U.S. Govt joins piracy fight

[rwizard]

Originally Posted by smerrall

There's the whole DVD pirates fund terrorism theory:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/the_...-movie-pi.html

Interesting, so put people behind bars that are selling copies of DVD's as apposed to grandma because her grand son is using her computer for torrents without her knowledge. I am okay with that. Unfortunately, I doubt that will be the case.

[Pardoz]

Originally Posted by rwizard

Maybe I am just not aware of it but since when is there any significant link between "IP crimes" and "international organized crime".

Certainly there's a link to domestic organized crime in some countries - the pirate presses/"publishers" in Chile, for example, are mostly mob-owned and -operated. Internationally...if they're including knock-offs (fake Guccis and such) there's certainly an international component there, as the "fake" items are generally produced in cheap-labour countries (sometimes by the same sweatshops making the "real" items) then exported for re-sale.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by perversity

This makes me happy. Internet thieves should never have been given free reign this long.

Somebody's stolen the Internet?!?

Thank goodness we've still got this copy.

[m-reader]

"Pirate Tsar"

Now there's a cool job title

[LCF]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Somebody's stolen the Internet?!?

Thank goodness we've still got this copy.

Is your copy licensed?

[DawnFalcon]

Originally Posted by tnronin

Here are just a few NASA spinoffs I know they are wasteful, but I think you have both over simplified and denigrated NASA un-necessarily.

NASA spun off a bunch of technologies in the 70's directly related to it's core mission, sure. Since then, it's developed a bunch of interesting techs...but it's mission is not tech research, it's space - and the costs of it's technologies have been massive compared to traditional research labs!

Moreover, it's manned space vehicles are still based on those 70's technologies.

And what do you know, the Federation of American Scientists has a few things to say on the topic as well.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by thename

While I agree with your intentions (fair use, ownership, etc.), the letter of the law says the latter is a violation and is--by most accepted definitions of the word--illegal and, therefore, a crime regardless of whether it's victimless or not. Now, it's entirely possible there's an esoteric definition of "crime" that demands a "victim" but the RIAA proved (and a judge, unfortunately, affirmed) that copying a CD is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'" under the current state of affairs.

The RIAA has attempted to say that multiple times. That doesn't make it true. I didn't see anything in your link that indicated the judge agreed with them.

Every time I'm aware of that the RIAA has tried to make the claim that ripping your own CD is illegal, it has been thrown out.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Every time I'm aware of that the RIAA has tried to make the claim that ripping your own CD is illegal, it has been thrown out.

What ambiguity in the US copyright law makes it unclear whether or not it is illegal? It is clearly illegal in the UK, for example (as are all other forms of "format shifting"), although it's something that nobody is, or ever has been, prosecuted for.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by thename

While I agree with your intentions (fair use, ownership, etc.), the letter of the law says the latter is a violation and is--by most accepted definitions of the word--illegal and, therefore, a crime regardless of whether it's victimless or not. Now, it's entirely possible there's an esoteric definition of "crime" that demands a "victim" but the RIAA proved (and a judge, unfortunately, affirmed) that copying a CD is "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'"

This simply does not add up. You would be stealing from yourself. It would be like taking a dollar bill from my right pocket and putting in my left pocket, and claiming a theft occurred. That is just nonsense.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

What ambiguity in the US copyright law makes it unclear whether or not it is illegal?

The US doesn't strictly define "fair use", which is the main problem. However, I have never heard of a case where ripping your own CD was declared illegal, it's always been treated as fair use.

The RIAA used to claim that doing so is illegal, but that's mostly just them living in their own fantasy world (they'd probably claim in court that the sun rotated around the earth if they thought they could make a profit off of it). The link the other poster pointed to was from 2007. Since then I believe even the RIAA has backed off of that claim.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by DawnFalcon

NASA spun off a bunch of technologies in the 70's directly related to it's core mission, sure. Since then, it's developed a bunch of interesting techs...but it's mission is not tech research, it's space - and the costs of it's technologies have been massive compared to traditional research labs!

I've always been extremely grateful to NASA (and the people of the US who've supported it) for the sheer wealth of material they make freely available for the rest of the world.
I think it has been a wonderful gift to us all, and done a huge amount to educate, inform and frankly amaze.

[thename]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The RIAA has attempted to say that multiple times. That doesn't make it true. I didn't see anything in your link that indicated the judge agreed with them.

Every time I'm aware of that the RIAA has tried to make the claim that ripping your own CD is illegal, it has been thrown out.[emphasis mine]

I am aware that the original judgment is common knowledge. Seems the judge and jury didn't disagree enough to overthrow the "availability is piracy" suggestion and, as such, avoided ruling directly on the "making a copy is stealing" idea so I see very little about that idea being "thrown out."

We can note, also, that the DMCA specifically prohibits making a copy of anything if--in doing so--one must circumvent any form of DRM. Let's posit that CD-ripping is implicitly condoned. DVD-ripping and DRM-ebooks, though, are most assuredly not (the former being the subject of long-running litigation).

So while I appreciate your "RIAA[/MPAA] says but nobody else agrees" sentiment, the DMCA--as written--disagrees and our fair use suffers.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

This simply does not add up. You would be stealing from yourself. It would be like taking a dollar bill from my right pocket and putting in my left pocket, and claiming a theft occurred. That is just nonsense.

In the RIAA's world, there is no such thing as fair use. What they used to claim is that backups are not authorized by them, so every time you made a backup of your own CD (rip, etc), you were "stealing" a copy. They were completely ignoring fair use, and essentially said that unless they specifically authorized it, any use was illegal. If you needed a "backup", they claimed that you had to buy another CD from them.

Obviously that argument makes no sense at all, but that was their basic idea behind it. I believe even they have realized it doesn't hold up, and have backed off of that claim.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

The US doesn't strictly define "fair use", which is the main problem. However, I have never heard of a case where ripping your own CD was declared illegal, it's always been treated as fair use.

Wasn't there a case a year or two ago when the company that makes the "Real Player" software was forced to withdraw from sale a DVD "backup" program, on the grounds that it infringed copyright? ISTR in that case that the court ruled that there was no "right" to make a backup copy of a DVD. Would that not also apply to a CD?

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by thename

We can note, also, that the DMCA specifically prohibits making a copy of anything if--in doing so--one must circumvent any form of DRM. Let's posit that CD-ripping is implicitly condoned. DVD-ripping and DRM-ebooks, though, are most assuredly not

If that is the case, then DRM (or any kind of encryption) on media that is available for purchase to the general population should be illegal.