Quantcast

DRM-Stripping Software Isn't Copyright Infringement

Discussion in 'Google TV General Discussion' started by guest, Mar 8, 2015.

  1. guest

    guest Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
  2. Travel

    Travel Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston
    Good ruling.

    If you buy something, you can do want you want with it. You can share it by any means you wish.

    It's only copyright infringement if you commercially sell the content for profit.

    People sharing their own bought and paid for DVDs, etc., isn't "piracy," it's sharing ones own property.

    The prates are the ones who sell something, and after they get the money, couldn't care less if the customer loses access to that product; and, further, would restrict those same product owners from freely sharing the product, because they (the real pirates) don't want a second-hand-user "market" to exist.

    They have no right to do that, they've already been paid at least once for the content. It's (in their mind) okay to sell the same content multiple times over, but they don't want the buyers to share the content free, even once.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2015
  3. guest

    guest Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    I don't own anything that is DRM-protected. Those that do are probably already aware of what their options are, such as Top 5 DRM Copy Protection Removal Software

    That link puts another checkmark in Chromebox's Plus Column. Some on this forum have complained that their DRM media won't work on it.
     
  4. ChrisG8

    ChrisG8 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2011
    Messages:
    3,846
    Likes Received:
    462
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Defeating copy protection to make a copy of software is a crime, clearly stated with the DMCA. Defeating copy protection for other purposes isn't addressed by any law as far as I know. I am not sure what this judge has ruled but if the judge is stating it is OK to defeat copy protection and make a copy, I believe the judge is wrong, this part of the law has been upheld in previous court decisions and that will be overturned on appeal.
     
  5. guest

    guest Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2012
    Messages:
    756
    Likes Received:
    42
    Trophy Points:
    28
    If anyone has a question about what they can or cannot do regarding DRM, they should send an e-mail to the fellow that wrote this Electronic Frontier Foundation article, Parker Higgins parker@eff.org According to the article, there is a review of the legislation every three years to consider exemptions. The next review is this year.
     
  6. Travel

    Travel Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2012
    Messages:
    778
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Boston
    The judge is saying that this situation isn't copyright infringement. Just because the content provider says it is, that doesn't mean that it is. If it's left up to the content providers, VCRing a movie where you've already paid a cable subscription fee, and then giving it to your mother to watch, is copyright infringement (in their mind).
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2015
  7. jonw747

    jonw747 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2012
    Messages:
    1,127
    Likes Received:
    163
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This court case doesn't seem to push the needle. It's just common sense that the media provider should be able to deal with a situation where they can no longer provide something they sold.

    And while it would be nice if the law continued to allow personal recordings, they have to draw the line, or else why would anyone ever buy let alone rent a movie? (certainly some people don't, but they have those of us who actually do pay to thank for that)
     

Share This Page