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.

Comments

An EFF View of "Fair Use"

[digitalvengeance]

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.

Re:An EFF View of "Fair Use"

[mgpeter]

It's not just DVDs, they believe that with ANY digital content (that needs to create a copy of itself in order to play), it should be illegal to make backup copies. Here is why (in their lawyeristic minds anyway).

In the 1909 Copyright ammendment, there was a stipulation that regulated ANY copies of copyrighted work. Before this the law only covered any copies that were either published or distributed. So, instead of having unregulated rights to create personal copies, there is a fair use right to have the ability to create a backup of copyrighted work.

Here is where it gets interesting, they found a loophole in the copyright act in reguards to digital content - according to the copyright "owners" when you access something that is in digital content, whether it be a DVD, mp3 file, Internet webpage, software program, etc. The device changing it from digital into something that a person can view must make a copy of the digital content "in memory" in order to process the content.

So when you watch a DVD movie, the DVD player reads the encrypted digital content from the disk, converts it into something that will be output to the TV (making a copy). Thus, when you make a copy of a DVD, the player would then make a copy of a copy which is not legal unless given permission from the content owner (fat chance).

If you want an in depth explanation of this read the book "Free Culture" by Lawrence Lessig (www.free-culture.cc).

As far as I can understand, this is the only way software companies can get away with bypassing copyright law and use EULAs when distributing their software with all sorts of restrictions, some even un-constitutional (allowing search and seizure with a court order).

Anyway, until the Copyright Act includes unregulated copying to allow viewing of the copyright contents, I believe the courts would probably rule that you cannot make a backup of a Digital work, just because everyone is so worried about the letter of the law instead of the intent of the law.

Idiots in management, AGAIN

[Slime-dogg]

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.

Don't toss a scratched DVD

[nelsonal]

Toothpaste (the cheap plain stuff works well) polishes out the scratches quite well.

Solved in Audio Recording. Why not home video?

[ducomputergeek]

There is prior case for allowing such back ups. The Home Recording Act of 1992 Read it here

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.

EFF and DMCRA

[forevermore]

I believe that this is the DMCRA bill, and the EFF has a contact form all filled out and ready to be faxed (remember, it's a lot easier to ignore an email than a fax) to your local representative. I also copied and slightly modified this text and sent it to my state senators.

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).

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[RLW]

You don't understand basic copyright law, retard.

Before the DMCA anyone could make a backup copy of DVD's legally. The fair use doctrine is simply stated here Fair Use.

The gist of it is this, does the copy being made have any impact on the copyright holder's ability to make money with the protected work? If I have bought the copy at Wal*Mart and want to copy it on to my HD for my own personal use then that would have been fine before the DMCA. The DMCA makes this copying illegal because DVDs employ a copy protection scheme. If the movie is on a VHS tape then I can still do it. Now, some informed congressmen are attempting to right a wrong when this part of Fair Use was taken away solely because the work was distributed on a DVD.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[object88]

There is no law saying I can't xerox my book.

Well, I don't know about that. And here's where my understanding of copyright law breaks down.

Section 106 - 106(1) states: Subject to sections 107 through 121, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

So this says that the copyright holder's the only person who can make exact copies (barring limitations later defined). Now, we have Fair Use, Section 107, which is the most commonly used deflection of the law. In particular, it states that copying is permitted... but not for backup purposes. As a counterpoint, Section 117 on Computer Software explicitely states that copying for archival purposes is allowed (Section 117(a)(2)). I have yet to find a similar declaration for books, music, or visual (stillframe or moving) works.

So it seems that, yes, there is a law sayig you can't Xerox your book. In practicality, Xeroxing a whole book is a time-consuming and tedious affair, so it hasn't been hilighted (well, recently, anyway). Digital media is quickly and easily copied, thus all the hooplah.

That said, do I think there should be an amendment stating that making archival copies of any such media should be allowed? Hell yes! I think that's 100% within the right of the consumer. If someone could point out explicitely where is it already a law and prove me wrong, I'd be very grateful.