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

Back me up on "backing up"

[erick99]

If the manufacturers who produce the movie DVD's that I buy could GUARANTEE that the disc was virtually indestructable - that an errant scratch wouldn't ruin my $30 movie, then I might find it hard to defend software that copies that movie. But, I have eaten way too much money from DVD's and software discs as well, that died from scratches and other surface anomalies. I don't pretend to fully understand the laws that governs who owns what on my DVD. But, I do understand that if my disc is scratched, no one is going to give me another copy. However, I could make a backup copy and store it to protect myself. And, indeed, I do that now. I backup everything with DVD Shrink and they go into a special DVD book of all of my movies.

Happy Trails!

Erick

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[Anonymous Coward]

no offense, but virtually, my ass! If I'm buying the right to watch a move (as in license) in perpetuity, and I'm not allowed to transfer that movie to other media for backup purpouses, then as soon as the thing breaks, for the rest of eternity, I want a replacement. Period.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[(54)T-Dub]

My favorite quote:

"It's against consumers' interests to permit devices that make backup copies," he added, "because there is no way that a device can distinguish between a backup copy for personal use and making a copy for friends, family acquaintances or even selling on the street corner."

(rollseyes)

Oh yeah, that is definately against my interests.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[phalse phace]

"I might find it hard to defend software that copies that movie"

How about so I can copy my DVD(s) to my HDD on my laptop so I don't have to carry around a bunch of DVDs which might get lost, stolen, or damaged while traveling?

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[Jim_Maryland]

Also consider that as technology changes, you may have to convert older formats to new. Imagine your favorite movie that you originally bought on VHS, then bought on DVD, and eventually buy on . You should only have to purchase the content once.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[RLW]

I don't want it for backups. I want to make a movie library on my PC that I can play back by selecting from a menu list. Who wants to fumble around for the DVD cases and get up off the couch? I can't wait to get one of those Sony 7 video in/out + 1 TB storage PCs. Now what I want is a way to input all of may Satellite receivers and re-route the signal to any TV in the house and to have the ability to change which receiver that TV is watching as well an change what channel the receiver is tuned in to.

Anyway I would just make a copy on the PC and put the disk in the closet just in case my drive crashes.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[erick99]

I can pull the book out of the toilet, dry it, and still read it. A book is, for my purposes, "virtually indestructible."

Take care,

Erick

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[druxton]

You should only have to purchase the content once.

That's my pet peeve with the music and movie (and to some extent proprietary software) industries. What am I paying for when I buy a CD or DVD? If it is a license to their intellectual property, then I darn well have the right to copy and use it anyway I like, including downloading digital copies of vinyl originals. If it's the physical media with a particular series of bits, then it should come with a warranty and I should be able to copy it - if I buy a car and machine the parts to create an exact replica, Chevy can't come after me for that. If it's both, then they should replace the media for a nominal fee if it is damaged, since I have already paid for the intellectual property component.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[Mattcelt]

Gee, that's funny... in my "Introduction to Intellectual Property Law" book, fair use is covered. Why? Because judicial precedent carries the weight of law. And judicial precedent says that I have the right to make backup copies of what I buy, no matter how the copyright law is currently worded.

So before you go around calling people 'butt breath', check your facts. 'Cause the shit that's coming out of your mouth is far more foul.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[joggle]

How many times have you dropped a book into a toilet? How many times have you scratched a CD/DVD causing a degredation in performance? Let's face it, CD/DVDs are not going to last nearly as long as modern acid-free books and it is reasonable to want to back these fragile (and expensive) things up. If the manufacturers are so worried about it, make the discs last longer for crying out loud! (perhaps by using the MiniDisc technique for instance)

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, yes it COULD have an impact on the copyright holder's ability to make money. Knowing that I can easily carry my movies around on the harddrive rather than being restricted to disks, I might be more likely to buy the disk since it has more value to me. Therefore, this copying increases the copyright holder's ability to make money.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[tanguyr]

My point is that the MPAA is trying to attack the can when they should be focusing on the may. Technology is not the problem. Even if the MPAA could have every DVD ripping and copying program in the world banned tomorrow, it would have absolutely NO effect on piracy, because the people who really pirate run off tens of thousands of copies using the exact same technology as legitimate publishers in countries where they are effectively beyond the reach of the law. In Russia, where nine out of ten copies of a DVD are pirates, the movie studios drop their prices to 10$ a DVD to compete, whereas in the US, where probably far less than one copy out of ten is pirated, the MPAA spends time and energy trying to stop people from making personal copies of the DVDs they BOUGHT for 20$ to 30$.

wtf?

The MPAA needs to stop running around like chicken little, crying about technology ennabling people to do things they don't approve of, because that's a given and they aren't going to get anywhere with it - instead, it's time to screw on the thinking caps and figure out how to make money in the new technology world.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[object88]

What if my interest is in making bootleg copies to sell on the street corner?

Then you're not a consumer, you're a producer.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[FauxPasIII]

> So if you spend twenty-five bucks buying a new hardcover book, and you accidently
> drop it in the toilet, you expect the publisher to send you a new copy free?

No, because they don't stand in my way of backing up my book.

It's really simple, reading the context of the conversation before posting... but few people bother. -sigh-

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[Uberbot]

The difference here is that when you buy a book, you OWN the book and that book has intrinsic value.

When you "buy" a CD, DVD, or what have you, you are purchasing a license to view or listen to it. You don't own anything unless you count the $.50 CD media.

So, if you destroy your purchased book, you have destroyed your own property and the publisher owes you nothing.

However, if you destroy the media that contained licensed material, I think the publisher should replace it. Afterall, the license isn't for the life of the media. The license is for forever. And the value of the media is negligable.

Re:Back me up on "backing up"

[Alsee]

If you read 107 more closely you can see that it merely lists examples of fair use, not an exhaustive list. Courts can rule pretty much anything they want is fair use. Personal backups clearly qualify.

Further down it lists four factors that shall be concidered in evaluating whether a use is fair. Again, that is merely a list of examples of what to consider, not an exhaustive list. Courts routinely consider other factors as well, anything they feel like concidering.

The the real zinger is the fact that 107 is entirely irrelevant. It could be striken from law with no effect on fair use rights at all. If you dig back through the 1975-1976 congression record the congressmen explicitly stated that 107 was merely intended to acknowledge existing fair use rights, that it was not intended to expand, diminish, or alter them in any way at all.

The problem is that lots of people now mistakenly believe that 107 grants and defines and limits fair use rights. They mistakenly believe that fair use rights can be altered or diminished or revoked simply by re-writing that law. Entirely false.

107 was passed in 1976. Fair use existed before that. In fact much of the extent of fair use had been mapped out by the Supreme Court over the years on constitutional grounds, such as when copyright law comes in conflict with the 1st amendment. When a law comes in conflict with the constitution either that law must be stuck down, or the court must bend over backwards to assume that the law implicitly never actually attempted to restrict what it claims to restrict. That's fair use - copyright law implicitly flees when faced with fair use. If it didn't then it would be an unconstitutional and invalid law.

So it is impossible to reduce or eliminate fair use by altering that law - much of fair use is grounded in the constitution which supersedes that law.

So most people have copyright and fair use ass-backwards. Copyright law does not grant and restrict fair use. Where fair use treads copyright law is entirely swept away. All that 107 really says is "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including [examples] is not an infringement of copyright". Fair use is never infringment, period. All copyright restrictions simply vanish.

-

Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Boucher

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

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.

Contempt for their customers.

[Performer Guy]

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.

Re:Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Bouc

[aborchers]

I think you mean vote, not pray!

Vocal

[mmca]

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.

Re:Vocal

[jgs]

Hear, hear.

If you're too lazy|busy|whatever to write your own letter, here's your source for the click-to-send version. Sure, it's probably not as good as writing your own, but it's way better than doing nothing. (I do wish the EFF would give me a way to tell them I'd written, without forcing me to use their form letter.)

For extra credit, vote with your wallet: put a donation in an envelope and send it to Rep. Boucher along with a thank-you note. A Slashdot's worth of $5 donations might be an interesting counterweight to Big Entertainment's big bribes^H^H^H^H^H^Hdonations.

Self-Destructing Media?

[Dieppe]

Well, from the standpoint that you could make a "backup" of a book (hardbound or paperback) it's not as feasible to backup a book, but a CD or DVD you could.

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? ;) )

Re:Self-Destructing Media?

[msobkow]

What a bargain -- a whole $2 less than the discount bin DVD's that are being sold at a loss. I bet that's "shipping & handling" extra, too.

Having tried to obtain replacements for damaged media, I can guarantee you'll eventually run into everyone's favourite problem: out of stock. No longer in pressing/print. We can sell you the new extended edition for only double the price, but that's not a replacement so it's not free or discounted.

Valenti vs Lessig again...

[cube_slave]

" But movie and music executives warned that the proposal would strip their industries of important tools to limit piracy. The head of the Motion Picture Association of America, Jack Valenti, showed lawmakers a copy of the DVD mystery "Runaway Jury" he said was purchased on the black market in downtown Washington and produced using 321's disputed software. Valenti said the bill "legalizes hacking."

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?

This is their business model!

[OS24Ever]

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

Re:This is their business model!

[Talonius]

LET them near your equipment?

Who said we LET them near our equipment?

My two year old woke up early, snuck out the dog doors (one from the kitchen, one from the garage), scaled a chain link fence, and went chasing after his cat in nothing but his underwear.

You don't LET them do anything. Try to stop them. And over time you gradually become accustomed to the fact that if you own something precious, THEY WILL FUCK IT UP.

That's why I have six external Fireware hard drives hooked up to a server with a terabyte of ISOed CDs. After buying Warcraft III for the fourth time because my six year old *loves* the game I said fuck this.

Movies? I've lost both Lord of the Rings movies, Finding Nemo, Scooby Doo, Transformers Season 1... Christ.

Fuck them. I'm going broke. I'm not going to finance their insecurity anymore.

Re:What am I missing?

[rokzy]

because the next attack will then be
"it's illegal and they're still doing it, we must have remote control of their hardware to protect our property from being misused and uphold the rule of law"

also, first they came for the Jews... etc.

Begging the question

[pjrc]

This arguement is a classic example of logical fallacy term begging the question really means:

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

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.

Re:What am I missing?

[DaHat]

Much of the issue is that taking your copy of Win2k and using it at both work and home is quite easy and doesn't generally require any extra software or understanding.

DVD's have built in copy protection systems which under the DMCA are illegal to bypass, as it is quite unlikely that a single person is going to spend the time reverse engineering the system to find a way around it and then keep such info to themselves, the MPAA fears wide spread dissemination of info on how to bypass the copy protection (also illegal under the DMCA).

Their logic is that if they can make lock picking tools illegal and it a capital offence to be caught with such a tool, or even explaining how they work, then they feel they are protecting their homes from being broken into.

Logically though this is as flawed as the whole "lets just ban guns" argument because ultimately "then only the criminals will have guns", restricting access to programs/info/etc which CAN be used to copy a DVD is not inherently bad, it is what can be done with it that scares the *bleep* out of the MPAA and what they are ultimately trying to stop. However it is far easier to try to ban all baseball bats then it is to try to keep a few people here and there from beating someone to death with one.

MPAA's right, but also wrong

[Jonny Royale]

'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

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.

You're Confused

[MarcQuadra]

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!

Re:There is no reason to back up media

[treke]

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.

Backing up vs. Piracy

[Deitheres]

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."

Re:Backing up vs. Piracy

[merlin_jim]

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.

Legislation requiring easy DVD decoding and copying will help the average consumer. In terms of piracy, I don't think the MPAA is really worried about you buying a disc and giving a copy to your friend. They're worried about the guys that push out a couple thousand discs a day through automated machines and sell them...

Those guys are willing to invest in the machines to make DVDs, they're willing to invest in the software to copy them... its that simple. And obviously, they don't really care about the legality of their actions. Making the law tougher on them at the restriction of consumer rights isn't helping anyone out...

Re:Backing up vs. Piracy

[iguana]

The RIAA & MPAA are rightly concerned about digital copies making their way out onto the market. They also correctly state there is no way for a copying mechanism to tell the difference between a copy for personal use and a copy for a friend.

I have friends with small kids who have to buy 2-3 copies of Disney movies because the previous copy gets damanged. So backups are also a legitimate need.

So why not include 2 copies of the DVD in the box? One for use, one for backup? Maybe the "backup" adds an extra $1.50 to the cost. Most of the "backup problem" is now solved.

Or better yet, take the comb approach. Warranty a free product replacement for the lifetime of the purchaser. Another reason I make backups is I'm never sure the product will be around 10 years from now if my original copy goes bye-bye.

How is this an issue of copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see where copyrights enter into it. This is clearly fair use. People aren't selling their DVD backups, this is for PERSONAL USE. People are legally able to do this with VHS, and VHS probably lasts longer than DVDs/CDs. The DMCA appears to outlaw DVD backups because of the encryption aspect of the CSS that is used.

The DMCA is broken. Rep. Boucher isn't trying to change copyright law, he's trying to fix a broken amendment.

Re:Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Bouc

[Valar]

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...

Next I suppose

[Orion Blastar]

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? ;)

A simple solution

[saddino]

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 .

Rights my 4$$

[gr8_phk]

"There is no right in the copyright law to make backup copies"

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.

Re:Idiots in management, AGAIN

[Dun Malg]

When I quote your book in a review of said book, I'm committing copyright infringement--it's just legal infringement.

Actually, this is not the case. "legal infringement" is contradictory, as infringement WRT copyright law means illegal. If a copy is decided to be "fair use", then it is by definition not infringement.

Commoditization will fix all this

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

The sometimes long arm of the law

[KarmaOverDogma]

"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.

.

Re:An EFF View of "Fair Use"

[Brandybuck]

The issue goes beyond that. The "rights" in copyright law are not in the Constitution. They're entirely the creation of Congress. So implying that there is no legal basis for Congress to "give" another right to people is disingenuous.

Re:What am I missing?

[Rorgg]

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."

Re:Wait wait, I didn't realize...

[Slime-dogg]

Fritz Attaway, executive vice president of the MPAA

This is the idiot in management. We also have plenty of idiots in management of our government, considering the fact that the DMCA exists.

Lastly, if anyone can express something in two lines that resonates true with the rest of the crowd, it should be admired. It's much better than having some incredibly long-winded rant that resolves to the same sentiment.

Copyright is a law of restrictions, not allowances

[Derivin]

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).

Congress is a farce

[nurb432]

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.

Re:An EFF View of "Fair Use"

[timeOday]

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.

A couple points:

first, why does it matter whether the right was previously in copyright law? Wouldn't the point of the new law be to do just that?

Second, what is not illegal is legal. It would be nice to have a law explicitly protecting copies for valid purposes, but I would settle for repealing the law that currently makes this a crime.

It's kind of a bizarre setup we have, let me see if I get this straight:

1) Copy music CDs for personal use: legal
2) Copy game CDs for personal use: illegal
2) Copy TV shows for personal use: legal
3) Copy DVDs for personal use: illegal

Please correct me if I'm wrong!

OK, You're Unfair.

[_xeno_]

(First off, it'd be a civil matter. The police won't arrest you.)

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.

Civil disobedience must be PUBLIC

[GuyMannDude]

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

I propose another law

[xSterbenx]

In line with the current MPAA stance that backups cause illegal distribution of copywrited materials, I propose the following:

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.

Re:There is no reason to back up media

[StrongAxe]

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.

My take

[AviLazar]

'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.

Re:Furthermore

[MindStalker]

From my experence prices go down for media as demand goes up.

Begs the question of when to quit ;-)

[hey!]

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.

University techs are felons, but profs aren't?!?

[EvanKai]

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.

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 /.er is completing this EFF form to let their congressional representatives know people care about this issue.

Re:Pray that we get more Congressmen like Rep Bouc

[Daniel]

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...

Re:Idiots in management, AGAIN

[Dun Malg]

Let's change to a differnet aspect. Let's say that, in response to your trolling, I violently end your life. This is would be homicide. If I can somehow convince a judge that it's a good enough reason to kill someone if they troll, and that you were in fact trolling, then I get off scott free because my homicide was justifiable homicide.

Fair Use isn't not-infringement. It's justifiable infringement.

Sorry, but that's not correct either. The act is homicide, the crime is "justifiable homicide". In the case of copyright law, the act is copying, the crime is "copyright infringement".

Please, read the Title 17, Ch 1, Sec 107 of the US Code where it defines fair use. The very definition of the term in US law states that "fair use of a copyrighted work... is not an infringement of copyright."

It might help you to see the definition of infringement. There is no such thing as "legal infringement", as the phrase essentially means "legal lawbreaking".

Digital media is always software

[juancn]

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.

No right for backup DVDs?

[u-235-sentinel]

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.