Is This Legal ???

[txpharoah]

You are innocent until proven guilty but I don't see what that matters. No one has to ever be found guilty under a law for that law to be binding.

I see where you're coming from, but that's not entirely true. In fact, it's often WHEN people have been accused of breaking a law when that law was found unconstitutional, illegal, or other misinterpreted by the complaintants. And it need not always go to trial; several have been thrown out at pre-trial. Others merely have dropped charges, never even making it to a pre-trial. It depends on the situation.

321 Studios is first in line, so keep watching it.

As of now, we're actually quite safe.

I've actually lost track of the DeCSS case over in Europe. How's that going? Last I looked it was in appellate court, where I have a feeling it's still standing.

[adam]

Yes, it is entirely true. I understand that laws can be struck down judicially, but until that happens a law is a law is a law. The second that the legislature passes a law it becomes controlling. It does not need to pass judicial scrutiny to become the law. Sure all of DMCA could be struck down at any time, but the same could be said of any law. As of right now, it most certainly IS illegal to bypass CSS protection for the purposes of backing up a DVD. There are literally thousands of laws in the books that absolutely would be struck down as unconstitutional if anyone were ever prosecuted under them, ie: can't dance on Sundays (not making that up) but until these laws are challenged they are still the law and violating these laws is illegal.

The 321 case seems to be focussing much more on the copyright infringement aspect of these programs; that they aid and encourage people to make illegal copies of movies, rather than the reverse engineering aspects. Even if 321's software didnt decrypt but simply backed up an already unencrypted DVD, they would still be in court. This case may not even have any effect on DMCA, we'll just have to wait and see.

By European DeCSS case I assume you mean the prosecution of DVD John? Well, yes last I heard the prosecution announced that they would appeal, I don't know how much further it has gone since then. But this is really an entirely different legal issue. The question in that case is whether a DeCSS program itself is a violation of DMCA, and the valid argument is that it is not because the alleged intention of the software was to make DVD playback possible in linux. The legal issues raised in this thread are whether it would be a violation of DMCA to use DeCSS tools for the purpose of backing up a DVD, and until the laws are changed, the DMCA does make this illegal.

[poopyhead]

Please, in detail, with court cases to back it up (as they are the litmus tests to verify law), and full legal terminology, with references, explain what exactly is illegal here, in regards specifically to backing up your content from one media format to another.

I've just got to hear it.

copyright office summary of the DMCA from http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

page 3 of the .pdf file



no matter how you look at it...breaking CSS is "cirvumention" of "technological measures used to protect copyrighted works." in this case, those technological measures is CSS encryption.

THIS IS THE LAW, no matter how you look at it. Until the courts rule that it is unconstitutional, it still applies. There is certainly a strong case for "fair use," and how that is compromised by the DMCA. However, the courts have not resolved that issue, which means DMCA is still law and technically we could be arrested for it.

[gmatov]

Poopyhead,
You WILL continue, won't you?
You are as tenacious as a dog worrying a bone.
I AM right, and I don't care what you say, and here are the references, and the boy is going to jail!!!
"The boy" is trying to teach some people, who otherwise would not know how, to back up their own VHS, DVD, whatever.
You are also wrong in the case of the tariff imposed upon EVERY single piece of recording media sold in this country. (USA) It was designed to compensate the content producers for any copies made, even though the vast majority of the media was for backup (of data ) purpose. Corporations, who must backup tons of data pay a penny or three more because you, or someone else CAN back up a CD, or a cassette, or a VHS tape. Maybe even a wire recorder. I have one, so no joke.
Are you paid by the media companies to watch forums such as this, and dump crap on them? Elsewise, I do not know why you are so vehement.

[txpharoah]

Please, in detail, with court cases to back it up (as they are the litmus tests to verify law), and full legal terminology, with references, explain what exactly is illegal here, in regards specifically to backing up your content from one media format to another.

I've just got to hear it.

copyright office summary of the DMCA from http://www.loc.gov/copyright/legislation/dmca.pdf

page 3 of the .pdf file

You still didn't provide anything I asked for. I read this back when it was first enacted (as well as some provisional releases before it was signed).

THIS IS THE LAW, no matter how you look at it. Until the courts rule that it is unconstitutional, it still applies. There is certainly a strong case for "fair use," and how that is compromised by the DMCA. However, the courts have not resolved that issue, which means DMCA is still law and technically we could be arrested for it.

No. This is your interpretation. Read the whole damned thing, don't quote some single sentence out to me.

Key words in the documents are "authorization" and "authority" and confusion about who is the party "authorized" to make such granted actions. It need not necessarily be the "author" of the work, but rather a law that enables us as the authorizers, such as our Fair Use to backup, that can grant said authorizations, although the Fair Use clause is prevented from applying to the technology that existed at that time in certain sections.

It was also made to be an infringement management system, not a system to punish the end-users from their legal guarantees as Americans.

The laws are also stated to be in conjunction with copyrights laws, though not against them, and would retain current privileges of fair use. This most certainly leaves room for problems, as different understandings can lead to different outcomes, which would in turn require more court time to settle other matters if they decide to open that Pandora's Box.

Now you get down to a law that was written to protect us at a time before CSS was popular (due to DVD not yet being real popular), and then a tech is suddenly used by Hollywood to make all customers crooks to backup their movie. Again, what you see mostly is the MPAA crying wolf, and telling everybody what the law is, while the government has said absolutely nothing.

This brings me back to my +R vs -R argument. Too many people listen to marketing, or in this case, the biggest mouth. Are you going to believe what MPAA tells you, or shut your mouth and wait for the U.S. District Courts?

In the meantime, we all do what we feel safest doing.

So far courts have not granted any favors towards CSS, only that source code to counteract the technology breaks laws of trade secrets, and it was not decided based upon the DMCA. However, not all of those cases are over at this point in time.

We are still in undiscovered country. I picked my side. You picked yours. The courts will eventually tell us who's wrong.

[poopyhead]

Are you paid by the media companies to watch forums such as this, and dump crap on them? Elsewise, I do not know why you are so vehement.

how long have you been at these forums?

anywayz, i'm simply pointing out DMCA's rules. i personally don't like it because it DOES counteract "fair use" laws. however, what i'm stating is Cecilio should be wary of advertising publicly that's he going to violate the DMCA, no matter how unFAIR it is to our USE of our own DVDs.

i'm not arguing whether DMCA is good or bad or anything else it could be....because personally i don't like it and i'm sure every1 on these forums don't think too well of it and prolly cross and re-cross that line everyday. however, we keep it to ourselves. we don't tell every1 that we're doing it...at least not w/ mass media like advertising. of course, i don't really care if Cecilio does advertise or not...it's his risk, not mine. i just wanted him to make sure he doesn't claim the freeware as his and rehash the info and guides from here.

-------

as for txpharoah, he's still adament that's breakign CSS is not violating the DMCA. just because the DMCA counteracts fair use rights doesn't mean that it's not a law. if a law counteracts another law, you can still be arrested or sued for it. of course, it's up to the courts to sort it out. LIKE I SAID EARLIER...UNTIL THE COURTS DO SORT IT OUT, DMCA STILL APPLIES....those exceptions you mentioned do not specifically apply to any end-user (unless it's to protect a minor, privacy issues, security testing, etc.....).

-------

i'm not arguing with anyone about the merits of DMCA...of course it's written, conceived, and pushed through legislation by the greedy movie studios...BUT, as long as it still exists..and the courts haven't negated it yet....IT'S STILL A LAW

look at it this way....Prohibition wasn't very popular...lots of bootlegging going on...made some famous mobsters very rich.....doesn't mean that it's still not law....whether ppl like it or whether it contradicts some other law makes no difference as long as it's not repealed, it still exists...and can be enforced when chosen to

[adam]

With all due respect txpharoah, you seem to be completely missing the point. Everything you say would be a perfectly valid argument if you were defending someone on trial for violating DMCA. These would be arguments why DMCA should be amended, or why there should be an exception made for CSS protection under the DMCA.

But I honestly have a hard time believing that you have written publishable articles on this subject because it is widely accepted and extremely well settled that the DMCA DOES make decryption of CSS protection a crime, at least as of today. Hell, several congressman have specifically spoken out about this. If CSS decryption were not a crime under DMCA than I would like to know what all the fuss is about and I would also like to know exactly how people have been prosecuted for hosting DeCSS software if there is nothing illegal about it.

DeCSS usage is a violation of section 1201 of the DMCA, its there in plain english. "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." NO LEGAL AUTHORITY ANYWHERE has ever argued that CSS doesn't fall under this provision, only that it SHOULDN'T. The question is not whether DMCA makes decryption of CSS illegal, I can honestly say that you are the only person who I have ever seen make this contention, the question is whether the DMCA goes too far.

There have been arguments that DMCA eviserates Fair Use rights. This is a live matter before the courts, so while it is a strong argument, it does not change the fact that the legislation still stands. Go shepardize the Act and you will plainly see that it is still considered good law. Until the DMCA is overturned, it makes DeCSS use illegal.

If decryption of CSS were not illegal under DMCA, then I would like to know why the copyright office chose to conduct a hearing to determine whether there should be a SPECIFIC exception made under the DMCA for the decryption of CSS protection.

http://www.virtualrecordings.com/EFFtestimony.htm
http://www.copyright.gov/1201/hearings/dean_marks.pdf
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/20000623_eff_dmca_dvd_comments.html

No, DMCA was never intended to include CSS protection, but that is what the whole argument is about. The DMCA has chilling effects as a result of its broad language.

There is ample evidence that CSS decryption is made illegal under DMCA and I think enough has already been posted in this thread. Do you have any authority you can cite which says that the DMCA doesn't include CSS protection? Not that it shouldn't, or that Fair Use should preemt it, or that an exception should be made. Under the letter of the law, is there ANY evidence that CSS isn't covered under the DMCA?

We are still in undiscovered country.

Exactly! But the undiscovered country is what will HAPPEN to DMCA, not what DMCA says. The DMCA says quite generally that decrypting copywritten works is illegal unless it is for educational purposes. Like it or not this is what the law says. The first rule of Constitutional Law is that a facially nondiscrimintory law is always presumed valid by the courts. So this means that if you use decryption software you can be charged with violating DMCA and the burden will be on YOU to prove that either DMCA is unconsititional or that you fall within one of its very narrow exceptions.

[housepig]

anywayz, i'm simply pointing out DMCA's rules. i personally don't like it because it DOES counteract "fair use" laws.

actually, it doesn't - it just makes some of the tools to assert your Fair Use rights illegal.

imagine you had the right to hang a picture, but hammers and nails were illegal. you can still hang that picture - if you can figure out a way to do it.

[Thorn]

Technically doesn't the DMCA make CSS illegal because CSS prevents us from excercising our fair use rights? Ok, I know we're not so lucky as to have laws that protect our rights, but they *are* trying to strengthen fair use rights, unless that legislation has been shot down.

Just a question: would it still put you in dangerous territory if the same software was used to backup a region 0 disc? I would think bringing a home video DVD and backing that up would be a much better plan (unless simply using software with DECSS built in causes the problems).

If the customer breaks CSS on their own that's THEIR problem. I do agree that you don't want to get into assisted piracy and backing up your commercial DVD on their computer is too close (it's obvious they'd want to keep the backup). If you're walking them through backing up their own DVDs, you're involved with cracking CSS for something other than home use. I'd just say it's not worth the hassle.

[adam]

I don't understand your first question Thorn. CSS is a type of protection used to prevent people from copying a copywritten source. DMCA makes it illegal to bypass this sort of digital protection. DMCA specifically states that it is not intented to apply to those actions protected by Fair Use. The question is whether Fair Use grants you a right to copy your own DVDs, and as of yet there is no answer for this, but until there is, DMCA is still the controlling law in this are.

As for using DeCSS on a region 0 disk, this has nothing to do with. Region coding and CSS protection are entirely different things. There is nothing illegal about bypassing region protection because what if you move to another country? Are you supposed to buy a whole new movie collection? Region coding is meant to prevent bootlegging, ie: DVD comes out first in the US so people sell it to PAL regions at inflated cost and once it is released in a PAL region, it no longer sells as well because there is less demand.

[housepig]

Technically doesn't the DMCA make CSS illegal because CSS prevents us from excercising our fair use rights? Ok, I know we're not so lucky as to have laws that protect our rights, but they *are* trying to strengthen fair use rights, unless that legislation has been shot down.

Part of the problem with Fair Use is it's a very gray area, and it's open to judicial interpretation in most cases.

Fair Use also doesn't gurantee you the rights to the quality of the material you may want. Example : I want to use a bit of video from "The Matrix". The concept of Fair Use means I can extract a bit for commentary or parody purposes, or educational.. but it doesn't guarantee that I can have that piece in full digital, ripped-from-dvd quality.

I can hook up a camcorder and record "The Matrix" playing off of my tv - I still have the material, and I haven't used a prohibited tool or method to get it.

It may look like crap, but I have it.

Same thing with a cd - you have a right to make a backup copy or a copy for your car of a disc. (And when I say "right", I mean that the courts have upheld that this is a Fair Use of the material). But if your cd was copy-protected, you could either be illegal and use a ripping tool to decrypt it, or you could legally play it from your stereo, record it to your computer, and burn a cd from the copy.

Since you are not circumventing the copy protection to get at the data on the original disc, but making new data from an analog broadcast of the disc, you wouldn't be breaking the DMCA.

[tygrus2000]

Cecilio, many law firms will offer 30 minutes or so of legal advice over the phone before they start to charge you. The calls are generally considered confidential, but if I were you, I would call one of these guys up, dont give any personal details, and tell them exactly what you are going to do for your business model, hows its done, what software (make sure you tell them DeCSS) and how you plan to profit from it, then post their reply here.

I am willing to bet that most of the posters on this thread will be proven correct in that this business may violate media law, although you could make a similar argument that this entire sites does that exact same thing. You are going to people's house to show them how to backup their own DVD for fair personal use. This site does that exact same thing, plus much more, although its not formally taught in the structure of a business that profits, other than donations. That may be where fair use is argued.

I am not saying you will ever get caught or anyone will notice. In my city there are people that advertise right in the paper for bootleg satellite cards and the like and they are left alone since its grey market and the cops have better things to do. Thats not the issue, you wanted to know if its legal and the posters are trying to help you through that decision.

[tygrus2000]

Somebody made reference to the Terrorist Cookbook as an example. Actually it is legal to be in possession of and even distribute such a document because you haven't done anything with the information. Its on the net, in a public domain, its in your library as well. The DeCSS code is also freely available to all although it has been argued in a stronger light that even possessng it is a crime, even if you have never used it or even know what it does. I would say thats a stretch of law enforcement and a scare tactic authority officials use.

The same goes for the Terrorist Cookbook, it isnt illegal until you have built a bomb with it and killed someone. You can get the information in your library as well. Most TV shows can teach you how to kill someone too. In reality, the US Patriot Act has slightly overstepped the constitution on this issue and is trying to apply a preemptive security notion to such material. However, in these times of increased national security, people are willing to have such a law in place.

[txpharoah]

Somebody made reference to the Terrorist Cookbook as an example. Actually it is legal to be in possession of and even distribute such a document because you haven't done anything with the information.

Last I checked, it was deemed OBSCENITY, and therefore illegal.

The DeCSS code was found to break trade secrets laws of California, so if therefore illegal to distribute in code-only form.

[adam]

I'm not all that familiar with the Terroist Cookbook but I don't see how it could be deemed legally obscene, since this only applies to sexual content, Miller v. California.

If anything it could be characterized as incitement of illegal activity, but there is no imminent threat so it doesn't seem it would pass the tests for this.

As far as I know, this literature is perfectly legal, though it probably shouldn't be.

[housepig]

adam -

As far as I know, this literature is perfectly legal, though it probably shouldn't be.

have to disagree with you there.

which makes more sense - locking up information, or teaching people how to use information responsibly?

[likwid8]

Got a question for you man...you wanna charge $60 to teach someone how to convert to "A" format or all formats? or any format(s) he desires? I mean its pretty dumb to charge someone for a simple conversion when ur going to spend 4 times as long teaching someone else everything else you know for the same price. VCD and SVCD are the most commonly used... but I think you should stick and save your money to buy a DVD Burner and teach people how to fit hours of video onto a DVD-R instead of 60 min on a CD-R. Plus you will always need to make sure they're dvd player supports what they wanna do.... they end up paying you $60 just so they know the routine and they need to buy a new dvd player... I dunno why this thread lasted 6 pages, I guess people had alot to say....

I personally would think twice bout this operation. Not only does it involve serious knowledge, but also the fact that theyr are millions of ways of teaching and your just providing your own way which you think its the "professional way"!! Try teaching making chapters and menus on VCD's., now thats a tutorial..

My 2 Cents

[indolikaa]

which makes more sense - locking up information, or teaching people how to use information responsibly?

I've said the same thing about nuclear weapons for years! Should the knowledge behind building them really be classified? There has to be a way we could give the knowledge to Iran and teach them to use it responsibly. :P :P :P

[housepig]

I've said the same thing about nuclear weapons for years! Should the knowledge behind building them really be classified? There has to be a way we could give the knowledge to Iran and teach them to use it responsibly.

okay, here's a good example of the futility of information lockup...

I used to work at the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. When the Oklahoma City bombing happened, one of the side notes in the news coverage was "isn't it terrible that by covering this tragedy, we're disseminating information on fertilizer bombs? You can find recipies on the internet - this is terrible! We need to clamp down on this information!"

Faced with that argument, one of my coworkers went into the stacks of patents. 5 minutes later, he walked out with 7 or 8 U.S. Patents which detail methods for combining fertilizer and fuel for use as an explosive. U.S. Patents are open to the public - anyone who wants that info (or the info on synthesizing LSD-25, to cite another popular patent) can walk into a patent repository library in any state and buy a copy for about $3.

Actually, now if you know how to search it, you can look it all up on the Internet and print it from home. The knowledge is out there - it's not going to be buried.

I still love you anyway, Indolikka... even with your inflamatory arguments.

[adam]

which makes more sense - locking up information, or teaching people how to use information responsibly?

Well, I think the more appropriate question is, which makes more sense- locking up certain information, or teaching people how to use certain information responsibly at the cost of some innocent lives.

Don't get me wrong, I am all for free speech and after having studied Constitutional Law I am a strong proponent of the "marketplace of ideas" ideology. (If not familiar look it up, good stuff.) I do think there is some literature that just has so little social value that there is justification in censoring it if it protects lives, ie: child pornography. I can't say whether I would classify the "Terrorist Cookbook" as such literature because I have never read it nor will I ever. I really don't have an opinion, I was just speaking loosely, ie: terrorism=bad.

Still, I remember seeing a quote from that "cookbook" which talked about the best time of day to bomb a location to maximize child fatalities. I don't think this type of information has any redeeming social value whatsoever.

[poopyhead]

Still, I remember seeing a quote from that "cookbook" which talked about the best time of day to bomb a location to maximize child fatalities. I don't think this type of information has any redeeming social value whatsoever.

just to be the devil's advocate , perhaps a situation where the "end justifies the means"

hiroshima....

[hoyboy]

Gee, to think that this thread started with a kid asking some advice, and to see it ending with a BIG bang. (sort of how wars start, come to think of it)

[housepig]

I do think there is some literature that just has so little social value that there is justification in censoring it if it protects lives, ie: child pornography.

I would totally agree - I think (since when we say "child pornography" that usually refers to pictures) that is "evidence", not "literature".

but if we were talking about a book, no pictures, just text, that discussed sex with children, would you ban that?

it gets muddy when you start assuming intent - just because I own a copy of the Anarchist's Cookbook does not mean I intend to make pipe bombs or overthrow the government.

[vance43211]

Cecelio, that message wasnt directed at you.

However, you are going to show someone how to back up their own dvds using software that uses DeCSS or some other decryption algorythm. I would say that is very borderline illegal as someone else pointed out earlier. Just being in possesion of that code could be cause for trouble. The guy that invented it and didnt have a dvd copying business was chased down pretty hard but he was a minor and got off.

i read in a computer magazine a few month ago

that hollywood had the country that the boy is from, arrest him (he out on bond, i believe)

he faces 2 years in jail even though it wasn't illegal in his country

hollywood put tons of pressure on them

[housepig]

Name is Jon Johansen, he's not out on bail, he won the first case, but it's being appealed.

more info:
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-994919.html

[vance43211]

thanks for the clarification

[Nelson37]

I believe you guys were referring to "The Anarchist's Cookbook", which I used to own. While it was certainly inflammatory, it did contain much useful information. I do NOT recall anything about maximizing child fatalities, although damage to installations and injury to police was discussed. It was intended to aid in the overthrow of authority, at least to a limited extent. I believe it is Constitutionally protected for a citizen to be prepared to do this, though that is another debate.

On the DMCA, I believe there IS room for the courts to clarify what it really says. For instance, since the encryption is breakable, you could argue that is not an "effective control" . I think the better argument is that since the DMCA does not pre-empt Fair Use, for the limited case of personal back-up, the "titles are NOT protected under this act". In other words, the protection of the encryption method simply does not apply.

I also believe that the quality of the copy is irrelevant to the right to back-up, at least to the law while certainly not to the media industry.

While I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV, I would like to add that I have had occassion in the past to become intimitely familiar with certain areas of the law, and have successfully argued my interpretion of it against legal advice on 3 seperate occassions. There is often room to clarify what the law actually does or does NOT say. You have not broken a law if it does not state that what you did is, in fact, illegal. Language is the lawyer's game, play it.

The answer has not yet come, and may not be finalized for some time. There are no guarantees how the ultimate court decision will come down. Contact your Congressman with some reasonable argument for protecting your rights. Consider if every US viewer of this board did so! We could get Congress to re-write the law before it even gets tested! But then we would never really know, DARN!