Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

":::Jerry::::"
Oh right, so you not only make you own boot-leg copies but you also
buy a commercial copy!

No. Kindly cease and desist from lying about me.

If you abuse copyright you are STEALING.

Abuse copyright? How does that differ from infringing copyright, which
is not stealing (because the owner is not deprived of the item copied).

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

MJ Ray wrote:
":::Jerry::::"
Oh right, so you not only make you own boot-leg copies but you also
buy a commercial copy!

No. Kindly cease and desist from lying about me.

If you abuse copyright you are STEALING.

Abuse copyright? How does that differ from infringing copyright, which
is not stealing (because the owner is not deprived of the item
copied).

The copyright holder may not have been "deprived of the item copied" but
s/he has certainly has been deprived of the income from the same of said
item that they would have received had the person BOUGHT a copy of the item
instead of STEALING it.

--
Carl Waring
http://getdigiguide.com/?p=1&r=1495

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
reenews.net...
":::Jerry::::"
Oh right, so you not only make you own boot-leg copies but you
also
buy a commercial copy!

No. Kindly cease and desist from lying about me.

Kindly stop supporting common criminals then!


If you abuse copyright you are STEALING.

Abuse copyright? How does that differ from infringing copyright,
which
is not stealing (because the owner is not deprived of the item
copied).


Look cretin, if someone wants a copy, and they make or obtain a
boot-leg copy rather than *buying* a commercial copy they have stolen
a sale and thus income from both the artist and media company. FACT -
QED.

Now troll off, moron, stop trying to defend the indefinable.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 22:02:21 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 11:00:01 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message

...
On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:02:29 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message


...

snip trolling

You are the bull-****ting trolling moron. Read the Copyright
Act
FULLY,
and stop Cherry picking.

Jerry, you only had one thing to do:

State which part of the copyright act was being violated in
order
to
justify your own assertion that the copyright act was the reason
for you
to call the OP a criminal.snip

I already have. READ the Copyright Act.

All you have ever said is

"I suggest you read and digest what the clause regarding
time-shifting
(with due regard to the section about archiving) in the Copyright
Act"

You have already admitted that the 7 day limit is not specified in
the
law, you said that in the same post, only you Jerry would prove yourself
wrong in the same post.
snip

As I said, read the said Act, especially in respect of Archiving, as
archiving is not allowed [1] then by definition a Time-shifted recording
can only legally be of a limited period.

Which is not defined as seven days. If you remove the DRM that itself is
not a crime, if you kept the recording without DRM for longer than
whatever this undefined period is then of course that is archiving - that
is a crime sure. Removing DRM itself is not a crime - sadly you are unable
to comprehend that.


Now as for the 'reasonable period that a Time-shifted recording can be
kept for, there is no time scale in the Act for the simple reason that
each and every case could be different, let's take two possible
situations, we have two wife's, both record the last episode in a series
of Scrubs (for example) so that their husbands can view it when they
return home from work, husband 'A' works on a North Sea oil rig whilst
'B' works nights in a local Take-a-way, it would be (very) reasonable
for wife 'A' to keep the recording for 3 months, but wife 'B' would be
hard pressed make an case to keep it more than 3 days.

So if wife A removes the DRM to keep a recording for husband A to watch
when he returns from the oil rig, prison, Iraq or wherever then you agree
it is legal.

So therefore removing DRM is not a crime itself. Archiving the DRM
stripped recording is - which was never the argument.

If you were capable of comprehending that you would have managed not to
make such an idiot of yourself.


Now stop trolling.

I have noticed in this thread you call others a troll because they
disagree with you. That is kind of childish - you are incapable of
representing yourself and cannot justify your points or even grasp
concepts, once you understand this (if ever) then you will realise that
people are not trolling they are just correcting the unrefined crap you
are posting.

You also use the 'trolling' lie as an excuse to snip out large parts of
posting you are embarrassed of - like your continual refusal you state
which part of the copyright act you feel is being violated. Remember you
first used the time shifting section, you probably realised it was BS,
moved on to archiving, which was irrelevant so just snipped everything and
responded to the question "Which *part* of the Copyright act" with the
ignoramus response "The Copyright act", of course that only 'works' when
you snip everything including the question.

Obviously the reason was that once you tried to explain how your mind(sic)
was working (like the post I am now replying to) then it lets the cat out
of the bag doesn't it and makes this whole sub-thread pointless had you
attempted to explain your misguided thoughts(sic) in the first place.

i.e

Where is the crime?

Jerry: Archiving

But what if you are not intended to archive, people just want to exercise
their rights under the time shifting section, the later convenient time
is longer than 7 days.

Jerry: Oh I suppose so, begrudgingly you may have a point, I shall
withdraw my claim that the OP was a criminal.

Of course, that would never happen because you would never admit being
wrong about anything would you Jerry, you would rather make yourself out
to be an idiot, I suppose as others have posted, you have no reputation to
salvage other then the reputation of being pig-ignorant, unable to ever
had a second point of view, you stick to your initial thought no matter
how wrong it is.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

"steve" wrote in message
...

snip trolling

FOAD troll, you are wrong, how ever you try and twist my words.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:15:52 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message
...

snip trolling

FOAD troll, you are wrong, how ever you try and twist my words.

Oh well, based on that argument Jerry, what can I do but accept you are
right. Such well versed prose Jerry. You said I was wrong, given your
total lack of posting bull**** in this thread it must be so.


I take it you are an expert in copyright law.


BTW: Everyone else will have realised this is sarcasm, you probably need
telling.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

"steve" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:15:52 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message

...

snip trolling

FOAD troll, you are wrong, how ever you try and twist my words.

Oh well, based on that argument Jerry, what can I do but accept you
are
right.

Try reading the Copyright Act ?....

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:17:47 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 13:15:52 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message

...

snip trolling

FOAD troll, you are wrong, how ever you try and twist my words.

Oh well, based on that argument Jerry, what can I do but accept you
are
right.

Try reading the Copyright Act ?....

Jerry, you have to do better than that.

You have had plenty of opportunities to justify your claim the OP is a
criminal. If you ever get charged, you are charged for committing a crime
under a section of an act - not the whole act itself (surely you are
familiar with the mental health act).

You have not stated which section of the act is violated - your assertion
your responsibility to back up.

Any other reply than some form of Justification is deemed an
admission that you cannot.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

"steve" wrote in message
...

snip

FU's set

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

"Carl Waring"
The copyright holder may not have been "deprived of the item copied" but
s/he has certainly has been deprived of the income from the same of said
item that they would have received had the person BOUGHT a copy of the item
instead of STEALING it.

Hardly. It's a programme broadcast by the BBC. They'll probably just
timeshift it another way if they don't strip the restriction.

It's not stealing: you can't deprive someone of income they don't have.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

":::Jerry::::"
"MJ Ray" wrote:
":::Jerry::::"
Oh right, so you not only make you own boot-leg copies but you
also
buy a commercial copy!

No. Kindly cease and desist from lying about me.

Kindly stop supporting common criminals then!

Another lie from Jerry with the lopsided colons.

Look cretin, if someone wants a copy, and they make or obtain a
boot-leg copy rather than *buying* a commercial copy they have stolen
a sale and thus income from both the artist and media company. FACT -
QED.

Rubbish. If someone wants a copy and they make a copy rather than not
viewing the broadcast, they've stolen nothing. The artist and media
conglomerate get their income from the broadcaster either way. It's
up to them to negotiate terms, but iMP is crackpot.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
reenews.net...
"Carl Waring"
The copyright holder may not have been "deprived of the item
copied" but
s/he has certainly has been deprived of the income from the same
of said
item that they would have received had the person BOUGHT a copy
of the item
instead of STEALING it.

Hardly. It's a programme broadcast by the BBC. They'll probably
just
timeshift it another way if they don't strip the restriction.

It's not stealing: you can't deprive someone of income they don't
have.


How do you know that, many programmes have a 'repeat life' whilst
many programmes have a life beyond broadcast by being release on DVD
etc. If someone keeps a copy then they are less likely to buy or
watch a later 'release'.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
reenews.net...
":::Jerry::::"
"MJ Ray" wrote:
":::Jerry::::"
Oh right, so you not only make you own boot-leg copies but
you
also
buy a commercial copy!

No. Kindly cease and desist from lying about me.

Kindly stop supporting common criminals then!

Another lie from Jerry with the lopsided colons.

So why are you arguing the toss if you accept that copyright abuse is
illegal and should not be done?!...


Look cretin, if someone wants a copy, and they make or obtain a
boot-leg copy rather than *buying* a commercial copy they have
stolen
a sale and thus income from both the artist and media company.
FACT -
QED.

Rubbish.

Yes, you do spout utter rubbish.

If someone wants a copy and they make a copy rather than not
viewing the broadcast, they've stolen nothing. The artist and media
conglomerate get their income from the broadcaster either way. It's
up to them to negotiate terms, but iMP is crackpot.


If they wanted a copy and didn't record their own they would have
BOUGHT a commercial copy.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

":::Jerry::::"
So why are you arguing the toss if you accept that copyright abuse is
illegal and should not be done?!...

I'm debunking the confusion that you and your F*CT buddies
spread. "Copyright abuse" is another nonsense term from
you. Copyright infringement is illegal, but timeshifting
is not infringement.

Stripping the 7-day limit from iMP to enable timeshifting is
infringement, but timeshifting a higher-quality copy from DVB
by more than 7 days might not be.

I guess I'm trying to establish three things:

1. Copyright law with its DRM add-ons is a dog's breakfast;

2. it's evil bad and wrong for a public service broadcaster to
be restricting timeshifting unnecessarily - it wastes licence
payers' time and money in several ways;

3. whether Jerry will ever admit that.

[...]
If they wanted a copy and didn't record their own they would have
BOUGHT a commercial copy.

I doubt that very much. It seems far more likely they'll timeshift it
another way.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
eenews.net...
":::Jerry::::"
So why are you arguing the toss if you accept that copyright
abuse is
illegal and should not be done?!...

I'm debunking the confusion that you and your F*CT buddies
spread. "Copyright abuse" is another nonsense term from
you. Copyright infringement is illegal, but timeshifting
is not infringement.

No one has said it isn't, but archiving is and if you keep a
recording (longer than is needed or 'reasonable' to view it), that is
archiving.


Stripping the 7-day limit from iMP to enable timeshifting is
infringement, but timeshifting a higher-quality copy from DVB
by more than 7 days might not be.

No it would not be, you have only been given licence to hold the
recording for 7 days, never mind any offences someone might commit
whilst hacking the DRM.


I guess I'm trying to establish three things:

'Guessing' is exactly the correct word to use, that is exactly what
you are doing, rather than reading the said Act(s) relating to all
this!..


1. Copyright law with its DRM add-ons is a dog's breakfast;

Not it's not, but one is not just dealing with what the Copyright Act
says about time-shifting, archiving but the laws that protect
computer programs.


2. it's evil bad and wrong for a public service broadcaster to
be restricting timeshifting unnecessarily - it wastes licence
payers' time and money in several ways;

No it's not, many of the programmes will not have been made by the
BBC, they will have either been bought in from (technically and
financially) separate production companies within the BBC or from
wholly owned outside companies - are you suggesting that such works
should not be protected by copyright law just because they are shown
on PSB?!


3. whether Jerry will ever admit that.

Will you ever read and comprehend, or will you just keep repeating
your ignorant clap-trap, whilst defending and giving support to those
who abuse copyright.


[...]
If they wanted a copy and didn't record their own they would have
BOUGHT a commercial copy.

I doubt that very much. It seems far more likely they'll timeshift
it
another way.


Oh, you mean buy a cheap boot-leg copy...

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 17:48:33 +0000, :::Jerry:::: wrote:


"steve" wrote in message
...

snip
What did Jerry snip one wonders?

"You have had plenty of opportunities to justify your claim the OP is a
criminal. If you ever get charged, you are charged for committing a crime
under a section of an act - not the whole act itself (surely you are
familiar with the mental health act).

"You have not stated which section of the act is violated - your assertion
your responsibility to back up.

"Any other reply than some form of Justification is deemed an admission
that you cannot."


So, Jerry you cannot.

Also, look up troll. A troll is one that posts something inflammatory and
stands back and watches. Not someone that is trying to get a straight
answer out of someone that is terminally wrong.

All you have ever needed to do is to back up your claim - something you
clearly cannot do.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

":::Jerry::::"
"MJ Ray" wrote
Stripping the 7-day limit from iMP to enable timeshifting is
infringement, but timeshifting a higher-quality copy from DVB
by more than 7 days might not be.

No it would not be, you have only been given licence to hold the
recording for 7 days, never mind any offences someone might commit
whilst hacking the DRM.

One doesn't need licence to timeshift, so that's largely irrelevant.

I guess I'm trying to establish three things:

'Guessing' is exactly the correct word to use, that is exactly what
you are doing, rather than reading the said Act(s) relating to all
this!..

I have read the Act and I've quoted parts here before.

1. Copyright law with its DRM add-ons is a dog's breakfast;

Not it's not, but one is not just dealing with what the Copyright Act
says about time-shifting, archiving but the laws that protect
computer programs.

Oh, don't start: the DRM parts aren't the computer programs reverse
engineering / necessary copying parts.

2. it's evil bad and wrong for a public service broadcaster to
be restricting timeshifting unnecessarily - it wastes licence
payers' time and money in several ways;

No it's not, many of the programmes will not have been made by the
BBC, they will have either been bought in from (technically and
financially) separate production companies within the BBC or from
wholly owned outside companies - are you suggesting that such works
should not be protected by copyright law just because they are shown
on PSB?!

No, I'm suggesting they should be protected by copyright law and not
DRM, in order to allow fair dealing easily. Is it right that there
are BBC broadcasts schools can't use?

[...]
If they wanted a copy and didn't record their own they would have
BOUGHT a commercial copy.

I doubt that very much. It seems far more likely they'll timeshift
it
another way.

Oh, you mean buy a cheap boot-leg copy...

I mean like get a non-boot-leg off-air recording.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

"MJ Ray" wrote in message
reenews.net...

snip 99 percent of your utter clap-trap ignorance

I mean like get a non-boot-leg off-air recording.


If you keep that for longer than reasonable (to view it) you will
have archived it, that is illegal, you have made a boot-leg copy -
Read the Copyright Act, find a clue.

Now kindly FOAD moron troll.

FU's set.

Update 2: The BBC Intergrated Media Player trial and DRM......how to hack?
 

":::Jerry::::"
snip 99 percent of your utter clap-trap ignorance

So all the problems of technological protection measures reducing
the limitations and exceptions to copyright are clap-trap? I look
forward to Jerry's critique of the forthcoming WIPO discussions
about that very problem.

It is a real problem and one that the BBC should not exacerbate.

I mean like get a non-boot-leg off-air recording.

If you keep that for longer than reasonable (to view it) you will
have archived it, that is illegal, you have made a boot-leg copy -
Read the Copyright Act, find a clue.

Why don't you read a bloody dictionary to see what boot-leg means?
It's a bit more than merely illegal.

Now kindly FOAD moron troll.

Ah, back to high debate

FU's set.

Ignored attempt to send to alt.troll... HTH HAND