Could you write those lines of code if you weren't able to purchase a package that contained it? ...No?
Well, then, that would mean that the author of the DVD took measures that reasonably seemed extreme enough to prevent unauthorized duplication, and if you knew anything about copyrights, you'd know that you do not have a right to make backup copies.
It is illegal to copy anything that you do not have the right to copy. Period.
The author of most commercial DVD videos place copy protection on their discs specifically to prevent duplication, which means that they are actively taking measures to retain their duplication copyright.
Defeating that measure is illegal. It even says so on the package of the duplication software itself, in a pitifully weak attempt by the authors of that software to avoid liability.
"Oh, it's not *US* that is copying illegal discs, we're just making it easier for others to do it."
The copying is illegal. End of argument. That's not a point of contention in this case.
What is still left for the courts to decide is whether providing the *means* to defeat copyright protection measures is in itself illegal.
If you got a hold of your company's passwords and sold them to a thief, does that make you an accessory to whatever crime that thief pulls off? Damn-straight it does, even if you didnt' profit directly from or have knowledge of the particular crime, you still enabled the thief to do their job, and you profited from it.
Programs like DVD XCopy are no different. "Give us $39 for this duplication tool that defeats DVD copy protection schemes, and we'll happily be ignorant of your illegal copying behavior."
--Darrel (who doesn't cowardly make anonymous posts) Exline.
ConFurence will again be at the Burbank Hilton, April 25-27, 2003. Visit http://confurence.net for more details on this and other events being hosted by The ConFurence Group.
Could you write those lines of code if you weren't able to purchase a package that contained it? ...No?
Well, then, that would mean that the author of the DVD took measures that reasonably seemed extreme enough to prevent unauthorized duplication, and if you knew anything about copyrights, you'd know that you do not have a right to make backup copies.
It is illegal to copy anything that you do not have the right to copy. Period.
The author of most commercial DVD videos place copy protection on their discs specifically to prevent duplication, which means that they are actively taking measures to retain their duplication copyright.
Defeating that measure is illegal. It even says so on the package of the duplication software itself, in a pitifully weak attempt by the authors of that software to avoid liability.
"Oh, it's not *US* that is copying illegal discs, we're just making it easier for others to do it."
The copying is illegal. End of argument. That's not a point of contention in this case.
What is still left for the courts to decide is whether providing the *means* to defeat copyright protection measures is in itself illegal.
If you got a hold of your company's passwords and sold them to a thief, does that make you an accessory to whatever crime that thief pulls off? Damn-straight it does, even if you didnt' profit directly from or have knowledge of the particular crime, you still enabled the thief to do their job, and you profited from it.
Programs like DVD XCopy are no different. "Give us $39 for this duplication tool that defeats DVD copy protection schemes, and we'll happily be ignorant of your illegal copying behavior."
--Darrel (who doesn't cowardly make anonymous posts) Exline.
ConFurence will again be at the Burbank Hilton, April 25-27, 2003. Visit http://confurence.net for more details on this and other events being hosted by The ConFurence Group.