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.
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.
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.
I think you mean vote, not pray!
Trouble making decisions? Just flip for it.
Oh yeah, that is definately against my interests.
"I can not bring myself to believe that if knowledge presents danger, the solution is ignorance" - Isaac Asimov
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? ;) )
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
Saying things like "It's against the consumers' interest" is just some form of IP-lawyer tourettes; it's just instinctive, they can't help saying it, even if it makes no sense at all. We should start a support group.
"Mwa-ha-ha-ha-haaaaaa! That's what you think mere mortal! Wait until I re-re-re-release the original trilogy with 8.5 seconds of additional Ewok footage, 26 additional seconds of ending credits, AND 2 cantina shots with digitially modified whiskers on the third alien at the back table!"
"You will submit to my marketing prowess! You cannot resist the power of the marketing side!"
-George Lucas
This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
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.
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.
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).
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
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.