Slashdot Mirror

I'm not the only stupid one then : http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2005/09/02/p2p-de fendant-riaas-own-downloads-cant-prove-infringemen t/ - lawyers who know more about this than me use the same arguments.

• Clearflix removes the DVD encryption (against DMCA)
  
• Their "fair use" claim rests on the fact that they are "criticizing" the movies they are censoring. I really don't buy that.
  
• This is a good quote:
  

  They seek some comfort in language appearing in the opinion deciding Chicago Bd. of
  Education v. Substance, Inc., 354 F.3d 624 (7th Cir. 2003), that the privilege protects public
  criticism and may justify substantial copying of that which is being criticized. The holding in that
  case was an affirmance of the denial of the fair use defense under summary judgment standards.
  Ironically, Judge Posner wrote that a teacher does not have the right to publish the criticized tests
  indiscriminately "any more than a person who dislikes Michelangelo's statue of David has a right
  to take a sledgehammer to it." Id. at 630. Or, as may be more aptly said in this case, to put a fig
  leaf on it to make it more acceptable for viewing by parents with young children.

  
  
• Definition: "transformative" - contributing to a larger body of work, for example, using a few quotes from one source to create a larger essay of your own. A previous court case which the judge cites says tranformative means it "adds something new, with a further purpose or different character, altering the first with new expression, meaning or message."
  
• The defendants say that their copies are "transformative" in the name of criticism and deny that their work is a derivative work. The studios say that it is a derivative work and say that they are not transformative. Looks like most here on Slashdot agree with the studios. The judge provides other examples and (I think correctly) decides that the works are not transformative.
  
• The judge rejects the one-to-one argument because he claims it interferes with the copyright owner's right to control the content of the copied material. Personally I think he's right: if I give you a book to rent, I don't think you should be able to change it and rent that. It's very much like the djb software style: you can distribute it BUT DON'T TOUCH A SINGLE LINE OF CODE IT'S THE BIBLE AS FAR AS YOU'RE CONCERNED. No argues that software license do they?
  
• The judge ruled that the works are not covered under fair nor are they derivative works.
  
• The defendants tried using the "first sale" doctrine which makes no sense
  
• The judge says the loss of the defendant's business has no bearing on the case.
  
• Therefore the defendants lose.
  

Those who like to RTFA might also like to RTFD (read the !%$#ing decision). You can find the judge's actual decision here:

http://www.joegratz.net/wp-content/uploads/2006/07 /CleanFlicksDistCtOpinion.pdf

Thanks to blogger Joe Gratz. I would be worried about overwhelming his server, but I don't think many Slashdotters are actually willing to do that much work.

But there's no silent movies ("not mass market"), or movies that aren't "family friendly".

Playback of silent movies on a DVD player needs a soundtrack. All sound recordings published from the invention of the phonograph until February 15, 1972, are restricted under state law copyright until December 31, 2067 (second source), and a bargain-basement DVD distributor such as DigiView doesn't have the resources to do its own dub job.

For purposes of setting the copyright term, sound recordings first published before 1972 are considered as if published in 1972, and they remain under copyright until 2067.

If you really want to sell phonorecords of these recordings under your own label, you must hire a copyright attorney.

More documents and analysis on the TigerDirect v. Apple lawsuit are available here.

Well, I pretty much exclusively use bittorrent to get my music. And according to the Canadian Federal Court, that isn't much different than what a library does. And in Canada, music downloading from other people is perfectly legal as well for personal use.

So basically, the way I understand it, you are telling me that I'm a copyright infringer, and the Canadian Federal Court is telling me that I'm not.

In addition, even if you ARE right, the CRIA has virtually no power over me, as my ISP is quite militant about protecting their customers (they were one of the ISPs who refused to give customer names when the CRIA came knocking... and promptly got told to leave us alone by the federal court). So yeah, I think I'm pretty safe.

but what about this?

See this site. -- Will

I downloaded PDFs of the complaint and the judge's order from PACER. They're definitely real, and they're linked from my blog:

http://www.joegratz.net/archives/2005/02/24/lokito rrent-lawsuit-no-hoax/