Slashdot Mirror

The Home Recording Rights Coalition has a blurb on it at http://www.hrrc.org/index.php?id=133&subid=2. The language comes from the WIPO treaty that the DMCA implemented.

In any case, the DMCA itself says what it means:

a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

And lest you think all lobbyists are evil, Public Knowledge and the Home Recording Rights Coalition will also be testifying at the hearing.

There are no representatives from my state (Arizona) on the committee, and they get so much correspondence that they essentially ignore anyone who is not their direct constituent, but if your congressman is on the list, then now is the time to let them know how you feel, especially if you are from Texas or California.

Unfortunately, the Wikipedia article provides little insight into the issue of noncommercial, noneducational aspects of fair use which are what I was talking about in the first place.

Take a bit of time to read this article.

Consider this segment:

HRRC always has maintained that even where particular consumer practices may be controversial, private, noncommercial home recording practices should not be lumped in with piracy. For example, in a congressional hearing on "Internet Redistribution" earlier this year, U.S. Representative Ed Markey (D-MA) noted that he has a fair use right to make a home recording of a copyrighted broadcast and share it with a relative over the Internet.

See? Some U.S. house reps agree with my position.

This is a longer and deeper look into the whole noncommercial, private aspect of Fair use. It outlines the cases for both sides.

Now consider the case of how I am doing the sharing; At work, I have perhaps two or three people listing to my shared iTunes music. I have three licenses free for other computers to play my music.

So then, I can if I wish authorize the other computers to play back my protected shared music. If I do so, you have to admit I am breaking no law, as the system is built to allow it.

So then what changes when instead I do not assign the licenses, and simply let them play the shared music anyway? How does that differ?

To me this case would be pretty cut and dried were it ever to come to legal action - as noted in the Wikipedia entry some aspects of fair use are "Effect upon work's value", and "Amount and substantiality". Since the shared works never permanently reside on the others computers, and I could just authorize them anyway there is not loss and nothing in the way of sustainability.

You need to ruminate on issues like these before you jump to hasty conclusions and dubious Wikipedia links about what is or is not fair use - by doing so you pretend to have more clarity on the issue than the supreme court!

BTW, the vulgar language doesn't really help your case any and just made you look silly and childish. When you get into the business world you are going to have drop things like that or you are going to be a rung of other peoples ladders instead of climbing your own. Not that people don't swear like sailors at work, they just NEVER do it in written form if they wish to appear professional. You may as well start working on that now as it's a hard habit to break.

I'm a lawyer posting anonymously because I'm scared of the RIAA

Having said that, I'm pretty confident that you are allowed to make copies of music for your listening and that you can give copies to your friends (as long as you don't sell it). See here

A better place to look might be hrrc.org where they have more interest in the consumer's rights.

Also, it's Audio home recording act, not American... sorry. And thanks to the poster that clarified the differences between audio and data CD's, I didn't know that.

I think that the argument in any sane country would be that nobody is actually infringing copyrights by downloading source code of these "open source" decoders. The Netherlands recognized this rather obvious argument as valid and ruled accordingly against Buma Stemra (copyright dinosaurs in Holland, analogous to the American RIAA/MPAA cartels) but I suspect that Canada will fall to a similar DMCA-inspired mess. Hollywood bought the DMCA for a reason, and it is not to bing freedom to the oppressed :) "Open Source" to those people means nothing and sometimes attaches the stigma of open-mindedness. You don't play by the same greedy rules as the conglomerates? You must be looking to undermine them instead.

Yeah, I'd say you have a fair hurdle to jump. Advocates like this guy don't exactly help either (at least not when my Grandma is watching!) ;)

don't click here

I hope you are correct but i cant figure out the relevant section that allows for fair use. I am not a lawyer, but you cant believe much of what you read on slashdot.

• No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright...
  You can't sue anybody for copyright infringement...
• ...based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a...
  ...because they made or sold...
• ...digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium...
  ...any copier or media...
• ...or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
  ...or because some schmuck used them to copy the works.

"The more functional an OS, the more desktops it has."

Yeah, right. That paraphases exactly why we've used VHS for 20+ years instead of Beta. NOT! It is arguable that the Apple was a superior computing platform to the IBM PC of its day. The IBM-PC had the full corporate power and marketing strength of, well, IBM behind it while the Apple had the comparatively limited resources of two guys named Steve.

For the uninformed... Back in the days when the VCR was just being released on the world there were two competing formats, JVC's VHS format (which we all know) and Sony's Beta (a.k.a BetaMax). The latter was far superior but, alas, was first out marketed (a bit of history), then out litigated (Read case story). To date the majority of video production houses still use Beta because of it's superior image and audio quality.

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

So, everyone here is going on about how moderation, authentication, etc. is going to solve this problem. it would, if uploading and downloading songs wasn't usually illegal. A couple people have caught on to this, but most haven't.

The problem has two aspects:
1) If the systems has strong identities, then you have a confession from every uploader - as long as you can find them.
2) If you don't have strong identities, then those who would interfere with your system can hijack the identity system.

In the strong identity case, those few people who have uploaded most of the songs that are floating around suddenly find themselves targets. A well-funded attacker, especially one with the Law on their side, could use traffic analysis to track down the high-use users. Recall, they don't need enough info from the traffic analysis to get a conviction, just enough to get a warrant. Frankly, I don't believe claims that "my system is immune to traffic analysis." If the Law can tap into UUNet's big NOCs, they can watch the majority of US internet traffic. MP3's are pretty big, and a small population of users uploads most of the songs. It doesn't matter if your data is encrypted/chunked/whatever, the Law just looks for lots of traffic and tracks the big dataflows to their source. Once they find you, they find your secret key, and you're in jail. Secondly, a digital signature is forever. If you share a bunch of files in college, but then clean up your act and lead a respectable life (in the eyes of the RIAA), your digital signature stays behind. A gun that smokes until the statute of limitations runs out is a little scary.

In the weak identity case, you're no better off than in the no-identity case. The people who want to stomp on your little piracy garden are better funded and less constrained in their action than you. Everyone has infinite moderation points? What's to stop the bad guys (good guys?) from modding everything totally randomly?Much faster than carefully listening to each song and clicking a button. Legitimate rankings get lost in the noise. Use hashes or song fingerprints? What's to stop someone from transmitting the hashes/fingerprints from non-bogus media?

No, I'm afraid that the solution is the same as the solution to the wAr3z distribution problem. Small groups can share with full impunity (this is actually legal to do with music). But sharing music with perfect strangers is not just illegal, it means that the Man can play, too -- and do everything in his power to stop you.

The courts have already ruled on "first sale". Once the publisher sells the copy, they have no say over what you do with it, wether its read it and throw it out, give it away, sell it, burn it, etc.

Arrogant and unrealistic? Of course. Hard to imagine congress criminalizing used book stores! I doubt if anybody at AOL/TW or Disney really envisions achieving such a goal. It's just a legal/political tactic. It's one more case of "lost intellectual property" that they can use as a bargaining chip when things like copyright extension and the precise definition of "fair use" come up for negotiation.

The right balance between the rights of listeners and the rights of creators may be making nonprofit use legal. You can copy music for your own use now (Audio Home Recording Act). You should be able to pass music around for free, but not charge for it, add advertising, or do anything that generates revenue.

This means hobbyist sharing only - no Napster, no MP3.com, no Kazaa. Gnutella and Freenet, yes. Now that's worth lobbying for.

See HR-2281 (the "DMCA") page 8, Ch 12-f-3. It says "information [...] may be made available to others [...] provided [...it is used...] solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability [...and...] to the extent that doing so does not constitute an infringement under this title".

IANAL, but this pretty clearly states that we are prohibited from talking about how to copy a DVD since actually copying one could be an infringement of the DMCA.

-- MarkusQ

IMHO, and this is kind of a radical idea, these guys are killing the promise that was the internet in order to preserve their antiquated revenue streams.

I believe that the time has come to admit that pure informationally-based industries cannot trump honest technological development, and that to try to do that requires a cop at every desk and putting each and every person at risk in this country.

I think that the AHRA (the Home Recording Act) should have been enough to satisfy even the most craven of executives.

The fact is that their business is teetering atop an archaic foundation and it needs to fall; they are in the buggy-whip manufacturing business, and Congress oughtta tell 'em that.

If we are to progess technologically, business needs to step out of the way here. Otherwise the net will be reduced to what it is rapidly becoming: interactive TV.

We see it, and Congress saw the promise soon after the dawn of the internet, during the explosion when they wanted to foster its development. They should never have stopped Napster, and they should 'just say no' to the campaign contributors and let information flow freely.

I wonder if Campaign Finance Reform will reduce this reactionary influence.

In 1984, the SCOTUS ruled that VCRs are legal -- with a majority of only one vote. Everything else from the Eighties is repeating, so it doesn't surprise me that the studios try again. Welcome back.

The proper term is CORRUPTED, not copy protected.They do not conform to Red Book Standards.

Congressman Rick Boucher of VA has written a letter to the IFPI and the RIAA suggesting that under the AHRA this may illegal and asking for explanations of the methods used. Under the AHRA there is a 2% surcharge on every CD recorder sold in the US at the wholesale level (See section 1004), that goes to the RIAA, just as there is a 2% surcharge on "Music" designated CDR media.

In addition Philips refers to these corrupted discs as "silver disks with music on them, but which do not resemble CD's" See this article

Boycott-riaa and Fat Chucks are maintaining a list of the corrupted CDs. Also, Check out the Home Recording Rights Coalition

The proper term is CORRUPTED, not copy protected.They do not conform to Red Book Standards.

Congressman Rick Boucher of VA has written a letter to the IFPI and the RIAA suggesting that under the AHRA this may illegal and asking for explanations of the methods used. Under the AHRA there is a 2% surcharge on every CD recorder sold in the US at the wholesale level (See section 1004), that goes to the RIAA, just as there is a 2% surcharge on "Music" designated CDR media.

In addition Philips refers to these corrupted discs as "silver disks with music on them, but which do not resemble CD's" See this article

Boycott-riaa and Fat Chucks are maintaining a list of the corrupted CDs. Also, Check out the Home Recording Rights Coalition

Prominent cases and relavent information:

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL.
v.
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., ET AL.


The Audio Home Recording Act
of 1992

RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
v.
DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS INC.

The outcome:
All district court judges firmly believe in 'fair use' of copyrighted works. What we need now is a massive collision between companies. One that is willing to stand up and fight the DMCA. I don't disagree with copy controls, I disagree with the penalties for distributing technology which bypasses them. I urge everyone to become educated and at the very least; read the Court Opinions from these cases.

Prominent cases and relavent information:

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL.
v.
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., ET AL.


The Audio Home Recording Act
of 1992

RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
v.
DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS INC.

The outcome:
All district court judges firmly believe in 'fair use' of copyrighted works. What we need now is a massive collision between companies. One that is willing to stand up and fight the DMCA. I don't disagree with copy controls, I disagree with the penalties for distributing technology which bypasses them. I urge everyone to become educated and at the very least; read the Court Opinions from these cases.

Prominent cases and relavent information:

SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL.
v.
UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., ET AL.


The Audio Home Recording Act
of 1992

RECORDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA
v.
DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SYSTEMS INC.

The outcome:
All district court judges firmly believe in 'fair use' of copyrighted works. What we need now is a massive collision between companies. One that is willing to stand up and fight the DMCA. I don't disagree with copy controls, I disagree with the penalties for distributing technology which bypasses them. I urge everyone to become educated and at the very least; read the Court Opinions from these cases.

The main thrusts of the law are:

-No copyright infringment suit can be brought against someone making home digital recordings.

-Retailers have the right to sell copying equipment and media, so long as they contain serial copy protection.

-The RIAA collects a royalty of 2% on copying equipment and 3% on media.

That the RIAA might be violating this law by making copy-proof cds is not immediately apparent from a quick reading. In fact, the definitions of what is and is not a "digital musical recording" do not seem to hinge in any way on the "copyability" of the recording, and the only qualification for entitlement to payments is that an entity is making and distributing recordings so defined.

The point that copy-proof cds violate the spirit of this law is a good one. I think that any argument that the letter of the law is violated is weak, however. Anyone who can determine otherwise would make me happy, though, since IANAL.

As a final point, the fact that a congressman is looking into this might make violation of the letter of the law irrelevant since congress, of course, has the power to create new law.

If one can be sued over this, manufacturers of VHS-tapes, paper, pencils and photo-paper would be in danger as well.

While like you I won't be busting down a door to join the major labels' online efforts, don't spread the rumor you're not allowed to copy music. :-)

Well, here is the problem: the Universal Picture Studios v. Sony case did not say that time shifting was not a copyright infringement. It did say that it was either 1) a fair use, and/or 2) the VCR had substantial non-infringing uses. That is, even though it was an infringement, it is an infringment that will be allowed for public policy reasons.

One example (that is not so self-centered) was Mr. Rogers testimony at the Sony trial. If his show was being broadcast during a child's naptime, he didn't want the broadcast time of the show to dictate how the child lived. I don't believe the show had commercials at the time. It was clear that some copyright owners wanted their viewers to have time shifting capabilities.

I don't think it is as clear now that any broadcaster of commercials wants them excised. Is there a non-infringing use of commercial skipping? Doubtful. Is it fair? It is directed at specifically creating severe economic distress to broadcasters. Calling it commercial skip is trying to cash in on disadvantaging the broadcaster. (Unlike the fast forward button, that is not named "commercial flyby" but could be I suppose.)

Fair use is a balancing test. Therefore, it is not a hard and fast rule if you change factors. That's why Sony did not create a broad universal rule, but could be reconsidered on changed facts.

I suppose the last thing I'd say is "grow up." The only REASON anyone is interested in the feature is because it is unfair to broadcasters and their advertisers. TANSTAAFL.

The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement.

If the Betamax were used to make copies for a commercial or profit-making purpose, such use would presumptively be unfair. The contrary presumption is appropriate here, however, because the District Court's findings plainly establish that time-shifting for private home use must be characterized as a noncommercial, nonprofit activity.

the District Court rejected plaintiffs' suggestion that the commercial attractiveness of television broadcasts would be diminished because Betamax owners would use the pause button or fast-forward control to avoid viewing advertisements

Before people go ranting and raving about the DMCA, take some time to poke around these sites:

Full text of the DMCA (see section 1201)

Legislative history of the DMCA

Prof. Touretzky's page (lots of great resources here)

General DMCA/DeCSS paper

I'm sure that there's a bunch of other places where you can go grab some knowledge...if you have any good links, post them below, because I'd be interested in reading more...

--

--

Lawrence Lessig in his excellent book "Code and other laws of Cyberspace" says that, if we aren't careful, the internet will become a technology of control, not of freedom.

As anyone who runs a web server knows, it's easy enough to track and log everything. The always-on internet opens up the possiblity of things like CPRM; Microsoft's plans for required registration before Office XP will work, and other sorts of digital rights management. DivX may have failed, but it failed because it didn't have a good enough value proposition, and it was a little ahead of its time. Once more houses have broadband connections, what's the big deal to the average consumer if your DVD player needs to be hooked up to the internet to play DVD's?

The idea that there will always be open alternatives to closed software or hardware isn't guaranteed. Lessig really hit the nail on the head in his book and predated a lot of this controversy. Will there be enough advocates to fund and continue producing open chipsets? You can look at the history of DAT to see a way things might play out.

There is a interview with him here that goes into more detail. (the streaming links didn't work for me, but the mp3 download did.)

I wonder if all this posturing on the big corporation side will lead to more polarization and zealotry. You'll have the totally proprietary and controlling microsoft camp, and the totally free and open Open Source camp. It'll be interesting to see.

- Twid

[IANAL, etc.]

The brief the White House has filed is not a 'shut down Napster' argument. It simply states that Napster should not be allowed to use the Home Recording Act as a legal defense (which is one of the many defenses Napster has put forth.)

This is a VERY good thing.

Quite. It would also fly in the face of the legal precedent set by the Diamond Rio case, which basically stated that an MP3 player (and the computer it relies on) is not a digital recording device as defined in the AHRA .

But in simple terms, what does the AHRA say? That (if you're American) you're granted immunity to make non-commercial copies for your own private use if you use analogue equipment or digital with SCMS enforced. Note it doesn't say it's legal/lawful - just that you have "immunity from suit". Pro-level equipment (that doesn't follow SCMS and will copy anything) doesn't allow you that immunity, and neither do computers (which have no way to implement SCMS - well, there's SDMI *cough* :-) ).

You can't have it both ways - either your computer is a digital recording device and you pay the RIAA tax on every computer, hard disk and data CDR media, or it isn't and while people will go on burning audio CDs and storing MP3s on their disks they won't be granted their immunity under the AHRA.

It's a lame defence on Napster's part though - they're trying to justify their users actions with some very shaky interpretation. It's also quite amusing that they're taking the "OK, there's massive infringement but our users are allowed to do that" attitude while their Terms of Use still state "you will not: (i) use the Napster service to infringe the intellectual property rights of others in any way".

The White House doesn't particularly favour the RIAA - it's just speaking sense. Napster are shooting themselves in the foot badly with this defence - they'd be wise to just drop it before they look like fools in court.

--
qube

"There would be hacks out for it shortly after it came out to circumvent the copy protection because it's such a crappy idea."

Still, do you want a MPAA-backed law that says you can't record that episode of "Law and Order" for later viewing in your own home? The Supreme Court said that recording some program off TV for later viewing is legal ( Sony v. Universal Studios ), and yet the MPAA wants to tell you what you can and can't do in your own home. Quite frankly, if this did go through, you could have all the hacks you wanted (even though this is a hardware issue). But no matter how many hacks you'd have, it wouldn't matter, because the MPAA won anyway.

--

According to the Home Redording Rights Coalition homepage (the 'defendants' in the case) at HRRC.org, the case number is 00-67, ""

This link should take you to the Electronic Comment File Submission for 00-67 where you type your complaint.

The HRRC has provided a form letter here Please remember to add a personalized .sig!

Get even more educated! read A summary on fair use w/r/t this case, and A PDF of the HRRC comments on the issue.

According to the Home Redording Rights Coalition homepage (the 'defendants' in the case) at HRRC.org, the case number is 00-67, ""

This link should take you to the Electronic Comment File Submission for 00-67 where you type your complaint.

The HRRC has provided a form letter here Please remember to add a personalized .sig!

Get even more educated! read A summary on fair use w/r/t this case, and A PDF of the HRRC comments on the issue.

According to the Home Redording Rights Coalition homepage (the 'defendants' in the case) at HRRC.org, the case number is 00-67, ""

This link should take you to the Electronic Comment File Submission for 00-67 where you type your complaint.

The HRRC has provided a form letter here Please remember to add a personalized .sig!

Get even more educated! read A summary on fair use w/r/t this case, and A PDF of the HRRC comments on the issue.

...at this url.

This is just plain *wrong*. The MPAA is trying SO hard to take advantage of the digital age to take away our rights to record and archive our own media.

We need to beware reasoning like "We want to make sure that [the device] has the ability to provide copy protection, but it doesn't mean all product running into the box won't be able to be copied" -- this kind of vague, "honor system"-based lingo doesn't limit what they can later decide to do with the technology. Once it is in place, they can do whatever they want with it.

Honestly, the MPAA frightens me.

Here's the link that the Home Recording Rights Coalition has set up for people to send comments (in support of the HRRC) to the FCC.

Check out HRRC, the Home Recording Rights Coalition.

It seems the entertainment industry is trying to get home recording of DTV and HDTV classified as "Theft of Service". Time shifting would thus be illegal.

Also, although I forget where I saw this bit, Rupert Murdoch is behind an initiative to develop satellite TV receiver/PVR combo the software for which will allow codes in the transmission that prevent fastforward. No more commercial skip.

It disgusts me the way companies focus on greed at the expense of the customer.

Pay very close attention to this one, people...

Do more than that. Write you elected officials and let them know you oppose these efforts. Write to the manufacturers and tell them you won't buy their products (it is not enough simply to not buy, let them know why you didn't.) Similarly, tell those companies that are doing a good job that they are and why. Finally, write the advertisers that use any of this technology and tell them that you won't purchase their products.

It is a scary world that the MPAA, RIAA, et al envision. Do your part to prevent it from happening.

Steve M

Making an unlimited number of copies of an audio recording for personal use is covered under the Audio Home Recording Act. The Home Recording Rights Coalition webpage is an excellent place to go for this sort of information.

Making an unlimited number of copies of an audio recording for personal use is covered under the Audio Home Recording Act. The Home Recording Rights Coalition webpage is an excellent place to go for this sort of information.

Kids introducing their online friends to new music are not "pirates." Congress long has known how to address willful commercial copyright infringement through the Copyright Act, and only recently has clarified the definition of and amplified the penalties for such commercial misconduct. By contrast, for more than 20 years Congress has declined to deem personal music uses as "piracy," and there is no reason to do so now.

Minidiscs use SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) to prevent direct digital copies. There are a number of devices that will strip the SCMS info from the bitstream, plus pro-grade MD players/recorders can be set to ignore the SCMS data.

The record labels have been fighting tooth and nail to add things like SCMS to every new technology that comes out. They even managed to get an extra charge attached to blank DAT media to compensate the labels for their predicted losses to pirating.

And attempted suits over enabling copyright infringement have a long history. Universal and Disney sued Sony in 1976 because the Betamax allowed people to tape TV broadcasts. Take a look at http://www.hrrc.org/history.html for more details.

Well, you can find the DMCA here, but it won't help in finding this particular aspect of copyright law. The DMCA doesn't really deal with it. Dilution is a thing which exists solely in Trademark law.

--GnrcMan--

I am advised by the Department of Justice that certain provisions of H.R. 2281 and the accompanying Conference Report regarding the Register of Copyrights raise serious constitutional concerns. Contrary to assertions in the Conference Report, the Copyright Office is, for constitutional purposes, an executive branch entity. Accordingly, the Congress may exercise its constitutionally legitimate oversight powers to require the Copyright Office to provide information relevant to the legislative process. However, to direct that Office's operations, the Congress must act in accord with the requirements of bicameralism and presentment prescribed in Article I of the Constitution. Further, the Congress may not require the Register to act in a manner that would impinge upon or undermine the President's discretion under Article II, section 3 of the Constitution to determine which, if any, executive branch recommendations to the Congress would be "necessary and expedient." Accordingly, I will construe sections 103(a), 104(b), 401(b), and 403(a) of H.R. 2281 to require the Register to perform duties only insofar as such requirements are consistent with these constitutional principles.

Check out Sony v. Betamax for the time-shifting issue. An interesting quote from this source: "The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses. Pp. 434-442." Sounds like a certain piece of code I've heard so much about lately.

I would guess that this judgement is what allows for media shifting too, maybe it was used as precedent in another case.

In fact, that whole domain is an excellent reference.

For me this battle has never been about "the right to pirate a product" but rather "when I 'buy' a product have I bought the actual product or just a license to use it under certain circumstances?"

I have no interest in collecting entertainment "licenses." I can be forced into buying licensed software for many other things, but I'll never be successfully forced into buying licenses for movies, cds, book, or games. Myself, I'd rather do without than have a collection of stuff that was actually owned by someone else. I mean I feel that these people are trying to turn us into a society that can never buy anything, only rent it.

Imagine if when an auction house was selling a van Gogh painting saying, "We are selling a license to posess this fine painting as long as it is kept in this city with a tracking device in the frame and we have the right to repossess it at any time." I don't think they'd get many bids.

Right now, for example, I'm not "pirating" MPAA movies. I'm just not watching them. (Though, if my brother, who has no intention of ever joining the MPAA boycott, shows me a movie on his DVD player, am I then a pirate? I'm sure the MPAA would like me to think so.)

Incidentally, I recently re-bought Enchanter (as part of an Infocom collection) though I'm pretty sure I could easily have downloaded a pirated copy from somewhere (I mean the game is ancient). I hate having to still fight the pathetic (look at this page in the manual) copy protection they have on it.

There are a couple of things going on currently:

1. Stuff like Region Coding and DIVX are pretty disgusting ways to screw a purchaser who used to be able to just buy something and use it. Divx is not dead! It's just being retooled for a new release. The DVD makers have admitted as much in their comments to the copyright office:

Access control technologies are used, for example, to permit access to a work for a limited period (such as a free demonstration or "test drive" period, or the duration of a license agreement) while closing it thereafter. These techniques are also employed to allow access to part of a work while denying it to another part; to enable access by a specified category of users but not by another category; or to enable access by a specified number of simultaneous users but no more.-- from the MPAA comments on the DMCA

2. Anything that is available on electronic media is more easily copied than anything on traditional media. This is why book publishers aren't as woried about photocopiers as they were when they first came out. Unfortunately, the old media companies would rather kill or cripple the new technology (DVD is just crippled MPEG-2, I believe. You have to jump through hoops to watch something that could've been released in a standard readable format. Back in the days of vinyl records, films, and even video tape, crippling things wasn't as much of an option.) than try to find a way to work within the new technology. If these people had gotten their way, VCRs would never have become available to the general public! (Check out SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., ET AL. for the actual court case.) I don't like seeing good usable technology crippled, and I hate seeing good usable technology completely suppressed just so Monty Burns can have another ivory back scratcher. (Digital Audio Tape, anyone?)

Of course, I wish Jon had made these points instead of saying that people ought to put up with piracy because "making money from ideas is wrong."

Here is a copy of the Audio Home Recording Act. Read it and see that the RIAA is dabbling in misinformation.

When I buy a CD I instantly transfer it to my hard drive and MP3 it. I never listen to the audio CD ever. I've got several dozen CDs I've never heard from the plastic. So would this be legal, the CD considered to be the backup or something like that?

Disclaimer: IANAL

Yes, it would be legal. Basically, under the current copyright and home recording laws, you have the right to make a backup (namely the mp3s) for your own personal use (this is considered a "fair use" under copyright law).

You may further transfer those onto a Rio for road listening (there was a case, RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia, in the 9th Circuit ruling on the Rio issue that says that's legal. This in turn was built on a case back in the days of Betamax that established the right to record TV shows for later viewing, which became known as a "time shifting". The 9th Circuit in the Rio case held that there is a similar right of "spatial shifting" that applies to consumers using Rios and the like).

Naturally, you may not then give or sell the CD to someone else without destroying your mp3s.

If you want more detail, there's some good information from the Home Recording Rights Coalition summarizing the laws. In particular,Summary of the Audio Home Recording Act.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act does complicate things some, but as I understand it there is still a provision for fair use.

-Stradivarius

When I buy a CD I instantly transfer it to my hard drive and MP3 it. I never listen to the audio CD ever. I've got several dozen CDs I've never heard from the plastic. So would this be legal, the CD considered to be the backup or something like that?

Disclaimer: IANAL

Yes, it would be legal. Basically, under the current copyright and home recording laws, you have the right to make a backup (namely the mp3s) for your own personal use (this is considered a "fair use" under copyright law).

You may further transfer those onto a Rio for road listening (there was a case, RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia, in the 9th Circuit ruling on the Rio issue that says that's legal. This in turn was built on a case back in the days of Betamax that established the right to record TV shows for later viewing, which became known as a "time shifting". The 9th Circuit in the Rio case held that there is a similar right of "spatial shifting" that applies to consumers using Rios and the like).

Naturally, you may not then give or sell the CD to someone else without destroying your mp3s.

If you want more detail, there's some good information from the Home Recording Rights Coalition summarizing the laws. In particular,Summary of the Audio Home Recording Act.

The Digital Millenium Copyright Act does complicate things some, but as I understand it there is still a provision for fair use.

-Stradivarius