4 ms·

And in that case, what made that software product illegal was that the court found that it was for breaking the DVD, not for playing it back. It's important to

And in that case, what made that software product illegal was that the court found that it was for breaking the DVD, not for playing it back. It's important to actually understand the case.

DanBC 14y ago
> what made that software product illegal was that the court No. Some laws are not enforced, but that doesn't make the regulated activity legal. Someone who owns the original DVD and who wants to play it back (with no storage or format shifting) is breaking the law, because there's no authority from the copyrights holders. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201) > “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;
- JohnHaugeland 14y ago
  I enjoy how you cut my sentence mid-way through to make it look like it said something very different than what it actually said.
  - BCM43 14y ago
    I think that was unintentional. What a I read from DanBC's comment was that it was referring to the fact you stated the court found that it was for breaking the DVD, not for playing it back.. Just because the court said that the problem was something else, and not the playback, does not make the playback legal.
    - JohnHaugeland 14y ago
      No, the fact that nothing makes it illegal is what makes it legal. I'm sort of confused where this is coming from.
      - DanBC 14y ago
        To watch a DVD you need to get around the CSS. There is no authorised method to do this on Linux. Thus, anyone watching a DVD on Linux is circumventing an effective rights protection measure without authorisation. That's a crime in the US. (And similar actions are crimes in other countries too.)
        JohnHaugeland 14y ago
        "To watch a DVD you need to get around the CSS." No, you don't. You just need to decode it. What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing it to others. . "There is no authorised method to do this on Linux." One, there doesn't need to be. Two, of course there is. Have you ever even tried to look? . "Thus, anyone watching a DVD on Linux is circumventing an effective rights protection" Luckily, the Supreme Court, the RIAA, the MPAA, and the current Attorney General of the United States disagree with you, as does a casual familiarity with the law.
        DanBC 14y ago
        This is baffling. I really don't understand what you don't get about this. To watch a DVD you need to decode the CSS. You either have authorisation to do this, or you don't. On Linux there is no authorised method to do this, and thus it is illegal. Whether anyone is interested in prosecuting that illegal use is irrelevant to this discussion; and it's not been what you've claimed. > What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing it to others. Let's examine this sentence. i) circumventing the rights protection without authorisation is illegal. ii) distributing copy right material without permissions is illegal Thus, your sentence "What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing it to others" covers 2 illegalities, the circumvention and the distribution. > Two, of course there is. Have you ever even tried to look? Yes, I have tried to look. I can't show you what I have not found. Have you tried to look? Feel free to provide a link to any rights holder anywhere giving authorisation.
        JohnHaugeland 14y ago
- cookiecaper 14y ago
  Doesn't the authority of the copyright owner to descramble, decrypt, or otherwise bypass a technological measure extend to those who own a legal copy of the copyrighted work? That is, the rightsholder implicitly transfers the authority to decrypt the work when he issues a license to view the decrypted material, even if the medium of transfer stores the work in an encrypted format. Under this interpretation, the authority would extend to viewing the material on any platform or player, but it wouldn't extend to saving a permanently decrypted copy (as you had a license to view the decrypted material, but not to keep a permanent decrypted copy) as in a rip of the DVD to one's hard drive.
tekromancr 14y ago
But you MUST, as a logical prerequisite, "break" the CSS protection to view the content.

And in that case, what made that software product illegal was that the court found that it was for breaking the DVD, not for playing it back. It's important to actually understand the case.

DanBC 14y ago

> what made that software product illegal was that the court No. Some laws are not enforced, but that doesn't make the regulated activity legal. Someone who owns the original DVD and who wants to play it back (with no storage or format shifting) is breaking the law, because there's no authority from the copyrights holders. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention) (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201) > “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;

JohnHaugeland 14y ago
I enjoy how you cut my sentence mid-way through to make it look like it said something very different than what it actually said.
- BCM43 14y ago
  I think that was unintentional. What a I read from DanBC's comment was that it was referring to the fact you stated the court found that it was for breaking the DVD, not for playing it back.. Just because the court said that the problem was something else, and not the playback, does not make the playback legal.
  - JohnHaugeland 14y ago
    No, the fact that nothing makes it illegal is what makes it legal. I'm sort of confused where this is coming from.
    - DanBC 14y ago
      To watch a DVD you need to get around the CSS. There is no authorised method to do this on Linux. Thus, anyone watching a DVD on Linux is circumventing an effective rights protection measure without authorisation. That's a crime in the US. (And similar actions are crimes in other countries too.)
      - JohnHaugeland 14y ago
        "To watch a DVD you need to get around the CSS." No, you don't. You just need to decode it. What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing it to others. . "There is no authorised method to do this on Linux." One, there doesn't need to be. Two, of course there is. Have you ever even tried to look? . "Thus, anyone watching a DVD on Linux is circumventing an effective rights protection" Luckily, the Supreme Court, the RIAA, the MPAA, and the current Attorney General of the United States disagree with you, as does a casual familiarity with the law.
        DanBC 14y ago
        This is baffling. I really don't understand what you don't get about this. To watch a DVD you need to decode the CSS. You either have authorisation to do this, or you don't. On Linux there is no authorised method to do this, and thus it is illegal. Whether anyone is interested in prosecuting that illegal use is irrelevant to this discussion; and it's not been what you've claimed. > What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing it to others. Let's examine this sentence. i) circumventing the rights protection without authorisation is illegal. ii) distributing copy right material without permissions is illegal Thus, your sentence "What's illegal is leaving it decoded and redistributing it to others" covers 2 illegalities, the circumvention and the distribution. > Two, of course there is. Have you ever even tried to look? Yes, I have tried to look. I can't show you what I have not found. Have you tried to look? Feel free to provide a link to any rights holder anywhere giving authorisation.
        JohnHaugeland 14y ago
cookiecaper 14y ago
Doesn't the authority of the copyright owner to descramble, decrypt, or otherwise bypass a technological measure extend to those who own a legal copy of the copyrighted work? That is, the rightsholder implicitly transfers the authority to decrypt the work when he issues a license to view the decrypted material, even if the medium of transfer stores the work in an encrypted format. Under this interpretation, the authority would extend to viewing the material on any platform or player, but it wouldn't extend to saving a permanently decrypted copy (as you had a license to view the decrypted material, but not to keep a permanent decrypted copy) as in a rip of the DVD to one's hard drive.

tekromancr 14y ago

But you MUST, as a logical prerequisite, "break" the CSS protection to view the content.