Warez clarification sticky?

[Supreme2k]

Since, Baldrick has pointed out that downloading television episodes is okay, maybe an addendum should be made to the glossary, or sticky put here to re-define the limits of warez. I know that there are quite a few people who understand/believe that ownloaded episodes are warez (or at least against the rules), which is not true.

It should also be pointed out that multi-part downloads, such as RAR, ACE or ZIP are not warez either.

Finally, it may be a good idea to add that it is not necessary to name the video that you are trying to convert or identify. If it is an actual DVD, there may be specifics to ripping that particular movie, but the pre-ripped/converted simply need the format identified (Xvid, SVCD, etc.) Kind of a "Don't ask, don't tell (the title)" policy

[dphirschler]

Some things are better left in the gray area and not specifically defined. This is one of those things in my opinion.


Darryl

[ROBERT BLACK]

Never mind the fact that certain Warez are not illegal in select countries. Music downloading is legal in Canada for instance. At least until the recent ruling is appealed. I guess it depends in which country the host for videohelp is located in, and what the legalities are there.

[Supreme2k]

Some of the "grey areas" have been defined, but only in passing. That's why I propose formalizing certain rules, so people don't have to do a search for them, where they have been "un-greyed (?)".

[indolikaa]

Baldrick, you sure have me confused on this one!

[teegee420]

The TV ep downloading issue needs to be settled once and for all. I'm just as confused as Indolikaa.

[housepig]

Baldrick, you sure have me confused on this one!

I have to agree - reading the other thread, the justification seems to be "it's a grey area and I do it personally, so it's okay."

as I understand the copyright laws, in the US and Berne Convention signatory countries, unless the download is offered by the copyright holder, this would be infringement - so unless my name is Dick Wolf, if I put an episode of "Law & Order" on p2p, or download it, I'm violating copyright.

so how would this differ from a downloaded movie?

[thor300]

I guess its a matter of where in the world you live, its obvious that Usa is more strict in most ways, since that is where the big rich powerful companies and organizations reside. Doesnt matter much where a site is hosted i think, its up to each user to not break any laws of their own country, for example it is illegal for Americans to view European porn sites where nude models are 16-17 years old. Same would go for "wares/not wares" i think.

[indolikaa]

I guess its a matter of where in the world you live, its obvious that Usa is more strict in most ways, since that is where the big rich powerful companies and organizations reside. Doesnt matter much where a site is hosted i think, its up to each user to not break any laws of their own country, for example it is illegal for Americans to view European porn sites where nude models are 16-17 years old. Same would go for "wares/not wares" i think.

Very interesting argument.

Here's another one for you. Do the rules still apply in that manner if servers for this site are being mirrored in the United States?

[bugster]

Some of the "grey areas" have been defined, but only in passing. That's why I propose formalizing certain rules, so people don't have to do a search for them, where they have been "un-greyed (?)".

As far as I am aware, the rules are clear and really quite simple. If you see a post that you suspect breaks the forum rules, click on 'report this post' and provide a link to the post. Then let the Moderators decide if the forum rules have been broken.

[indolikaa]

Some of the "grey areas" have been defined, but only in passing. That's why I propose formalizing certain rules, so people don't have to do a search for them, where they have been "un-greyed (?)".

As far as I am aware, the rules are clear and really quite simple. If you see a post that you suspect breaks the forum rules, click on 'report this post' and provide a link to the post. Then let the Moderators decide if the forum rules have been broken.

Now I'm really confused!

[thor300]

I have no idea indolikaa, dont know how does one legally define a mirror site. The info would still be available without the mirror, and the original source of the information is still the same. Also, each user still have to follow the laws of his own country, the fact that a site is located in one country doesnt make the type of information legal in that same country.

[indolikaa]

I have no idea indolikaa, dont know how does one legally define a mirror site. The info would still be available without the mirror, and the original source of the information is still the same. Also, each user still have to follow the laws of his own country, the fact that a site is located in one country doesnt make the type of information legal in that same country.

In much the same light as our discussion about TV episodes, so we have uncovered another Grey Area...

[jimmalenko]

I started a poll quite a few weeks back titled "Are downloaded TV shows warez ?". It was very interesting to read many differing opinions, examples, hypotheticals etc.

@Baldrick:
I read with interest your view in the other thread.

as I understand the copyright laws, in the US and Berne Convention signatory countries, unless the download is offered by the copyright holder, this would be infringement - so unless my name is Dick Wolf, if I put an episode of "Law & Order" on p2p, or download it, I'm violating copyright.

In addition to this, why do management groups pay hundreds of millions for distribution rights if Joe Blow can "legally" cap it and distribute it to you over P2P or other download for free as you advocated ?

As far as I am concerned, downloaded TV shows are warez because of the unauthorised distribution, unless of course they are public domain. I might have to read the "any reproduction of this program, in part or in whole is prohibited etc etc." in the credits of Law & Order this week.

IMO using Fair Use as a legal right to copy or "backup" movies you own is pretty lame. I can understand the benefit of not scratching your originals etc etc but to the letter of the law, if you break encryption you break the law. If you could make a copy that still contains the encryption keys, this would be Fair Use in its true form.

[MeTaLgEaRsOoTy]

it could also be pointed out that the BBC are about to enable television episode downloads from there site.
to enable viewers to get what they have missed,kinda like the listen again function of radio1.

[Roderz]

it is illegal for Americans to view European porn sites where nude models are 16-17 years old

Is it ?
Over here we have 16yr olds topless in the natinal newspapers!

[adam]

As far as I am concerned, downloaded TV shows are warez because of the unauthorised distribution, unless of course they are public domain.

You are 100% correct. This really isn't a grey area at all. The process is illegal in most if not all countries. But since this is Baldrick's site he can make any rules he wants.

IMO using Fair Use as a legal right to copy or "backup" movies you own is pretty lame. I can understand the benefit of not scratching your originals etc etc but to the letter of the law, if you break encryption you break the law.

Actually no. Yes the DMCA does prohibit the breaking of encryption, but it also has an explicit exception for Fair Use acts. It is decidedly clear that you can break DVD encryption to copy a part of a DVD for parody, or for educational purposes because these are clearly Fair Use. IF copying a DVD for backup purposes qualifies as a Fair Use right then there is nothing illegal about breaking CSS encryption to do so. The problem is that no court or law has ever said that this does qualify as Fair Use. So in effect I guess I agree with you, but backing up is not illegal simply because you have to break encryption, its illegal because you have to break encryption AND it has not yet been ruled that it qualifies under the Fair Use exception to the DMCA.

[tgpo]

IMO using Fair Use as a legal right to copy or "backup" movies you own is pretty lame. I can understand the benefit of not scratching your originals etc etc but to the letter of the law, if you break encryption you break the law. If you could make a copy that still contains the encryption keys, this would be Fair Use in its true form.

Valenti, that you?

[thor300]

it is illegal for Americans to view European porn sites where nude models are 16-17 years old

Is it ?
Over here we have 16yr olds topless in the natinal newspapers!

Sorry roderz, maybe a bad example, i thought the sexual age limit was 18 in USA, but i guess its from state to state then. Thats off topic anyway but since its a sub-topic already i can mention that Norway has a 16 year age limit for sex and 18 years for nude models. Legal stuff can be confusing, different laws for different purposes. Maybe a bit like one law for DVD backup and another for timeshift in a way, but remotely. Anyway i find Norwegian law interesting concerning DVD backup, since the first arrest for breaking DVD encryption was done in Norway and he was not convicted (the kid internationally known as DVD-John) even if all the big US/international organizations pumped in resources to get him convicted. It kinda proved that powerful companies cannot override our rights as consumers.

Edit: And i have to add what you have already know; Im not an expert in "legal stuff concerning porn" Maybe TGPO can add some valuable (and very likely amusing) information about this topic. TGPOrn is already a part of the vocabulary of many users here i think..?

[thor300]

I cant agree with you in this Adam, the DVD-John trial proved that backup is acceptable (at least in Norway). I dont know much about law and i dont know details about the DVD-John trial, but from what i know he was not even convicted for posting CSS-cracks on the internet? Am i wrong here?

I used to download lots of TV show episodes, not really my fault the TV channel here chose to air Babylon5 on Sundays when i was in bed with hangover back in my younger days. I later decided to buy the Babylon5 DVDs, but those was not available back in the time when it aired, so what else could i do? I was allowed to have hangover whenever i wanted to, and still watch Babylon5!

[Roderz]

I was allowed to have hangover whenever i wanted to

I couldn't afford a hangover in Norway

[thor300]

I couldn't afford a hangover in Norway

LoL, very true, but when i was younger i didnt mind drinking the low quality moonshine liquor, its cheap and strong, usually 90% VOL and up, and NOTHING can give a bigger hangover. Now i wouldnt even smell the stuff, i hate it, but it used to be a natural part of weekend life.

[Baldrick]

Downloading movies and tv-shows is basicly okey.

But if you mention that you downloaded an unrelased movie/tv-show, rent and copy, downloaded something from a p2p network, from my huge warez server or similiar it isn't okey.

This has nothing to do with any laws.

[thor300]

Cant argue on that Baldrick, still its like what the original poster said, "Kind of a "Don't ask, don't tell (the title)" policy ". I kinda like the second post, by dphirschler; "Some things are better left in the gray area and not specifically defined. This is one of those things in my opinion. "

[housepig]

Baldrick -

let me make sure I get this straight - what you are saying is that just because something is downloaded, it doesn't automatically make it warez.

if someone references an unreleased movie, rental dub, screener, or p2p or warez sites, at that point we can report it as warez.

am I correct in this?

[Baldrick]

am I correct in this?

yep

[SatStorm]

Do you know how I call questions like this?
Bullshitism

We are adults, we pay taxes, we know pretty well the laws, and we know pretty well what is good or bad for the forum, ourselfs and the others around us.

Those who need "clarifications" on those subjects, or are newbies or are troublemakers. The members of this forum knows prety well how to handle both cases....
And those who don't soon they learn from others.

[teegee420]

Do you know how I call questions like this?
Bullshitism

We are adults, we pay taxes, we know pretty well the laws, and we know pretty well what is good or bad for the forum, ourselfs and the others around us.

Those who need "clarifications" on those subjects, or are newbies or are troublemakers. The members of this forum knows prety well how to handle both cases....
And those who don't soon they learn from others.

No, the problem is that the higher ups here keep contradicting themselves. Hopefully this thread will help clarify things. I think a sticky on a few of the forums would help too, as was originally suggested by Supreme2k

[adam]

I cant agree with you in this Adam, the DVD-John trial proved that backup is acceptable (at least in Norway). I dont know much about law and i dont know details about the DVD-John trial, but from what i know he was not even convicted for posting CSS-cracks on the internet? Am i wrong here?

Yes you are wrong here. If you read the court's opinion you will see that DVD John's acquittal had nothing to do with DVD backups. He was not on trial for backing up a DVD, he was on trial for posting allegedly illegal code. The court simply ruled that the code itself was legal since it had a legal purpose which was to play DVDs on Linux, and that was DVD John's alleged reason for posting the code. At no time did the court hold that backing up a DVD was legal under either US or Norway law. It is legal to post DeCSS. It is legal to use DeCSS code for legal purposes such as playing DVDs on Linux. But as of right now it is still illegal to use DeCSS to backup a DVD, and no court has yet addressed the issue.

The DVD John trial did nothing more than equate DeCSS code with a crowbar. The thing itself is legal but it can still be used for illegal purposes, and often is.

[Supreme2k]

I've learned to keep far away from SatStorm's baiting tactics.

BTW, the people whom you speak of would also have no need of moderators.