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?"
for giving me my rights back.[/sarcasm]
--- Asking inconvenient questions for over 30 years...
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).
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.
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.
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...
judicial estoppel. Estoppel that prevents a party from contradicting previous declarations made during the same or a later proceeding if the change in position would adversely affect the proceeding or constitute a fraud on the court. --- Also termed doctrine of preclusion of inconsistent positions; doctrine of the conclusiveness of the judgment.
No they can't, according to this article:
This is a very important point. They cannot have it both ways--whether they like it or not. They have let the proverbial cat out of the bag.
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.