Legal right Question???

[jlmcco03]

I have read and I am unclear on one topic. This is very important to me. Is it illegal or legal for me as a US resident to download files such as, 3M files or Extreme HU, off the internet. Keep in mind that I only download these files for educational purposes, I NEVER ACTUALLY PUT THEM ON A SATELLITE CARD! Please, only answer if you are CERTAIN of your answer. This is going to determine whether or not I stay or COMPLETELY leave the hobby of LEARNING about satellite cards!!! Thanks in advance, and im sorry if this is the incorrect forum.

Mr. Lightstep

[no1b4me]

jlmcco03 your question is in the correct forum however your question has already been address in various other threads to some degree.

According to the DMCA it is illegal to own ExtremeHU, 3M scripts or any other s/w considered 'hacking' s/w. It is even illegal to have a copy of the card's firmware without prior authorization from the copyright holder. The card's firmware (dump or bin file) is a copyrighted work. Here is the relevant section of the DMCA that addresses your specific questions. Further more, you are not exempt from the DMCA by using such 'items' under the 'educational purpose only' argument. Hopes this helps answer your question.

Note the bold section...


Sec. 1201. - Circumvention of copyright protection systems


(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures. -


(1)


(A)

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. 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.

(B)

The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

(C)

During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine -

(i)

the availability for use of copyrighted works;

(ii)

the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;

(iii)

the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;

(iv)

the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and

(v)

such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.

(D)

The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.

(E)

Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability of the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.

(2)

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

(A)

is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B)

has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C)

is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

(3)

As used in this subsection -

(A)

to ''circumvent a technological measure'' means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and

(B)

a technological measure ''effectively controls access to a work'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

(b) Additional Violations. -


(1)

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

(A)

is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

(B)

has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or

(C)

is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

(2)

As used in this subsection -

(A)

to ''circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure'' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and

(B)

a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. -


(1)

Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

(2)

Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.

(3)

Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).

(4)

Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.

(d) Exemption for Nonprofit Libraries, Archives, and Educational Institutions. -


(1)

A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution which gains access to a commercially exploited copyrighted work solely in order to make a good faith determination of whether to acquire a copy of that work for the sole purpose of engaging in conduct permitted under this title shall not be in violation of subsection (a)(1)(A). A copy of a work to which access has been gained under this paragraph -

(A)

may not be retained longer than necessary to make such good faith determination; and

(B)

may not be used for any other purpose.

(2)

The exemption made available under paragraph (1) shall only apply with respect to a work when an identical copy of that work is not reasonably available in another form.

(3)

A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution that willfully for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain violates paragraph (1) -

(A)

shall, for the first offense, be subject to the civil remedies under section 1203; and

(B)

shall, for repeated or subsequent offenses, in addition to the civil remedies under section 1203, forfeit the exemption provided under paragraph (1).

(4)

This subsection may not be used as a defense to a claim under subsection (a)(2) or (b), nor may this subsection permit a nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, component, or part thereof, which circumvents a technological measure.

(5)

In order for a library or archives to qualify for the exemption under this subsection, the collections of that library or archives shall be -

(A)

open to the public; or

(B)

available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field.

[BuzzSawOne]

And you can thank Hollywood loving Bill and Hillary for that which you just read.......

Buzz

[newideas]

...and you can thank someone with an I.Q. 75 points
lower than either one of them for enforcing it.

[Mechanic]

Drop the political CRAP! If you don't, the thread will be closed and if it continues you may be outside looking in.

[BuzzSawOne]

Okay..... Don't have an artery burst in your head!..... Sheesh!

Buzz:gg

[eeprom7777]

It just so happens that English was one of my worst subjects. I really could use some help in understanding this (DMCA) document. Perhaps someone more knowledgable could clear up a couple things for me. (1)


(A)

No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. ... Now what part of "effectively controlling access" and the 100's if not 1000's of dss related internet sites that have evolved over the years, as a direct result of un-effectively controlling access, am I missing? (2)

No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that -

I think another word for this is "deal in". Possession is not mentioned (or intended?) Imo, the phrase clearly implies commercial use or intent. (A)

is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
I'm not sure what the designer was thinking when it was produced, I just know it works very well (and is inexpensive) for my application, LEARNING. I think the atmel based design renders the device highly programmable and universal, in design and function. (effectively again! HAH!) Go ahead and apply that however ya like, unlooper, bb (really a programmable ISO interface), emu board, etc.. (B)

has only limited commercially significant purpose ... (C)

is marketed by that person or another ... commercial, commercial, commercial. This document obviously pertains to commercial exploit and copyright violation (or this portion anyway). How would they ever know if I had a bu copy of some of thier copyrighted code on my pc? (Not movies!, say some nice ineffective security code.) They wouldn't. If it was effective, how would it happen? It wouldn't. Why would it matter? It wouldn't. Should DTV be allowed to make Learning illegle? You wouldn't think?! Maybe they can?

Am I on crack or did this whole mess stem from uneffective security?

?

[eeprom7777]

Originally posted by jlmcco03
... This is going to determine whether or not I stay or COMPLETELY leave the hobby of LEARNING about ...

Mr. Lightstep This is easy. If you are scared that "LEARNING" as you say may be illegal in your case, you better run!

If you think that maybe learning and knowledge should be legal and you feel strongly about your freedoms and rights etc., then by all means, dive in!

It's tottally up to you, and more what YOU will be comfortable with.

[no1b4me]

Originally posted by eeprom7777
Now what part of "effectively controlling access" and the 100's if not 1000's of dss related internet sites that have evolved over the years, as a direct result of un-effectively controlling access, am I missing?

eeprom7777 what *we* consider effective or not is irrelevant. The fact is that according to DMCA there IS a technological security measure in place that IS circumvented to gain access to copyrighted work. It doesn’t matter how *we* choose to interpret the the wording a violation of the DMCA as drafted is evident.

To gain access to the card a security measure needs to be circumvented and as far as I know the card’s firmware is copyrighted. The card’s firmware is also a security measure that controls access to copyrighted work. If the firmware is altered and used in an IRD then a second violation will also exist. Perhaps this other bit of DMCA can clear some of this up:

(2)

As used in this subsection -

(A)

to ''circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure'' means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and

(B)

a technological measure ''effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title'' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.



I think another word for this is "deal in". Possession is not mentioned (or intended?)

Possession is not explicitly stated but a judge would easily infer it. Besides the wording is relatively clear on that point.


I'm not sure what the designer was thinking when it was produced, I just know it works very well (and is inexpensive) for my application, LEARNING. I think the atmel based design renders the device highly programmable and universal, in design and function. (effectively again! HAH!) Go ahead and apply that however ya like, unlooper, bb (really a programmable ISO interface), emu board, etc..

Cool but look at this:

(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. -


(1)

Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

(2)

Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.




commercial, commercial, commercial. This document obviously pertains to commercial exploit and copyright violation (or this portion anyway). How would they ever know if I had a bu copy of some of thier copyrighted code on my pc? (Not movies!, say some nice ineffective security code.) They wouldn't. Why would it matter? It wouldn't. Should DTV be allowed to make Learning illegle? You wouldn't think?! Maybe they can?

I agree but look at the excemptions to the title. Reesarch and education is only allowed under very specific conditions. Relevant subsections:

1201(d) Exemption for Nonprofit Libraries, Archives, and Educational Institutions.
1201(f) Reverse Engineering.
1201(g) Encryption Research.

[eeprom7777]

Thank you no1b4me! I very much appreciate your input! ;)

[BuzzSawOne]

Well, although those in the legal circles can make any law they want... Seems to me it is as simple as this.
Lets say a movie studio dropped a DVD in your backyard. Now, if I am to steal or buy that DVD and use it in a manner not consistent with copyright laws I am in the wrong and breaking the law. But if they dropped it in my backyard with no request or agreement by me, then I was to use it, would any court in the country carry their case that I violated their copyright? I think not. The judge would simply ask their council if they had indeed dropped it in my yard, then would make the brainless decision that the case lacked merit simply because they knowingly dropped it in my backyard, thereby removing any claim they had to that "property". Why should it be any different for a signal that enters my airspace without my permission, I find a way to use it, end of story. The DMCA was written with the main purpose being the giving away of DVD and music by a person(s) such as was the case with Napster. The DMCA does not cover situations such as my neighbor lending me a CD so I can burn a copy, or making a backup of my own DVD's or CD's. Those fall under the "Fair Use" clause of the law. DTV and the Fed's are just twisting the DMCA to suit their purpose.

Buzz

[no1b4me]

Buzz, although I despise the DMCA as much as the next guy and think it is unfair, I can not ignore it or down play its legal meaning or implications. I too think that the DMCA is ridiculous. It strives to diminish our rights and freedom. It basically abolishes fair use rights and attacks behaviors that have been in practice for decades. Today the common housewife could become a felonious criminal for exercising her rights of fair use according to the DMCA, truly outrageous!

All digital media formats today have some kind of copyright protection and therefore are protected under the terror weapon that is the DMCA. The MPAA and the RIAA finally got their wish. A blanket law that attacks basic freedom of fair use. Their new weapon of mass destruction will guarantee their pockets are always full. They whip out the big cannons and crush like a bug any competition or naughty legal user of their products.

Your DVD analogy is a bad example when arguing fair use principles. Whether you purchased it or found it, be very careful what you do with it, you could become the next target of a mayor lawsuit. DVDs have a security measure call CSS and under the DMCA you may not archive it (copy) or play it in a player not specifically authorized. Audio CD also have a copyright protection bit that may not be circumvented for the purpose of fair use backup and let’s not forget Macrovision. As if things couldn't get any worst for our freedom of fair use, we will soon get the Digital Television Broadcast Flag (DTBF). DTBF is regular off the air digital TV copy protection if you are wondering what that is. I urge you to file a complaint with the FCC if you dislike the DTBF idea.

In regards to the air being in the public domain, although noble in concept, is not quite correct. Our (the general public) interest in the public airwaves is overseen by a government agency called: Federal Communication Commission (FCC). The FCC is there to protect and insure proper use of our airwaves. The FCC is in charge of allocating for private or public use portions of the ‘public’ frequency spectrum. The process by which they assign blocks of frequencies is rather involved but it similar in nature to a public auction. The desired frequencies are leased to the highest bidder. Once the lease is obtain, and depending on the terms, the leaseholder has exclusive use rights of the frequency block. Thus, the rights of the airwaves that correspond to DirecTV® block of frequencies in the perimeter of your property belong to DirecTV.

The DMCA dilemma is a daunting problem that could be handled in several ways:

A) we can ignore it and hope it goes away
B) we can continue to believe that we have certain rights and be rudely awaken one day
C) we could try to learn as much as we can about it and adhere to it fully or
D) we could learn about it and get involved in modifying it or even get it abolished.

Personally I have chosen option D and I recommend that we all do the same. Ignoring it or being misinformed about the DMCA or the FCC will not help us.

Regards,

[BuzzSawOne]

Thanks No1be4me for the very easily understood explaination. But not to beat a dead horse here, I have to object in principle. Although I agree with your interpretation as it follows the opinion of law in the US, I must state one thing. I have used the analogy before of the commercial apple orchardist and the branch laden with fruit growing over the fence into my backyard. Even if the farmer has a contract with a company for ALL of his harvest, the supreme court has ruled that if the branch extends into my backyard, the ONLY thing the farmer can do is remove the branch and therefore, prevent me from using the fruits (no pun intended) of his labor however I may wish.
He can place a net around the branch to attempt to keep me from getting to the fruit, but I can still remove the net and use the fruit. Even though I know that the legal authorities do not agree with my analogy when it comes to the DMCA, it is in effect the same scenario. DTV wants to prevent me from using what they so readily beam into my yard, they should either prevent it from being used effectively (farmer cutting down branch), or just realize that the method they have chosen to deliver product is going to allow for some loss (farmer not getting miffed over losing 1% of fruit) and get on with business....... The supreme court really needs to look at the DMCA and how ridiculous it is to protect a company that is already making millions if not billions. Hard to feel sorry for Microsoft, when Bill Gates can afford to give a billion to charity if you get my drift?

Buzz

[To The Real King!!]

Hi Buzz,

Unfortunately you are not keeping up with the new laws, specifically the DMCA because you are logical while they are not. While the fair usage is acceptable and legal and allows you to make a back up copy of your CD for your own use IF IT IS NOT COPY PROTECTED, this is no longer the case IF the CD is copy protected.

In that case you cannot interfere with or modify anything to allow you to make a back up for your own use of your own CD that you bought. Anything you do to alter the copy protection, no matter what the purpose is, is now illegal under this DMCA act. You are no longer permitted to make fair use of something you purchase and pay for. In the day of modern digital devices where usage of products has become so expanded and so useful, these companies are preventing you from getting any benefit from this modern technology.

The best way to correct this is to complain to the authorities about the DMCA and then REFUSE TO PURCHASE anything that is copy protected. If people STOP BUYING the music and film industries products that are copy protected thus stopping you form benefitting in the way you want of the product you buy and pay for then they will soon STOP with the COPY protection. But it needs to be clear to them that this Is why their CD's have stopped selling. If we don't do this then the future of digital will lose a lot of its promise to us.

Remember these are the same people that almost killed themselves by trying to prohibit VCR's from being sold. Today VCR tapes are by far the biggest revenue generator for the movie industry yet they came close to killing themselves by having the government prohibit VCR's. So they are not too smart and this time they may well SUCCEED in killing themselves.

When I make a CD for use in my car, I combine my favorite songs from several ifferent CD's thus haviing my favorite music to listen to. What is the problem with this? Its very convenient for me and does not hurt the artists at all. Yet they want to stop this. But I will not buy any CD with copy protection thus they are the losers. I can stand missing any song that screws with my rights as a buyer. But to have an effect, we all have to do ithttp://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org"><font color="#FF0000" size="5"><strong><u>To </u></strong></font><font color="#FF4800" size="5"><strong><u>Th</u></strong></font><font color="#FF6200" size="5"><strong><u>e </u></strong></font><font color="#FF7002" size="5"><strong><u>RE</u></strong></font><font color="#FF9006" size="5"><strong><u>AL </u></strong></font><font color="#FFB508" size="5"><strong><u>Ki</u></strong></font><font color="#FFD014" size="5"><strong><u>ng!!</u></strong></font></a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (CONSTITUTIONAL) (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[BuzzSawOne]

How about this one..... Purchased James Taylors newest CD and tried to copy it.... Wouldn't recognize the actual song files in the burner program but only the credits and extra crap...... So then I read the CD in explorer and found the song files, copied to my HD, then burned them to CD...
Was THAT illegal? I did not crack or hack anything, just read the CD differently to find the song files....??

Buzz

[condmca]

Originally posted by no1b4me
[B]..It doesn’t matter how *we* choose to interpret the the wording a violation of the DMCA as drafted is evident.
B]

Bear with my political analogy, but...
Directv using the DMCA is kinda like Iraq turning over 12,000 pages of information regarding its weapons programs. It was/is open to interpretation. If the french wanted to argue on behalf of Iraq that they did in fact comply with the disclosure requested of them, they could have made the argument. However, the argument would not have held water and surely would NOT have been an argument based on reasonable logic.
Subsequently, the hypothetical french argument would lose at the end of the day because it's ridiculous to assume that Iraq's intent was to actually comply with what was requested of it.

Now let's look at what the DMCA does: It helps media companies CLAIM that any individual being tried under its broad meaning is guilty until proven innocent. Right away one can see why the argument will fail at the end of the day.
Essentially, the DMCA instructs individuals to change their behaviour to fall in line with new and oppressive laws. Only by challenging the DMCA will the unconstitutionality of this act be exposed.

Remember that the DMCA is confusing by design, just as those 12,000 pages were intended to be confusing. Iraq distorts the truth just like dave does. It's up to the reader in both examples to draw conclusions based on objective interpretations, separate from what dave or Iraq are claiming.
Dave says the DMCA entitles him to something based on his interpretation of the DMCA, so I say challenge his interpretation.

Remember too that people fear what they don't understand. The DMCA attempts to squelch innovation and stifle creativity. Nobody needs to accept these terms, and nobody should!

[megados]

Originally posted by condmca
Nobody needs to accept these terms, and nobody should!

As long as the law stands, and is being used and interpreted in the way it is right now, then yes it has to be obeyed. It's the law. The law needs to be changed or scrapped, but until that happens you are bound by it.

This is a legal vs. moral argument. The morality of it says the law is wrong. Few would disagree with that. But if you don't abide by it, the fact remains that you can be punished for breaking it. A judge is bound to adhere to the law, whether or not you feel it is right is irrelevant. The only way around that is to get the law changed or scrapped. I strongly disagree with the law as it stands, but still must abide by it. So for now, yes, we have to accept it, as we also work to get it changed.

[condmca]

Originally posted by megados
As long as the law stands, and is being used and interpreted in the way it is right now, then yes it has to be obeyed. It's the law. The law needs to be changed or scrapped, but until that happens you are bound by it.

Because this law CREATES criminals out of innovators, it should and likely will be scrapped. At least that's my hope and prediction.


Originally posted by megados
This is a legal vs. moral argument. The morality of it says the law is wrong. Few would disagree with that.


If something is morally wrong, an argument can probably be made that it is legally wrong as well.
Dave's letter campaign is morally wrong because of the fear it's designed to instill in the recipient.
Dave's letter campaign is legally wrong because dave is earning settlement money from individuals that are not even being charged with a crime.
Furthermore, I believe it is both morally and legally wrong for dave's lawyers to use blackmail by claiming to KNOW what one is doing with an unlooper or any other device.


Originally posted by megados
But if you don't abide by it, the fact remains that you can be punished for breaking it. A judge is bound to adhere to the law, whether or not you feel it is right is irrelevant. The only way around that is to get the law changed or scrapped. I strongly disagree with the law as it stands, but still must abide by it. So for now, yes, we have to accept it, as we also work to get it changed.

I think you and I are in agreement that the law should be challenged in order to change it. However, we disagree in that just because something is said to be the law it must be accepted. New laws can and should be challenged in order to prevent them from being abused.

[To The Real King!!]

Hi People,

I think we will see parts of the DMCA cancelled as the ABUSE grows. Right now it is being used to prevent FAIR competition in many cases.

An Ink Cartridge company is suing under the DMCA because they put a small chip in it for the purpose of protecting it (the cartridge) so that others cannot make a compatible device and they alone have a monopoly on the product. I do not think this was the intent of the DCMA but whether it was or was not the intent, it defeats the purpose of the anti-competition act. There is the same situation in the case of a "GARAGE DOOR OPENER" so that others cannot make a cheaper compatible device. Again a small cheap chip is inserted that it cannot work without. And if you make a chip that bypasses this protection, they sue under the DMCA. But the ONLY purpose is to prevent others from making compatible devices.

If they insert only a small improvement then that could be removed and the device would still work but in fact it wont. So the main purpose is to prevent competition.

I believe the courts will have to remove substantial portions of the DCMA act to prevent this abuse and the innovation part will be taken care of at the same time. When one law has the purpose of defeating another law (the anti-competition Act) the government will have to move to correct the abuse. Lets hope its sooner rather than later.http://www.legal-rights.org/images/ttrk.gif
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/niceday.gif
Thanks & Good Luck ,

<a href="mailto:ttrk@legal-rights.org"><font color="#FF0000" size="5"><strong><u>To </u></strong></font><font color="#FF4800" size="5"><strong><u>Th</u></strong></font><font color="#FF6200" size="5"><strong><u>e </u></strong></font><font color="#FF7002" size="5"><strong><u>RE</u></strong></font><font color="#FF9006" size="5"><strong><u>AL </u></strong></font><font color="#FFB508" size="5"><strong><u>Ki</u></strong></font><font color="#FFD014" size="5"><strong><u>ng!!</u></strong></font></a>

Freedom has nothing to fear from the truth!
http://www.legal-rights.org/images/satelliterights.gif
<a href="http://www.legal-rights.org/dtv/classaction.html" target=blank> <img src="http://www.legal-rights.org/images/classaction.gif"></a>

http://www.legal-rights.org/images/freedomblack.gif
Now open with lots of useful resources at your disposal AT:
http://www.legal-rights.org

Please REMEMBER OUR WAR HERO’S (http://www.legal-rights.org/remembrance.html) <-- Click here Please!

Please DONATE for the SUPREME COURT CONSTITUTIONAL BATTLE (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html) <-- Click here Please!

Por favor dona para la BATALLA EN LA SUPREMA CORTE (CONSTITUTIONAL) (http://www.legal-rights.org/donation.html)<-- Haz Click aqui!

[eeprom7777]

Originally posted by no1b4me

The DMCA dilemma is a daunting problem that could be handled in several ways:

A) we can ignore it and hope it goes away
B) we can continue to believe that we have certain rights and be rudely awaken one day
C) we could try to learn as much as we can about it and adhere to it fully or
D) we could learn about it and get involved in modifying it or even get it abolished.

Personally I have chosen option D and I recommend that we all do the same. Ignoring it or being misinformed about the DMCA or the FCC will not help us.

Regards, Originally posted by To The Real King

...these companies are preventing you from getting any benefit from this modern technology. Originally posted by To The Real King

If we don't do this then the future of digital will lose a lot of its promise to us.
This is an excellant summary of exactly where we are at. No1b4me has summerized our options in this situation. Options A & B are likely unacceptable for most. That leaves C & D. TTRK has provided hints as to why C is also unacceptable. Now TTRK has provided more examples of why C is unacceptable. That would only leave option D.

I really hope that people realize how serious these issues are. These issues will directly affect ALL consumers and thier access to competitive products and the technological advancement of OUR future.

I have no idea what to do. All I can really say is; since I read them replies, the seriousness and implications of where we are at, has truely left me thinking and speechless.

I do know however that we are ALL blessed to have the likes of No1b4me, and especially TTRK, that have devoted themselves to such immense contributions to this community. And that continue to provide dedication and guidance that goes far beyond the scope of this community. I doubt better leaders exist, and I would truely be honored to help in this quest in whatever way possible, and only hope that many many more feel the same.

I hope everyone understands that D is the ONLY acceptable option.
Now I'm wondering how we will get enough people involved in this.

If I were to use a bold font to try and convey the weight of this issue, not one letter would fit on your screen.

And what should be our first step...

[BuzzSawOne]

Lest we all forget what happened in the USA a couple hundred years ago when the people were being squeezed by the corrupt politicians?
Can anyone say "TEA PARTY"!
There is that option also. Say screw them and see if they have the resources to handle the real criminals, murderers, rapists, etc. and still worry about us who harm no one.....


Buzz