🚀 go-pugleaf

Kieron Briggs <kieron@abuzz.com.au> wrote in
message news:411c6896$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
> Sylvia Else wrote:

>> I am not convinced that a DVD player that just lets you
>> _watch_ a non-infringing DVD on your Linux workstation
>> falls into the definition of a circumvention device.

> I (and many others in the Linux community, as a browse
> through slashdot's archives would attest) disagree.

Pity you clowns keep proving that you aint actually
gotta clue about even the most basic law.

You clowns similarly mindlessly hyperventilated about the internet
content law too and not a single one of the silly claims you clowns
made ever actually happened when that legislation came into force.

> The wording of the DMCA/FTA/FTA Implementation Bill is
> "access control". Contrast this with our current legislation, which
> talks about "infringement prevention"; if the wording needs to be
> changed it would appear to be because the term "access" is to
> be taken literally, ie including ALL access including just watching.

Pathetic, really.

> If all that was intended to be covered was circumvention
> in order to copy, the existing wording would be adequate.

Pathetic, really.

> The get-out clause is that a circumvention device is
> OK as long as it has substantial "non-infringing use";

Which clearly just PLAYING the DVD is, stupid.

> but who decides that?

Same one who decides the previous "infringement prevention"

> Certainly the MPAA and DVD CCA in the US didn't
> consider DeCSS to have substantial non-infringing use,

Irrelevant. What matters is what they can convince a court on.

> even though I could use it to watch DVDs on Linux in a way
> which did not infringe copyright (and even though you don't need
> to decrypt something to copy it, just copy the encrypted version
> bit-for-bit and the player will decrypt it just like it would the original).

Pathetic, really.

>> You clearly have the authority of the copyright holder to
>> descramble the DVD to that extent, because it's completely
>> useless otherwise. A Linux based DVD viewer that only lets
>> you watch the DVD would not be giving you access to the
>> work beyond that given by the implied authority.

>> This is actually clearer under the DMCA than
>> under our own convoluted Copyright Act.

> This may be true in the US under the "fair use" doctrine.

Nothing whatever to do with fair use.

> However in Australia we don't have "fair use",
> we have a much weaker "fair dealing" clause.

Nothing whatever to do with that either.

> Since the content producers will claim the implied authority
> is not to "access" but rather "access in these certain ways",

Which just happens to include PLAYING the DVD, stupid.

> we're left with an uncertain situation until case law is built up.

Pathetic, really.

> As the document I referred to notes, the implementation bill
> doesn't take the opportunity to extend our right to cover fair use,

Nothing to do with fair use at all.

> even though the text of the FTA would allow it. Do you have the
> resources to defend your right to access data in whatever way
> you want to against multi-billion dollar media cartels? I sure don't.

Dont need to. They're never gunna know what you do with the DVD, stupid.

If you're silly enough to refuse to put the DVD in your linux
system because you're so stupid you cant manage even
the most basic legal concepts, thats YOUR problem.

>> I'm sure people will come back with cases that they claim
>> refute my position, but has there been a successful case
>> against a supplier of software which has essentially only the
>> same capabilities as the corresponding MS Windows programs?

> Worse, there's been at least one successful (US) case that I'm
> aware of against people who just _hyperlinked_ to the source
> of DeCSS. The court determined that 2600 magazine, but linking
> to the code, was supplying it and therefore liable under the DMCA.

Big deal. Trivial to drive an aircraft carrier thru that.

> I'm not whether you'd consider it 'successful', but Dmitry Sklyarov
> spent _time_in_jail_, arrested under the DMCA when he visited the US.

His problem. The US legal system has been
completely off the rails for CENTURYS now.

Nothing like that has EVER happened here.

We dont even jail for wilful flagrant breaches of copyright here.

> He worked for Elcomsoft, which produces software that reads
> Adobe's proprietary eBook format. The software in question
> was text-to-speech software to allow blind/vision-impaired
> people to access eBooks. The TPM it circumvented? ROT13!

Yawn.

> And of course, 'DVD-Jon', Jon Lech Johansen, was pursued
> for four years, tried not once but twice (acquitted both times),
> for reverse-engineering the CSS system used by DVDs. Yes,
> software to allow you to watch DVDs on Linux. Although he
> was not found guilty, the whole ordeal would have cost a
> huge amount of time and money.

Yawn.

> These sorts of cases aren't always about winning, they're
> often about scaring people into not putting up the fight.
> (SCO vs common sense is a great example of that).

Yep, the US legal system has been completely
off the rails for CENTURYS now.

Pity thats completely irrelevant to what is being discussed,
whether anything has changed HERE due to the FTA.

It hasnt.