# Feds Close down 321 Studios makers of DVD copying software **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 4, 2004, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296 "2004-08-04T15:09:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cazzle/32/75_2.png) [@Cazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cazzle)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/61 "2004-08-05T14:04:29Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > I don’t know - where are you guys coming up with these wacky analogies? Cars haven’t been banned. If they were, maybe we’d be having the same discussion about them. Otherwise, how is it analagous? Well, I think that was my point. A car misused can be deadly, not merely dishonest, yet no one is campaigning to have them banned. Why? Because you can use them for legitimate purposes. You’re the one who said > [@](#): > > If you guys can prove to me that nobody ever used this software for pirating, then I’ll concede that it was stupid to disallow it. My point was that other products aren’t held to this standard. If we had to prove that any given item wasn’t going to be used in an illegal manner or we’d ban it, there wouldn’t be a lot of legal products around now, would there? We’ve given you repeated examples of uses for this product that don’t involve large-scale piracy or other seriously criminal enterprise, but you want us to prove that no one is ever going to misuse it in a serious manner? Can’t be done. On the other hand, traffic infringement revenues and motor vehicle accident death tolls would indicate that there is widespread illegal and potentially dangerous misuse of motor vehicles going on all the time, but we don’t ban cars because we can legitimately use them. > [@](#): > > It’s not just the fact that you have a right to own a DVD, it’s that you claim a right to own a copy of the DVD, so unless you refer to a right to own a copy of a gun, the analogy is nonsensical. > > Think about it - you’re claiming a right to a backup copy. In essence, you are saying that the company is obligated to allow you to have another working copy if the original breaks. So yes, it is very much like demanding a replacement copy. Since you like gun analogies, you wouldn’t get a free replacement gun if you tried to saw the barrel off and ruined it, would you? So why should you be entitled to a new DVD if you destroy the original? Not even remotely the same. A gun is a physical object that costs money to manufacture. It would cost the manufacturer money to supply you with an additional gun. Therefore, it’s unreasonable to expect a free replacement or a copy. However, the costs of making a replica DVD are bourne entirely by the owner of the disk. Expecting the manufacturers to supply you with a free disk upon which you could make your copy - that’s unreasonable. But for an object as fragile and prone to damage as a disk, and that is in a format that’s possible to recreate at home, then how is it any business of the manufacturer if you choose to make and use a copy to protect your original? You want an example of something that you could copy in the same manner? Ok, how about a dress. You buy it, you love it, you wear it all the time. Eventually, it’s going to wear out and you won’t be able to wear it anymore. You don’t expect the manufacturer to replace it for free and you don’t expect them to supply a duplicate for the day when this happens, but you don’t want to lose it entirely. You unpick the dress, and use the pieces as a template or pattern to make a new dress out of materials that you’ve purchased youself. Your dress is an example of something that could be technically illegal but is not immoral and is unlikely to be of great concern to the manufacturer. Now, suppose the designers are having trouble with knock-offs of their dresses appearing in the shops. Does it make sense to ban sewing machines to prevent fashion pirates from stealing their designs? No. There are legitimate uses for sewing machines. This doesn’t compare in any way to guns because very few people would have the skills needed to duplicate a gun. IMO, once we’ve paid for the right to broadcast a movie in our own homes, we should be allowed to exercise that right in any format that’s convenient to us as long as we don’t expect further input from the copyright holder. Forcing us to pay full price for another physical copy is unfair when the cost of the disk is just a fraction of the price and we’ve already paid for the licence once. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 3:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/62 "2004-08-05T15:22:42Z")
just a little more details on DVDXCopy safeguards :[Pirates](http://www.emedialive.com/Articles/ReadArticle.aspx?CategoryID=44&ArticleID=8241) [QUOTE]“This case also proves that our customers are not pirates,” Semaan continued. “Out of the hundreds of thousands of copies of DVDXCOPY sold, the studios can only point to ONE alleged misuse of our product and in this one case brought to our attention, we were able to help bring a stop to it within minutes of learning about it.” [/QUOTE] Is THIS the case that Blowero cites? What more evidence do you need **Blowero** , that this move wasn’t in the best interest of the studios? What more could 321 have done? > [@](#): > > 321 Studios has several anti-piracy measures built into its DVDXCOPY series of software, including: > > - An eight-second, indelible video warning, similar to the FBI warning found at the beginning of many DVD movies, alerting viewers of the backup copy that the DVD is not an original and is to be only used for non-commercial, personal use. > > - An electronic watermark that can trace any backup copy made with DVDXCOPY back to the original point of purchase allowing 321 Studios to remotely de-activate the software and prevent further misuse. > > - An embedded bit flag that prevents making a copy of a copy using DVDXCOPY. > > - A $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person using 321’s software to pirate movies. Good luck catching those eBay pirates now. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/63 "2004-08-05T15:46:12Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Dude, that’s about the worst misuse of Occam’s Razor I’ve ever seen. I quess not. As it was 321’s code on the DVD that allowed the industry to trace how and what this guy used to create his product. It was 321’s code on the DVD, that proved they were copies. It was 321’s code on the DVD, that allowed them to trace, track and police this guy, going so far as to REMOTELY disable his software. Again, I ask you what more could they have done? What more proof do you reasonably need to show that this is not the software of pirates, EVEN if someone decides to use it in that fashion? Why should hundreds of thousands of consumers lose their rights to software because of ONE, ONE proven case of piracy? ---
**Author:** ![mbacko1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/71e660/32.png) [@mbacko1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mbacko1)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 4:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/64 "2004-08-05T16:11:32Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > What if people were using biochemical weapons or other WMDs? Would you still allow the proliferation of such weapons, and just arrest the people who _use_ them? This is silly. I can see a legitimate use for backing up a DVD (especially if you have small children who might get their hands on them), but I don’t see a legitimate use for biochemical weapons or WMD. What is the defense for using biochemical weapons for any reason? “Sorry they rabbits in my yard were breeding out of control and it was me or them! So I gassed them dead. I’m sorry that I killed everyone in the neighborhood.” Pirating software, music, and DVDs for resale is wrong, but if someone does it, nobody dies. These company’s need to find a better way to capture the market share that they lose to pirates either by simultaneous release of the movie in theaters internationally, and simultaneous release of the DVD in all regions at the same time, lowering prices to reduce the margin of the pirates and get people to buy more copies of their movies, offering something in the package the pirates cannot offer like free movie passes, coupons, limited prints signed by the actors, whatever it takes. Offer free replacements for broken disks and fewer people will make legal copies of the DVDs. Hackers and pirates will always win in a technology war, you need to fight them with economics and marketing. ---
**Author:** ![catsix](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e19b73/32.png) [@catsix](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/catsix)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/65 "2004-08-05T17:18:59Z")
> [@](#): > > **Dog80** said: > Each time Intel wants to make a new chip, they have to change their whole production line. They can’t reuse equipment. Yup, they have to rebuild all their tools and dies, and they have to pay engineers out the wazoo to redesign the thing so that it’ll be smaller, faster, more transistors, and better than the last one. Looks like 321 went out of their way to ensure that this wouldn’t be a good tool for pirates, but an execellent tool for the home user who wants to make what they’re entitled to: a legitimate backup copy. Now, MPAA et al, make me a 17 GB DVD+R so that I can make what I’m legally entitled to have, and you won’t find me defeating CSS. If you try to use shitty tactics like CSS to require me to purchase a backup copy of every DVD I’ve purchased at anywhere from 14$ to 20$ each, I’ll continue to use things like DeCSS to break the CSS and shrink that DVD until it’ll fit on a 4.7 GB DVD+R. > [@](#): > > **mbacko1** said: > Hackers and pirates will always win in a technology war, you need to fight them with economics and marketing. They absolutely will. This ‘war on piracy’ will end up costing more than the ‘war on drugs’ and be even less successful. Those who are tech savvy enough to code will code. Then they’ll distribute. And if they absolutely have to they’ll do things like distribute the code on a T-shirt or as an artistic design. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/66 "2004-08-05T18:41:53Z")
> [@cazzle](#): > > If we had to prove that any given item wasn’t going to be used in an illegal manner or we’d ban it, there wouldn’t be a lot of legal products around now, would there? I’m getting dizzy from the leaps in logic here. Who said ANY GIVEN ITEM? We’re talking about a specific thing, not EVERY thing. You’re over-generalizing the debate. I never made such a general argument. Cars are different than DVD-burning software for any number of reasons. For one, a person’s quality of life would be severely diminished in many cases by not having a car. Would your life be completely changed because you don’t have a backup copy of your Scooby Doo DVD? I think not. > [@](#): > > We’ve given you repeated examples of uses for this product that don’t involve large-scale piracy or other seriously criminal enterprise, but you want us to prove that no one is ever going to misuse it in a serious manner? You _do_ realize that giving an example of a non-pirating use doesn’t prove that pirating doesn’t exist, right? It’s already _been_ proven that people use it for pirating; it was proven in court. > [@](#): > > Not even remotely the same. A gun is a physical object that costs money to manufacture. It would cost the manufacturer money to supply you with an additional gun. Therefore, it’s unreasonable to expect a free replacement or a copy. However, the costs of making a replica DVD are bourne entirely by the owner of the disk. Expecting the manufacturers to supply you with a free disk upon which you could make your copy - that’s unreasonable. But for an object as fragile and prone to damage as a disk, and that is in a format that’s possible to recreate at home, then how is it any business of the manufacturer if you choose to make and use a copy to protect your original? You’re missing the point. **They didn’t file the lawsuit to stop people from making backup copies.** That’s a strawman argument. They filed the lawsuit to stop people from making illegal copies and selling them. The fact that it may prevent you from making a backup copy is incidental. > [@](#): > > IMO, once we’ve paid for the right to broadcast a movie in our own homes, we should be allowed to exercise that right in any format that’s convenient to us as long as we don’t expect further input from the copyright holder. Forcing us to pay full price for another physical copy is unfair when the cost of the disk is just a fraction of the price and we’ve already paid for the licence once. I understand that’s your opinion, but other people have other opinions. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/67 "2004-08-05T18:44:46Z")
> [@Dog80](#): > > Actually, even the 2 dollars is a stretch. CDs cost much much less than that. AOL would have gone bust after distributing all those junk CDs. > > And the chip manufacturing is a bad example. Each time Intel wants to make a new chip, they have to change their whole production line. They can’t reuse equipment. CD manufacturing isn’t like that. The same machine that created Celine Dion’s CD will be used for the new Metallica CD. Now you’re splitting hairs. The principle is the same - the _actual cost_ of manufacturing a silicon chip is much less than the price charged for it. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/68 "2004-08-05T19:07:27Z")
> [@holmes](#): > > just a little more details on DVDXCopy safeguards > Is THIS the case that Blowero cites? > > What more evidence do you need **Blowero** , that this move wasn’t in the best interest of the studios? What more could 321 have done? > > Good luck catching those eBay pirates now. Good job on the research. Actually, now that I know the case title, I found it on-line [FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw](http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/cyberlaw/pp32130304opn.pdf), so I’m gonna try to take a look at it and get back to you. Like I said before, if it’s really true that nobody was really using this software for pirating, then I totally agree with you guys that it was a stupid lawsuit. Although your comment about Occam’s Razor is kind of lame. You _do_ realize that taking a guess, and having that guess _happen_ to be correct does not retroactively make it a logical inference. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/69 "2004-08-05T19:20:04Z")
O.K. - read the opinion. Unfortunately, the judge doesn’t make any reference to the evidence as far as how many piraters exist. Apparently, he doesn’t consider it relevant, since the software is ipso facto illegal. So I guess there are 2 issues: 1. Are consumers’ rights being violated? I think not - the ruling obviously adheres to the law. If you have a complaint, it ought to be with the extreme specificity of the law. 2. Was it a stupid case? If indeed, they only had evidence of ONE guy who was using the software for illegal profit, then I absolutely agree that it was a waste of time to file that lawsuit. Even though they are legally correct, I agree that the industry ought to pick its battles. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/70 "2004-08-05T19:41:32Z")
> [@mbacko1](#): > > This is silly. I can see a legitimate use for backing up a DVD (especially if you have small children who might get their hands on them), but I don’t see a legitimate use for biochemical weapons or WMD. What is the defense for using biochemical weapons for any reason? “Sorry they rabbits in my yard were breeding out of control and it was me or them! So I gassed them dead. I’m sorry that I killed everyone in the neighborhood.” The point of the analogy was to show that the philosophy of only punishing the criminal, and never defeating the _means_ to the crime, does not hold universally. That’s the extent of that analogy. You are attempting to extend the analogy beyond its scope. In addition, the judge disagrees with you: > [@](#): > > However, prohibition of manufacture or trafficking of any technology _primarily_ designed to circumvent a technological measure that either controls access to or protects a right of a copyright owner to or in a work protected under the DMCA, obviously **is not evaded by the existence of arguably limited alternative uses.** Pirating software, music, and DVDs for resale is wrong, but if someone does it, nobody dies. [/QUOTE] Again, _fallacy of the extended analogy_. You can blame Mr2001 for using weapons as an analogy - he’s the one who came up with the “knife” and “gun” analogies, not me. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 9:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/71 "2004-08-05T21:01:44Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Although your comment about Occam’s Razor is kind of lame. You do realize that taking a guess, and having that guess happen to be correct does not retroactively make it a logical inference. Lame doesn’t even cover your comment here. A noted feature of the technology was its clearly labeled disclaimers and easily tracked copying procedure, designed specifically to make piracy more difficult by making it more obvious. Someone got caught, and they were able to track the technology to 321. Why? _Because it’s designed that way._ You know, to prevent piracy. It’s more than a little puzzling that you call it a “guess” when the explanation fits perfectly with the reason those disclaimers and tracking numbers were added to the technology in the first place. I mean, duh. The logical deduction was obvious to just about everyone here but you. It wasn’t “lame”, it was absolutely correct (and also, by the way, the simplest answer), and the connection was plain as day even before the cite that showed exactly one instance of piracy. As someone else already asked in this thread: How would they have known it was 321’s software doing the piracy if not for the disclaimers? Suck it up and admit that it was the most reasonable inference at the time. As for the legality of backups, you seem to be in the right. From the [US Copyright Office:](http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html) > [@](#): > > Can I backup my computer software? > Yes, under certain conditions as provided by section 117 of the Copyright Act. Although the precise term used under section 117 is “archival” copy, not “backup” copy, these terms today are used interchangeably. This privilege extends only to computer programs and not to other types of works. So archival copies are only allowed for computer programs. Not DVDs, not computer files, not e-books, just computer programs. Which is damn stupid. And wrong. And stupid. And it should be changed. But it seems pretty clear to me, in my inexpert opinion, that backups are not automatically legal. They make a great deal of sense, but sense and the law don’t always go hand in hand. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/72 "2004-08-05T22:07:26Z")
> [@Stricker van Gogh](#): > > Lame doesn’t even cover your comment here. > > A noted feature of the technology was its clearly labeled disclaimers and easily tracked copying procedure, designed specifically to make piracy more difficult by making it more obvious. Someone got caught, and they were able to track the technology to 321. Why? _Because it’s designed that way._ You know, to prevent piracy. Uh, hello? You’re noting that AFTER THE FACT. He originally GUESSED that that was the case, and wrongly claimed it was an application of Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor says not to unneccessarily multiply entities to explain a phenomenon. It does not say “If you make a reasonable guess, then it’s automatically right”, which is the way you are using it. Occam’s gotta be pretty dizzy from all the spinning he’s doing in his grave these days. > [@](#): > > It’s more than a little puzzling that you call it a “guess” when the explanation fits perfectly with the reason those disclaimers and tracking numbers were added to the technology in the first place. I mean, duh. The logical deduction was obvious to just about everyone here but you. It wasn’t “lame”, it was absolutely correct (and also, by the way, the simplest answer), and the connection was plain as day even before the cite that showed exactly one instance of piracy. Your understanding of Occam’s Razor is woefully inadequate. > [@](#): > > As someone else already asked in this thread: How would they have known it was 321’s software doing the piracy if not for the disclaimers? I can think of any number of ways. What would that prove? > [@](#): > > Suck it up and admit that it was the most reasonable inference at the time. It was _a_ reasonable possible scenario, but it was not an application of Occam’s Razor. > [@](#): > > As for the legality of backups, you seem to be in the right. Of course I am. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/73 "2004-08-05T22:13:59Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > There are some times when it’s appropriate to go after the means Thank you for conceding my point. ---
**Author:** ![blowero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/41988e/32.png) [@blowero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blowero)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/74 "2004-08-05T22:29:56Z")
Since we’re so far off on this Occam’s Razor garbage, I’m going to revisit the original exchange: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by holmes: > How many people? How many discs did they produced? Did they remove the splash screen? > > Blowero: > YOU’RE the one making the claim that pirates don’t use that software, in obvious contradiction of the evidence presented in court. Why don’t YOU prove your point? > > Holmes: > How about this, they didn’t remove the splash screen and got reported by a disguntled customer. If that 's the case, then the anti-pirating protection worked and they were caught. > > Blowero: > Pure speculation. Now you cannot tell me that the portion starting with “How about this…” _proves_ that pirates don’t use the software - appeals to Occam notwithstanding. It’s very clear; he doesn’t say “Here’s the evidence…”, he says “How about this…” Remember, he needs in this case to prove that PIRATES DON’T USE THE SOFTWARE, not say that maybe such-and-such happened. It’s quite obviously a guess. And a guess does not retroatively become a proof if it just happens to turn out to be correct. And even if it did, it still doesn’t prove that pirates don’t use the software. You guys are COMPLETELY in left field on this one. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/75 "2004-08-05T22:51:57Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > **They didn’t file the lawsuit to stop people from making backup copies.** Yes they did – they insisted that the backup program be removed from the market altogether, not that more effective steps be taken to prevent illegal use. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/76 "2004-08-05T22:59:40Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > > [@Stricker van Gogh](#): > > > > A noted feature of the technology was its clearly labeled disclaimers and easily tracked copying procedure, designed specifically to make piracy more difficult by making it more obvious. Someone got caught, and they were able to track the technology to 321. Why? Because it’s designed that way. You know, to prevent piracy. > > Uh, hello? You’re noting that AFTER THE FACT. He originally GUESSED that that was the case, and wrongly claimed it was an application of Occam’s Razor. Er, no; I brought up Occam’s Razor, and I did so quite correctly. There are a number of ways in which the MPAA could have learned that 321’s software was used by this one bootlegger: 1. Perhaps they just made a lucky guess. 2. Perhaps the various features incorporated into 321’s software for the specific purpose of tracking and identifying this type of misuse gave the bootlegger away. 3. Perhaps somebody was watching the bootlegger for some other reason and tipped them off. Now, class, which of these theories does not require “entitites to be multiplied unnecessarily”? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/77 "2004-08-05T23:02:22Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Thank you for conceding my point. Er, no; your point still lacks validity. Limiting the **means** rather than the **act** requires special justification (i.e. the means must lack any significant legitimate use that cannot be met otherwise). This criterion is met for laws against having nukes and nerve gas in the garage (they just can’t be used in self-defense without risk to innocent bystanders, and you can defend yourself with ordinary small arms instead); it is not met in this case. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/78 "2004-08-05T23:04:06Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Remember, he needs in this case to prove that PIRATES DON’T USE THE SOFTWARE Nonsense. He doesn’t need to prove any such thing, any more than the NRA needs to prove that no criminal has ever used a gun. ---
**Author:** ![Hellestal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3ab097/32.png) [@Hellestal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hellestal)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2004, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/79 "2004-08-05T23:56:43Z")
> [@blowero](#): > > Uh, hello? You’re noting that AFTER THE FACT. He originally GUESSED that that was the case, and wrongly claimed it was an application of Occam’s Razor. Occam’s Razor says not to unneccessarily multiply entities to explain a phenomenon. It does not say “If you make a reasonable guess, then it’s automatically right”, which is the way you are using it. Occam’s gotta be pretty dizzy from all the spinning he’s doing in his grave these days. Cripes. Read a little more careful, willya? I stated, quite clearly, that **holmes** ’s inference was the simplest explanation, and that he offered it before the proof came in. Here it is again: > [@Stricker van Gogh](#): > > It’s more than a little puzzling that you call it a “guess” when the explanation fits perfectly with the reason those disclaimers and tracking numbers were added to the technology in the first place. I mean, duh. The logical deduction was obvious to just about everyone here but you. It wasn’t “lame”, it was absolutely correct (and also, by the way, **the simplest answer** ), and the connection was plain as day **even before the cite that showed exactly one instance of piracy**. Bolding added. Here’s a definition of [Occam’s razor](http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=occam%27s%20razor) from [dictionary.com](http://dictionary.com): > [@a dictionary](#): > > A rule in science and philosophy stating that entities should not be multiplied needlessly. This rule is interpreted to mean that the simplest of two or more competing theories is preferable and that an explanation for unknown phenomena should first be attempted in terms of what is already known. > [@blowero](#): > > Your understanding of Occam’s Razor is woefully inadequate. Demonstrably not so. So, it’s either your understanding of Occam’s Razor that’s woefully inadequate, or your reading comprehension, or both. > [@Stricker van Gogh](#): > > As someone else already asked in this thread: How would they have known it was 321’s software doing the piracy if not for the disclaimers? > > > [@blowero](#): > > > > I can think of any number of ways. What would that prove? Well, if you could think of one simpler than the one **holmes** suggested, which doesn’t seem likely considering you didn’t actually mention any of these “other” ways, Occam’s Razor would indicate we should take that simpler suggestion. And as for this guessing business: Just because **holmes** didn’t fancify the language used doesn’t mean he wasn’t using sound logical principles when he was making the inference. “Pure speculation”, you derisively called it, which simply wasn’t true. He had an argument to make, and had been laying down the pieces for it. If you think he was a little sloppy and a little unclear, fine, but that doesn’t mean that the reasoning behind the statements wasn’t there. Your missing it the first time round is no big deal. Your continual denial seems more than trifle disingenuous. ---
**Author:** ![holmes](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/e95f7d/32.png) [@holmes](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/holmes)\ **Post date:** [August 6, 2004, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296/80 "2004-08-06T00:07:24Z")
This is the original exchange: > [@](#): > > Originally Posted by blowero > By the way, according to this article, the plaintiffs did provide evidence to the court that people are in fact using the software to run pirating businesses. My response: \*"How many people? How many discs did they produced? Did they remove the splash screen? How about this, they didn’t remove the splash screen and got reported by a disguntled customer. If that 's the case, then the anti-pirating protection worked and they were caught. Problem solved."\* It’s a little different than your version… [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/feds-close-down-321-studios-makers-of-dvd-copying-software/258296.md?page=5)