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
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.
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.
just a little more details on DVDXCopy safeguards :Pirates [ 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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I understand that’s your opinion, but other people have other opinions.
Good job on the research. Actually, now that I know the case title, I found it on-line FindLaw Legal Blogs - FindLaw, 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.
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:
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.
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.
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:
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.
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:
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.
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.
Your understanding of Occam’s Razor is woefully inadequate.
I can think of any number of ways. What would that prove?
It was a reasonable possible scenario, but it was not an application of Occam’s Razor.
Since we’re so far off on this Occam’s Razor garbage, I’m going to revisit the original exchange:
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.
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.
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:
Perhaps they just made a lucky guess.
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.
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”?
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.
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:
Demonstrably not so. So, it’s either your understanding of Occam’s Razor that’s woefully inadequate, or your reading comprehension, or both.
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.
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.