Slashdot Mirror
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?"
This is the first step in P2P being declared legal. Although it may seem like an obvious decision to the people here, remember that not everyone understands the issues so well- i.e. Politicians who make these decisions.
Actually, I think this is big news, and here's why:
If they say that it's ok for fair use to be able to rip media for personal use, then it follows that they must admit users can do the same for DVDs.
If they are saying it is only allowed in cases where compact discs are involved, then the question becomes: "What makes music special in this way?"
I for one cannot think of why it would be ok to rip cds but not rip dvds. If it is fair use to rip a medium (cd) for use on another device (like an iPod), it should be just as legal to rip a medium (dvd) for use on another device (like xine).
They better think hard and long as to why one is okay and not the other, because the courts will draw the analogy I just made and agree that if some ripping is ok, then all should be (so long as you have the media in question legally, of course).
"What about using DeCSS to watch DVDs on Linux or other platforms? It should be interesting to see MGM try to wriggle out of this, since I doubt that the company is going to champion any expansion of fair use."
Although it should be legal to rip a DVD to make a backup, there are IP issues with using DeCSS. DVD player manufacturers must pay a licensing fee to use the DVD format. By using DeCSS to play your own movies on your computer, you are not violating fair use, but you are using the technology without paying the licensing fee. Therefore, it seems DeCSS should be legal as a copying tool, but not as a playback tool, although IANAL.
Vote for Pedro
This seems like a good time to ask a question that's been bugging me since I bought a new release DVD a few days ago - as well as some copy propaganda video that came up, I also got a FACT (the UK copy protection "federation") warning which in very bold letters told me "It is illegal to copy this DVD".
It didn't say anything about distribution - merely "It is illegal to copy this DVD". But I thought under UK (and US) law I was allowed to copy physical media for my own personal use, or if not that for my use as a backup copy.
If I'm right, does that mean someone could actually have some sort of legal case against FACT, seeing as they are wrongly informing consumers of their legal rights?
I'm obviously not a lawyer, and I only ask this out of curiousity...
For the thousandth time: Copyright regulates *distribution*. It simply doesn't apply to making a copy for my own use. I can make as many copies as I want for myself and the copyright holder has no right to any control over this, provided I don't distribute the copies. I don't need a "fair use" exemption--the law simply doesn't apply.
"Fair use" is an exception to the law. This is what permits me to reprint verbatim part of a copyrighted work in, say, a book review, and publish that review without violating copyright.
This is what is so evil about the DMCA. It enables copyright holders to invent new rights for themselves--such as the right to prevent me from making copies for personal use--with DRM technology, then enforce that new right by making it illegal for me to circumvent the DRM.
I highly doubt that this really the big concession that the ZDNet blog says it is.
Ah, but it is. Admitting that people have _any_ rights to their purchase (other than listening to it in its original form) is a big step. After all, you can't argue that you have the right to share something legally until you have crossed the very basic step of establishing that you have the right to do something with it besides listen to it on the original medium.
What comes first, finding a teacher or becoming a student?
I would say all recorded knowlege must be encoded, but encryptiond is encoding with the intent that not just anybody can read it. It's a question of intent. Granted that's not a very technically meaningful distinction, but through the DMCA it is a distinction enshrined in law (hopefully not permanantly but I'm not holding my breath).
What does this mean for copy protected CDs?
Legally, absolutely nothing. MGM can tell us we have a moon made of green cheese, God wants us to kill gay baby whales, and that we can copy CDs, and none of it means anything at all in court.
Also, we need to skip over the fact that Phillips has denounced these broken CDs as not actually CDs. So let's reduce the question to referring to more-or-less CD-like audio discs.
So... Ignoring all of the above... The answer still depends. CD copy protection refers to quite a few different technologies, ranging from the "copyright" bit, to broken TOCs, to unrecoverable C2 errors, to trying to install what amounts to a virus on your computer, to (haven't seen these come out yet, but I fully expect it eventually) data-only discs that will never ever play on a normal audio CD player.
In the first case (copyright bit), this does nothing more than the "Copyright 2005" already on the outside of the CD packaging. Fair use wins.
In the second and third cases, if your player can still read the disc, you probably don't even know the disc has any form of structural damage, so you don't need to circumvent any protections. Fair use wins.
In the fifth case, this would pretty much match the current internally-inconsistant legal situation with DVDs... You have the "right" to copy it, but you would have to break the law (DMCA) to do so, by breaking whatever access control mechanisms (however weak) the disc has.
The fourth case gets really interesting, though... These discs usually have two sections, an audio section and a data section containing something like WMA files. Once you get infected with the "driver" for these discs, you cannot access the audio tracks, only the digital ones. So post-infection, the situation reduces to #5 (thus my elaboration on that one out-of-order). Before infection, we get into a whole world of nasty tangled legal problems that I do not have the qualifications (IANAL, obviously) to comment on beyond mere speculation. For example, do you have the "right" to not install unwanted software on your computer? If so, press the shift key and have a ball. And what if you run Linux? Does the non-availability of a virus/driver for the protected content exempt you from having to worry about its existance (in that case, you would simply access the otherwise-unprotected audio tracks, you couldn't access the data track)? What if you have autoplay disabled by default, for security reasons (as EVERYONE should!)? Could that still count as circumvention, even though it doesn't require you to "do" anything? Tricky.
Overall, it will take either a new law like the DMCA, or a massive shift in public opinion on this matter, before you'll see any media companies try to take someone to court simply for ripping their own CDs or even DVDs. They would have an exceedingly difficult time proving you broke the law, they would risk the courts declaring sections of laws such as the DMCA invalid, and the cost of losing would set a precedent that, in their current mindset, would completely destroy their current business model. Not to mention, if they win, they would risk enormous public backlash, along with the possibility of huge lawsuits in some cases (Sony, for example, producing CDs, CD copy protection, and MP3 players, can only get away with that level of corporate psychosis because the law remains somewhat unclear on the entire issue).
[...] it is easy to understand that part of the intent of the 4th was to insure privacy.
It may not be quite as easy to see, but the third amendment is also about both privacy, not just a form of taxation.
Part of the reason for quartering troops with the locals is so the troops can act as spys, observing, for the government, the activity of each family and its neighbors, and reporting anything suspicious to the officers of the army.
It's an old tradition, and one of the things that the founders wanted to end.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
I'm not saying it does -- although I hope the court will say so -- but it should. The copyright owner should have no ability to determine or limit how you view the work.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Keep the part of the law that states that any work is immediately copyrighted by its creator, even if a notice is not present, but you only get so many years, and then, that's it. It goes into the public domain.
And here's something cool: Offer an additional "extra bonus" copyright protection term, say, ten years extra, for full release of "source"... If it's music, all notation, lyrics, recordings, and other matter used in production. If it's a movie, all the original film, etc. If it's software, the source code and building scripts. Whatever it is, it must be submitted to a government agency created for the purpose a year or so before the copyright expires, and that agency will make sure that all the required materials are there. If they are, the additional "extra bonus" time will be awarded, with the materials released to the public domain when that additional term expires.
You'll find a lot of software companies running up against the copyright limit for versions they released so many years ago, and they'll be desperate for the additional time. Say it's version 9 right now, but version 1 is nearing the copyright limit... Ten years from now, when it's version 12, the complete source code for version 1 will come out. May seem like a huge lag of so many years, but UNIX was created how many years ago? Ten years ago they were saying that BSD is dying. And what the heck am I using to type this up? A Mac. Running BSD. Some of the code running in this thing, I'd bet you, is at least 20 years old. Probably crap they wrote, perfected, and never touched again. How often do you look at the code for tail?
So, yes, you could get additional time in exchange for all the source, or simply let the release go into the public domain and keep the source secret.
Actually, I'm familiar with the writings of John Locke. Furthermore, there ARE a postereori proofs in philosophy, most of them come from the philosophical tradition of empiricism of which John Locke is concidered a member of.
Furthermore, the "proof" given by John Locke is paper-thin and rests soley on there being a creator, unless one wants to examine the dubious claims as to the original state of mankind pre-large society. Since acheological evidence shows that man was never, in fact, a free individual running around in a romanticised "state of nature" as Locke's philosophical inquiry in to the matter depends on, it is safe to assume that John Locke's philosophy can be safely disregarded by any right-thinking individual.
Philosophy has long since discarded the idea of natural rights (with a couple deviations, notably Libertarianism, although Nozick uses different justification for his rights than the state of nature of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau), The only remnants of a true-to Locke version being enshrined in the constitution and declaration of independence of the USA.