PSA: A reminder on why you should maintain copies of movies

[TacoSenpai]

The biggest thing with copyright to me is availability.  I don't want to pirate stuff but if I have literally no other way of getting the content then if I want to see or listen to it I have almost no other choice.  A particular instance of this was with Initial D 5th and Final Stages.  Literally impossible to find through legal means.  OG Evangelion is infamous for this.  The DVDs have been out of print since forever so good luck forking over an arm and leg for them and since they are trying to remaster them (with mixed results) neither Funimation nor Crunchyroll even has it listed in their catalogue.

[Tellos]

@Jito463 But it does have a place because it is what will be cried if they violate these agreements. Again this is what you and @mr moose seem to fail to get. This comes into play because it is the LAW. Once you lose rights to something in a place it does not matter that you purchased it before the company can no longer distribute it. hell why do you think in Japan getting things released to the US is so hard? Multiple companies own parts of various regional distribution and production rights and often their battles when they think one of the others is violating their IP rights have ended up in decade long lawsuits. Some are still going on today on who has what rights where. Nothing here is a vacuum.

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

What I find funny, is that I have had several heated debates with you regarding things such as privacy in Windows 10, Apple using complicated schemes just to avoid paying taxes and so on, and every time I have bought up arguments for why it is wrong, you have always gone back to "it's legal so therefore it is OK" or "it's in the TOS so therefore you knew what you were getting into and agreed to it". At one point you ever said that I can't criticize a company for doing something that is legal.

 

You are conflating different issues I don't want to debate windows ten privacy because A, it isn't relevant and B, MS haven't charged anyone for a product they are no longer allowing them access to. Apple is a completely different discussion altogether.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

But for some reason in this particular instance, which is geoblocking, you seem to be completely against it?

Because in this case they are using it to prevent someone from getting content they already paid for.  There is a huge difference from not having something offered for sale and not be permitted to access  a product you already legitimately own. 

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Sorry but the current copyright laws allows this to happen. As you have told me several times in the past, "if you don't like it, vote for a government which won't allow it".

Actually the barrier in this situation is completely made up,  Apple have sold a product and now they will not honor it.   Had they offered a refund I might have a different opinion, but they haven't.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

And sorry but this is not theft. He can still access the movie in the country he bought his license to view it in. 

He cannot access the movie he paid for and apple will not offer a refund,  that equals theft.  To expect someone to go to another country to watch a movie they legally purchased is beyond ludicrous.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

It's no fun being on the "this should be wrong and illegal. Why aren't people upset" side of things, is it? Now you know how I have felt when talking to you several times.

It is illegal, just not enforceable.   However I am not sure what you are trying to communicate here. How you feel when trying to convince me I am wrong does not change the conditions of this situation.

 

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

 

 

Also, the reason why these types of things happen is because licensing deals are negotiated on a country by country basis.

And?

7 hours ago, LAwLz said:

Take Kung Fury as an example. It's a film made in Sweden through Kickstarter. A Swedish TV channel bought the exclusive rights to it in Sweden (I believe for a limited time). Most if not all other countries were able to view it on YouTube, but not people in Sweden since those rights belonged to the channel TV4 (I think it was TV4).

 

Should a Canadian staying on holiday be allowed to view Kung Fury on Youtube despite TV4 having a deal promising them exclusive distribution inside Sweden? In that case TV4 aren't earning any money from the rights they bought. And if the Canadian should be allowed to view it, what system should be in place to allow that to happen? It get very complicated really quickly, because Youtube's servers can't differentiate between a Canadian in Sweden, and a Swede in Sweden. At least not in a way which doesn't allow for abuse (for example checking the account's country) and that could lead to piracy (a Swede watching the video on Youtube).

I think you are unnecessarily making this issue more complicated than it is.  This is not about regional licensing agreements nor is it about copyright. it is purely about a man who bought a product and then was told he could no longer access it because he moved countries.  That is against Australian consumer law (where he bought it) and more so it is not condition that is supported by any law, there is not law in Canada or Australia that I know about that prevents apple from giving him access to the product he legitimately owns.

 

8 hours ago, LAwLz said:

He is only being denied access to it in countries where Apple does not have the legal permission to provide it to him. If he moves back then he will regain access to it.

Think of it as being 18 and buying booze in a country where the legal drinking age is 18. You're allowed to drink it if you want while you're there. But if you then take that same booze and go to a country where the drinking age is 21, you're no longer allowed to drink it. You buying it in a country where drinking it would be legal does not overwrite the local laws where you currently are.

Again you are conflating different issues,  The content is not illegal in Canada for him, so it is not like being 18 and taking booze to a country where you are not allowed to own it,  It's like buying a DVD that is legal in both countries and then having the DVD taken from you at the airport because the company that distributes it in that country has a different licensing agreement.  There are no laws that permit such action, copyright law itself has no provisions that permit a company from removing access to content that has been legally paid for. 

 

1 hour ago, Tellos said:

@Jito463 But it does have a place because it is what will be cried if they violate these agreements. Again this is what you and @mr moose seem to fail to get. This comes into play because it is the LAW. Once you lose rights to something in a place it does not matter that you purchased it before the company can no longer distribute it. hell why do you think in Japan getting things released to the US is so hard? Multiple companies own parts of various regional distribution and production rights and often their battles when they think one of the others is violating their IP rights have ended up in decade long lawsuits. Some are still going on today on who has what rights where. Nothing here is a vacuum.

You are the one who is failing to understand,  there are NO LAWS that permit any company to prevent a consumer from accessing a product because of their location when they have already legally acquired it.  NONE, ZIP, NADA.  As per what I said above, this is not about licensing or copyright.  When a private company has an agreement with another private company not to distribute content in a certain country it only means they are not allowed to sell it there, there is no requirement in law or otherwise for them not to provide it to people who already own it.    It is not illegal to import content from other countries.  You can buy books and DVD's from other countries, just because the product is digital does not change the rights of the consumer.

 

 

The key issues here that people are failing to grasp are:

 

1.  The product was already purchased, this is not about a law that prevents purchases, that is different, this is an existing product that has been purchased.

2.  Moving countries only effects the products you own if those products are illegal in said country, this movie is not illegal to own in Canada, there fore there are no laws that state he is not permitted to have access to it.

3. Private contracts between companies (including regional licensing contracts) do not automatically make it illegal for any company to suddenly cease supporting a previously purchased product based on location. 

 

 

[Tellos]

@mr moose again it's fine that he has it but the issue is apple cannot give him another because they CANNOT have it on a server period where they do not own it then distribute it in ANY way shape or form without being sued.Again this is the Law your inability to grasp how Laws function is not our fault it's your own.

[Jito463]

5 hours ago, Tellos said:

@mr moose again it's fine that he has it but the issue is apple cannot give him another because they CANNOT have it on a server period where they do not own it then distribute it in ANY way shape or form without being sued.Again this is the Law your inability to grasp how Laws function is not our fault it's your own.

Please feel free to cite the specific law that supports your assertion that this is a legal issue.  I dare say that you cannot, because there is no such law.  This isn't about whether he's allowed to purchase the product in Canada, this is about whether he's allowed access to content he already paid for, just because he moved.

[Tellos]

@Jito463 Lawyers for the owner of the Ip will sue apple if that agreement is breached and I cited some sources you just don't like em. IP contracts are enforced by law.

[Jito463]

1 minute ago, Tellos said:

@Jito463 Lawyers for the owner of the Ip will sue apple if that agreement is breached and I cited some sources you just don't like em. IP contracts are enforced by law.

You've cited sources about copyright infringement, you haven't made the connection between that and permitting someone access to their purchased content.  How is that prevented by the law?  Permitting access to purchased content is not the same as permitting someone to buy it from a certain region.

[Tellos]

@Jito463 he has access so long as he keeps hi back ups. This falls into distribution. basically Apple cannot send him that data in that region. To do so is distribution in a place apple is not allowed. His having purchased it is irralvent. They may not distribute, sell, send or otherwise offer that music in said region under penalty of law.

[Tellos]

and in case this is still going over head the owners can state in the agreements they make and usually do state who may distribute how where and under what circumstances. This case sounds like apple was told it may under no circumstances distribute in that area. Likely because a deal with another company there is standing.

[Jito463]

9 minutes ago, Tellos said:

@Jito463 he has access so long as he keeps hi back ups. This falls into distribution. basically Apple cannot send him that data in that region. To do so is distribution in a place apple is not allowed. His having purchased it is irralvent. They may not distribute, sell, send or otherwise offer that music in said region under penalty of law.

Correction: you assume that's the case.  Unless you have access to all of the license agreements that Apple has signed, you can't say that with 100% certainty.

[Tellos]

@Jito463 story seems to say Apple does not have rights there.

[Lady Fitzgerald]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[mr moose]

2 hours ago, Tellos said:

@Jito463 he has access so long as he keeps hi back ups. This falls into distribution. basically Apple cannot send him that data in that region. To do so is distribution in a place apple is not allowed. His having purchased it is irralvent. They may not distribute, sell, send or otherwise offer that music in said region under penalty of law.

 

The problem here is you are thinking about licensing deals that pertain to the sale of content, such licenses prohibit apple form selling content in Canada, but they do not prevent apple from providing content that the customer already owns.   There is no LAW that allows a content owner to reverse a purchase based on location.  Please show me the LAW that you think allows apple to reverse a purchase because they moved to another country.   Again a digital product is still a product and if a consumer pays for it then they are entitled to it,  do you honestly believe that licensing deals between two companies should be enough to not only reverse a purchase but to not refund the purchase based solely on location?

[LAwLz]

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

To expect someone to go to another country to watch a movie they legally purchased is beyond ludicrous.

That's how a lot of copyright contracts are written. For example I have no legal way of obtaining a lot of the content I might consume, because it is not allowed to be distributed outside of Japan. Even if I order a physical DVD it can be region locked so that I can't view it. I could circumvent the DRM by using a DVD player that ignores region locks but that's illegal too.

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

Actually the barrier in this situation is completely made up,  Apple have sold a product and now they will not honor it.   Had they offered a refund I might have a different opinion, but they haven't.

 

They have honored it. He had access to the movie in the region he bought authorization to view it in. Welcome to the world of corporations fucking customers in the ass with horrible TOS and licensing models.

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

I think you are unnecessarily making this issue more complicated than it is.  This is not about regional licensing agreements nor is it about copyright. it is purely about a man who bought a product and then was told he could no longer access it because he moved countries.  That is against Australian consumer law (where he bought it) and more so it is not condition that is supported by any law, there is not law in Canada or Australia that I know about that prevents apple from giving him access to the product he legitimately owns.

Does Apple have a valid distribution license for the movie in the country he moved to?

If they don't, then they would be breaching copyright law by allowing the customer to download the movie. That is how copyright law works.

Just because one company is authorized to distribute copies in one country does not mean they are allowed to distribute it everywhere.

 

If I obtain a distribution license for Infinity War in Nauru, then I can't just distribute it in Sweden to anyone who says they bought the movie in Nauru. I can't do that even if they bought it from me, because I am only allowed to distribute it in Nauru, not Sweden.

 

 

10 hours ago, mr moose said:

When a private company has an agreement with another private company not to distribute content in a certain country it only means they are not allowed to sell it there, there is no requirement in law or otherwise for them not to provide it to people who already own it. 

This is incorrect. The content owners are free to make whichever contracts they want.

If they only authorize distribution of their work in a certain country then distributing that work in different countries would be breaching the contract and thus copyright law.

If I make a contract with you that you are only allowed to distribute my game in Australia, then you will be breaching that contract if you move to the US and start uploading the game from there. I might have signed a contract with someone in the US that they have exclusive distribution rights in the US, and all of a sudden you come in and start uploading the game too.

 

The reason contracts and the law is made this way is because things aren't always as clear cut as "they bought it so they own it". Just look at Kung Fury as an example. In that example nobody is "buying" a license to view the movie. They access it on Youtube. Should a Canadian in Sweden still be able to view Kung Fury on Youtube even though TV4 has exclusive rights to it in Sweden? A system for enforcing that wouldn't work.

It also allows for exclusivity deals based on region to be made. Something that happens constantly. It wouldn't work if things like distribution licenses applied globally.

 

 

I think this case is quite simple.

Does Apple have a contract with the content provider, authorizing them to allow distribution of the movie in the new country the customer lives in? If they don't, then they would be breaching copyright by allowing him to download it.

 

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

The problem here is you are thinking about licensing deals that pertain to the sale of content, such licenses prohibit apple form selling content in Canada, but they do not prevent apple from providing content that the customer already owns.

How do you know the license deal is only for sales and not distribution?

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

There is no LAW that allows a content owner to reverse a purchase based on location.

This is not a purchase being reversed. He still owns a license to view the content, but only for the country the license is valid for.

If I buy a subscription for Netflix while in the US and then move back to Sweden, I don't get entitled to the US version of Netflix. What content I have access to on Netflix is based on which country I reside in currently. Same deal here.

 

It sucks, but that's how terrible the world we live in is.

[Dabombinable]

5 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's how a lot of copyright contracts are written. For example I have no legal way of obtaining a lot of the content I might consume, because it is not allowed to be distributed outside of Japan. Even if I order a physical DVD it can be region locked so that I can't view it. I could circumvent the DRM by using a DVD player that ignores region locks but that's illegal too.

Would a soft modded Xbox be illegal? I use mine for playing out-of-region DVD, and whether its v1 of the software (works only with the DVD remote add-on) or v2 (works only with the controller), it plays back things just fine. I'm mainly talking about old movies and shows though, ones that have never been distributed far from their country of origin.

[mr moose]

50 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

That's how a lot of copyright contracts are written. For example I have no legal way of obtaining a lot of the content I might consume, because it is not allowed to be distributed outside of Japan. Even if I order a physical DVD it can be region locked so that I can't view it. I could circumvent the DRM by using a DVD player that ignores region locks but that's illegal too.

1. we are talking about content the man already has legally obtained, not blocking it from sale in the first instance.

2. unlocked DVD players are not illegal, not even in the US.  In fact there is no law that prevents anyone from importing DVD's.

The ACCC and the EU have both considered whether region coding is an infringement of fair trading.   AS far as I know neither decided to go further  than making it legal to purchase or unlock dvd players and import dvd/cds so long as you aren't purchasing and reselling in a commercial venture.

 

Quote

They have honored it. He had access to the movie in the region he bought authorization to view it in. Welcome to the world of corporations fucking customers in the ass with horrible TOS and licensing models.

no they won't let him take it with him, how is that honoring it?  Again he has already purchased it.

 

Quote

Does Apple have a valid distribution license for the movie in the country he moved to?

Doesn't matter, they aren't selling him the product in that country, they are choosing not to allow him access to something he already legally and legitimately owns.

Quote

If they don't, then they would be breaching copyright law by allowing the customer to download the movie. That is how copyright law works.

Just because one company is authorized to distribute copies in one country does not mean they are allowed to distribute it everywhere.

No they wouldn't, the customer already owns the rights to a copy of that content.   In fact he can even buy the DVD from Australia and have it shipped to Canada perfectly legally with no breach of copyright having occurred.  What you are trying to say is that because his purchase is digital that he no longer has the same consumer rights.  That is BS.  Apple even said if he had it saved on his device it would be fine.  So the only thing here is that apple are refusing to give him what he bought for no other reason than they don;t want to.  It can;t be copyright violation if he already has paid the rights to it.

 

Quote

If I obtain a distribution license for Infinity War in Nauru, then I can't just distribute it in Sweden to anyone who says they bought the movie in Nauru. I can't do that even if they bought it from me, because I am only allowed to distribute it in Nauru, not Sweden.

But if you sell it to people in Nauru first and they move to Sweden then unless that content is actually banned buy the government then there is no breach of copyright in you supporting that purchase.

Quote

 

This is incorrect. The content owners are free to make whichever contracts they want.

They can make whatever contracts they want, but civil contracts between two companies are not Law and and do not trump law.  In fact civil contracts are not worth the paper they are written on when one party (the consumer) has no say in them and is being punished artificially.  Copy right law (even in the US) does not have penalty or definition for this situation. And if it does I would like to see it. 

  

Quote

If they only authorize distribution of their work in a certain country then distributing that work in different countries would be breaching the contract and thus copyright law.

Breaching contract but not copyright law, please show me where in copy right law (from anywhere in the world) that location is an acceptable condition to deny access to legitimately obtained content.  Remember copyright has many conditions placed upon it the most prominent being fair use in the US and fair dealing in Australia, but also consumer law and protections trump copyright which trumps civil contracts.

 

 

Quote

If I make a contract with you that you are only allowed to distribute my game in Australia, then you will be breaching that contract if you move to the US and start uploading the game from there. I might have signed a contract with someone in the US that they have exclusive distribution rights in the US, and all of a sudden you come in and start uploading the game too.

Of course, but that is not what happened here,  apple have the license to sell the product in Australia, they did not sell it in Canada, they sold it in Australia under Under Australian law, then the customer moved to Canada.  Apple is using this contract as an excuse to no longer provide access to the content he already legally owns. 

 

Quote

The reason contracts and the law is made this way is because things aren't always as clear cut as "they bought it so they own it". Just look at Kung Fury as an example. In that example nobody is "buying" a license to view the movie. They access it on Youtube. Should a Canadian in Sweden still be able to view Kung Fury on Youtube even though TV4 has exclusive rights to it in Sweden? A system for enforcing that wouldn't work.

It also allows for exclusivity deals based on region to be made. Something that happens constantly. It wouldn't work if things like distribution licenses applied globally.

That example isn't anything like what is happening here though. 

 

Quote

 

I think this case is quite simple.

Does Apple have a contract with the content provider, authorizing them to allow distribution of the movie in the new country the customer lives in? If they don't, then they would be breaching copyright by allowing him to download it.

Only if you ignore the core issue that the consumer already owns the product and has a right to access it.  Copyright law does not dictate that they can prevent him from accessing it after purchase, copyright law only dictates that the CR owner can chose to not sell it to him in the first instance, too late for that as they already have.  

 

Again, and I am getting tired of making the same point which people seem to be ignoring, Copryright law does not mention geographical boundaries. Copyright law stops at giving the CR owner the right not to sell it.  After that there is no provision in copyright law that makes it legal (regardless of geographical location) to deny access to content that they have sold them.  You cannot breach copyright by accessing content on a service you paid for just because you went to another country.

 

And if that isn't true then I would like the CITATION.

 

 

42 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

Would a soft modded Xbox be illegal? I use mine for playing out-of-region DVD, and whether its v1 of the software (works only with the DVD remote add-on) or v2 (works only with the controller), it plays back things just fine. I'm mainly talking about old movies and shows though, ones that have never been distributed far from their country of origin.

It would not be illegal at all, because region blocks are not part of any law in Australia.  You are free to unlock your xbox's region, you can unlock the region block on your pc, dvd and Bluray player too.  You are also free to buy your dvd's, blurays and cds from overseas if you want. 

 

In fact the ACCC was going to make region blocking illegal in Australia because it was considered an unfair practice.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/consumers-in-dark-about-dvd-imports-accc

 

[Dabombinable]

8 minutes ago, mr moose said:

It would not be illegal at all, because region blocks are not part of any law in Australia.  You are free to unlock your xbox's region, you can unlock the region block on your pc, dvd and Bluray player too.  You are also free to buy your dvd's, blurays and cds from overseas if you want. 

 

In fact the ACCC was going to make region blocking illegal in Australia because it was considered an unfair practice.

https://www.accc.gov.au/media-release/consumers-in-dark-about-dvd-imports-accc

 

I'm more referring to where @Lawz lives.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Dabombinable said:

I'm more referring to where @Lawz lives.

 

I guess he would know best about Sweden, however if they are legal in the US, Australia and Canada I would be surprised if they were illegal in Sweden.

[LAwLz]

5 hours ago, Dabombinable said:

Would a soft modded Xbox be illegal? I use mine for playing out-of-region DVD, and whether its v1 of the software (works only with the DVD remote add-on) or v2 (works only with the controller), it plays back things just fine. I'm mainly talking about old movies and shows though, ones that have never been distributed far from their country of origin.

Depends on which country you are in but in general, anything which circumvents DRM is illegal.

If you could not play the DVD before modifying the Xbox, and the DVD was made to prevent people in your region to view it then yes, it is illegal.

 

4 hours ago, mr moose said:

I guess he would know best about Sweden, however if they are legal in the US, Australia and Canada I would be surprised if they were illegal in Sweden.

Region locks are a type of DRM, and circumventing that is illegal in the US according to the DMCA. It is only allowed when the purpose is to create something using the DRM protected material which falls under fair use. For example removing it to create a review where you show clips, or to create a remix/parody (EFF article about it).

Removing DRM to watch region locked DVDs does not fall under fair use.

 

I looked into it a bit more and it is illegal to do so in Australia too.

What you linked to is just someone saying "hey, remember that you might not be able to watch region locked movies".

They never made it legal to circumvent the DRM.

 

 

Also, while looking through those articles I stumbled upon this from ABC Australia (from 2012):

Quote

"Under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Copyright Treaty of 1996, it is illegal in most countries (including Australia since 2007) to attempt to circumvent the copyright protections built into DRM [digital rights management], even when these measures go beyond the protection of legal rights. If you wish to have true ownership over the products you buy, and use them how and when you want to, ideally you would buy products that have no DRM at all".

 

So no @mr moose, it is not legal in Australia.

You do not own the rights to the movie if you buy it on for example iTunes. You own the right to view it under whichever restrictions Apple and the copyright holder imposes on you, which can be for example only being allowed to view it in a certain country. On top of that, any attempt to circumvent these restrictions will be illegal under Australian law.

[mr moose]

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Depends on which country you are in but in general, anything which circumvents DRM is illegal.

If you could not play the DVD before modifying the Xbox, and the DVD was made to prevent people in your region to view it then yes, it is illegal.

He is in Australia and region blocks are not considered DRM here.  They are actually viewed in a dim light buy the ACCC and circumventing them is every consumers right.

7 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Region locks are a type of DRM, and circumventing that is illegal in the US according to the DMCA. It is only allowed when the purpose is to create something using the DRM protected material which falls under fair use. For example removing it to create a review where you show clips, or to create a remix/parody (EFF article about it).

Removing DRM to watch region locked DVDs does not fall under fair use.

 

Unless you can show me where any of those articles mention region blocks I am going to have to go with the fact that neither the library of congress (US copyright office) nor section 1201 (Section 1201 Exemptions to Prohibition Against Circumvention of Technological Measures Protecting Copyrighted Works, statutory requirements to the DMCA) mention region blocks at all.  While there are many arguments that unlocking a DVD player does not circumvent CSS (content scramble) and that several websites claim there are no specific laws that make Region free DVD players illegal. I t seems that this idea it is illegal is one presented only by a consortium of interested parties and not actually a law.  The only reference I can find only to region blocks being DRM is wikipedia and that doesn't have any citations.

 

 

https://www.copyright.gov/1201/2015/fedreg-publicinspectionFR.pdf

 

 

and best case scenario for your argument:

 

Quote

Hacking a DVD player to play any region, or manufacturing or purchasing a region-free DVD player, are situations in a legal twilight in the US. The point of these activities is circumventing access controls. Manufacturers may be violating contracts with the DVD Copy Control Association, which mandates that RPC be installed along with the CSS decoding keys. On the other hand, region coding in itself may be seen as violating various international trade laws.

http://www.clas.ufl.edu/llc/copyright/RightsDMCA.html

 

Given they exist in their thousands and we haven't yet had a court case or legal action I think it is safe to safe for now that region blocks are not enforceable by any current laws.

 

 

[J.b091]

On 9/16/2018 at 9:10 PM, mate_mate91 said:

I make $5,000 a year. For me it's justified. I am from Georgia (caucasus)

Please don't shame Georgia (caucasus). I'm from there too and I do not promote piracy like you do. Also no it's not justified for you. It doesn't matter how much you make per year, it's not excuse. It's like saying I'm stealing because I don't have money. Stealing is still crime and it shouldn't be glorified but shamed.

[LAwLz]

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

He is in Australia and region blocks are not considered DRM here.  They are actually viewed in a dim light buy the ACCC and circumventing them is every consumers right.

Source on region locks not being considered a form of DRM in Australia? It is everywhere else from what I can see.

Wouldn't make sense to say it isn't DRM.

 

2 hours ago, mr moose said:

Unless you can show me where any of those articles mention region blocks I am going to have to go with the fact that neither the library of congress (US copyright office) nor section 1201 (Section 1201 Exemptions to Prohibition Against Circumvention of Technological Measures Protecting Copyrighted Works, statutory requirements to the DMCA) mention region blocks at all.  While there are many arguments that unlocking a DVD player does not circumvent CSS (content scramble) and that several websites claim there are no specific laws that make Region free DVD players illegal. I t seems that this idea it is illegal is one presented only by a consortium of interested parties and not actually a law.  The only reference I can find only to region blocks being DRM is wikipedia and that doesn't have any citations.

Injecting a SLIC certificate into your BIOS to bypass the Windows activation is not specifically mentioned in the law either, however that is still classified as circumventing DRM and therefore illegal.

 

Anyway, if you don't think region locking is a type of DRM then you don't understand what DRM is.

However, luckily for us this won't end with just arguing semantics over and over, where you say region locking isn't DRM and therefore OK to circumvent, while I say it is DRM and therefore not OK to circumvent.

The WIPO has defined DRM and they even bring up region locking as an example. As mentioned earlier, Australia is a member of WIPO and abide by the rules and regulations set forth by them.

You might not like it (I certainly don't, and I don't think it is unjust to break this particular law) but that's how the law is written and how the world works. Better get used to it.

 

Page 53 in this document states that:

Quote

The DMCA does not define “technological measure.” It does, however, define whether a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work”: it controls access “if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.” The legislative history of the DMCA suggests that Congress was contemplating that such measures as encryption and authentication would be the sorts of technological measures that would control access to a work, but that the definition was purposefully left open to accommodate possible future developments.

 

Among the various technological measures that have been determined by the courts and the Librarian of Congress (“Librarian”) to control access to a work are an authentication sequence to ensure that content was streamed only to an authorized player; CSS, which is used to protect DVD video disks from unauthorized access; the region coding system used on DVD video disks to make them playable only in particular geographic regions; and region codes used in video games.

 

Section 12 01(a)(1): This section prohibits a person from circumventing a technological measure that “effectively controls access to a work.” The prohibition flatly outlaws the act of circumvention, even if the act is undertaken for purposes that are entirely lawful and authorized by the Copyright Act.  

 

So region locks has explicitly been mentioned and tested in court, and they do not only count as a type of DRM, there have also been rulings that it is illegal to circumvent them.

It does not matter what definition you have of DRM. This is the law which applies in Australia. It sucks and it's terrible, but that's the law.

 

 

Another thing to note about the Australian law is this one called the copyright amendment (Digital agenda) act 2000. It states that:

Quote

technological protection measure means a device or product, or a component incorporated into a process, that is designed, in the ordinary course of its operation, to prevent or inhibit the infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter by either or both of the following means:

 

(a) by ensuring that access to the work or other subject matter is available solely by use of an access code or process (including decryption, unscrambling or other transformation of the work or other subject-matter) with the authority of the owner or licensee of the copyright;

 

(b) through a copy control mechanism.

In other words, the Australian definition of "technological protection measure" (which is illegal to circumvent) is anything which ensures that something can be used solely in a way authorized by the owner or licensee of the copyright.

If you ask the copyright owner if you are allowed to use a modified Xbox player to circumvent their region lock and they say no, then you are breaking the law.

[Dabombinable]

@LAwLz
Well Region free players (Bluray or DVD) can legally be sold in Australia (despite the free trade agreement), and for example if you purchased a locked Sony Bluray player, they would unlock it for you albiet at a cost. We're also allowed to modify DVD players to be region free.

 

And the Xbone is also region free:

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/06/in-case-you-didnt-notice-the-xbox-one-is-now-region-free/

 

In Australia, Region locking is a thing left behind in the early days of DVD movies.

[LAwLz]

12 minutes ago, Dabombinable said:

@LAwLz
Well Region free players (Bluray or DVD) can legally be sold in Australia (despite the free trade agreement), and for example if you purchased a locked Sony Bluray player, they would unlock it for you albiet at a cost. We're also allowed to modify DVD players to be region free.

 

And the Xbone is also region free:

https://www.kotaku.com.au/2013/06/in-case-you-didnt-notice-the-xbox-one-is-now-region-free/

 

In Australia, Region locking is a thing left behind in the early days of DVD movies.

In the cases where region free DVD players are sold, Sony unlocking their DVD players, and so on, you get permission from the licensee to go around the DRM.

As the Australian law I quoted earlier says, it is up to the copyright holder or the licensee to determine how you are allowed to view the content. If they think it's fine to circumvent the region locks, then it is fine. What isn't fine is circumventing the locks without permission.

 

If Microsoft and Dell sends me a letter saying I am allowed to inject a Dell SLIC certificate into my BIOS to trick Windows into thinking it's activated, I would not be breaking the law in doing so. If I for some reason ended up in court I could use that letter to defend myself (assuming it was a legitimate letter). I can't however decide that Microsoft and Dell are probably okay with it, and then do it without their permission. If I ended up in court then I would rightfully be found guilty of circumventing the Windows activation DRM mechanisms, as well as copyright infringements.

 

At the end of the day, it's the copyright holder which has control over what you can and can't do with their intellectual property. If they say you can only view something in a certain country, then it is against the law to work around the mechanisms they have in place to enforce that.

[mr moose]

36 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

In the cases where region free DVD players are sold, Sony unlocking their DVD players, and so on, you get permission from the licensee to go around the DRM.

As the Australian law I quoted earlier says, it is up to the copyright holder or the licensee to determine how you are allowed to view the content. If they think it's fine to circumvent the region locks, then it is fine. What isn't fine is circumventing the locks without permission.

 

If Microsoft and Dell sends me a letter saying I am allowed to inject a Dell SLIC certificate into my BIOS to trick Windows into thinking it's activated, I would not be breaking the law in doing so. If I for some reason ended up in court I could use that letter to defend myself (assuming it was a legitimate letter). I can't however decide that Microsoft and Dell are probably okay with it, and then do it without their permission. If I ended up in court then I would rightfully be found guilty of circumventing the Windows activation DRM mechanisms, as well as copyright infringements.

 

At the end of the day, it's the copyright holder which has control over what you can and can't do with their intellectual property. If they say you can only view something in a certain country, then it is against the law to work around the mechanisms they have in place to enforce that.

I linked to the ACCC earlier, region locking is not considered DRM in Australia, you are free to unlock your dvd player, buy an unlocked one or even  run a business unlocking them.

Head of the ACCC said:

Quote

While the Copyright Act 1968 prevents Australian retailers and wholesalers from importing DVD movies for resale or other commercial purposes, consumers are lawfully entitled to buy DVD movies from overseas for personal use.

 

this is a quote from our Attorney General, it is from a news article which I am loath to link,  but the original document is unobtainable:

Quote

An access control TPM specifically excludes TPMs which control geographic market segmentation. This means that consumers will be able to circumvent the region coding TPMs on legitimate DVDs purchased overseas. It also allows for the continued availability of region-free DVD players.

https://www.smh.com.au/technology/are-regionfree-dvd-players-legal-20120201-1qs42.html

 

Fact of the matter is region locks are viewed by the consumer affairs department and the atorney general as little more than a hindrance to consumers. So,  in the words of the ACCC " These restrictions are artificially imposed by a group of multinational film entertainment companies " that we me step around anyway we see fit.

 

 

 

 

The WIPO document linked is interesting in that it claims the Libraian found it to be DRM yet the documents I linked (which are the congress librarian conclusions on DMCA only mentions region once and that is with regard to a request for exemption on consoles.   CSS and region locks are different, you don't need to decrypt anything to make a player region free, there is no actual circumvention, you simply tell the firmware to accept all codes.  The CSS that document is talking about is the actual encryption on the disc.   It is like clicking the button on a porn site saying you are 18 years old.  You are not hacking or circumventing the code on the website to get access, you are just telling the website what it wants to hear to give you access.

 

EDIT: It's also interesting to note that in that article you link they had this to say:

Quote

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission appeared as amicus curiae in
the proceedings before the primary judge in favor of the defendant on the ground that regional
coding is detrimental to consumer welfare and limits consumer choice.

The Australian courts will rule any modification of code as DRM circumvention, but they will not rule bypassing Region locks as circumvention.  Again because the Australian legal system see them as two separate issues and consumer law trumps corporate law.