded the removal of the whole site. I have removed the file and have asked that they let me keep the site. I can post the notice for anyone who wants to see it, I don't think there's any legal problems with that.

[Doom9]

I'd be very interested..