[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: What's the best way to backup to dvd?

Hash: SHA1

Michael M. wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 22:24 +0100, Joe Hart wrote:
>> Michael M. wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2007-03-02 at 16:02 +0100, Joe Hart wrote:
>> According to Automatix (the easy installer that is used by many ubuntu
>> users ( http://www.getautomatix.com ) it is illegal to install deCSS in
>> the United States.  They may be wrong.
> Sorry I can't find on that website where it says installing DeCSS is
> illegal.  Reference?
>>> "Teledirekt suggested that it should be possible to make a back up copy
>>> for consumers of DVDs and that their programme DVD X copy would enable
>>> this. The judge ruled though that the programme can be considered as a
>>> circumvention device and distribution of those devices is not allowed on
>>> the grounds of 29a of the Dutch Copyright Act."
>> The above website is inaccurate.  Stichtig B.R.E.I.N. is much like the
>> M.P.A.A., a organization that is trying to limit pirating of copyrighted
>> material.  There is a "fair use" stipulation to the Dutch Copyright Act,
>> and installing DeCSS could be considered (and has by some courts) a fair
>> use.
> Ok, how about:
> http://www.euro-copyrights.org/index/1/10 :
> "In any case, technological measures that prevent acts that are exempted
> under copyright law are protected. Therefore, one is, for instance, not
> allowed to circumvent a measure that hinders private copying, even
> though private copying is explicitly exempted under the Dutch Copyright
> Act. The protection of technological measures is limited by the fact
> that only technological measures applied to copyright protected material
> are covered. Consequently, technologies preventing acts as regards
> non-copyrightable material, for instance, material in regard of which
> the copyright has expired, may lawfully be circumvented."
> [ ... ]
> "The following two sections of the provision list the restricted acts
> regarding technological measures. First, Section 2 of article 29a states
> that anyone circumventing an effective technological measure, who does
> so with the knowledge, or with reasonable grounds to know, that he is
> pursuing that objective, commits an unlawful act and may be held liable
> under civil law."
> [ ... ]
> Section 3 of Article 29a concerns the provision and distribution of
> circumvention services or devices. Briefly put, circumvention devices
> are cracks. The provision of information, for instance, on a website,
> aiding to the circumvention of a technological measure could be a
> circumvention service for the purpose of the provision. The offering of
> such services or devices constitutes an unlawful act, if the devices or
> services:
> (a) are advertised for circumvention, or
> (b) have only a limited commercially significant purpose or use other
> than to circumvent technological measures, or
> (c) are primarily designed for circumvention
> [ ... ]
> "As is mentioned above, technological measures appear to be protected if
> they restrict any act which is not authorized by the copyright holder.
> Therefore, not only does one need the right holder’s permission to
> engage in a copyright infringing act, but, if it is technologically
> blocked, a license is also needed to lawfully perform a non-infringing
> act. Even if an activity is expressly exempted by copyright law, like
> the act of private copying, a right holder who applies technological
> measures statutorily has control over that act.
>     The Directive, however, allows the EU Member States to cater for
> some of the copyright exemptions. But the Dutch legislator decided not
> to do so yet. The new legislation allows the Minister of Justice to by
> decree introduce a requirement for copyright holders to provide the
> means which enable certain exempted acts. Of course, until the Minster
> sees fit to issue a decree, no such obligation will exist.
>     The Dutch Copyright Act contains many exemptions. But the decree may
> only be issued for those exemptions permitting educational usage, usage
> by disabled people, private copying, copying for preservation purposes,
> temporary copying by broadcasting organizations and usage for judicial
> or administrative purposes. Exactly which “means” the right holders will
> have to provide remains uncertain until a decree has been issued."
> You keep saying such-and-such is legal the Netherlands and courts have
> found it so, but every document I can find and every ruling I can find
> any information about says otherwise, and you don't provide any
> citations.
>>>> Not that the law stops most of the people.
>>> Well you're right about that!  :-)    The law has certainly not stopped
>>> me from doing quite a bit that's illegal here.
>> I think the media companies are to blame for this mess.  Especially the
>> software distributors.  I can understand someone wanting to protect
>> their hard work, but reality says no matter how much something is
>> protected, it will eventually be cracked.  The battle has been raging
>> ever since computers became popular and I imagine it will continue.
> Well I wasn't talking about just copyright laws.  :-)

After spending some time searching, I have to agree with you.  It seems
that it is legal to install deCSS, it is not illegal to distribute it,
which means that whichever website you get it from is breaking the law,
but you are not by downloading it.  It seems to be very much like the
films and movies here.

According to what I have read, it is a first amendment issue, which of
course only applies in the US. It's a bit like finders keepers.  You
find the software, you can keep it, but you're not aloud to lose it.

Weird laws.

It doesn't really matter to me because I feel that it's my right to use
my computer however I see fit as long as I don't affect other computers
in the process.  Playing media has no effect on other computers, unless
of course I'm streaming it.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org


Reply to: