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.
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.
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? ;) )
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?
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.
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
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.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
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
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.
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
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.
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
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
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).
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
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.
'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 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