How many of you truly understand the DMCA?

**aico** · 08-20-2007, 01:13 PM

Oh shit, I thought it was a health club for Dirty Men.

**GITZINGER** · 08-20-2007, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by aico

Oh shit, I thought it was a health club for Dirty Men.

**sonofsam** · 08-20-2007, 01:16 PM

airek: You took my post in the wrong way! I wasn't talking shit!

<3

**sonofsam** · 08-20-2007, 01:16 PM

p.s. i fully understand that the DMCA is a variation of the YMCA

**seeric** · 08-20-2007, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by sonofsam

airek: You took my post in the wrong way! I wasn't talking shit!

<3

i replied in there.

i'm on edge lately. being on the offensive in the sense of piracy has me offensive in mindset.

my bad.

**KimJI** · 08-20-2007, 01:22 PM

I think I get about 65-75% of it. I learn something new each week i dig deeper into this piracy shit

**drjones** · 08-20-2007, 01:25 PM

I'd love to see the DMCA repealed, and completely re-worked. The Title II portion seems fine, and gives copyright holders a means to go after infringer's, but the whole business of DRM circumvention has a lot of unintended and downright nasty consequences. It basically makes copyright perpetual.

Copyrights eventually expire on creative works, but if they are never released in a format that contains no DRM, than it is illegal to remove that DRM to use the content in the public domain like its supposed to be.

Not to mention, copyright holders can basically indirectly remove any kind of "fair use" a consumer is supposed to have with the content they purchase.

**seeric** · 08-20-2007, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by drjones

I'd love to see the DMCA repealed, and completely re-worked. The Title II portion seems fine, and gives copyright holders a means to go after infringer's, but the whole business of DRM circumvention has a lot of unintended and downright nasty consequences. It basically makes copyright perpetual.

Copyrights eventually expire on creative works, but if they are never released in a format that contains no DRM, than it is illegal to remove that DRM to use the content in the public domain like its supposed to be.

Not to mention, copyright holders can basically indirectly remove any kind of "fair use" a consumer is supposed to have with the content they purchase.

yes, the current dmca did not anticipate web 2.0 or any of this mumbo jumbo that the people justifying content theft are touting.

i agree it should be rewritten and amended for 2007 and beyond. it's surely not keeping up with technology in its current state.

**pornguy** · 08-20-2007, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by A1R3K

i replied in there.

i'm on edge lately. being on the offensive in the sense of piracy has me offensive in mindset.

my bad.

Try telling the truth. You have that itch again.

And I know the name of the girl that gave it to you.

Nice post by the way.

**seeric** · 08-20-2007, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by pornguy

Try telling the truth. You have that itch again.

And I know the name of the girl that gave it to you.

Nice post by the way.

i'm on fireeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

**Calvinguy** · 08-20-2007, 02:02 PM

I understand that it some US blah blah so I don't give a flying fuck

**swampthing** · 08-20-2007, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Calvinguy

I understand that it some US blah blah so I don't give a flying fuck

wow. thats a pretty sad statement for being a gfy'er.

A nice example of how bad the problem really is.

How many of you truly understand the DMCA?

How many of you truly understand the DMCA?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment