1) This guy is trying to buy a character/account off someone, and guarantee that person can't take it back. Blizzard won't participate. He's trying to raise a stink to challenge Blizzard on it, in the hopes of pressuring them.
Nonsense. If that was what he were trying to do, he wouldn't be trying to set up a new account.
You're out of luck, because as we all know, EULAs are not legally binding. Thanks for playing!:)
EULA's may not be binding on the End User, but they are certainly binding on the company that wrote them. They are, at the very least, a promise by the company, like a warantee.
Let's be honest. Anyone who sent money was never going to see a dime anyway. The chance that $30,000 a month would permanently stave of the MPAA was nil. And using the money to stay out of prison is a reasonable use for the cash--and that may have been what he was planning the whole time.
MPEG2? Mac users can't play MPEG2 in Quicktime without a $$$ upgrade. Users would have to download VLC or mplayer.
MPEG1 is, perhaps, the most compatible format. UGLY, big files--but compatible.
Well, I think we can both agree on one thing: we have reached an impasse.
We already have an epidemic of piracy in this country. If anything, we need more, stronger copy prevention, not less.
If we had stronger copy protection, your little start up movie review page couldn't have gotten off the ground. You have already said that you started by ripping rented DVDs until you could establish a reputation and get screeners. Yet you think others should not be able to do what you did--because that is what stronger copy-protection means. Your position is inconsistent. You felt you had a right to break copy-protection when it suited your needs, but that shouldn't be possible in the future.
That's because every single thing you've said has been just flat-out wrong.
That is a very bold statement--one that is demonstrably untrue. I think shows that your argument is insincere.
Some things I have said:
"the "Advanced eBook Processor" was pulled by ElcomSoft and remains illegal in the US."
"Circumvention is still circumvention. There may be legal exemptions for certain types of circumvention but you have not quoted code that stipulates that "circumvention for purposes of fair use is not circumvention."
"iPod owners can rip non-DRMd cds to their iPods and exercise fair use to transfer their music from one medium to another, but Apple can't make a product that would let them do the exact same thing with a DVD and put it on a video iPod."
-and many more. These statements are all accurate. You havn't even attempted to contradict them and you can't. You have also utterly failed to provide a single example of a legally approved device or program for the sole purpose of breaking DRM for fair use. Again, because you can't.
Just saying "every single thing you've said has been just flat-out wrong" doesn't actually make it true and the facts prove otherwise. You have now resorted to lazy rhetoric because you are lacking in actual evidence.
Simply untrue. When we first got up and running in the winter of 2003, before we'd established contacts at the various studio publicity departments, that's exactly how we ran movie reviews.
Your information is interesting and I may have to revise part of my understanding of the abuse of the DMCA to take it into account. But I noticed a little "flinch" in your story:
we took the DVD to a post house (one co-owned by one of the members of our parent company's board of directors, fortunately)
Why would you have to go to a post house to do this? Because DVDs are CSS and Macrovision encoded to prevent exactly what you did, an ordinary citizen without free access to a post house who won't ask for your proof written authorization to transfer the DVD (try this at Kinkos!) can't do what you did. Just because one side of the Studio liked what you did doesn't mean the other side wouldn't sue you.
While I admit to being dogged in my argument, though not inflexible, I still contend my point is valid. The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA prevent legal fair use quoting of media. Your statements that you were able to do so with the help of a full-on video post house and haven't yet been sued, while nice to hear, isn't proof that breaking DRM for fair use is considered legal by the Fed or the Studios.
You have failed to point out any devices or software that are legal approved for the general public for the sole purpose of enabling the circumvention of DRM for fair use.
Your point that Dmitry Sklyarov was aquitted of illegally violating the DMCA failed to note that the judge ruled the anti-DRM software illegal and the jury aquitted Sklyarov/ElcomSoft of willful infringement because there is no DMCA in Russia where they created the program. Your proud declaration that Sklyarov was aquitted should be tempered by the fact that the "Advanced eBook Processor" was pulled by ElcomSoft and remains illegal in the US.
You're confusing and scaring people with your misinformation, and my personal opinion is that it would be great if you'd cut it out.
While I respect your right to your personal opinion, I disagree with it. I think you have made a few good points and told me a few things I didn't know. You, however, seem to be incapable of of learning anything from my posts. Complacency will only lead to the further erosion of our basic rights under the constitution. Your claim that we all have full access and legal permission to use our fair use rights is undermined by the provisions of the DMCA which make circumvention illegal. Your belief that U.S. v. Sklyarov was vindication of fair use, when it really was the opposite, shows that you lack a full understanding of the DMCA.
This screener copy of "Million Dollar Baby" that I just picked up from my movie reviewer's desk says different. We get two or three of these every single week.
Why, indeed, you may have more experience with screener copies than I, but I still stand by my original premise, that if you as an ordinary individual go to your local video store, pick up a movie, rip it, and paste movie snippets of it online with a review that you will get a DMCA takedown notice.
One might ask if those DVDs you get have CSS and Macrovision so that you, not ordinary people who buy and rent movies, can copy from them?
You might say that any "legitimate" reviewer can call the publicist and get a screener; however, your contention that it is both legal and possible to "quote" from a movie is only valid if anybody can do it without needing permission from the studios in the form of convincing them to send you a copy of a non DRMd version of the movie--which I doubt they will do for individuals anyway.
Oh, and I should ad this from the EFF website, "There is no DMCA in Russia, and a jury eventually acquitted Sklyarov's company, ElcomSoft, of willful violation [emphasis mine] -- but only after the judge had ruled the software illegal."
The DMCA hasn't even existed since 1998, when the bill was signed into law. At that point, the DMCA ceased to exist. The function of the DMCA was to establish new provisions and to amend existing provisions within Title 17 of the United States Code, and once that function was carried out, the bill ceased to exist as a legal document.
While you make an interesting point, I think you know that the changes to US law that were contained in the DMCA are still referred to by that name because the DMCA made major changes that are most easily collectively referred to that way.
Title 17 prohibits the manufacture or sale of devices whose sole purpose is to circumvent access control or copy prevention mechanisms. Since, by definition, any act that's carried out for the purpose of exercising fair use is not circumvention, this stipulation of the law has absolutely zero impact on fair use.
Name some legally approved devices or software that is designed to break DRM for fair use.
Circumvention is still circumvention. There may be legal exemptions for certain types of circumvention but you have not quoted code that stipulates that "circumvention for purposes of fair use is not circumvention." That would be a circular reference anyways.
Nonsense. Even if it's inconvenient for you to use digital means, analog means are always available.
While currently many digital devices have an "analog hole," the copyright industry is working to close that. You might point out that a DVD has analog outputs, but that analog signal is copy-protected by Macrovision encoding. Companies are working to create audio equivalents of analog video copy protection as well, to keep people from being able to record analog versions of digital radio. For digital radio, the EFF reports the FCC is even considering restricting Digital to analog converters.
What does that mean, "in a digital environment?"
By "digital environment" I was referring to the fact that more an more media is being delivered in a digital medium. Because of the Anti-DRM Circumvention provisions of the DMCA, individuals cannot exercise their fair use rights on digital media. For example, iPod owners can rip non-DRMd cds to their iPods and exercise fair use to transfer their music from one medium to another, but Apple can't make a product that would let them do the exact same thing with a DVD and put it on a video iPod. And, no, there is not analog hole, the analog signals are copy protected by Macrovision encoding.
You colossal, mind-shattering dumbass. A court acquitted Elcomsoft of all charges more than two years ago specifically on the grounds that their tool was legal because its primary purpose was to enable fair use, not to break the law.
In-spite of myself, I have to say that I do find your colorful choice of words amusing. While you might think U.S. v. ElcomSoft & Sklyarov was a vindication of fair use, you would only be partially right. In the the case a jury acquitted ElcomSoft & Sklyarov. Calling this a vindication for fair use is like calling O.J. Simpson's acquittal a vindication for the legal right to matricide.
The jury's ruling does not create new case law, nor has the ruling diminished the Fed's interest in cracking down on DRM circumvention technology.
The Congress shall have Power... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
The way that this is written sort of implies that the exclusive Rights to Authors and Inventors could only be for their lifetimes.
Movie reviewers are given screener DVDs (they used to be Betacam tapes, and sometimes still are), and they're free to pull whatever clips they want. Want to review a movie? Just get ahold of the studio's publicity department and convince them that you're really going to review it rather than just pirating it. They'll send you a DVD via overnight mail. They have whole armies of employees whose job it is to put review copies in reviewers' hands.
If this is true, then part of my argument is wrong. But you are still wrong about being able to break DRM legally for quoting. If that was true, then it would be legal to sell DRM breaking tools like the Adobe e-book DRM remover that the Fed busted Dmitry Sklyarov for. He said it enabled Fair Use. I would agree. The fed didn't and literally put him in jail!
Also nonsense, because the 17 USC 1201(c)(1) expressly states that any circumvention for the purposes of exercising a use that would normally be considered fair is not a violation of the law.
Why don't you put your ass on the line where your mouth is? Go rip a DVD of a major motion picture, write a critical review, illustrate your review with appropriate sections of the movie--just like Ebert and Roper do. Now post it on the internet. How long do you think it will be until your ISP gets a DMCA takedown notice?
The MPAA does not recognize your right to quote from their movies.
That's not correct. If you quote something --you know, pull a small segment of it --for the purposes of criticism, you're totally clear. It's when you start illegally distributing entire works that you run afoul of the law.
I wish what you said were true, and it would be if the spirit of the law were the rule of law. But it isn't.
17 USC 1201(c)(1): "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
I think you also know that any DRM defeating technology is illegal by the construct of the DMCA. There is no legal way for you to quote from a DRMd source, even though it is legal from a "copyright" perspective. This contradiction leaves your rights under copyright laws null and void in a digital environment.
But when they're high courts that are going against the obvious spirit of the law, then they are "legislating from the bench" because their decisions have much more far-reaching effects.
It is also important to take into account the "spirit" of the constitution! In the US, the Constitution is the overriding work of legislation and it over rules any contradictory legislation made by misguided legislators. Judges are not "legislating from the bench" when they enforce the constitution.
"Filming a movie you're seeing in a movie theater is specifically prohibited by law, not related (legally) to copyright law."
Those laws are still new and provide astounding pentalties. Even if they weren't on the books, you could/would still be busted for copyright infringement in the theater for taping sections of the movie.
"have you ever seen an actual movie review show? Using "snippets of the film alongside a thoughtful review" is exactly what they do. What on earth would make you think it's illegal?"
Movie review shows aren't allowed to tape their own clips from the movie. The only clips you see in a movie review show are those provided by the studios to review show at the sole discretion of the studios. The studios don't release the whole film to the production companies who make review shows, only the clips the movie companies want to be seen. So, if you want to critique a particularly bad scene and show an example of it you are SOL. So much for your "right" to quote copyrighted material.
Under the old system, a work did not become eligible to become part of the public domain until after it was published.
Now, your childhood paintings will be automatically copyright until 70 years after you die!
If a 5-year-old who grows up to be 90 made drawings today, they will still by copyright in 2160! Along with just about every other doodle, plaster handcast, home movie and blog entry every made.
If a researcher wanted to make a book of public domain children's drawings, they'd have to wait a really long time...
"Yes, that's exactly right. For instance, if you were to produce a podcast where you review new music, and as part of that effort you were to include snippets of songs followed by your opinion of the album, that would be totally, 100%, hands-down, no-question legal."
Really? "No-question legal?" I'll bet the MPAA, for example, will disagree with you. Lets try a movie version of your idea. Why not take your camcorder to the nearest movie theater or rip a DVD and use snippets of the film alongside a thoughtful review?
I'm sure that you will find that the "right" to quote copyrighted material is not one that the movie industry, or the Federal Government, agrees exists.
This is one example of why we need copyright reform.
"To the contrary, the law specifically states that quoting a work for the purposes of commenting on it is not a violation of the work's creator's property rights."
Unfortunately, the reality of this is different. Already, many individuals know that a certain litigious religious organization regularly sues people who quote and comment on the "copyrighted" religious works of its founder.
Secondly, the DCMA makes no "quotation exemption" to allow one to break DRM so that you may quote a copyrighted source. If the poster had used any kind of DRM, then quoting him would be a violation of the Digital Melenium Copyright Act.
Well, 320x240 makes for easy scaling from 640x480. As for the price, Well, finally there is a portable media device that only costs as much as a full fledged laptop!!! Load it with VLC for $500 and we'll talk...
Was it fair? Absolutely. They won using only the observable odds. Casinos can fix this problem easily. All they have to do is stop all betting before the wheel is spun--not blame the players.
Once again, Casinos want to blame winners for the fact that the casino games are winnable. This same problem applies to card counters. They only use the observed cards to calculate the odds and raise their chances of winning just a fraction. The outcome? Casinos throw card counters out and place their names and photos on a national black list shared with other casinos!
Baring players just for winning is dishonest and should be illegal. Casinos predicate their marketing on the idea that players can win, but the casino practices show that this is, in part, a false promise. Casinos should fix games that can be won rather than cheating the public by baring them from playing.
Backups should happen before the disaster, not after.
Yes, and the iPod is mirrored to your iTunes, so it is the best backup possible. There is no reason you should have to make a 3d copy somewhere else. Apple should let you recover your songs from your iPod for backup purposes.
And, yes, an "upgrade" which blocks functionality deliberately can be considered a downgrade. iTunes 4.7 specifically blocks the downloader app by name! Note that there was absolutely nothing illicit about the app. Apple tells you should copy songs and make backups. The iTunes plug helped you use the iPod to do that!!!!!
While a mere partnership resulting in a buddy-buddy relationship with natural sworn enemies is odd, it is not unusual for a company to buy up and subvert its critics.
There used to be an activist organization which criticized religious cults. It was hardly a profitable business arrangement and eventually was bankrupted by lawsuits and had to sell off its assets. The organization's name and phone number, plus its member list was sold to a cult follower whose cult is, oddly enough, now cleared of any cult association by the now infiltrated anti-cult organization.
Stores dont give you a new copy of your music cd when you break it with a sledgehammer now do they? Now tell me why apple should?
That would be because you buy both the physical property and the license when you buy the CD. And, in fact, Disney has a family friendly policy of replacing broken DVDs, so your premise not only a bad analogy it is also, in some cases, a false one.
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense. If that was what he were trying to do, he wouldn't be trying to set up a new account.
You're out of luck, because as we all know, EULAs are not legally binding. Thanks for playing! :)
EULA's may not be binding on the End User, but they are certainly binding on the company that wrote them. They are, at the very least, a promise by the company, like a warantee.
Let's be honest. Anyone who sent money was never going to see a dime anyway. The chance that $30,000 a month would permanently stave of the MPAA was nil. And using the money to stay out of prison is a reasonable use for the cash--and that may have been what he was planning the whole time.
MPEG2? Mac users can't play MPEG2 in Quicktime without a $$$ upgrade. Users would have to download VLC or mplayer. MPEG1 is, perhaps, the most compatible format. UGLY, big files--but compatible.
Some things I have said: "the "Advanced eBook Processor" was pulled by ElcomSoft and remains illegal in the US."
"Circumvention is still circumvention. There may be legal exemptions for certain types of circumvention but you have not quoted code that stipulates that "circumvention for purposes of fair use is not circumvention."
"iPod owners can rip non-DRMd cds to their iPods and exercise fair use to transfer their music from one medium to another, but Apple can't make a product that would let them do the exact same thing with a DVD and put it on a video iPod."
-and many more. These statements are all accurate. You havn't even attempted to contradict them and you can't. You have also utterly failed to provide a single example of a legally approved device or program for the sole purpose of breaking DRM for fair use. Again, because you can't.
Just saying "every single thing you've said has been just flat-out wrong" doesn't actually make it true and the facts prove otherwise. You have now resorted to lazy rhetoric because you are lacking in actual evidence.
While I admit to being dogged in my argument, though not inflexible, I still contend my point is valid. The anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA prevent legal fair use quoting of media. Your statements that you were able to do so with the help of a full-on video post house and haven't yet been sued, while nice to hear, isn't proof that breaking DRM for fair use is considered legal by the Fed or the Studios.
You have failed to point out any devices or software that are legal approved for the general public for the sole purpose of enabling the circumvention of DRM for fair use.
Your point that Dmitry Sklyarov was aquitted of illegally violating the DMCA failed to note that the judge ruled the anti-DRM software illegal and the jury aquitted Sklyarov/ElcomSoft of willful infringement because there is no DMCA in Russia where they created the program. Your proud declaration that Sklyarov was aquitted should be tempered by the fact that the "Advanced eBook Processor" was pulled by ElcomSoft and remains illegal in the US.
While I respect your right to your personal opinion, I disagree with it. I think you have made a few good points and told me a few things I didn't know. You, however, seem to be incapable of of learning anything from my posts. Complacency will only lead to the further erosion of our basic rights under the constitution. Your claim that we all have full access and legal permission to use our fair use rights is undermined by the provisions of the DMCA which make circumvention illegal. Your belief that U.S. v. Sklyarov was vindication of fair use, when it really was the opposite, shows that you lack a full understanding of the DMCA.One might ask if those DVDs you get have CSS and Macrovision so that you, not ordinary people who buy and rent movies, can copy from them?
You might say that any "legitimate" reviewer can call the publicist and get a screener; however, your contention that it is both legal and possible to "quote" from a movie is only valid if anybody can do it without needing permission from the studios in the form of convincing them to send you a copy of a non DRMd version of the movie--which I doubt they will do for individuals anyway.
Oh, and I should ad this from the EFF website, "There is no DMCA in Russia, and a jury eventually acquitted Sklyarov's company, ElcomSoft, of willful violation [emphasis mine] -- but only after the judge had ruled the software illegal."
Circumvention is still circumvention. There may be legal exemptions for certain types of circumvention but you have not quoted code that stipulates that "circumvention for purposes of fair use is not circumvention." That would be a circular reference anyways.
While currently many digital devices have an "analog hole," the copyright industry is working to close that. You might point out that a DVD has analog outputs, but that analog signal is copy-protected by Macrovision encoding. Companies are working to create audio equivalents of analog video copy protection as well, to keep people from being able to record analog versions of digital radio. For digital radio, the EFF reports the FCC is even considering restricting Digital to analog converters. By "digital environment" I was referring to the fact that more an more media is being delivered in a digital medium. Because of the Anti-DRM Circumvention provisions of the DMCA, individuals cannot exercise their fair use rights on digital media. For example, iPod owners can rip non-DRMd cds to their iPods and exercise fair use to transfer their music from one medium to another, but Apple can't make a product that would let them do the exact same thing with a DVD and put it on a video iPod. And, no, there is not analog hole, the analog signals are copy protected by Macrovision encoding.The jury's ruling does not create new case law, nor has the ruling diminished the Fed's interest in cracking down on DRM circumvention technology.
The MPAA does not recognize your right to quote from their movies.
Now, your childhood paintings will be automatically copyright until 70 years after you die!
If a 5-year-old who grows up to be 90 made drawings today, they will still by copyright in 2160! Along with just about every other doodle, plaster handcast, home movie and blog entry every made.
If a researcher wanted to make a book of public domain children's drawings, they'd have to wait a really long time...
I'm sure that you will find that the "right" to quote copyrighted material is not one that the movie industry, or the Federal Government, agrees exists.
This is one example of why we need copyright reform.
Secondly, the DCMA makes no "quotation exemption" to allow one to break DRM so that you may quote a copyrighted source. If the poster had used any kind of DRM, then quoting him would be a violation of the Digital Melenium Copyright Act.
Well, 320x240 makes for easy scaling from 640x480. As for the price, Well, finally there is a portable media device that only costs as much as a full fledged laptop!!! Load it with VLC for $500 and we'll talk...
Was it fair? Absolutely. They won using only the observable odds. Casinos can fix this problem easily. All they have to do is stop all betting before the wheel is spun--not blame the players.
Once again, Casinos want to blame winners for the fact that the casino games are winnable. This same problem applies to card counters. They only use the observed cards to calculate the odds and raise their chances of winning just a fraction. The outcome? Casinos throw card counters out and place their names and photos on a national black list shared with other casinos!
Baring players just for winning is dishonest and should be illegal. Casinos predicate their marketing on the idea that players can win, but the casino practices show that this is, in part, a false promise. Casinos should fix games that can be won rather than cheating the public by baring them from playing.
And, yes, an "upgrade" which blocks functionality deliberately can be considered a downgrade. iTunes 4.7 specifically blocks the downloader app by name! Note that there was absolutely nothing illicit about the app. Apple tells you should copy songs and make backups. The iTunes plug helped you use the iPod to do that!!!!!
While a mere partnership resulting in a buddy-buddy relationship with natural sworn enemies is odd, it is not unusual for a company to buy up and subvert its critics.
There used to be an activist organization which criticized religious cults. It was hardly a profitable business arrangement and eventually was bankrupted by lawsuits and had to sell off its assets. The organization's name and phone number, plus its member list was sold to a cult follower whose cult is, oddly enough, now cleared of any cult association by the now infiltrated anti-cult organization.