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?

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.

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?

Quote from: Akkurat on 2009-07-14 20:15:54

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.

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,

don't be surprised if I also issue warnings to those who broke either TOS #9 or TOS #5.

You deny in your mind that one can't do e.g. murder/rape/etc. with absolutely clear conscience?

They have been trying to "close the analog hole", aka "a. hole"

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.

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.

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.

Quote from: Akkurat on 2009-07-15 00:48:12

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 :-).

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??

Any progression? Is the Dutch law clear about this issue? I'm interested to see what's the final verdict.

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.

Quote from: pawelq on 2009-07-14 20:32:36

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?  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.

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.

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).

though please understand that it hasn't always done so (unless I was dreaming about reading DVD-A ripping discussions here!)