[tcman47]

USA courts have traditionally gone after counterfeiters and uploaders, not downloaders.

Now days the quality of 1080P .mkv movie rips and 720P . mkv tv show rips on the internet download sites is very close to the untouched bluray files.

Of course the .mkv file is about one third the size of the original bluray, 22GB compared to 8GB for a movie, 720P tv shows result in a 550MB .mkv files.

TC

[Warren17c]

It's illegal to break the encryption, not to actually rip the disk. (which still makes it illegal, to be sure)

They will NEVER NEVER NEVER try to test this in court.

Think what would happen if they ever sued someone for putting all the media that they PURCHASED on their own personal computer for their own personal streaming use.

They run the risk of a court finding that we absolutely have the right to do this, then the floodgate opens for easy and free software to break AACS, BD+, etc. Maybe even bye-bye DMCA anti-circumvention provision.

(one can dream).

-Wes

CE Pro Article Real media were being taken to court over some their DVD ripping software. I think they were trying to use the "For Backup" argument (to clarify you backup your media and store it off site and use the backup to preserve the master) and Hollywood were using the "1 purchase = 1 licence" I can't remember the outcome (if there has been one) as i think there was a lot of hot air to and fro about it. Real were using a court case won by Kaleidescape as a template.

For reference, if the OP has money to burn, a Kaleidescape solution could be the answer, as it does what XBMC does, but with dedicated kit.

[waldo22]

CE Pro Article Real media were being taken to court over some their DVD ripping software. I think they were trying to use the "For Backup" argument (to clarify you backup your media and store it off site and use the backup to preserve the master) and Hollywood were using the "1 purchase = 1 licence" I can't remember the outcome (if there has been one) as i think there was a lot of hot air to and fro about it. Real were using a court case won by Kaleidescape as a template.

For reference, if the OP has money to burn, a Kaleidescape solution could be the answer, as it does what XBMC does, but with dedicated kit.

I believe Real lost that battle, IIRC.

However, they were a commercial company selling software that breaks a copy protection mechanism.

I can't see them ever suing an individual for ripping purchased media to a computer for their own personal/home use.

[dan1son]

I believe Real lost that battle, IIRC.

However, they were a commercial company selling software that breaks a copy protection mechanism.

I can't see them ever suing an individual for ripping purchased media to a computer for their own personal/home use.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-200116...=mncol;txt

Phone jailbreaking/rooting is legal, and ripping is legal if used for certain uses now. They've loosened it up a little, but it's still technically illegal to make "backups" of your own purchased encrypted stuff. A complete joke in my eyes, and has still not been tested in court. I doubt it will be any time soon.

It'd be more of a dick move than selling CD-Rs for audio only with a cut going to the RIAA (yeah they did that).


As far as downloading from usenet... it's definitely illegal, but that too hasn't been directly tested in court (doesn't make it legal). Most cases assume you're "sharing." I'd say the main reason is because when simply stealing the material the value isn't high enough to warrant a law suit. Fair use only extends to yourself (and other legal entities - wife/kids). So making a copy of a CD and giving it to a friend is NOT legal for either party (which is what you're doing downloading from usenet).

TV Shows fall in the same guidelines. Taping something for personal use is fine, but giving it to others (or taking it from others) is not (also not tested in court as far as I know). The old betamax lawsuit made it personal use to record something from TV for yourself.

[JediKnight2]

The problem is that the law FORCES you to teeter-totter on the line. Case in point...I have two children that I have purchased DVD's for...some are ridden with scratches, been watched a gazillion times (I HATE BARNEY)...so it is something I purchased that is ruined. NOW if the MPAA offered me a way to trade a disc...not even the cover art and box...JUST THE DISC...that is how I would do it in some cases...but that isn't what they do. Therefore, if I want to do a backup of MY OWN MEDIA...that I PURCHASED...I have to break the law...the law sais you have a RIGHT to back up your purchases...then they go and NEGATE the law by adding the encryption protection clause...basically a DO NOTHING LAW...imagine that!

My other problem is that I don't have certain TV markets where I live...it's not offered and if it was offered for a PRICE...I'd pay it....therefore If I wanted to watch those shows..I would have to use the internet as a DVR of sorts to watch the shows.

In NEITHER of those scenarios would I think about putting it on disk and selling it.

The problem with "LEGAL" purchases is that your purchase is BROKEN...it's like buying a truck..but they limit it to their brand of gas, tires and the speed is set at 35MPH....it's CRAP...TODAYS users..those of us that are under 40 DEMAND the ability to play media, video or audio in ANY FORMAT...on ANY DEVICE...ANYWHERE I WANT TO PLAY IT...and until the MPAA and RIAA can get that into their brains and business models...people are going to do whatever they do.....If those two organizations would tweak their business plans...it would bring in a large majority of those who WANT to be fair about it...BUT CAN'T because of the system!

[poofyhairguy]

So making a copy of a CD and giving it to a friend is NOT legal for either party (which is what you're doing downloading from usenet).

Um, that isn't what happens with Usenet. Usenet downloaders share nothing. Its not like a torrent. That is why torrenters have been targeted- the uploading of seeding, not the downloading. It has never been tested in court that downloading is illegal. Maybe a civil offense, but not illegal.

Now the person who uploads to Usenet might be doing something illegal. And the site I get the NZBs from can get in trouble. But not me.

Personally I go an extra step to even avoid a civil lawsuit- I pay for a European Usenet company and I encrypt the traffic using ssl between me and their servers in Europe. That way if I am actually doing something that they can come after me for they will find that my actual offense was committed in a place where they have no jurisdiction, and no evidence of that offense even exists here in the states outside my systems.

Honestly the legal framework means that right now its free-for-all with downloading. As long as you don't care about the morals, the laws (for once) are setup in a way that inadvertently protects Usenet downloaders.

That is why I download with reckless abandon, because I assume my great leaders (with their pockets lined with media company money) will close this huge loophole within 10-15 years (I hope not though).

[dan1son]

Um, that isn't what happens with Usenet. Usenet downloaders share nothing. Its not like a torrent. That is why torrenters have been targeted- the uploading of seeding, not the downloading. It has never been tested in court that downloading is illegal. Maybe a civil offense, but not illegal.

The downloaders share nothing, but they are willingly downloading content they know is copied or purchased by someone else, therefore not legally theirs.

You're saying a civil offence and legality are different? The only difference between civil law and criminal law is that with civil law you can't be imprisoned and it's between legal parties and not the government. It's still against the law, therefore illegal, unlawful, whatever you want to call it.

Technically speaking copying media isn't "theft" since it doesn't remove the property from the person you steal from, instead it's copyright violations (you're making a copy without permission from the copyright owner). I don't think there are criminal laws against copyright violations (unless you "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain."), so you will likely see a civil case only (although people have been trying hard to make simple copies criminal as well).

Any form of sharing copyrighted material without approval from the copyright owner or by purchasing a license (that's all you do when you buy an album/movie/etc.) is illegal. It makes no difference if you give it or receive it.


I do agree that usenet is probably "safer" since it'd be hard to build enough of a case to warrant suing someone who just downloaded some stuff over someone who had "100 people download it" or whatever, but don't for a second think you're being legal.

[poofyhairguy]

You're saying a civil offence and legality are different? The only difference between civil law and criminal law is that with civil law you can't be imprisoned and it's between legal parties and not the government. It's still against the law, therefore illegal, unlawful, whatever you want to call it.

Its the difference between crimes and torts. I am NOT a criminal, but I maybe COULD BE held financially liable if they could prove their case (which I make it hard to do).

Any form of sharing copyrighted material without approval from the copyright owner or by purchasing a license (that's all you do when you buy an album/movie/etc.) is illegal. It makes no difference if you give it or receive it.

Thats the thing though, the laws with copyright are all set up that just HAVING the content isn't an illegal offense, but distributing IS. Without any sharing I never distribute so they can't hit me with that.

And as far as I know (and I have looked), there is NO legal precedent where a media company sued a person for just having copyrighted info. It would be a nightmare for them, as they would be left with a burden of proof that I didn't just time-shift the content from my satellite. My opinion is until there is a legal precedent that says that what I am doing is illegal, it is not illegal.

The honest truth is that its in the same gray area as EULA- are EULAs binding contracts that I violate when I hackintosh? Who knows, they have never been proven in court! My situation is the same way, hence I believe that what I do is not illegal.

With that said I do believe that eventually the laws will get changed to reflect drug laws where possession itself is illegal. At that point I leave my downloading days behind and enjoy what I have while I am ahead.

but don't for a second think you're being legal.

As I said above, there is no certain legal precedent that you can point to that says what I am doing is illegal. Unlike ripping DVDs the DMCA doesn't cover what I am doing.

With that said, there IS a difference between legal and moral and it could be easily argued that what I am doing is immoral. I won't debate that, I will call myself a thief and a pirate. I take responsibility for what I do, I just don't plan to stop anytime soon....

[spartan711]

As a sidenote, EULA agreements are very relevant to the ps3 rooting case... and that is a HUGE controversy. The US courts have even let SONY get access to people who even visited Geohot's website, and commented on his youtube videos.

[dan1son]

Its the difference between crimes and torts. I am NOT a criminal, but I maybe COULD BE held financially liable if they could prove their case (which I make it hard to do).

Thats the thing though, the laws with copyright are all set up that just HAVING the content isn't an illegal offense, but distributing IS. Without any sharing I never distribute so they can't hit me with that.

And as far as I know (and I have looked), there is NO legal precedent where a media company sued a person for just having copyrighted info. It would be a nightmare for them, as they would be left with a burden of proof that I didn't just time-shift the content from my satellite. My opinion is until there is a legal precedent that says that what I am doing is illegal, it is not illegal.

I don't disagree that it hasn't been "tested in court." But the laws are relatively clear. Even in the Jammy Thomas case a lot of time was spent showing that she had "downloaded" content. They didn't only talk about what she uploaded, I believe the 24 songs in question were all shared though because the value is MUCH higher.

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 says "(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;" Basically how that has been argued is that the downloader actually makes the copy locally. Which is EXACTLY what happens when you download from usenet. You copy it from the usenet server to your machine. You initiate the copy, therefore violate copyright law. Pretty straight forward.

Now again, it's highly unlikely you'll get sued for it (it's not worth suing for petty copyright violations), and it's not criminal (as you said, but civil law is still illegal). It's like speeding... if you're going 70 along with the crowd, you'll probably be fine, but you can still get a ticket for it.

It's a risk... usenet downloading is almost definitely safer than public bit torrent. Private bit torrent users have never been sued either (that I know of), but they have been regularly shut down. Probably because there's plenty of prey using the easy to find public sites.

[poofyhairguy]

Now again, it's highly unlikely you'll get sued for it (it's not worth suing for petty copyright violations), and it's not criminal (as you said, but civil law is still illegal). It's like speeding... if you're going 70 along with the crowd, you'll probably be fine, but you can still get a ticket for it.

It's a risk... usenet downloading is almost definitely safer than public bit torrent. Private bit torrent users have never been sued either (that I know of), but they have been regularly shut down. Probably because there's plenty of prey using the easy to find public sites.

Agreed 100%.

Its like a big clock pendulum, swinging back and forth. That is why the OP's statement offended me a little as now is the time when the pendulum is in our direction. Eventually it will swing the other way (three strikes law in France anyone?) and then this small loophole will be closed. Fight the DRM media fight then I say....

[El Nacho]

The blatant stupidity contained in this thread is astounding. It's hard to believe that people actually are confusing "unable/not worth the time to prosecute" with "legal".

I love usenet. I'm currently downloading my 4th 1080p blu-ray rip of the day as I type this. And I think the OP simply doesn't know what he's doing or he wouldn't even consider giving up the convenience of piracy. And while I know full well that the odds of me ever getting in trouble for downloading content is about the same as winning the lotto without buying a ticket, I don't, for one second, try to fool myself into thinking it's legal. And anyone that does so is, to put it bluntly, an idiot.

[TugboatBill]

For some reason when I see someone call someone else a name I see it as self descriptive.

[sooth]

Epic thread is epic. I had a great read.

I love the fact that you cannot legally give companies money for their content for hassle free use. Isn't the USA great?

[budswell]

Hi,
Seeing as its been 2 years, and Frodo has been released since the last post, I thought I'd re-ask the original question.

Is there a way to purchase content that can be played within XBMC and included in the libraries? Obviously DRM Free would be prefered, but not essential provided I can supply XBMC with some key/password and stiill play the content.

Bascially want to:
- purchase content
- copy content into videos folder
- re-scan and new content included in XBMC