1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
Torrenting/P2P:
Gaming:
💰 Please help cover server costs.
 |
 |
|---|---|
| Ko-fi | Liberapay |
Removing DRM has always been "illegal".
However: German concentration camps were legal, while families protecting Jewish citizens from being taken to said concentration camps was strictly illegal.
What's legal is not always right (ethically and morally), and what's right is not always legal. Remember that.
I'd like to clarify that removing DRM does lie in a grey zone in many countries, including in the US due to some court rulings. In some countries the right to make a backup of your e-book might have priority over copyright law for example.
Sure, but companies who employ DRM have argued against that grey area since DRM was a thing. Something something IP/copyright/licensing/whatever bullshit... IMO: fuck you, I bought it, I own it, eat shit.
The DMCA makes it pretty clear that "Circumvention of Technological Protection Measures" is illegal. There are no exceptions for whether you own or redistribute the content in question.
It's not needed.
If another law says you have a right to create backups of digital content you own, then two laws are in conflict. Why would dcma have precedence?
No idea about US, but in some countries it would be up to judges, and with enough rulings it would be settled one way or another.
Aussie copyright law gives us the right to circumvent protections in order to make copies to watch on a device the original can't be played on.
Linux out of the box is remarkably incompatible with DRM protected content and so makes an excellent thing on which one might want to watch, listen to, or read a thing
You don't happen to know what whereabouts in legislation that's detailed, do you?
If another law says you have a right to create
That law doesn't exist and that's not how law works. Law does not specify what is allowed, only what isn't. Breaking encryption isn't.
What are you talking about? Law absolutely can specify that something is allowed.
I have been listening to SO many audiobooks since getting Audiobookshelve ❤️
Just in case anyone didn't feel like reading the article, here's the last (and imo most important) paragraph:
However, without changing the DMCA, we can't expect to see real, lasting change in this space. Doctorow said as much to me: "What we really need to do is get rid of DMCA 1201, that law that makes it a crime to format shift your media...it's the same law that stops farmers from fixing their tractors, blocks independent mechanics from fixing your car, stops rivals from setting up alternative app stores for phones and games consoles...this law is a menace!"
Good guy Meta. Fighting for us little guys, downloading terabytes of books, defending against lawsuits. Maybe they'll overturn DMCA?
/s
It's interesting when people are put to the choice. On the one hand they could purchase a book with DRM that they don't actually own. On the other hand, they could look for alternative means by which to obtain the book. And the more the publishers f*** with you, the more you might be inclined to never give them a penny.
You can swear on the internet, your mom isn’t watching.
From a legal standpoint, is it more illegal to remove DRM or to just download DRM-freed content?
Meta lawyers think the second is fine, BTW.
There is no "more illegal". One is illegal, the other is not.
Robbing a store is illegal. Murdering someone is also illegal, however one of the two is for good reasons punished much more harshly.
Dude, just stop commenting in this thread. You've had nothing but absolutely shit takes
It's not a "take", it is a fact.
Stop commenting unless you have evidence to the contrary.
jaywalking is probably illegal too
I will never stop being confused by this law. Just crossing the street cannot possibly be illegal anywhere. I'm fully convinced the entire thing is an elaborate joke by the americans.
Like everything else here in the US, it’s borne out of racism. In the Jim Crow era, most black people couldn’t afford a car. White people driving around didn’t like those pesky walking people getting in their way, so they made it difficult to cross the street. It then gave cops a way to threaten/arrest/persecute them.