Slashdot Mirror
DMCA Loophole For Peer-to-Peer TV Show Sharing?
An anonymous reader writes "Fortune.com asks, "Is TV Show Swapping Legal? For those using TiVos or new Windows PCs, it just might be." Why? "The law that ensnared ... DVD hackers, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, doesn't specifically address the question of [personal video recorders]. But when it comes to the legality of hacking digital media, the law zeroes in on 'circumvention' -- did hackers have to circumvent protection to copy the video? Several hackers who have published their techniques online say they didn't have to crack anything to extract video from their TiVos""
To the perspective of the networks, don't they want MORE people watching their shows? Plus, taping shows is already legal, what's the difference with letting people put it on computer?
copyright issue.
Trading copies of the program(regardless of medium) to people is a copyright violation.
sure, you can record a show for your own use, but not for distribution.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I wouldn't be surprised if a time-to-live feature is added to "swapping" devices. I.e., you can swap all you want, but the swapped copy has a limited lifetime and then erases itself. Like those disposable DVD's.
This could be easily done by the folks at TiVo or ReplayTV.
Even if the DMCA does not prohibit sharing TV shows, regular copyright law probably does. However, software and hardware which allows TV show sharing might be legal to sell if this article is right. OTOH, they didn't need the DMCA to shut down Napster, so my guess is that the TV networks will use similar contributory infringement arguments if they want to go after ExtractStream and friends.
Taking the poster's "legal analysis" as true "sharing" copies of television shows is still a violation of other copyright laws. As the MP3.com case proved, no one has a right to make a copy for you. Only you have the right to "space shift" (transfer to VHS, CDR, etc) an mp3 file (or television show). This is where Napster and MP3.com were found to violate copyright law. Not the DMCA's anticircumvision.
I have a ReplayTV. Love it! Can share my files directly off the Replay to the net (with some firewall rules). Not to mention software like DVArchive that "emulates" another replay on my network allowing me to dump the files from the replay to my fileserver and share them back again for later viewing.
The dingo ate my sig.
Compare this to open source software:
The code is freely available. You can download it from the internet and do whatever you want with it. Anyone can watch a TV show and record it if they want.
So why do people pay for things like Linux distributions? It's the convenience. They're not paying for the code, they're paying for the packaging, the tech support, etc.
Same thing with the TV shows. If people want to record them and share them for free (essentially providing a service), that's their perogative.
The wonderful (not) thing about the DMCA is that anything can be considered a protection system, because protection is in the eye of the content provider. The only way you can tell if your actions are unlawful circumvention are to try them and see if you get sent to jail.
-- ;-)
Kuro5hin.org: where the good times never end.
It's always been illegal to swap TV shows under conventional copyright law, nothing under fair use covers that. It covers time-shifting, and using small portions in various ways.
What DMCA added was that it outlawed any tool or information that could be used to circumvent protection mechanisms (and screw any fair use or other applications it might have).
I really don't see the point here...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Seriously, though, the governments and corporations of the world have taken advantage of us by pawning off all these "digital" versions of laws that are already in place. This is why the EFF keeps fighting it, and why everyone should too.
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
Sure, but given a choice of the file with thousands of sources and ample bandwidth versuses the one with 3-4 from a couple of cable modems capped at 128k upstream, the "official" version will prevail. You can't control everything, and this seems to be the basic lack of understanding with these corporations.
..by reporting statistics like "Our show is the most swapped on the internet" which would probably do wonders for in show advertising.
I.e., imagine Stan and Kyle drinking Pepsi and belching. Or Cartman eating Hormel Beans and... well, you get the idea.
.
Although this may not violate the DMCA (depending on how courts construe "circumvention"), it violates several other criminal statutes. First, it violates the No Electronic Theft Act, which criminalized copyright violations even without a profit motive. While the Act requires a value of $1000 of content to trigger its provisions, courts have allowed this threshold to be met by production or "black market" prices rather than realistic costs. In addition, this may violate the National Information Infrastructure Protection Act, which criminalized unauthorized access to servers. While this was intended as an anti-hacking law, perhaps it could be extended to unauthorized intrusion into one's own server (Tivo) if (and this is a HUGE if) owning the thing doesn't automatically authorize one to access it.
While the second of these is speculative, the first can and has been used to prosecute warez folks so I have no doubt the Justice Department of John Ashcroft would use it should entertainment companies begin wailing about TV piracy.
Make cheese not war 8:)
Again, I don't understand this argument. There is nothing forcing you to read the adverts in magazines, newspapers, billboards. TV has only been different because that is the way the technology worked. This is no longer the case and they need to get over that fact.
and don't get harrassed by it if I have a ripped vcd or mpeg of it.
Kind of ironic, isn't it. Saying that, I can't imagine anyone saying, "bugger, can't watch it then, better bin it" after seeing the warning on a pirate.
Personally, I bought a hardware DVD player with a chip to disable the "user prohibitions" features. No macrovision (use my VCR to convert the composite out to RF, fed around the house) and of course, multi-region. Bliss!! Moral of the story...research before you buy. :-)
Actually, the networks aren't afraid of copies. They're afraid of *perfect* copies.
... Grrrr!" Valenti goes on and on about the danger of "perfect" copies. I've seen him speak twice -- a amazingly underwhelming experience -- and find him to be much to old to actually "get" what's going on.
s o-I-have-something-to-fuck-on-weekends executives will be a helluva lot *more* worried if one day we wake up to see goofy Donald Rumsfield breaking into 'Days of Our Lives' to tell us that we've just stopped and boarded an unflagged North Korean tanker headed for an unspecified port with 100 kilograms of plutonium on board.
Hence, the fear of digital.
Geriatric Jack "Maddog
He doesn't get what's going on. His staff does, but he's the spokesperson, and he's not a very good one. Valenti is much more interesting -- and actually engaging -- when he talks about his time in the Kennedy (that's right, JFK) White House.
But this digital stuff -- and the fear that Valenti loves to spread -- just doesn't resonate when Valenti is doing the talking. He's like some old guy talking about "The Pink Floyd" while watching a PF video and then pointing, saying, "Is that Pink? Is that guy Pink?"
He's the sort of guy that would do the much-maligned "Funky White Guy" dance -- squinting, sorta pursing his lips, lifting his hands, and trying to shake once or twice to the beat. It's not only not effective, but it's not funny. It's abymsal, in fact, and that's exactly the sort of aura that Valenti projects among the 20/30/early 40 crowd -- at least when he's doing his public speaking thing.
People look at him and have this: "Is this guy for fucking real?" look. We all clap politely but know nothing's gonna change until he takes his retirement, leases that new Lexus, and heads out to Tuscon or Phoenix or Palm Desert or wherever has-beens go to relax and prune-out.
The other issue -- at least when I saw him speak -- was the fact that Valenti was talking about digital copying as if it were a fate worse than terrorism. I mean, for fuck's sake, let's be real.
The neo-Islamo-fascist weapons trade is serious.
Kim "Look at my lofty bouffant hair-do" Il-Jung proliferating his plutonium and U-235 is serious.
Angry Chechen mobsters with lead-lined cannisters that are warm to the touch are serious.
But a copy of "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" -- even if it's a perfect copy -- is not serious.
Yes, yes, I understand that a good portion of media America is concerned and worried about "proliferation" of perfect copies. But believe me, that same group of Italian-suit-wearing-hire-me-a-nice-young-intern-
And the other issue with Valenti is that the word "compromise" is simply not in his vocabulary. Several folks asked him about whether or not he could find a "happpy medium" and his response was always, no, digital copies must be protected. Period.
So he didn't score any points -- at least not with me and booze-whores I hang out with.