Slashdot Mirror

Thats all well and good, but the courts have already disagreed with the RIAA. http://www.virtualrecordings.com/rio.htm

People can't be punished for time shifting. Society did not consider time shifting a publication and does not prevent it to enforce the created right of copyright. Recent rulings on the broadcast flag all reached the same conclusion so both their broadcast and listening for and obeying the broadcast flag are voluntary - ie a pointless competitive disadvantage that outrages customers.

In time, encrypted works will not be considered publications and lose copyright protection. Encrypted works may never enter the public domain and fail to meet the US Constitutional requirement of limited time of protection.

Hold on there, partner... the court in the Diamond Rio case ruled that the components of a computer used in "space shifting" were not subject to the AHRA, nor was the MP3 player in question. So while the AHRA does grant the right to space shift music, it also places burdens upon the manufacturers of devices compliant with that law -- it mandates SCMS (Serial Copy Management System) to limit copying, and it mandates royalties paid by device manufacturers to the recording industry.

Since a computer's components and the MP3 players used to listen to these music files are not covered by the AHRA, that particular argument doesn't hold water. For more information on what was ruled, see here and here.

Also, see my other response in this thread -- the RIAA is claiming these MP3s are "unauthorized" and not "illegal." There is a difference, and it would really inform the discussion here better if folks would tune up a bit and read these things carefully. These MP3s are unauthorized in the sense that the defendant didn't explicitly ask for permission from the copyright holder to space shift his music. Whether authorization is required is a separate question, and one that the RIAA lawyers are hoping doesn't get answered in a way they don't like. It's in their best interests to sow confusion here, so they deliberately confuse the issue -- not unlike conflating "copyright infringement" with "theft."

Standard IANAL disclaimer applies. This is my opinion (backed by some research), not legal advice.

Of course they lost, but if they had won, it would have been an 'illegal' item, which would have brought me no end of satisfaction.

What's that old adage, when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns? It wouldn't have been much different.

Copying a friend's music in your home (or vice versa) isn't illegal, whether it's audio tapes or CDs using digital audio media. Thanks to the AHRA of 1992, you pay a 'tax' on every blank audio tape and audio CD for the right to make copies of friends' tapes. This is how the RIAA responded to the last wave of copying that was going to "destroy the industry".

Of course, that tax goes only to the RIAA, not independent artists. So every time you tape your local band, you paid the RIAA for the band's music.

Cool, eh?

Far more effective to print this and send it along with this.

see http://www.virtualrecordings.com/communism.jpg

switch communism terrorism :-)

we can always re-use old jokes

Here is a link to the some of the act. http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm
The wording in the act just furthers my belief that we need to get lawyers out of office so they do not write such BS drivel. I have seen VB code that is written better and more clearly.

At least in the U.S...

To see just how far the court will extend the right of publicity, check out White v. Samsung. Be sure to read Judge Kozinski's dissent.

Secondly, if you go to Best Buy or look online (here's a link to Memorex showing why you need the Music CD), you will find blank CD's that are labeled Music CD. Unlike CD-R and CD-RW discs, these are slightly more expensive because they have an additional surcharge attached to them. This surcharge is pooled and distributed per the requirements of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 to copyright holders as compensation for allowing us to make the copies. Here is a link to the text of the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 for your reference.

There are two other critical differences between computers and set-top/stand-alone CD recorders that separate them in regards to this law. The digital recording device must include the Serial Copy Management System. The SCMS marks the copy as a copy and does not allow any 2nd generation or beyond SCMS copy to be used as a source disc. Thus with the set-top box, you can only make a copy from an original CD, not like you can from any source disc on a PC CD-R drive. The second critical difference is that the set-top boxes will only work with the Music CD blanks. They should not copy to CD-R or CD-RW.

I believe that this explains why computer CD-R drives are not applicable digital recording devices under the this law. Now if someone was smart, they would start marketing a CD drive for computers that incorporated the SCMS and legalize this whole thing on the computer. I don't know why it hasn't been done yet or maybe some have tried and the market did not accept the product since it is so much easier to just do it with a computer anyway and the odds of getting caught are slim and none. I am hoping that my question will get responded to and we will have a better idea of whether it is legal if you use the right equipment.

And watch the govt levy more taxes against recording/digital media.

They may even levy internet connections, because of broadband being used to propagate piracy.,/p>

These levies will be justified because sales couldn't possibly go down, it must be due to digital piracy. And Congress, being indebted to the entertainment industry will once again stick it to their constituants and side with business.

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. It emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home. Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102." Id., at 454. n8 Even when an entire copyrighted work was recorded, [p.426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no accompanying reduction in the market for 'plaintiff's original work.'" Ibid.

(Why can't I login or post from my IP, Taco? Grrr...)

http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001-all/samuels-2 001-04-all.html

What's so different about this other than it prevents burning on a CD-ROM? If you want to burn CD's to your heart's content without fear from the man, just follow the law http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm.

Link to previous comments on this issue.

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=104952&cid=893 7703

http://www.virtualrecordings.com/communism.jpg

The reason P2P is trafficking is that a few hundred million random people do not constitute "your friends".

References:

• Text of AHRA
• Duke University analysis of AHRA, etc.l

No way in hell am I going to buy movies in the format, coolness factor be damned. I want tools to get my already-purchased normal DVD's onto UMD media, it's that simple.

Having fought legal battles on behalf of its (albeit doomed) Betamax, you would think these guys would learn that their customers really want the flexibility and freedom to use that expensive PSP to its fullest potential. Sorry, Sony, but purchased UMD movies are going to be nothing more than a passing novelty.

I'm amazed no one has mentioned this.. Has anyone heard of the Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) passed in the US in 1976 (amended in 1992) in response to cassette tapes? Why do you think TDK cassettes used to cost $5.99? Because there was a surcharge that went to the artists and songwriters to cover the revenue lost due to the obvious use of the cassette: to copy music off records. The same held true for VHS and Beta tapes.

It's still in force now. Go to Comp USA. Blank CDRs are like a nickel each. But! If you buy blank MUSIC CDRs, you will pay significantly more due to the surcharge still being levied due to the AHRA.

"Show me one official instance where anyone has claimed that ripped CDs for personal use is not legal. I HATE when people on the other side exaggerate (and apparently flat-out lie) just to score points."

Even worse are people who forget the past, and doom the rest of us to repeat it...

RIAA vs Diamond

It's hard to get more 'official' than a lawsuit, but why limit it only to 'official' instances? The RIAA originally promoted the view that mp3's were illegal. If you limit yourself to so-called 'official' incidents, you let them get by with implied assertions and innuendo. In this case, we've got 'official' statements, so it's not an issue, but in general, it's tying one of your hands behind your back while the other side is using both hands, their feet, their teeth, and are hitting you with your free hand...

"(and apparently flat-out lie)"

Awaiting your apology.

Once the broadcast flag becomes standard, can't the FCC be sued for violating the Supreme Court order mandating fair use in the Sony Betamax case? It would seem to be a slam-dunk of this argument is used.

But does it make it right that these organizations that are accusing people of "piracy" are also trying to destroy the one decision that makes legal backups possible of any media content you have (books, CD's, VHS, records, tapes, anything). Betamax decision
Regardless of need or want, this is a fundamental right they are trying to destroy, by using governments and their influence of politicians to create these problems...

if they were truly losing money, a hell of a lot more people would be out of a job...

Public discontent should prevail over private interest...
it isn't the common voice that prevails, it is the fatter wallet that speaks loudest, like it has always been.

Let us remember those individuals who stood up for themselves, and their actions truly protraying the disillusion of the rights of the common citizen of the world.

Then again, today's U.S. Judicial branch throws precedent, law, and the U.S. Constitution out the window, so maybe I should just shut up and pledge my loyalty to Big Brother and atone for my double plus ungood badthink.

It's more properly called the Audio Home Recording Act. It is the giant upon whose shoulders the DMCA is perched. At the time it was passed, it did not get nearly the outrage and attention it should have (that does not imply that it didn't get tons of both - it did, but passed anyway). It was the mechanism by which the Rio got hassled (the Rio escaped by the skin of its parallel cable - the fact that it was a computer peripheral was all that spared it). The AHRA, I believe, is every bit as horrible as INDUCE threatens to be today.

I never suggested any crime. Lots of authors release free ebooks these days. I don't think that's an unreasonable request to make of someone who seems to support the freedom of informationas much as this guy. Mr. Vaidhyanathan submitted a great friend-of-the-court brief in support of Emmanuel Goldstien and 2600back in 2000, so I figured the guy'd be nice enough to put his book out for open electro distro, perhaps like Bean does.

It is not right, however, to make 25 copies for friends.

Actually, it is. According to The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 , it is perfectly legal for you to make UNLIMITED first generation copies of any music you purchase legally in the United States. In return, the recording industry gets a cut of every blank CD and CD writer sold in the United States. This is to account for the total amount of copying and piracy that goes on.

It is NOT right for you to make 25 copies for friends that you didn't obtain legally, but as long as you have purchased the CD, you can give it to as many friends as you want, and although they can't legally recopy the CD and give it to their friends, you have done nothing wrong.

Of course, the recording industry doesn't want you to know this. They'd rather collect their royalties off blank CD media and have you not copy as well. But you pay for it, so use it. It's your right.

Don't forget the Betamax case.

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.

There is a catch though, you must use a device that is "commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals" and for which the primary purpose of the device is to make such recordings. What are these devices? Well they are DAT tape recorders, Cassette recorders, and CD recorders sold in places like Best Buy that are set top units. CD-ROM drives and computers are not "marketed for the primary purpose" of making digital audio copies, so they don't fit the law. You must also use blanks that are for the express purpose of copying music. They must also contain the SCMS (serial copy management system) that prevents you from making copies of copies. Source disks must be originals in these devices. Obviously, these controls do not exist on CDROM drives or computers.

There is a tax on these devices and blanks that is distributed out to the artists as royalties based on their popularity, etc. That's the crux of the issue - CD-ROM drives are not marketed as primarily CD copying devices, nor are computers and they do not contain the record copyright controls. But these set top boxes have only one real function, and there is a additional tax levied on them in the U.S. to legitimize their use.

Find a copy of the law here.

Section 1001 defines a "digital audio recording device" as: "Any machine or device of a type commonly distributed to individuals for use by individuals, whether or not included with or as part of some other machine or device, the digital recording function of which is designed or marketed for the primary purpose of, and that is capable of, making a digital audio copied recording for private use ...".

Section 1008 says "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the non-commercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog music recordings."

So how about this: what if a major company decided to use a p2p network as it's MAJOR outlet for file distribution. Say, a shareware program or game demo. This would be proof that p2p file-sharing programs are not exclusively used as "stolen-goods" transfers, it is a mainstream sharing network for permissable transfers. That would blow these cases wide open, as the judges are just looking for a reason to refer to Betamax here.

Even ignoring the fact that KISS is not a person, the fair use law says nothing about personal use. In fact, the law says:

... the fair use of a copyrighted work ... for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

Copying an mp3 is NOT fair use. Firstly because of the nature of the work - i.e. it is made with the intention of making a profit for the distributors

You seem to think that the intention of the author matters for fair use. In fact, the intention of the author is not mentioned at all in the text of the law. What is relevant is "the purpose and character of the use ", i.e. whether or not the use is profit oriented. Copying mp3s for personal use in your car is not profit oriented, but what KISS is doing is very much profit oriented. So KISS actually has much less of a leg to stand on than a home user copying mp3s for personal use.

There is something else that you are leaving out as well: the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 permits consumers to make limited noncommercial copies of recorded audio for personal use. This permission is above and beyond the normal permissions granted under fair use. There is absolutely no analogue of the AHRA that applies to software. Even if the personal copying of mp3 were somehow found to be outside of fair use, the AHRA would still apply in the mp3 situation. However in the KISS situation there is no other law that would permit what KISS is doing.

Before posting again, read This - The Audio Home Recording Act. Short short version - not only do you fully have the right to duplicate the copyrighted material, YOU PAY FOR that right if you ever buy blank CDs.

It was a nasty little piece of legislation the RIAA cooked up that let them directly tax the sales of blank CDs, while granting us nothing but copying rights the courts had already said we had. Luckily, the law IS with us now specifically to educate people like you.

Aren't you glad?

Isn't that why CD-R packs labelled "music" are more expensive than ones labelled "data"?

I understand that, which is why I used "OK" instead of "fine" or "legal". But we're talking about why people (as in Joe and Jane People) might get into a "state of mind" where they can't see what's so wrong with filesharing.

Well, how many of Joe and Jane The People even know what AHRA stands for, let alone what it contains? For that matter, how many "digital audio recording devices" implement Serial Copy Management System or equivelant? AHRA is largely ignored even by those that should know about it and be bound by it.

eugene is wong wrote:

You're not even allowed to record tv commercials to keep in library for your own personal enjoyment. If you can't do that, then there is no way that you are going to be able to do what you want for free.

I was going to correct you, but then I reviewed Sony v Universal and found that it looks like you are right. In that decision, the Supreme Court specifically looks at the distinction between "Time-Shifting" (recording to watch once and then reusing the tape) and "Librarying" (recording to watch multiple times). Apparently the distinction is important because "Time-Shifting" would be a fair use, but the Court appeared to consider "Librarying" not to be.

I wish it was politically feasable to bring back 14 year copyrights. :-(

DVD+R is the one approved by Sony
DVD+R/+RW is better technically

So was Betamax, but all you hear about it now is because of the legal precedent.

At the office, we've got 3 Pioneer A04's & A05's, a Mac with a Superdrive (an A04 in a different casing), and the new Sony dual format drive. That's 5 "-" drives, and one of them does "+".

Methinks there's a defacto standard.

Sony v. Universal. If it's good enough for the Supreme Court...

It is technically a parody, but it is not protected under fair use. (Whether you use the same names as the original, or twist them into funny-but-recognizable versions like "Frodo->Frito" and "Biblo->Dildo" doesn't matter)

To get the fair-use exemption to copyright law, your work must not just be a parody- it must be a parody of the material you are infringing.

In this case, Penny Arcade used some kind of "Strawberry Shortcake" copyrighted material to create a parody of American McGee's videogame development preferences (as seen here).

Since the parody doesn't make any critical commentary about "Strawberry Shortcake", it has no legal justification to use those names or images.

The famous recent case on this subject was linked to (pdf) by Penny-Arcade. In that case, a parody called "The Cat NOT in the Cat" was banned for using images from a book by Theodor Geisel to make a comment on the conduct of the Orenthal Simpsom murder trial. Because the materials he was borrowing were neither positively nor negatively commented on by his work, he was not allowed to publish the parody.

I won't bother to find out first hand until they slap a recordable DVD drive in there.

Well, four years ago she was just about to launch the EFF's Campaign for Audio-visual Free Expression (CAFE). (According to her bio, she's the Director of said Campaign, as well as the EFF's Staff Attorney.)

My best wishes and I will support this kind of thing with all of my soul.

I'd certainly expect a lot of support from this kind of community, as the other groups have already found - the question is whether or not that support can be translated into progress... (The DMCA is still there, the EU version is now coming into force, and DRM is starting to appear already - despite the existence of the EFF and co. Will one more really make a big difference??)

Is she married?

Yes. (To a musician, with whom she co-founded this site.)

Everything that comes out needs to have money exchange hands.

Even if I'm willing to pay Nintendo to manufacture my carts, where do I sign up?

Any game you write yourself needs to be licensed through Nintendo/SOny/Whoever.

What law? What court precedent? A simple header check like the one in the GBA is Sega v. Accolade, judgment for the independent publisher.

If they allowed people to just simply write their own software for a hobby, the software library would grow so huge no one would bother buying any games in the stores, and Nintendo would go out of business.

Microsoft allows people to just simply write their own Windows applications for a hobby. People still buy Warcraft 3 and MOHAA in the stores. Does Microsoft go out of business?

Besides, if Nintendo requires all developers to work with licensed publishers, then how is a developer supposed to train himself or herself and get the critical "GBA experience" that publishers require on a résumé?

I'm sorry. I love Nintendo and all, but there's no constitutional right to a business model.

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings. (Audio Home Recording Act, 1976)

Again, IANAL, so I don't know of a whole lot of case law to back this up. Perhaps the Slashdot category should be "Actions under laws that the RIAA doesn't like too much." Also note that 2/3rds of the royalties collected go to musician agencies, NOT industry agencies, 1/6 go to publishers (i.e. RIAA) and 1/6 go to writers. For a link to the enire law, see http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm

I've found a copy of the AHRA on the web at http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm.

I've looked it over and I don't see what your talking about. Maybe my legal reading skills aren't up to par, but my understand was that copies could only be for personal use and that making copies for others is illegal even if I'm just giving them away. Am I wrong on that?

but is there not a certain degree of freedown allowable in reference parodies?

Under United States copyright law as interpreted by the courts, parody is only parody when the parody ridicules the original work itself. That's why The Wind Done Gone is legal but The Cat Not in the Hat isn't.

It was a typo on his part. ARHA should read AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act). Full text http://www.virtualrecordings.com/ahra.htm.

Really? Would you be so kind as to point out to me exactly where the AHRA states that, please? I searched for the word "copy", and couldn't find any pertinant information. I also searched for "backup", "archive", "damage", and about every other synonym that I could think of, to no avail. IANAL either, but you would think that sort of thing ("You can copy this piece of copyrighted information!") would be pretty explicitly spelled out.

But you see, the problem comes in making the leap from meatspace to cyberspace. It's one thing to give a single, static, unchanging copy of a book to a friend to read. It's another thing to give him a copy of a book that he can easily reproduce and save for himself. The problem is that it's so damn easy to make copies of digital works that the same laws cannot apply.

Re: reverse engineering, I was assuming that all code within the ROMs was copyrighted and protected by patents. Otherwise, you're right, it's legal.

Finally, as for it being "black and white", I refer you to this comment that I made detailing the US Code laws in respect to fair use. In that case, I do believe that it is "black and white." If you make a copy of a copyrighted work and make it publically available, you are infringing copyright, and therefore engaging in an illegal act.

For those who are curious, here's the sega ruling. It's good reading.

I sure hope we'll never need anything more than 100 or 200 GB, since nobody'll be able to afford the taxes on it.

This isn't a tax on all hard drives, only on ones attached to DVRs.

Kindly imagine what would have happened if they'd tried this when Napster started up. As I recall, 20GB was a good sized drive at the time, so to get an equivalent tax on a 100GB drive today, you'd have to tax $5 per gig.

I don't see why the tax would be any different then it is today - $1/gig. The idea is that the tax is based on the amount of copyrighted material that the drive holds.

And you don't need to point out that this tax is only on Tivo's and whatnot. It's only a matter of time before they try to apply this to computer storage in general.

Umm... That's a dumb argument.

Are you implying that this will never happen?

No. I was just pointing out that the fact that it will happen has nothing to do with Moore's Law.

They don't do it for any other product

Umm, wrong.

Anyway, your suggestion that we do door-to-door FBI raids will cost the taxpayers much more money in the long run. As for your suggestion that we ignore the problem and let the companies go out of business, I can fully support that, but I was under the impression that the public supported government intervention in order to promote the progress of science and useful arts.

Music and movie conglomerates are not critical industries.

I was under the impression that the public thought otherwise. If you'd rather we drop copyright law altogether, I'd certainly be willing to support that.

Doesn't the same apply here in the US?

Sort of.

Wasn't there a story a while back about how there's a surcharge on CDRs to cover lost revenue to the record companies?

Only audio CD-Rs, not data CD-Rs.

Since I'm paying a 'tax' doesn't that either imply that I'm now paying for the content and have permission to download and burn.

Pretty much. "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."

As long as citizens are given immunity from copyright lawsuits using hard drives, a la the Audio Home Recording Act

... but what EXACT copyright is bein violated and how?

The television broadcast, shows and commercials are certainly copyrighted. Since the early 90s, all works of authorship are automatically copyrighted unless the author declares the work to be in the public domain. The aggreate of the show with commercials inserted is also probably a subject of copyright. That is exactly what is copyright might be violated (wether it is a voilation of not is up to the courts, not mere mortals like you and me, regardless of how strong our opinions may be, expressed here on slashdot or elsewhere).

According to copyright law, the copyright holder has several exclusive rights. The ones that might be violated here are:

1. Right to prepare derivative works
2. Right to distribute copies

#1, the exclusive right to prepare derivative works is quite a gray area. The Replay4000 apparantly has the ability to automatically detect commercials and prevent them from being recorded. Personally, I think that's a great feature (which I would certain use, except that I don't watch TV).

In the case of a VCR, the broadcast is recorded to the videotape without any modification. Commercial skipping happens during playback, but the copy (which was fair use) is an exact copy of the original. But if the recorder analyzes the picture in real time and automatically alters it, maybe that's enough to be considered a "derivative work".

#2, the exclusive right to distribute copies of the work is also a point of contention. The Replay4000 has a file sharing feature, where copies of the broadcast (presumably originals OR modified copies that might be derivitive works) can be transfered to 15 other Replay4000 owners via broadband internet connections. This file sharing certainly is distributing copies, so the only hope for it to be legal is if it's a fair use

There are four factors for fair-use (decided on a case by case basis by courts):

1. purpose and character of use (educational, non-profit, commercial)
2. nature of the copyrighted material (artisitic vs informational)
3. amount of the work copied
4. effect on value and potential market for the author

In terms of the fair use criteria, #1 and #4 are a mixed blessing for Replay4000 users. Sharing is almost always non-profit, but usually for entertainment rather than eductional purposes (yeah, some shows are eductional, but to really be for educational purposes you'd be talking about copies for students at a school). #4 is also middle ground... a small number of copies to friends has a small impact on the market (though the studios will argue that the derivitive works worsens the market for royalties) and the broadcasters will claim the market for "premium" channels is dimished if users distribute certain key shows to their friends who don't susscribe to those channels.

#2 and #3 really work against the Replay4000. The material is "artisitic" (neglecting the overall lack of substance and quality of TV... at least when my girlfriend made me sit through a "survivor" episode a couple months ago). The copies are the whole thing (#3).

One final thing to keep in mind, which seems to be easy to forget while reading all these "ought to be" slashdot comments, is that fair use is decided on a case-by-case basis by courts. The famous Sony vs Universal case (VCR is fair-use) was decided by a 5/4 vote. Very close, and the VCR of the mid 80's required the user to press FF to "skip" a commercial, instead of making a modified recoding (derivative work) automatically. That 80's VCR allowed "swapping", but by physically transporting tapes instead of just pressing a couple buttons (think "subjective opinion of a judge on the impact for the market for or upon the value of the copyrighted work).

I personally hope the Replay4000 and similar devices are ruled to a legal fair use. But saying "it's exactly like a VCR" is a stretch... and the VCR case from the 80's was a 5/4 split of the high court!

Make legislation that says the justice department should get off it's butt and prosecute copyright infringement cases.

Two things:

First off, talking about music (which the rest of this post concerns, although it could apply to movies in the not-so-distant future), the justice department is not allowed to prosecute most of the cases we're talking about here - the Home Audio Recording Act of 1992 prohibited that; in exchange, the RIAA gets a cut of recording equipment/blank media sales.

Second, this isn't really about copyright infringement, it's about control.

In the past, music recording was a very expensive procedure, but like all technology, it has dropped in price, to the point that it's now possible to put together a decent-quality studio for a few thousand dollars.

Also in the past, it was very difficult to expose a band to a large audience - but the Internet has made it so that a band can reach millions of people for $20 a month.

In the past, bands needed record companies - they needed them to make their recordings, and they needed them to sell and market their recordings.. so the record companies had draconian contracts that forced some bands into bankruptcy, when the companies made millions.

This is no longer the case - a band can make and record their own CD's, and distribute them directly to fans, and this scares the record companies shitless.

The record companies aren't scared about copyright infringement, they're scared that they're no longer needed. In order to get back to "the good ole days" they need legislation like the CBDTPA.

With the CBDTPA, independant artists become a thing of the past again - if music doesn't have the watermarks or whatever, then the CBDTPA-compliant devices will interpret it as "illegal" (someone must have removed it) - independant artists won't be able to add the controls themselves, nor will they be able to afford to license it, so they have to go back to the record companies slavery.