Man Admits to Copying DVDs, Nothing Happens

[hakesterman]

This guy is dumber than a box of Rocks. If he felt guilty about his actions all he had to do is destroy his fine work and throw it away and be done with it. Now because he is so ignorant he might face criminal charges. They say there is an idiot born every 12 seconds, this guy is living proof of it......................

 

[buwish]

WOW...just...WOW.

 

[cletus_slackjawd]

[citation][nom]pooflinger1[/nom]So if the locks or alarm on your car fail to prevent it from being stolen (obviously the locks and alarm weren't very effective), then the thief who stole your vehicle should not be prosecuted because your locks were not effective?I think you need to re-think your argument. That logic makes about as much sense as a hardcore gamer buying a mac to play games.[/citation]

I completely disagree, that's genius, it's a loop-hole. You can logic your way out of anything ie love is blind, god is love, oh my god, stevie wonder is god. If you disagree, why does the legalise include the word "effective" when it could have easily been omitted? You can't draw analogies to pretend that the word "effective" was not there. It is clearly there, and is clearly "not-effective" technology measures.

 

[JamesSneed]

I disagree I think this guy is a genius. He is forcing a law to be changed if this goes to court. We all have a right to make backups but greedy corporations have tried to take the right away by placing DRM on movies and games. So to make a backup that the law states is legal you have to break a contradictory law via circumventing the DRM. I wish him luck.

 

[pooflinger1]

[citation][nom]joex444[/nom]No, I think ventond is right. It is widely accepted that DVD's CSS protection is a meaningless standard. It was broken so long ago and so easily (in fact, there was a contest who could write the least code to crack CSS, something ridiculously small was needed). It would not be very hard for a lawyer to prove to any rational person that CSS is in fact not an effective technology.Your nonsense about cars and locks is silly. First, its established that one cannot break into cars just for fun. The 75.c statement that you cannot circumvent "effective" technologies is not the same thing. It is specifically for digital mediums, which a lock on a car does not belong. Plus, suppose breaking into the car were in fact not prosecutable because the lock was clearly insufficient. Or better, suppose someone leaves their car running and you just take it off the street. No breaking of locks, no forced entry just open the handle. No need to hotwire the car, its already on. This is still illegal. What's the digital equivelant of this?[/citation]

Effective to who? To the standard person without tools, yes, the encryption is effective. Can you break the encryption on a dvd WITHOUT using software written by someone else such as DVDFab or DVD Decrypter? The answer for 99% of the population would be no, they can't and so, one could say that that is an effective protection scheme especially considering that such programs are illegal in and of themselves in many countries as well.

[citation][nom]Rab1d-BDGR[/nom]If I lost the key to MY OWN CAR, should I be arrested for picking the lock and hotwiring - in order to drive home? Perhaps you think that in such a situation the only sensible solution is to buy a new car so that I don't violate the "rights" of the company that built my car...[/citation]
You completely missed my point. The point was about using the since it's wasn't "effective" that its not prosecutable. Were talking about two completely different things here, one (the car) is a tangible physical object that can't just be duplicated. Let's change the example to something a little more similar. Let's say that you have an old computer, and you sell it. On the hard drive are some files which contain bank records. You have them password protected. The person that buys the computer guesses the password and now has your information. If they were to use that information, they would be arrested no? BUT, just like the DVD, they OWN the pysical medium that houses the data. And under the same notion as above, since the password was not effective, they would not be liable?

 

[redgarl]

HAHAHA... I got mp3s... please arrest me!!!!

 

[back_by_demand]

Actually, the law is contradictory. Not just for this case but for hundreds of other laws. New legislation is written every day with thousands of amendments that are down to a judge or sopme other legal entity to "interpret".

In this case, the law does not say "DRM", it says "circumvention of effective technological measures". This is basically copy protection. If you cannot copy without circumventing protection then it is clearly contradictory.

The question is not one of laws being in contradiction, but wether or not the legal entity, such as the judge, cares or not. If you are lucky, the Judge will say "100 DVD's, did you actually buy them? Yes? Fuck it, case closed. Go free, copy some more, whilst your at it show me how you did it cos I really dont want to scratch my original version of Dances With Wolves".

 

[anamaniac]

[citation][nom]JuiceJones[/nom]Good luck to this guy. It takes action to change stupid laws, and this guy is actually doing something about it. I'd like to see a lot of people join him, line up and the police station, and flood the place with "criminals" who backup their DVDs. Civil disobedience is fun stuff.[/citation]
Civil disobedience sure is fun stuff.
However, my police in my area keep assualting everyone without legitimate casue (canadian city of 1 million).

It'd take a month for me to report everything though... but it'd be fun as hell wasting someones time doing it (as 100 other people would at once).

 

[Guest]

The last time I checked, DRM schemes prevent you from making copies of the media. I didn't see a check box for "Create legal Personal Backup". So if I'm legally permitted to make a backup copy, how exactly would one accomplish it? This is all a bunch of crap. I'll just keep converting my old VHS's to dvd. I really don't watch movies anymore because of this situation. I've decided reading is a better medium for me.(Until they chase us readers down for sharing books)

 

[Growmore]

[citation][nom]deathblooms2k1[/nom]Agreed. Furthermore bringing this issue to the police department does more harm to the town or city than it does to legislation and the corporations. It costs Police personnel time and subsequently the tax payers money (since their tax's pay for the municipal salary's)[/citation]
The music/movie industry will gladly take that bill, if it's about the money. Just like it seems those swines somehow bribed the swedish government to change it's law in the trial against TPB(http://thepiratebay.org/).

[citation][nom]deathblooms2k1[/nom]meanwhile it garners a little publicity that I'm sure the corporations won't even bat an eye at.Change has to be reflected by votes by the majority, convince enough people that your argument makes sense and then let the representatives in the area know that their election rides on these ideas...
Ultimately this person has a problem with DRM, he needs to clearly present his problems with it and then gain public support for those problems. It's easy to cause a ruckus for publicity, but it just seems stupid when it ultimately results in no change.[/citation]
Not many would bother raising a finger if the only possible way was to go through all of those boring channels and unnecessary bureaucracy.
That takes years and too much involvement.. Life is enough stress as it is