Man Admits to Copying DVDs, Nothing Happens

He did not get a answer because the officials were taken off guard.

"Oh crap, he used our own words against us. Who thought someone out there would be so smart. What do we do now?"

Lets all use civil and more sensible actions, like DDoS attacks on those greedy record labels.

Good luck to this guy. It takes action to change stupid laws, and this guy is actually doing something about it. I'd like to see a lot of people join him, line up and the police station, and flood the place with "criminals" who backup their DVDs. Civil disobedience is fun stuff.

Ha, that is too funny. Hats off to you good sir!

It's unlikely anything will come of this, barring extraordinary measures, as the establishment would like to keep the ability to charge anyone at a whim.

I'll give him credit for taking this kind of risk, although his stated reason of contradictory laws seems bogus to me, those laws seem clear to me. The original law doesn't say anything about making personal copies of copyrighted material, its talking about materials defined as "public". I would think that putting DRM on something is a pretty clear signal that you do not consider this material to be public.

In the face..powerful stuff here. In fact..it would be great to have this happen on a huge scale so that the situation can no longer be denied..everything stops so us "criminals" can turn ourselves in.

12.1 States that you can make copies. - Well, I take it as "identical copies" For solely own use.
75.c States that if you circumvent copyright protection measures, you're eligible for fine and/or jail time.

He told that he broke the DRM on the DVDs to make copies of them, which, he breaks the 75.c and he doesn't fall under the protection of 12.1, as the copies aren't identical anymore. Good luck for him. He should have copied DRM there also.

The laws are not contradictory. They would only be so if the first law specifically stated that you were able to break protection schemes in doing so. Arguing that the laws are contradictory is like arguing that it is not against the law the drive on a public road, and therefore it should also not be against the law to drive on a road that is blocked or closed off. There are TONS of laws that make a general point only to be followed up by further laws that deal with more specific cases.

Now, I'm not arguing in favor of the movie industries because I think that the whole way they go about doing business and treating customers is BS. But the way that this individual, and others, are trying to argue their case is weak and, well, stupid.

Agreed. Furthermore bringing this issue to the police department does more harm to the town or city than it does to legislation and the corporations. It costs Police personnel time and subsequently the tax payers money (since their tax's pay for the municipal salary's), meanwhile it garners a little publicity that I'm sure the corporations won't even bat an eye at.

Change has to be reflected by votes by the majority, convince enough people that your argument makes sense and then let the representatives in the area know that their election rides on these ideas. In this case I'm inclined to agree with the poster I quoted, in that the law is pretty clear cut, however that's not to say that I support DRM. Ultimately this person has a problem with DRM, he needs to clearly present his problems with it and then gain public support for those problems. It's easy to cause a ruckus for publicity, but it just seems stupid when it ultimately results in no change.

He should stab another man, that'll get ya noticed.

Doing that in the US would end up with the guy facing a 30 trillion $ fine.

Perhaps the keyword here is 'effective'. If he was able to break the encryption it obviously wasn't very effective. Thus no violation.

Pirate Legos kick ass.

I don't think they will go after anyone unless they try to SELL copies of the movies.

EDIT - or try to distribute it over the internet.

The way this works is that the industry puppet agencies pick the cases with the most favorable facts to file. No way it is going to file suit against someone with a brain and the wherewithal to back up his actions. They will pick on poor uneducated grandmas and starving college students thank you very much.

man admits reading this article...nothing happens

So if the locks or alarm on your car fail to prevent it from being stolen (obviously the locks and alarm weren't very effective), then the thief who stole your vehicle should not be prosecuted because your locks were not effective?

I think you need to re-think your argument. That logic makes about as much sense as a hardcore gamer buying a mac to play games.

i think they wont backoff from prosecuting him, cos if they do, this can turn into a "he did it u did nothing.. then im doing it too) it will be messy.

I am not buying any movies from Hollywood unless they are used ones.Screw You greedbag indusatires will not get a dime of my money.

Buy Corporate Used !!!
Buy Indies New !!!
Bye Bye Hollywood !!!

There is no contradiction. It states that he can copy the movies. But, it must be done without breaking DRM. If you can copy the move without bypassing the DRM then all is well.

You miss the point here....the DRM is there to restrict you from doing a copy....so how can you use your right do make a personal copy without removing the DRM... Here is the contradiction....

No, I think ventond is right. It is widely accepted that DVD's CSS protection is a meaningless standard. It was broken so long ago and so easily (in fact, there was a contest who could write the least code to crack CSS, something ridiculously small was needed). It would not be very hard for a lawyer to prove to any rational person that CSS is in fact not an effective technology.

Your nonsense about cars and locks is silly. First, its established that one cannot break into cars just for fun. The 75.c statement that you cannot circumvent "effective" technologies is not the same thing. It is specifically for digital mediums, which a lock on a car does not belong.

Plus, suppose breaking into the car were in fact not prosecutable because the lock was clearly insufficient. Or better, suppose someone leaves their car running and you just take it off the street. No breaking of locks, no forced entry just open the handle. No need to hotwire the car, its already on. This is still illegal. What's the digital equivelant of this?

This guy is dumber than a box of Rocks. If he felt guilty about his actions all he had to do is destroy his fine work and throw it away and be done with it. Now because he is so ignorant he might face criminal charges. They say there is an idiot born every 12 seconds, this guy is living proof of it......................

WOW...just...WOW.

I completely disagree, that's genius, it's a loop-hole. You can logic your way out of anything ie love is blind, god is love, oh my god, stevie wonder is god. If you disagree, why does the legalise include the word "effective" when it could have easily been omitted? You can't draw analogies to pretend that the word "effective" was not there. It is clearly there, and is clearly "not-effective" technology measures.

I disagree I think this guy is a genius. He is forcing a law to be changed if this goes to court. We all have a right to make backups but greedy corporations have tried to take the right away by placing DRM on movies and games. So to make a backup that the law states is legal you have to break a contradictory law via circumventing the DRM. I wish him luck.

Effective to who? To the standard person without tools, yes, the encryption is effective. Can you break the encryption on a dvd WITHOUT using software written by someone else such as DVDFab or DVD Decrypter? The answer for 99% of the population would be no, they can't and so, one could say that that is an effective protection scheme especially considering that such programs are illegal in and of themselves in many countries as well.



You completely missed my point. The point was about using the since it's wasn't "effective" that its not prosecutable. Were talking about two completely different things here, one (the car) is a tangible physical object that can't just be duplicated. Let's change the example to something a little more similar. Let's say that you have an old computer, and you sell it. On the hard drive are some files which contain bank records. You have them password protected. The person that buys the computer guesses the password and now has your information. If they were to use that information, they would be arrested no? BUT, just like the DVD, they OWN the pysical medium that houses the data. And under the same notion as above, since the password was not effective, they would not be liable?

HAHAHA... I got mp3s... please arrest me!!!!

Actually, the law is contradictory. Not just for this case but for hundreds of other laws. New legislation is written every day with thousands of amendments that are down to a judge or sopme other legal entity to "interpret".

In this case, the law does not say "DRM", it says "circumvention of effective technological measures". This is basically copy protection. If you cannot copy without circumventing protection then it is clearly contradictory.

The question is not one of laws being in contradiction, but wether or not the legal entity, such as the judge, cares or not. If you are lucky, the Judge will say "100 DVD's, did you actually buy them? Yes? Fuck it, case closed. Go free, copy some more, whilst your at it show me how you did it cos I really dont want to scratch my original version of Dances With Wolves".