Is this a pirate site?

[Ben Thornton]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What do you mean? certainly they feel it's right for them or they would not do it.

If someone is starving, need they feel that it's right to take the lesser of two evils and steal food? Sure, criminals have made a choice to commit their crime (almost always), but they need not feel that it is "right" in any moral sense. Some crimes don't have a moral dimension from the criminal's point of view at all, others are intentional wrong-doing. Still others are not thought about until afterwards - that's why the law distinguishes between some pre-meditated acts and those in the heat of the moment.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, you may perhaps misunderstand me.

RealMedia had argued that people had a legal right to make personal backups of their DVDs, and that right justified the removal of the DRM. The judge ruled that there was no right to make a backup, and that therefore it fell foul of the DMCA. It's the "you don't have a legal right to make a backup" point that I was making.

You are, of course absolutely right in saying that the RealDVD lawsuit was a DMCA issue, not a copyright one, but I've seem people here argue that you have a right to make a backup of a book that you've bought, and the RealDVD ruling appears to throw some doubt on whether such a right exists.

No, it doesn't. I'd have to do more work than is worth it to dig into that case, & explain to you why that's so.

But in a nutshell: [Edit: okay, I gave in & looked it up, as will be clear from my later posts.]

You have the right to make a backup copy, in the sense that you can't be punished for doing so. But you do not have the right, in the sense that you can do whatever you need to do in order to make that copy. You do not, for instance, have the right to buy DRM stripping tools, and no one has the right to make DRM stripping tools and sell them to you, or even give them to you. Your actual "right" boils down to "you can make a backup copy, but if making that backup involves acquiring a tool to strip DRM, you can't."

[Edit: after reading the opinion, I find that I was too conservative - the court is pretty clear that if you can manage to acquire the tool, you can go ahead & strip the DRM to accomplish fair use, even if the person who sold you the tool violated the law in selling it.]

So your "right" to make a backup cannot be relied upon by some commercial provider of backup tools to sell you a backup tool that strips DRM as part of the backup process.

[Edit: I'm pleased to find that this is exactly what the court said.]

And that's the context in which the judge's remark has to be understood.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Harmon

...Your actual "right" boils down to "you can make a backup copy, but if making that backup involves acquiring a tool to strip DRM, you can't."
....

but it's the purchase and/or use of DRM stripping that is at issue or what is wrong in this example, not the right to create a backup. As you both say it's more a DMCA issue, not a copyright issue.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

What do you mean? certainly they feel it's right for them or they would not do it.

If you think about it for a minute, I believe you'll see that you have made a tautological statement.

But aside from that:

1. Some people know what they are doing is wrong, and don't care. It's called "evil."

2. Some people do not grasp the meaning of "right" and "wrong." These people are psychopaths.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by kennyc

but it's the purchase and/or use of DRM stripping is what is wrong in this example, not the ac or right to create a backup.

That's right. And it is in that context that the judge's statement has to be understood.

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What is "the darknet"? Yes, I know what you probably mean, but how do you say something is in the darknet vs not. You can click on a link on Google and end up receiving material from what many would call "the darknet". Does that mean the line is drawn to include clicking on Google links? Also, there are legitimate things found on file-sharing sites (I downloaded a version of Ubuntu from a torrent site a few days ago). Do they also count as being downloaded from "the darknet"?

Do we really have to define darknet? Sure, I download from torrent sites on occasion myself. Filesharing sites I use quite frequently, just yesterday I used rapidshare (). When I get a new user created ROM for my phone, some out of copyright old movies, etc. And Linux is a prime example of legal use of torrents. And not all illegally uploaded stuff is on torrents. If you click on a link you are not downloading anything are you? And Ubuntu is always legally free, what is the point in bringing this up?

The problem lies with downloading copyrighted files for free from a site that clearly isn't authorized to do so. And that is pretty easy to tell, I would say. Everybody can legally distribute Ubuntu versions. If, however, someone occasionally makes a good faith error, so be it, if he/she really believed it was legal. Delete the item once you found out.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by Patricia

Let us be careful about making any accusations and remember to discuss the issues rather than the poster's motivation.
The posting guidelines are here.
https://www.mobileread.com/forums/faq...ing_guidelines

Well, if somebody continue to write as if it is propaganda for one part then you have to wonder about motivation.

I also think the guidelines should forbid writing the same contentious thing in every thread and therefore derailing nearly every thread.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Copyright law grants the holder exclusive rights to reproduce the work in copies. It says nothing about the use of those copies and whether they are personal/public/commercial/etc.

Something has to allow people to make personal use copies... what exactly did you think it was, if not fair use? Two of the tests for fair use are the purpose and character of the use, and the effect of the use on the potential market.

If you would rather argue that the Audio Home Recording Act is what defines personal use, rather than the Sony/Universal case, then fine. But they're really all branches of the same thing, and stem from successful use of the "fair use" affirmative defense.

I'd argue that copyright is a grant to distribute copies not an exclusive right to produce them but I'm pretty sure the content providers would see it differently.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by Harmon

If you think about it for a minute, I believe you'll see that you have made a tautological statement.

But aside from that:

1. Some people know what they are doing is wrong, and don't care. It's called "evil."

2. Some people do not grasp the meaning of "right" and "wrong." These people are RIAA lawyers.

Fixed that for you.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by tompe

Well, if somebody continue to write as if it is propaganda for one part then you have to wonder about motivation.

I also think the guidelines should forbid writing the same contentious thing in every thread and therefore derailing nearly every thread.

I think the word you're looking for is astroturfing.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is that actually a legal ruling by a court, or is US copyright law sufficient clear on the matter as to leave no possible doubt?

You will never get a legal ruling because there is no possible doubt. No one would be stupid enough to waste money bringing a lawsuit on the question. No lawsuit, so no ruling.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But on the other hand, the judge in the "RealDVD" lawsuit ruled that the "right" to make a personal backup copy of your DVDs didn't exist, so presumably that is equally true for other forms of media?

You do not understand the court's ruling. The judge most assuredly did NOT make the ruling you think she did.

The judge's opinion can be found at http://www.eff.org/files/filenode/Re...r%20081109.pdf

The portion of the ruling relating to consumer use begins at point 116 on page 39:

Against this backdrop, the court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use. Whether this is a “fair use” copy is not at issue,

In other words, the judge specifically said that she was NOT DECIDING EITHER WAY whether making a backup copy is "fair use."

Then she goes on to assume, for the sake of argument, that making a backup copy might be "fair use," in order to make the point that for purposes of the case she was deciding, it doesn't make a difference:

So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.

The judge then quotes another court:

“[W]hile it is not unlawful to circumvent for the purpose of engaging in fair use, it is unlawful to traffic in tools that allow fair use circumvention. That is part of the sacrifice Congress was willing to make . . . .” Elcom, 203 F. 3 Supp.2d at 1125.

See the point? The consumer has the right to backup, if that is fair use, but it is illegal to sell him the tools that will let him do a backup.

And the judge quotes another court:

The DMCA prohibits the circumvention of technological measures that guard copyrighted material, but does not prohibit the downstream or end use of those materials after circumvention has occurred. See Corley, 273 F.3d at 443.

The point here is that if the consumer can get his hands on the circumvention tools, he can legally use them to accomplish "fair use."

Bottom line: this court did not decide that the right to make a backup doesn't exist.

[Nakor]

Nope, they only decided it's illegal to make yourself able to do the backup except by developing the technology necessary to do so yourself.

It's perfectly legal to perform a backup, but not possible without first participating in something else illegal (buying or otherwise receiving distributed illegal goods) unless you have the know-how to design a way to do so or convert your existing technology to that purpose.

I remember hearing about that case before, always thought it was a bit backwards. I mean, understandable to some extent in the big picture, yet still hypocritical at the same time.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

but I've seem people here argue that you have a right to make a backup of a book that you've bought, and the RealDVD ruling appears to throw some doubt on whether such a right exists.

The ReadDVD ruling does no such thing. You are simply wrong about that.

Furthermore, the people who argue that we have a right to make a backup of an ebook are correct. Backing up an electronic file is common sense. In fact, the sellers of ebooks make a point of saying that you can make a backup, as if it is something they are graciously allowing us to do. But there is no court anywhere (in the US) that will ever rule that backing up an ebook violates copyright.

Don't confuse this with the similar argument that the purchaser of an ebook can strip the DRM in order to fileshift. You don't have to strip DRM to backup.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by Nakor

Nope, they only decided it's illegal to make yourself able to do the backup except by developing the technology necessary to do so yourself.

Actually, you are wrong about that (except in the technical legal sense that the word "decide" has for lawyers.) The court made the specific point that if the consumer buys the tools, he can use them without fear of the law. It is not illegal to buy the tools, nor to use the tools if you manage to buy them. It is only illegal to sell them.

I remember hearing about that case before, always thought it was a bit backwards. I mean, understandable to some extent in the big picture, yet still hypocritical at the same time.

It's not the court's fault. The judge's opinion is perfectly sound - she nails it down - that's what the law says. It's almost, but not quite, a Catch-22.