Piracy is necessary and doesn't hurt revenues

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

But it is illegal, because the DMCA forbids you from bypassing or avoiding copyright protections. Buying and using an out-of-region DVD player is bypassing/avoiding the protections that stop someone from Region X playing Region Y DVDs. Regardless of where you got the tool from or whether or not any active effort per DVD on your part is required.

You are right, it is a stupid law and a stupid interpretation of the law, but it fits with the actual words, and thus is technically illegal. (Only in the US.)

Are these out-of-region players sold in/to the US?

If the answer is Yes, then your point is... pointless.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Then please feel free to select another region. Presumably you're under the impression that you'd be breaking the law if you were to play, say, a Region 2 DVD from the UK in the US, right? Can you give me a single example of someone ever having been prosecuted for the heinous crime of playing a "foreign" DVD in the US?

People aren't prosecuted for downloading unarguably illegal torrents either.

What on earth possessed you to think that whether or not anyone has actually been prosecuted for being in violation of a law is a proof to whether the law exists?

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ST-One

Certainly not. Unless the selling/buying of players from/for a different region were illegal. Which, I assume, isn't the case.

Originally Posted by ST-One

Are these out-of-region players sold in/to the US?

If the answer is Yes, then your point is... pointless.

It isn't illegal because there is a legal use -- to play DVDs without violating the restrictions. i.e. non-region-locked DVDs.

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It isn't illegal because there is a legal use -- to play DVDs without violating the restrictions. i.e. non-region-locked DVDs.

Oh, for god's sake!

I think you are just arguing a silly point for argument's sake now.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

But it is illegal, because the DMCA forbids you from bypassing or avoiding copyright protections. Buying and using an out-of-region DVD player is bypassing/avoiding the protections that stop someone from Region X playing Region Y DVDs. Regardless of where you got the tool from or whether or not any active effort per DVD on your part is required.

You are right, it is a stupid law and a stupid interpretation of the law, but it fits with the actual words, and thus is technically illegal. (Only in the US.)

I respectfully disagree with you that it is illegal, which is the reason that I've been asking in vain for an example of case law which illustrates its illegality. As you are well aware, at the end of the day it's the courts which determine whether or not something is illegal, and if something has never been tested in court, one cannot definitively state that it's illegal.

[eschwartz]

Originally Posted by ST-One

Oh, for god's sake!

I think you are just arguing a silly point for argument's sake now.

In the finest traditions of the law ... why yes, of course. Can you name me one good precedent not to?

Also, can you try actually refuting what I said?

[ST-One]

Originally Posted by eschwartz

In the finest traditions of the law ... why yes, of course. Can you name me one good precedent not to?

Also, can you try actually refuting what I said?

The argument was over when you wrote:

Originally Posted by eschwartz

It isn't illegal...

You murdered your argument all by yourself. That you are trying to keep it alive artificially by adding Ifs and Whens and Becauses is just silly now.

[speakingtohe]

It isn't illegal either because no one made it illegal to sell other copying/downloading/bypassing equipment in the beginning. Maybe because they didn't want to annoy Xerox for example, or they it did not occur to them or because they (the lawmakers) wanted one for themselves. Possibly, but not likely even a common good defense.

Now it is too late. Too many electronic devices can copy/download/bypass. Pretty sure I could play a region restricted DVD on my laptop if I tried hard enough.

But because I can do something, can legally buy the equipment to do it and because no one is likely to catch me doing it, or prosecute me if they do, does not guaranty legality or even imply a right to do so.

Helen


Helen

[arjaybe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No. It's using the player for the entirely legitimate purpose that it was sold for.

Can you give us an example of case law that demonstrates this?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by HarryT

By that argument, all DVD players would be illegal.

What? A DVD player for the region the DVD is intended for is not circumventing the DRM.

And regardless of legality the morality is the same as with other metods to get material you are not supposed to have. No difference between this and downloading a book you cannot buy.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I respectfully disagree with you that it is illegal, which is the reason that I've been asking in vain for an example of case law which illustrates its illegality. As you are well aware, at the end of the day it's the courts which determine whether or not something is illegal, and if something has never been tested in court, one cannot definitively state that it's illegal.

HarryT. There are three levels when looking at the law.

Level 1. No law has been written, no case ajdicated. - Action is legal. Period. No case can be ajudicated, as there is no law to be ajudicated.

Level 2. A law has been passed with criminal penalties, but no case has been adjudicated. Is breaking this law illegal. Yes, inasmuch as you can be arrested and tried for the crime (criminal penalties, remember). You can argue in court that the law does not pass Constitutional muster, and therefore should be vacated, but until the law is vacated, either by the initial court or on appeal, it is the law of the land, and to break it is illegal.

HarryT, by your reasoning no new criminal law could ever be enforced, because no arrest could be made, and no test case could be brought before the court to provide case law. After all, if it's not illegal, you can't be arrested...<shrug>

Level 3. A law has been passed and there is now a test case to see if it passes Constitutional muster. It has. Breaking the law is illegal both from a legislative sense and a case law sense.

[HarryT]

No, Ralph, I'm saying that there is no test case here. It's like the debate about whether stripping DRM for personal use is legal: some people say it's fair use, some say it falls foul of the DMCA. Until a case comes to court, nobody knows how it would be interpreted by a court. This is the same: I say that it's fair use to use a DVD player sold for the purpose of playing a particular DVD, and you say otherwise. Until and unless a case comes to court, the question remains legally undecided (although obviously I think I'm right ).

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

No, Ralph, I'm saying that there is no test case here. It's like the debate about whether stripping DRM for personal use is legal: some people say it's fair use, some say it falls foul of the DMCA. Until a case comes to court, nobody knows how it would be interpreted by a court. This is the same: I say that it's fair use to use a DVD player sold for the purpose of playing a particular DVD, and you say otherwise. Until and unless a case comes to caught, the question remains legally undecided (although obviously I think I'm right ).

But there's a difference between a law not decided and no law at all. It'd the difference between being "at risk" and having no risk at all....

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A very peculiar definition of "necessary". She claims that it is "necessary" to pirate TV shows because geographical restrictions prevent her from watching them legally when living in another country, but that suggests some sort of inherent "right" to be able to see a TV show. What law grants her that right, I wonder?

That is also a peculiar point of view.

You know as well as anyone else that if somebody wants something, they most likely will try to make it happen. If I want to read a book, I'm willing to pay for it. Now there are a few possibilities:

1. I go look it up, and if the price is right, I'll buy it.
2. If I deem it to be too expensive, I wait for a price drop or a Kobo code.
3. If I can't get it because I live in the 'wrong' country, I'll still get it, somehow. This can either be by jumping geo-restrictions if not too complicated (which I prefer, because I'm still paying for the work), but if even this cannot be done, I'll most definitely find it... somewhere else.

It's out there. It's for sale. If I want it, and have sufficient money to acquire it, it stands to reason that there should be some way to purchase the product. If not, people start to look into other options.

(I understand that there are some people who refuse to pay for anything digital, and pirating is the only viable option, but I'm not one those.)

[Katsunami]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But isn't that a perfect example of the "culture of entitlement" that fjtorres refers to in his previous post? Why do you believe that you have some sort of "right" to watch it?

Because it's for sale, and I have sufficient money and willingness to buy the product. Not being able to buy it because someone decided that I'm in the wrong country (who gave HIM the entitlement to decide that?) is just idiotic.

Imagine this:

HarryT: "I want to buy a ...."
Seller: "Sorry sir, you can't."
HarryT: "WTH... why not?"
Seller: "Because we, the sellers, have decided to not sell .... to people who are under 6 feet tall. You are in the wrong group of people." (*)

Now imagine it's like this all around your country. If this is going to happen with more than one product short people all around the country will begin stealing stuff.

(*) For the sake of argument, assume you are under 6 feet tall