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).

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

"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.

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


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


"steve" wrote in message

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


"steve" wrote in message


news

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.

"steve" wrote in message
news
snip trolling

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

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


"steve" wrote in message
news
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.

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


"steve" wrote in message

news

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 ?....

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


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


"steve" wrote in message

news

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.

"steve" wrote in message
news
snip

FU's set

"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.