Slashdot Mirror
Industry Group Would Permit (Some) DVD Copying
Zocalo writes "The BBC is carrying the story that agreements have been made to permit legal DVD copying for use on portable devices and The Register appears to have the same story too. While extremely light on details, the mention of Microsoft and AACS leads me to believe this has something to do with Microsoft's Janus system which has been discussed here before. Perhaps more interesting though is that Disney and Time Warner are apparently on board... Can it be that the MPAA has learnt a lesson from the RIAA's heavy handed tactics or has Microsoft convinced them that Janus will work, despite their recent record of bug free coding, and we're going to have a repeat of the DeCSS fiasco?"
An article on cnn.com is reporting something similar in the works for the "Next-generation" video discs. The amazing part about their article is how it specificly mentions Disney as part of the alliance. Granted, it looks all encumbered with DRM (here called the Advanced Access Content System)-- but this is a far-cry better than their attempts to push disposable and subscription-based media (DIVX).
So, does this mean we're winning? Or just that we're not losing.
When I buy a legitimate copy of a CD, DVD, or other recording, I obtain a limited copyright. I can make as many copies as I want, provided I don't distribute them to anyone else. That would be unfair competition with the copyright holder - redistribution is not included in the limited copyright I have bought.
Some copyright holders (RIAA) have tried to reduce my rights, preventing me from making copies for my personal use. They never anticipated the bonanza from CD reissues of vinyl records, and they want to reissue incompatible formats every few years to get me to buy more copies. Digital copies for personal use threatens that gravy train, and rights be damned. But they can't stop us from exercising our rights, so they'd better get with the program.
--
make install -not war
Microsoft DRM for WMA seems to be holding up pretty well. All the cracks I've seen are equivalent to "burn a CD and rip it". E.g., it seems successful in limiting people to doing exactly what they are licensed to do.
Probably best to save the snide remarks for when someone actually cracks it.
Look, fair use rights are not something corporations grant to us. They are what the government grants to us, the same government that also governs corporations.
It is not industry's place to "grant" us this. It is our right to do so regardless of their wishes.
Where'd you get those defs? By your #2, I can "get something surreptitiously" by, say, putting on a disguise and going to an adult bookstore and buying a video; is that theft? Seems like it is by your definition, though I didn't steal anything and nobody's been wronged. Your def pretty clearly indicates that aquiring something while being sneaky is theft, and does not regard whether a legal transaction occurred or not. I submit that your definition is not just flawed, but wrong.
Here's Mirriam Webster's def:
1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it b : an unlawful taking (as by embezzlement or burglary) of property.
It's clear under this def that you must deprive the rightful owner of their ownership of property.
That's a common RIAA/MPAA lie that appears to be sticking. Fair Use is stated legally in 2 places that I know of.
1) Section 107 and of the US Copyright Act. This act defines US copyright law and discusses derivative works, transformed works, etc. This law determines what is and is not a copyright violation, and mentions backups, copies for educational use, etc.
2) It is clarified in several supreme court cases. These rulings were later made into laws after they were upheld several times.
Some links:
Fair Use at the US Copyright Office's web site
Fair use explained by BitLaw
Stanford Copyright & Fair Use
Don't be fooled. This announcement is not saying that the MPAA will agree that you are within your rights to backup and/or time/device shift your legally obtained media (you are). Instead, they are saying that they are going to implement (with the help of Microsoft) technologies that ensure that that is all you are able to do with the media.
So forget about taking a backup copy of your movie to a friend's house and trying to play it on their equipment (ain't gonna happen -- although you have the right to do so).
And forget about trying to play the movie on a non-Microsoft device -- say a Linux PC for example (sorry, not permitted - although it too is perfectly legal).
So do not be fooled into thinking we have won. The MPAA is not agreeing to expanding any of our rights! In fact they will be taking away rights through technology as opposed to through laws (although the DMCA will serve to enforce the technology as if it were law).
If you haven't yet read Lawrence Lessig's book Free Culture , do it now!
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.