Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Copyright Notice-and-Notice System: Citing False Legal information
An anonymous reader writes Canada's new copyright
notice-and-notice system has been in place for less than a
week, but rights holders are already exploiting a loophole to send
demands for payment citing false legal information. Earlier this
week, a Canadian
ISP forwarded to Michael Geist a sample notice it received
from Rightscorp on behalf of BMG. The notice falsely warns that the
recipient could be liable for up to $150,000 per infringement when
the reality is that Canadian law caps liability for non-commercial
infringement at $5,000 for all infringements. The notice also warns
that the user's Internet service could be suspended, yet there is no
such provision under Canadian law. In a nutshell, Rightscorp and BMG
are using the notice-and-notice system to require ISPs to send
threats and misstatements of Canadian law in an effort to extract
payments based on unproven infringement allegations.
why do people keep saying "notice and notice"? it sounds like it's just "notice".
It may be illegal to lie for gain, particularly for a corporation, depending on the precise details of the case. They're opening themselves up to criminal charges, not to mention civil lawsuits.
How about lying about false and massive penalties in order to extract payment for an alledged offence that hasn't been proven to have taken place? Sounds like fraud, which is certainly illegal...
Then you're a bad person. Copyright infringement is far less serious than extortion.
Not to mention, if I were an ISP, I'd be sending my users another note alongside that notice, pointing out that its statements are untrue, and outlining the actual legal penalties.
It is not illegal to lie - except under oath.
Try that with the cops next time they question you and let us know how it works out. Oh, and don't forget your "soap on a rope."
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
It is not illegal to lie â" except under oath.
Sure it is. If you terrorize people with lies, that is illegal. People sending threats like that should be sent to gitmo.
The notice falsely warns that the recipient could be liable for up to $150,000 per infringement... The notice also that the user's internet service could be suspended.
Really? If those enticements fail to grab my attention, is Christmas on thin ice as well?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
Fraud is a deception deliberately practiced in order to secure unfair or unlawful gain (adjectival form fraudulent; to defraud is the verb). Fraud - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...
It is not illegal to lie — except under oath.
It is, however, illegal to infringe on copyrights. If the legal lying helps reduce the illegal infringement, I'm fine with it.
But it won't, of course, because the illegal infringers will see the lies and use that to justify their infringement.
What would make a difference is to make legal content available more widely and without restriction. Why should I "buy" a DRM movie download that I can only watch on a designated "approved" device and only as long as the company I "bought" it from is still in business when it's even easier to download it from a torrent, and then I have full use of it on any device forever.
Generally when I want to buy a movie, I'll just buy a used DVD and rip it myself though sometimes if it's something I want to watch right away I'll torrent it and buy it at the same time so I can watch the movie immediately. I believe I'm violating the law in both cases despite the fact that I have physical DVD's for all of my movies.
If I could buy a non-DRM'ed "official" movie in digital form for a reasonable price, I'd rather do that since I'd be guaranteed a high quality copy in my language (that sure beats waiting 3 hours for a torrent to download only to find out that the audio is in Mandarin with no subtitles), but there's no way to do so.
While Canadian law does indeed cap infringement awards at $5000, there's no reason the rights holders can't sue in U.S. courts where there is no such limit. Once the ISP reveals the identity, which they are required to do under Canadian law, nothing limits what the rights holder can do with that information. Canadian courts may not comply with judgements of U.S. courts, but if the defendant has any assets in the U.S. or travels there, they could be at risk.
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
Well, then we don't need to be breaking our spears over it here on /., do we?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Criminal Code of Canada 346(1)
Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.
Fraudulent misrepresentation test:
> Sure it is. If you terrorize people with lies, that is illegal. People sending threats like that should be sent to gitmo.
If you terrorise people with the truth (eg. "I've got a knife and Im', going to kill you!" when you really do have a knife and you intend to kill) that is illegal.
It's not the truthiness of the statement which is the illegal bit - it's the terrorismy bit. LPT: That's why it's called terrorism.
You are not violating the law as far as ripping goes as long as you actually bought the disk. If you borrowed or rented the dvd/blu-ray, you would be illegally distributing. Make sure you actually own the physical disk.
And as far as torrenting, then that's illegal because you would be doing two things that are bad. 1. You are receiving illegally obtained goods; 2. You are distributing without authorization.
You are not violating the law as far as ripping goes as long as you actually bought the disk. If you borrowed or rented the dvd/blu-ray, you would be illegally distributing.
Unless the DMCA has changed recently, I believe I'm still in violation:
http://lifehacker.com/5978326/...
The moment you crack DRM (Digital Rights Managemnt) to rip the DVD, you've violated Title I of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. 17 U.S.C. 1201 prohibits circumvention of DRM . . . Some courts have tried to leaven this rather harsh rule, but most have not. While it's typically hard to detect small-scale circumvention, the question is whether bypassing DRM is legal. The statute sets up some minor exceptions, but our ripper doesn't fall into any of them. So, the moment a studio protects the DVD with DRM, it gains both a technical and a legal advantage—ripping is almost certainly unlawful
While ripping the movie from a non-encrypted DVD may be legal, I don't believe that i'm legally allowed to bypass the CSS encryption.
And as far as torrenting, then that's illegal because you would be doing two things that are bad. 1. You are receiving illegally obtained goods; 2. You are distributing without authorization.
If I leech the torrents, am I really guilty of illegal distribution? Though it's likely that I'm guilty of receiving stolen goods, though I wonder if there's any wiggle room on that if I already own the movie?
Make sure you actually own the physical disk.
That part is easy, I have a big DVD binder full of every movie I own, plus amazon purchase receipts for probably 90% of it.
The ironic thing is that even though I purchase a lot of movies (around 350 at last count), the movie industry received very little of that money since I buy almost exclusively used movies. If I had a legal way to purchase non-DRM'ed content, they'd get a lot more money from me.
Can't do that with the FBI — that's illegal, but with local cops — sure.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
That's about tort — not about legality or illegality.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
It is not illegal to lie
In most places it constitutes fraud... Prosecuting it is hard (and often impossible), but it is still illegal to commit fraud. Or sell a product under false advertisement which is what they do here, the product being a license to the work that is allegedly infringed.
Fraud, false advertising, etc... call it what you want, lying is rarely legal.
The fraud clause prohibits lies about anything except quality. Extortion is probably more about threats of physical harm.
davecb@spamcop.net
In Canada, once you have paid for a license of a movie, it is legal to rip it from a physical copy, or download a digital copy.
In Canada when you play money, you have to get something in return in the form of a physical item, a license, a limited license, or a service.
Home videos were going to be under the physical item category originally. The problem the MPAC had with this is that legally, in Canada, you cannot put any restrictions on what people do with an item that is labeled as physical.
The MPAC wanted home videos only to be used for private showings, thus they lobbied to have home videos be classified as a license. The problem they have now is that you own a license to watch that performance of the movie. If you have a VHS copy of The Jungle Book, it is legal for you to download the 1080p version and watch it.
The movie studios, or record companies, can get around this a bit by coming out with modified versions of the movies, or music. There is a threshold for how much change there needs to be for this to happen.
Also Herr Harper passed a law making it illegal to teach other people how to crack encryption. Though cracking the encryption for personal use is not illegal.
Basically, if you buy a movie, you own a license to view that performance, doesn't matter how you get it. Higher quality transfers, or remastering are generally still considered the same performance.
Microsoft, Apple, Google, Amazon what's the difference? All steal money from devs and control with walled gardens.
If you lie to get someone to give you money, its fraud except for very narrow exceptions. Saying "Ford is better quality than Chevy" is one of the exceptions.
davecb@spamcop.net
This is just an elaborate scam and an obvious waste of money to force Canadians to actually pay for and watch CBC. That's all. ...Great - Anne Murray specials for the next 50 years.
It might actually be more expedient to sue them for unsolicited, fraudulent legal advice, against the Bar of whatever province the consumer was sued in.
Can't do that with the FBI — that's illegal, but with local cops — sure.
It varies by state, but you're still committing at least a misdemeanor. Washington State is one example.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Fraud is a criminal offence, requiring the person be making a false statement to obtain money, and the false statement not to opinions like "my product is better than his".
In the US, the tradition is to sue folks. In Canada we tend to call the cops. I'm mildly surprised no-one has said they done so already.
davecb@spamcop.net
What are you on about?
Tort: a wrongful act or an infringement of a right (other than under contract) leading to civil legal liability. That's why they call it "tort law".
Well, then we don't need to be breaking our spears over it here on /., do we?
Someone has to tell a whole mass of possibly-terrified individuals and a collection of government and police forces that a crime is being committed. Othewise the criminal walk away with their ill-gotten gains.
davecb@spamcop.net
IANAL, but suppressing copyright infringement is neither unfair nor unlawful. Whatever else may be wrong about it, fraud it is not.
That claim requires the end justifies the means. Never has, never will.
davecb@spamcop.net
Be an apologist for MAFIAA organized crime if you get a kick out of it.
It is not illegal to lie — except under oath.
Definitely not true: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Lying is not illegal in and of itself, but in business and legal contexts it is often either a crime or a tort.
That's because extortion has nothing to do with lying. Extortion is the criminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. You know, like your MAFIAA buddies.
and for good reason; because it puts them under PERSONAL LIABILITY: FRAUD.
Call it like it is, folks, deliberately misrepresenting the Law for gain is FRAUD.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Recent copyright law renders it illegal to break any digital "lock" mechanism, regardless of whether it's for the sake of format shifting or not. There are exceptions, but you'll note that platform shifting is not one of them:
source
Platform shifting is still legal, but not of, for instance, Blu-rays or DVDs
But they're not trying to suppress copyright infringement. They're trying to get people to send them money. (Whether those people actually committed copyright infringement is a moot point; this sort of extortion works just as well either way.)
US courts don't have jurisdiction in Canada. Same reason Russian courts don't have jurisdiction in the USA. It's called national sovereignty.
Ask Kim Dotcom about his thoughts on this subject.
It might be legal, though I'm unconvinced. It is definitely unethical, and it *should* be illegal.
Keep in mind that the only possible justification for copyright's existence is that, on the whole, it benefits society. Every time it is abused, it tips the balance a little more. I'm no longer certain that it *is* a net benefit to society; we may be better off without it.
Jeez, give it a rest already. We get it! You like the taste of shoe polish and want your overlords' boots to be well licked.
Step 1. Register a domain that sounds great like 'Rights Enforcement of Independent Artists"
Step 2. Send spaced notices/requests for IP addresses within Canadian ISP ranges until you get juicy names.
(Yes, so eventually you'll have sent out many x 256 such noties)
Step 3. Enjoy all these celebrity names, addresses, and IPs
Step 4. Profit
A lie you benefit from is more commonly called "fraud". Are you asserting that fraud is legal and ethical?
Learn to love Alaska
It is not illegal to lie — except under oath.
Sure, fraud, false advertising, slander, and libel are all perfectly legal.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
One issue that was never addressed in the procedure put forward in the ontario voltage and teksavvy case about revealing subscriber info is the fact that usually under federal and provincial laws of civil procedure a foreign plaintiff could be required to post security for costs i.e. pay into court a sum of money which is the sum a court will award the defendant if they win (in canada the winning party recovers its legal fees at 66% unless the losing party acted improperly in which case it is at 90%). In other words a foreign plaintiff suing hundreds of defendants will be impossible practically. Unless they set up a local corp and assign the copyright. So if anyone is a potential defendant, ask for your costs.
Just send the notice back and wait until they correct the mistakes on it.
Basically, you believe that the ends justifies the means. In this case, the ends are to extract money from the masses. And, the means involves lying.
This has damned near nothing to do with enforcing copyright law. Perhaps you didn't notice the name of the corporation involved - Rightscorp, acting on behalf of BMG. Or, you've forgotten how they've made news in the past. They dwell among the scum of the earth. They have been shot down time and again for exploiting loopholes in the law. And, oh yeah - perhaps you've also failed to notice that in this case, they are indeed exploiting a loophole in the law.
Rightscorp has no intellectual property to protect. It is nothing more than a remora, living off the larger shark, BMG.
Scum.
If you have any real intellectual property to worry about, are you willing to allow a remora like company to attach itself to you, so that it can milk money out of your property?
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
Well, legally fraud, no. But if it goes to court, well, you've basically boned yourself in front of jury because now you have to defend why you lied. It also could be considered a form of intimidation. In fact, if one wanted to argue the intimidation angle, then actually the *IAA could actually be prosecuted under the RICO act. Misrepresenting punishments is legally speaking, about the stupidest thing you can do. Throw in that if a lawyer knowing misrepresents the law, that's grounds for disbarment. Basically, exaggeration in the world of legal anything is about the stupidest thing you can do.
funny, I thought that was called "fraud", which is in fact illegal in many places.
You let the law guide your conscious? Eh, go with the flow, I guess.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
it's either that or learn how to make lanyards for soaps...
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
I do see a small difference between obeying the law (out of necessity) and agreeing with it. I don't smoke weed in front of the police station.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Just like with music, if consumers can buy it easily and for a reasonable price, then they will buy it. Piracy is just market failure being corrected.
"reverse engineering for software compatibility;"
An example of this is DeCSS, which allows you to play DVD content on Linux. As an added benefit, platform shifting is done as part of making it compatible.
The real issue is that the ISP's are monitoring your network traffic at all. Does anyone not take issue with the fact that the providers know what websites you visit, what you download and what files you share with friends, family, and neighbors. That is the bigger issue. Without a warrant, these companies are pretty much watching and reporting everything you do, even on personal time. That in itself is significant. Sharing movies or music is incidental. These companies also know your personal details, religious/philosophical/political affiliations, your family, sexual preferences and so on. This is dangerous for a company to use and unquestioningly hand over to anyone without a warrant. Since when is it more important if I lend a friend a DVD more important than my privacy? There is a case to be made for running tor relays, advocating for user privacy, corporate accountability (and to keep their seemingly limitless powers in check) as well as government powers in check. This movie/mp3 stuff is beside the point. For those of you with computers in your bedrooms or homes, you now have confirmation that you are not alone and someone is watching and reporting everything you do.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
while this is true, you'd first have to prove the origin of the file...did it really come from a dvd(and such)? Can you guarantee that the media was locked in the first place. If I download a file that was taken from a source that was never locked to begin with while locked versions of the same media exist, does the protection extend to all versions of a "file"?
It's coming right for us!
You're mixing up two different legal systems. The original article was about copyright protection in Canada and you're trying to introduce the DMCA from the United States into the argument. Apples and oranges, old man.
This unauthorized copying and/or distribution constitutes copyright infringement under the U.S. Copyright Act. Pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 512(c), this letter serves as actual notice of infringement.
WTF would Canadians care about 17 U.S.C. 512(c)?
If they can't afford Canadian legal staff to even write their letters they will likely not have much success in Canadian courts anytime soon either.
Have to agree with this. We've purchased a lot of DVD and Blue Ray disks after their initial popularity wanes and they land in the $5.00 bin.
Then there is the question, what is considered "hacking of a digital lock"?
After installing DeCSS on my Linux PC well over a decade ago when I still had a working DVD player, I didn't notice the lock. Was it really still there? Is it really a lock? To view a .jpg image I also need some special software to decode it for me and display it on my screen.
Even after decoding CSS, you still have to decode the MPEG to be able to send it to a screen for display. Most players do both steps in one go, without a single bit of user interaction. It is as if there is no locking going on. Some players will even conveniently ignore "unskippable" locks on promos and so that are sometimes put at the start of a DVD.
Now imagine you got some DVD or BluRay, and want to make a copy of it. You go online, and surely in moments you find a piece of software that can do just that for you, fully transparent. Are you still, legally speaking, in the process of "hacking a digital lock"? Many users may not even know it's encrypted - they pop it in their BluRay player, and it just plays. They put it in their computer, and their ripping tool just rips it as someone else already figured out how to read the content. To the user it is exactly the same as if this encryption never was there in the first place.
So, no matter how many infringements I commit the total penalty is capped at $5000.00. Hey, where do I pay my $5000.00 up front so I can then download, upload and basically plunder my weaselly black guts out in the digital media arena.
So, if I say 'I don't have a knife and I'm not going to kill anybody" and then you go and stab them to death, is it legal?
The problem they have now is that you own a license to watch that performance of the movie. If you have a VHS copy of The Jungle Book, it is legal for you to download the 1080p version and watch it.
No it isn't. Canadian copyright law allows for one to create or obtain a backup of any multimedia product that one owns as this falls under fair dealing (aka fair use). However, this doctrine is dated and does not make any stipulation on the legality or the source of the backup, although the recent bill C-11 has clarified it a little bit which would seem to make acquiring copies from others impermissible. This aspect of Canadian copyright law has not been well tested in court, which is why many people have gotten the false impression that it gives them the right to download whatever they want as long as they have paid for something similar in the past.
It is extremely likely that a rightsholder would prevail in court by arguing that since a 1080p BluRay copy and a 480p DVD copy are marketed at different price points, they are different products and downloading the wrong one would not be covered under fair dealing even if that method of acquiring the product were itself permissible. In Canada, the burden to prove fair udealing lays with the defendant, so good luck arguing that.
Depends on the city.
.: Semper Absurda
Sony: you wanna be hacked *again*?
Sony: head of the no-buy list.
If the legal lying helps reduce the illegal infringement, I'm fine with it.
Thank you for demonstrating, yet again, one of the (many) reasons why copyright-maximalists are assholes in general.
Lying is in general ethically and morally wrong, as you are well aware.
If you're fine with them doing it, and they're fine with doing it (which they obviously are, since they're doing it) then I am perfectly fine with increasing non-commercial copyright infringement with whatever means possible.
Good job, twit.
2015 is coming,give yourself a gift.
www.nikeairmax90.cz
Even if you have to hold your nose, Vote NDP next time. At least the leader has half a brain more than no brain Trudeau. I'd normally vote Conservative (they use to be like Democrats in the US). But I can't do it now. Too many reasons to count why.
-- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
Get a seedbox for 10 bucks you cheap Canadian bastards.
Legally, it's extortion.
But no infringement has been proven in court, only an allegation made. The threatened (false) penalties may induce an innocent potential defendant to pay just to make it go away. That would be a monetary gain through deceit.
A case might also be made that it is protection of data.
Or, just to be safe, download a torrent. That way, someone else broke the digital lock.
I've already received a notice and my ISP did exactly that. Here's the full text of the message I received:
Hello,
TekSavvy has received what the Copyright Act calls a "notice of claimed infringement". It listed an IP address and time. Our systems indicate that the IP address listed in the notice was likely assigned to your account at the specified time. We are therefore legally required to forward the notice to you. The notice is reproduced, unaltered, below.
First, though, there are some things you should know:
(a) We haven't told the sender who you are. Your privacy is paramount to us. We don't track, or know, what you do. We do know what IP address we assigned to you within the last 30 days. But we don't provide personal information like that to anyone unless a court orders us to -- and we have not done so here. The notice was simply received by us, and we have forwarded it electronically on to you.
(b) We are an intermediary that is required to forward this notice to you. We do not, and cannot, verify its contents or its sender. However, a private party's notice does not mean there has been any legal ruling. Only a court can do that.
(c) It is good practice to make sure you secure your account. Your wireless router should be password-protected; the password should be changed regularly; and those who have the password should maintain good virus protection. Your MyAccount allows you to check your bandwidth usage: do so regularly, and make sure what is happening and what you think is happening line up.
(d) We retain IP address information for 30 days. If your modem has not been powered off during that period, then we may have IP address information going back to the last time you did. In addition to requiring us to forward this notice, the Copyright Act also requires us to retain the records matching the IP address and time to your account for six months. If the people who sent the notice apply to a court, they can require us to hold it for longer.
We have provided some links below. The notice, which we are required to forward unaltered, follows.
Copyright Act (see, especially, sections 41.25-26):
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...
TekSavvy:
http://teksavvy.com/en/why-tek...
https://myaccount.teksavvy.com...
Automated translation (you may need to copy and paste):
https://translate.google.com/?...
http://www.bing.com/translator...
--- Forwarded Notice of Infringement follows:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Notice ID: XX-XXXXXXXXX
Notice Date: 04 Jan 2015 03:52:22 GMT
TekSavvy Solutions, Inc.
Dear Sir or Madam:
Irdeto USA, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "Irdeto") swears under penalty of perjury that Paramount Pictures Corporation ("Paramount") has authorized Irdeto to act as its non-exclusive agent for copyright infringement notification. Irdeto's search of the protocol listed below has detected infringements of Paramount's copyright interests on your IP addresses as detailed in the below report.
Irdeto has reasonable good faith belief that use of the material in the manner complained of in the below report is not authorized by Paramount, its agents, or the law. The information provided herein is accurate to the best of our knowledge. Therefore, this letter is an official notification to effect removal of the detected infringement listed in the below report. The below documentation specifies the exact location of the infringement.
We hereby request that you immediately remove or block access to the infringing material, as specified in the copyright laws, and insure the user refrains from using or sharing with others unauthorized Paramount's materials in the future (see, 17 U.
Why is this not Mod (5+), Informative?
Is the post false?
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
They always strong arm their way, bullying anyone without equal or greater power.
> In Canada, once you have paid for a license of a movie, it is legal to rip it from a physical copy, or download a digital copy.
The problem being, is that it is still illegal to upload that digital copy. And bittorrent is peer-to-peer, which means unless you have specifically configured your client to *not* *share* with other members of the swarm, you are uploading.
Where do you think the notice companies get your IP address? You sent them a piece of whatever content they're complaining about.
i like how they cite united states federal law in this entirely *canadian* matter. fucking morons.
The term "hacking" that the government's summary webpage used was clearly chosen as a bit of confusion/propaganda; the actual bill uses the term "circumvention" and defines it thusly:
Whether you know that the tool you're using is stripping DRM is immaterial.
It is illegal to lie on legal notices.
Odd, you are OK with some form of violations but not others?
If you look at the notice from Teksavvy (about), it appears they're not monitoring your traffic, but they do keep track of 30 days IP address allocation. The infringement notice comes with the IP, which the ISP then tracks back to you, and forwards on the notice.
Not that believe some ISP's *DON'T* watch your traffic, but in this case it's not necessary for purposes of passing on infringement notices, all they need is to check their DHCP logs.
insure the user
We can take out insurance against these things now? Where do I sign up?
Maybe they don't have laws of their own and they pirate ours?
Looks to me like a very flowery letter that is actually a phishing expedition for your personal information.
As Teksavvy stated in the preamble, they protect your identity, only the courts can release it, which would require a warrant.
Yet here they are asking you to voluntarily surrender your personal information in the form of an email or letter, which I am sure once they have it, an extortion letter or civil proceeding may follow...
Winrar 5.20 Final free download full version What's New in Version five.20 Final: Version 5.20 1. If Windows User Account management prevents extracting or archiving commands to form files in system protected folders, WinRAR makes an attempt to start its another copy with administrator privileges to finish the operation. it's necessary to substantiate privileges elevation in response to User Account management prompt to permit such second WinRAR copy to run. 2. you'll be able to drag files in person with right push button, drop them to some folder and choose WinRAR archiving commands in context menu to create Associate in Nursing archive with these files within the destination folder. 3. it's doable to use WinRAR.ini file rather than written account to store WinRAR settings. you'll like such approach if you propose to put in WinRAR to removable media, like USB flash drive, then run it on completely different computers. See "WinRAR.ini file" topic in "Configuration settings" chapter of WinRAR facilitate for details. 4. additional extraction support for nothing and ZIPX archives mistreatment XZ compression rule. 5. If nothing or ZIPX archive contains any compression algorithms except usual "Store" or "Deflate", rule names ar displayed in "Version to extract" field of archive data dialog. Algorithms with names unknown to WinRAR are going to be assigned "m" name, wherever "num" may be a compression rule numeric symbol. 6. "Open with WinRAR" command is obtainable in Windows context menus for archive formats supported by WinRAR. It is turned off with "Open with WinRAR (for usual archives)" possibility in WinRAR "Settings/Integration/Context menu things..." dialog. 7. program line RAR will browse the default set of switches from rar.ini file hold on in RAR program folder. antecedently it absolutely was doable to define solely an equivalent set of switches for all RAR command with "switches=" string. Now rar.ini conjointly permits to specify separate switch sets for individual RAR commands mistreatment the following syntax: switches_= For example: switches_a=-m5 -s switches_x=-o+ 8. Command "ch" supports switches -tl, -cu, -cl conjointly for nothing archives. Previously "ch" allowed these switches just for RAR archive format. 9. For archive formats lacking file time data, such as .bz2, .xz and .Z, WinRAR sets instrumentation archive modification time
to extracted files. It doesn't apply to tar.bz2, tar.xz and tar.Z,
which use file time hold on in tar headers.
10. "Keep broken files" extraction possibility is supported for bzip2 archives.
11. WinRAR icon in Windows context menus is scaled up properly
in high DPI screen modes like one hundred and fiftieth or two hundredth of traditional text size.
12. it's doable to disable WinRAR "Benchmark" command with
"Benchmark" variable of HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\WinRAR\Policy
Registry key. In multi-user setting "Benchmark" command may
abuse shared procedure resources. See "Registry variables" topic
in "Configuration settings" chapter of WinRAR facilitate for a lot of details.
13. in addition to "sfxcmd" variable containing the whole program line,
SFX module sets "sfxpar" variable containing program line parameters
only, while not leading SFX module name. These variables ar set before
starting a program laid out in "Setup" command.
14. File write prompt in console RAR displays the scale and modification
time for existing and new files.
15. once archiving from stdin with -si switch, RAR sets the present system
time to modification time of archived file. Previous version failed to
set now in the slightest degree.
16. it's doable to use -si and -v switches along. Previous
versions failed to permit to form volumes once archiving from stdin.
17. Warning is issued once beginning unpacking four GB or larger file
from RAR or nothing archive to FAT32 patition, thus user could cancel
the operation. FAT32 doesn't support files of such size.
Also this warning is issued once beginning to produce RAR archive
with "Store" (-m0)
I'm on about the fun fact about tort — you don't need to have done anything illegal to find yourself liable. For example, it is perfectly legal to server boiling coffee to your customers — but if they manage to burn themselves with it, they may have a tort claim against you.
And the other way around — smoking or drinking in public may be illegal, but, them being victimless crimes, no civil liability exists to anyone, even if the government successfully prosecutes you criminally.
What I said in my (highly-moderated) post is that "It is not illegal to lie". An AC replied, that such lying may constitute make you civilly liable. I contend, that the reply was irrelevant.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
“technological protection measure” means any effective technology, (...)
Now one could very well argue that DeCSS has rendered the technology ineffective. Would be interesting to know what the court thinks of such an argument.
The amount of money the movie industry loses from people buying and or renting used DVDs is far far higher than online losses. Buy a new DVD, they get a cut. On any of several resales, however, they don't anymore. Nor do they on the dozens of rentals made per movie. The amount of money that changes hands in the used and rental dvd market must surely be in the hundreds of millions, or even billions. And I myself don't like to torrent because I'm forced into uploading at the same time to keep my ratio up so not to be blocked. It's the uploading where they really can nail you though.. It's only either unavailable shows, or former TV series from the 50s and 60s where they've repackaged them for $1000.00 for the full series (ie $2 to $4 per episode) where I get irate.. it was free on TV and the rights would have expired under the old laws, and they've found a way to really milk it, while showing the very same thing free on, say, Hulu. I'd rather watch it on Hulu's You tube channel for free than torrent it, but Hulu's blocked here. The DVD sets are , I believe, just a collector's item sold by them , since they also show it for free.. go figure.. I don't know if they've actually gone after anyone for these yet, or anyother TV series via torrent..