It's now legal in the US to Crack Games, and rip DVD movies!

[DaMulta]

Along with the Jail Break now being legal for the iPhone. There is also other things that are now legal to do that were not legal. Below list the few new things like being about to make non commercial videos out of your dvds that you purchased. Also now being able to remove DRM from games without having to pirate the game. This is big big news.

The only thing that this did not cover was console modding, and I did see a story about someone being arrested for it today. Yet, I could see it maybe covered with this ruling today. Pirating games is not the only thing useful about cracking consoles.

(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos

(2) computer
programs that enable wireless telephone handsets to execute software applications, where circumvention is accomplished for the sole purpose of enabling interoperability of such applications, when they have been lawfully obtained, with computer programs on the telephone handset.

(3) Computer programs, in the form of firmware or software, that enable used wireless telephone handsets to connect to a wireless telecommunications network, when circumvention is initiated by the owner of the copy of the computer program solely in order to connect to a wireless telecommunications network and access to the network is authorized by the operator of the network.

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

(5) Computer programs protected by dongles that prevent access due to malfunction or damage and which are obsolete. A dongle shall be considered obsolete if it is no longer manufactured or if a replacement or repair is no longer reasonably available in the commercial marketplace; and

(6) Literary works distributed in ebook format when all existing ebook editions of the work (including digital text editions made available by authorized entities) contain access controls that prevent the enabling either of the book’s read-aloud function or of screen readers that render the text into a specialized format.

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/drm...one,10944.html

[DanishDevil]

Interesting. And bahahaha dongle. Love that word.

[AsRock]

I think the mod chips are against the law with console.

But last i heard about ripping movies and games is legal as long as you own the original. Even D2D your allowed to put the data on a DVD if you wanted. They forever changing the shit and good luck in reinforcing it lol.

EDIT: In the end if your backups done right you should not need to use a crack anyways

[streetfighter 2]

This is old news. TPU has at least a couple threads on it. Here's the complete ruling:
https://www.eff.org/files/filenode/d.../RM-2008-8.pdf

Originally Posted by DaMulta

Also now being able to remove DRM from games without having to pirate the game

This is not stipulated. Circumvention is not tantamount to removal.

(4) Video games accessible on personal computers and protected by technological protection measures that control access to lawfully obtained works, when circumvention is accomplished solely for the purpose of good faith testing for, investigating, or correcting security flaws or vulnerabilities, if:
(i) The information derived from the security testing is used primarily to promote the security of the owner or operator of a computer, computer system, or computer network; and
(ii) The information derived from the security testing is used or maintained in a manner that does not facilitate copyright infringement or a violation of applicable law.

But we're still waiting for a definition of fair use aren't we? I still can't legally backup DVD's right? Unless I'm going to say it's for some BS educational purpose or whatever.

I guess it's still progress, but of the glacial sort.

[RejZoR]

It's moving in the right direction. I just hope they would force them to remove activation limits for game copy protections someday. It's so freakin retarded to be so damn careful how you install and remove game otherwise you waste activations. It's just pissing me off. To be honest, i wouldn't mind activations if you could activate product unlimited times without any worries of ever getting blocked because of that.

Though in our country, it is supposedly legal to create 1 backup copy of any kind of digital work for personal use. So basically if you buy a DVD, you can make 1 backup of that DVD legally and use it yourself only. Just in case if disc gets scratched or otherwise damaged. But i haven't checked if anything changed regarding this, being our government is usually a stupid sheep following the EU herd. Whatever nonsense they recommend, our politics jump on it. Good thing is that EU hasn't released any too idiotic laws so far (thankfully).

[Mussels]

basically, you can rip movies so long as you dont make money from it... which is how it should be.

Originally Posted by Mussels

basically, you can rip movies so long as you dont make money from it... which is how it should be.

I think mst people believe that and a practical matter, I'm not worried about SWAT tossing in a flash-bang and breaking down my door. But the thing is that there isn't a solid legal basis for that as far as I know. And that's what pisses people off. I mean, if I want to crack a DRM lock, i'm going to do it - f*ck 'em. But a lot of people are afraid to and right now, we can't really point to any case law or statute and say, 'no, no, it's really ok', because we just don't know for certain.

[streetfighter 2]

Originally Posted by twilyth

I think mst people believe that and a practical matter, I'm not worried about SWAT tossing in a flash-bang and breaking down my door. But the thing is that there isn't a solid legal basis for that as far as I know. And that's what pisses people off. I mean, if I want to crack a DRM lock, i'm going to do it - f*ck 'em. But a lot of people are afraid to and right now, we can't really point to any case law or statute and say, 'no, no, it's really ok', because we just don't know for certain.

This has been the subject of discussion for a long time and I'm hoping that I can put it to rest in a few swift strokes.

Firstly, copying a movie has long been considered fair use provided:
1) the movie in question was legally purchased
2) the backup is used in a non-infringing way.

However, and this is where the misunderstanding originates, circumvention of a DRM system is still illegal unless the person circumventing has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos
(It should be noted here that this is copied directly from the most recent ruling by the Librarian of Congress, which is the subject of this thread.) Most of us will not fall under this exemption and it should not be considered tantamount to a backup; it's better thought of as a provision allowing for modifications of a copyrighted movie under very strict conditions.

More complicated still, a recent ruling in MGE UPS SYSTEMS INC. v. GE CONSUMER AND INDUSTRIAL INC went on record with this statement:
Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.

This appears to be an exemption, applicable in fair use instances, to DMCA section 1201(a)(1)(A), which prohibits circumventing access controls (DRM).

So circumventing DRM in order to copy a movie is possible in a non-infringing way. However distribution of a means of circumvention is still illegal under section 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) of the DMCA. That is to say, that you can circumvent a DRM system when creating a fair use copy of a movie, however it is illegal for anyone to give or sell you a tool that accomplishes this. If a person already has a means of circumvention then all of this is totally kosher.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, or even a lawyer, just an interested party with a fast internet connection.

[Mussels]

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

That is to say, that you can circumvent a DRM system when creating a fair use copy of a movie, however it is illegal for anyone to give or sell you a tool that accomplishes this. If a person already has a means of circumvention then all of this is totally kosher.

its stuff like that, that makes this whole thing stupid.

[streetfighter 2]

Originally Posted by Mussels

its stuff like that, that makes this whole thing stupid.

I sincerely concur.

I think I should add that upon review of 1201(a)(2), it is not just illegal for an entity to give or sell you a circumvention tool, but it is also explicitly illegal for you to download or otherwise obtain one as this would clearly fall under "import" of a circumvention tool.

The reason why I mention this is because it reminds me of the "file-sharing" laws of olde which made it illegal to upload but not download. Unfortunately the DMCA clearly shows that both download and upload operations are illegal when the subject is a circumvention tool.

However . . . The DMCA does allow an exemption for a circumvention tool if it can be proved that a circumvention tool has substantial non-infringing use. I have yet to see a tool accomplish this in court but it stands to reason that one can legally obtain a circumvention tool provided it is relatively new and has not been brought to trial yet.

[Perseid]

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

MGE UPS SYSTEMS INC. v. GE CONSUMER AND INDUSTRIAL INC[/URL] went on record with this statement:
[I]Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.

Wow. That's messed up. Wouldn't that make DeCSS and AnyDVD legal since you can use it just to watch encrypted discs? I thought the whole point of the DMCA was to eliminate the 'it can be used for legal reasons' excuse.

[Wrigleyvillain]

So this means DVD X Copy is legal again and no longer specifically banned?

[streetfighter 2]

Originally Posted by Perseid

Wouldn't that make DeCSS and AnyDVD legal since you can use it just to watch encrypted discs?

Originally Posted by Wrigleyvillain

So this means DVD X Copy is legal again and no longer specifically banned?

Unfortunately I don't really have all the information needed to answer this question. But in a nutshell, NO.

It is my current understanding that section 1201(a)(2)(B) and 1201(b)(1)(B) of the DMCA leaves the burden of proving a substantial noninfringing use for a circumvention tool on the maker of said tool.

Additionally in the case MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd. the following opinion was made:
"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device's lawful uses."

Since the fundamental function of DVD copying tools is to circumvent protection mechanisms it would likely fall into the category of devices described by the aforementioned opinion. However there does appear to still be leeway in the manner of substantial noninfringing use even though I am unable to find a legal measure of substantial noninfringing use.

I am seriously out of my comfort zone on this one.

Originally Posted by Perseid

I thought the whole point of the DMCA was to eliminate the 'it can be used for legal reasons' excuse.

I sincerely doubt that was the point of the DMCA. If anything it is designed to secure profit channels for copyright holders (unofficially of course). Officially, Article I, section 8, clause 8 of the United States Constitution, it is "to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries".

[wahdangun]

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

I sincerely concur.

I think I should add that upon review of 1201(a)(2), it is not just illegal for an entity to give or sell you a circumvention tool, but it is also explicitly illegal for you to download or otherwise obtain one as this would clearly fall under "import" of a circumvention tool.

The reason why I mention this is because it reminds me of the "file-sharing" laws of olde which made it illegal to upload but not download. Unfortunately the DMCA clearly shows that both download and upload operations are illegal when the subject is a circumvention tool.

However . . . The DMCA does allow an exemption for a circumvention tool if it can be proved that a circumvention tool has substantial non-infringing use. I have yet to see a tool accomplish this in court but it stands to reason that one can legally obtain a circumvention tool provided it is relatively new and has not been brought to trial yet.

so its mean right now real media can sell their copy dvd program, because it still retain the DRM,(because RealDVD, will rip your movie WITHOUT breaking the CSS encryption)

i hope real can fast read this thing, and make real dvd available again

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

Firstly, copying a movie has long been considered fair use provided:
1) the movie in question was legally purchased
2) the backup is used in a non-infringing way.

Leaving aside the DRM cracking issue for the moment, is there a statute or case law that explicitly gives us that right - to make backup copies of things we've purchased? I know that is the prevailing attitude on the part of most of the people I've seen comment on this, but my impression is that it is still just an educated guess rather than black letter law.

I hope it has been resolved - finally. I just saying if you have authoritative sources, I would appreciate hearing about them.

Thank you.

[streetfighter 2]

Originally Posted by twilyth

Leaving aside the DRM cracking issue for the moment, is there a statute or case law that explicitly gives us that right - to make backup copies of things we've purchased? I know that is the prevailing attitude on the part of most of the people I've seen comment on this, but my impression is that it is still just an educated guess rather than black letter law.

I hope it has been resolved - finally. I just saying if you have authoritative sources, I would appreciate hearing about them.

Thank you.

But of course it's law. It's called Fair use and it has been law since 1976, see 17 U.S.C. § 107.

For more information check out the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

But of course it's law. It's called Fair use and it has been law since 1976, see 17 U.S.C. § 107.

For more information check out the wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

It says

for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research

Backups don't fall under any of those exceptions.

As I recall, the MPAA postition is that backups are NOT a 'fair use' under the statute.

So is there case law that says I can back up DVD's that I own? Because that is clearly not part of the statute as far as I can tell.

For example:

MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal

Also see here for the explicit claim that backups are not considered fair use.

DVDs: No Ripping/Copying.. But..

College professors and students, documentary filmmakers, and those making noncommercial videos, are now able to circumvent the copyright protection on DVDs in order to use short clips from those DVDs in new works "for the purpose of criticism or comment." The exemption was previously in place for professors, but has now been expanded to include students and filmmakers. The exception does not allow for users to copy whole works, or for individuals to create backups of DVDs they personally own, an issue brought up last year in the RealDVD case.

[PVTCaboose1337]

Glad to see what I have been doing for a while is legal. Anyway, not that it matters or I care. My contingency plan in case of computer seizure is 1 pound of thermite over my hard drive.

[Solaris17]

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

This has been the subject of discussion for a long time and I'm hoping that I can put it to rest in a few swift strokes.

Firstly, copying a movie has long been considered fair use provided:
1) the movie in question was legally purchased
2) the backup is used in a non-infringing way.

However, and this is where the misunderstanding originates, circumvention of a DRM system is still illegal unless the person circumventing has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos
(It should be noted here that this is copied directly from the most recent ruling by the Librarian of Congress, which is the subject of this thread.) Most of us will not fall under this exemption and it should not be considered tantamount to a backup; it's better thought of as a provision allowing for modifications of a copyrighted movie under very strict conditions.

More complicated still, a recent ruling in MGE UPS SYSTEMS INC. v. GE CONSUMER AND INDUSTRIAL INC went on record with this statement:
Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.

This appears to be an exemption, applicable in fair use instances, to DMCA section 1201(a)(1)(A), which prohibits circumventing access controls (DRM).

So circumventing DRM in order to copy a movie is possible in a non-infringing way. However distribution of a means of circumvention is still illegal under section 1201(a)(2) and 1201(b) of the DMCA. That is to say, that you can circumvent a DRM system when creating a fair use copy of a movie, however it is illegal for anyone to give or sell you a tool that accomplishes this. If a person already has a means of circumvention then all of this is totally kosher.

I'm not a copyright lawyer, or even a lawyer, just an interested party with a fast internet connection.

Beachfront Avenue


thats all i got out of that.

[douglatins]

Wow, major breakthrough in consumer rights! I think that is awesome. Also thermite great stuff.
See it like this if you own a stereo you could mod it to get better sound and features, same with game consoles, etc.

[Solaris17]

im going to laugh at all the people who read this and go out and DL cracked games rip all their videos mod their xbox etc. That is NOT what this is saying. Like the iphone was origianlly tied to this. yup the people who cracked their firmware were within their right. they were doing it to see if they could/how it worked. but jailbreaking your iphone ipod etc is NOT legal. People read this and immediately think omfg awesome. Its a step in the right direction but you look pompus when you tell all your buds stealing MP3's is legal as long as you convert them or some BS if you read this carefully it seems like their giving freedom and they are. but they are incredibly STRICT on what they now allow you to do. So much infact that i kinda dont see how this applies to us normal PC users at all. unless your some kind of college professor.

[streetfighter 2]

Originally Posted by twilyth

Backups don't fall under any of those exceptions.

It says "such as", not "explicitly falling under the following categories of". There is leeway in fair use, which is one of the reasons making a backup copy is such murky territory. Essentially if you made a copy of your legally purchased DVD, then locked the backup in your closet with your receipt and never lost or broke your original copy then you'd have a fairly ironclad case in court. (This is, of course, assuming that somehow magically you'd ended up in court over this.) The MPAA would have a very difficult time proving your actions had not been consistent with fair use.

I've seen stuff about transient forms of copying (like having a file on your HD), which are much less likely to be considered fair use. Even the data stream of a movie on its way to your television is actually a form of reproduction that is carefully stipulated in copyright law.

Originally Posted by twilyth

As I recall, the MPAA postition is that backups are NOT a 'fair use' under the statute.

So is there case law that says I can back up DVD's that I own? Because that is clearly not part of the statute as far as I can tell.

The MPAA is entitled to their interpretation, but I haven't read any rulings that incontrovertibly confirm or deny the MPAA's position. As I said earlier, fair use is open to interpretation and invites many cases and decisions.

Originally Posted by twilyth

MPAA Says Making Even “One Copy” of a DVD is Illegal

The MPAA is free to say whatever the hell they want. It doesn't make what they say true, it's what the court's to decide that matters. Unfortunately the court's didn't decide in the RealDVD case, because they settled.

Originally Posted by twilyth

Also see here for the explicit claim that backups are not considered fair use.

Real Networks settled, there was no decision in this case. They were bullied out.

Originally Posted by streetfighter 2

It says "such as", not "explicitly falling under the following categories of". There is leeway in fair use, which is one of the reasons making a backup copy is such murky territory.

But earlier you had said:

Firstly, copying a movie has long been considered fair use provided:
1) the movie in question was legally purchased
2) the backup is used in a non-infringing way.

I read that to mean that you were saying for a fact that backups were, without doubt, fair use.

I thought it was important to point out that the law is indeed murky and that even something as innocent as making a backup could be considered a violation. That's important because even though it may only be the opinion of the MPAA, they're the ones with the lawyers.

[streetfighter 2]

Originally Posted by twilyth

I read that to mean that you were saying for a fact that backups were, without doubt, fair use.

I thought it was important to point out that the law is indeed murky and that even something as innocent as making a backup could be considered a violation. That's important because even though it may only be the opinion of the MPAA, they're the ones with the lawyers.

The law is murky to the extent that the MPAA can sue someone out of existence (yay capitalism!). If you made a copy of a DVD and adhered to the two points I mentioned the MPAA would have a very difficult time winning in court, provided you had as much walking around money and free time as they do. This seems to be consistent with rulings regarding other types of recordings.

Anyway, I'm absolutely spent on this subject and I think it's been beaten beyond the grave. The maggots feasting on the corpse are already dead. Several trees have grown and died here. Amazingly though there is a group of lawyers in the corner and they're still working... They're soulless people and they smell like cabbage. A couple of them are talking about how if they weren't lawyers they'd be investment bankers.