Which one?

willll · Post by **willll** » September 5th, 2003, 5:47 pm

daihard wrote:
nilson wrote:I need to get some DVD-Rs, because my Mom's bringing some DVDs over- wait I didn't say that. But they are too $$$.
I don't even think it's illegal for you to copy your mom's DVDs. It should be way within the reasonable personal use.

It's not illegal as long as you are not circumventing copy protection, which if these are commercial DVDs, you certaintly are.

daihard · Post by **daihard** » September 5th, 2003, 5:51 pm

willll wrote:
daihard wrote:
nilson wrote:I need to get some DVD-Rs, because my Mom's bringing some DVDs over- wait I didn't say that. But they are too $$$.
I don't even think it's illegal for you to copy your mom's DVDs. It should be way within the reasonable personal use.
It's not illegal as long as you are not circumventing copy protection, which if these are commercial DVDs, you certaintly are.

Didn't the Norwegian government say something entirely different about you being allowed to do whatever you want to with your own copy of DVD as long as it's for your personal use? You pay a lot of money for a product, and you can't even legally watch it on your computer running Linux? I see something terribly wrong there.

willll · Post by **willll** » September 5th, 2003, 6:03 pm

daihard wrote:
willll wrote:
daihard wrote:
nilson wrote:I need to get some DVD-Rs, because my Mom's bringing some DVDs over- wait I didn't say that. But they are too $$$.
I don't even think it's illegal for you to copy your mom's DVDs. It should be way within the reasonable personal use.
It's not illegal as long as you are not circumventing copy protection, which if these are commercial DVDs, you certaintly are.
Didn't the Norwegian government say something entirely different about you being allowed to do whatever you want to with your own copy of DVD as long as it's for your personal use? You pay a lot of money for a product, and you can't even legally watch it on your computer running Linux? I see something terribly wrong there.

Maybe, but last time I checked, nilson didn't live in Norway. US law applies to him. Remeber the DMCA?

nilson · Post by **nilson** » September 5th, 2003, 6:21 pm

They're not films - They're collector sets of South Park and Bavis and Butthead.

willll · Post by **willll** » September 5th, 2003, 6:22 pm

nilson wrote:They're not films - They're collector sets of South Park and Bavis and Butthead.

I would expect that those have copy protection also.

nilson · Post by **nilson** » September 5th, 2003, 6:41 pm

But would the DMCA cover these?

willll · Post by **willll** » September 5th, 2003, 6:48 pm

nilson wrote:But would the DMCA cover these?

<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html">No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [a copyrighted work]. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter."</a> (It was passed in 1998).

nilson · Post by **nilson** » September 5th, 2003, 6:51 pm

Oh well - It's not like I give a damn about DMCA anyway.

Post by **Nitin** » September 5th, 2003, 7:05 pm

Sometime in the future:

Subpeona under DMCA

From: MPAA

To: Jason Kersey, admin, Mozillazine

Subject: Kindly provide us the IP address of user 'nilson'.

nilson · Post by **nilson** » September 5th, 2003, 7:11 pm

Sure, nilson's IP is 127.0.0.1

No, but it's dynamic -dialup. If kerz tells me that he gets a message like that, I'll immediately change ISPs!

hartlandcat · Post by **hartlandcat** » September 5th, 2003, 10:57 pm

nilson wrote:They're not films - They're collector sets of South Park and Bavis and Butthead.

South Park contains WAY to much swearing and is thus not suitable for you.

daihard · Post by **daihard** » September 6th, 2003, 12:48 am

hartlandcat wrote:
nilson wrote:They're not films - They're collector sets of South Park and Bavis and Butthead.

South Park contains WAY to much swearing and is thus not suitable for you.

I'm sure the average high-school kids speak like that.

daihard · Post by **daihard** » September 6th, 2003, 12:51 am

willll wrote:<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/1201.html">No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title [a copyrighted work]. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter."</a> (It was passed in 1998).

That is utterly ridiculous. Once I pay for an item, the item is mine. It should be totally up to me how I watch it. Just 'cause they want me to watch it on a standard DVD player or on Windows, I have to give up watching it on Linux? I can't think of any law that's half as insane as that (except for the capital punishment).

hartlandcat · Post by **hartlandcat** » September 6th, 2003, 1:06 am

daihard wrote:
hartlandcat wrote:
nilson wrote:They're not films - They're collector sets of South Park and Bavis and Butthead.

South Park contains WAY to much swearing and is thus not suitable for you.

I'm sure the average high-school kids speak like that.

I never swear.

daihard · Post by **daihard** » September 6th, 2003, 1:09 am

hartlandcat wrote:
daihard wrote:I'm sure the average high-school kids speak like that.

I never swear.

Are you an average high-school kid?