IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V  < 1 2  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
TOS #9 and copy-protected CDs, Split from Topic ID: 73326
greynol
post Jul 14 2009, 22:08
Post #26





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



QUOTE (carpman @ Jul 14 2009, 13:50) *
QUOTE
Uart- the CD I have has a copyright date of 1976, and that is probably about when I bought it. I looked for pinholes and didn't see any. Good info, though.

If it was bought even 10 years after 1976 it's pretty safe to assume there's no copy protection, surely?

10 years from 1976 is probably about when 1976 was. It's just as likely that the OP has no clue when the CD was actually purchased.

This thread is not so much about clarification as it is about whether TOS #9 is consistent with NL law (where HA is hosted). From what was determined so far, it doesn't seem to be all that different from US law (where HA used to be hosted), and as such it is likely not going to be changed, at least not in any meaningful way with respect to this particular discussion.

This post has been edited by greynol: Jul 14 2009, 22:17


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Ivan Dimkovic
post Jul 14 2009, 23:15
Post #27


Nero MPEG4 developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 1466
Joined: 22-September 01
Member No.: 8



IANAL, but to my best knowledge (which is limited and based on media coverage of copyright laws / trials) Dutch copyright law allows making of personal copies of the copyrighted work (several websites mention paragraph 16/b) and it does not recognize any kind of "copy protection" nor it does provide legal limitations of user rights with regards to circumvention of such protections.

Therefore, (again, IANAL) I do not believe that the concept of "copy protection circumvention" really applies in the Dutch case, but the best way to figure this out is to ask a Dutch copyright lawyer. Maybe this is a really good idea if HA wants to synchronize and be fully compliant to the local law where their servers reside.

This post has been edited by Ivan Dimkovic: Jul 14 2009, 23:20
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
greynol
post Jul 14 2009, 23:26
Post #28





Group: Super Moderator
Posts: 10000
Joined: 1-April 04
From: San Francisco
Member No.: 13167



That is not consistent with what is written here:
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/geld...ukII_Artikel29a

It is not lawful for an individual in the NL to circumvent copy protection.


--------------------
I should publish a list of forum idiots.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Jul 15 2009, 00:48
Post #29


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



QUOTE (carpman @ Jul 14 2009, 22:09) *
I was speaking personally. I believe that every human being knows that forcing another (regardless of age) against their will to do something (i.e. the coercive elimination of another's choice) is wrong. ... i.e. If you're going to act like a child abide by these rules laid down by the state.

You deny in your mind that one can't do e.g. murder/rape/etc. with absolutely clear conscience? That's rather worrying since it's happening (accepting that affects our sense of security), it's a question of chemical imbalancies.. this topic could very well lead us to discuss whether people have true will of their own. Let's not go there.. slappity slap TOS nummmmber 5. smile.gif

QUOTE (carpman @ Jul 14 2009, 22:09) *
So no links to Google (especially google images) ... Also, presumably no links or discussion of DVD Fab HD Decrypter? Even in regard to ripping audio from DVD since that software breaks a number of copy protection schemes?

Not to google pages that link to copyrighted material. If we accept the law (if copyright law is effective and that forbids breaking or discussing that) AND we abide the law (and TOS), no mentions of the *hmmhmhmm* software either.


QUOTE (pawelq @ Jul 14 2009, 22:32) *
QUOTE (Akkurat @ Jul 14 2009, 15:15) *
Can you link or quote where or who has said that "they are designed to prevent you from digital copying"?

I think that it is pretty obvious. They do not affect analog copying, they affect digital copying.

It's obvious that they don't affect analog copying technically. They are designed to prevent you from copying (with what it's possible to prevent). They have been trying to "close the analog hole", aka "a. hole" biggrin.gif, so it's quite obvious that it's NOT just digital copy prevention the bastards are after. But, does it say somewhere that it's supposed to prevent just digital copying, making a digital copy, in general copying or is it mentioned at all? The possible wording of what the protection is protecting could affect court rulings. There's so many if's and things to interpret by courts.. and what we have seen so far, these issues are really hard to grasp and judge.

QUOTE (pawelq @ Jul 14 2009, 22:32) *
But proposing using the analog hole in my opinion does not violate the "How to bypass protection metodologies" part of #9. It may break the "or how to otherwise violate laws" part, but this really depends on which country's laws govern the board,

I see it like this: analog bypassing violates the #9 IF the analog hole is used to copy protected media only (thus vinyl and "normal" CD's are not affected). Thank god we don't have the rights to decide this, right? smile.gif EDIT: It would be nice if admins who decide these things could comment on this issue if the "How to bypass protection metodologies" stays in the TOS. Thanks.

But, we should concentrate on the Dutch law and how that affects the TOS.


QUOTE (greynol @ Jul 14 2009, 22:34) *
don't be surprised if I also issue warnings to those who broke either TOS #9 or TOS #5.

Again, I do apologize my error, I'm aware of the fact that I should definitely deserve the #5 slap.

This post has been edited by Akkurat: Jul 15 2009, 00:54
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carpman
post Jul 15 2009, 02:24
Post #30





Group: Developer
Posts: 1317
Joined: 27-June 07
Member No.: 44789



QUOTE (Akkurat @ Jul 15 2009, 00:48) *
You deny in your mind that one can't do e.g. murder/rape/etc. with absolutely clear conscience?

Yes I do. But this is OT, though it's funny, a while back I read a great deal of IP law; I've never read the law regarding rape or murder. I might get a T-Shirt made saying "Don't murder me, it's against the law". biggrin.gif

C.


--------------------
TAK -p4m :: LossyWAV -q 6 | TAK :: Lame 3.98 -V 2
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pawelq
post Jul 15 2009, 02:27
Post #31





Group: Members
Posts: 541
Joined: 20-December 05
From: Springfield, VA
Member No.: 26522



QUOTE (Akkurat @ Jul 14 2009, 19:48) *
They have been trying to "close the analog hole", aka "a. hole"

Also for audio? Even for video some of the solutions mentioned in that wikipedia article make me laugh. Like disabling analog outputs in set top boxes - come on, I feed my TV via analog connection, if they disabled that for some programming (which I paid for!) they would receive a very angry call. But I can't imagine how they would close the analog hole for audio. I am moving more and more off-topic, obviously.

QUOTE (Akkurat @ Jul 14 2009, 19:48) *
it's quite obvious that it's NOT just digital copy prevention the bastards are after. But, does it say somewhere that it's supposed to prevent just digital copying, making a digital copy, in general copying or is it mentioned at all? The possible wording of what the protection is protecting could affect court rulings. There's so many if's and things to interpret by courts.. and what we have seen so far, these issues are really hard to grasp and judge.


To me, it still looks against common sense, like if one could be convicted of forcible entry in addition to burglary if he or she did not actually break in, but walked into a house through a wide open door. Because the house had another door, which was locked at the time. But obviously lawyers may look at it differently :-).

I tried to look up some pertinent laws (US laws, because I could access them), and I am giving up, it's beyond my understanding.

An example (from US code)

QUOTE
A “digital audio recording device” is any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use, except for—
(A) professional model products, and
(B) dictation machines, answering machines, and other audio recording equipment that is designed and marketed primarily for the creation of sound recordings resulting from the fixation of nonmusical sounds.


and

QUOTE
No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to—
(1) the Serial Copy Management System;
(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system’s method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or
(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.


How can it be legal to sell a computer with a CD drive and Windows in the US? Obviously it can be used to make a digital audio copied recording for private use, without a system prohibiting unauthorized serial copying??


--------------------
Ceterum censeo, there should be an "%is_stop_after_current%".
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Jul 15 2009, 14:04
Post #32


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



QUOTE (pawelq @ Jul 15 2009, 04:27) *
QUOTE (Akkurat @ Jul 14 2009, 19:48) *
it's quite obvious that it's NOT just digital copy prevention the bastards are after. But, does it say somewhere that it's supposed to prevent just digital copying, making a digital copy, in general copying or is it mentioned at all? The possible wording of what the protection is protecting could affect court rulings.

To me, it still looks against common sense, ... But obviously lawyers may look at it differently :-).

IMHO you cling to the techniques, IANAL but if the court mostly ignores the techniques (see "Copyright law vs. particular techniques"), I can't see why they could not decide that it's not legal to use the analog bypass since (adding another variable) the protection is meant to prevent making digital copies. Does this sound plausible? I almost wrote another analogue here but since analogues are bad I decided not to. I quickly remembered one case where a burglar successfully sued the home owner because he hurt himself in the kitchen with knives. I can't remember exactly but he might have crashed through the cealing window to the kitchen table where the knives were. The law is one thing, it can be very hairy and contradictory, and then there's the human error in court. The outcome, as we have seen many times, can be virtually anything. Although it's funny sometimes, it's really sad.

QUOTE (pawelq @ Jul 15 2009, 04:27) *
How can it be legal to sell a computer with a CD drive and Windows in the US? Obviously it can be used to make a digital audio copied recording for private use, without a system prohibiting unauthorized serial copying??

I'm not good at reading these cryptic law texts, but maybe it's because of this sentence in the first example you quoted: "the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of", primary purpose here the deciding factor.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
pdq
post Jul 15 2009, 15:05
Post #33





Group: Members
Posts: 3407
Joined: 1-September 05
From: SE Pennsylvania
Member No.: 24233



I am reminded of the US constitutional amendment that made "intoxicating beverages" illegal. When American sentiment turned against this amendment, knowing how long it would take to pass another amendment overturning the first, Congress simply passed a law that beer (as long as it contained no more than 3.2% alcohol) was NOT an "intoxicating beverage". wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
uart
post Jul 15 2009, 18:53
Post #34





Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 23-November 04
Member No.: 18295



Re the "analog hole". What do you think of the scenario where someone doesn't even own a computer and they buy an audio "CD" with some kind of copy protection but are completely unaware of that fact. They bring it home and make an analog copy (say to a tape deck or something) on their home stereo. Have they just broken that law without even knowing it?
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Jul 15 2009, 19:34
Post #35


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



Maybe.. wouldn't be the first case either. I thought that it's was well established already that IMHO at least 3 issues affect this a. hole issue (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) What the copy protection is interpreted to protect; is it supposed to prevent just digital copying, making a digital copy, in general copying, etc.
2) The law. (Copyright & possible separate law about breaking protections)
3) How the law is interpreted.

If you want my opinion, I can't answer yes/no, I'd say that the judgement would have to be made just by looking at the copyright law (reason: I'm currently thinking that the protection issue should be considered as "making digital copies"). Honestly though, these questions are too hard (especially to a non-lawyer/law expert) and since I'm not in a position to make a precedent judgement, I don't have to stress about making a clear decision. Hopefully this makes sense.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
carpman
post Jul 15 2009, 20:29
Post #36





Group: Developer
Posts: 1317
Joined: 27-June 07
Member No.: 44789



Yes, we have to follow laws that only lawyers understand, and as lawyers like to tell you, not understanding the law is no defense. Sounds like some kind of Kafkaesque racket to me. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the devil is not in the detail, the devil IS the detail.

C.

This post has been edited by carpman: Jul 15 2009, 20:30


--------------------
TAK -p4m :: LossyWAV -q 6 | TAK :: Lame 3.98 -V 2
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Aug 16 2009, 15:46
Post #37


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



Any progression? Is the Dutch law clear about this issue? I'm interested to see what's the final verdict.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Aug 18 2009, 00:01
Post #38


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (Akkurat @ Aug 16 2009, 16:46) *
Any progression? Is the Dutch law clear about this issue? I'm interested to see what's the final verdict.


What part of post 28 is not clear to you? (Discussion about) circumventing copyright protections is illegal and not allowed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Aug 18 2009, 00:35
Post #39


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



That post was written by greynol, and IIRC he said at some point that he doesn't have the rights to make a decision, it's up to admins.

In post #7 you wrote:

QUOTE
The question is what the Dutch law says about (avoiding) copyright protections. They might have similar provisions in their copyright law. Or they might not. I would be interested in (verifiable) feedback on this matter, so we can consider whether the TOS needs revision.

I guess the greynol info was enough for you but at least I was left hanging without final answer. EDIT: .. from an user who has the rights to do such decisions.


Also, forgot in my previous post, some of us hoped for an answer to the "analog hole" question from admins:

QUOTE (Akkurat @ Jul 15 2009, 02:48) *
QUOTE (pawelq @ Jul 14 2009, 22:32) *
But proposing using the analog hole in my opinion does not violate the "How to bypass protection metodologies" part of #9. It may break the "or how to otherwise violate laws" part, but this really depends on which country's laws govern the board,

I see it like this: analog bypassing violates the #9 IF the analog hole is used to copy protected media only (thus vinyl and "normal" CD's are not affected). Thank god we don't have the rights to decide this, right? smile.gif EDIT: It would be nice if admins who decide these things could comment on this issue if the "How to bypass protection metodologies" stays in the TOS. Thanks.


This post has been edited by Akkurat: Aug 18 2009, 00:40
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kiit
post Aug 18 2009, 01:04
Post #40





Group: Members
Posts: 125
Joined: 9-October 03
From: Washington D.C.
Member No.: 9229



Hmm, my understanding of the technology is that to play a cd is to make an electronic copy of it in the hardware then convert that into an analog signal sent to the speakers... so is just playing a CD in fact violating the copyright?

And what about listening to a CD. Doesn't the brain have to have a copy in its memory? Are you in fact in violation of the law every time they remember listening to music?

Does the law have to make sense? Or is it enough that its there if they need to make an example of someone?

Does this really need to be discussed here? Or is it just political nonsense none of us will ever ever be able to affect?

TOS 9 is there for the protection of the site against labels out to make examples of people through the courts. Thats just the way the world is. It will get worse.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Akkurat
post Aug 18 2009, 11:18
Post #41


REACT Mod developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 929
Joined: 14-November 07
From: Finland
Member No.: 48750



@kiit: nice troll.. I guess. Why do some people get so hysterical and draw out insanely stupid analogues? See the Analog hole - Copyright law vs. particular techniques subject we talked about earlier in this topic:

Copyright law has been defined in terms of general definitions of infringement in any concrete medium. This classically focused such law on whether there is infringement, rather than focus on particular engineering techniques. Detecting infringement within the social and legal system avoids a legacy of outlawing generic, universal, popular, widespread, useful, and possibly uncontrollable engineering techniques in response to specific misuses.

Since there was no agreement on this a. hole subject, whether it breaks or not the "how to bypass protection methodologies" in TOS #9, some of us hoped for an admin opinion/statement on this matter. That's all. If you don't care about this, read other topics. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Aug 18 2009, 12:40
Post #42


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (Akkurat @ Aug 18 2009, 01:35) *
That post was written by greynol, and IIRC he said at some point that he doesn't have the rights to make a decision, it's up to admins.


The post directly quotes the Dutch lawbook and I will state here that we have no intention of violating the law and won't allow anyone to do so on our forum.

I guess that for now it's the Dutch voters who control what is allowed here and they clearly thought bypassing copyright protections (and by extension, discussing about it) is a serious crime that should be punished. So don't complain to me, complain to them.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Aug 18 2009, 12:43
Post #43


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (Akkurat @ Aug 18 2009, 01:35) *
I see it like this: analog bypassing violates the #9 IF the analog hole is used to copy protected media only (thus vinyl and "normal" CD's are not affected).


I would suspect this but of course my opinion has no legal value whatsoever, because I'm not a lawyer blablabla.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
2Bdecided
post Aug 18 2009, 12:47
Post #44


ReplayGain developer


Group: Developer
Posts: 5139
Joined: 5-November 01
From: Yorkshire, UK
Member No.: 409



IANAL, but I can't see how recording an in-the-clear analogue or digital audio output can be considered circumventing copyright protection.

There's no protection on that output to circumvent.


I can understand why HA would want to stay very firmly on the "right" side of the law however - though please understand that it hasn't always done so (unless I was dreaming about reading DVD-A ripping discussions here!).

Cheers,
David.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Garf
post Aug 18 2009, 13:06
Post #45


Server Admin


Group: Admin
Posts: 4885
Joined: 24-September 01
Member No.: 13



QUOTE (2Bdecided @ Aug 18 2009, 13:47) *
though please understand that it hasn't always done so (unless I was dreaming about reading DVD-A ripping discussions here!)


DVD-A isn't always copy protected, so ripping them doesn't imply anything illegal.

If there were discussions here about defeating the copy protection of those, please point me to them and they will be very swiftly removed.
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

2 Pages V  < 1 2
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2014 - 16:28