MGM Concedes Some Fair-Use Rights Exist

jambarama writes "MGM seems to have given a little in the Grokster case. After getting nailed on the possible implications of banning P2P software, they've now admitted it is perfectly legal to rip one's own CD and store it. Is this a return to the stripped down 'fair use' rights or a temporary court concession?"

Comments

What about DeCSS?

[SchnauzerGuy]

A movie company saying that it is legal to rip audio CDs isn't really big news.

Now if MGM said that ripping video DVDs is legal, then we would have something to talk about.

So.....

[FS1]

So, basically Hell has frozen over, or is it just experiencing a temporary ice age?

Declared legal?

[Anonymous Coward]

When you start thinking like that, you've already admitted defeat. Things are legal until otherwise shown/declared. P2P is legal and does not need to be declared legal at this point.

But they weren't going after rippers to begin with

[SlashChick]

AFAIK, all of the lawsuits thus far were from people sharing large volumes of MP3s on P2P networks. Have the record companies have ever even threatened to prosecute people who rip music from CDs and put it on their portable MP3 players? I highly doubt that this really the big concession that the ZDNet blog says it is.

Re:Thank you, MGM

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem here is that MGM is admitting it to keep the court itself from saying it. Once the case is over MGM can always go back to claiming otherwise. And this way the court will not have to explicitly uphold our fair use rights again. So, it makes a lot of sense for MGM to say this at this point. They don't want fair use validated any more by the court than minimum.

short term problem

[geoff lane]

Writers and artists survived for a long time before copyright laws existed and will continue to survive for a long time after copyright laws are abandoned as unenforceable because of modern technology.

Of course

[bonch]

As technically-inclined people, we need to make sure society as a whole understands that there is a difference between technology and the use of technology. P2P is just a technology. Banning P2P because there are people who use it illegally is ludicrous. We have to make sure the fair and legal uses for P2P are known.

Naturally, this opens up other discussions about technologies and their uses. Some might argue that based on the above argument, everyone should have the right to own a gun, since it's not the technology that's bad but the use of it by certain people. But these are debates that need to be had to mature the discussion about the difference between a simple object or technology and the way human beings use it for their own gains or against others.

Basically, confronting the issue with education and discussion, instead of reacting with lawsuits, is the way to find a position the majority of society can agree on.

Re:'stripped down fair use rights'

[mindstrm]

No, they don't.

However.

In most countries, and in the US up until recently, (before the DMCA), copyright owners also had no recourse if their anti-copying measures were circumvented. They implemented them to make a statistical difference, not a legal one (and it worked more or less)

Fair use was not spelled out, but was a defence against copyright violation.
Nowadays, in the US, if you break copy protection in order to make fair use of the work, you have STILL broken copyright law.. making fair use moot.

It's not black and white, but the fact is, the DMCA and other proposed legislations put far too much power in the hands of copyright holders; where before there was balance, now there is not.

Property Rights

[hhawk]

Lots of issues here; let's walk through them all

1) File sharing and "ripping and sharing" in general expand the market and drive up sales and possible, disintermediation of the record labels.

2) MPIA has been wrong about this issue; they would have killed the VCR rental market, for example; instead a multi-billion dollar business was created.

3) For a song, there is the copyright on the words (Lyrics; song writer) and the (Music; composer) and is their copyright for the performance as well (e.g., the artists). I believe the record companies also assert a copyright on the finished album (CD) as well; which maybe legal and all, but well isn't really for something all that creative and artistic that it would worth copyrighting (and the some day releasing it into the public domain.

4) You certainly have the right to make archive copies and/or to use that copy and keep the "master/original" safely stored for safe keeping.

5) If you also have the right to lend your CD to a friend or have a library and lend out CDs/DVDs.

6) Do you really however, have the right make copies of your archive and lend/give those?

6a) While it's good for business to do so (my belief), I think it is illegal.

6b) I've driven through south central LA and seen crack being sold in 20 sec. transactions and at the time said, when you can sell 1 Terabyte of music that way, legal or NOT, copyright becomes some you can not enforce. That doesn't make it legal, but makes it so you would want to change the law...

7) Economist and Hover Inst. Fellow, Thomas Sowell called P2P sharing akin to fencing stolen goods, but for that to fly you'd have to "selling" the copies... It's not fencing, if anything its accessory to theft, but it's possible (AND THIS IS BIG THING) that accepting that it is THEFT, that there is NO Damage and NO Loss; again it actually has inverse damages; it enriches the copyright holders (see points 2 and 6a.

MGM loses before the verdict is even in

[Rightcoast]

Like the article says:

But they've now conceded the contrary in open court, so if they actually win this case they ll be barred from challenging ripping in the future under the doctrine of judicial estoppel.

It is of course obvious to most us that this is allowed, and has been for some time. There are many people who aren't sure if this is legal or not, and as they find out it is, will begin to wonder:

If I can rip a Song off of my compact disk, what makes it so wrong to rip one I have paid for and my kid scratched, broke, etc.

I wonder if the major players in litigation realize that by taking these cases to court, they are hurting their cause. The more people become educated though soundbytes alone, the less power over our rights the MGM's of the world will have.

Re:Thank you, MGM

[mOdQuArK!]

It is a limitation on a copyright holder's rights.

You mean a limitation on a copyright holder's privileges.

Nobody has a "right" to control copying (even given the misleading name for it) - they are granted the privilege of controlling it with the goal of benefiting society.

Re:Thank you, MGM

[timeOday]

A lot of freedoms aren't expressly protected by the Constitution, because the original idea of our govt. was that people could do whatever wasn't forbidden, and it was govt. that was limited to a specific list of behaviors.

Your post attests that this idea is dying out.

If this could be done 100 years ago...

[Husgaard]

This reminds me of what I think was the best April 1st joke this year, claiming that a 100 years old supreme court decision said:

Therefore, in the matter of defendant Thomas Alva Edison versus respondent the Book Authors Guild and respondent the Sheet Music Publishers Association, this court unanimously concurs with the lower court's decree. In inventing and offering for sale his "moving picture" and "phonograph" devices, the defendant induced countless infringing acts against the holders of copyrights for books and music. Defendant Edison's assets are to be seized in order to make restitution to the respondents. Furthermore, all phonographs, record players, moving picture equipment and similar devices are to be confiscated and destroyed. All "record" companies and "film studios" most disgorge their ill-gotten gains and henceforth cease and desist all operations now and forevermore.

One side of this court case does IMHO not know what they are doing.

The recording industry tried the courts to stop radio airplay of recordings. Now radio is both a revenue source and a major free (except for payola) advertising channel.

The movie industry tried the courts to make the video recorder illegal. Now video rentals and sales are one of their largest revenue streams.

And now they try the courts to make new technology illegal - again. I bet that p2p will end up generating more revenue for these companies. (In France and several other european countries they already are generating revenue from p2p.)

Don't these companies want to earn money?

Re:Thank you, MGM

[Trillinon]

Nor shall we forget the all important: Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. If the people want the right of privacy, that power is granted to them.

321 studios should sue

[bravo369]

they were put out of business by the movie industry and now they concede it's perfectly fine to make copies. With that revelation, 321 studios should be allowed to sell dvdxcopy again.

Re:Keep telling yourself that...

[Stalyn]

Without copyright law, people would have no incentive at all to write music since anyone could play it without paying them.

no incentive... how about being creative?... the money earned afterwards is just a bonus.

Btw, getting rid of copyrights will also destroy every open source project as some greedy company would be able to easily rip off the hard work of the developers.

If you eliminate IP then selling ideas would be against the law. All ideas would be free and without copyrights any idea is public domain. I mean of course you wouldn't be able to provide yourself a means to live if you were in the trade of ideas.

However maybe there is a business model or economic system that can provide a means to live for those who do work in the trade of ideas. Just because there doesn't seem to exist one currently doesn't mean there will never exist one.

Re:Thank you, MGM

[glsunder]

You missed the part about "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches..." I take it?

I think we all miss that.

For the last time, you are wrong.

[Rumor]

For the last time, you are wrong.

The right to copy belongs solely to the copyright holder. There is no caveat on that right except fair use. The right to make one copy, for you, for someone else, for throwing in the garbage, for anything, is a right solely vested in the copyright holder.

There is no law against distribution. If there were, there would be no First Sale doctrine, because only the copyright holder would be able to sell or give away a copyrighted work. Anyone who possesses a copyrighted work can sell it or give it away (in general). If copyright was distroright, then you would never be able to sell your books or your cds to anyone, or even give them away. But that would be stupid. You simply cannot make a duplicate of a copyrighted work, for any purpose.

Unless it falls under fair use.

Re:Assigned rights

[cpt kangarooski]

The Constitution calls for reserving the rights to authors and inventors. Current copyright law isn't really doing that if it's allowing the industry to strongarm the artists into assigning the rights through a contract.

No, the law is doing its job. Just because artists are willing to give away their rights doesn't mean that the rights didn't vest in them initially. In fact, it means that the rights must have done so, or else there'd be nothing to transfer.

The Constitution doesn't say a word about whether rights must remain with artists for their duration, and in fact every single copyright law in our history, including English ones that guided the framers, and the first federal one, allowed for copyrights to be assigned.

People have unequal bargaining positions. That's a fact of life. Taking away their ability to bargain doesn't help much.

Re:'stripped down fair use rights'

[cpt kangarooski]

Setting aside that your logic is really flawed in light of what the law authoritatively says must be proved to make out a prima facie case, you might find this essay enlightening.

Re:Thank you, MGM

[Spock the Baptist]

So you need proof that the 'Axiom of equality' is true.

'Axiom of equality' For all x (x = x).

Send this to your non-tech friends and family

[michaelmalak]

In response to a casual user of the Internet who asked me what FTP is, I ranted off the response below. You can send it to your non-tech friends and family who may not be aware of what the Internet was meant for.

File Transfer Protocol -- the original "P2P" file sharing from the 1980's.

http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc959.html

As the Internet was used mainly by the military and by universities back then, it was used to allow researchers to share published papers, research data, and software they had written.

That's why MGM v. Grokster is so bogus. P2P file sharing was one of the main purposes of the Internet (it wasn't to surf cnn.com).

http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,120228,0 0.asp
http://www.eff.org/IP/P2P/MGM_v_Grokster

Which brings me to another pet peeve. I keep seeing news reports on various topics that say things like "Internet and e-mail access". What they really meant to say was "web and e-mail". HTTP is but one of many protocols that run on the Internet. "The Internet" is much bigger than just "the web".

To make that even more clear, prior to the web, when you signed up to the Internet, you would expect "e-mail and UseNet". Now you expect "e-mail and web and maybe UseNet if the ISP is a) nice and b) retro".

It just illustrates that Internet protocols come and go. FTP was a file sharing protocol. Grokster, Kazaa, etc. are just new file sharing protocols.

UseNet itself is actually also based on peer-to-peer technology. UseNet is the globally distributed message board system. groups.google.com archives UseNet posts, but they are just one of thousands of UseNet servers across the globe collaborating to provide the service. UseNet servers talk to each other as "peers" to synchronize their message postings.

The whole nature of the Internet was originally "peer-to-peer". But two things have come along to keep that concept out of the minds of most Internet users:

a) Web technology, which is more client-server than peer-to-peer. The popularity of the HTTP protocol has made it seem to most people that the web is the Internet, and thus most people think that to participate on the Internet means you are supposed to "log in" to some "official" computer (e.g. browsing to cnn.com)

b) Dynamic IP. The inventors of the Internet thought that 2 billion IP addresses was enough for the world. Well, we've run out, and so now when you get an Internet account you no longer get your own "static" IP address. Instead, you get a "dynamic" IP address. That makes it impossible to register a domain name (like underreported.com) to your own computer at home. Instead, you have to pay a "hosting provider" to use their computer running on their network that happens to be privileged enough to have static IP addresses. In the old days, everyone's computer handled their own e-mail, their own FTP server, etc. FTP is really only effective with static IP addresses. The rise in popularity of so-called "P2P file-sharing apps" is due in part that they were built to work with dynamic IP addresses (because they advertise themselves on a custom protocol as opposed to relying on the DNS (Domain Name System, where names like underreported.com are recorded along with their static IP addresses)).

Re:Thank you, MGM

[cpt kangarooski]

Or put more simply, an exclusive right is a right to exclude others.

Interestingly, copyrights don't confer a right to do anything; that falls to the rights of free speech and press, as guaranteed by the First Amendment.

A corollary of this is that everyone essentially has the same right to e.g. reproduce a work as the author does. However, for the term of copyright, most people are generally excluded from doing so. Upon expiration of the copyright, the public doesn't gain rights, but is no longer impaired from exercising the rights they've had all along.