Another idea...

[MoonRise]

Re: Another idea...

Unfortunately, at the same time Judge Garcia's decision was being read, the US Copyright Office weighed in on exemptions to the DMCA. On the subject of streaming and DVD content on Linux, it held up its earlier opinion that in the absence of a real problem Linux users should just get an alternative platform. In other words, there aren't enough Linux users to warrant any change in policy and the few there are should just buy a Windows PC.

Anyone care to wager that M$ didn't in some fashion, influence this decision? :P

So the Government appears to support one system over the other. They are dictating what we should use. Kind of sounds like a dictatorship to me!

[quantum]

Re: Another idea...

I don't remember anyone asking for my vote when those DMCA laws were being passed. As far as I know it was more like the federal government say skrew what every american thinks we are going to pass these laws anyways, and if they break these laws that they didn't get to vote on we will throw them in jail. I don't abide by laws I have no say in and nether should you.

[vinnywright]

Re: Another idea...

I take the .........I bought the DVD..........I knead to watch it ..........I knead libdvdcss2 ..........install libdvdcss2.......................watch DVD ..........approach to it

A computer with a DVD drive should at LEAST play a DVD.......if anything............ and everything else it's capable of for that mater.

I mean really how dose the one under the TV get away with it?
why dosent the DVD player in my computer get covered by whatever covers the one under my TV?

what's the deal with me doing whatever I want with MY DVD as long as I'm not trying to profit from the duplication and sails of some one elces work without their consent?

it confuses me

Just my 2cent's

VINNY

[Snowhog]

Re: Another idea...

vinny@

Follow the money! Developers of DVD Players (not those in PC's) pay a royalty or license fee for the right to include the decryption algorythm in thier hardware. As an end-user, you are paying for the 'right' to play encrypted DVDs. It's just 'hidden' and the cost passed on to the consumer.

[vinnywright]

Re: Another idea...

if I'm not paying for the rite to play my DVD when I by it..........I'm not buying anymore :P

VINNY

[Telengard]

Re: Another idea...

if I'm not paying for the rite to play my DVD when I by it..........I'm not buying anymore :P

This is the kind of frustration which lead some people into downloading illegally. I don't, and I don't recommend anyone else do it. But people who want to consume entertainment on the media/device of their choosing, when and where it is convenient for them, generally opt for downloading illegally.

As for me, I have a Netflix account which allows me to stream all the movies I want for a reasonable monthly fee. There are other legal options too, including sites like Hulu, Amazon, Crunchyroll, and others where you can stream movies whenever you like. I don't even bother with DVDs anymore.

The sites which I watch movies on may not offer service outside America. If you happen to live in a country which doesn't get service then I don't know what options you have other than illegal downloads. Capitalism is a great system, but black markets always emerge to meet unmet consumer demands.

[vinnywright]

Re: Another idea...

O the Wife and I love Amazon thare rentals play just fine hear ....

and I still think if I bought a DVD I can use libdvdcss2 to watch it...............sue me I have nothing .

VINNY

[kubicle]

Re: Another idea...

I just doubt that The Man, or even the mpaa/riaa/other @$$!@les will go after anyone for simply downloading libdvdcss and using it to watch a movie. So still grey :/

I agree that many of the provisions in the DMCA are somewhat in the grey area (for the lack of court rulings to clarify them), but there are a few points I'd like to make:

1. I have never found anything in the DMCA that would make downloading (and installing it on your own machine) illegal. Distributing it probably is in the US (and elsewhere where similar laws are in effect), and using it can be (as there are a number of authorized uses). DMCA § 1201.a-b

2. It's unclear that using libdvdcss to view content that you have a legal right to view can be considered illegal under the DMCA. DMCA § 1201.c declares that "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." With that, it's hard to see how the provisions could be extended to rightful viewing, when there is no copyright infringement. (If you have legally obtained the right to watch a DVD, you are not infringing copyright by watching it). Making illegal copies is another matter, of course.

There are a number a court rulings on DMCA, but they seem to about distribution and commercial uses of circumvention technology. Unfortunately, the rulings have gone both ways (likely due to different circumstances in individual cases), which doesn't really help to clarify the issue.

[ardvark71]

Re: Another idea...

Thank you all who have posted, you've definitely given me food for thought and made me aware of things I didn't know.

Thanks!

[kubicle]

Re: Another idea...

According to court documents, more than 4,500 bootlegged video tapes were found on December 5th, and 6th, 2001 during the service of five federal search warrants at three video stores

He was a thief and a pirate, not an individual practicing his constitutionally guaranteed "fair use" rights.

Careful there, calling him a thief could be considered slander (or more accurately, libel) .

Copyright infringement is not theft (although copyright holders like to make the association). It may be immoral, illegal and a crime, but it is not theft.

[The Liquidator]

Re: Another idea...

Don't know if it happens in the states but the TV advertising over here usually includes the phrase "own it on DVD" which is a highly misleading statement to make in the first place.

My view on this is that if I have a legal copy of a DVD I consider myself entitled to play it. Period. If to enable me to do so I have to use a piece of software that some find offensive then that's their problem, as it's the only way I can play something which is, after all, my property. I'm not sure a Windows user could run the same defence though, as presumably, the sole purpose for such a person to want to break the encryption would be copying.

[GreyGeek]

Re: Another idea...

......
Careful there, calling him a thief could be considered slander (or more accurately, libel) .

Copyright infringement is not theft (although copyright holders like to make the association). It may be immoral, illegal and a crime, but it is not theft.

MYNAF pled guilty on March 28, 2002. On October 31, 2002, he also pled guilty to three additional counts, including Unlawful Use of A Means of Identification of Another Person; Possession with Intent to Use or Transfer Unlawfully Five or More Identification Documents; and Possession of Unauthorizedly Produced United States Government Identification Document. According to court documents, more than 4,500 bootlegged video tapes were found on December 5th, and 6th, 2001 during the service of five federal search warrants at three video stores (Video Stop, 1100 Marshall Road, Suite A, B, C, D, Vacaville, California; Videoland, 2147 North Texas Street, Fairfield, California; and Videoland, 128 Robles Way, Vallejo, California), a Vacaville storage facility rented by defendant MYNAF, and the defendant’s Vacaville residence. According to the plea agreement, at the MYNAF residence, agents found a movie videocassette reproduction lab with equipment hooked up to manufacture counterfeit movie videocassettes and labels.

[kubicle]

Re: Another idea...

......
Careful there, calling him a thief could be considered slander (or more accurately, libel) .

Copyright infringement is not theft (although copyright holders like to make the association). It may be immoral, illegal and a crime, but it is not theft.

MYNAF pled guilty on March 28, 2002. On October 31, 2002, he also pled guilty to three additional counts, including Unlawful Use of A Means of Identification of Another Person; Possession with Intent to Use or Transfer Unlawfully Five or More Identification Documents; and Possession of Unauthorizedly Produced United States Government Identification Document. According to court documents, more than 4,500 bootlegged video tapes were found on December 5th, and 6th, 2001 during the service of five federal search warrants at three video stores (Video Stop, 1100 Marshall Road, Suite A, B, C, D, Vacaville, California; Videoland, 2147 North Texas Street, Fairfield, California; and Videoland, 128 Robles Way, Vallejo, California), a Vacaville storage facility rented by defendant MYNAF, and the defendant’s Vacaville residence. According to the plea agreement, at the MYNAF residence, agents found a movie videocassette reproduction lab with equipment hooked up to manufacture counterfeit movie videocassettes and labels.

Oh, you meant "identity thief"

I guess that would be okay, since identity theft has become a commonplace term (even though "identity theft" is also not really theft).

"Unlawful use" or "possession" doesn't imply he stole the documents, he might have bought or made them.

I know I'm seriously off topic :P

[GreyGeek]

Re: Another idea...

....
"Unlawful use" or "possession" doesn't imply he stole the documents, he might have bought or made them.
....

IF you are in possession of stolen property then the law presumes that you stole them. It is up to you to prove you did not. That is what the lawyer you hire tries to do -- prove your innocence in the face of possession. Concerning property - it can be either "tangible" or "non-tangible".

[kubicle]

Re: Another idea...

....
"Unlawful use" or "possession" doesn't imply he stole the documents, he might have bought or made them.
....

IF you are in possession of stolen property then the law presumes that you stole them. It is up to you to prove you did not. That is what the lawyer you hire tries to do -- prove your innocence in the face of possession. Concerning property - it can be either "tangible" or "non-tangible".

....
"Unlawful use" or "possession" doesn't imply he stole the documents, he might have bought or made them.
....

IF you are in possession of stolen property then the law presumes that you stole them. It is up to you to prove you did not.

Looks like he did that, as he was convicted of possession (not theft). My guess is that the documents were fabricated (but the prosecutor couldn't prove he made them).

Concerning property - it can be either "tangible" or "non-tangible".

Property can be tangible or intangible, but intangible property can't really be stolen.