AfterDawn: News

Studios sue retailer for selling DVD X Copy

Two Hollywood studios, Twentieth Century Fox and Paramount Pictures, have sued an American online retailer, Technology One, claiming that it violated the court order issued against the DVD ripping products of 321 Studios by selling a version of 321 Studios' DVD X Copy that allows decrypting the CSS encryption found on most commercial DVD-Video discs.

Two separate federal courts, one in New York and one in California, have ruled that 321 Studios must stop selling a so-called "ripper version" of its product DVD X Copy. Company has itself taken steps to fulfill the court requirements and sells only a version of DVD X Copy that doesn't contain the CSS decrypter.



The lawsuit against the retailer seeks a court order that would bar the company selling the ripper-equipped version of the software and also seeks for damages, including the profits from previous sales.

Source: ABC 7 News

Written by: Petteri Pyyny @ 28 May 2004 15:03

• Previous article

• PlayStation 3 in 2006

• Next article

• Sony & Audible Magic to co-operate

• 63 comments

• A_Klingon

  ... and also seeks for damages, including the profits from previous sales.
  
  Oh, boo-hoo. What a shame. Poor ol' 20th $entury Fox and Paramount Picture$. I guess they must be in near-receivership, huh?, because of all those lost profit$.
  
  Just breaks my heart, it does. And how do you suppose they will determine just how much they have $uffered at the hands of that rotten ol' Evil Retailer? (I'm sure their army of attorneys and bean-counters will come up with $omething 'rea$onable').
  
  A Note To The Industry:
  
  Disclaimer: I am stating a personal opinion here. We still live in a Free Country, I believe.
  
  Don't get your underwear all-bunched up.
  
  Forget the lawsuits. It ain't gonna work. For every lawsuit you file, there will be 500 news articles posted around the 'net to show people just what a bunch of greedy crumbs you are.
  
  People (consumers) aren't stupid or blind. They're noticing you. And I can tell you, you're not garnering much public sympathy.
  
  You may or may not be successful in taking the rippers out of software packages, but I'd just like to see you take the rippers out of the internet. Can't be done. Get used to it. And while you're at it, you may as well kiss Region coding and Macrovision goodbye too! <"Quality Protection" my ass.> (Hey! I didn't invent backup software, I'm just acknowledging it's existence!)
  
  Go ahead......bring on your HD discs and DRM cripplers. We're waiting for you.
  
  Boo-hoo-freeking-hoo. [dabbing eyes].
  
  

  29.5.2004 02:01 #1

• Oriphus

  Quote:You may or may not be successful in taking the rippers out of software packages, but I'd just like to see you take the rippers out of the internet.I'll still be listing them on my website, which home base is a country not to be mentioned lol - ie: i aint got a clue, but everytime a law is passed ill find a country that hasnt passed it :-D
  Quote:For every lawsuit you file, there will be 500 news articles posted around the 'net to show people just what a bunch of greedy crumbs you are.Yeah, exactly, they arent doing their image much good either. You would think theyd be happy with the increase in the rental business they are getting. People who wouldnt normally rent or buy, are not atleast renting and copying. And....the percentage of movie renters/buyers that are copying the movies must be sooo small....
  Quote:o ahead......bring on your HD discs and DRM cripplers. We're waiting for you. Some smart guys will sort all that out for us. if someone can create, someone can destroy....

  For your DVD needs http://www.dvd-and-media.com
  http://www.dvd-backup.tk
  For User Guides/Downloads: http://www.chrismccann.co.uk/user_guides.htm
  

  29.5.2004 04:48 #2

• john179

  I can't see the point in all these law suits as it won't stop anything and will cost the tax payer as always who is also the consumer.So even if they got rid of 321 completely which they will not.There will always be lot's of others to replace it so who are they kidding.Why don't they open there eyes to the big picture it is a looseing battle.

  29.5.2004 07:50 #3

• Toiletman

  You know, if law was actually enforced by guys like Judge Dredd, instead of whiny lawyers in suits, they might actually have a chance.
  
  Otherwise dream on, you big companies with billions of dollars.

  29.5.2004 08:38 #4

• charlaew

  Reading this makes me really angry, although I anticipated this would happen when 321 was forced to stop selling the product. My first thought was they would go after the retailers next. This only confirms how far their greed reaches. How many consumers can truly side with these greedy media moguls who are already raking in money like most of us will never see? I hope everyone who feels as I do will write their Congressional Reps and let their voice be heard. I plan to vote AGAINST any rep who supports these studios!! I wonder how it would affect their "pocketbooks" if for just one day, consumers refused to buy and/or rent movies in any form, including going to the theatres!!! I think that is the only way they will understand that people will not stand to be pushed around anymore.

  29.5.2004 09:17 #5

• hijacker

  I have to give credit to 321 studios for their software, Even though I don't care to use it.At least somebody has retailed a back-up utility and understands the consumer. Hollywood is not losing money. They make plenty of money when the movie hits the theatre.You have the right to back-up your movies.And Hollywood is not going to go broke.They will still have their millions.So you won't count on me throughing them a pity party.I feel bad that the president of 321 has to deal with Hollywood's bulls**t, The software plays fair game with a watermark stating that it is a back-up copy.Every movie that I have that gets messed up is going to be backed up. I didn't buy a burner just to make a big data file.My kids dvd case has a plastic nub or something where you place the disc inside the case that scratches the disc when it spins in it own case.You can't tell me that wasn't there for a reason.I hope Peter Moore of 321 studios flips the switch on Hollywood because they deserve it for all the sh**t they cause him.

  29.5.2004 09:32 #6

• john179

  The big question is if they had there way and no one copied nothing as this type of software was not available would warner and paramount lower there prices.Answer no would they bluddy hell it would mean they could hype the prices.These company's are full of gread and you just have to look no further than the oscars and see the money involved.They all have so much money they spend it with total lack of respect to those consumers that made them all who they are.They are just a bunch of over paid greedy gets who want more and more.

  29.5.2004 13:32 #7

• siber

  john179, take it easy. Ranting has been shown to be harmful to your health.
  
  'We' at AD are a strange bunch. On the one hand we do have the habit of being critical of 321 studios products. Just check most of the threads. On the other hand 321 studios is the only company that - maybe unintentionally - officially challenged the studio's claim of having the right to tell us what we can do in our own house. I am afraid the studios are just trying to give the 'Coup De Grace' to 321, knowing they are already in serious financial trouble. They just want to finish setting their symbolic exemple of what happens to somebody who challenges them.
  
  If 321 goes under completely, that would probably discourage any company from selling software on the open market that allows us to do what DVDXCopy gave us a taste of.
  
  Personally I hope 321 survives. Otherwise I expect the next stage of the plan is to hunt after the developers of SHRINK and Decrypter. Can Afterdawn be next? Even though we make it obvious we do not condone illegal downloading of files, for the RIAA, the record companies and the studio's we are not much better by providing downloads and dissiminating information they are just as unhappy about. 321 Studios may be in the forefront but others are just behind. If 321 falls, who stands on the front row all of a sudden?

  29.5.2004 14:12 #8

• john179

  Just to let you know i do not use 321 software at present and never have.But if i wanted to i want to use it i do not want some big pocket d_c_k h_a_ telling me i can not because he needs a re spray for his one of seven bmw's or what ever he drives.Freedom mate that's what we want from all this politic's rubbish.We have been ripped off for years by these money blood sucking pains.But when it happen's to them we should bow down to them.Don't get me wrong i do not approve of copy right law breaking.But they now want to tell you what you can and can not do with the stuff you purchase.It is all Bu__ Sh_t man.

  29.5.2004 15:05 #9

• siber

  john179: I know you mean well.

  29.5.2004 15:28 #10

• john179

  ps siber this is not a get at your point as i totally respect it.It just gets right up my back side before you know it they will want to ban Nero,Clone and so on just to make themselves more dosh.At this point where do they stop maybe they want to ban pc's from using at home and we can all go to internet cafe's.Computers have come along way over the years so why do they not assist more in the way of cheaper films in the way of down loads from there own web site's where you pay half the price as your paying for the film only and not the disc and so on.Can we not see what is going on it's like sky sports.Yes subcribe and you can have it all wait a minute i know there is a tyson fight on you want to watch so i will ask you pay for the view.By the way i'm ripping you off but who give a s_i_ cos i'm rich and you will always be poor.Where does it stop????????

  29.5.2004 15:41 #11

• rhmoore

  I'll tell you who stands in the way of Hollywood...
  
  The United States Congress. I testified in front of these guys and they GOT IT! I personally visited with over a dozen key members in Congress and they understand that we are faced with corporate terrorism in this regard.
  
  321 may fall. I have always said that. But we made sure to hand off the fair-use baton to someone else who could carry it across the finish line. Not even the U.S. Supreme Court can do what the United States Congress can do, and most of them I met with are damned determined to do something for all of us.
  
  They see now that the very same DMCA they voted for six years ago has and is being used to trounce competition, stifle innovation and regress technological evolution. Most of the members of Congress I've met with, VOTED for the DMCA. Imagine their surprise when they realize that Hollywood played them for stupid people.
  
  It's likely to take another year to happen, but it WILL happen and the DMCA will be amended or repealed. Just ask Congressman Joe Barton, Republican from Texas who also happens to be the Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He took Tauzin's job, when Tauzin ALMOST replaced Jack Valenti at the MPAA. He told me he would see this signed by the president and passed into law. WOW! Them's fightin words, eh?
  
  Stay tuned. Same Bat Time… Same Bat Channel!
  
  Cheers!
  Robert H Moore
  President/Founder
  321 Studios

  29.5.2004 15:51 #12

• siber

  john 179: I am not sure why you think I am disagreeing with you. If you read my post, I clearly let it be known that I am worried that 'they' may try to go after others ( including you and me) once 321 Studios - the makers of DVDXCopy - were put out of commission. If I gave you the wrong impression, I am sorry. I'll try to be more clear the next time. As I kept answering your posts, I was just trying to keep the conversation a bit lighter. Screaming, clenching fists, ranting and raving has its place. Unfortunately, when you do that on Afterdawn - as they say - 'you are preaching to the choir'. we probably already all agree with your point.

  29.5.2004 15:52 #13

• Oriphus

  rhmoore - its good to know you are up-beat about the potential future of copyright protection and its implications for the home user. I am, unfortunately, not as sure of the future, though i in no way have the inside knowledge that you have, i still feel that we will be banned from copying legally, but that many of us will continue to exercise our rights as we see them :-D
  

  For your DVD needs http://www.dvd-and-media.com
  http://www.dvd-backup.tk
  For User Guides/Downloads: http://www.chrismccann.co.uk/user_guides.htm
  

  29.5.2004 15:56 #14

• john179

  No problem i have settled down now mate
  
  Thanks

  30.5.2004 07:57 #15

• A_Klingon

  Quote:Stay tuned. Same Bat Time ... Same Bat Channel.
  
  Hol-lee DMCA Laws, Batman! Fire up the 321-Mobile! Get Congressman Barton on the Batline!!
  
  Thanks, Rob, for all that you have done, and all that you have accomplished in such a short time.
  
  This little saga is anything but over. I will be tuned to this channel and smiling like Lewis Carrol's Chesire Cat when the current DMCA law become rightfully ammended.
  
  In the meantime, I am delighted to no end at the reponse this single News Update has inspired. It shows that folks will not be led down the garden path with a ring through their nose(s). (Were we ever?)
  
  I'll be watching events like a hawk as they unfold.
  
  Oh! My Spidey-Senses are 'tingling' again!
  
  
  
  (Which is pretty weird for A _ Klingon!)

  30.5.2004 22:46 #16

• buzzoon

  Being the Devil's Advocate here, how can anyone feel sorry for the <deleted> who owns 3-2-1 Studios? I mean, this guy developed and marketed a product that he knew was illegal right from the start! By doing so, he has hurt his distributors and his customers.
  
  I do not agree with the DMCA, especially the part that he violated, but the way to get a law changed is not to blatantly go out and publicly violate it ...
  
  Buzz, you're entitled to an opinion, but no flames and no name calling, please? (thank you)
  
  If it had been illegal to sell early 321 products, they would not have been sold. When a court declared that ripper-enabled products must not be sold, 321 immediately complied with that court order.
  
  Prior to that, what was "illegal" in their products?
  
  <A_K>

  31.5.2004 07:51 #17

• nato1200

  hollywood need to put the time and energy it puts into chasing the pirate "ghost", and improve the community, improve their own disgression on what content they themselves release, and learn to respect the consumer. very few industries enjoy the freedom of delivering a product to consumers, while limiting the use the consumer has of said product. my only point regarding dvdxcopy platinum is... Hollywood vs Sony Betamax. any industry that sells me a non perminant medium, at a permanent price, without the right to back-up, can learn what every other business that does things like that learn...i wont buy your product. ever. the product is lack luster at best, anyway. im tired of make believe violence - too much in reality.
  
  p.s. DVDXcopy is a great peice of work. for the consumer, and for awareness of the problem of corporate policy seeping into government laws. good work mr. moore.

  1.6.2004 02:36 #18

• A_Klingon

  Quote:....the product is lack luster at best ...You GOT it, nato!
  
  Actually, "lack-luster" is just being polite. I have another name for it that wouldn't fit very well in here.
  
  There's some interesting reading on this foisting of....(trash) on the public, and forcing you to pay for it, even IF, like most people, all you want is the movie.
  
  (Gets interesting about halfway down the thread):
  
  http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/86396
  
  

  1.6.2004 03:01 #19

• buzzoon

  Thanks for the heads-up on the Forum Rule A.K.
  
  You asked me Prior to that, what was "illegal" in their products?
  
  Their original product included technology that
  circumvented a technological measure designed to effectively control access to a Copyright protected work, which is clear violation of the DMC Act. This is what the injunction is all about. To make matters even worse, the illegal product was developed and released considerably after the time the DMCA came into effect.
  
  Regardless of the Catch-22 that results from the DMCA/Fair Rights conflict, the law is the law.
  
  If it had been illegal to sell early 321 products, they would not have been sold.
  
  Mr. Moore has claimed that he was unaware of the DMCA when he began to market his product. Ignorance of the law is not a good excuse to use before a Judge. Most technology developers are aware of the laws and regulations that apply to their trade before they start marketing a product. As to why the early products were able to sell so well, it was unique and I suspect it took a bit of taunting to get the MPAA wheels rolling. If I was going to market an illegal product like Mr. Moore's, I don't think I would create splashy web pages, offer rewards, and sell it at the retail level. That's the best way to get the attention of the authorities, and this case proves it.
  
  With all due respect, I suggest that Mr. Moore's intent had more to do with making money than fighting for our fair rights.
  
  I believe the fight must continue, but I don't believe the best way to have a law changed is to blatantly violate it and profit by such violation. I believe that the actions of Mr. Moore has set the fight for "Fair Use" back a few steps.

  1.6.2004 05:06 #20

• rhmoore

  nato: I prefer the term "corporate terrorism", because that is exactly what it is. Even the Congressmen who voted for the passage of the DMCA in 1998 are amazed at how it has been misused against the Consumer.
  
  buzzoon: Nice to see you again. I understand you were banned over at 321 Live! Hope you have better luck over here.

  1.6.2004 06:07 #21

• buzzoon

  Hi Robert ...
  
  I was self-banished over at the 3-2-1 Forums. Your new crop of 'moderators' seem very immature and they are too power-trippy for me. I like to see both sides of an issue presented and they kept stifling me with threats of banishment whenever I presented a side they personally didn't agree with.
  
  How does the battle go Robert?

  1.6.2004 07:46 #22

• rhmoore

  Why don't you tell me how the battle goes? You're the one with all the answers. I believe your last post over at 321 Live stated 321 had "nothing to do" with the Congressional Hearings. Isn't that right? And then over here you started calling me names.
  
  You might equally be surprised with the "power-trippy" moderators in this forum. I guess... we'll see.
  
  Cheers!

  1.6.2004 09:47 #23

• buzzoon

  Hello Robert ...
  
  I said a lot of things over in the 3-2-1 Forums! Sorry about the descriptor I used for you here - have you read any of the "private" emails your "Great Eye" sent to me that were intended to egg me on?
  
  I was under the impression from reading the text of H.R. 107 that it's main thrust was To amend the Federal Trade Commission Act to provide that the advertising or sale of a mislabeled copy-protected music disc is an unfair method of competition and an unfair and deceptive act or practice, and for other purposes. Included in the "other purposes" was to remove the part that makes it a violation to circumvent a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work and to add a clause stating that it shall not be a violation of this title to manufacture, distribute, or make noninfringing use of a hardware or software product capable of enabling significant noninfringing use of a copyrighted work. (highlighting mine)
  
  Contrary to your stated results of your 'Fortune 500' Company demographic survey (the methods and demographics of which you refused to share with us), I suggest that the majority of people who purchased your ripper products are, in fact, using them to infringe on Copyrighted work. This seems to be supported by the majority of comments here and on other forums and newsgroups when the discussion of Fair Use and DVD ripping software comes up.
  
  I have no problem with your original product or it's intent - I bought the retail version. And, like you, I have a major problem with parts of the DMCA and I have since it was introduced in 1998. It cut off a big part of my trading business! I just wish you would put the rubber to the road, admit that your intent was and is to make money, and admit that most of us are using ripper products to make copies of material we don't own.
  
  btw, I think the action filed by MacroVision to prohibit the copying the their code from an original disk to a copy is nonsense!

  1.6.2004 10:19 #24

• rhmoore

  Hi Buzzoon:
  Obviously from your own comments, you are under many mis-impressions about the facts. And if it weren't for the fact that I have a high regard and respect for AfterDawn and its members, I would likely not take the time out to correct your misperceptions. As most of them have been addressed time and again.
  
  #1: You incorrectly assume that H.R. 107 would have no effect on the legitimate back up activities of consumers. --- Even the most juvenile read of the Congressional testimony would prove this 100% in error, so rather than take my time to educate, you should do so for yourself and read.
  
  #2: You incorrectly assume that we had no demographic study done by a Fortune 500 company demonstrating the legitimate use of our products and our customers. --- This is an amazing conclusion to come to, which on the face of it, would seem to indicate that I have lied about the study and further have tried to perpetuate that lie through this and other forums. So let's get this straight... I don't CARE what you believe or don't believe. Unless you are a Congressmen who can further these issues in some way that benefits me or my customers, I could care less what you think. In fact, if you showed up at my office tomorrow and asked extremely politely to see this study, I would tell you NO! I paid for it, it's mine to use or not use as I see fit. If you want to see the study, you'll have to pay for it yourself and get it done.
  
  #3: You incorrectly assume that this and other forums are quite typical of our average customers behavior and use that as your assertion of certitude that our demographic study either does not exist or is grossly in error. --- Like most people who do nothing more than extract lifeforce from the universe while blindly tapping away at their keyboards on any given day, as if anyone cared what they thought or said, you think the world revolves around you and those who do the same. The truth is, although I have many friends in these forums, I do not consider them to be typical of our average customer at all. In fact, they are quite the opposite. This is something else I learned in 4th grade. The world is a lot bigger than my eyes and ears can perceive.
  
  #4: You incorrectly assume that I hide behind some banner of non-profit and challenge me to put the "rubber to the road", whatever that means. --- Unlike Hollywood, which enlisted the aid of the U.S. Congress to enforce its illegal business model, I took the profits of 321 and poured them back into an anti-hollywood campaign that would demonstrate to these evil-monsters that consumers can become a viable, opposing force and one they should most definitely look out for. It takes money to fight and it takes a lot of it. I never asked once for a penny in legal fees, I only asked those that supported this position to purchase our products so that we could fund the effort.
  
  If you wanna know the truth, sometimes, I think I should have put more money in my pocket. At least that would have been a lot more fun...
  
  Cheers!

  1.6.2004 11:13 #25

• buzzoon

  Mr. Moore ...
  
  You incorrectly assume that H.R. 107 would have no effect on the legitimate back up activities of consumers
  
  I assume nothing of the sort. What I am suggesting is that your (original) products and products like it (eg. dvdshrink) are not being used for legitimate backup purposes.
  
  You incorrectly assume that we had no demographic study done by a Fortune 500 company demonstrating the legitimate use of our products and our customers
  
  Your study suggests that 70% of your customers are using your product for legitimate backup of their personal DVD collection. I suggest that is not an accurate number. I simply asked you for the methods used to come up with this number and who participated in the survey. Your refusal to share this information so that I can verify it and eat humble pie if you are correct raises some doubt as to it's validity.
  
  me to put the "rubber to the road", whatever that means.
  
  It means tell us the truth about your motives!
  
  In spite of what you may think about me, I am on your side. I have signed many petitions to remove the very parts of the DMCA that you are are lobbying to get removed, many before the advent of 3-2-1. I just don't agree with your methods. It's not smart to blatantly violate a law to get it changed, even if the law is unreasonable. In Canada, I have to abide by the King's Law, much of which is ridiculous and out-dated.

  1.6.2004 11:43 #26

• A_Klingon

  OK, Buzz.....
  
  Most of these arguments have been thrashed to death, but let me just briefly touch on a couple, because you have brought them up.
  
  I am not the least aware of whether or not Mr. Moore was aware of the DMCA laws prior to the release of his first product(s).
  
  What good will it do, could it do for 321 or ANY other like-purpose software maker to "admit" that his/their products are used for (currently) 'illegal' purposes? What an end user does with his software is not in the hands of the authors. Should ALL software manufacturers similar to and including 321, immediately stop selling their programs simply because they could be used for backing up, say, rentals or library-borrowed films?
  
  You suggest that Mr. Moore was more interested in profit than anything else. I humbly suggest, that I can't imagine any software-producing company who would not be interested in making a fair profit for their work. Would you do it? I wouldn't.
  
  Should all companies producing backing-up software, in your opinion, "just break even" or what? Or should they produce, refine, enhance, upgrade, improve, incorporate user-requests, hire staff, --- all at a loss, just because they like people and have great faith in the human race?
  
  I only know of one source that distributes a free backing-up program. Anyone and everyone is free to use it, should they wish. Other than that, of the many other backup-software producing companies -- which of them is freely giving their work away or costs the consumer nothing? (I'm not talking about simple utilities).
  
  And judging from what I see in you as a degree of anger (I mean no disrespect to you, Buzz), what would you have 321 do at this point?
  
  Pull ALL of their software off the market? If so, for what reason? Will that help you or me or anyone else with anything at all? Will that stop the other companies from selling their backing-up software? Should the others stop selling it as well?
  
  What should we all do Buzz, in the here and now?
  
  Regarding all the legal litigation. I think 321 has done famously with Congress! Don't know of any single company (any company, period) who has done as much for you or me. 95% of them don't have the funds for one thing. For those that do, the Motion Picture Industry has frequently attempted to put the fear of GOD into anyone who would dare to challenge their MONOPOLY.
  
  (You see what I mean about thrashing old points to death?)
  
  I've said this in another thread, but it needs to be repeated here: Backing up software, for better or worse is the "Great Leveler". It has put Hugely Needed power back into the hands of consumers. It helps, immeasurably to 'level the playing field'. Hollywood, despite lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, does not control the Internet.
  
  When the horrifically unfair DMCA gets ammended, repealed, squashed like a bug, (whatever), you may have a different outlook on all of this. It means, that rippers will be 'legal'. For anyone who is intent on making illegal backups, it matters not one whit whether the powers-that-be deem it legal or not - they're going to make their backups regardless.
  
  Just my thoughts on the whole mess - don't know what more you expect or want.
  
  -- Klingy --

  1.6.2004 11:49 #27

• buzzoon

  I am not the least aware of whether or not Mr. Moore was aware of the DMCA laws prior to the release of his first product(s).
  
  He stated in his own forums that he was not aware of the law when he started his venture ... I find this difficult to believe, especially coming from someone who is a self-professed expert in developing code to do what his products do. Heck, I don't know the first thing about writing code, but I became painfully aware of the DMCA as soon as it came into effect (and I am a Canadian!)
  
  Should ALL software manufacturers similar to and including 321, immediately stop selling their programs simply because they could be used for backing up, say, rentals or library-borrowed films?
  
  That is irrelevant. What Mr. Moore did was develop and market a product that was illegal, period. Here’s an easy analogy:
  
  If you don’t like going the speed limit and get caught speeding, what do you think would happen if:
  
  a) You told the cop you didn’t know what the speed limit was. IOW, you admit that you are ignorant of the law (I didn't know about the DMCA), or,
  
  b) You told the cop that yes, you were speeding but you don't agree with the posted limit and you wanted to make your point.
  
  You suggest that Mr. Moore was more interested in profit than anything else. I humbly suggest, that I can't imagine any software-producing company who would not be interested in making a fair profit for their work. Would you do it? I wouldn't.
  
  Absolutely not. But, I would also not try to sell anyone on the idea that I was investing all of my profit to help my customers assert their Fair Use rights either. I have no objection to any entrepreneur who comes up with an idea to make money.
  
  Should all companies producing backing-up software, in your opinion, "just break even" or what? Or should they produce, refine, enhance, upgrade, improve, incorporate user-requests, hire staff, --- all at a loss, just because they like people and have great faith in the human race?
  
  See above …
  
  I only know of one source that distributes a free backing-up program. Anyone and everyone is free to use it, should they wish.
  
  There are many more than one. I use the one you are probably thinking about, and I know I am violating the DMCA when I do. However, I am not profiting by the distribution of that software, nor am I profiting by infringing on others’ Copyrights by using it. Do you see the difference here?
  
  what would you have 321 do at this point?
  
  Exactly what they are doing since ordered to by a Judge, and what they should have been doing all along ... obey the law! And provide the promised updates to their customers :-)
  
  What should we all do Buzz, in the here and now?
  
  Keep talking about it and hope we get the ear of the lawmakers.
  
  ... the Motion Picture Industry has frequently attempted to put the fear of GOD into anyone who would dare to challenge their MONOPOLY.
  
  Interesting POV. Do you think that Microsoft has a monopoly with their Windows operating system? If they do, should they give up their rights and provide their code to all computer users so we can develop our own operating systems?
  
  What about the rights of the MPAA members? Even if you don’t agree with the way they enforce them (I certainly don’t), what gives you or I the right to say that they shouldn’t protect their rights in the best way they see fit?
  
  Hollywood, despite lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit, does not control the Internet.
  
  This has nothing to do with the Internet. I don’t see any evidence that Hollywood is trying to control the Internet …
  
  When the horrifically unfair DMCA gets ammended, repealed, squashed like a bug, (whatever), you may have a different outlook on all of this.
  
  You’re sadly missing my point :-(
  
  I have no use for the DMCA. I will be delighted if it gets ammended, repealed or squashed like a bug. It does stifle my rights and has been written to protect moviemakers. I would dearly love to see it changed or eliminated all together. But, and here’s the part that you don’t seem to want to acknowledge ... at the present time, the DMCA is the law and anyone (at least anyone in the USA) who develops and markets a ripper product designed to bypass copy protection is violating that law. (see the speed limit analogy above)
  
  Thanks for the opportunity to express my opinions here …

  1.6.2004 14:09 #28

• rhmoore

  I only wish that were the end of it. Sadly, it won't be...
  
  Buzz obviously never read the DMCA, nor the fair use exemption that many in Congress thought would prevent this from happening in the first place.
  
  And the main reason we filed the DRA in California and spent millions of dollars in legal fees, is because we BELIEVED the DMCA would never be interpreted the way it has been.
  
  Buzzoon: Get an education and then come back here and talk to me about the DMCA. You have NO IDEA what you are talking about... And in the future, unless you post something worth my time in responding, you can expect nothing from me.
  
  Cheers!

  1.6.2004 14:17 #29

• buzzoon

  Robert ... please!
  
  1. Is the DMCA law in the USA? Yes or No?
  
  2. Do you and I as citizens have the right to interpret the law any way we see fit? Yes or No?
  
  3. Did the development and marketing of your original ripper product violate the DMCA? Yes or No?

  1.6.2004 14:22 #30

• buzzoon

  <Double post. Deleted.>
  
  (No, I'm not feeling particularly "power-trippy" this evening.)
  
  <A_K>

  1.6.2004 14:22 #31

• A_Klingon

  Can't really see what any of this is supposed to accomplish.
  
  This has nothing to do with the Internet.
  
  This has everything to do with the Internet! Perhaps I should have added, "Backing up software coupled WITH the Internet is the 'Great Leveler'. Why on earth do you think the motion picture industry is stooping lower than I've ever seen it stoop before? _Because_ of the Internet, that's why! Where do you think DE-DCSS came from? Tim Horton's?
  
  I don't see any evidence that Hollywood is trying to control the Internet.
  
  No, and you never will. That's the Whole Point. They can't. If they could, what do you wanna bet they wouldn't try?
  
  I use the one you are probably thinking about, and I know I am violating the DMCA when I use it.
  
  Oh, terrific! Thanks for coming 'clean'. So you are guilty yourself of that which you accuse 321. Just terrific!
  
  Actually, I don't know that you are guilty of anything. You see, I *too* live in Canada, and as such, our laws are a hell of a lot different than those of the US. I'm not a legal-beagle, so someone will have to tell me whether the DMCA can force other countries to comply.
  
  However, I am not profiting by the distribution of that software.
  
  Yes you are. By using the 'illegal' software, you made a copy of your legally purchased dvd. If you damage the original, you will not have to purchase another. You have just "profited" by violating the DMCA.
  
  And anyway, it doesn't matter. By your own admission, you are "guilty". (Not that I personally think you are guilty of anything - someone will have to tell me how far-reaching the DMCA is, and in what juridictions <Canada?> it is legally enforceable). China? Egypt? Venezuela? (I am not trying to be funny here - I am dead serious).
  
  Nor am I profiting by infringing on other's Copyrights by using it.
  
  How so? Buzz, you really shouldn't hang yourself like this.
  
  Do you see the difference here?
  
  No. I don't.
  
  Even assuming you use your software for _nothing_ else other than backing-up the dvds you have paid an arm and a leg for at the retail store, you _are_ violating the DMCA, are you not? You've admitted as much. As such, you are infringing on the copyrights of others, at least according to the DMCA. IF you accidently damage your original disc, you are "depriving" The Industry of their rightful expectation that you should go out and purcha$e another copy at retail, AND are depriving them of their rightful profit if you don't.
  
  Shame on you, you rotten backer-upper! (That was a joke, Buzz).
  
  I'm afraid Rob was right...... the saga continues.....
  [sigh......]

  1.6.2004 16:01 #32

• buzzoon

  I freely admit that I am rotten backer upper!
  
  

  1.6.2004 16:08 #33

• A_Klingon

  Well then, you should hang around AfterDawn more often ! That's what all our rootin'-tootin' tutorials are for! We'll make a backer-upper out of you yet!
  
  (Buzz....you damned-near smiled that time).
  
  You forgot the smiley!

  1.6.2004 16:33 #34

• xp235

  321 Studios spins toward zero
  By Jerri Stroud
  Of the Post-Dispatch
  06/01/2004
  
  
  Jay Belke, director of production for 321 Studios, works alone in the warehouse. The company, which had 20 employees working there six months ago, has three today.
  (Larry Williams/P-D)
  
  
  
  Robert H. Moore's 321 Studios has moved five times in 2 1/2 years to cope with rapid growth in sales of its DVD-copying software, DVD X Copy.
  
  But court orders that bar 321 Studios from selling any version of that product have thrown the company's growth into reverse.
  
  They've forced Moore to lay off nearly 300 people in the last two months and led him to sublease part of the 80,000-square-foot headquarters 321 Studios has occupied in the Missouri Research Park since last fall.
  
  A half-floor of offices is vacant, and a handful of employees work in a warehouse that once hummed with activity. Today, the company has about 50 employees, down from nearly 400, said Julia Bishop-Cross, a spokeswoman.
  
  Moore, 43, founded 321 Studios nearly three years ago as a way to get his son, Brian, interested in the computer business.
  
  Robert Moore figured out how to use a compact-disc burner to make backup copies of his collection of movies on DVD and videocassette. Brian Moore put together a Web site to sell his father's instructions, and sales took off.
  
  The company kept expanding - opening retail stores and a call center to market DVD X Copy and related products - until February, when the movie industry won an injunction halting sales of the product.
  
  The injunction was like "a hit to the back of the head," Moore said. He believes that some major movie studios want to put him out of business.
  
  Matthew Grossman, a spokesman for the Motion Picture Association of America, said the studios simply are defending their copyrights from piracy.
  
  "Obviously, we're not in the business of making people unemployed," Grossman said. "We are doing what we have to do to defend our studios' copyrights."
  
  Moore said 321 Studios was on track for sales of $100 million or more this year before a federal judge in San Francisco ruled that 321's product violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
  
  The judge said the software's circumvention of encryption codes on copyrighted material was a specific violation of the act. In March, a judge in New York issued a similar ruling in a suit filed by Macrovision, which makes encryption technology.
  
  Grossman said the MPAA has won similar judgments against 10 other companies marketing technology similar to what 321 Studios was selling.
  
  "The courts all agree that these are copyright violations," Grossman said. "If it's illegal, it's illegal."
  
  321 Studios says making copies for personal use is legal under the long-standing principle of fair use of copyrighted material that an individual has purchased. Moore adds that his software has anti-piracy provisions, so it's impractical to use it to make copies for resale.
  
  The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a San Francisco-based group dedicated to defending digital rights, filed briefs in support of 321 Studios before the injunctions were issued.
  
  The group says the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been used to stifle a wide variety of legitimate activities by journalists, publishers, scientists, students and programmers.
  
  Moore hasn't given up his fight against the injunctions, but he has been unable to persuade the judges to reconsider their rulings.
  
  "We're gasping for breath," Moore said. "No one will listen to us scream."
  
  321 Studios has other products for sale, including game-copying software and a CD-rescue program. But sales of those products total only about $10 million a year, Moore said.
  
  "We still have the expenses of a $100 million company," he said, including big legal bills and expenses for lobbying Congress to revise the digital-copyright act to allow making copies for personal use.
  
  Moore has turned his attention to supporting a bill in Congress that would allow consumers to make copies of DVDs, music CDs and other material for personal use. This month, he testified in favor of the bill, which the MPAA opposes.
  
  Fred von Lohmann, a senior staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, said he's encouraged by the bill's prospects this year because Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, is supporting it. Barton is chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which held hearings on the bill last month.
  
  Moore worries that his company's legal troubles are threatening more than sales.
  
  "People are losing confidence that we are a viable company," Moore said. But rather than give up, he plans to fight. "If we go out, we're going out swinging."
  
  Reporter Jerri Stroud
  E-mail: jerristroud@post-dispatch.com
  Phone: 314-340-8384

  1.6.2004 16:37 #35

• A_Klingon

  Thank you for that timely update, XP.
  
  What does it mean to you? Do you have an opinion?

  1.6.2004 16:54 #36

• chthomson

  Hi buzzoon
  Laws are not set in stone but are an evolution of court decisions. Some laws are fought via civil disobedience. Some laws need a court case to provide the parameters for legal application. If a product does not come to market because it has a possible contravention to a law, we would have a lot less products for sale. The VCR comes quickly to mind as a product that has both legal and illegal usages. So does a camera and for that matter a computer. The court ruled that a VCR was legal inspite of the movie industry claims it would bankrupt them. This copyright war is bigger than 321 Studios. It is about consumer access to copyright materials. We in Canada have a similar fight going on. (http://www.piac.ca/PIACcopyrightreport.pdf) We can learn from the USA and their problems with the DCMA. With the current Federal election we have an opportunity to raise the issue and change the course of the copyright ship (http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/87262)
  We need to be thankful that Mr Moore has taken an interest in changing a law that limits consumer access to copyrighted materials.

  1.6.2004 17:54 #37

• buzzoon

  It's unfortunate that Mr. Moore had to layoff a bunch of people, and his company can no longer provide the promised level of support or the promised product upgrades to his customers. I don't know why we should feel sorry for him though. It looks like he had a good run and I doubt if he suffered any personal financial loss. He even got an all expenses paid trip to the funny farm in Washington ...
  
  The squeaky wheel does get the grease, and Mr. Moore squeaked enough to get the attention of Jack Valenti and His Band of Thugs. That was the beginning of the end for his company. If he had kept a lower profile, his ripper products may have survived.
  
  As for personally feeling sorry for Mr. Moore (and seeing as how there doesn't seem to be any love lost between him and I), can I say that I feel about as sorry for him as I feel sorry for the liquor bootleggers when Prohibition was repealed :)

  1.6.2004 18:09 #38

• siber

  buzzoon, with all this arguing back and forth between you and rhmoore, you have lost most of your audience in this forum. It really just comes off as arguing for the sake of arguing. At this point, who cares?
  
  rhmoore has obviously had to prepare himself quite a bit over the last few months for all the legal wrangling. When I read his posts before all this b..ing started, I saw a fairly clear picture of his arguments and points. Didn't necessarily agree with everything but I had respect for the battle at hand.
  
  Rightly or wrongly, I cannot help from having to suppress the feeling that your point of view is a lot more colored by anger and passion. I am not really sure anymore where you are coming from. Why argue endlessly that rhmoore should admit something or another. Going through every quote and rebutting them point by point and 'over and over' becomes really tedious and pointless.
  
  I keep from this that you always supported the basic premise of the right to privacy, that you used products that 321 developed and distributed at a time when you feel they were already illegal. When you are being asked what Mr Moore should do, you talk about 'how he should admit this and not break the law, etc'(Yawn).
  
  I have the distinct impression that this is going nowhere and desperately needs to have all protagonists immediately check out some other form of entertainment. This is now neither entertaining nor educational. Enough spitting! Even Klingy - who is trying so hard - cannot save this one...

  1.6.2004 20:25 #39

• pbailey

  Rhmoore you're doing a great thing, despite what the knockers may say, and buzzoon, you really are a <deleted>if you think he has underlying motives just because he makes money, he's a s/ware developer for <deleted>sake, why do you think he put in all the hard time and effort? To make a program that goes out of it's way to violate some bullshit greedy law?
  
  I'm afraid buzzoon has completely missed the point of what 321 is doing. Why should we have to put up with these sorts of laws, we don't. We have rights as consumers and i don't care who the <deleted> you are, i bought a copy of a game/movie etc, i have the right to make a backup. You stop me from doing that and then you're the one breaking the law.
  
  And evertime buzzoon opens his mouth it just makes him look like a DMCA <deleted> wearing blinkers. Stop arguing for that sake of it and get behind something that matters, just like Robert H Moore is doing.
  
  pbailey:
  
  Please do not ever use the 'F' word in here again, or the other words you have used to describe one of our members.
  
  If your read more carefully, you will discover that buzzoon *does* agree with what Mr. Moore is trying to accomplish. As such, he agrees with you as well, as do I.
  
  <A_K>

  1.6.2004 23:10 #40

• A_Klingon

  siber: Even Klingy - who is trying so hard - cannot save this one.
  
  Oh, I dunno, siber. All depends on your outlook. I've been trained in "damage control". (Yeah, it's a dirty job, but someone's gotta do it, eh?)
  
  

  2.6.2004 02:47 #41

• buzzoon

  I'm not in the least bit angry :-)
  
  I am simply trying to make a point that regardless of emotions, regardless of our rights, regardless of the curret state of Mr. Moore's company, and regardless of whether or not we agree with the law, the law was broken and somebody profited by it.
  
  Maybe I'm a little jealous? I know if I broke the law to profit and got caught, I probably wouldn't have access to this keyboard right now.
  
  Anywho ... my point has been made and I promise to leave it alone from now on.
  
  Thanks ...

  2.6.2004 04:53 #42

• pbailey

  LOL so sorry bout the f word, we all agree?? That's great!

  2.6.2004 17:01 #43

• A_Klingon

  LOL So sorry bout the f word, we all agree? That's great!
  
  Yep, we all agree. We're all just one, great big happy .... (um).... Family! -- Happy Happy Happy !!
  
  Earlier tonight I was Google-ing my way through miles and miles of text, trying to find out more about Canadian copyright law. As expected, there is so much stuff to wade through, I gave up.
  
  I was looking for something (anything) "legal" that would pertain to copying music and films (cds and dvds) from Public Libraries. Perhaps something that, at least here in Canada, the DMCA couldn't even remotely touch.
  
  In a Canadian Audio magazine, ["UHF", Ultra-High Fidelity] I was surprised to learn that it is legal to make a one-off copy of a music cd, as long as it is for personal, at-home use only. (No lending, no selling, no distribution.)
  
  Legal.
  
  Commercial music cds.
  
  The proviso was that the cd (or cassette, or vinyl LP) had to come from a real, "accredited" Public Library. (You can't just go to a music store, buy a cd and then run off 20 copies for your friends.)
  
  I had hoped to find something similar pertaining to commercial dvds, also as freely loaned by the public libraries, but couldn't find anything in the volumes of text I plowed through, but.....
  
  If it's legal to copy, for personal, non-commercial, private use, a music cd, then why not a dvd? Perhaps it is legal (???)
  
  Anybody know anything about this?
  
  Offnote: You know, when this DMCA thing gets ammended, it could have profound implications for the upcoming HD discs.
  
  If Congress allows for fair use backing-up of legally purchased dvds, one would have to believe this would also extend to High Definition discs.
  
  Who knows how much they will initially cost? $80-$100 each maybe? (Don't laugh - remember the 12" laser discs?)
  
  At that price, I definately believe one should be able to protect their investment!
  
  We can now "get around" the dvd format, but since the HD format hasn't even been finalized yet, it's impossible to say how tough or 'uncrackable' the drm measures will be.
  
  It could be a case where we may be legally _permitted_ to back up our expensive HD disc, but have no way to actually do it.
  
  Hmmmm.... interesting times ahead.

  2.6.2004 17:42 #44

• pbailey

  A_K it's interesting you found that about making a legal backup, because i have been under the impression since i started playing around with computers, since i was 7 that you were by law allowed to make a backup of a copy you own, but over the years, i'm now 22, i never actually heard them say you can't do it.
  
  Ofcourse essentially they did, by bringing out copy protection measures, and i remember raising a stink about it over at bjorn3d's forums back in 97, that surely they're breaking the law by introducing measures that stop us from making a legal backup of a copy we own.
  
  Now ofcourse they bung on that you're only buying the right to listen to it, not ownership rights. No poo, ofcourse we see it as that, but as consumers who spend money supporting these so called artits, we don't have the right to protect our own interests, ie listening rights, viewing rights etc.
  
  I don't want to get started, or i'll just ramble on, and unfortunately i have to go to work. With the flu. Everything sucks alot right now.. ;)

  2.6.2004 18:02 #45

• pbailey

  Oh yeah, blank dvd rw were about a $100 a pop when i first saw them on the shelves. LOL i only ever saw one of those huge laser disks, and the guy showing me said, this is what all games will be on soon, and i was like, you crazy mon, that's way too big...

  2.6.2004 18:05 #46

• chthomson

  Hi A_Klingon
  This is my take on the Section 80 of the Copyright Act in Canada
  "Copying for Private Use
  80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
  (a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
  (b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
  (c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
  onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
  (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
  (a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
  (b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
  (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
  (d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public."
  (http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33761 and http://neil.eton.ca/copylevy.shtml#what_is_a_levy)
  I can legally in Canada make a copy of any music work/performance no matter the source. I can own the source. I can borrow the source. I can rent the source. I can dounload the source. The source is not limited to a tape, LP, CD, DVD, hard drive etc. It is whatever/wherever the musical work can be found. DVD do contain musical works. For me this justifies my DVD backups. This has not been tested in the courts making a legal interpretation uncertain.
  I hope this helps

  2.6.2004 18:10 #47

• Sophocles

  The guy should still have been sued, but only for his bad taste in software.
  
  Hey Siber, fortunately we don't loose forums and fortunately we can get loose from pointless threads. I try to (although sometimes without success), remind myself that everyone is always going to be right in their one heads, and some discussions end will in unresolvable debates.
  

  "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1859-1930)

  2.6.2004 19:56 #48

• siber

  This one has calmed down quite a bit. Yesterday we had some serious shouting going on. As we both know, it is possible to drop an issue, walk away from it and find out that there really is a next day.

  2.6.2004 20:22 #49

• Toiletman

  What there's a next day?! I thought it was to-day... :S
  
  Well, you've confused me now... I'll just stick to the rule of life: Live everyday like it's your last.

  2.6.2004 20:35 #50

• siber

  Too confrontational...Imagine if you really thought this was your last day. You'd never shut up, you'd always think you've got nothing to lose, you'd fight every fight...Nice slogan but luckily that's all it is. The world would be one crazy place every day...But I agree with the concept of enjoying every day to the fullest.

  2.6.2004 20:41 #51

• Sophocles

  So, So, True Siber! When there is no point or reason to be ganined from further debate, then let it go and move on.
  

  "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1859-1930)

  2.6.2004 20:41 #52

• A_Klingon

  chthomson
  
  THANK YOU for that information !!!
  
  Yes, that does *indeed* help!
  
  Finally, some legal text that doesn't require a law degree to understand!
  
  The information you quoted seems very straightforward to me. We can legally copy a music (source) for our own use. Cool!
  
  Too bad that, technically, no mention of video was made. (Don't know when those laws actually came into effect, but surely, at least vhs was around at that time?)
  
  However, nowhere in those provisions does it say you can't also copy a video source either.
  
  So, yeah..... I think we're pretty lucky. And you must be right too, about it also being legal to own _downloaded_ copies of music as well (from P2P sources like 'Kazaa', etc.) Recently I was reading a news article (from here I believe) which stated that the record companies were trying to 'crack down' on P2P file swappers here in Canada, but as I haven't heard of any outcome from these 'threats', I will believe that it is still 100% legal to do so.
  
  Excellent!
  
  pbailey, hope your flu doesn't get you down. I too have never head anyone say Canadians can't make personal music copies either, whether from self-owned or rented/borrowed sources.
  

  2.6.2004 21:22 #53

• Sophocles

  I'm in favor of protecting intellectual property rights as long as it's the rights of the creators that are being protected. The problem with making a decision that puts intellectual properties' in the hands of movie moguls or the RIAA is that it puts a strangle hold on creativity. Business people decide on the sound, image, and future direction of what we hear. They sift and filter it for what they, this small population of no talents, think should be what we're hearing. I support the law as it is written even thought there is much of it I am greatly displeased with.
  

  "Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth." Sherlock Holmes (by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, 1859-1930)

  2.6.2004 21:36 #54

• pbailey

  hear hear.
  
  Excellent thread.
  
  :( cheers A_K.

  2.6.2004 23:23 #55

• buzzoon

  I can legally in Canada make a copy of any music work/performance no matter the source. I can own the source. I can borrow the source. I can rent the source. I can dounload the source. The source is not limited to a tape, LP, CD, DVD, hard drive etc. It is whatever/wherever the musical work can be found. DVD do contain musical works. For me this justifies my DVD backups.
  
  Sigh! If only it were that simple. Re-read Sentence 2 of your post and think about how a Judge would interpret this with respect to your source.

  3.6.2004 05:15 #56

• buzzoon

  PS ... before you get everyone in Canada going, you may want to bounce your interpretation of Canadian Copyright Law off a copyright lawyer. (This is something our friend Mr. Moore should have done before he developed and marketed his product) :)

  3.6.2004 05:18 #57

• chthomson

  Hi A_Klingon
  The Private Copying Regime law was created in 1997. Prior to that it was illegal to make copies of musical works. When it became legal to make a private copy of music a levy was imposed on recordable medium - cassettes and cds. These monies collected are to be distributed to music artists according a distribution formula to compensate for private copying.
  In their December 2003 decision, the Copyright Board states:
  "The regime does not address the source of the material copied. There is no requirement in Part VIII that the source copy be a non-infringing copy. Hence, it is not relevant whether the source of the track is a pre-owned recording, a borrowed CD, or a track downloaded from the Internet."
  Video is not included in the Private Copying Regime only music. The Copyright Act defines sound recording as ""sound recording" means a recording, fixed in any material form, consisting of sounds, whether or not of a performance of a work, but excludes any soundtrack of a cinematographic work where it accompanies the cinematographic work;
  
  Uploading is still being decided on. In March the court ruled having music in a shared folder on a p2p network is not distribution. This case is under appeal. We might have an answer this fall.
  
  buzzoon
  I make copies of musical works. That is legal under Canadian Copyright law. See http://www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33231. My DVDs have music works and performances. Music videos are great entertainment. Legal opinion has no value unless supported by a court case. No one has been convicted of travelling 1K over the limit but it is still classified as speeding

  3.6.2004 06:20 #58

• buzzoon

  Interesting chthompson ... thanks!

  3.6.2004 07:05 #59

• alfraido

  we are the workers of fair use,,but it seems that most
  people leave it up to some one else and all else fails.
  because NO one stickes together , even though we have the rights to act ,,we fall beside the way side amd the RIAA know this...they say people give out and just let it be ..these americans need to be governed by sadum and have a Big hard ship and then and only then will they injoy god and the united states and what We have to offer, people better get in to the fight for your rights, or you will have someone like Sadum-that will MAKE you like it!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3.6.2004 14:11 #60

• A_Klingon

  Quote:Uploading is still being decided on. In March the court ruled having music in a shared folder on a p2p network is not distribution. This case is under appeal. We might have an answer this fall.Good thing it's not considered distribution. At least yet. I have Canadian law to back me up should the RIAA come busting my door down only to discover I have a C:\Kazaa\Shared\... folder.
  
  And no , I _don't_ have 108 full .mp3 albums which I (didn't) download from various P2P's! Oh! How could you even think such a thing !
  
  Thanks for the earlier link. I have saved the entire Canadian copyright act, available as a .pdf file.

  3.6.2004 14:22 #61

• Buzz55

  Has anyone tried buying the Platinum ripper version 4.0.3.8 here?
  
  http://www.platinumripper.com/
  
  They are overseas and seem to still be selling it. They say they will fully support it and get it working for you. If they can’t they will give you a full refund.
  
  Buzz55

  16.9.2004 18:32 #62

• Bobbiecd

  `Mr Moore. I find your products very worthwhile. I also purchased them after finding out about your xcopy platinum from a fellow co worker. I have had much success with your products. I also have games x copy. I salute you on your perseverience and stalwart helmsmanship of your company. I am so sorry to see 321 studios lost to the world. I hope things will go better in the future for you and you will be able to send us some new technology to help us middle class consumers in the relativly near future
  
  Bobbie
  

  29.9.2004 11:24 #63