First let me say that I do not have anything against the users who have posted in this thread.. if one has bought a CD (technically a copy-protected disc is not a red book CD), IMHO he/she is entitled to listen/rip it as he/she likes with computers too. BUT, the laws (in some countries) do not condone bypassing protections, AND, the forum TOS #9 clearly states that: "Discussion containing information... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material... will not be tolerated".

Greynol, in recent discussion you said that at least you are "now inclined to enforce the rule by the letter rather than attach additional meaning to it.".. I wonder what's the case with this thread then. Ultimately I guess my MO is to have the rule amended to include a no-no for pirates who come here for help with their pirated music. But also I'd like to see that the rules are enforced consistently.
/crusade

Well at this point I think it's far from certain that the problem even is copy protection, so I think that rant is a bit premature.



Also he can't even play the CD and I doubt there is any law anywhere that would want to prevent him from attemping to do that!

Many of the 'protection' methods involve installing some really nasty software to hide on your PC - which I think courts might take as more Illegal than you telling someone how to by-pass (ie not getting this security-hole-malware on your PC).

The other methods of 'protection' (again in ' because they are not valid protections) involve just a false last session - the audio is there, it is unprotected if the PC reads the TOC just as a HiFi CD Drive reads it it can get the data, assuming it can read out side of the false lead-in/out (or is there a law which states all computers have to read the last session...? )

Finally there is the false c2 errors, this is no protection either, there are errors in the audio, and if you go an buy a CD/DVD which auto-interpolates (most now) you would not hear those intentional errors.

Lets not hide behind a cloak of "by-passing protections", the only valid protection is the malware, which is Illegal in many countries also (as Sony found out).

Morally, like I wrote previously, IMHO you are. But the law might say that you can't "break" the copy-protection.


Definitely doesn't have any protections then.


EAC-> Drive Options -> Extraction Method tab -> select Burst mode


@uart & spoon:

Maybe you should read my previous post again. And if you still can't figure it out, let me try again:

There's discussion in this thread (not by OP) that is clearly against the TOS #9 rule (e.g. mentioning at least 2 different software to use to bypass protections), it doesn't matter if the OP has a copy protected CD or not! And spoon, your interpretation of what is considered protection or not, is not the truth how the topic is interpreted by law & in courts around the world.. and that's what counts.. not who's morally right or wrong. Bottom line: the HA TOS #9 clearly forbids any discussion of bypassing protections.. you don't respect the rules here?

Re the legal position....................

In the UK (and most other countries I think) it is a breach of copyright to make a copy without the permission of the copyright holder - Check the wording on a CD or two. I'm not sure where that leaves us with regard to TOS or anything else, though. Presumably everybody just carries on ripping as it seems to be morally justifiable.

>is not the truth how the topic is interpreted by law & in courts around the world..

Who would care if it was Illegal in Kazakhstan?, only those who live there - HA is run form the USA so it is the law which is referenced to and in this instance the DMCA. I have read the act on by-passing protections it states that they must be a valid protection method (if I sent you an audio CD and it has written on it, Copy Protected do not insert into a PC, and that is the only protection, then it is not a valid copy protection).

2 years ago we looked at this law in depth and took the decision that Copy Protections on CD were not valid (unless installing the Sony Rootkit type program, which as mentioned has other implementations - because whoever discusses the Sony-root kit should NEVER mention ways of getting rid of it or avoiding it - instead you should be happy the DMCA is protecting a companies (Sony) selfish quest for $$$ and be happy that all sorts of crap is installed on your computer which you do not know about)., We took the decision if we needed to go to court to defend the idea that audio CD copy-protections were not valid, we were well placed to deliver a technical insight into why it is not valid (at the potential damage or loss to our company), we would do just that, nothing has changed our position. What has happened in those 2 years? - labels have since dropped all CD protections (as far as I know), there are going to be no trials for telling people to use a black marker pen to scrub off the last session...the war is over and the consumer won, do not let labels 'win' on default.

Quite, Despite the fact that that ripping software, blank media etc are all widely available and distributed by companies like Apple, making copies of your CDs or other digital media is almost always illegal in the UK (although there is some talk of changes to the law). Basically, it's impossible to live in this country without breaking the law, but laws are selectively enforced. It means the authorities can choose who to go after (i.e. large-scale commercial copyright infringement).

Dear spoon, you have mixed up 2 things here.

1) Forum TOS (#9 which clearly states that: "Discussion containing information... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material... will not be tolerated", it doesn't say anything about validity of protections).
2) Laws against breaking copy-protections in whatever country.

I was interested in the 1st point merely because there has been some talk about the TOS #9 and how to interpret it, loosely or by the letter. And I thought that my post was clearly targeted (mainly) to greynol.

And by the way, the HA server is in Netherlands. (hydrogenaudio.org -> bender.sjeng.org (94.75.209.35) -> LeaseWeb (Netherlands))

Is my suggestion of recording via analog also considered "bypassing protection methodologies"? It would make as much sense as that recent suggestion from some copyright organization that royalties should be payed whenever a ringtone plays in a public area.

Dunno. That's why it would be nice to know what the bleep the TOS#9 covers. In a sense we both are on the same quest.. though if I understood correctly, that was not what you meant by your post. Jeez you people are hostile and defensive around here, don't you think that it's good for all of us to talk about this topic? At least I do want to know how the TOS is enforced here. This is going very OT.

@tigerucla: Did the burst mode work for the cd?

Sorry, hostility not intended. Blame it on language differences. Actually, I also just wanted to talk, and get these things clarified.

Ok, sorry, misunderstood.. though it was not directed at you alone.

@Moderators: Can you move this OT discussion to e.g. Site Related Discussion forum? Under "discussion of TOS #9" topic? I do apologize, I should have done that myself from the beginning. Lesson learned. Sorry for the possible extra work.

I think it would be helpful to break this up a little into components and then ask whether an analogous position outside of audio would sit well with people.

This is how I see it:

We have two components:

1) The Law
2) The Agenda (which shapes the law)

In the case of audio we have the law shaped by copyright owners (generally businesses who have not created the work but own the rights). But what if we imagine the agenda was something else:

Let's say the agenda is not corporate greed but ideological power. Let's say the creationists won and it's their agenda that now shapes the law. So now it's against the law to discuss Darwinism and evolution. Would HA members be "good citizens" and follow the law? TOS #9 now states it's not permissible to refer to any scientific evidence in relation to evolution. I'd like to think that HA wouldn't adopt such a policy.

The point is the law is an ass when it's shaped by powerful interests whose agenda is counter to the prevailing morals of the general population. What ends up happening is that one is forced to choose between ones conscience and the law. Where the law runs counter to my conscience I will choose my conscience every time.

That's really what this debate is about.
The question is NOT the law, but the agenda that shapes it. Personally I find that agenda offensive. I could go further and suggest in such situations upholding the law is endorsing the agenda, and I think it is. Furthermore, the law changes; a homosexual is consistently homosexual, but not that long ago, that person was breaking the law and then suddenly they weren't.

Where the law makes no sense why not just ignore it?

C.

If you don't like the rules of the game, don't play.

We're not talking about food, water, shelter, or sexual identity here. It is not as if there is a lack of music which doesn't come from such draconian labels available. The analogy about creationists in charge is sooooo far off base I hope you were kidding. This isn't about "truth" vs "fiction" - this isn't about controlling what you say and how you say it. This is about specific consumer goods being sold with strings attached you don't like. This is about specific consumer goods which there are more than adequate substitutes for.

Describing the situation as some sort of freedom fight we all must join in - some sort of revolution against the man - it's a little much.

Interesting points carpman in general, though IMHO analogues just confuse and rarely are good. I wouldn't take this into a general discussion about our society systems, we are simply talking about circumventing protections of music products. This law (where active) doesn't deprive your right to listen and enjoy music in general, it forbids you to break a protection of a music CD product that you might have bought for your listening pleasure. Just don't buy those things. Hardly a revolutionary law which shapes the society. Music is not a basic human need/right, although many pirates like to justify their actions to themselves (fooling themselves to think that they're not doing anything wrong) by saying that it's a cultural thing and that it's a basic human right/need which should be free for everyone.

>> Where the law runs counter to my conscience I will choose my conscience every time.
>> Where the law makes no sense why not just ignore it?

I wouldn't state this so freely. There's people who really think that having sex with children is a-ok. Is it ok to f&#k kiddies if one only follows one's conscience? (here we go, (bad) analogues ) The society need rules. It's hard to look at the world and realize and accept that other people and their conscience might have different ideas what is ok because you see the situation always from your position and your mindset. And you're never wrong and your conscience is immaculate, right? Objectivity = subjective objectiveness.

This said, there's a fine line between which one should shape the society, the law or the general moral. These interact with each other. There's no ideal or permanent situation, it's on the move all the time. And with this protection issue, I don't see a reason to make a revolution.


I personally don't have anything against breaking protections of music CD's that you've bought for your own listening purposes. I've 2 of those myself because those can't be found without it (Finnish artist, no other pressings) and I NEED those CD's. With other CD's I've been fortunate enough to find other pressings without any protections (with some, I've searched high and low.. and paid hefty sums of money).

The ones who admin HA must consider their actions and make rules so that the existence of this board would not be in danger.. and think what you think, this topic is a threat (minor, major, doesn't matter, there's a possibility). And IMHO this is where the debate should be directed. HA TOS are the "laws" of our little society which keeps it all together without all going down the drain.

I think that the TOS #9 is currently ok. If the admins want to do extra work, they could investigate the Dutch law if the protection breaking part of the rule could be lifted. Since the server is in Netherlands, the Dutch law is the only one that affects HA?

I'd like to see that TOS #9 would also forbid "pirates to come here asking help with their pirated music", but since that is not illegal (as far as I know), I understand the possible reluctance to add that to the rules.

EDIT: aah, Soap already covered some of the issues..

And what are your opinions about telling someone to re-record a protected CD from a stand-alone player to a computer via analog? Is this a violation of #9?

FWIW, I'd interpret the rule by the letter, so, yes, "Discussion ... how to bypass protection methodologies of such material ... will not be tolerated".. and that method is bypassing the protection, isn't it? Stupid but that's how I see it.

Well, if you take it literally, it is not bypassing these protection schemes. They are designed to prevent you from digital copying, aren't they? There is nothing in these methods that prevents you from analog copy using a cable and a recorder, or a loudspeaker, a microphone and a recorder.

The way I see it is that any copy protection is protecting the digital data. The user does of course have permission to play the CD and so to convert it from digital to analog. Now once the signal is analog I don't see how recording it is any different to making a needle drop or tape transfer or whatever. Now that itself may also be illegal, but in that case we've got to TOS9 every single thread that mentions either ripping CD's or making needle drops (vinyl transfers).

I think getting this thread TOS9'ed is setting a real precedent for outlawing any reference to CD ripping or vinyl transfer here and I'm not too sure many people would be very happy with that situation. I certainly wouldn't be around here anymore if that happens.

The other thing that bothers me about the way that this thread was TOS9'ed is that this guy's CD wasn't even copy protected to begin with, but that apparently makes no difference according to some members here. I for one was simply trying to help out a guy who had a difficult to read CD and all of a sudden that's a TOS9 violation. How could we ever help anyone with damaged media in the future if there is a possibility (even an un-stated one) that the media is copy protected.

EDIT : I hadn't seen pawelq's above post before typing this one. Obviously I'm repeating his main point.

As was pointed out in this thread, this used to be so, and the DMCA is indeed what lead to that TOS.

But nowadays HA is hosted in a free country, namely the Netherlands, and the DMCA no longer applies. (It might still apply to posters in the USA, but that is their problem).

The question is what the Dutch law says about (avoiding) copyright protections. They might have similar provisions in their copyright law. Or they might not. I would be interested in (verifiable) feedback on this matter, so we can consider whether the TOS needs revision.

Well, I didn't think I would be taken so literally. My point was that the law has come from somewhere and it's forbidding people from talking about stuff that they think is okay.

Since the law has come from somewhere, perhaps it would be helpful to state which law we're having to abide by. The DMCA is a US based law, how much of that has been integrated into TRIPS I don't know? IP harmonisation hasn't really happened so it would be helpful to state which law of which land we're having to abide by.

Regarding the gay thing. Again perhaps I shouldn't have used an anology - it was merely an illustration of how the law changes.


I was speaking personally. I believe that every human being knows that forcing another (regardless of age) against their will to do something (i.e. the coercive elimination of another's choice) is wrong. That said, many people operate against their consciences, and those that do a) habitualy shed responsibility for their actions and b) as such require a more basic set of rules than those offered by ones conscience - thus the law is suitable. i.e. If you're going to act like a child abide by these rules laid down by the state.


Yes, this is a good point. I was going to say something about this, but chose to keep my post simple.

I read the post which spawned this one, and I have to say I'm a little confused. The OP seemed to have purchased his/her CD before copy protections began to be implimented. So why was it closed?

I think TOS #9 could be a bit more specific.



So no links to Google (especially google images) since that has to be the number one tool / point of entry to copyrighted material. If you search for any album cover, blog after blog will offer that music for download. The internet IS copyrighted material - it's just that the RIAA and MPAA have focused the law and our minds on music and film. Also, presumably no links or discussion of DVD Fab HD Decrypter? Even in regard to ripping audio from DVD since that software breaks a number of copy protection schemes?

Finally, I agree with uart and pawelq. Perhaps it's a good time to clarify TOS #9.

C.

[Ah, posted before seeing Garf's reply.]

The key word here is the "methodologies" word in the TOS, does it mean techniques (as I understood you meant by "schemes")? A bit ambiguous term.


Well kind of because the "analog hole" can't be protected. Can you link or quote where or who has said that "they are designed to prevent you from digital copying"?


A bit hysterical to claim that it would make ripping un-protected media illegal too don't you think? We are talking about bypassing protected media. Anyways, that's your view. What do you think about this:

"Copyright law has been defined in terms of general definitions of infringement in any concrete medium. This classically focused such law on whether there is infringement, rather than focus on particular engineering techniques. Detecting infringement within the social and legal system avoids a legacy of outlawing generic, universal, popular, widespread, useful, and possibly uncontrollable engineering techniques in response to specific misuses."
(Analog hole - Copyright law vs. particular techniques)

To me this sounds very logical and right. And thus the "analog hole" bypassing method would most definitely break the #9 rule.


FYI, the fact that greynol closed that original thread surprised me too. There was no evidence of a protected CD.. BUT, one has to remember that some people broke the #9 rule! I don't know who you're referring to with that "some members" but in case it means me too, it makes no sense pointing a gun towards me, I'm not a moderator nor admin here, I don't have rights to close threads. And I didn't report any TOS violations.

That's not the essence of the problem, really.



I think that it is pretty obvious. They do not affect analog copying, they affect digital copying.




I see you point, and it makes sense. But proposing using the analog hole (by the way, it's funny how it is called a "hole", like it was some accidental lapse in security - analog output is the ultimate purpose of the CD-Audio technology...) in my opinion does not violate the "How to bypass protection metodologies" part of #9. It may break the "or how to otherwise violate laws" part, but this really depends on which country's laws govern the board,

It was closed because people started freely offering advice about bypassing copy protection; a clear violation of TOS #9 as it is currently written. Perhaps they're off-topic yet that was the direction the thread took, so it was closed.

The idea that the guy bought the CD before copy protection began or that there is clear evidence that the CD doesn't have copy protection based on what was said by the OP is ludicrous.

I'll gladly re-open the thread, but don't be surprised if I also issue warnings to those who broke either TOS #9 or TOS #5.

Quoting the OP:

If it was bought even 10 years after 1976 it's pretty safe to assume there's no copy protection, surely?
Quackalist said (the 1976 reference aside):



No, I think you were right to close it for the reasons you stated (i.e. the OT copy-protection statements), and it should remain closed until TOS #9 is clarified.

C.

10 years from 1976 is probably about when 1976 was. It's just as likely that the OP has no clue when the CD was actually purchased.

This thread is not so much about clarification as it is about whether TOS #9 is consistent with NL law (where HA is hosted). From what was determined so far, it doesn't seem to be all that different from US law (where HA used to be hosted), and as such it is likely not going to be changed, at least not in any meaningful way with respect to this particular discussion.

IANAL, but to my best knowledge (which is limited and based on media coverage of copyright laws / trials) Dutch copyright law allows making of personal copies of the copyrighted work (several websites mention paragraph 16/b) and it does not recognize any kind of "copy protection" nor it does provide legal limitations of user rights with regards to circumvention of such protections.

Therefore, (again, IANAL) I do not believe that the concept of "copy protection circumvention" really applies in the Dutch case, but the best way to figure this out is to ask a Dutch copyright lawyer. Maybe this is a really good idea if HA wants to synchronize and be fully compliant to the local law where their servers reside.

That is not consistent with what is written here:
http://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0001886/geld...ukII_Artikel29a

It is not lawful for an individual in the NL to circumvent copy protection.

You deny in your mind that one can't do e.g. murder/rape/etc. with absolutely clear conscience? That's rather worrying since it's happening (accepting that affects our sense of security), it's a question of chemical imbalancies.. this topic could very well lead us to discuss whether people have true will of their own. Let's not go there.. slappity slap TOS nummmmber 5.


Not to google pages that link to copyrighted material. If we accept the law (if copyright law is effective and that forbids breaking or discussing that) AND we abide the law (and TOS), no mentions of the *hmmhmhmm* software either.



It's obvious that they don't affect analog copying technically. They are designed to prevent you from copying (with what it's possible to prevent). They have been trying to "close the analog hole", aka "a. hole" , so it's quite obvious that it's NOT just digital copy prevention the bastards are after. But, does it say somewhere that it's supposed to prevent just digital copying, making a digital copy, in general copying or is it mentioned at all? The possible wording of what the protection is protecting could affect court rulings. There's so many if's and things to interpret by courts.. and what we have seen so far, these issues are really hard to grasp and judge.


I see it like this: analog bypassing violates the #9 IF the analog hole is used to copy protected media only (thus vinyl and "normal" CD's are not affected). Thank god we don't have the rights to decide this, right? EDIT: It would be nice if admins who decide these things could comment on this issue if the "How to bypass protection metodologies" stays in the TOS. Thanks.

But, we should concentrate on the Dutch law and how that affects the TOS.



Again, I do apologize my error, I'm aware of the fact that I should definitely deserve the #5 slap.

Yes I do. But this is OT, though it's funny, a while back I read a great deal of IP law; I've never read the law regarding rape or murder. I might get a T-Shirt made saying "Don't murder me, it's against the law".

C.

Also for audio? Even for video some of the solutions mentioned in that wikipedia article make me laugh. Like disabling analog outputs in set top boxes - come on, I feed my TV via analog connection, if they disabled that for some programming (which I paid for!) they would receive a very angry call. But I can't imagine how they would close the analog hole for audio. I am moving more and more off-topic, obviously.



To me, it still looks against common sense, like if one could be convicted of forcible entry in addition to burglary if he or she did not actually break in, but walked into a house through a wide open door. Because the house had another door, which was locked at the time. But obviously lawyers may look at it differently :-).

I tried to look up some pertinent laws (US laws, because I could access them), and I am giving up, it's beyond my understanding.

An example (from US code)



and



How can it be legal to sell a computer with a CD drive and Windows in the US? Obviously it can be used to make a digital audio copied recording for private use, without a system prohibiting unauthorized serial copying??

IMHO you cling to the techniques, IANAL but if the court mostly ignores the techniques (see "Copyright law vs. particular techniques"), I can't see why they could not decide that it's not legal to use the analog bypass since (adding another variable) the protection is meant to prevent making digital copies. Does this sound plausible? I almost wrote another analogue here but since analogues are bad I decided not to. I quickly remembered one case where a burglar successfully sued the home owner because he hurt himself in the kitchen with knives. I can't remember exactly but he might have crashed through the cealing window to the kitchen table where the knives were. The law is one thing, it can be very hairy and contradictory, and then there's the human error in court. The outcome, as we have seen many times, can be virtually anything. Although it's funny sometimes, it's really sad.


I'm not good at reading these cryptic law texts, but maybe it's because of this sentence in the first example you quoted: "the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of", primary purpose here the deciding factor.

I am reminded of the US constitutional amendment that made "intoxicating beverages" illegal. When American sentiment turned against this amendment, knowing how long it would take to pass another amendment overturning the first, Congress simply passed a law that beer (as long as it contained no more than 3.2% alcohol) was NOT an "intoxicating beverage".

Re the "analog hole". What do you think of the scenario where someone doesn't even own a computer and they buy an audio "CD" with some kind of copy protection but are completely unaware of that fact. They bring it home and make an analog copy (say to a tape deck or something) on their home stereo. Have they just broken that law without even knowing it?

Maybe.. wouldn't be the first case either. I thought that it's was well established already that IMHO at least 3 issues affect this a. hole issue (correct me if I'm wrong):

1) What the copy protection is interpreted to protect; is it supposed to prevent just digital copying, making a digital copy, in general copying, etc.
2) The law. (Copyright & possible separate law about breaking protections)
3) How the law is interpreted.

If you want my opinion, I can't answer yes/no, I'd say that the judgement would have to be made just by looking at the copyright law (reason: I'm currently thinking that the protection issue should be considered as "making digital copies"). Honestly though, these questions are too hard (especially to a non-lawyer/law expert) and since I'm not in a position to make a precedent judgement, I don't have to stress about making a clear decision. Hopefully this makes sense.

Yes, we have to follow laws that only lawyers understand, and as lawyers like to tell you, not understanding the law is no defense. Sounds like some kind of Kafkaesque racket to me. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the devil is not in the detail, the devil IS the detail.

C.

Any progression? Is the Dutch law clear about this issue? I'm interested to see what's the final verdict.

What part of post 28 is not clear to you? (Discussion about) circumventing copyright protections is illegal and not allowed.

That post was written by greynol, and IIRC he said at some point that he doesn't have the rights to make a decision, it's up to admins.

In post #7 you wrote:


I guess the greynol info was enough for you but at least I was left hanging without final answer. EDIT: .. from an user who has the rights to do such decisions.


Also, forgot in my previous post, some of us hoped for an answer to the "analog hole" question from admins:

Hmm, my understanding of the technology is that to play a cd is to make an electronic copy of it in the hardware then convert that into an analog signal sent to the speakers... so is just playing a CD in fact violating the copyright?

And what about listening to a CD. Doesn't the brain have to have a copy in its memory? Are you in fact in violation of the law every time they remember listening to music?

Does the law have to make sense? Or is it enough that its there if they need to make an example of someone?

Does this really need to be discussed here? Or is it just political nonsense none of us will ever ever be able to affect?

TOS 9 is there for the protection of the site against labels out to make examples of people through the courts. Thats just the way the world is. It will get worse.

@kiit: nice troll.. I guess. Why do some people get so hysterical and draw out insanely stupid analogues? See the Analog hole - Copyright law vs. particular techniques subject we talked about earlier in this topic:

Copyright law has been defined in terms of general definitions of infringement in any concrete medium. This classically focused such law on whether there is infringement, rather than focus on particular engineering techniques. Detecting infringement within the social and legal system avoids a legacy of outlawing generic, universal, popular, widespread, useful, and possibly uncontrollable engineering techniques in response to specific misuses.

Since there was no agreement on this a. hole subject, whether it breaks or not the "how to bypass protection methodologies" in TOS #9, some of us hoped for an admin opinion/statement on this matter. That's all. If you don't care about this, read other topics. Thanks.

The post directly quotes the Dutch lawbook and I will state here that we have no intention of violating the law and won't allow anyone to do so on our forum.

I guess that for now it's the Dutch voters who control what is allowed here and they clearly thought bypassing copyright protections (and by extension, discussing about it) is a serious crime that should be punished. So don't complain to me, complain to them.

I would suspect this but of course my opinion has no legal value whatsoever, because I'm not a lawyer blablabla.

IANAL, but I can't see how recording an in-the-clear analogue or digital audio output can be considered circumventing copyright protection.

There's no protection on that output to circumvent.


I can understand why HA would want to stay very firmly on the "right" side of the law however - though please understand that it hasn't always done so (unless I was dreaming about reading DVD-A ripping discussions here!).

Cheers,
David.

DVD-A isn't always copy protected, so ripping them doesn't imply anything illegal.

If there were discussions here about defeating the copy protection of those, please point me to them and they will be very swiftly removed.