Two Congressmen Push for DMCA Amendments 488
silicon not in the v writes "Rep Rick Boucher, D-Va, is proposing a bill to amend the DMCA to specifically allow copying digital media for the purpose of personal backups. This is, of course, being fought hard by the content lobbies, most significantly the MPAA for its potential for bootlegging DVDs. Here was my favorite quote: 'There is no right in the copyright law to make backup copies of motion pictures, so the whole argument that people should have the right to make backup copies of DVDs has no legal support whatsoever,' said Fritz Attaway, executive vice president of the MPAA." See also stories from the Associated Press and CNet.
Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Insightful)
Happy Trails!
Erick
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:4, Insightful)
Anyway I would just make a copy on the PC and put the disk in the closet just in case my drive crashes.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:3, Insightful)
Take care,
Erick
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:4, Insightful)
> drop it in the toilet, you expect the publisher to send you a new copy free?
No, because they don't stand in my way of backing up my book.
It's really simple, reading the context of the conversation before posting... but few people bother. -sigh-
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Informative)
Well, I don't know about that. And here's where my understanding of copyright law breaks down.
Section 106 - 106(1) [cornell.edu] states: Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
So this says that the copyright holder's the only person who can make exact copies (barring limitations later defined). Now, we have Fair Use, Section 107 [cornell.edu], which is the most commonly used deflection of the law. In particular, it states that copying is permitted... but not for backup purposes. As a counterpoint, Section 117 [cornell.edu] on Computer Software explicitely states that copying for archival purposes is allowed (Section 117(a)(2)). I have yet to find a similar declaration for books, music, or visual (stillframe or moving) works.
So it seems that, yes, there is a law sayig you can't Xerox your book. In practicality, Xeroxing a whole book is a time-consuming and tedious affair, so it hasn't been hilighted (well, recently, anyway). Digital media is quickly and easily copied, thus all the hooplah.
That said, do I think there should be an amendment stating that making archival copies of any such media should be allowed? Hell yes! I think that's 100% within the right of the consumer. If someone could point out explicitely where is it already a law and prove me wrong, I'd be very grateful.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:4, Insightful)
Further down it lists four factors that shall be concidered in evaluating whether a use is fair. Again, that is merely a list of examples of what to consider, not an exhaustive list. Courts routinely consider other factors as well, anything they feel like concidering.
The the real zinger is the fact that 107 is entirely irrelevant. It could be striken from law with no effect on fair use rights at all. If you dig back through the 1975-1976 congression record the congressmen explicitly stated that 107 was merely intended to acknowledge existing fair use rights, that it was not intended to expand, diminish, or alter them in any way at all.
The problem is that lots of people now mistakenly believe that 107 grants and defines and limits fair use rights. They mistakenly believe that fair use rights can be altered or diminished or revoked simply by re-writing that law. Entirely false.
107 was passed in 1976. Fair use existed before that. In fact much of the extent of fair use had been mapped out by the Supreme Court over the years on constitutional grounds, such as when copyright law comes in conflict with the 1st amendment. When a law comes in conflict with the constitution either that law must be stuck down, or the court must bend over backwards to assume that the law implicitly never actually attempted to restrict what it claims to restrict. That's fair use - copyright law implicitly flees when faced with fair use. If it didn't then it would be an unconstitutional and invalid law.
So it is impossible to reduce or eliminate fair use by altering that law - much of fair use is grounded in the constitution which supersedes that law.
So most people have copyright and fair use ass-backwards. Copyright law does not grant and restrict fair use. Where fair use treads copyright law is entirely swept away. All that 107 really says is "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including [examples] is not an infringement of copyright". Fair use is never infringment, period. All copyright restrictions simply vanish.
-
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:4, Informative)
I'd prefer that they make the discs more resilient in the first place.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh yeah, that is definately against my interests.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:4, Interesting)
When will these companies learn that protecting intellectual property rights in a way that is against the consumers' best interests is not a good way to win friends and influence people?
Furthermore (Score:5, Funny)
(1) using more writeable DVDs will drive up the price of writeable DVDs, and *then* where will you be?
(2) more writeable DVDs will increase the reflective potential of the earth, contributing even further to global dimming
(3) your friends may choose to watch your movies *without you* because, hey, you've got two copies, they only need one, not you.
I for one, applaud the effort of the MPAA to protect our interests, even if they cannot actually make films that can hold them more than 10% of the time.
Re:Furthermore (Score:3, Insightful)
But backups increase prices! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:4, Insightful)
Then you're not a consumer, you're a producer.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:4, Insightful)
How about so I can copy my DVD(s) to my HDD on my laptop so I don't have to carry around a bunch of DVDs which might get lost, stolen, or damaged while traveling?
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Informative)
Before the DMCA anyone could make a backup copy of DVD's legally. The fair use doctrine is simply stated here Fair Use [legal-database.com].
The gist of it is this, does the copy being made have any impact on the copyright holder's ability to make money with the protected work? If I have bought the copy at Wal*Mart and want to copy it on to my HD for my own personal use then that would have been fine before the DMCA. The DMCA makes this copying illegal because DVDs employ a copy protection scheme. If the movie is on a VHS tape then I can still do it. Now, some informed congressmen are attempting to right a wrong when this part of Fair Use was taken away solely because the work was distributed on a DVD.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because it's a law doesn't mean it's not wrong; if you're not willing to question the law then it's open to abuse (such as the DMCA). Your duty as a citizen is to participate in the governing of the country, not to blindly accept everything handed to you. Unless, of course, you live in a shitty country where you aren't afforded reasonable rights. Then it's your own damn fault.
Also, I own maybe 40 DVDs - and I
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Insightful)
So before you go around calling people 'butt breath', check your facts. 'Cause the shit that's coming out of your mouth is far more foul.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyway, the DMCA claims to have not taken away fair use -- it instead disingenuously explicitly protects fair use while making it practically impossible to engage in it without violating the new statutes.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Insightful)
wtf?
The MPAA needs to stop running around like chicken little, crying about technology ennabling people to do things they don't approve of, because that's a given and they aren't going to get anywhere with it - instead, it's time to screw on the thinking caps and figure out how to make money in the new technology world.
This is their business model! (Score:5, Insightful)
At least that is how my 2 yr old viewed it when she 'put the movie in' between the DVD player and the TiVo and scratched up Finding Nemo.
Good night she can whine more than a slashdot user that doesn't RTFA... so we have two copies of Nemo because I can legitimately back the thing up
Re:This is their business model! (Score:3)
Don't toss a scratched DVD (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Don't toss a scratched DVD (Score:5, Funny)
Re:This is their business model! (Score:3, Insightful)
Who said we LET them near our equipment?
My two year old woke up early, snuck out the dog doors (one from the kitchen, one from the garage), scaled a chain link fence, and went chasing after his cat in nothing but his underwear.
You don't LET them do anything. Try to stop them. And over time you gradually become accustomed to the fact that if you own something precious, THEY WILL FUCK IT UP.
That's why I have six external Fireware hard drives hooked up to a server with a tera
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Funny)
"Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaa! That's what you think mere mortal! Wait until I re-re-re-release the original trilogy with 8.5 seconds of additional Ewok footage, 26 additional seconds of ending credits, AND 2 cantina shots with digitially modified whiskers on the third alien at the back table!"
"You will submit to my marketing prowess! You cannot resist the power of the marketing side!"
-George Lucas
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Insightful)
That's my pet peeve with the music and movie (and to some extent proprietary software) industries. What am I paying for when I buy a CD or DVD? If it is a license to their intellectual property, then I darn well have the right to copy and use it anyway I like, including downloading digital copies of vinyl originals. If it's the physical media with a particular series of bits, then it should come with a warranty and I should be able to copy it - if I buy a car and machine the parts to create an exact replica, Chevy can't come after me for that. If it's both, then they should replace the media for a nominal fee if it is damaged, since I have already paid for the intellectual property component.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:3, Informative)
Wrong.
Every Chevy car has patents stamped all over the place. You can not just look at the design of the car and make your own copy out of a raw materials. Well, you will probably get away with making it, but not selling it. However, you can always license all the patents, usually by bying the components from GM.
Re:Back me up on "backing up" (Score:5, Interesting)
How come movie companies don't do this; replace damaged discs?
Did I buy the disc, or did I buy a license to make personal use of the movie on the disc, and the disc is just the transport mechanism?
An EFF View of "Fair Use" (Score:5, Informative)
There is no right in the copyright law to make backup copies of motion pictures, so the whole argument that people should have the right to make backup copies of DVDs has no legal support whatsoever
EFF has this to say on the issue:
Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:
* Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)
* Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.
(Emphasis mine)
So, the issue is not completely settled, yet. Let's hope that legislation such as those proposed can help settle this matter and take the MPAA down a notch.
Source: http://eff.org/IP//eff_fair_use_faq.html [eff.org]
More Info: http://eff.org/IP/ [eff.org]
Josh.
Re:An EFF View of "Fair Use" (Score:5, Insightful)
first, why does it matter whether the right was previously in copyright law? Wouldn't the point of the new law be to do just that?
Second, what is not illegal is legal. It would be nice to have a law explicitly protecting copies for valid purposes, but I would settle for repealing the law that currently makes this a crime.
It's kind of a bizarre setup we have, let me see if I get this straight:
1) Copy music CDs for personal use: legal
2) Copy game CDs for personal use: illegal
2) Copy TV shows for personal use: legal
3) Copy DVDs for personal use: illegal
Please correct me if I'm wrong!
Re:An EFF View of "Fair Use" (Score:5, Informative)
In the 1909 Copyright ammendment, there was a stipulation that regulated ANY copies of copyrighted work. Before this the law only covered any copies that were either published or distributed. So, instead of having unregulated rights to create personal copies, there is a fair use right to have the ability to create a backup of copyrighted work.
Here is where it gets interesting, they found a loophole in the copyright act in reguards to digital content - according to the copyright "owners" when you access something that is in digital content, whether it be a DVD, mp3 file, Internet webpage, software program, etc. The device changing it from digital into something that a person can view must make a copy of the digital content "in memory" in order to process the content.
So when you watch a DVD movie, the DVD player reads the encrypted digital content from the disk, converts it into something that will be output to the TV (making a copy). Thus, when you make a copy of a DVD, the player would then make a copy of a copy which is not legal unless given permission from the content owner (fat chance).
If you want an in depth explanation of this read the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig (www.free-culture.cc).
As far as I can understand, this is the only way software companies can get away with bypassing copyright law and use EULAs when distributing their software with all sorts of restrictions, some even un-constitutional (allowing search and seizure with a court order).
Anyway, until the Copyright Act includes unregulated copying to allow viewing of the copyright contents, I believe the courts would probably rule that you cannot make a backup of a Digital work, just because everyone is so worried about the letter of the law instead of the intent of the law.
Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Boucher (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's because he's not a well paid off lapdog like DMCA originator Orrin Hatch who so far this year has taken over $157,000 from the TV/Music/Movies industry [opensecrets.org] (It's only May for crying out loud!)
Insert Jack Valenti "Boston Strangler" reference here.
Re:Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Bouc (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Bouc (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe praying will get something accomplished -- I doubt it, but it can't have worse odds.
Daniel
[0] note: Santorum may actually have been opposed, but most of the races on the ballot were unopposed and I can't remember which were which two years later...
Re:Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Bouc (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Bouc (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Bouc (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiots in management, AGAIN (Score:5, Informative)
Copyright law defines what we can't do, not what we can do. If a "right" isn't defined, then it is assumed to be legal. This guy needs a swirly.
You're Confused (Score:5, Insightful)
Please stop thinking you can do anything besides work, sleep, and consume; it's making the others think twice.
Any more from you and it's off to Guantanamo for state-enforced vacation.
Have a nice day! And watch that parcel!
Re:Idiots in management, AGAIN (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright law says "owner gets to decide who makes copies."
Fair Use is a legislative or judicial allowance for copyright infringement. When I quote your book in a review of said book, I'm committing copyright infringement--it's just legal infringement.
For copyright, only those exceptions to the right to decide who can make copies which can be argued in court are the ones we have.
This is a fundamentally necessary aspect of our law. Liberty means nothing without accountability and freedom. Ergo,
Re:Idiots in management, AGAIN (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, this is not the case. "legal infringement" is contradictory, as infringement WRT copyright law means illegal. If a copy is decided to be "fair use", then it is by definition not infringement.
Re:Idiots in management, AGAIN (Score:3, Informative)
Your lawyer says "You copied, and that's infringement, so I want XXX penalties."
My lawyer says "ok, we copied. But it's Fair Use, so even though it's infringement, it's OK. Move for dismissal."
Unle
Re:Idiots in management, AGAIN (Score:4, Insightful)
Fair Use isn't not-infringement. It's justifiable infringement.
Sorry, but that's not correct either. The act is homicide, the crime is "justifiable homicide". In the case of copyright law, the act is copying, the crime is "copyright infringement".
Please, read the Title 17, Ch 1, Sec 107 of the US Code [cornell.edu] where it defines fair use. The very definition of the term in US law states that "fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright."
It might help you to see the definition of infringement [reference.com]. There is no such thing as "legal infringement", as the phrase essentially means "legal lawbreaking".
Re:Idiots in management, AGAIN (Score:4, Funny)
You're new here[*], aren't you?
[*] Slashdot or America. Take your pick.
Re:Wait wait, I didn't realize... (Score:3, Insightful)
Fritz Attaway, executive vice president of the MPAA
This is the idiot in management. We also have plenty of idiots in management of our government, considering the fact that the DMCA exists.
Lastly, if anyone can express something in two lines that resonates true with the rest of the crowd, it should be admired. It's much better than having some incredibly long-winded rant that resolves to the same sentiment.
Contempt for their customers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Rick Boucher (Score:5, Interesting)
This isn't going anywhere... (Score:4, Interesting)
-Isaac
How is this an issue of copyright? (Score:3, Insightful)
The DMCA is broken. Rep. Boucher isn't trying to change copyright law, he's trying to fix a broken amendment.
Re:This isn't going anywhere... (Score:4, Interesting)
Committee "jurisdiction" not relevant (Score:3, Informative)
The Rules Committee can shuffle a bill to any n
Vocal (Score:5, Insightful)
House [house.gov]
Senate [senate.gov]
We need to show them that this is something that people care about. Sure we dont have Disney dollars, but we can still make some noise.
Re:Vocal (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're too lazy|busy|whatever to write your own letter, here's [eff.org] your source for the click-to-send version. Sure, it's probably not as good as writing your own, but it's way better than doing nothing. (I do wish the EFF would give me a way to tell them I'd written, without forcing me to use their form letter.)
For extra credit, vote with your wallet: put a donation in an envelope and send it to Rep. Boucher along with a thank-you note. A Slashdot's worth of $5 donations might be an interesti
Self-Destructing Media? (Score:5, Insightful)
Consider that a disk that runs the risk of being easily scratched (whatever happened to those "indestructable CDs" that we heard about so much in the 80's?) should be able to be backed up... one would think.
OR they should have some sort of process where, if you have a CD or DVD that is scratched and you can't play, you can send it in and for FREE get another copy. You purchased the "license" for it, after all.
But wait, I forget. They'd rather have media that slowly self-destructs over time or use so that every 10 years (or less) you need to rebuy your collection. Backups are for wussies after all! :)
Either way, I want a product that lasts if I'm going to pay good money for it. If it's not going to last, I want to be able to make a backup of it so that my "investment" isn't lost.
(Wait, I'm sorry, this is the proverbial "choir" right? ;) )
Re:Self-Destructing Media? (Score:3, Informative)
From the Disney website [go.com]:
Not free, but better than nothing!
Re:Self-Destructing Media? (Score:3, Insightful)
What a bargain -- a whole $2 less than the discount bin DVD's that are being sold at a loss. I bet that's "shipping & handling" extra, too.
Having tried to obtain replacements for damaged media, I can guarantee you'll eventually run into everyone's favourite problem: out of stock. No longer in pressing/print. We can sell you the new extended edition for only double the price, but that's not a replacement so it's not free or discounted.
Valenti vs Lessig again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just more Valenti FUD. If you want to limit "piracy" why not write better tools instead of making it a crime to alter your own hardware. I also didn't realize that hacking was illegal... Is the American public really dumb enough to believe the only purpose of DVD copies is to profit?
Appropriate name (Score:4, Funny)
Why is it that the name Fritz Attaway just seems like what an executive VP from the MPAA should be named. If this were a fictional movie, you'd be hardpressed to come up with a better name.
Enough! (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm a die hard Red Hot Chilli Peppers fan and, befora I had a CD recorder, I ruined 2 original copies of one of their albuns.
Recently, I ruined the third. This time, I had the recorder but was too damn lazy or stupid to have made a backup.
I dare any law enforcement agency to arrest me for getting their MP3 out of the Internet when I have 3 useless original CD casings!!! If that's not fair use, call me unfair!!!
Wow (Score:4, Interesting)
Gee, what a CRAZY idea, that I actually have the right to watch the $24.99 DVD I bought. For whatever reason, Macrovision absolutely owns my TV, even on legally purchased DVDs (the high and low color changes on Futurama were UN-friggin-believable). I already have to rip and re-burn them just to watch them, or use a macro-scrubber. This is a step in the right direction. Maybe someday I'll be able to watch the originals.
Begging the question (Score:5, Insightful)
In the context of a proposed change to a law, the fact that the law does not specifically enumerate a right today is the matter in question... is not proof that no such right ought to be specifically added.
For those who post using the term "begs the question" to means that a question is merely raised, please take note. Begging the question is the logical fallacy where the matter at hand is assumed to be true (or in the favor the arguing party desires) and then taken as accepted fact.
In this case, it's OBVIOUS that copyright law doesn't specifically mention the right to make backup copies of DVDs. If it did, the discussion at hand would not be whether to make an amendment to add such a clause. Trying to use this obvious fact that such language is missing today, without any other reasoning, as ground that is should not be added is a clear case of begging the question.
Begs the question of when to quit ;-) (Score:3, Insightful)
The legitimate reason to be a bit of a usage nazi is this: when people misuse a phrase, it becomes unusable for its original purpose. This impovershes the language.
However, at a certain point, the battle is lost. When you ha
DVD playing under Linux (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:DVD playing under Linux (Score:3, Informative)
Certainly! As I understood the executive summary of the bill, it covers what your average slashdotter would consider "fair use" i.e. making backups but also converting the media to another format or decrypting it for personal use.
There is a well-worded form letter [eff.org] that you can fill out and have emailed or faxed to your US Representative urging them to support the bill. (Automated to
MPAA's right, but also wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a half accurrate statement (the best kind). In the copyright law iself, if read word for word, and taken literally, there's no right explicity granted for backups...which is why we have a judicial system, to interpret the meaning of the law from the text. IIRC, there have been numerous judicial rulings on the right of people to make backup copies of the movies they buy.
It's suprising that the MPAA, which relys so heavily on the judicial system to enforce these laws, would then so conveniently forget it exists when neccessary to make a point.
I've got some laws right here: (Score:5, Funny)
That's correct (Score:3, Funny)
This is technically correct, but seems to be worded for Slashdot readers rather than a more appropriate audience.
Backing up vs. Piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
The RIAA and MPAA need to realize that there is nothing wrong with making a backup copy of something. It is the way the world works-- important things are archived and backed up. I do think that allowing backups does lend itself to piracy, but that is a side-effect that will not go away. People will pirate movies and music no matter what you do. You have to allow for people to make copies of things they have already purchased personal rights to, because you can't guarantee that that movie or CD will last forever (in fact, we know they won't). DRM attempts to nullify this to a degree by allowing (mostly) songs at this point to be kept in digital format, but they limit the amount of copies that can be made. I think that is ridiculous as well-- if I want to make 10 copies of a CD I should be allowed to with no questions asked. I want one for the CD players in my bathroom, bedroom, home office, basement, kitchen, car, bike, office, and hell I want one as a frisbie.
But they disagree with us, and they will be the ones winning unless more people like Rep Rick Boucher take the plate for the "little guys."
Re:Backing up vs. Piracy (Score:3, Informative)
So no, the ~$18.50 is not all going to the studio. Some of that goes to the retail outlet where you purchased it, some went to the warehouse which stored it, some went to the distributor who shipped it to the warehouses across the nation . .
All in all, probably only 1/4 to 1/3 of the retail price of a DVD goes back to the original production
Re:Backing up vs. Piracy (Score:3, Insightful)
Legislation requiring easy DVD decoding and copying will help the average consumer. In terms of piracy, I don't think the MPAA is really worried about you buying a disc and giving a copy to your friend. They're worried about the guys that push out a couple thousand discs a day through automated machines and sell them...
Those guys are wil
Solved in Audio Recording. Why not home video? (Score:5, Informative)
I am pretty sure there is another law out there that states basically, "Once its inside your home, you can do what ever you want." It may have been court ruling as well. If you want to make a copy for every CD/DVD player in your home, it should be legal. If not, I am pretty damn sure it comes close under "fair use" clause.
Now selling those copies on the street corner is illeagal in anyone's book. And giving buddy Joe a copy also boarders on that as well.
I think their biggest fear is of people renting the movie and making a copy. However this practice has been in play for years with VCRs. One of my friends still has the double decker VCR just for that purpose.
Re:Solved in Audio Recording. Why not home video? (Score:3, Informative)
EFF and DMCRA (Score:5, Informative)
This bill not only allows for making backups, but would require that copy protected so-called CD's be properly labeled as such, and would allow people who own encrypted media (say, a DVD) to bypass the copy protection in order to view it (say, in GNU/Linux).
Next I suppose (Score:3, Insightful)
My Visual BASIC 3.0 floppy disks suffered from bit-rott, and are unusable. I was going to make a old 386 with WFW 3.11 and MS-DOS 6.22 with VB 3.0 to develop 16 bit apps, but that is impossible now.
Because people cannot legally make a backup of the videos they buy, many are forced to losing a DVD that got ruined by a scratch. So they either rent the DVD or download a copy of it off of a file sharing network.
I have seen the DVD backup software, it tells the viewer that they are viewing a copy and has the web address of the company that made the DVD backup software when a copied DVD is viewed.
Maybe we should have open sourced movies now?
Re:Next I suppose (Score:3, Informative)
Well, there's an explicit exception in the copyright law for doing this. There's no corresponding explicit exception for movies. For making backups of DVDs, you'd have to depend on fair use or squeezing the DVDs under the definition of "computer programs" per section 117.
A simple solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Attaway, if you don't want consumers to exercise their fair use rights to backup "motion pictures" then simply stop selling "motion pictures" to consumers
Rights my 4$$ (Score:3, Insightful)
There was also no right to prevent people from making backups.
They want all the advantages of electronic media, but want to outlaw a basic feature of it - easy replication. VHS didn't result in their worst nightmares as predicted, but digital media in an age of high bandwidth has. Just revert to the old model of not selling or renting movies to the public. Keep them in theaters where you can control them.
Commoditization will fix all this (Score:3, Insightful)
Making movies and music has gotten easier due to advancing technology. It won't be long before home technology is as good as what major studios can afford. This will leave the large players with two advantages in the business: marketing acumen and a big head start. The majors' current business practices of control and exclusivity will be irrelevant and the whole copyright hysteria will disappear.
For those who think I'm way offbase, read about the automobile industry's early days. Auto technology used to be heavily protected information over which bloody battles were fought; now it is heavily documented for whomever wants to buy a manual. The automakers make money by using and marketing the technology well, not by hiding it.
More important things... (Score:3, Interesting)
The law will be tempered, eventually. Once the economy gets back to growing and we can focus are attention away from war we can take another look copyright law. Now's not the time.
Copyright is a law of restrictions, not allowances (Score:5, Insightful)
I am sitting here readding 'Free Culture' and this Gem pops up on
It is nice to see the MPAA is rewritting the foundations of the Constitution for us. Makes me believe in big, bad, heartless, corporations out to get us all. The copyright law is a law of restrictions on works. The law lists restrictions on the use and copying of copyrighted works. It does not list all allowed uses of copyright works. It was origionally intended to allow publishers a limited monopoly on a work for a limited time (14 years renewable twice). Big lobby's have gotten this to be extended to 75 years retroactive. And in 15 years when Micky Mouse(c) is ready to go public domain again, I bet that will be expanded to 95 years.
Now this is where things get really scary. We have a law that restricts the copying of works for a time but allows for 'fair use'. With the advent of technology some of these 'fair use' cases which used to be expensive to do are much easier. (so are many of the non-fair use, but Im not talking about those). In order to limit this fair use, big media is using technology to try to make it hard (CSS/marcovision/etc) to make a personal copy etc. Unfortunatly for them, technology adapts faster than their outdated thinking. So they loby for new law, the DMCA. This makes it Illegal to circumvent the technology used to make it hard to use copyright materials which you paid for in a 'fair-use' way which is permitted under copyright law! Its a Meta-Law.
Some people in Congress seem to have caught on that this is not in the public's best intrest and are trying to fix the problem by saying that obvious fair use is indeed legal. Now this [censored] comes out and says that because copyright law does not expressly allow for this type of digital fair use, it has no legal merit? The copyright law doesnt expressly allow me to use the book I bought as a doorstop. It doesn't expressly allow the giving said book to another person after reading it. Or the DVD I bought to another person after watching it. It does not even expressly allow me to READ copyrighted material! These are fair use! Copyright law explicitly restricts and implicitly allows.
So If I am to follow the MPAA's train of thought I should not be allowed to do anything that the Constitution and its ammendments does not expressly allow. I hope they all follow this bright new intrepretation of the law and all stop breathing (it says the right to live, not breath).
Congress is a farce (Score:3, Insightful)
The entire 'career legislature ' concept is wrong. These people are only out for their own personal agendas / interests and have NO concern for their constituents wishes.. If they were actually listing to us out here in 'fly over land', then this wouldn't even be a topic up for discussion. Nor would most of the absolute ludicrous laws they enact to restrict our freedoms, and keep themselves in power, even exist in the first place.
This country was founded on the needs of the people, not the government. Its about time we take back our country from these people.
Ok, rant over. Move along, nothing more to see here.
I propose another law (Score:4, Insightful)
I. Both hands shall be cut off from every person over the age of 12. This will prevent people from being able to physically do the act of breaking copywrite law.
II. Both eyes shall be removed from every person over the age of 12. This will prevent people from breaking copywrite law via viewing copywrited material.
III. Both ears shall be cut off from every person over the age of 12. This will prevent people from breaking copywrite law via hearing copywrited material.
My take (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it written in the law that I have the right to breath air? Since it doesn't say that, I guess I do not have this legal right. The law is a restricting agent - it tells people what they can and cannot do - but if it doesn't explicitly mention something then it is up to the individual to determine what they want to do.
University techs are felons, but profs aren't?!? (Score:5, Insightful)
The DMCA should have been named "Consumers License the Right to View Content vs. Own Content Act". Maybe then more people would see that their rights are being eroded. Are they going to wait until Maytag starts selling subscription service to keep food cold or Craftsman sells hammers that can only be used with their nails? Cars that only run on Ford approved gas? HDTV that can't be recorded or TiVo'ed?
What is it going to take for Average Joe American to realize Big Co's really own all his stuff? I completely support this legislation and I hope every
iPod played a roll (Score:3, Interesting)
On Wednesday the Rocklin Republican pulled his iPod from his pocket and used it as a weapon in his battle to amend copyright laws by removing limitation on copying audio and video compact discs and DVDs for personal use.
-bs
No right for backup DVDs? (Score:3, Insightful)
Now I wish I kept the link. Years ago I was reading up on the fair use laws and noticed the Supreme Court had decided we are entitled to an archival copy of our media (I believe that was how they put it). This was before DVD's really took off. CD's were around however (data and music). The ruling basically was we were either given a backup copy for a nominal charge (usually around $5 or so) or allowed to make a copy of the product we purchased. Since we now know that CD's and DVD's have issues (not industructable), we need this even more.
Every one of my CD's at home is a copy from an original master (Yes.. I own the master btw). My kids have either lost the copy or destroyed it (they are kids after all). I was able to simply make another copy and be done with it. Now I'm faced with loosing out on my investment for whatever reason and they expect people to pay full price for it again? I have a problem with that.
I have been making copies of my DVD's for personal use. The master goes into a nice safe place away from the kids. The movies are still available. I'm happy, kids happy and the MPAA has their money. I don't see the problem.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Interesting)
I think it's been established that the only reason why MS isn't doing the same thing is that they'd rather have the customer base. Let the pirates have their free copy, it just perpetuates the
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Insightful)
"it's illegal and they're still doing it, we must have remote control of their hardware to protect our property from being misused and uphold the rule of law"
also, first they came for the Jews... etc.
Re:What am I missing? (Score:5, Insightful)
DVD's have built in copy protection systems which under the DMCA are illegal to bypass, as it is quite unlikely that a single person is going to spend the time reverse engineering the system to find a way around it and then keep such info to themselves, the MPAA fears wide spread dissemination of info on how to bypass the copy protection (also illegal under the DMCA).
Their logic is that if they can make lock picking tools illegal and it a capital offence to be caught with such a tool, or even explaining how they work, then they feel they are protecting their homes from being broken into.
Logically though this is as flawed as the whole "lets just ban guns" argument because ultimately "then only the criminals will have guns", restricting access to programs/info/etc which CAN be used to copy a DVD is not inherently bad, it is what can be done with it that scares the *bleep* out of the MPAA and what they are ultimately trying to stop. However it is far easier to try to ban all baseball bats then it is to try to keep a few people here and there from beating someone to death with one.
The sometimes long arm of the law (Score:3, Insightful)
AFIAK, MS does not currently engage in the active practice of pursuing *individual* pirates. But they do occasionally take an interest in those individuals and/or businesses/groups who pirate for profit and those w
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Informative)
from MS [microsoft.com], referring to XP
"Can I make a second copy of my Windows operating system software for my portable computer?"
"The End-User License Agreement (EULA) for many Microsoft application software products contains the following sentence: "The primary user of the computer on which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is installed may make a second copy for his or her exclusive use on a portable computer." If your EULA contains this sentence, then, subject to the conditions mentioned
Re:What am I missing? (Score:3, Insightful)
Civil disobedience must be PUBLIC (Score:5, Insightful)
That's a bit of a stretch. There's a strong case to be made for taking a stand based on disobedience. Rosa Parks was breaking the law, doesn't mean she wasn't a "true patriot."
I have the utmost respect for those patriots (yes, there's that word again) who care so much about getting a law changed that they commit acts of PUBLIC civil disobedience and face the consequences. Making an illegal copy of a DVD in the privacy of your own home DOES NOT COUNT as civil disobedience and do not, for a second, try to convince yourself that you are "striking a blow against the evil corporations on behalf of Everyman." Anyone who makes these copies is no different than a little boy trying to sneak peeks at his father's Playboy collection without being caught.
If you guys take the step of performing your illegal copying right in the presence of police or Jack Valenti or someone like that, then feel free to compare your efforts to what Rosa Parks did. Not before.
GMD
Re:There is no reason to back up media (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:There is no reason to back up media (Score:4, Informative)