4 ms·

It depends on the country, but my understanding is if you're in Canada, then what you're doing is legal.

by beezlebroxxxxxx 2y ago

peterburkimsher 2y ago
In Switzerland, I heard that downloading is legal, it's only uploading that's frowned upon.
- stwrzn 2y ago
  Downloading is a "grey-zone", but no one that I know of got in trouble for that. Uploading is not allowed, and the little seeding done while downloading a torrent is still illegal. Although getting in trouble is rare because ISPs are not allowed to give out user data to random companies.
  - peterburkimsher 2y ago
    The Internet Archive uses torrents for the files uploaded to their platform. Is that an issue that the Electronic Frontier Foundation would need to be involved in?
    - duskwuff 2y ago
      The Internet Archive provides direct downloads for the content they host, so the fact that they also offer torrents doesn't really change the legal situation.
      - rendx 2y ago
        Not their legal situation, but it turns a downloader into a distributor who may not be aware of the potential legal consequences.
tombert 2y ago
I'm in the US, and the DMCA explicitly forbids it, but there's been some contrary rulings on this that make it a bit unclear. [1] I am not a lawyer, so I'm not really sure how to interpret this stuff, but I don't know how tested the DRM parts of the DMCA have been tested . [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court-breaking-drm-for-a-fair-use-is-legal/# https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court...
- peterburkimsher 2y ago
  [dead]
  - duskwuff 2y ago
    DMCA doesn't specify a precise takedown period; service providers are simply required to "respond expeditiously" to takedown requests. What that means is a matter of interpretation, but seems to err on the generous side; the only case I'm aware of where a court found that a removal was insufficiently "expeditious" was one where it took seven months for the service provider to respond (Perfect 10 v. Google).
- xienze 2y ago
  Who really cares about DMCA? If you’re copying discs you bought and aren’t sharing those copies, who would even know you did it? I view it as more of a way to theoretically throw the book at someone caught sharing than a way to imprison people who make personal copies.
  - reuben364 2y ago
    It matters for anti-circumvention, where they can go after people that make tools that allow you to make personal copies.
    - xienze 2y ago
      And how effective has it really been? All the usual tools are still out there, notably MakeMKV.
TheCycoONE 2y ago
Breaking the digital lock to read the blu-ray disc was made illegal in Canada with the Copyright Modernization Act (2012). Since then the courts have said that act doesn't trump fair dealing which makes it a bit grey (I am not a lawyer) but not clearly legal.

It depends on the country, but my understanding is if you're in Canada, then what you're doing is legal.

peterburkimsher 2y ago

In Switzerland, I heard that downloading is legal, it's only uploading that's frowned upon.

stwrzn 2y ago
Downloading is a "grey-zone", but no one that I know of got in trouble for that. Uploading is not allowed, and the little seeding done while downloading a torrent is still illegal. Although getting in trouble is rare because ISPs are not allowed to give out user data to random companies.
- peterburkimsher 2y ago
  The Internet Archive uses torrents for the files uploaded to their platform. Is that an issue that the Electronic Frontier Foundation would need to be involved in?
  - duskwuff 2y ago
    The Internet Archive provides direct downloads for the content they host, so the fact that they also offer torrents doesn't really change the legal situation.
    - rendx 2y ago
      Not their legal situation, but it turns a downloader into a distributor who may not be aware of the potential legal consequences.

tombert 2y ago

I'm in the US, and the DMCA explicitly forbids it, but there's been some contrary rulings on this that make it a bit unclear. [1] I am not a lawyer, so I'm not really sure how to interpret this stuff, but I don't know how tested the DRM parts of the DMCA have been tested . [1] https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court-breaking-drm-for-a-fair-use-is-legal/# https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2010/07/court...

peterburkimsher 2y ago
[dead]
- duskwuff 2y ago
  DMCA doesn't specify a precise takedown period; service providers are simply required to "respond expeditiously" to takedown requests. What that means is a matter of interpretation, but seems to err on the generous side; the only case I'm aware of where a court found that a removal was insufficiently "expeditious" was one where it took seven months for the service provider to respond (Perfect 10 v. Google).
xienze 2y ago
Who really cares about DMCA? If you’re copying discs you bought and aren’t sharing those copies, who would even know you did it? I view it as more of a way to theoretically throw the book at someone caught sharing than a way to imprison people who make personal copies.
- reuben364 2y ago
  It matters for anti-circumvention, where they can go after people that make tools that allow you to make personal copies.
  - xienze 2y ago
    And how effective has it really been? All the usual tools are still out there, notably MakeMKV.

TheCycoONE 2y ago

Breaking the digital lock to read the blu-ray disc was made illegal in Canada with the Copyright Modernization Act (2012). Since then the courts have said that act doesn't trump fair dealing which makes it a bit grey (I am not a lawyer) but not clearly legal.