Just Because A Banana Can Be Used To Rob A Bank, It Doesn't Mean We Ban Bananas

from the ban-ban-bananas dept

We recently wrote about the RIAA's new war against software that can be used to record or download YouTube videos. As we noted, such software has substantial non-infringing uses, but the RIAA wants to ban it anyway. Michael Weinberg has a great response, in pointing out that just because something can be used illegally, it doesn't mean we ban it:
It is possible to use a banana to rob a bank.  It is also possible to use a phone to defraud people of millions of dollars.  But we do not make possession of a banana or the use of a phone illegal.  We make bank robbery and fraud illegal.  We do not outlaw bananas and phones because bananas and phones serve any number of socially useful services.  It would be dumb to outlaw them just because someone could use them in a bad way.

That’s why the test that the Supreme Court identified in the famous Betamax case is so useful.  As long as a technology is capable of “substantial noninfringing uses” we welcome it.  Because those substantial noninfringing uses are great to have, and we cannot stop innovation just because it can sometimes be abused.
On our last post about this, someone brought up the anti-circumvention issue, noting that if the software circumvents DRM, then under the DMCA it's illegal across the board. But all this really highlights is the insanity of the anti-circumvention provision and how it makes perfectly legitimate activity "copyright infringement." Think about it: if you use this to make a perfectly legal recording of some content, then none of the rights covered by copyright law have been infringed. And yet it's still illegal solely because of the circumvention? That makes no sense. How can it be illegal if no illegal copy was actually made?


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 12:39pm

    People

    Oh noes! People can be harmful, we should outlaw them!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 12:42pm

      Re: People

      shh! Are you trying to start the robot revolution?!?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 12:49pm

        Re: Re: People

        I for one welcome our robot overlords built by the RIAA.
        I expect them to self destruct about 2 minutes after they are brought online as they fail to process the Cartels directives and the logic loop causes them to explode.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          el_segfaulto (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 12:52pm

          Re: Re: Re: People

          Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto overlord.

          I'm going to go ahead and punish myself for that one.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        •  
          icon
          The Mighty Buzzard (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:03pm

          Re: Re: Re: People

          Nah, here's how it'd go.

          *AA assembles robot horde and turns them loose. Robot horde gets into an area that AT&T swears has three bars of signal and shuts down. Technicians later find it was due to losing the constantly required Internet connection for the AI software's DRM.

           

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          •  
            icon
            That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:06pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: People

            or the Cartel expected other people to pay the bills to run the DRM server. They do have a tendency to expect others to bear the costs of "protecting" their IP.

             

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            •  
              identicon
              Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:20pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

              Funny how that works. Like how retailers pass on the cost of shoplifting and anti-shoplifting measures in the form of higher prices to law abiding customers. Outrageous.

               

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:28pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

                Interesting that you should bring up shoplifting. Many studies have shown that more shrink comes from inside employees as opposed to external customers. Yet some retailers insist on putting their customers through more scrutiny (receipt checkers at the door, for example) instead of their employees.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  abc gum, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 6:08pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

                  Now, let's not let facts get in the way of some really good whining.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 6:17pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

                  I don't know about the studies, but I do know that there are cameras in the stock areas and above the registers at my local grocery store. Presumably, those are to keep employees honest.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 6:25pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

                    Having worked in a grocery store while in college, including in the back accounting office where all the money was counted, I can tell you that those cameras are pretty useless in all but the most extreme situations, and are rarely reviewed unless management is already aware of a major issue.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                That Anonymous Coward (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 2:28pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

                Oooh look a strawman!

                How much money did they pay Google for the development and maintenance of ContentID?
                How much money did they spend on "enforcement" to get the budget to include $10 million for ICE to be their private enforcers?
                How much money did they spend to get the special access to HotFile where they committed copyfraud?
                How come they don't raise prices and pass the costs on, because they can just demand everyone carry the burden for them.

                Shoplifting means a physical item is stolen.
                "Piracy" means a copy of an item was made, the original is not lost.

                Quaint you talk about the law abiding customers, they are the ones forced to be subjected to unskippable anti-piracy messages... and these are the people who aren't pirating, seems stupid.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                •  
                  identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 6:14pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

                  1. Disagree on the straw man accusation. Banks and other financial institutions have a responsibility for compliance within the financial ecosystem, You come in with bags of cash or engage in suspicious activity you have a problem with law enforcement. Why should Google and others in the internet ecosystem bear no responsibility to guard against lawless behavior. The banks clearly pass on their costs, and so do the internet players.

                  2. When fraud is detected, there's a host of financial agencies that investigate. Those are taxpayer funded.

                  3. Not familiar enough with the Hotfile accusation to comment.

                  4. SOPA attempted to shift the burden to content companies by giving them the right of private action. This would have put most of the burden on content to police infringing foreign actors after getting an order from the judge. You opposed that. Now you oppose anyone else policing the rights of content owners.

                  5. I know the difference between theft and infringement. One involves both unjust enrichment and depriving someone of something of value. The other is simply unjust enrichment. In the words of the Supreme Court, "infringement is nothing more than garden variety theft". Oh, and both are crimes.

                  6. Yeah, the anti-piracy messages seem dumb. Maybe it is to provide prominent notice to guard against the "I didn't know" defense. Or maybe it's just dumb. Take your pick. Personally, I find it less painful than the endless trailers.

                   

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  •  
                    icon
                    Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 6:51pm

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

                    Banks and other financial institutions have a responsibility for compliance within the financial ecosystem, You come in with bags of cash or engage in suspicious activity you have a problem with law enforcement. Why should Google and others in the internet ecosystem bear no responsibility to guard against lawless behavior.

                    The situations are extremely different.

                    Banks do bear some of those costs, yes. They also have very clear guidelines on their responsibilities on how to prevent major felony crimes, such as money laundering.

                    There are no clear guidelines when it comes to copyright infringement. When Viacom sued Youtube, even the content owner didn't know for sure which videos they had uploaded and were infringing. It's also just copyright infringement - a civil matter - with no provable harm from the supposed unlawful act.

                    When fraud is detected, there's a host of financial agencies that investigate. Those are taxpayer funded.

                    Again, because they are criminal charges, not civil.

                    SOPA attempted to shift the burden to content companies

                    That's a laugh. The costs are already supposed to be on the copyright holder, and except when they're subverting the DOJ, ICE, and other law enforcement agencies, they are.

                    unjust enrichment

                    You're back to this nonsense again? Instead of going back and forth, the quickest legal definition I could find was on Wikipedia:

                    "The North Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that five elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment:
                    1) An enrichment
                    2) An impoverishment
                    3) A connection between enrichment and the impoverishment
                    4) Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment
                    5) An absence of a remedy provided by the law"
                    * Schroeder v. Buchholz, 2001 ND 36, 622 N.W.2d 202

                    So, lets see if it fits.
                    1) Ok, someone has enriched themselves with knowledge/content/entertainment
                    2) Fail. No one is impoverished as the result of copyright infringement. This also knocks out 3 and 4.
                    5) There's copyright law and all those statutory damages we talk so much about. Fail as well.

                    The term doesn't fit, just like theft doesn't match copyright infringement.

                     

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    •  
                      identicon
                      Anonymous Coward, Jun 28th, 2012 @ 5:26am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

                      From Black's Law Dictionary:

                      Unjust enrichment, 1. The retention of a benefit conferred by another, without offering compensation, in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected. 2. A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense. 3. The area of the law dealing with unjustifiable benefits of this kind.

                       

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              •  
                icon
                John Fenderson (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 3:36pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People

                I think you suffered extreme analogy failure.

                A better analogy is how retailer are always demanding that the manufacturers of pockets, bags and backpacks bear the cost of shoplifting.

                 

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        icon
        Greevar (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:37pm

        Re: Re: People

        Good new everyone!

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Charles Ita, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 12:47pm

    Is that a banana or your weapon that you're waving at me?

    We'd better ban waving, just to be safe.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    sehlat (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 12:48pm

    Hey! What about rocks?

    RIAAOgg not like rocks! Rocks can be used for harm! Ban them! For that matter, what about that new innovation, fire?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    Anti-circumvention?!

    Lots of these sites are using YouTube's official API. Some of them maybe do so in violation of Google API ToS, that not the same as removing macrovision malware (for avoidance of doubt that not the problem of anyone other them the webmaster; the users of these tool never agreed to the API ToS).

    In some countries their maybe an issue, on the part of those who use these site with YouTube main ToS, but that can be avoided by switch to localization the definitely doesn't have anti-downloading rules, e.g. the South African localization, and just like breaking the API ToS is not same as removing macrovision malware.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 12:57pm

    It is possible to use a banana to rob a bank.

    uh, what?

    I encourage you to think about that a bit more.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:00pm

    Anti-circumvention prevents innovation

    DVD playback on Linux is still of questionable legality as a result of DMCA's anti-circumvention rules. DVD decoding libraries and software are usually shipped in a crippled form on Linux distributions because they are not licensed to playback DVDs. As a result, a lot of Linux users must either compile their own from source code, or subsequently download the necessary libraries from foreign country websites where the laws are less ridiculous.

    Shouldn't it be legal to playback a DVD on a Linux desktop computer? Wouldn't this be within the realm of the assumed rights of someone who has purchased a DVD for purposes of personal playback?

    I participate in another alternative operating system project called Haiku - and we have the same problem. We cannot release Haiku with any built-in DVD decoding software (even though it is freely available and open source), because Haiku, Inc. is a U.S. corporation, and distribution of unlicensed DVD playback software is a potential violation of DMCA.

    A similar issue affects emulation of historic game systems, even if you own the original game disc or cartridge - if you don't own a working device to use it on, or you wish to use it on a different display device, you are limited by anti-circumvention laws.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Shmerl, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 2:29pm

      Re: Anti-circumvention prevents innovation

      In most distros this can be handled by simply by adding a repository (hosted in country without insane anticircumvention laws).

      But should it be fair use anyway?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 3:40pm

        Re: Re: Anti-circumvention prevents innovation

        They scramble, I descramble.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 4:54pm

        Re: Re: Anti-circumvention prevents innovation

        Yes, that's basically downloading after installation from a foreign country where the laws are less ridiculous.

        It's ...ridiculous.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 28th, 2012 @ 1:16am

      Re: Anti-circumvention prevents innovation

      The kind of funny, kind of sad part is that you don't have to break the encryption to pirate a DVD, the pirated disk will still work on a normal dvd player copied encyption and all.

      Thus banning decss does not help stop piracy, it just stops paying customers from using the product the way they want. You'd think the MPAA hates money.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:03pm

    Lemme hear you say this s*** is bananas...

    B-A-N-A-N-A-S!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Donnicton, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:05pm

    We obviously need to ban forks and spoons, they're responsible for the people shoveling the food into their mouths that make them fat.

    The use of fingers to eat is considered circumvention of the ban and is punishable by up to $150,000 and/or three years in prison.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    wallow-T, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:08pm

    My best guess is that the content industries are hoping to take a case similar to "Betamax" up to the Supreme Court and hope for a reversal of precedent. There's an essay out there about how narrow the "Betamax" decision was, and how the court only kept the VCR legal by manufacturing law out of whole cloth: arbitrarily declaring that time-shifting was not copyright infringement, even though it involved the making of a fixed reproduction of the TV show, clearly one of the protected rights under copyright.

    My (non-lawyer) observation is that "Betamax" was seriously crippled by "Grokster," with the court attempting to thread the needle by finding a difference between "a tool" and "a business." In the Internet/web world, most tools will exist because "businesses", or something business-like, makes them available on the web. In "Grokster," the court claimed that it was not rolling back "Betamax," but this seems like a statement contradicting the obvious points of the "Grokster" ruling.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

      Re:

      I generally agree and think the Court will some be forced to bring some clarity. The content community, tech firms and users would all benefit from clear guidance.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:15pm

    Well I guess the argument comes down to "substantial". How many of the bananas consumed globally are used to commit robbery? I'd guess a decimal point followed by a lot of zeroes. Compare that to the instances this work-around will be used for infringement versus non-infringing use and you see the argument fall apart.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Gwiz (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:31pm

      Re:

      Well I guess the argument comes down to "substantial". How many of the bananas consumed globally are used to commit robbery? I'd guess a decimal point followed by a lot of zeroes. Compare that to the instances this work-around will be used for infringement versus non-infringing use and you see the argument fall apart.?

      Not really. The actual words in the Betamax case were "...it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses." Which mean it doesn't actually have to have any actual uses, just to be capable of it.

      And aparently in the Betamax case 9% of noninfinging uses were sufficient:
      "The district court expressly found pervasive librarying activities, and the uncontroverted survey evidence established that 69% to 75% of all Betamax owners maintain large libraries of off-the-air recordings and that the vast majority of programs in those libraries are copyrighted motion pictures.... This same survey shows that less than 9% of all recordings consists of religious (0%), educational (1.6%), and sports (7.3%) programs -- the type of material purportedly owned by most of the limited number of witnesses who testified that they did not object to VTR copying."

      The Supreme Court nevertheless held that the use of the Betamax to record programs authorized for recording, less than 9% of uses, was a substantial noninfringing use sufficient to protect Sony from copyright liability.
      Source: EFF

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 3:49pm

      Re:

      You mean like all forensic tools that are used to image storage devices for later analysis they are all illegal under the DMCA are they not?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 3:50pm

      Re:

      Also you have backup imaging software that is used by all companies that have important data, that is illegal is it not?

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 3:53pm

      Re:

      Dell and all their clients under that assumption are all criminals today.

      https://www.kace.com/land/ar-imaging?land=ar-imaging&ad_group=Imaging&utm_campaign =DACH+English&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&campaign_id=701400000009UzE&gclid=CND ml-rA77ACFdKBfAodugNIwg

      Disk Imaging Tips & Best PracticesRead Dell KACE's Imaging Guide for IT
      EMA Analyst Report

      Proven to simplify computer imaging for IT, saving time and money.

      This 8-page report directly compares Symantec Ghost with Dell KACE's appliance-based approach to imaging, focusing on features and costs.

      Plus, see how intelligent remote disk imaging from an integrated image library enables increased productivity with:

      Remote disk imaging from a central, easy-to-use web-based console
      Centralized image library for easy archiving and management
      "Bare-metal" system build-outs
      Windows and Linux support for imaging
      Train in hours, deploy in one day

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 28th, 2012 @ 7:52am

        Re: Re:

        "Dell and all their clients under that assumption are all criminals today."

        I see your disk imiging and raise you the "copy" function with which I made an unauthorized copy of your statement. Its sole purpose is to duplicate content so efficiently that in the space of a heartbeat I was able to make the following copies:
        1)into my computer's clipboard
        2)into the comment form
        3)when hitting the "preview" button (x2)

        In addition, when I hit "submit",
        5)a copy will be set in a database somewhere
        6) -> ?) every time the page is loaded, I will have caused yet another unauthorized copy to have been made.

        I thereby add to Dell and their customers anyone who has created a web browser, text editor, paint program, or any other piece of software that has a copy/paste function.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:16pm

    *a lot of zeroes and a one*

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    bob, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:21pm

    Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana

    We ban or put limits on many dual-use technologies. Burglar tools, for instance, are illegal to possess in many states. Some locksmithing tools are also illegal to possess in some places. If they're not illegal to have, they become probable cause for search.

    And let's make this more real. Let's say you walked into a bank with a gun. Let's say you take it out or the clerk sees it in your pants. Let's say the clerk sounds the silent alarm and the SWAT team comes in and shoots you. Sure the second amendment protects your right to possess that gun/banana, but I don't think the jury is going to blink when they hear that you were holding a gun in a bank.

    So be careful with this analogy. It actually strengthens the arguments for things like deep packet inspection that target torrent users. Or perhaps ISP users with a usage profile similar to file sharers.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      blaktron (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

      Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana

      I think they are illegal to sell to someone without a license, not possess. Very different.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      :Lobo Santo (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:29pm

      Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana

      And if *EVERYBODY* in the bank had a gun because we didn't live in a hypothetical nanny state where you're not trusted with a banana; then nobody would care about you walking into a bank with a gun.

      Though the guard might glance at you funny if you should take it out and aim it at somebody for no clear reason.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      PlagueSD (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:33pm

      Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana

      And let's make this more real. Let's say you walked into a bank with a gun. Let's say you take it out or the clerk sees it in your pants. Let's say the clerk sounds the silent alarm and the SWAT team comes in and shoots you. Sure the second amendment protects your right to possess that gun/banana, but I don't think the jury is going to blink when they hear that you were holding a gun in a bank.


      You try that in any of the banks in California, you won't even make it IN the bank. You'll trip the metal detector and be stuck in a 3' x 4' room with locked doors and bulletproof glass until the cops show up.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:47pm

        Re: Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana

        Now, I know you're probably making that up - because a metal detector can't tell if it's a gun or some other large metallic object (like say, a bag of coins, a wheelchair, prosthetic leg, etc.).

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      •  
        identicon
        Larry, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 2:27pm

        Re: Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana

        I voted funny on this because "never been to California" or "never been in a bank" weren't options.

         

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      icon
      Beefcake (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:49pm

      Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana

      Except you tried to change the original argument from banning bananas to banning brandishing them. That verb belongs to you, not the original argument. Yes, it may be illegal to use a banana to rob a bank. It is not illegal to own, possess, or consume or banana. Or carry one into a bank.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 3:46pm

      Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana

      In many states it is legal to openly carry and many do even into the bank.
      I used to have a concealed carry permit in California and have gone into my Bank on numerous occasions carrying a .45 under my unzipped jacket.It was plainly visible for anyone looking.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 3:57pm

      Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Spike (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    Thats exactly the point us Canadians were trying to make, yet the Harper government still passed this anti-circumvention abomination into law. The lobbyists keep spouting their propaganda about the "benefits" of TPM's.

    The SCC now has a lot of work on their hands to find this bullshit unconstitutional.

    Harper and his cronies wanted into the TPP so badly that we all got screwed as a result.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Mike Martinet (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:22pm

    A Perfect Merger

    "Just Because A [...] Can Be Used To Rob A Bank, It Doesn't Mean We Ban [...]s

    The NRIAA...

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:25pm

    What happens when someone turns a dildo into a shank to murder someone by stabbing them in the ass.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 1:26pm

    But the problem isn't the banana to the RIAA, it's the banana tree!

    Kill the bananas and you help off the banana tree by stopping it from spreading!

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 2:00pm

    The TSA outlawed nail clippers.... Why can't other smart organizations outlaw similar things

    /s

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Lowestofthekeys (profile), Jun 27th, 2012 @ 2:00pm

    What if you were robbing a bank with a banana, while your hands were also bananas...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO10s_HK6d0

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 2:16pm

    "But all this really highlights is the insanity of the anti-circumvention provision and how it makes perfectly legitimate activity "copyright infringement.""

    Just picking a technical nit. Violating the anticircumvention provisions is an independent ground for liability. It is not "copyright infringement."

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 2:23pm

    more to the point, how can you make a legal copy of the contents of a disc if to do so means circumventing the protection? eg, you can copy the music but you cant get to it because you would have to remove what's stopping you from copying the music. the person who thought this up was more than really clever, he was taking the piss out of everyone, including the judges. considering they are supposed to understand this type of thing, it doesn't bode good for those judges, does it?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 4:10pm

      Re:

      Legally you can't, but aside from that you can bypass DRM in a number of ways in your own home you just can't tell anybody about it or anybody who would denounce you.

      Those laws are just like the ones in Japan, people just keep doing it, they passed the most hilarious laws over there, but everybody is doing Whinny and the police only manage to prosecute a dozen people a year.

      Lets not forget France with Hadopi.

      It reminds me of the South American countries and their bureaucracies, for every single thing you want to do there is a rule somewhere and so people keep using that to extort money from business, that is called corruption there, and apparently the US wants to become a developing nation legally.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 2:42pm

    They are just making any rules they can so that nearly everything on the internet not paid for is illegal.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 4:44pm

    So, because there's a chance that I might do damage to some corporation's rights, that gives the government a 100% chance to do damage to my personal rights through these laws? Fantastic.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    abc gum, Jun 27th, 2012 @ 6:14pm

    Give a man a banana,
    and he can rob a bank.

    Give a man a bank,
    and he can rob the world.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Jun 28th, 2012 @ 1:21am

    Another absurd thing is that copyright infringement is already illegal.

    If someone doesn't care about copyright law then why whould anti curcumvention law be any different?

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Who, me (officer)?, Jun 28th, 2012 @ 7:29am

    Loony Tunz

    When Donovan (Leach) released a spoof pop hit song in the late 1960s titled Mellow Yellow ("electric banana"), a town in Southern California tried to pass a law prohibiting the sale of bananas to anyone under the age of 18. I know; I was there.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Philly Bob (profile), Jun 28th, 2012 @ 1:20pm

    Speaking of bananas...

    Penises can be used for rape so let's castrate every Man...

    This, in turn will help the 1 percenters...
    In time the population will die off leaving only thode who will be able to afford to buy laws exempting them from castration so their families will flourish.

    I say let's beat 'em with a chair...
    Oh shit, they'll make chairs illegal.
    We'll have to stand forever.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    icon
    Sheogorath (profile), Sep 8th, 2012 @ 5:20am

    I know someone who makes music videos and posts them on YouTube as well as selling the music through iTunes and distributing it for free on a website that *really* doesn't like smart phones. So when someone contacts him saying they wanted to download a free copy of one of his songs but can't access the content, he directs them to YouTube audio rippers and tells them they can get it that way. That's an explicit licence to use those tools, so such use is completely non-infringing.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
A word from our sponsors...
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat
A word from our sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our sponsors...

Close

Email This