Proposal to ban 1st time posters who ask about copy protection

[FulciLives]

Of course, the whole "I rented ... and can't rip it" should be pretty much insta-ban.

We've seen stupid people say such things in the past but I've noticed an increase as well in posts where people will say exactly that ... Oh BTW I rented, borrowed, stole this DVD I want to rip/copy/make love to etc.

Like LordSmurf says ... it does seem odd this influx of such statements/questions!

Would be nice if we can just flame the hell out of them like in the good 'ol days of the indolikaa specials

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

Yeah ... remember the time when we flamed the heck out of the guy who posted the comment ... Help ... I ripped a movie and it's over 8.5 Gigs !! ..................... that was fun

Here is an oldie but goodie:

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic158537.html

That was way back around the time I first joined up as I recall ... I was a "troll" for a LONG time but I like to think *cough* that being a troll ... in other words doing lots of reading before posting ... helped me from being the stupid dumb ass newbie we all hate. Stupid newbie.

As for this thread ... I like the distinction that LordSmurf made as to what kind of threads he was talking about (i.e., the very general kind) but I have also noticed a few generic "I do have such and such title and I want to copy it for my brother" and I find that highly suspect as well. If the post goes, "I tried DVDFab HD Decyrpter like I always do but it didn't work on <INSERT NEW DVD TITLE HERE> so help me!" then that is A-OK in my book.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[fritzi93]

"How can I get around copy protection?" --------- No reason, no situation, no valid question. Just a bait-like question to see if people will discuss circumvention of copy protection. This conversation has no intrinsic value, there is no legitimate goal. This is bait, and this is what we've seen lately, and this is why I made this post. It would be very difficult to defend answers to questions of this nature.

Okay, I see the distinction. (It's not about Fair Use, but rather the DMCA.) I'm inclined to agree.

[guns1inger]

Was I wrong in my response to this post earlier today ?

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic340635.html

[thecoalman]

All that I'm saying is that, since you were volunteering the information to try to prove your own point, maybe ou should have used one of the others ("not the only one") as an example instead of yourself. No different than if it was a leprechaun you saw, then linked to a section on your own site, written by you, to prove it.

Being that I'm a regular around here I would hope anything I post could be taken at face value especially when it's backed up with samples. That's not to say it can't be flawed or false but if that is the case it's not through dishonesty but a mistake on my part. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, one problem is that's the most comprehensive page you're going to find and I'm not even aware of any other pages that have samples. At most you'll find pages that describe the same problem here or elsewhere.

I could list many links but I don't have too because I already know it's the truth.

[FulciLives]

Was I wrong in my response to this post earlier today ?

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic340635.html

LOL ... cute ... I like it

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[offline]

...number of new users asking about "how to remove copy protection" is highly unusual....Make it an extension of the anti-warez rule....

I think everybody seems to be handling things well themselves. But a change in the rules can always be considered.

My post was in reference to the site owner/admin/mods . they can't be held responsible for what the users contribute.

I'm active at a forum where a suit for injurious falsehood was brought against the owner. It was alleged that false and malicious statements had been published about a companies product by ordinary members. Although the suit was later withdrawn, it was an unfortunate experience that I would not like to see occur here.

Having said that, I personally believe this forum will continue to uphold the principles of fair use. I understand that everyone is free to discuss Macrovision removal and DVD ripping in the forums within the limit of the rules. This includes detailed instructions about hacking methods, but (of course) no direct links to software. I have not discussed this with the admin, but I'm sure Baldrick will correct me if things change.

As other frequent visitors have, I have attemped to cut off responses to postings of a suspicious nature.

I'd agree with this approach (within the rules). That and reporting the post if necessary.

One of the Linux forums I was on mandated a 3-post minimum before you could post links to an URL, Perhaps something like that would be worth looking into.

That has already been considered, as has various other methods to combat a number of problems, mainly spam.

Doom9 is generally not as tolerant or newbie user friendly as this place, either

Yeah, D9 is still a great site but even it was friendlier back in the good 'ole days.

[stiltman]

Just my 2 cents

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic340067.html#1772627

to explain i am coping all my roomies movies i want because i can not afford to buy them

[hech54]

Good Idea...

[GideonK]

Guns1linger wrote

Was I wrong in my response to this post earlier today ?

We need more humor in this world, and you are doing your share.

[usually_quiet]

Personally, I think that this is like closing the barn door after the horse has run out. If someone wanted it, they have access to plenty of "incriminating" replies already. They only need to know how to use a search engine.

I think the rules already in place regarding requests for instructions on how to do something that is blatently illegal are sufficient. I trust the site operator to make the right decision for himself when it comes to changing the rules, and if we personally don't like a question, we don't have to answer it with the desired information.

[ozymango]

I think the rules already in place regarding requests for instructions on how to do something that is blatently illegal are sufficient. I trust the site operator to make the right decision for himself when it comes to changing the rules, and if we personally don't like a question, we don't have to answer it with the desired information.

Works for me, too. As always, whatever the moderators and Baldrick decide, goes, and if they see a need to impose a new rule then that's cool -- but I, personally, do not have a big issue with people being ... well, lazy and selfish. And lazy and selfish people are gonna post lazy and selfish questions, and mostly I've found just ignoring them works wonders.

[Supreme2k]

stiltman,
Is that Johnny Cash?

[FulciLives]

stiltman,
Is that Johnny Cash?

I'm pretty sure that image of Joaquin Phoenix is from the movie GLADIATOR [2000] although I must admit I haven't seen the movie since it first came out.

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Supreme2k]

Zombi 2: Electric Boogaloo,

You fell for the old "bait 'n switch"

[FulciLives]

Zombi 2: Electric Boogaloo,

You fell for the old "bait 'n switch"

Bastard

[stiltman]

stiltman,
Is that Johnny Cash?

I guess it's too late to say Yes

Next time I'll use this one :P