Slashdot Mirror
Two Congressmen Push for DMCA Amendments
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.
Happy Trails!
Erick
http://www.busyweather.com/
From the article:
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
More Info: http://eff.org/IP/
Josh.
How many roads must a man walk down? 42.
He is one of the few members of Congress who actually gets it. He consistently comes up with workable solutions for the consumer.
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 (It's only May for crying out loud!)
Insert Jack Valenti "Boston Strangler" reference here.
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 need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
This is a damning indictment of the MPAA and illustrates their contempt for their customers. We're not all crooks and pirates and to pretend that the MPAA has some God given right to demand restrictions on our freedom to support their business model gets things completely backwards.
Even if backing up your DVDs is illegal, why not just do it anyway? Taking your work copy of Win2k home and installing it on your own computer is illegal too but how many people here have done that? There is no SS that is going to start breaking into your house and checking to see if you have.
I think you mean vote, not pray!
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
I worked on one of his campaigns while in college in Virginia. One smart dude and a certified tech interest guy. Keeps his constituents happy and his politics liberal/libertarian (with the little l).
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
This bill isn't going anywhere. The consumer protection subcommittee (where this is being introduced) has no jurisdiction over copyright law, meaning this will never make it to the House floor.
-Isaac
I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. For Entertainment Purposes Only.
This will bring the issue up for a vote. If passes, great, if not, the rights we currently have assumed in the absence of a solid law, could be definitively taken away. At current time, many people believe that they do have the right and do make backups. If a bill allowing it fails, they could easily make a bill that bans it and take away the grey area which people are currently running in.
Dont just post here. Write your reps and congressmen.
House
Senate
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.
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? ;) )
Rick Boucher has been doing a lot recently! He's really got a problem with the DMCA.... So good to see a politican who realizes how messed up the DMCA currently is! Go Rick Boucher!!!
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?
'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.
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.
...legal arguments coming from someone named "Fritz Attaway."
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!!!
WASHINGTON -- Some lawmakers are introducing a bill that Hollywood is not happy about -- one that would allow consumers to make personal copies of digital entertainment like DVDs to be played on whatever device they want.
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.
Sell DVDs with tons of kids movies, said kids destroy DVDs and scream at their parents until they buy it again.
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
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
I've got to admit, this is kind of exciting, that some politicians are at least looking down a road that would lead somewhere reasonable on this issue... however, if you look at some of the other articles/reports on this bill, its not looking likely that it will be passed this year, but maybe later. Anyone else heard anything more promising on the prospects?
They must be avid slashdotters
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.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
You sir, have hit the nail on the head. I'd mod you to +8 if I could.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
This is just for fun...
:-)
The price of Red Hat's stock has grown steadily over the last year, from around $5 to around $25.
Meanwhile, the price of Microsoft's stock has stayed flat, at around $26.
And today, for the first time since the initial bubble, the price of Red Hat's stock exceeded that of Microsoft's.
See RHAT and MSFT
Of course, it doesn't really mean anything, since you can't really compare the two. There are a lot more shares of MFST in circulation than RHAT. Mind you, the fact that one is going up, while the other is flat does mean something.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed it.
It's not specifically mentioned in any of the articles but I would imagine that the (proposed) right to make backup copies of DVDs would extend to a right to decrypt DVDs for any other legal reason, including watching DVDs under Linux (which requires cracking the encryption). Can anyone shed any light on this? Is is purely for making copies or does it allow for other decryption-requiring activities?
Why is anything anything?
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 dont know about fair use rights, but i do know that i have the right to do whatever i want in my own home with something ive legally purchased (apart from obvious things like building nuclear reactors or using a dvd as murder weapon). Now you might argue that this law doesnt exist, but i think you'll find it right next to the law that says "people have common sense freedoms so suck my dick" this is also in the same section of the law that quite clearly states "you are not the only people who can make films so dont act like you're selling something we would die without, infact these days you shouldnt even be acting at all, you suck"
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
I'm afraid you're confused. On 9/12/2001 the USA officially switched from a 'freedom to' model to the less terror-friendly 'freedom from' model.
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!
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
So if my cd/dvd/whatever breaks and it is my fault I should spend 20 bucks on a replacement instead of spending a little bit of time and 50 cents making a backup copy? It's a better idea to make the copy and use it in situations when the disk may be broken than it is to just buy a new one if anything happens.
Toothpaste (the cheap plain stuff works well) polishes out the scratches quite well.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I strongly disagree with calling the purchase of a "DVD" the purchase of a "license". When you purchase a DVD or CD you purchase a copy. It is yours to do with however you want. The doctrine of copyright exhaustion says you can pretty much do anything you want with the copy that is not forbidden in copyright law (Cf, you can't publicly play or rent the copy). But, "Licenses" are contractual agreements between the purchaser and the seller/manufacturer/producer of the goods. Software is usually sold with under license terms. If you read the fine print you probably don't OWN a copy of the software you just purchased, you have a contractual right to install and use the software, but you don't own it. DVDs up until now are not sold with the shrink-wrap licenses (although I could see the MPAA start to do that) so for DVD's your restrictions are based on federal copyright law.
In summary, material governed by copyright is subject only to restrictions of use based on federal law. Material "sold" under the terms of a license are subject to whatever terms the seller/manufacturer/producer wants.
That's what scares me the most, the possibility of the MPAA bypassing copyright law and restricting use to those terms of a shrinkwrap license to "bypass" copyright "fair use". (i.e., no backup copies, "format-shifting" etc.)
Crow23
You know, this is getting ridiculous. When you buy a movie (DVD), ~$1.50 is going towards the actual cost of the media. The remaining ~$18.50 is you, the consumer, purchasing in-home viewing rights from the creator, the studio. You are not allowed to show it in a movie theater, etc etc... The thing that I don't understand is that, if you ruin your movie (sunlight, scratches, etc), you have to repurchase the movie including the rights to view it. I already paid for those rights. If anything, there should be a system where you return a ruined movie, and all you have to pay for is the cost of the media. That should be the worst case scenario. Even that, in my opinion, is a bit draconian.
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."
Just like driving a car:
(D) to go forward
(R) to go backward
Jose Serrano (D-NY, 16th Bronx) is also a good choice to support, especially when it comes to protecting the 1st Amendment.
vodka, straight up, thank you!
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.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
The DMCA is broken. Rep. Boucher isn't trying to change copyright law, he's trying to fix a broken amendment.
Yeah, Rep Boucher only got about 1.5% percent of his corporate sponsorship from the TV/Music/Movies industry. Hatch got about 3%. Of course, Hatch also got about 10 times more contributions than Boucher overall. Such a wonderful system we have...
====
Crudely Drawn Games
i say sue them all and let the RIAA sort them out
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).
Do you really need reason for beer? Wingman Brewers
Wow, that's a neat trick -- Rick Boucher has turned himself into two Congressmen?
we cannot backup commercial software? My Windows XP Pro Corp edition disk always gets scratched, if I did not make a backup copy it would have been costing me more money to buy another copy. I do not think that Microsoft replaces disks anymore, last time I tried I was told to buy another copy.
;)
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?
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
There is no right in the copyright law to make backup copies of motion pictures
.
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
In order to vote, you must first have a candidate. I believe that's what the grandparent meant by praying :)
DRM = Digitally Restricted Media. This is a viral sig, pass it on.
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.
I take that back, I thought you were talking about Boucher. In fact, from your post it's hard to tell WHO you are talking about. What "idiots in management?" Is this a company you're talking about, or management of the government? I hardly believe the grandparent post deserves a 5 informative for a 2 line post. Oh well, this is slashdot I suppose... typical.
It seems to me that as long as we can backup our materials, which is completely possible with present-day hardware and software, the issue is moot.
And, I'll wager there'll be quite a market in a decade or so for old ( but high quality ) analog media devices.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
Doesn't the MPAA dope know that there is no LEGAL basis for anything (DMCA included) until it gets through Congress? Surely, with all of the $$$ spent by him and his organization for the lobbyists, he knows this and it is simply a load of crap to discourage the easily-persuaded. What grade is it when children learn about the separation of power, checks and balances, everything else in our government? But this guy has to preach complete lunacy when the same processes to create the ridiculous DMCA are capable of undoing what was previously done unconstitutionally... Good grief. Hypocrisy in a cause is probably a good reason to do away with the cause.
When one buys any type of content on media they should be able to back up the content to protect the invesment made, making this practice illigal dosent prevent piracy in any way and dosent stop people from doing it anyway.When most people get a movie or a program or music, alot of people don't even realize there is anything wrong with that.It is neccesery to somehow educate people on what is legal to do with the content they payed for and what is not so people would understand.Making backup copies of payed content should not only be legal but encuraged to protect ones invesment...those who knowingly pirate are a whole difrent story tough...
Well, we can't all vote for Rep. Boucher. Unless Diebold voting machines are being used to tally the votes, of course.
These capitalist pigs will never get their amendment made, eh comrads?
By Joseph Stalin! I think I may be in the wrong place!
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
say my CD player breaks one day, taking the CD with it. And say the CD is now out of production. (i.e. good music, not produced in the last 10 years.) What do I do then?
Don't forget the Betamax case.
"But I'm still right here, giving blood and keeping faith. And I'm still right here."
Come on people, let's start letting our representatives know what this means to us!
The history of consumer products is that EVERYTHING eventually becomes either commoditized or obsolete. Commodities are typically the least protected products and easiest to copy. It does not matter if you are talking about growing potatoes or writing or sailing ships or airplanes or motion pictures, each has at one time been arcane technology accessible to a tiny percentage of the population. Today, anyone has access to the collected knowledge of all those subjects.
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.
(This space is what would have been blank had this message not been here)
Everyone says they want to be able to copy cds so they can backup their apps, games, and dvds. Bull.
;) There is a problem with your analogy, according to the **AA at least. I own my plates, but the **AA would have us believe that they only license the content and I don't actually *own* it. Therefore, if making backups is illegal, then I should be provided a replacement. After all, my license is still valid.
If the dvd falls apart and isn't your fault you can CALL THE MANUFACTURER AND GET A REPLACEMENT.
If you snap a cd in half well too bad, be careful with your belongings, don't let your kids handle them if you don't want them to break.
Afterall do you expect someone to replace your broken plates?
Ok, I'll feed the troll
--
www.nitemarecafe.com
"Even if backing up your DVDs is illegal, why not just do it anyway? Taking your work copy of Win2k home and installing it on your own computer is illegal too but how many people here have done that? There is no SS that is going to start breaking into your house and checking to see if you have."
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 who post pirated content on the web, and very occasionally, various key generators (keygen) and software protection schemes (cracks).
In cases like this police (in the U.S. and abroad) will assist at their request. In these instances, the "SS" may indeed kick down doors to stop this kind of illegal activity.
I'm not trying to pass judgement here, but to respond with what I beleive to be accurate information.
.
uR iGn0ranc3, Their Power
Ahhh, but remember - according to the RIAA we haven't purchased an item which we may use any way we wish.
If I had a rental business, I could rent that plate out on an hourly/daily/weekly basis. If it broke, I'm SOL (okay, I'd charge the renter for the broken disc, but that's beside the point). It's value is in its physical form.
A CD is different because I've purchased the rights to the data which the disc contains, and I'm explicitly forbidden from renting it in the US. It just happens to be in a particular format which a particular piece of electronics can play.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
ADV(mostly distribute anime etc) lets you do this, you just need to send them your old dvd and they will send you a new one free of charge. I sent back a dvd I bought over a year ago, had some problems. Still a hassle, but probably less so than backing up every single dvd you have just in case on breaks.
To be honest, government has a lot more important shit to worry about than copyright law right now. Look at the news. I'm surprised these guys are even bringing up this stuff (it's going to get lost in the crossfire of how to deal with a particularly drastic international situation that's only growing worse).
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.
Even if you hate republicans, as I do, then you have to understand that without Rick Boucher we would not have access to the net as we do today. It was his legislation over a decade ago that made the net available to us. Don't ever forget his name or that each of you owes more to him than you will ever be able to repay to him.
Lost a CD, Can't find it new,
Find it on EBaaaaay!
</dancers</music>
D2mn, how did this end up as a top level thread? Oh, well, I suppose its no more out of contect than most other posts here ;-)
Nothing to see...keep walking...
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
I attempted to make a small donation at his website, only to find that that they don't accept contributions online. Disapponting.
'I ain't a liar, baby, and I ain't proud I just want what I'm not allowed.' -- Violent Femmes, 36-24-36
"There is no right in the copyright law to make backup copies of motion pictures . . . ."
Hate to break this, but he's right on the first count. US copyright law does not provide a private copying exception to infringment. Contrast this to many European countries, which give individuals the right to make private copies (e.g., you buy a CD, you can copy it as much as you like for your own use). Often, those governments impose a blank tape levy, the proceeds of which go to copyright owners to offset their losses from private copying.
US law doesn't do this. If a person buys a CD and copies it to tape for himself, the only legal justification he has is fair use. Fair use is a defense to an infringement claim, not a right. Congress would have to change the law to make it a right.
A friend in Sweden tells me that you're already allowed to make copies for "personal use" there - that is, if you purchase a DVD, you're allowed to make a backup copy. He also says "The DVD-consortium pretends like that's not the case, but they are wrong."
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
Translation:
You have no rights, therefore you should not have them.
Both assertions are false and the whole debate is disgusting. DMCA is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed completely. Begging special permission to do one or two things you should be able to do anyway is a waste of time. Getting that permission that all of the other violations more paletable.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I dont know about fair use rights, but i do know that i have the right to do whatever i want in my own home with something ive legally purchased (apart from obvious things like building nuclear reactors or using a dvd as murder weapon). Now you might argue that this law doesnt exist, but i think you'll find it right next to the law that says "people have common sense freedoms so suck my dick"
;-)
This is technically correct, but seems to be worded for Slashdot readers rather than a more appropriate audience. You might want to call those laws "the ninth and tenth amendments" when writing your Congressman.
In fact, you might want to leave oral sex metaphors out of your letter altogether. The Republicans will just be distracted or offended by the subject, the Democrats will just be embarrassed or defensive about it, and then neither group will pay attention to your actual topic.
NOTE: All the numbers on this page are for the 1999-2004 Senate election cycle and based on Federal Election Commission data released electronically on Monday, March 29, 2004.
I believe that number ($157,000) is based on the entire 1999-2004 cycle. This page shows that he has only received $932,737 in contributions this year, which doesn't agree with the number on the pages you cited at all.
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."
/.
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).
Too bad the media companies figured this out 30 years ago!
Open Source Sushi
Never going to happen. We all know that the only good music was produced recently, and may be found on any "top 40" station.
What ever happened ' by the people for the people'.
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.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Don't be confused. Copyright grants a temprorary exclusive franchise to publish. Let's see what publish is:
Publish: Pronunciation: 'p&-blish Function: verb Etymology: Middle English, modification of Middle French publier, from Latin publicare, from publicus public transitive senses 1 a : to make generally known b : to make public announcement of 2 a : to disseminate to the public b : to produce or release for distribution; specifically : PRINT 2c c : to issue the work of (an author) intransitive senses 1 : to put out an edition 2 : to have one's work accepted for publication - publishable /-bli-sh&-b&l/ adjective.
A copy is not a publication. There's no well grounded prohibition of copy in the US.
The DMCA needs to be abolished because it prevents publication of original works and creates an exclusive franchise for Trade Secrets and violates spirit and letter of the US Constitution.
Nothing's more pathetic than a slave begging for favors.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Secondly, downloading MP3s is still rather blatantly illegal. You have fair use rights to make copies of the CDs you bought, but not to make copies of other people's CDs or MP3s. (Disclaimer: IANAL.)
I don't really agree that this is the way it should be, but this is the way it is, at least at present.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
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
watch this
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.
...DMCA originator Orrin Hatch [] so far this year has taken over $157,000 from the TV/Music/Movies industry
And that's when it starts to get really wierd. Guess who contributed $4500 to Mr. Boucher?
"We reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals." --The American President (20.1.2009)
May 13, 2004
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Dear Sir/Madam:
I am contacting you on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America, Inc. (RIAA) and its member record companies. The RIAA is a trade association whose member companies create, manufacture and distribute approximately ninety (90) percent of all legitimate sound recordings sold in the United States. Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies in matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.
We have become aware via your post on www.slashdot.org that you have been producing unauthorized and/or illegal copies of recordings owned by our member companies. We have a good faith belief that the above-described activity is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. We assert that the information in this notification is accurate, based upon the data available to us.
We are asking for your immediate assistance in stopping this unauthorized activity. Specifically, we request that you destroy all unauthorized copies of the media, delete any infringing sound files help on your computer system. We also ask that you post a follow up in this forum denouncing the acts that you have made as both illegal and immoral. In addition, please inform the site operator of the illegality of his or her conduct and confirm with the RIAA, in writing, that this activity has ceased.
You should understand that this letter constitutes notice to you that you may be liable for the infringing. In addition, under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, if you ignore this notice, you and/or your company may also be liable for any resulting infringement. This letter does not constitute a waiver of any right to recover damages incurred by virtue of any such unauthorized activities, and such rights as well as claims for other relief are expressly retained.
Thank you in advance for your prompt assistance in this matter. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me via telephone 1-800-555-5555, or via mail at RIAA, 123 West 3rd st, Washington, D.C., 20036. Please reference Case ID 589318949 in any response or communication regarding this infringement.
Sincerely,
Anti-Piracy Unit
RIAA
So if my cd/dvd/whatever breaks and it is my fault I should spend 20 bucks on a replacement instead of spending a little bit of time and 50 cents making a backup copy? It's a better idea to make the copy and use it in situations when the disk may be broken than it is to just buy a new one if anything happens.
It's like buying insurance; it depends on the numbers. If, on average, you damage less than one DVD out of 40, it's cheaper to buy the replacements on the rare instances when you need them, rather than wasting 50 cents to back up every single DVD you own. On the other hand, if you have a less safe environment (small children, sloppy co-workers, etc.) then backups may be more cost-effective.
Years ago, i ammassed a collection of many hundreds of video games on floppy media. I diligently backed every single one of them up. I think that I only had to rely on such backups once, or maybe twice. The cost to replace two games would have been an order of magnitude cheaper than the cost of the backups in media and storage space, not to mention the time spent in making them.
Furthermore, it is against consumer interests because:
(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.
Libertarianism is rich wolves and poor sheep playing gambler's ruin for dinner.
Yes, exactly, freedom from the stranglehold of fear the Islamic world has on our Christian nation. Freedom from suicide bombers lurking in every corner of every city and town.
I'm glad you see things our way. It's very important that we be free to practice the will of Jesus Christ, our savior. Surely the towelhe^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Arabs want our fertile land and beautiful women all for their own. I'm quite confident that Jesus Christ is beside us as we valiantly vanquish the Iraqi threat and close Saddam's terrible torture prisons.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
'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."
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.
I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
I hate slashbots so much. I hate you, faggot.
fnah
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.
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 have to explain a nice shorthand phrase in great detail in order to use it unambiguously, you have reached the stage of burning the village in order to save it. Galling though it may be, it is then time to helicopter your linguistic marines from the phraseological embassy roof.
"Begs the question", as handy as it may once have been, was never an ideal piece of linguistic real estate. I'd wager that no person has ever understood that phrase without explanation the first time they heard it. Now, of course, it is utterly useless except perhaps over a glass of sherry at the faculty club. By which I mean the phrase has become the jargon of the tribe of the self-consciously linguisticly elite: the people who still cringe at the use of "contact" as a verb meaning "to initiate communication". I suppose everyone has their own private windmills to tilt at. "Impact" to mean "affect" still sets my teeth on edge, but I don't expect the world to see the error of its ways. In matters of language when this happens right and wrong stand on their heads.
So, I simply avoid "Begs the question", as it is now simply ambiguous. Instead, I will characterize an argument as a involving "Have you stopped beating your wife question." This is somewhat syntactically awkward, but is universally and immediately understood.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
For some unforseen reason, the theater is unable to show the film - power outage, projector malfunction, whatever.
You may a "rain check" to see a later showing as a refund. Or you get your money back and are free to use that money to see the film at another theater.
The whole point of a "rain check" is to provide what is in effect a backup for public for-pay events
Related to the fair use angle... ...And yes, I still have a laptop running Win95 and it works just great thank you very much.
The reason I have yet to purchase Office 2000 or WinXP and I continue to hang on and use Office97 and Win2K is this stupid registration thing. I'm not going to buy a product that I may not be able to use in ten years just because the company decides it will no longer give out registration keys (if I install it on different hardware in 2014)
Not that it'll stop me from ripping my CDs for use on my iPod, then storing them in a safe place. What happens when a "VideoPod" comes out, capable of showing movies and holding three or four hundred/thousand DVDs? Will I not be allowed to rip the DVDs and play them? Technically, they're backups.
I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
You download the MP3s/OGGs/Take-your-pick from your favourite filesharing program as you own a license to listen to this music and in doing so you're acting entirely within the law.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Any particular reason the article headline says "Two congressmen" but only one congressman is mentioned in the body of the article?
It wouldn't be because the other congressman is Replublican, would it?
Yes, I RTFA, I know the answer - do you?
Refrain from using the internet for more than ninety(90) minutes in a seven(7) day period.
GuyMannDude, it's time to go.
Before the DMCA you could legally make as many copies of anything. The only catch was that if you resold it or gave it away, every copy would have to be either destroyed or given to the one person.
So basically you could have a collection of 100 Finding Nemo DVD's, and as long as they stayed together or were destroyed, you could do whatever you wanted with them. They could make it as difficult as they wanted to copy the thing, but if you could copy it, you could copy it.
The funny thing is that software company's have been getting around this for years, licencing software instead of selling it. Let's hope they don't get any funny ideas (shutter.)
"The DMCA makes this copying illegal because DVDs employ a copy protection scheme. "
Ummm...no It's not a "copy protection" scheme (think about it for a second). It's a region protection scheme aka economic protection racket.
I just wonder how long we'll be able to do this, though... I know the risk is tiny, but if I do what you suggest, i might get an RIAA letter through the door someday. I am *that* unlucky a person.
The point is I should never have to worry about receiving that letter.
That one thing would be: convincing me to pirate all music and movies.
Yep, that's me RIAA/MPAA. I almost never buy the CD/DVD, but whenever I do, you can be damn sure I'm making it available for others to download.
You can also be damn sure that the more you push this bullshit, the more I'm going to pirate and offer to others.
You're shooting yourselves in the feet; I'm more than glad to pull the trigger for you.
feh. stuff.
I work for a university and I'm sick of trying to explain why I can't convert a RealAudio stream into something that can be used in a PowerPoint. I'm told the faculty member's use is covered under Fair Use and while that's true, the process of getting to the content isn't. The DMCA trumps Fair Use. Big Media knew this when they lobbied for it. Technology impaired PhD's didn't realize how a law that was marketted as something to stop people from illegally copying DVDs would effect them until they tried to play something in class that requires them to watch a 2 minute FBI warning and then a 5 minutes of teaser that they are "Not Permitted" to fast forward though before they even get to the DVD menu or wanted to copy a audio or video clip hosted on a site they feared might change and were told that was illegal. Part of the problem is that most University support staff I know will just crack/copy/convert the content rather than listen to the faculty member whine.
/.er is completing this EFF form to let their congressional representatives know people care about this issue.
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
[In fact, you might want to leave oral sex metaphors out of your letter altogether ... the Democrats will just be embarrassed or defensive about it]
...or they'll perjure themselves during testimony about it, get impeached, claim that oral sex is not actually sex, and then make millions from a book and speaking engagements...
I could think of reasons other than backup in case of damage for allowing DVD copies:
Multi-Archiving: Just like I rip all my audio CD's into mp3 format so that I can have multiple albums on a single disc, so could I do with DVD and some fancy compressed formats
Format changes: Inevitably, the DVD format will be replaced - presumably with something that holds more data. In that case, maybe I'd like to put series X from several DVD's onto one disc of the new media.
Travel: I'm going on a trip soon. I'd much rather take copies of my DVD's when I'm away for 4 weeks than risk having them stolen/lost/etc while I'm away from home.
Last time I voted (in '02), in one of the races on the ballot, I got to choose between Rick Santorum and...um, Rick Santorum. Fat lot of good voting does then! [0]
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...
Hurry up and jump on the individualist bandwagon!
I don't download copyrighted files unless I have a license to use the music - ie the sort of situation where a CD breaks and I want to retrieve my content quickly, or the likes of the old-style MP3.com where music was legally available for download.
I do, however, copy all CDs that I buy to both PC (in mp3 format) and onto my Mini-disc player to listen to while not at home.
Even if there isn't a provision in law which states I may make backups, from everything the RIAA/MPAA has stated it appears that I own a license to use the content for personal use, not the actual media I'm sold - so by their own admission, I can choose to listen/watch my content in whatever way I choose.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
Boucher is a Democrat.
A damn good one, one who more than makes up for the sad excuses like Zell Miller and Fritz Hollings.
---
Mod me down, you fucking twits. Go ahead. I dare you.
(I read with sigs off.)
Microsoft probably gives that much to everybody. They're so rich they buy their congresscritters at CostCo.
I don't buy much music, 'cos it's all basically crap these days, but I have had the misfortune of ending up with a good CD, but copyprotected (a present, or I would have left it on the shelf). It won't play/rip on the PC. I don't have optical in on the machine, so the only copy I can get of it is good old analogue stereo. At least, with the gear I have here.
Like you say, I can grab a pristine copy from somewhere out there, but for how much longer? And I would worry about that letter, even if it is bullshit... Even the propect of 'whatever the fuck the FUD is these days' is too dangerous for my job.
Guess I'm just having a grumble. Don't like the way this is all going...
How is that relevant?
Patrick Doyle
I mod down every jackass who puts his moderation policy in his sig. Oh, wait a sec....
In "Men in Black," Tommy Lee Jones' character holds up a new intergalactic music disc the size of a postage stamp that will eventually replace CDs.
"Guess I'll have to buy the 'White Album' again," he says with a sigh.
source
The tinfoil side of me thinks that perhaps the **AA's been trying to condition people to this for quite some time. The non-tinfoil side thinks the tinfoil side's nutz.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Making it to the house floor has nothing to do with "jurisdiction" of a committee, and everything to do with what the House Rules Committee says. What committee the bill is in at any given time doesn't matter that much. In the US House of Representatives, when a bill is debated, what committees (and how many) that bill is shuffled to, how much debate will be on the bill, even the number of offered ammdenmdents, are all decided by the House Rules Committee.
The Rules Committee can shuffle a bill to any number of committees, even ones that don't seem to have juristiction (or even have to do with anything related to the bill!) You are probably thinking of the US Senate, where bills are only refered to one committee (rarely two, but the secondary committee has far less powers). Most people think the power in the US House is on Ways and Means, but the real power is on the Rules Committee. Those members decide what/when/where happens to every bill.
Because a bill has to pass all committees before it is allowed on the House floor, a common tactic to kill legislation used by the Rules Commitee refer it to many, many committees. Failure to get approval from any one of the committees results in the bill's demise.
Getting a bill to the House floor is a duanting task, but if the bill does make it out of committee it has a good chance of an up or down vote without major modification. In the House, only germane ammendments (previously approved by the Rules Committee) may be offered. Filibusters do not occur in the House.
In the Senate, bills are only refered to one committee (usually) so getting out of committee is much easier. The flipside of this process is in the Senate, non-germane ammendments are allowed, and there always exists the risk of filibuster.
Hope that clarifies things.
I lent a CD I had to a friend who got a deep scratch right on my favorite song, so that it could play every other song but that one. Fortunately I married someone who also had that CD, so I got a backup copy in the deal.
We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
Haven't we already been through all this before? Why does it have to come up every time a new technology appears?
=============
OTOH, what would work that would allow fair use (backups) while prevent unfair use (sharing content with others who did not buy the right to it)?
Would anyone be happy if these media conglomerates stated a license timeframe up front and charge considerably less for the media? Of course not. I certainly wouldn't buy a DVD that only gave me the right to watch the movie for the next 5 years.
Would anyone want a tracking database that could confirm that you paid for the a particular song or movie and allowed you to get replacements for the cost of the materials plus a minimal handling fee? Privacy advocates would be up in arms. (And who wants anyone knowing they bought a Britney Spears or Milli Vanilli album? )
Would the RIAA or MPAA be willing to offer life-time (human life not media life) warranties? It would need full unconditional replacement of any damaged CD or DVD at any time in the life of the original purchaser. Unfortunately, this would require some sort of registration (or keeping of the original receipts). I highly doubt that they would do this willingly.
My real point is that we need to come up with a solution that works for both sides -- preventing rampant piracy and corporate greed while allowing media to be sold to consumer and allowing consumers to use their media anytime and anywhere.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
Listen-
as long as you monkeys (and you know who you are) continue to support craptastic endeavors like VAN HELSING, Big Media will always control your destiny.
Stop giving these jackasses $55 million for stupid films and their power goes away (and/or we get better movies).
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Incorrect usage over time, by enough people, becomes correct usage. Simply put, people define the language, and dictionaries and grammar books merely reflect the way society uses language. This is not to say someone won't consider you incorrect in using l33t speak ;)
:)
This happens frequently in languages like English, where the words and usage change over time. (Unlike French, for example, where a central authority attempts to enforce the "purity" of the language.)
Of course the way you put it is much more entertaining
Do what some software companies do when a CD gets cracked. If the DVD is defective for any reason, just send it back for replacement. No need to prove ownership as long as the disc is an original disc.
It hurts... physically hurts.
out here in california we are passing a long a no buy week ..We have a signed petition with 12,000 signatures saying no to the riaa and mpaa and promises from those people not to buy anything for 1 solid week starting may 30-june 5..join in you power and help us show them we dont need em.Dotn buy into thier crap
~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
Good point. Here's something to think about: the copyright extensions created in the Sony Bono Copyright Extension Act expire in 2019. That means, if this is important to you, you have several election cycles to vote the people who supported it out of office and vote in legislators with a more consumer-friendly viewpont.
Your fantasies contain the seeds of important concepts.
We could consider a a movie or the entire dvd data as software written in a specific computer language.
I don't see the difference between a DVD and any other kind of software.
Translation of the MPAA side:
Boo hoo! I want corporate welfare!
I can still read a book if run over, in fact, one can read at least SOMETHING from a book even if it is treated in the harshest way possible (just look at any middle schoolers book)
Fritz
Huh?
Among other things, this would allow products like TIVO to legally defeat encryption to access HDTV. Currently it is unlikely the TIVO will ever work with HDTV because it is illegal for them to reverse engineer the encryption that protects the digital data stream from an HDTV receiver. The companies that make HDTV sets will undoubtedly include their own lame TIVO imitations so they can up the prices of their sets, but it won't be the same.
1 07 :
Here's the bill:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.
There's a site where you can send an email to your congressperson asking them to support the bill.
http://www.protectfairuse.org/
Don't depend on the linked news articles. You can read transcripts of Wednesday's hearing.
Speakers whose comments are already online include:
Lawrence Lessig, You know who he is.
Gary Shapiro, Consumer Electronics Association
Jack Valenti, MPAA
Cary Sherman, RIAA
Miriam Nisbet, American Library Association
Robert Holleyman, Business Software Alliance
Chris Murray,Consumer's Union
Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge
Robert Moore, CEO of 321 Studios
and more.
There were enough people there who understand the issues and who can explain them clearly that if this subcommittee came out of there unconvinced that this is a good law, then I can only conclude that they are completely beholden to moneyed special interests, and don't give a whit about the public interest.
Like Digital Freedoms? Then donate to EFF before they're gone.
- Make a copy (reproduce)
- Use a work as the basis for a new work (create a derivative work)
- Electronically distribute or publish copies (distribute a work)
- Publicly perform music, prose, poetry, a drama, or play a video or audio tape or a CD-ROM, etc. (publicly perform a work)
- Publicly display an image on a computer screen or otherwise (publicly display a work)
Because of the nature of digital media, some have argued that the 1st power is invoked when viewing it. This is quite frankly a load of horsecrap. It's no more a copy than is it a copy when the magnetic information on a VHS tape is reproduced on a screen using an electron beam.As long as you in some form have a legally obtained decrypted copy (as e.g. after being decrypted by a licenced player, or by this bill) you have every right to watch it too. Maybe you're "backing up" to memory? Temporary back-up, but hey...
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
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
That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
I got to choose between Rick Santorum and...um, Rick Santorum. Fat lot of good voting does then!
Doesn't a no-vote for Rick Santorum still count? I thought, and I could be WAY wrong, that if the running person doesn't get the majority of the votes, that he doesn't get the office, even if there isn't another person. It's entirely possible that I'm really wrong, though, and it may vary from location to location.
That's an interesting argument until someone actually thinks about it. Congress's job is making laws. There was no law that made it illegal to break copy protection schemes until Congress created one (a bad law in my opinion).
Laws should be created to encode things that the society wants. Too often they are created to benefit a special interest to the detriment of society.
In this case, even if no current law permits making a backup copy of information that is still controlled by copyright, there should be, and I think that our society would agree, and so Congress should create a law or amend a law to that effect. Whether they will or not is a different story.
Mike
Cutting off their ears won't do any good, they'll just turn up the volume. You've gotta cauterize out the eardrums.
It was a joke! When you give me that look it was a joke.
When asked how, exactly, such a situation would be against consumers' interests, Attaway declined to comment.
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Rick Santorum wasn't up for re-election in 2002, he was originally elected in 1994, and re-elected in 2000. I believe the democrat running against him was Klink.
DVD copiers are in denial. They do NOT have the right to copy copyrighted works. Period. Instead of coming to terms with this, they make up arguments for why they don't have to obey the rules. Then they go running to the government to put restrictions on what kinds of rules producers can impose on the usage of their own products. I just think it's sad that people are still so confused about the nature of ownership rights.
They're saying the law indisputably says something entirely different. Their lying to make money. Aren't their more restrictions on commercial speech? Didn't Nike get into trouble for lying in just such a manner? Couldn't we sue the MPAA under the same theory? And have their attorneys who lie to brazenly disbarred like former President Clinton?
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,'
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.
Has Comcast disconnected your Internet account? Same here. You can read about it at http://comcastissue.blogspot.com
I use mother's california gold car wax. Works like a charm.
It happens to be quite simple as legal-speak goes.
Hate to say this but they already have extended it to 95 years as of 1998 with the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act :-(
Who would you elect for President?
I think you hit the nail on the head right there. A friend of a friend knows someone who heard about people ripping from Netflix--quite a way to build up a collection.
harmonious design
The worst part is, you people who think you're fighting the xxAA's are giving them the very firepower they need to convince ignorant legislators that they need laws like the DMCA.
The only one you're helping when you download media you haven't paid for is yourself (until, of course, you get tossed in jail). But then that's all the justification most of you need to begin with.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Nothing is illegal until we as a society decide that we do not wish to accept the behaviour in question. Likewise, nothing need remain illegal once we as a society decide that the behaviour in question is not wrong / bad / hurting of others.
Nothing in the law ought to be cast in stone.
emt 377 emt 4
http://satirewire.com/news/0011/nader_wins.shtml
Granted, this is for Macromedia Flash Player 7, but here in section 2.2 you'll find this nice clause:
Now, I could have sworn that some version(s) of Windows or other products like XP had similar clauses, but I can't seem to find them any more. I did find this link to various MS Product EULAs, but none there appear to have an audit clause. Google tells me that they DO have some audit clauses in various other agreements (i.e. some refurbisher's agreement), so maybe they did drop that clause from most of their consumer software. I hope so.
And tell him personally what we think...
Fritz_Attaway@mpaa.org
"Xerox" is a registered trademark.
Please use the term "photocopy" instead.
And what happens when the disc in question is lost by young/irresponsible kids?
Not only that, but then there's a cost factor involved. Mailing the failed disc to them will cost a couple of bucks. Most likely the label will be forced to charge an additional couple of bucks (paid by us again, of course) for shipping the new one pack, and then there's the cost of the media itself and the time for them to make me another one.
We're talking probably around $5-10 to get these duplicates.
Compare that to the $0.25/copy it costs me for a CD-R, or under $1.00/copy it costs for a DVD-R. Of course, this is neglecting hardware costs (the CD-R/DVD-R drive itself), but personally as I use my burner for other uses (i.e. backups), I don't consider the hardware costs much for burning backup copies of CDs/DVDs.
It's not the RIAA/MPAA/??AA's job to teach you and/or your kids how to be responsible for keeping track of (and take care of) your own purchased items. If you lose a DVD or it is stolen, then go to your insurance company or something like the AMEX Buyer Protection service for replacement. We're talking replacing a disc that is defective/cracked -- something you physically have ownership of.
As for the costs involved, media postal rates are dirt cheap. Look at how NetFlix handles it. So why not go into a partnership with The UPS Store? eBay already has a deal with them (or one of those package stores) and they're already comfortable handling packages.
Let's say it costs $1 to mail a DVD each way. Go in to the store and pay $2.50 for a 2-way DVD mailer and mail your broken DVD to the replacement center. They turn around and mail the pack back to you with the new disc (using your prepaid postage and the same mailer that you addressed yourself).
I'll even go along with your estimate of $5 to cover mailing and duplication costs. (Certainly $10 is out of the question for all parties involved.) But $5 is not an unreasonable fee to get a replacement disc.
Replacing a cracked disc that's out of print -- that's another story entirely.
I call it what everyone else calls it. I also call XFree86 as X-Windows, which you may not agree with either.
When you install it, it says it is Windows XP Pro. Computer slang, which I use, calls it XP Pro Corp Edition because it does not have product activation.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Yes VB 3.0 is no longer supported. I cannot get disks for it anymore. I am SOL.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
Microsoft does outsource, or so I heard, and they are not always well trained.
As for VB 3.0 replacement disks, I am SOL because they reached an end of life cycle years ago.
It does not matter, I migrated my server to Linux, some day I may also migrate my workstations as well. Of course I can always use a disk from one of the other workstations or the MSDN package, but the fact is I shouldn't have this sort of problem from MS.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.