DMCA Loophole For Peer-to-Peer TV Show Sharing? 371
An anonymous reader writes "Fortune.com asks, "Is TV Show Swapping Legal? For those using TiVos or new Windows PCs, it just might be." Why? "The law that ensnared ... DVD hackers, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, doesn't specifically address the question of [personal video recorders]. But when it comes to the legality of hacking digital media, the law zeroes in on 'circumvention' -- did hackers have to circumvent protection to copy the video? Several hackers who have published their techniques online say they didn't have to crack anything to extract video from their TiVos""
What's the big deal about show swapping? (Score:5, Insightful)
DMCA Loophole? What about a copyright loophole? (Score:5, Insightful)
Feel free to celebrate this loophole though - but perhaps you should read the chapter in 'The Hobbit' entitled "Out of the Frying Pan, Into the Fire".
there is that whole (Score:4, Insightful)
Trading copies of the program(regardless of medium) to people is a copyright violation.
sure, you can record a show for your own use, but not for distribution.
The DMCA is not the whole story (Score:5, Insightful)
Point missed (Score:2, Insightful)
Digital or not, copying copyrighted content without the consent of the copyright holder (beyong fair use) is illegal.
Hollywood is already going after people who share digitaly captured content from analog signal (no circumvention device used) using the DMCA and other copyright laws.
The fact that you don't circumvent protection mechanism does not allow you to share (beyong fair use) copyrighted material without the holder consent.
Re:Time limits (Score:3, Insightful)
But there's the loophole again. Play it back through a PC with a capture card and goodbye limited life time.
This is the problem with limited life DVDs, it makes it no more difficult for some (evil - RIAA rep) person to rip it and copy it. That only takes 40mins or so and one read pass.
Circumvention (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:DMCA Loophole? What about a copyright loophole? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can't even show a TV broadcast in a public place without proper written permission, according to current copyright law, let alone record and redistribute the the content...
So what if it is shared (Score:4, Insightful)
Fishy (Score:3, Insightful)
Another suspected 'plant' I've seen lately in the media is the idea that "consumers may soon have to may for things they used to get for free" (ie. making copies of media). Well, that is an interesting spin, because consumers never got that for 'free'; they payed for the product, and they knew that included the ability to copy it, it wasn't an unexpected bonus.
Because it's DIGITAL (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, though, the governments and corporations of the world have taken advantage of us by pawning off all these "digital" versions of laws that are already in place. This is why the EFF keeps fighting it, and why everyone should too.
Re:What's the big deal about show swapping? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the big deal about show swapping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Though I do agree that the business model must change, it's not as easy for an executive to see that. The status quo is what makes them money, they don't want to change.
Good Commercials (Score:1, Insightful)
Wake up marketing people! Wake up!
Re: What's the big deal about show swapping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, keep in mind many advertisements are time based, due to store hours. What good would a burger king commercial do at 2:00 in the morning? All the burger kings are closed. So they need to make sure they get airtime while their open, and especially around eating times. If they can't be assured that their marketing plan is executed in a timely and proper basis, they won't pay up for adverts.
It's always more interesting than it seems... (Score:3, Insightful)
But this does not mean that a mechanism for sharing TIVO files digitally would be lawful, or that any particular sharing would be lawful -- any more than it means that a VCR tape copy made of a movie may be freely shared (it can't be). If someone contributes to the infringement of another, and there is no substantial noninfringing use, there may be liabliity in the contributor as well -- in most every case, the TiVo user who swaps files is very likely an infringer of Copyright.
In short, the devil is in the details, and there is no meaningful TiVo exception to the Copyright Act. That the DMCA might not apply (and it probably does not unless the original content were encoded in some manner) is beside the point, they might get you the same way they got Napster -- straightforward and good old-fashioned claims of copyright infringement.
Re:Point missed (Score:3, Insightful)
However, the person who made the box, provided the feature, or wrote a piece of software to get data out of a Tivo (ExtractStream) to the best of my knowledge did not themselves infringe existing copyright law. That's why the DMCA is relevant. Contributory infringement, admittedly, already existed, but there is a redline test involving "primary purpose or effect". The DMCA doesn't require any such test to be applied if "circumvention" has occured (no this isn't a formal legal analysis, just my current recollection).
Re:there is that whole (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's the big deal about show swapping? (Score:5, Insightful)
Very lame? I know the
I don't think commercial skipping should be made illegal, but you have to understand that your actions have consequences. If everyone is skipping the ads, free TV is going to go away. Either you'll be forced to watch ads (like the unskipable previews on some DVDs) or you'll have to pay for your TV programming (e.g. HBO). There are no other solutions.
Personally, I'd like to see TiVo stay a cult item so I can "cheat" the advertisers with mine while the rest of you suckers foot the bill.
But you could make your case to Ad Agencies (Score:4, Insightful)
I.e., imagine Stan and Kyle drinking Pepsi and belching. Or Cartman eating Hormel Beans and... well, you get the idea.
.
This violates several laws (Score:5, Insightful)
While the second of these is speculative, the first can and has been used to prosecute warez folks so I have no doubt the Justice Department of John Ashcroft would use it should entertainment companies begin wailing about TV piracy.
Re:there is that whole (Score:3, Insightful)
People have argued this both ways, but your interpretation seems to be losing.
Besides most TV shows are broadcast across the airwaves making them public domain, since anyone could intercept them.
No. That's not how copyright law works.
Basicly everyone has a license to view TV programming.
To view it, but not to redistribute it.
Re:Screw Tivo (Score:3, Insightful)
The detectors just simply try to pick up what the strong signal from the tv.(Which btw means they also know what channel you are watching).
Re:there is that whole (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the networks will have a tough time litigating this one beacause, you pay for the shows (yes, I pay adelphia for the shows, I dont pay for "service". They dont advertise great HBO *service*, they advertise HBO SHOWS. If the electric company worked the same way, I would be paying for the power poles and not the electrons.) Second of all, if a show is on in my area I *could* have recorded it and that would have been legal. Now for people who dont subscribe to cable, that might be a different story.
Re:What's the big deal about show swapping? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ooooh, how I HATE them. It's one thing to hit me with ads for something I'm essentially getting for free (TV) but to put 'em in front of a movie I've paid for is extremely annoying. Our economy is becoming more and more entrenched in "Free=advertising, cost=no advertising" land, which is fine, but it makes violations of this 'agreement' stick out like a sore thumb.
Triv
Re:there is that whole (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:One huge hole (Score:4, Insightful)
Again, I don't understand this argument. There is nothing forcing you to read the adverts in magazines, newspapers, billboards. TV has only been different because that is the way the technology worked. This is no longer the case and they need to get over that fact.
and don't get harrassed by it if I have a ripped vcd or mpeg of it.
Kind of ironic, isn't it. Saying that, I can't imagine anyone saying, "bugger, can't watch it then, better bin it" after seeing the warning on a pirate.
Personally, I bought a hardware DVD player with a chip to disable the "user prohibitions" features. No macrovision (use my VCR to convert the composite out to RF, fed around the house) and of course, multi-region. Bliss!! Moral of the story...research before you buy. :-)
Re:there is that whole (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes. Yes. No. No. No. It really isn't tricky: The courts have said you may make a copy of a TV broadcast for timeshifting or spaceshifting for personal use only. Heck, remember the MP3.com case: A judge said that MP3.com couldn't distribute digital copies of a CD even to people who verifiably owned the CD (and thus were entitled to making their own copies).
Come on! (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know who got the idea that the issue with p2p was circumvention. The issue with p2p was straight-up copyright violation, illegal for well over a century prior to the DMCA. The issue with
Re:What's the big deal about show swapping? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's About Reruns, too. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:my four ha'pennies... (Score:4, Insightful)
You can make comparisons and analogies to open source software all you want, but it doesn't make it anymore true (or +5 Interesting). While both television shows and open source software are (usually) under copyright, that doesn't mean they both have the same rules to cover distribution. Open Source software (at least under the GPL) is allowed to be distributed by anyone because that is what the original author, who owns the copyright, has allowed under their license. The owners of copyrights of television shows have not released their shows under the same license.
Also, as is been mentioned on several of the other threads, you have the legal right to make your own copy of a broadcast television show and timeshifing, but you have no legal right to distribute that show to anyone else.
Re:What's the big deal about show swapping? (Score:2, Insightful)
I see a parallel here to the P2P music swapping debate. If a TV broadcaster / network produces something that people want to pay for, they will. If they produce quality shows in a way that the customer finds convenient (unlike the Nickelodeon example) that offers benefits which outweigh TV show swapping, people will fork over the money for it. I'd be one of them.
My Valenti Impressions (Score:5, Insightful)
Hence, the fear of digital.
Geriatric Jack "Maddog
He doesn't get what's going on. His staff does, but he's the spokesperson, and he's not a very good one. Valenti is much more interesting -- and actually engaging -- when he talks about his time in the Kennedy (that's right, JFK) White House.
But this digital stuff -- and the fear that Valenti loves to spread -- just doesn't resonate when Valenti is doing the talking. He's like some old guy talking about "The Pink Floyd" while watching a PF video and then pointing, saying, "Is that Pink? Is that guy Pink?"
He's the sort of guy that would do the much-maligned "Funky White Guy" dance -- squinting, sorta pursing his lips, lifting his hands, and trying to shake once or twice to the beat. It's not only not effective, but it's not funny. It's abymsal, in fact, and that's exactly the sort of aura that Valenti projects among the 20/30/early 40 crowd -- at least when he's doing his public speaking thing.
People look at him and have this: "Is this guy for fucking real?" look. We all clap politely but know nothing's gonna change until he takes his retirement, leases that new Lexus, and heads out to Tuscon or Phoenix or Palm Desert or wherever has-beens go to relax and prune-out.
The other issue -- at least when I saw him speak -- was the fact that Valenti was talking about digital copying as if it were a fate worse than terrorism. I mean, for fuck's sake, let's be real.
The neo-Islamo-fascist weapons trade is serious.
Kim "Look at my lofty bouffant hair-do" Il-Jung proliferating his plutonium and U-235 is serious.
Angry Chechen mobsters with lead-lined cannisters that are warm to the touch are serious.
But a copy of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" -- even if it's a perfect copy -- is not serious.
Yes, yes, I understand that a good portion of media America is concerned and worried about "proliferation" of perfect copies. But believe me, that same group of Italian-suit-wearing-hire-me-a-nice-young-intern-
And the other issue with Valenti is that the word "compromise" is simply not in his vocabulary. Several folks asked him about whether or not he could find a "happpy medium" and his response was always, no, digital copies must be protected. Period.
So he didn't score any points -- at least not with me and booze-whores I hang out with.
You do NOT license DVDs! You OWN them. (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless you're buying your DVDs somewhere strange, you don't have a license to anything. You own a single legal copy of the movie as encoded onto the DVD. There is no license either granting you additional freedoms or taking freedoms away from you. You are free to use the DVD however you like, within the limits of copyright law. You are free to watch it, destroy it, sell it, give it away, and loan it out without any license needed, just like a VHS tape, a CD, a book, or a magazine. Assuming you can get around the Macrovision and CSS without violating the DMCA, you're even free to make copies for personal use. Copyright law does places some limitations on behavior, including prohibitions on distributing copies of the work and publically perform/show/broadcast it. (The DMCA part of copyright law effectively bans software capable of breaking the encryption on DVDs.)
The idea that you need a license of some sort to make personal use of copyright protected content is wrong. Many copyright based businesses are spreading this erroneously idea because it increases their effective power. Don't buy into it!
(The claim that a publisher can use a click-through license on software is based on some very shaky assumptions and still lacks a good national test case. Any attempt to spread such behavior to DVDs or other media would likely fail miserably.)
Um. They did have to hack. (Score:2, Insightful)
I would consider heavy reverse engineering of an unpublished disk format, installing custom software by circumventing the measures they have in place to prevent that, and violating the Terms of Service to extract video equivalent to "cracking" or "hacking" - no matter how you define those terms.
And they say they didn't have to crack anything...