MPAA Sues Company For Selling Pre-Loaded iPods

ColinPL writes, "The MPAA has launched yet another 'defensive attack,' this time on a small business that is pre-loading movie DVDs onto iPods and reselling them. The original DVDs of the movies that are loaded are also given to the customer. The MPAA is claiming that the service Load 'N Go Video offers is completely illegal because ripping a DVD is against the DMCA. The MPAA is also suing the company for copyright violation."

Comments

'Nothing to see here'

[s7uar7]

I think the MPAA won.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Feyr]

no i think this is exactly what we need to get this stupid law overturned. this is clearly an infringement on the user's fair use right. no one is "stealing" any content, merely shifting the content from one format to another. the mpaa gets its money, the user gets the content, a third party is making money for the service of shifting it.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

Putting aside for a moment that "format shifting" hasn't really been tested yet in court, the end-user is not the one doing the copying here. It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[morgan_greywolf]

Putting aside for a moment that "format shifting" hasn't really been tested yet in court,

It doesn't need to be. The Legislature has already spoken. See Title 17 Section 1008 of the U.S. Code:

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

(Emphasis mine). It says "no action". The use of a digital audio recorder by a consumer for non-commercial purposes is pretected. Note that the definition of "digital audio recorder" seem to include MP3 players or iPods. The grey area in this case is that it's not the consumer who's doing the transfer, it's the company selling the equipment.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Chris Burke]

It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.

No, copyright is about making money distributing copies. The one doing the copying is not making a copy of their own DVD, they are making a copy of the customer's DVD for the customer.

Making a backup copy of a copyrighted work is completely legal and is explicitly spelled out in copyright law. If you don't own or don't know how to run a CD burner, is paying someone to make the backup copy for you illegal?

There's a reason the MPAA is invoking the DMCA, and that's because the DMCA is what makes breaking encryption illegal even if the actions performed thereafter are legal under copyright law. Were it not for the DMCA, the MPAA would not have a case here at all.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Arcane_Rhino]

I agree.

The MPAA (and the RIAA) have systematically and emphatically drawn a line that delineates between "no rights for the consumer" - approved, and "everything else" - criminal.

Because of their hard stance that consumers have NO rights and their disregard of fair use rights, they have forced me, because I want my fair use rights, to become their opposition.

Now, if any of their reps are reading this, they should understand exactly what I mean and why they should notice. I am one of those people who believe that ripping a movie with the intention of watching it and keeping it, but never paying for it, is stealing. (And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)

Consequently, for me to side against the RI/MPAA means that I find their actions more objectionable than those whose philosophy I do not respect or agree with. They have driven this and I will oppose them at every measure.

And, no, I don't use my disgust at the MP/RI AA to justify ripping movies or music that I do not already own or legally download. I still don't do that.

But I will side with those who do engage in this type of activity against those who would steal MY rights every time. MP/RIAA change your ways or find yourself fighting those who might otherwise have supported your argument.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Anonymous Coward]

(And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)

But "copying" is not "taking". That's the whole point.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[DragonWriter]

No, copyright is about making money distributing copies.

Its about both, and even doing either without making money, which is why all of those are exclusive rights protected under copyright.

The one doing the copying is not making a copy of their own DVD, they are making a copy of the customer's DVD for the customer.

Right. They are selling the service of making the copy along with the goods (the source and target media.) It therefore is not noncommercial copying by the end-user for personal use, and insofar as there may be exceptions for noncommercial format-shifting for personal use (a disputed point!) that would cover DVD ripping, this is not covered by them.

Making a backup copy of a copyrighted work is completely legal and is explicitly spelled out in copyright law.

Really, where? At least in the US, this is a popular myth, not a fact: "a library or archives" has a right to make backup copies with certain limits (see 17 USC 108), and the making of an archival copy of a computer program is expressly allowed (17 USC 117), but this is not generally the case for copyrighted works.

If you don't own or don't know how to run a CD burner, is paying someone to make the backup copy for you illegal?

Since the exception for archival copies states "... it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided...", probably not, where it is legal to make a backup in the first place.

Not that the copy being made here is for archival purposes, nor would a court probably find that it is of a computer program, though that's less clear. (A DVD contains principally, of course, one or more audiovisual works, it also includes some instructions that might make it a computer program. I don't know if whether the 17 USC 117 exception applies to DVDs has been litigated.)

There's a reason the MPAA is invoking the DMCA, and that's because the DMCA is what makes breaking encryption illegal even if the actions performed thereafter are legal under copyright law.

No, because the MPAA is charging infringement as well as DMCA violation and seeking remedies for both; the DMCA expressly does not change the scope of any of the provisions or exceptions to infringement, so adding the DMCA claim does nothing to help their other claims.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[thegsusfreek]

Which is the exact argument that was used for movie editing companies. I don't have the software/time/expertise/desire to edit a movie myself so I pay someone else to edit my copy for me and burn it to another disc for me. Plain and simple. I would not buy some of the movies that I have bought if it weren't for placed like family flix.

Sadly, this argument did not hold up in court... at least not during this first go around. I think the decision is going to be appealed.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[winkydink]

This is video, not audio

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[DragonWriter]

ER, the problem is that this isn't within that exception, since its not about the device, but the use to make a recording (which itself doesn't stop it from being protected), but:

(1) its not an audio or digital music recording, but movies,
(2) the use to make the recording is not "by a consumer of such a device or medium",
(3) the use is not "noncommercial".

Anyone of those three would be enough to make the provision you quote inapplicable.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[BronsCon]

And to clear that gray area up, the law states (and I'll reply to this with a reference when I find it) that, if the original media is sold, all copies must also be transferred or destroyed. They're selling the iPod and the DVDs, it's coincidental that there is a copy of the DVD on the iPod.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Crispy Critters]

"No, copyright is about making money distributing copies."

Not at all. Copyright prohibits me from giving away free copies of a piece of software that I just bought. In only a small set of cases does legality hinge on whether I make money on the distribution.

"Making a backup copy of a copyrighted work is completely legal and is explicitly spelled out in copyright law."

No, making a backup copy of software is explicitly allowed.

Whether or not you have logic on your side, decisions in these grey areas have to be made by the courts. Until they are, we have no idea what the law is.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[element-o.p.]

Umm...what's the difference between this vendor distributing an iPod preloaded with movies (DVD included) and, for example, Dell selling me a PC preloaded with Windows (install CD included)? In either case, someone (the iPod retailer in the first case, Dell in the second) is "making money" by providing me with a device I want preloaded with copyrighted material (that they assume) I want.

Good grief...if the vendor *purchased* the frigging DVDs and supplies them to customer, then how exactly has the MPAA or any of the artists responsible for said movies been harmed by this activity?!?!?!?!

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Chris Burke]

I only included the statement about money for parallel structure with the parent.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Chris Burke]

Right. They are selling the service of making the copy along with the goods (the source and target media.) It therefore is not noncommercial copying by the end-user for personal use, and insofar as there may be exceptions for noncommercial format-shifting for personal use (a disputed point!) that would cover DVD ripping, this is not covered by them.

It is non-commercial use by the end-user.

It is the merchant who performs the copying -- note that he is neither in possession of the original copy nor of the one generated, the end user is -- who is making money.

If performing the service of creating a copy for someone who has both a legal right to the original copy and a legal right to the copy that is created, then Kinko's performs billion of copyright violations a day.

And don't argue that they do, on the basis of people who don't have a legal right to either their original or to the copy they make, because that's not the same thing.

If what you say is true, Kinko's and all other copiers would be shut down.

No, because the MPAA is charging infringement as well as DMCA violation and seeking remedies for both; the DMCA expressly does not change the scope of any of the provisions or exceptions to infringement, so adding the DMCA claim does nothing to help their other claims.

The MPAA always charges copyright infringement, even if no actual copying took place at all, much less illegal copying. First, because more charges are scarier to their victims, even if they would necessarily be dropped in court. Second, because if they didn't they'd have to explain the difference between a DMCA violation and copyright infringement and how they are unrelated, and how the person they are charging didn't actuall steal anything at all from them.

The DMCA charge is the only one that has a chance of standing up.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[v1]

Putting aside for a moment that "format shifting" hasn't really been tested yet in court, the end-user is not the one doing the copying here. It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.

I don't agree with that interpretation of copyright. Copyright exists to encourage creative development by guaranteeing the creator a reasonable period of time where they can have the exclusive ability to produce (and sell) a specific kind of content. (it grants the creator a "limited monopoly" on their creation) The company that is doing the format shifting is not benefiting from having a copy of the work, and the consumer has already paid the creator for his work. The only possible lost revenue is if the riaa was offering the same service or if it was impacting the sales of their product. They are not offering the service, and it is arguably increasing the benefits from their limited monopoly.

What stumps me here is "why?" Why are they doing this? It costs them money and ill-will (which at this point I think they have so much negative karma that a little more really doesn't matter anymore) and I don't see what's in it for them. The iPod is designed to make it difficult to copy content off from it, so the odds of someone swapping tracks on their ipod with a friend is fairly remote. There must be either a paranoid dellusional in authority there or there is a classified pie chart somewhere that say that this will nick off 2% of their proffits due to some complex market dependency.

The RIAA is not doing this because it's illegal. They could care less what's legal and what's not from morality's sake. They have a reason they don't want customers to do it, and they are using the DMCA as a tool to try to make the world behave the way they want them to. Having a law that could cover it just makes this job easier. This is what makes general laws like DMCA so dangerous. The people sponsoring them say it's necessary to make a very broad law so that it covers the largest percentage of offenders they are after, and try to make us believe that the law will be "properly interpreted" such that no innocents (people that "were not meant to be included") will not be harmed. But history shows that in 100% of those cases, there are abuses and they generally go unchecked because after all, they've made it legal. Copyright, seizure laws, and a really fun one, "enemy combatant". They all force us to surrender our rights and fredoms in the name of protecting our rights and our fredoms. What a scam.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

There's a reason the MPAA is invoking the DMCA, and that's because the DMCA is what makes breaking encryption illegal even if the actions performed thereafter are legal under copyright law.

Since when do you need to decrypt the contents of a DVD in order to duplicate it? You don't. You just rip and burn the encrypted data.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

(And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)

I know you don't want to hear this, but it's not a lawyerly distinction, it's a reality distinction. When you commit copyright infringment, you're not taking anything; you're making a copy. By your logic, someone that takes a picture of the Statue of Liberty is stealing it.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Spock the Baptist]

(And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)

Your interest, or lack thereof does not effect the truth of this matter. This matter is not merely a lawyerly distinction, but rather a fundamental distinction between depravation, and non-depravation. Theft requires depravation of the lawful owner of a thing he owns. Copying in no way creates a depravation. I give you the following example:

My Father was a master aircraft mechanic. He could build some really amazing things with just a few tools. After retirement my Dad end up building several items of furniture for my Mom.

Mom would see something that she liked in one of the local furniture stores and take several pictures of it with her camera. She would have the photos developed, and then show the photos to my Dad.

He would then go to the furniture store and take between a half-dozen, and a dozen measurements of the item of furniture, and make 3 or 4 freehand sketches of said item. He would then *repair* to his shop in the backyard and construct an exact copy (at least in terms of appearance and functionality) of the afore mention item of furniture.

Did my Dad 'steal' anything in the above process?
No of course not. He ****COPYED**** the item of furniture, he did NOT steal it.

Furniture stores would have gotten absolutely nowhere if that had tried to prosecute him for theft. The fact is that while I'm sure that would have not liked having an item of furniture that they had for sale copied they would have never accused my Dad of theft, and risked having a slander suit slapped on them.

My Dad did nothing wrong, nothing illegal.

Under law *copying* copyrighted material may, depending on the circumstances, be illegal, but it is NOT theft.

Thomas Jefferson said it best:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

STB

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Anonymous Coward]

It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy...
What difference does it make whether I make the copy myself or pay someone else to do it for me because I may be technically incompetent?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[jesboat]

Dell has an agreement with Microsoft in order to distribute Windows, and this vendor doesn't have an agreement with $copyright_owner to distribute the movies?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[__aaluww2118]

Analogy is not quite right. What if I buy a bunch of DVD's and hire someone for x dollars an hour to sit and copy my DVD's under fair use. Would that be illegal because I personally didn't do the copying? As long as I am purchasing the original DVD title how is this not the same?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[c6gunner]

So, theoretically, if I charge you $20 to come over and install for you the Windows CD which you've already bought, I'm breaking the law? Because that's exactly what you're saying. I'm making money by copying content from one media to another.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[c6gunner]

Uh. How exactly do you plan on ripping it without decrypting it?

That's rather like saying "I don't need to decrypt your password in order to copy files from this protected archives, I'll just copy the files!".

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Anonymous Coward]

>The use of a digital audio recorder by a consumer for non-commercial purposes is pretected.

You're Goddamned right it's pretected! I wouldn't have it any other way, and I'm sure I speak for everyone else here when I say that!

Hell, even if it weren't pretected, then it SHOULD be, dammit.

There ought to be a CLEAR law, ensuring pretection, for EVERYONE! We need to eliminate pretection greyosity, for certitudinousness, from now, into infinitis!

That's what I think, anyway.

'course, it's past time for my meds, so, I could be wrong.

The last sentence is a joke - I took my meds on time - otherwise I couldn't spell "certidudinousness" correctly :)

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[DragonWriter]

It is non-commercial use by the end-user.

But its not copying by the end user for noncommercial use. Its copying for commercial purposes by a vendor, which is rather clearly a violation of copyright.

It is the merchant who performs the copying -- note that he is neither in possession of the original copy nor of the one generated, the end user is -- who is making money.

Yes, and it is the merchant who is making the copy, for commercial purposes, and then transferring possession of both the original and the copy to the end user. Which is precisely why any case law that protects noncommercial copying performed by the end user doesn't protect this action (not that the case law is really clear on this particular type of format shifting even if it was done by the end user for noncommercial purposes.)

If what you say is true, Kinko's and all other copiers would be shut down.

No, if what I say is true, Kinko's and all other commercial copying services would not be protected in making copies of copyright-protected materials without permission of the copyright holder by exceptions to copyright protection which allow end-users to make copies for noncommercial purposes. Of course, you'll notice that (1) there are few such exceptions applicable to printed material in the first place, and (2) Kinko's and other commercial copying services generally have policies that require anyone seeking to use their services to make copies of copyright-protected material to also provide documentation of consent of the copyright holder for the copying, where they aren't the copyright holder.

Really, Kinko's is irrelevant to the issues in this case.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[ExploHD]

They're not making unlimited copies and selling them, which would be illegal; they are providing the convienence, to the consumer, of not having to move all of those movies over at home.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Jason1729]

The company doing the copying owns the DVD while they're doing the copy. It's their fair use right to put it on the iPod. Then they resell the DVD (also their fair use right) and include the copy they made, as they have to do.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Hawke666]

Well... I don't need to know all the passwords of my users in order to copy the /etc/passwd file. The same principle applies to DVDs.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[enosys]

DVD burners don't allow you to burn proper encrypted DVDs. You cannot write to the special area containing the region information and keys. So if you put CSS encypted data on a burned DVD, normal DVD players would be unable to play it.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[c6gunner]

No, no it doesn't. Your /etc/passwd file isn't actually encrypted. You can copy the file no problem. But the passwords in it ARE encrypted. In order to view them, you need to decrypt them first.

Theoretically, you could do a bit-for-bit clone of the DVD disk, and, in this manner, you wouldn't have to decrypt it in order to copy it. However, you'd need some pretty specialized equipment for that. The only other way to copy a DVD is to decrypt it first. Technically, even to WATCH a DVD, you have to decrypt it first. Your DVD player does all the decryption without you being aware of it, but it DOES decrypt the movie.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[bill_mcgonigle]

By your logic, someone that takes a picture of the Statue of Liberty is stealing it.

No, they're a terrorist. Try to keep up here. :)

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[ScrewMaster]

Were it not for the DMCA, the MPAA would not have a case here at all.

On the other hand, given that the MPAA was largely responsible for the DMCA (even to have furnished draft copies of the legislation to involved Congresscritters) it's hardly surprising that they would invoke it here. This is exactly the kind of case for which they so badly wanted the DMCA ... they simply, uncompromisingly, do not want anyone else distributing their products in a format not of their choosing. The question is whether or not they should have that right. The DMCA would seem to give it to them, which is too bad.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

"The last sentence is a joke - I took my meds on time - otherwise I couldn't spell "certidudinousness" correctly :)"

Anti-dyslexia pills?!! Cool where from?!

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[2short]

Kinkos is not irrelevant. They require evidence you have the right to make a copy of something before they will copy it for you. They do not require you to produce evidence that the copyright holder consents to Kinkos making a copy for you ; only that they consent to the customer making a copy. The person who winds up with the copy needs to have legal right to it. Weather I press the button on the copy machine (or DVD ripper) or pay someone to press it for me is legally irrelevant, as it obviously should be. The straight-up infringement claims in this case are, luckily for Kinkos, horseshit.

The DMCA claims may hold up, but notably apply equally well to the customer ripping their own copies for their own use. The RIAA really thinks it is (and should be) illegal to put your own DVD movied on your own iPod.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[mrchaotica]

Unless I'm mistaken, at the time the copying is done the company is the owner of the DVDs. So, effectively, the company is the "end user" -- just one who coincidentally happens to resell the iPod and DVD at some later time.

Do you think you have the right to format-shift your own media? Do you think you have the right to resell your media and devices? If so, then why shouldn't this company have exactly the same right?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[jZnat]

Dell has an OEM agreement which gets them discounted software. They could just as easily use normal copies, but it would cost them more. Your argument is flawed.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Anonymous Coward]

ok so are the MPAA going to sue Walmart, HMV, Virgin etc for making profit on selling DVDs in their stores this pretty much falls under the same thing user pays for digital content and the DVD that it came from. IMHO this is just the MPAA being money grabbing whores again

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[mrchaotica]

So what? What sane argument could you possibly have to make a distinction between the two?!

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[FLEB]

That's irrelevant. Dell has a deal with Microsoft. Microsoft approves. That is why the preloading issue never comes up. It's been rectified before the copy is even made.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

"In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing"

Despite the weight of replies against this idea, you're not alone on this. As I see it, if I create a computer program, it's 'my program'. If someone makes a copy, that copy does not become 'their program', it's still a copy of 'my' program. Therefore, when they take this copy, they are taking something of mine. And if they're not taking the copy, then the copy must remain with the original, which would seem pretty useless except in the case of creating a backup.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

"When you commit copyright infringment, you're not taking anything; you're making a copy"

And then leaving that copy with the original? Or taking it?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

It says "no action". The use of a digital audio recorder by a consumer for non-commercial purposes is pretected.

You seem to have missed a significant portion of the text you quoted:

or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

Seeing as this use is both (1) commercial, and (2) not by the consumer, I don't see how this is applicable.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

Since when did sanity matter, when it comes to the law? We are talking legal arguments here, not rational ones.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rootofevil]

not to be pedantic, but the RIAA has no position on what you do with your movies other than they have a friend in the fight that is the MPAA and would thus be very likely to support any actions that restrict what I am allowed to do with any works that I have legally licensed from them. even when all i want to do is take the movie with me on a 2.5" screen that i can barely watch myself, much less let someone else see at the same time.

jerks

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[FLEB]

Well, you give a good, competent argument, and although I don't disagree that there is a difference, I think a larger issue is not *if* there is a difference between copyright/theft, but *why* that difference is so often brought up. As I see it, it's a semantic goading and diversion tactic for both sides.

Those who chime in to insist on "copyright infringement", I feel, push no less of an agenda than those who overzealously use the term "theft". Just as "theft" is too strong of a term-- it is nearly axiomatic that "theft=wrong"-- the term "copyright infringement" tends to be far too weak. Although it is the true technical term, it is an obtuse and complicated term that tends to dismiss itself by its own complexity (especially when compared to the tried-and-true term of "theft"). With the simple "wrongness" of theft as the comparison, it is all too easy to make a false dichotomy and easily pardon infringement when given the comparison-- "It's not theft (wrong), it's copyright infringement (???)."

Throwing up the "theft or infringement" flag diverts the attention to "is it theft or is it just piracy", when the question really should be "is it right or is it wrong".

--

Now, although I do agree that it does not fit into the simple definition of "theft", I still believe that piracy* does create a manner of deprivation, albeit not as simple and direct as simple taking. I have always seen piracy as analogous to "theft of services" or fraudulent hiring. Admittedly, the situation does differ a bit, but that's why it's an analogy. By using someone else's product, you're in-effect hiring that person to do a job for you-- keep you entertained, or perhaps perform a useful algorithmic service. Now, there may not have been a formal contract, but (analogize with me, folks) the sticker price or market value can be seen as the producer's "offer", which you are free to take or leave. Yes, it also differs in that their effort and work may be subdivided and format-shifted amongst thousands or millions of "copies", but unless we want thousands-of-dollars initial-run DVDs, that's the way the modern deal works. Just as a worker expects to be paid x-amount by their employer at the end of the week, a content-creator expects to be paid x-amount for their work when the content is used. So, like an applicant, they are presenting their terms of hire to the consumer, and the pirate, instead of accepting or denying the offer, gleans the benefit and walks away without paying the check.

Just as a stiffed worker is technically "deprived" of nothing except time and effort, the content creator is also not technically "deprived" of anything except that slice of their time and effort. However, I imagine few here would cast a similar argument against a short-changed wage-worker. Granted, yes, the situation is simpler in the worker's case-- they had one agreement with one employer for a sum of money, but I argue that a creator's offer of sale is just a more complex, but nonetheless similar, offer with "the public at large".

So, uh, you know... tip your waitresses. And legally acquire those things you haven't the skill to make.

* and don't even try to get on me for that term-- we all know what "piracy" means in context

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

If what you say is true, Kinko's and all other copiers would be shut down.

But Kinko's won't duplicate copyrighted works without permission from the copyright holder. They are performing an entirely different function than this business, which will duplicate the material without permission.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

We are talking about copying to an iPod in this case. Firstly, an iPod cannot do CSS decryption, so a DVD image file would be useless on it. Secondly, most people don't want a 4GB+ file on their iPod, so transcoding is necessary to get it down to a reasonable size. If they are transferring these DVDs to an iPod without decrypting, would you care to explain how they do it?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

Unless I'm mistaken, at the time the copying is done the company is the owner of the DVDs. So, effectively, the company is the "end user" -- just one who coincidentally happens to resell the iPod and DVD at some later time

But the law specifies you have to delete any copies of the content when you sell it. You can't sell copies, that should be pretty obvious.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

I would not buy some of the movies that I have bought if it weren't for placed like family flix.

You actually buy censored copies of films? Wow, that's pretty crazy.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[mrchaotica]

But the law specifies you have to delete any copies of the content when you sell it.

Are you sure? 'Cause I was under the impression that the copies could continue to exist, but would have to be transferred along with the original. And guess what -- that's exactly what's happening here!

You can't sell copies, that should be pretty obvious.

This company isn't selling copies! It's selling the original, and coincidentally also transferring the backups that it made, exactly as the law requires.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[mrchaotica]

No shit, Sherlock -- that's exactly what I'm complaining about!

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

This company isn't selling copies! It's selling the original, and coincidentally also transferring the backups that it made, exactly as the law requires.

Are you sure about that, from a legal perspective? It certainly sounds like they are selling copies. The argument was that they were exercising their fair-use rights, because they were the temporary owner. So, if the owner sells the items, including the copy, with a generous mark-up - what is the mark-up for? Could it be they are selling the copy?

If anything, the "copy made while temporary owner" loophole seems to make this more legally problematic, not less. After all, if the business was the owner when the copy was made, they can't have been performing a service on behalf of the end-consumer, but are instead distributing copies for profit.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

No shit, Sherlock -- that's exactly what I'm complaining about!

It certainly didn't sound like it. I mean, there was no real sarcasm evident in your post. No reference to legality versus rationality. It sounded like you were seriously arguing that a sane argument would be legally sound.

I agree that the situation is pretty ridiculous. What I don't agree with is the approach that most slashdotters appear to take - trying to argue that all this copying is perfectly OK under existing laws, because they want it to be. What people should be doing is trying to change the stupid laws. If people think what they are doing is legal, but it is not, it will come back to bite them on the ass. Even worse, it just perpetuates the bad laws.

Law is what it is, it's not what you want it to be. The media companies can make the laws what they want them to be, because they spend a lot of effort and money making it that way. Meanwhile, people sit back believing they are fine because of mythical interpretations of the law.

It really is quite strange. People on the one hand complain about draconian copyright laws, but then turn around and claim that they have all these rights - which implies that the laws aren't draconian. So, which is it? Are we being screwed by copyright law, or does it guarantee us all these rights?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Microlith]

Except they're not authorize to distribute the copies.

Thus they're in violation of copyright.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[podwich]

There should be nothing wrong with this-there is no redistribution of the copyrighted material-rather, it's just made more convenient for the owner/licensee (whichever term is preferred currently) to use. This is kind of like (yes, not exactly) mailing said DVD from one's home to one's place of vacation in order to watch it there-someone made money in moving it (making it more convenient for the consumer), but there is no redistribution of the copyrighted material.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Anonymous Coward]

Theoretically, you could do a bit-for-bit clone of the DVD disk, and, in this manner, you wouldn't have to decrypt it in order to copy it. However, you'd need some pretty specialized equipment for that.

You may want to read this wonderful article titled "How DVDs work". You see, just like CDs, DVDs are just a stream of bits.

There is software out there to make bit-wise copies of DVDs, but they are usually bundled with some sort of program that also decrypts them (so people can make video files of DVDs). As such, I will not be listing them here.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[amorsen]

Theoretically, you could do a bit-for-bit clone of the DVD disk, and, in this manner, you wouldn't have to decrypt it in order to copy it.

This is actually easy. The trick is that you don't get the keys copied when you try that with a regular DVD burner or regular DVD writables. Therefore standard players are unable to decrypt the copied DVD, so you can't actually watch it. Certain players CAN play it though, the ones that break the encryption instead of asking for the keys. In most cases removing the encryption is done when copying, since it's just easier that way -- but it isn't the only way.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Sj0]

If it was "rather clearly" a case of copyright infringement, then every single computer shop and manufacturer on the planet is going to jail for installing Windows XP onto their clients computers.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Bazar]

I think your getting the word "use" mixed up with "copy"

Its the consumer that will be using the copy, but its the commercial entity that is doing the copy. IANAL, but thats just how i read it.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[xantho]

because paying money and getting the dvd isn't the same as paying money and getting bits on an ipod. duh. deal with it.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[nightgeometry]

Seems to me that (apart from the possible DMCA implications), this is the crux of the matter.

Either:
A) It is legal for a third party to commercially make a copy of copyrighted material where the customer can demonstrate that such copying would be legal if they did it (thus the third party is acting solely as the customers agent). I guess as long as the third party isn't keeping a copy of the copyright material.
or
B) The copying of copyrighted materials by a party where that specific party does not have a legal right to make such a copy, is always illegal, whether they are acting as an agent or not. (Thus Kinkos can make a copy of original work, because the customer is assumed to be the copyright holder, or they ask for demonstration of the copyright holders permission, and failing that they really shouldn't, but maybe will do on a discretionary basis but officially won't - I'm neither from nor in the USA and have no idea what actual Kinko policy is on this).

Seems to be further complicated by the fact that in B) the third party (the commercial side), may have a right the same as their customer does, if they can argue that they are just 'format shifting' in accordance with your fair use provisions.

How is this really different to those companies that you can send a stack of CD's to, they rip them to MP3 (or equivalent), and send the CD's and a harddrive full of ripped audio back? Do any of those still exist, and have they ever been legally challenged?

And, for extra points, has anyone ever used one, if so can you give recommendations for one of the CD ripping services, especially for someone in the UK - I want to rerip 1500 CD's, and am would like to get an idea of the cost of someone else doing it against the cost of me doing it. Of course in the UK it is illegal for us to rip CD's anyway... So I could be missing a lot here. IANAL (juvenile chuckle), nor particularly up interested in the finer points of law, so the above could all be just so much horseshit.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[nightgeometry]

Okay, replying to myself, I went to Kinkos website and had a quick look at their T&C's.

To Quote:
You also warrant and confirm that You own the copyright or have permission to copy any documents or Materials You submit online for printing or processing, and agree to defend, indemnify and hold FedEx Kinko's, its parent and its parent's subsidiary companies and their respective officers, directors, agents and employees, harmless from any suit, demand, or claim arising out of any breach of this warranty and agree to pay any judgment or reasonable settlement offer resulting from any such suit, demand or claim, and to pay any attorney's fees incurred by FedEx Kinko's in defending against such suit, demand or claim.
KInko's T&C's
(This is for electronic submission - I assume in store the same rules apply, but they may not, and I am bored of checking there legal docs)

So it looks like Kinkos demand that you either are the copyright owner or have the copyright owners permission (but don't seem to ask for proof of that). And that in either case you take on any legal burden.

Not sure if this is really relevant though :)

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

Despite the weight of replies against this idea, you're not alone on this. As I see it, if I create a computer program, it's 'my program'. If someone makes a copy, that copy does not become 'their program', it's still a copy of 'my' program. Therefore, when they take this copy, they are taking something of mine. And if they're not taking the copy, then the copy must remain with the original, which would seem pretty useless except in the case of creating a backup.

Why? As you put it, they made the copy. Why is it not theirs if they made it? If you make the original, but no copies, and someone else makes a copy, why would you then own the original and a copy, since you only made the original? What do you think of this poster's example of his father's copying furniture?

Don't get me wrong, I'm in favour of copyrights. I think that comparing copyright infringement too closely to theft of physical property (or thinking of it that way) can be grossly misleading though. If someone copies your material, they are not stealing a copy from you, they are usurping your right to control copying.

To think of a comparison between copyright and physical property, I consider my computer. I own it, I have the right to control it's use. If someone gets into my house and uses it without my permission when I'm not home, have they stolen my computer? Obviously not, even thought they've still done wrong and probably broken numerous laws in the process. I would have the right to stop them, but if I say they stole my computer, I would be hard pressed to get a court to agree with me. They would have usurped my rights to my computer, but not stolen it. I don't know if that would be covered by a particular law, but in the case of copyright it is. It's still not theft though. Just as arson, murder, drunk driving and any number of wrong things are not theft.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[nightgeometry]

Wow.

I had no idea services like that existed. On the one hand it seems really cool that someone will take a film and edit out the bits you don't want to see. But... on the other hand why on earth would you watch a film where you already know there are segements you don't like?

This is going off-topic I know, sorry, but I find this interesting. If a film has violence, sex, drug use or bad language as one of the core artistic drivers to it's message (Irreversible or Audition, for example), would those things be removed? I guess it is a moot point, as you'd choose not to watch those films, but they are just extreme examples. Let's use The Little mermaid as an example - this contains a scene where a chef wants to cook one of the main characters, which to me seems to fall under the disturbing violence category, do these services remove such a scene, even where it is relevant to the story? (I know, 'The Little Mermaid', but hell, it's about the only Disney film I have seen more than once, and would choose to watch again, I can live with the social stigma of that).

I guess it may be equated to buying an album, and not listening to tracks you don't like? Maybe.

Even cooler though, would be a hacked version of clearplay's filters which let you choose to see only violence, disturbing scenes, sex, bad language and drug use. (Ha, only joking there - I'd probably be happy to dump any unnecessary violence).

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Ciggy]

It all seems to boil down to exactly what you are buying: a licence to use a copy of the copyrighted thing (and possibly the physical packaging of the thing, eg DVD disk), and not the copy itself.

If the copyright holders (or their agent(s), etc) decide that you can only use that copy in one specific way, then tough, that's what you get: eg a DVD that may only be used within a [certain] DVD player; if you wish to play your DVD using say a general computer as opposed to a DVD [only] player then you'll have to buy a separate licence for that, the fact that your computer can play the DVD is irrelevant - it would be illegal for you to do it.

The problem is that end-users are unaware of this and the copyright holders, etc are more than happy to avoid educating the masses - would you feel inclined to go out and buy a "copy" of a film if it was advertised as

"out now for you to purchase a licence to watch on a certified DVD player only"

instead of

"out now for you to own"

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

Most people do not sign any kind of a license agreement when they buy a DVD, so that means that the standard copyright laws apply by default. There is no single user / single device provision in copyright law, but there are many restrictions on things like public showings, etc.

While the right to make "backup copies" is explicitly granted to computer software, this does not apply to DVDs. Even if it does, the "backup copy" is supposed to be used only for archive purposes - not for "format shifting".

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

There are several special rules in place for computer software. Copyright laws are different depending on the medium.

And copyright is probably not relevant anyway, since an OEM is going to have a contract with Microsoft that grants separate rights and imposes additional restrictions.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Anonymous Coward]

...on the other hand why on earth would you watch a film where you already know there are segements you don't like?

There are quite a few films I would like to have watched, but have not done so as they included segments I didn't like. I've also watched a few, but the objectional scenes (when they're not totally necessary to plot furtherance and were rather gratuitous) I fast forwarded (next-scened) past; having them cut in the first place would be even better.

Besides, how many DVDs come with extras features including "deleted scenes": scenes that didn't make the final cut, even though the film still makes sense and the plot holds together? Most!

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

But the rights of distribution are covered in copyright law, too.

For instance, I bought a painting. It's an original piece, commissioned by me. Since I didn't sign any agreement with the artist, default copyright law applies... I have no right to make duplicates of the painting, even though I own the original. Thus, she was able to distribute the original painting yet retain the right to the work.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

You would be correct, except that the EULA seems to permit this.

Like it or not, owning the copyright on something means that only you and congress can decide who can and cannot make copies.

I personally believe that copyright should be opened up such that non-commercial use is not regulated at all. Also, the terms should be shortened. I'm not so sure about this, though. If you make money by copying someone else's IP, you should probably pay some kind of fee to the owner. Perhaps it should be a fixed amount, set by law, but you shouldn't be able to make money from someone else's IP.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

Heh, what they are doing is unquestionably not legal. Sorry to break that to you, but this case will bear that out.

What I am arguing is that it's not in our best interest to allow commercial copying of other's IP. Then again, I don't believe in this strongly and can be swayed the other way :) I mean, how many times can you be expected to buy the same content? On the other hand, it isn't right that this company is making money off of the IP - if the content owner wants to sell such a service they have now lost the ability to do so.

But it IS illegal under current law.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

Do you think you have the right to format-shift your own media?

Legally? No. Morally? Yeah, I think I'm in the clear :)

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

Except that "format-shifting" only sort-of protected for audio, not at all for video. What is being made here is not a backup or archive, but a derivative work. While you are not likely to be sued for doing this at home, it is most certainly NOT legal to do so commercially.

I'm not even sure that this SHOULD be legal to do commercially, and I'm pretty darn liberal on copyright reform.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Anonymous Coward]

1) DVDs are computer software.

2) He talked about computer shops in addition to OEMs.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

Your point 1 has not been tested in any court that I am aware. Seems like a weak case.

On point 2, I believe that - from my reading, and IANAL - the Microsoft end user agreement is liberal enough that it allows for this. It even allows copying the software to a common install directory on the network. They make it very clear that you bought a license and not a copy.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[msobkow]

Because they're selling the customer the original DVDs as well, the only thing in question is whether it's legal to transform the content for playback on your own device. The fact that someone else was hired to perform the service of transformation does not change the ownership of the media.

The DMCA defense is a farce. Yet another Bush-approved kickback law in the post-9/11 panic that needs to be very intently reviewed by the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Senate now that people aren't all in panic mode. Scared people make mistakes; smart people try to correct them.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[nightgeometry]

I was going to reply, but the answer became too off-topic, and rambled a little, so I posted an entry to my slashdot journal (first time i have used that feature). That journal has some more of my thoughts on this (I don't think they are necessarily against your views), and I would love to continue this conversation there.

Is it impolite to ask what films you have watched with bits cut out?

Thanks for making me think :)

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

"As you put it, they made the copy. Why is it not theirs if they made it?"

The medium they copied it onto might be theirs, but they didn't write the program, I did, and I still did, no matter how many times it's been copied, it's still my work, my creation.

"What do you think of this poster's example of his father's copying furniture?"

It's a grossly misleading example. He didn't copy the material, he copied the *design*, which is something that somebody else spent time to create. He didn't design the furniture himself, he took a shortcut there and used the time somebody else had put into designing furniture for his own. So, the taking photos was the act of making a copy of the design, and then leaving the shop (as we know the photos weren't left there) is the act 'taking'.

"If someone gets into my house and uses it without my permission when I'm not home, have they stolen my computer?"

No, because they haven't *taken* it, they've left it where it is.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[coyotl]

It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.

By this same logic, companies that transfer old LP's to CD are breaking the law. The end-user has no choice but to re-purchase their music, if it's available, and to throw out the media in it's old format.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[element-o.p.]

Great thesis statement, now support your position.

The point is, the MPAA is *still* getting their royalty from the sale of the DVD--which *may* be a sale they would not have otherwise received (i.e., they are potentially receiving more money than they would have if the iPod vendor were not in business). The iPod vendor is making money on the time and labor taken to move the bits from the DVD to the iPod, not on distributing a copyrighted work without providing royalties to the artists (including the MPAA) who created the work. I fail to see how this activity is copyright infringement, and I fail to see how this activity is harming anyone involved in producing the DVD.

If the iPod vendor had bought a single DVD of all of the works being transferred and was using them as masters from which to produce multiple copies on iPods, I could see the point. But in this case, the MPAA is cutting off its nose to spite its face. They are getting paid, so what's the problem?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[bryce1012]

The DMCA defense is a farce. Yet another Bush-approved kickback law in the post-9/11 panic that needs to be very intently reviewed by the Supreme Court, Congress, and the Senate now that people aren't all in panic mode. Scared people make mistakes; smart people try to correct them.

Ummm....
(From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA)

Passed on October 8, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the United States Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998, the DMCA amended title 17 of the US Code to extend the reach of copyright, while limiting the liability of Online Providers from copyright infringement by their users.

Check your facts next time, please.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

To make the copy, the company has to use the material, and it is doing so in a commercial manner. How do you make a copy, without making use of the material?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Anonymous Coward]

Copyright exists to encourage creative development by guaranteeing the creator a reasonable period of time where they can have the exclusive ability to produce (and sell) a specific kind of content. (it grants the creator a "limited monopoly" on their creation)

Not for some time. Copyright exists to maintain a business model for large commercial entities who contribute huge sums of money to influence politicians into crafting laws to maintain their business model.

Welcome to now.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[element-o.p.]

Point taken. My argument is flawed, so allow me to modify it slightly.

Suppose rather than Dell with an OEM agreement, I run a small computer shop selling custom PCs. I buy components to match a customer's needs and budget, build them a smoking machine, buy Windows in volume from a (legit) mail-order warehouse, and install the OS on these custom computers. I've never struck an OEM arrangement with Microsoft because I am a small operator, and because I build high-end PCs, the OS is a small portion of the total price of the computer. Am I in violation of copyright law? Have I violated Microsoft's EULA? If so, I don't see how. And I don't see how this is fundamentally different to the MPAA vs. the iPod business.

Just as installing the OS is incidental to the primary business of selling high-end custom computers in the example above, ripping a DVD to an iPod is incidental to the sale of the iPod in the business in this article. The business is selling an iPod bundled with a DVD. Having the DVD ripped to the iPod already is a gimmick to give him/her an edge over competing iPod vendors in that area--it is not the primary business model, nor is it depriving the MPAA or any of the artists involved in the production of the DVD of any revenue, since the DVD is included in each sale.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[NitroWolf]

To make the copy, the company has to use the material, and it is doing so in a commercial manner. How do you make a copy, without making use of the material?

Simple - you don't watch it. Making use of a video recording, in this context, is to watch it and derive potential entertainment out of it. If it's just being copied, hidden away as 1's and 0's in a computer, it's not being used, it's being duplicated. Duplication != use. Use implies a function, duplication is an action upon an object or entity.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[dangitman]

Incorrect. Copying is a use of the material, at least legally speaking. In fact, I'd say it's more than just legally speaking. It's reality. It doesn't matter if you are copying it, or using the disc as a frisbee. You are still using the product.

A company doesn't have to watch a video to duplicate it and sell copies. But I'm pretty sure that the law considers duplicating and selling copies without permission to be an illegal use of the material.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

I think that you don't realize that the DMCA was a Clinton law, but that is actually off topic.

Copyright law does not currently "allow" for you to rip a DVD to your own device, so it CERTAINLY doesn't allow others to do it.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

That's true, and those companies are probably on shaky ground. However, at least for audio there is a specific allowance for making archival copies. They probably argue that they are simply acting as agents of the LP owners. Someone else in this thread posted the relevant section of the law. AFAIK, there is no such allowance for video.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

it's still my work, my creation.

Well, you were the one that said they made the copy. *shrugs*

It's a grossly misleading example. He didn't copy the material, he copied the *design*

A copy of a program is made up of new bits, arranged in the same order (design) as the original program. Really, the only significant difference is that furniture is not covered by copyright laws and software is. If copyright infringement was theft, there would have been no need for copyright law, as there have been laws against theft for millenia. Copying is different to stealing, therefore new laws were required.

As far as I can tell, every technologically advanced country has become so in an environment of strong IP protection. I am convinced that copyright protection is a huge net gain for society, not just for the copyright owner, and am not arguing against it at all. But to say that copying is theft is simply not true. The existence of copyright law proves it.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[2short]

"If the copyright holders (or their agent(s), etc) decide that you can only use that copy in one specific way .... it would be illegal for you to do it."

They can "decide" that the moon is made of green cheese if they like, but it doesn't make it so.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[2short]

"Not sure if this is really relevant though "

Sure it is. Kinkos will happily copy or print things for you if you have the legal right to copy or print them. Your taking on the legal burden in case you don't have permission is just so they can avoid having to ask for or judge the validity of proof of that. If it were illegal for them to make the copies in any case, you wouldn't be able to take on the liability (and they would be out of business.)

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[msobkow]

I stand corrected on the Clinton signing of the DMCA. It makes the law no more reasonable.

Copyright law allows you to make copies of media for backups and personal use with print and magnetic media. That precedent has not been overturned in Canada, and has not been tested in the US. Every case taken to court has been over piracy, not over personal use that was repeatedly defined for cassettes used to tape radio, VCRs used to tape TV, personal duplication of cassettes, and recording of vinyl records to cassette.

Instead the DMCA straw dog is painted as a vicious defender of XOR bit masking and insecure encryption algorithms, and both *AAs try to claim victory over a battle that precedent says they cannot win.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

Well, obviously we can only speculate about what the court will find, but my bet is that the MPAA wins on more than just the DMCA point. This is not an individual making some copies for himself, but rather a commercial agent of that individual. This erodes the "fair use" claim considerably - at least in the US.

For what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of the DMCA or copyright in general. I am not defending the current law, just letting you know what it is :)

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[GuyverDH]

They are not *just* shifting it - they are selling a LEGAL copy of the DVD as well.

The user buys the DVD as well as the shifted content so that they have a LEGAL copy.

The company is doing the shifting of the media to a format that the users want the media in. Just because the MPAA is too stupid to do it themselves, doesn't preclude a company from doing it for them.

If someone has me shift media content because they don't have the knowledge to do so, does that make me an infringer?

The whole reason that a company has come up with this idea is due to the fact that the MPAA has tried to make it impossible for end-users to have *fair use* rights to the media / content they've purchased.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

"But to say that copying is theft is simply not true. The existence of copyright law proves it"

Are you saying that taking something that belongs to someone, without their permission, could not to be considered "theft" until there was legislature to say that it was? That if I was to head out to internation waters, board somebody's boat, and take a load of their stuff while they were sleeping, that would not be stealing, because there is no law to say that it is?

Of cause it's stealing, because the words "theft" and "stealing" are -not- defined as "that which is covered by particular law xxx". If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[msobkow]

I disagree completely.

If I hire someone to build an addition to my house, it is my addition, I pay the extra taxes, I own the property. There is no question that the subcontractor is doing the work as a service to me.

The same applies to transcoding or archiving of material that I own. This is the key point -- the purchasers are receiving original copies of the media transcoded and downloaded to their player, not pirated copies.

This has never been tested before. All prior cases involved media that was transcoded and downloaded to multiple "customers" without authorization; this case involves nothing more than a transcoding service that comes with the purchase of hardware.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[NitroWolf]

No, it's not considered illegal use of the material. It's considered copyright infringement, which is very different than "illegal use."

I suspect illegal use of a DVD would be something like either public broadcast or perhaps shattering it and stabbing someone in the neck. Duplicating and selling copies is not illegal use of a disc, it's copyright infringement, plain and simple.

Copying is a use of the material, at least legally speaking.

Again, incorrect. Copying is not a use, it is an act which may or may not be illegal. Don't try to split legal hairs when you don't even appear to understand what the words you are using mean and how they are used.

Perhaps this will make it easier to understand: "Use" is a verb. "Copy" is a verb. You can't Verb and Verb. The sentence "Copying is use" is completely nonsense in both the legal sense and the laymen sense. It would be like saying 'Apple is orange.'

Copying something may be illegal. Using something may be illegal, but one does not have to imply or even vaguely relate to the other.

A company doesn't have to watch a video to duplicate it and sell copies. But I'm pretty sure that the law considers duplicating and selling copies without permission to be an illegal use of the material.

A company or individual can copy the video all they want. They can't sell it. Copying is not illegal and never has been. What you do with those copies can be illegal, but the act of copying them is not illegal.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

Are you saying that taking something that belongs to someone, without their permission, could not to be considered "theft" until there was legislature to say that it was?

No, I'm saying that there were already laws against theft. If copyright violation was theft, there would have been no need for a new law, the laws against theft would have been sufficient protection of your property. Since copyright violation is sufficiently different to theft to require a different set of laws, it is sufficiently different that is it appropriate to use a different term to describe it.

Understand what I'm saying: I'm not saying it's less serious or less wrong than theft, just that it's different. Comparable to the difference between fraud and theft. The definition of fraud does not contain the word theft. They are different, even though they have similarities.

That said though, it is only wrong because the law says it is. For thousands of years it was not considered theft to use someone elses ideas, songs, copy inventions etc. Is there any religion or philosophy that grants monopoly on inventions or ideas? On what basis do you claim ownership of these works that for most of human history have not been subject to individual property rights? Only the law gives you this right. Now, I believe in the rule of law, so I say go ahead, claim and enforce your rights under law, but if the law changed so you didn't have those rights, to what authority would you appeal? On what basis would you claim your goods had been stolen?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

I do understand what you're saying, but I disagree with what you say it means.

"Is there any religion or philosophy that grants monopoly on inventions or ideas?"

No, because it's only more recently that it's become so much easier to copy an idea than it is to actually implement it. Digitally copying music or a computer program for example requires very little effort. Go back before music recordings were easy, and having a copy of the score meant very little if you needed 50 musicians with hours of practice time to play it. That was enough of a disinsentive by itself.

Anyway, instead of just repeating yourself saying "infringment != theft", can you point out exactly where in the last paragraph of my last post you're saying the difference is, which bit is wrong, where you believe it breaks down. I'll repeat it:

If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".

Are you saying that saving my program, that I created, onto another disc makes it no longer my program, that it was no longer me that wrote it? Or are you saying that moving it from the location of the original isn't taking it?

Have you considered that maybe different laws exist because the law (rather than the word "theft") states that it only covers theft of physical belongings?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

What you say is probably allowed for audio, but for video it is not expressly permitted for you to make a copy, much less hire someone else to do it for you!

Some court might decide that making backups of your own DVDs falls under "fair use", but these aren't even backup copies - they are format shifts. It's not at all clear that a court will find this permissable.

But you are right, I'm speculating on what the court will find. I just happen to be quite confident in myself in this case. If they were doing this with CDs instead of DVDs my opinion would be different.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Hamoohead]

Actually it has. Remember the Betamax case?

from the article:

"Handing down its decision in October 1979, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use; that copying an entire program also qualified as fair use; that set manufacturers could profit from the sale of VCRs; and that the plaintiffs did not prove that any of the above practices constituted economic harm to the motion picture industry."

I'm no legal expert but technically speaking, a broadcast constitutes a format. By taping that broadcast, the consumer (or device) is performing a format shift. Fair use, it seems to me, has already been decided. Congress also addressed fair use of audio recordings in 1971. From the EFF Copyright and Fair Use FAQ:

House Report on the Sound Recording Amendment of 1971 H.R. Rep. No. 487, 92d Cong,. 1st Sess. 1-19 (1971) at pages 7-8:

Home Recording

"In approving the creation of a limited copyright in sound recordings it is the intention of the Committee that this limited copyright not grant any broader rights than are accorded to other copyright proprietors under the existing title 17. Specifically, it is not the intention of [Congress] to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it. This practice is common and unrestrained today, and record producers and performers would be in no different position from that of the owners of copyright in recorded musical compositions over the past 20 years."

It's all about the money, folks.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

Okay, so try this:

Set up a business where you record TV shows for people and then sell them.

See how long you stay in business.

The passage you quoted is for AUDIO, not video. Even if the courts ruled that it applied to DVDs as well, this company would not be protected. From your quoted passage: "Specifically, it is not the intention of [Congress] to restrain the home recording, from broadcasts or from tapes or records, of recorded performances, where the home recording is for private use and with no purpose of reproducing or otherwise capitalizing commercially on it.".

This company is NOT making a "home recording" and they ARE "capitalizing commercially". It's also worth noting that I think this law has been updated with text that includes digital devices as well.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[DragonWriter]

If it was "rather clearly" a case of copyright infringement, then every single computer shop and manufacturer on the planet is going to jail for installing Windows XP onto their clients computers.

That's at least the third time that argument's been made in this thread. And it is still wrong: both because OEM licenses specifically allow such loading (so manufacturer's have express permission to do that, and aren't forced to attempt to rely on "fair use" or any other exception to copyright), and, on top of that, there is an express exception to copyright separate from "fair use" allowing making a copy of a computer program (and only a computer program) that is essential to the use of that program with a particular machine (see 17 USC 117), even without express permission from the copyright holder.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Hamoohead]

You assume too much about my point. Of course any business that records and then sells copies of TV shows would (and should) be shut down. But this should not be allowed affect already established precedents, nor should we allow new laws to strip our consumer choices. I included the 1971 congressional quote (and I DID mention that it was a ruling on audio recordings) to illustrate the point that we started down this road long before video, let alone current digital technology. I apologize that my point was missed.

Load 'N Go Video naturally should not be allowed to copy movies for profit without paying a fee. But, having said that, what is wrong with a company providing the service of ripping and loading for the less technically inclined as long as the original source is provided and paid for by the consumer? This should not be considered as selling a copy of a movie any more than installing a copy of a legitimately purchased copy of Windows XP on my customer's computer. If companies want to provide a service to their customers by ripping a legitimately purchased movie or CD any placing it on their playback device, they should be allowed to do so. The industry has already received payment from the initial sale of the DVD/CD. No harm is done to the industry by legitimate fair use. If anything, consumers would be more apt to buy subsequent titles knowing that they can play them on any device that they choose.

Back in my vinyl days, I had a HUGE collection of vinyl. The record industry made money off of me. I also recorded my favorites on cassette for use in my car. My entire reason for buying a cassette recorder was for this purpose. The record industry wouldn't have made any more money off of me if I hadn't been allowed to do this. I simply would not have purchased cassette equipment. Pre-recorded cassettes suck. I would have done without. If anything, the record industry made more money from me because this option was available. There are some albums that I most likely wouldn't have purchased for home listening. But record, I did (with the blessing of the courts) and because of it, the RIAA made money, the electronic industry made money and Maxell made money for the blanks.

IMO, rather than concentrating on competing, incompatible DRM measures to prevent the legitimate fair use that had already been given us by congress and the courts, the industry should set on a standard that is usable by all devices and keep it that way. DRM should not prevent the copying or playback of any content, but rather, should simply be an electronic watermark that allows the file to be traced to the original purchaser. And this license should be transferrable should I decide to sell my copy (try reselling an iTunes selection sometime). If I want to play content on my damned refrigerator, if it is so equipped, I should be allowed this. But instead, both industries want consumers to pay over and over for the priviledge of playing their purchase on each device they choose.

The MPAA is still sore over the Betamax case as is the RIAA over the 1971 ruling. The industry's claims that they are being hurt financially by file sharing and the resulting DMCA are a smoke screen. Anyone familiar with the technology knows that the only thing current DRMs do are prevent consumer choice. Pirates being pirates will always find a way to circumvent, especially where profit is involved. It's all about the money.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[MightyYar]

Ahhh, sorry - I thought that you were arguing that this business was legal.

I agree with you that copyright is way out of line... I'm not as sure that you should be able to hire an "agent" to lawfully make copies for you. I'm torn, because on the one hand, you are right about not having to pay for things more than once. On the other hand, there is a company with absolutely zero creative output making money using other people's IP. I think some special cases should probably be legislated in - treat video the same way that audio is treated. Recording your LPs onto CD should always be legal, and so should burning your laserdisks to DVD. It's not currently, and it should be.

The question is, should it be legal to HIRE someone to put your LPs/DVDs into digital format. On that, I'm not as sure, but it seems like I'm being swayed into the direction of making that permissible. The only thing that still nags at me is that when the record companies originally sold you the LPs, they were disposable. They were only good for so many plays, and then they had to be replaced. With the advent of hard drives and cheap CD burners, this business model fell apart. The rules of the game sort of changed on them, and for that I feel a little bad.

On the other hand, we're more than 20 years past the point where they introduced a "forever" type of medium, the CD. If they can't get their act together in 20+ years, then they deserve to die! Especially considering that I advocate a 15 year copyright period :)

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

So you're telling me I can't just do a "dd if=/dev/rcd0c of=dvd.rip bs=1024000" and then burn that to another disc? Are the keys stored somewhere else on the disc, like the innermost plastic area before the data area begins?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they have saved it on, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft".

You made the original program. Your words were that the other person made the copy. The fact that it was easy for them to do this does not change the fact that you did not make the copy. What copyright gives you is the exclusive right to copy, subject to certain limitations, it does not give you ownership of the copies other people make. One very pointed example of this is the right to copy for the purpose of parody. Not very likely to pertain to software, I'll grant you, but if copyright gave you ownership of resulting copies there would be no exclusion for parody etc.

If someone copies your program, what they have taken from you is not the copy, it is the exclusiveness of the right to copy. This could probably be phrased better, but copyright protects your exclusive right to perform an action (copying said program/material). It does not protect your ownership of an object. If it did, it would be of no value to you, because the moment you sold me a copy (now my program) I could now copy it to my hearts content, and your detriment. So if someone copies your program, they have infringed your rights, not taken your property. Theft is simply an inaccurate description for what has happened. That's why if I came to your place and took the disk/tape you saved the software on, the law agrees I would have stolen it, but if I make a copy of it the law states I have infringed your copyright.

No, because it's only more recently that it's become so much easier to copy an idea than it is to actually implement it.

So if something is difficult it's ok to do, but if it becomes too easy, it's wrong? It is as a practical measure for the benefit of society only that we grant copyrights unless you accept that easy=wrong.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[amorsen]

So you're telling me I can't just do a "dd if=/dev/rcd0c of=dvd.rip bs=1024000" and then burn that to another disc?

Correct. Well you can do that, but the disc you get out of it won't play in a standard DVD player.

Are the keys stored somewhere else on the disc, like the innermost plastic area before the data area begins?

They are stored in an area on the normal writing surface, but standard writers won't let you write that area, and standard burnable disks have that area pre-recorded.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

Okay, I'll try and get this point thru one more time: I'm not talking about what the law says! I'm not talking about what rights laws grant you. I'm talking about the word "theft", and I have shown exactly why I'm not talking about the law (read: if you take something from someone without permission in international waters, it is still theft, even though there are no laws saying it is).

So, let's try this again, but forgetting about what rights the law gives you, we're just talking about basic english. I've reworded to emphasise that they have saved my program to a media themself (as per your "Your words were that the other person made the copy"), and that it's not a copy that I've made, that they are taking.

If somebody takes, my program, without my permission, either on the medium I saved it on, or a medium they save it on themselves, then they have taken something of mine, something with value, without my permission, and is therefore covered by the word "theft"

So which bit of this isn't true? Add underline tags to the section that is not true. I'm not asking you to repeat what the law says, what the law grants, exclusivity or anything like that. I want you to tell me exactly which part of the above paragraph you are saying is wrong. If they save my program, onto their own disc, it is my program, on their disc. If they walk out with it, they are taking their own disc, and my own program on it. You can claim that it's their copy, but you can't claim that it's not my program.

"So if something is difficult it's ok to do, but if it becomes too easy, it's wrong?"

Don't be stupid. There are no laws against, and there is nothing in the religions that specifically teach against, sending the whole planet earth hurtling out of orbit. We don't need to take time out specifically teaching people that it's wrong to do it, because it's hardly something that can easily be done.

Something isn't "right" just because it's not easily done, but we don't need to teach that it's "wrong" if it's not possible to be done anyway.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

So, let's try this again, but forgetting about what rights the law gives you

and

So which bit of this isn't true?

Well, since you said to forget about what rights the law give you, the bit that says that copies belong to you is wrong. Without copyright law, nothing gives you any claim to copies you didn't make. I am pretty sure there is international law about stealing, certainly about piracy (argh, me hearties! type piracy, just to be clear). Really, in the absence of law, there are morals and force of arms. Show me the moral code you follow that gives you a monopoly on your easily copyable program. I'll probably disagree with it, but I'll see your point. In western societies however, it is commonly accepted that your moral code is not binding on me.

As Thomas Jefferson apparently said:

If nature has made any one thing less susceptible than all others of exclusive property, it is the action of the thinking power called an idea, which an individual may exclusively possess as long as he keeps it to himself; but the moment it is divulged, it forces itself into the possession of every one, and the receiver cannot dispossess himself of it. Its peculiar character, too, is that no one possesses the less, because every other possesses the whole of it. He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevolently designed by nature, when she made them, like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point, and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement or exclusive appropriation. Inventions then cannot, in nature, be a subject of property. Society may give an exclusive right to the profits arising from them, as an encouragement to men to pursue ideas which may produce utility, but this may or may not be done, according to the will and convenience of the society, without claim or complaint from any body.

People have always copied ideas. Mass production has become easier, but mass production was difficult for everyone, even originator's of ideas. How about we modify your example. You sell someone a copy. They install it on two computers without permission. Stealing? Nonsense. Copyright violation? Absolutely.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

"Well, since you said to forget about what rights the law give you, the bit that says that copies belong to you is wrong"

Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents? If not, are you saying that calling them "my parents" is incorrect? That they are not "my" parents? Is another child that they both had not "my" brother/sister? Is that because there is a law that grants me ownership of them?

Something that I create, is by definition, "my" creation, whether law, army, or personal moral code says or not. It is my creation, my program, my song, my whatever, by definition, of what the words mean. Even if you own (with permission, without, whatever) a copy, the program that you own a copy of is still my creation.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Arcane_Rhino]

Yeah, all these threads were what I was trying to avoid with my caveat: "my opinion". There is a preponderance of belief that if I can get away with it under the law, it is ok. No sense of honor or personal integrity. I shouldn't have to explain that people who provide a service or thing for money expect a remuneration from any individuals that benefit from that service or thing. Similarly, if one uses the law to trample people's rights (DMCA), then they are also acting immorally.

If you only focus only on what is legal, not what is right, then (mis)use of the DMCA is to be expected and we are back to might (good lawyers) makes right. On the other hand, I am not blind to what the MP/RIAA are doing. They are attempting to make me pay for something twice (or more) because of medium changes, which is not a cost outlay of the artists and musicians. Consequently, they are stealing from me.

Which brings me back to my ultimate point: Since the MP/RIAA are abusing our collective rights and have allowed for no middle ground , I have no choice but to side with those who ethics I find questionable. After all, they are only playing the legal game that the MP/RIAA have devised, and THEY are not taking away my rights of fair use.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents?

You don't own your parents. If you disagree, just try to sell them, see how far you get.

You have said nothing that demonstrates your ownership of copies of your work. Even though copies were difficult to make in earlier times, it was still possible and was not considered theft. The fact that you claim ownership of copies other people make of your work has no basis in reality. You produce the work, the other person produces the copy. Obviously it is much easier to make a copy than it is to produce an original work. There are sound reasons for society to grant you a monopoly on that work for a limited time, but it remains: you produce the original work, you own the original work, someone else produces a copy, they own the copy. Would you claim that the time limitation on copyrights and patents is unjust? That society is stealing from the IP holders when their rights expire? After all, my car, furniture, house, none of my physical possessions have a time limitation to my ownership, even though there may be various taxes such as land tax payable.

If you don't make the copy, you don't own the copy, that's all there is to it. Any additional rights you get are solely given to you by law, temporary and changeable. Any assertion by you that they are somehow immutable property rights is meaningless.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents? If not, are you saying that calling them "my parents" is incorrect? That they are not "my" parents?

And if I clone your parents, will my copies actually be your parents? Will you call them "Mom" and "Dad"?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

Your copies won't be copies of my parents, they will be people made from copies of my parents DNA. In this example, the DNA is what's being copied, and the people are the medium carrying it. Just like I wouldn't claim ownership of the disc someone saved my work onto, but would still claim ownership of the work, I also wouldn't claim the people are my parents, but would claim they carry my parents DNA.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

Now you're just making stuff up. I never said I own my parents, that I should be able to sell them, or anything of the sort. But let me put it this way, if somebody takes a photo of my parents, they may then own the photo, but the people in the photograph are still -my- parents. The photographer can't say "this is a photo of my parents" just because that person took the picture.

Anyway, "ownership" is relative, it's opinion. You may legally own something (such as a car), but at the same time, if everyone in the world agrees that you own something, but there is no law stating it, it can still be said that you own it.

If somebody creates a piece of work, then to me, and many many other people, including the person who I first replied to in this thread, legislated or not, through a moral understanding, recognition, and appreciation, agree that that person ownes their work, and that someone else merely saving that work onto another disc, does not grant the that person ownership, or any other right of claim over it.

You argue that somebody doesn't own their creation once somebody else has saved it to another medium, but only the original which they saved (or drew, or whatever) themself, just means that you lack that moral.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the bit that MP/RIAA "consequently, are stealing from me". The 'trade' may be grossly unfair, they may be totally ripping you off, but they're not taking your money without permission.

Other than that, I think your "No sense of honor or personal integrity" sentence pretty much sums up people on both ends of this argument - the MP/RIAA side who believe in absolute 100% control with no rights for the consumer, and those at the other end who believe that artists don't own their works just because only a "time limited monopoly" is all that is covered under legislature.

Are we not men?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

Now you're just making stuff up. I never said I own my parents

Perhaps I can remind you what you said: "Is there a law granting me ownership of my parents? If not, are you saying that calling them "my parents" is incorrect? That they are not "my" parents? Is another child that they both had not "my" brother/sister? Is that because there is a law that grants me ownership of them?"

...the context being that you were saying ownership exists regardless of the law. So I'm not making stuff up, you just used an example that did not it any way strengthen your case.

But let me put it this way, if somebody takes a photo of my parents, they may then own the photo, but the people in the photograph are still -my- parents. The photographer can't say "this is a photo of my parents" just because that person took the picture.

Let me put it this way, if I buy a book, it's my book. I'm not the author, but I own that copy of the book. I think books, being a written work, are a much closer analogy for software than parents. Even in your example though you say "they may then own the photo". Would they be stealing your parents if they made another copy of the photo? They can quite legitimately say "This is my photo".

Anyway, "ownership" is relative, it's opinion.

So my opinion that you don't own copies of your software is ok then. Relatively.

if everyone in the world agrees that you own something, but there is no law stating it, it can still be said that you own it.

Your opinion does not meet this condition.

You argue that somebody doesn't own their creation

No, I argued that if they didn't create the copy they don't own it. I also stated that they are (and should be) given exclusive rights to copying for a limited time. Since this is the law pretty much all over the world, it would seem that far more people agree with my relative opinion than agree with your relative opinion.

Here's an example I hope will illustrate my point: Say you write a program and make it available for a charge, downloadable. I pay you the agreed amount and download it to my hard drive. However, before installing it, I now find that I have no need for the program. Can I delete it wothout your permission? Morally, according to you? I would think that if you own the actual copy, then for me to delete it would be vandalism or some similar wrong. I should not destroy your property without your express consent, even if you can easily replace it. However, if I own the copy, but you have the exclusive right to control copying, I can delete it without destroying anything of yours.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

"Let me put it this way, if I buy a book, it's my book. I'm not the author, but I own that copy of the book"

Yes, the BOOK, just like you would own a DISC that a program is saved on. However, lets say you've bought a book, a story that somebody has written. You buying the book, thus now owning that book, does not mean that the story is yours. Just the book that it is written in.

"Say you write a program and make it available for a charge, downloadable. I pay you the agreed amount and download it to my hard drive. However, before installing it, I now find that I have no need for the program. Can I delete it wothout your permission?"

Of cause. Just like if somebody made a cup, and you bought it from them, you are free to go and smash it right up. I believe that when you purchase something, you should get certain rights with it. Format shifting, creating backups etc, you should be entitled to, because you have bought the right to use it, and publishers saying "you can only use it directly off this one disc on this one particular device, which you cannot convert [etc]" is grossly unfair to the point where I would say it is wrong to attach those kinds of limitations (especially at the prices they charge).

But we're not talking about the rights you should have if you purchase something. We're talking about where one party is says "I take" without the other person saying "I give", which is theft.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

Format shifting, creating backups etc, you should be entitled to

Why? If you own all copies, and I buy one copy then format shift and backup, I now have three copies. Why do you not think that's stealing two copies if copying is theft?

We're talking about where one party is says "I take" without the other person saying "I give", which is theft.

Not really. If I create a copy of something, I don't need your permission to take it, you didn't make it so it's not yours. In the case of a copyrighted work, what I need is permission to copy. As I said before, this is the way the law works in any country I'm aware of. It seems to me, therefore, that the vast majority of people who have put serious thought into this issue see it my way. Which is really to say, I've seen the way the law works and I'm in basic agreement with it regarding copyrights. It wasn't, of course, originally my idea.

And the law treats theft and copyright breach very differently, not just different words, but very different processes and penalties. The fact that the MPAA in particular has successfully indoctrinated some people into thinking of copying as equivalent to stealing a handbag or car is more of a tribute to the effectiveness of advertising than a contribution to rational discourse.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[Arcane_Rhino]

I agree with pretty much everything you say, except the bit that MP/RIAA "consequently, are stealing from me".

Well. Fair enough. They don't have a knife to my throat and I don't have to watch a movie burned to my computer if I am unwilling to purchase it in that format. But again, there is that aspect of, I shouldn't have to when I am merely wanting to watch or listen to a movie/song, that I already purchased. Or, even just burn a 5 second sequence of the movie for a start-up splash on my own (and just my own) computer, which is what started me down this road of hate and discontent.

And though perhaps a bit exaggerated, remember, the MP/RIAA have taken upon themselves to defined what is "criminal" in this interaction. I am just turning it around on them. If they are going to ignore fair use and assert that backing up/watching my previously purchased DVD or CD on any hardware other than the original is stealing (be it burning to my computer's HD or another disk - like I used to with cassette tapes so that when a tape player ate a cassette I wasn't SOL), then by that same measure, I am asserting that they are prepared to steal from me by requiring a second purchase to fully utilize, as best fits my lifestyle, something that I have already legitimately purchased.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

"If you own all copies, and I buy one copy then format shift and backup, I now have three copies. Why do you not think that's stealing two copies if copying is theft?"

Because buying something gives you rights to the work, as I keep repeating, the purchase is me giving you permission to take my work, for you to store on whatever medium you want.

"If I create a copy of something, I don't need your permission to take it, you didn't make it so it's not yours"

As I keep repeating, I'm not the one who hit the buttons to save my work onto your disc, no, but it is still my work, legislation or not, you saving my program onto your disc does not make it your program, I'm still the one who wrote it, you may have saved it onto your own disc, but it's still my creation, that wouldn't exist unless I had created it.

If somebody travelled the world researching something, and you saw their papers and wrote down on your own paper what you read, that wouldn't make what you wrote down *your* research, to say it is is plagiarism. So if it's not your research, it must still be the researchers research. Your paper. Your ink. Your handwriting. That's it.

It's plain english, I don't know how I can simplify it any more.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Correct. Well you can do that, but the disc you get out of it won't play in a standard DVD player.

Ah, I see. I'm just ripping my DVDs to a large RAID system in order to play them on my home network, I really have no need to burn discs.

I'll have to see what happens when I try playing such a disc on my RCA DVD player.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

Because buying something gives you rights to the work, as I keep repeating, the purchase is me giving you permission to take my work, for you to store on whatever medium you want.

It's plain english, I don't know how I can simplify it any more.

It's not that you require more simplicity. It's consistency that's lacking in your views. First you say you own all copies, now you say I can copy to any medium I want. What you seem to want is not consistent with the terms you use, specifically, theft. This post from yesterday may explain it to you. I don't know. Perhaps you'll never get it, you'd don't seem to want to.

but it's still my creation, that wouldn't exist unless I had created it.

Your work is also built on the work of thousands of other people and centuries of inovation that have made it possible for you to be a programmer. It also would not exist unless those others had made their contribution. That's a strong case for saying your work belongs in the public domain. However, as an incentive, you've been offered a temporary monopoly on the right to copy that work. You own that right, not the work itself. If you don't agree, just go consult with your IP lawyer, he/she will set you straight soon enough. Maybe if you were paying me a couple hundred dollars an hour you'd be quicker to understand.

If somebody travelled the world researching something, and you saw their papers and wrote down on your own paper what you read, that wouldn't make what you wrote down *your* research, to say it is is plagiarism.

You don't seem to have much of a grasp of the different (legitimate) ways the word "your" can be used. "Your pencil" would generally mean the pencil is your property. "Your parents" does not indicate that the parents are your property. If I purchase a book, I can quite legitimately say "That's my book". If I lend it to someone, when they give it back to me, they may say "Here's your book" even though we both know I didn't write the book. Catch that? Think that's plagarism? But get this, I own that book, not the author. The author owns the copyright. See the difference yet?

In any case, here are some points you still haven't answered. I'm really not interested in anything you have to say unless you answer these points:
"if copyright gave you ownership of resulting copies there would be no exclusion for parody etc."
Do you think the exemptions on copyright for parody are theft?

"Would you claim that the time limitation on copyrights and patents is unjust? That society is stealing from the IP holders when their rights expire? After all, my car, furniture, house, none of my physical possessions have a time limitation to my ownership, even though there may be various taxes such as land tax payable."
Do you think it's theft for copyrights to expire? Does the public domain consist almost exlusively of stolen material?

Face it, the effort you put in to create a program is tiny compared to the work to develop the language you wrote it in, to develop the computer you wrote it on, to develop the ideas and curriculum you were educated with, to develop the electrical delivery that powered your computer. You only have those ideas to implement because you were allowed to build on the ideas of others. It is appropriate that others will be allowed to build on your ideas, which is to say, they are not your exclusive property, even though it is appropriate for you to be rewarded for your efforts.

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[x2A]

"First you say you own all copies, now you say I can copy to any medium I want"

No, I said I own the work, and you copying it doesn't change the fact that it's my work. Secondly I have said that the purchase of work should grant you rights, including format shifting and backing up, because you have paid for the work, and should be able to store the work however you see fit, in a way you can use and future protect it. There is no lacking of consistency here at all.

"This post from yesterday may explain it to you"

Leaving aside the false assertions in that post, what it discusses is the rights your government will grant and enforce. What the law grants you is protection, not ownership. Ownership is something that can only be given away/passed on/shared, by the creator/current owner (eg, as a gift or part of a trade). You cannot grant ownership of something that you do not own, which is /why/ the government cannot grant ownership of something you created, only enforce it. In return for this protection, you pay a sort of tax - you give your work to the greater society after the period of protection is up.

"Your work is also built on the work of thousands of other people and centuries of inovation..."

So is the technology that goes into physical construction. That argument would mean you can't own something physical that exists due to the work of the people who invented the tools you used to make it, that it must belong to the public.

"Maybe if you were paying me a couple hundred dollars an hour you'd be quicker to understand"

If I was stupid enough to pay you a couple hundred dollars an hour for coming up with arguments with zero weight such as that last one, I doubt I'd even have any ability to understand my own name.

"they may say "Here's your book" even though we both know I didn't write the book. Catch that? Think that's plagarism?"

This argument is more ignorant than weightless. What I've already said, was that the book may be yours, but the story in the book isn't. So saying "this is my book" would be correct, but saying "this is my story" would be plagiarism. "Catch that"???

"Do you think the exemptions on copyright for parody are theft?"

I think it's theft in the same way that income tax is. (note to anyone who misunderstands, I'm not asserting that income tax is theft, I'm purely drawing a parallel between the two).

"Do you think it's theft for copyrights to expire?"

Again, in the same way I believe income tax is theft. I believe you're giving something to society in return for something. If you don't wish for something to enter public domain, then you opt out of government protection over your creation, and have to enforce protection yourself, ie, keep it under lock and key. If you want to release it into the wild, and have government enforce protection, then the cost of that protection is releasing it to the society that has formed the government/police that have protected it over the years.

Your last paragraph is also flawed, again, due to the fact that you seem to say that something physical can be your property (eg, when you buy a car) but something nonphysical can't, because the nonphysical thing could only be built on years of previous work, inventions, ideas etc. You think this is not true of a car? The people who make a car make it entirely on their own, with all their own tools, which they invented themselves, with electicity that they generate using methods they invented themselves, designed on computers that they designed, built, invented themselves, etc etc etc?

Or are you saying that a car cannot belong to someone because it also took a whole society to make, and therefore must be public domain?

Re:'Nothing to see here'

[rohan972]

Or are you saying that a car cannot belong to someone because it also took a whole society to make, and therefore must be public domain?

The people who made my car don't still claim ownership of it. It's mine.

No, I said I own the work, and you copying it doesn't change the fact that it's my work.

You said if someone takes a copy they are stealing. For it to be stealing, that copy would have to be your property.

This argument is more ignorant than weightless. What I've already said, was that the book may be yours, but the story in the book isn't.

Rubbish. I can read it, think about it, tell it to my kids. If it's my book, and the only way to remove the story is by removing the book, it's my story. The only thing I don't have is the copyright.

The law says you own the copyright, that is, it's the right that is exclusively yours, not the idea, work, story or whatever. But you don't want to go by the law, or any existing philosophy of right and wrong. You have your own arbitrary standard that nearly nobody other than RIAA/MPAA and similar standover organisations share. The law in every country disagrees with you.

Well, guess what, you can have your arbitrary ideas, but if you ever have a real dispute with me on this, you'll have to do it by the law, not your ideas. No government deals with personal copyright infringement as theft. Everywhere I know it is a civil matter not a criminal matter. Your assertions to the contrary are meaningless.

"experimental threading One Two Three Four"

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone else seeing links in the subject line bar of comments that, well, do absolutely nothing?

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four"

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

It's disabled because the MPAA is sueing Slashdot for copyright infringement.

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four"

[EmperorKagato]

oh my. Mod up

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four"

[Anonymous Coward]

Earlier today some of them minimized the comment I clicked on, leaving others in the thread open. Now they all do the same as clicking the comment title.

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four"

[Anonymous Coward]

It does something (completely unintuitive and impossible to grok) if you hit the checkbox to enable testing the horrible new discussion system. In regular mode it indeed sticks to just generating javascript errors.

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four"

[Asztal_]

Since I haven't found an explanation elsewhere...

One and four either shows the parent and its replies or the collapsed parent and a message stating "4 hidden comments" or whatever.
Two toggles the collapsed state of the comment you click and any of its children that don't meet your threshold or something.
Three basically just toggles the collapsed state of the comment you click, but doesn't modify its children, except from when you're going from four to three, in which case it collapses ones that don't meet the threshold.

The difference between one and four is that in One, upon expanding a comment, if one of the children was collapsed before, it will stay collapsed, while number Four expands all the children too.

I vote for One or Two... :)

I think ...

[FFFFHALTFFFF]

Everything started in U.K.

Re:I think ...

[bram]

Everything started in Africa. Think back.

Double Edged Blade

[Tainek]

While i Feel sympathetic for the Company under fire, this is only good news for consumers, when my mother read this she thought it was shocking and is appauled at the DMCA, having not known what it meant before

Stories in the press like this only hurt the Big bad Companys, by raising awareness

Re:Double Edged Blade

[Ant P.]

Clearly, this news needs to be shown to as many people as possible then.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[mr_matticus]

The mistake people make is to draw a conclusion between this court case and individual, personal use.

This case is neither applicable nor consistent with personal format shifting, so while it might get someone's attention who'd never considered the issue, it's not really relevant to them.

If someone wakes up and is appalled by the DMCA because of a snippet s/he reads about this case, then they've been fed some crap by someone, be it a friend, a son, or a reporter. These kinds of suits would have happened with or without the DMCA in effect--it's unauthorized distribution and if they didn't have the DMCA to rely on, there would be nine other ways to pursue litigation.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[Anonymous Coward]

You need to work on capitalization. Proper nouns, the first word of a sentence, and the personal pronoun 'I' are three general rules.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[CastrTroy]

But the people are buying the movies. The company in this case is just doing the format shifting for them. If I format shift DVDs for a friend, because they don't know how to do it, then I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Even if I'm not really their friend, and charge them a fee to do the format shift. Just like I can take an NTSC VHS tape I bought, and make a copy in PAL so I can watch it in my PAL VCR. I can even pay someone to do the format shifting for me.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[mr_matticus]

It's more nuanced than that because you're not buying the DVDs and asking someone to format-shift them for you. You're buying a preloaded iPod which also includes the original DVDs--they're distributing media to you in two forms, which they're not licensed to do by the content owners.

It's a very fine point, but an important one. If you take your DVDs to a service which will convert them for you, there's certainly a strong case for that being legal and appropriate. However, if the format-shifting occurs prior to purchase, it's distribution and not permissable.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm appauled at your use of commas and capitalization. 1337 is easier to read. Punctuation is your friend (well obviously not YOUR friend, but you know).

Re:Double Edged Blade

[quanticle]

But its not occurring prior to purchase. The company is going out and buying DVDs, which they then format-shift and sell to consumers. From the MPAA's perspective, the format shifting is occurring after the purchase.

Even from the consumers perspective, the company is little more than a purchasing agent. Its as if I gave you enough money for an iPod and a DVD, and paid you for the service of converting the DVD into an iPod format. All three of the activities are within my rights separately. Why should they be outside my rights when done together?

Re:Double Edged Blade

[RobertLTux]

okay so try this you buy a stack of dvds (and an ipod) hand both boxes to The Doctor he takes them into the TARDIS and visits the 13th centery while there he does the rip for you and then returns.

WHY Does the timing make a difference? you buy a stack of dvds and the Ipod and a ripping service (assumes the DVDs are legit copies)

Re:Double Edged Blade

[mr_matticus]

It is occurring prior to purchase, as purchase is the final consumer act. Intermediaries are not counted as sales, as they are part of the distribution process under the law. Companies aren't customers; they're distributors.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[Paradise Pete]

So if I sell my computer along with the software I purchased, are you saying I have to delete the installations even though I'm including the original media?

Re:Double Edged Blade

[mr_matticus]

Because it does matter. What you do with something after you own it is a different matter than what may be done with it before it becomes yours. Distributors don't have the same rights as licensees (and regardless of the colloquial indignation to the term, everything copyrighted is sold as a transfer of rights, not necessarily a whole transfer equating to ownership).

Re:Double Edged Blade

[mr_matticus]

No, because you're not selling that computer as a new product. Resales are not the same as sales.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[Gerzel]

You are assuming that people will pay enough attention to notice who is in the wrong.
The mother like many assume that the MPAA are some kind of authority and thus if they are bringing up a case what ever the other side is doing is assumed to be wrong. Most people do not look at fair use, or their own rights until they are trying to use those rights and are blocked directly.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[pluther]

The GP had a good point, though: many computers come pre-loaded with software. My last laptop had a whole suite of utilities and an operating system on it, all installed by the store that I bought it from before I bought it. How is this any different?

Re:Double Edged Blade

[x2A]

Oi, he could be german or something, in which case a friendly pointing out the differences between languages would be much better than an insult, huh? The insult just makes you look ignorant.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[mrchaotica]

If that's true, do you at least realize that it's fucking stupid to make such distinction?

Re:Double Edged Blade

[Sparr0]

So it would be legal if the company arranged it so that after handing over your money and checking the "Preload my Movies" box, they spent 10 minutes (yeah, right) ripping them all for you? But do it the other way around and its criminal...

Re:Double Edged Blade

[mr_matticus]

It's different because that software is licensed via agreement with the owner. Dell doesn't put software on without the permission of the publishers.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[mr_matticus]

As ridiculous as it sounds to the layperson, yes. If you take receipt of the DVDs and then have them converted, you're within your rights to initiate that action. The store is not within its rights to do it preemptively, however--they don't have the right to convert that content unless express permission is granted by a rightsholder (either the customer or the owner). The publisher is claiming that their distribution rights are being infringed upon, and they have a case that is unclear enough as to require court action.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[heinousjay]

And what if, after analyzing the stories, I think the poor little company is in the wrong?

Re:Double Edged Blade

[GooberToo]

Except that it is taking place exactly as you've declared is legal. Customer buys DVDs and iPod. The device has been paid for. The transaction is complete. They are now providing a service to a customer, at the behest of the of the customer after the sale. In other words, they are now a proxy for the customer, acting on a request of the customer. You would have a point if they preloaded and then tried to sell the unit. But that's not what they do...at least not as I understand it.

Re:Double Edged Blade

[mr_matticus]

The customer must take posession of the license or product first. Exchange of money itself is not a transfer of rights. The customer must possess the DVDs in order to engage in a transaction as the licensee, not merely have paid for them. I know this sounds extremely nitpicky, but that's because it is. Distribution is a very complex beast.

and we see again

[User 956]

The MPAA is claiming that the service Load 'N Go Video offers is completely illegal because ripping a DVD is against the DMCA. The MPAA is also suing the company for copyright violation.

This is essentially the same way they sued mp3.com into the ground, and yet another example of why the DMCA is such a fucking horrible law. There's no damage being done here except to the iron grip the MPAA exerts over movie distribution.

They have no problem with the idea of selling movies on hard disc, it's just that they don't want competition.

Re:and we see again

[cpt kangarooski]

Just to clarify, the DMCA had nothing to do with mp3.com, but this case is a good example of why section 1201 et al are really awful.

Re:and we see again

[Wesley Felter]

It's certainly true that the MPAA members don't want competition, but this isn't even competition IMO. If you buy a movie on DVD and then rip it, that doesn't compete with DVD sales.

Re:and we see again

[BootNinja]

It's competition because they want to sell you the physical DVD and then sell you a digital copy for your ipod. Most consumers don't know how to rip a cd or dvd, and so would probably buy the digital versions if they weren't offering this service. Therefore, this creates a (percieved) loss of income for the MPAA.

Re:and we see again

[Anonymous Coward]

So I guess the DMCA and MPAA are killing all company's that want to sell, as a service, the exercising of individuals fair use rights.

The MPAA can keep up this activity till they're blue in the face. The DVD is not going away anytime soon, and as long as movies are rentable on DVD, decss is out there in the wild, and I use Linux, they can fuck off.

Yes, I admit I'm 'guilty' of what I'm implying above and will continue to do so despite their continued shennanigans. And no. I don't feel any remorse.

Re:and we see again

[crankyspice]

They have no problem with the idea of selling movies on hard disc, it's just that they don't want competition .

Um, yeah. I mean, no, they don't want competition. Nor should there be competition. That's what a monopoly means, which is inherent in the term 'exclusive,' which is in the Constitution...

Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 8: . . . securing for limited times to authors . . . the exclusive right to their respective writings . . .

Re:and we see again

[User 956]

Competition selling a specific work and competition in an industry are two different things. Copyright law doesn't grant monopoly for an entire sector, nor should it.

Your computer shop down the street is allowed to sell a copy of Windows pre-installed on a machine, if they include the original CD, right? They can also offer a service to install a legit version of Windows. Neither one is considered a crime, (or a copyright violation).

Re:and we see again

[geekoid]

the grandparaent saif:
"because ripping a DVD is against the DMCA..."

in fact, it is not. Distributing copies is against copyright.

I doubt the grandparent knows anything more about the DMCA then they have read on slashdot.

Re:and we see again

[Brandybuck]

Actually, the ripping *IS* against the DMCA. Don't confuse copyright with the GPL. The GPL may only "kick in" upon distribution, but copyright kicks in on the actual act of copying.

Re:and we see again

[northstarlarry]

No, the protection that copyright offers is with respect to the _distribution_ of copies, and is the legal basis upon which rests the GPL. Format- and time-shifting, as well as the making of archival copies, are legally-allowed acts with copyrighted material, under the "Fair Use" doctrine. Even though I know I sound like a tinfoil hatter when I say it, the movie and music studios' misinformation campaign has gotten to you if you think otherwise.

The ripping of a DVD is only prohibited by the DMCA because that law prohibits the bypassing of measures (i.e., CSS) put in place to prevent copying. Since you can't get at the movie without either going through CSS "legitimately" (by getting a key from the implementer of CSS, which means that you are then subject to the terms that they impose), or getting around it (which is prohibited), you are de facto, but not _directly_ by any law, prevented from copying the movie. The copying of the movie itself still falls under copyright law, and is still okay in certain limited circumstances.

Re:and we see again

[DragonWriter]

Your computer shop down the street is allowed to sell a copy of Windows pre-installed on a machine, if they include the original CD, right?

Not because of copyright law that is broadly applicable beyond computer programs, but because (1) the license for Windows specifically grants that right, and (2) there is a special provision of copyright law allowing making a copy or adaptation of a computer programs necessary to run the program in the ordinary way.

Neither of these is applicable to DVDs.

Re:and we see again

[Baricom]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Otherwise, why would copyright law list the right "to reproduce" and the right "to distribute" separately? Additionally, according to the EFF, "it's not clear how a court would rule on private, noncommercial format-shifting by an individual consumer who owns the music in another format."

Re:and we see again

[Talinth]

IANA(expert at anything) but I believe there are other ways to copy a DVD movie other than breaking CSS. They're just slower.

Re:and we see again

[AnotherUsername]

Yes, I admit I'm 'guilty' of what I'm implying above and will continue to do so despite their continued shennanigans. And no. I don't feel any remorse.

But think of the children! Why would you do something like this that would hurt the children?

Re:and we see again

[danfromsb]

How is this different than something like Geek Squad? Best Buy sells you a piece of software and then for a fee will send someone out to install it for you. It seems like they are just offering you the same type of service; installation assistance with the purchase of both an ipod and movie.

Re:and we see again

[Anonymous Coward]

That is precisely why this really isn't a fair use or copyright issue, because of the DMCA prohibition on the circumvention of encryption. Analogously, if someone recorded the playback of their DVD using a camcorder and then distributed it, you would have copyright but not DMCA issues.

Re:and we see again

[Brandybuck]

Here's a link to the US Copyright Office. http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Specifically look at the exclusive rights given to authors: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106 Most other nations will have similar provisions.

Re:and we see again

[mrchaotica]

The DVD is not going away anytime soon, and as long as movies are rentable on DVD, decss is out there in the wild, and I use Linux, they can fuck off.

The MPAA is a cartel that controls almost the entire movie industry. If it really wanted the DVD to go away, you can bet it would go away.

Re:and we see again

[x2A]

I like to think of it as punishing them for them doing something that's wrong :-)

Re:and we see again

[DoorFrame]

It's different because you're given permission when you purchase a piece of software to make a copy when you install. The MPAA is arguing that you are not given permission to make a copy of a DVD when you buy it.

I wouldn't agree with them, but there you go.

Re:and we see again

[Kjella]

Which is why I think they'll also get convicted on good old copyright. Without a license the only thing that'll allow them to make copies is fair use.

Take the four factor test:
1. Commercial or non-profit - commercial
2. Creative or factual - creative
3. Whole or excerpt - whole
4. Impact on market value - this one can be very tricky, but it general I think that offering a commercial service which relies on the exclusive(*) right of the copyright holder to make copies is a no-no, the copyright holder could offer this service.

* exclusive except as by fair use - a self-referential loop. You might try the argument that the company is exercising the fair use rights of their customers, but it's a difficult one. And except that, it looks like a 0-4 slam dunk copyright infringement.

Re:and we see again

[Anonymous Coward]

An thus you show your true colors. Why don't you admit who you are up front, DragonWriter (970822)?

Re:and we see again

[ardin,mcallister]

Needed Super Troopers Reference:

Captain O'Hagan: I swear to God I'm going to pistol whip the next guy who says, " Shenanigans."
Mac: Hey Farva what's the name of that restaurant you like with all the goofy shit on the walls and the mozzarella sticks?
Farva: You mean Shenanigans?
Mac: OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
Thorny: OOOOOOOOOOOOOO.
[as they hand the Captain their pistols]

Re:and we see again

[brokenbeaker]

"It's competition because they want to sell you the physical DVD and then sell you a digital copy for your ipod."

the irony is that the DVD presumably contains a digital copy to begin with...

Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[Kelson]

The MP3.com case (remember that one) seemed to hinge on the fact that even though the service was trying to verify that consumers already owned the CDs, they were doing the actual ripping from a copy that the service had purchased.

Now we've heard that space-shifting falls under fair use, as long as you don't distribute the copy. This is the principle under which it's legal to rip tracks from your own CDs and load them on your iPod.

Now, we've got someone who is oofering (1) a legit copy of the music and (2) a service that will take your DVD and transfer it to your iPod. All copies made under fair use are transferred at the same time.

Now it may be that circumventing copy protection is illegal under DMCA... but does that make it an infringement of copyright?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[2nd Post!]

A decrypted copy is made isn't it?

Imagine this scenario instead:

Company purchases a DVD
Company decrypts the DVD and burns to another DVD
Company sells the decrypted DVD with the original DVD

How is that different or more legal than this:
Company purchases a DVD
Company decrypts the DVD and encodes to MP4 onto an iPod
Company sells the iPod with the original DVD

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[Kelson]

Argh... hit submit by mistake. What I'm trying to get at is, the MPAA is trying to slap them for two things: circumventing DRM *and* violating copyright. It seems to me that those are two different issues, as the "copyright infringement" involved is the equivalent of asking someone to transfer songs from your CDs to your iPod. Unless the other person keeps a copy of the music, it takes pretty insane troll logic to decide that it's copyright infringement.

Not that the MPAA isn't known for using insane troll logic, but still...

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Exactly.

Neither senario should be "wrong."
Good thing for me, I believe in Moral Relativity. If it's wrong, but not really wrong.

Guns don't kill people.
People w/ decrypted movies that portray guns kill people.

Don't let the terrorists watch the Matrix on their IPOD!

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[lrodrig]

IANAL yet, but... Copying a DVD requires circumventing the CSS copy protection technology, and circumventing effective technological protection measures like CSS is expressly prohibited by the DMCA. The copyright infringement issue is not so clear. If copying music to an iPod from a legally purchased CD can be considered fair use, it is likely that copying video to an iPod from a legally purchased DVD is fair use too. Again. What makes copying legally purchased DVDs illegal is the circumvention of the CSS copy protection technology.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[Fonce]

Technically it's the same. And that's wherein the problem lies.

It's absolutely absurd to think that selling a pirated disc (as a backup copy is just that under current law) is the same thing as a company providing the courtesy of pre-loading a movie onto an iPod when you're purchasing both the iPod and the DVD, whether copy protection is being circumvented or not. This is why these laws are stupid. Add to this the fact that you can pre-load music and you've got sheer stupidity on your hands.

Why, again, doesn't fair use for music match fair use for video?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[2nd Post!]

Funny, I imagine both scenarios as wrong.

The scenario I think is "right" is as follows:

Company develops an iPod compatible program that plays DVDs
The company then provides a program to copy DVDs onto iPods without circumventing CSS
The company then sells iPods preloaded with this software, to copy and play back

At no case has the company violated the DMCA nor copyright law.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[2nd Post!]

Why is it absurd?

I can now copy the file of my preloaded iPod and upload the file to the internet. Why isn't that the same as a pirated disc?

The company should instead offer to preload fully encrypted videos onto an iPod, which does not violate DMCA, and instead write a program that allows iPods to play CSS encoded videos; by licensing a CSS key they have then fully complied with the licensing terms of the DVDs.

If the DMCA did not exist, then this would not be the issue, instead it would merely be a copyright issue.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[cpt kangarooski]

Unless the other person keeps a copy of the music, it takes pretty insane troll logic to decide that it's copyright infringement.

No, not really.

It is prima facie infringement, that's certain. But the argument is that it is a fair use, and thus the infringement is defended against. The problem is that while it may be a fair use for the end user, there is a general principle that one party cannot stand in another's shoes for fair use purposes. Just because Alice could win on a fair use argument when she rips CDs herself, that doesn't mean that Bob will win if he does it for Alice, trying to stand in her shoes. One example of how this has cropped up in the past is that students might fairly make xeroxes from reference books for their classes, but copy shops that do it for the students get sued and lose. I've been noticing the first indications that this principle might be on the wane, but it'll be a while yet. In the meantime, those who would want to stand in another's shoes are going to need to make a fair use argument that works with regard to them, rather than borrowing someone else's.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

whops should have used PREVIEW

If it's wrong, but not really wrong, I'm generally not going to do it. However, I wouldn't feel guilty if I did.
Imagine your going down a hill, the speed limit is 35, but you coast accidentally to 40. Should you report yourself for speeding? didn't think so.

Now let me walk inside your minds....
Imagine...

You just purchased a movie in all it's XHD glory on FormatX. You watch the movie. It must be a real good flick Maybe Harry Potter, Real Genius, Boondock Saints or something because you watch the whole thing. Now just suppose that the movie is so good, you willfully want to watch it a second time. (I know a stretch, bear with me my ADD brethren) in inferior quality on your portable device. Perhaps over an airplane flight or something?

You have a few options:

1. you could obey the law, and resist your EVIL* desires
2. You could spend forever ripping/converting/moving the movie to your ehpod
3. The last option that neither one of us could have considered, and IMHO is a good idea, is to pay someone to do it for you from your own discs.
4. Or you could buy an IPahd allready Preloaded with your favorite movies, and get the original discs all at once!

*Some religions believe that governmental laws are sacred, and should be followed as the will of GOD

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[Kelson]

I hit submit too early. What I'm getting at is that the decryption and the redistribution of copyrighted material look like two different issues.

Imagine this scenario:

Company purchases a DVD.
Company copies the DVD without decrypting it.
Company sells the copy and original to the same person.

Or this one:

Company purchases a DVD.
Company pulls the data off the DVD and puts it on a hypothetical device that can play encrypted DVD data.
Company sells the device with the original DVD.

If the copy and the original were ever separated, then yes, that would be a clear copyright violation. But as far as copyright itself is concerned, all of these scenarios are on the level of copying music to your iPod, then selling the iPod along with your CD collection.

The only difference is the decryption.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[Fonce]

It's absurd in the same vein of the same perpetual argument: to watch that movie on my iPod, I have to convert it to a different format and I have to circumvent the copy protection. The fact that it's now in a format that's easier to distribute should neither find me guilty of any crime, nor should it prevent me from putting video in an easier-to-distribute format. Telling me, the consumer, that I'm wrong and that Apple should fix this is not a solution. I have a video player and I want to play video on it with no limit to what I can play (see: betamax).

Copying a DVD to keep in case I scratch the original (or better yet, playing the copy and preserving the original) should not be illegal. If I then choose to sell any copy of that DVD or even give it away, then yes, that should be illegal. Similarly, I should be able to not only copy data from a DVD, CD, or other format, I should be able to transcode that into any format I so choose, per my convenience. Then I've got a choice as to what I play it on and how. I should not, however, be able to then distribute any copy I make of that, either for free or for cost.

So to recap, it's absurd because I, the consumer, have to go way the hell out of my way to watch a movie that I've purchased the rights to watch on a device other than the one the MPAA would have me use. They're limiting my choice and options and, as a collective agency of the motion picture studios, should be treated as a monopoly. While they allow me to choose what brand of DVD player I use, why are they allowed to control what format in which I watch my video? By their arguing and common rationale, the video iPod and all of its counterparts should be illegal, as they can be used to watch pirated movies.

Just because I prefer video in convenient formats doesn't mean I'm a pirate, contrary to the beliefs of the MPAA, and it's this format-Nazi attitude that pisses me off. Who put the MPAA in charge of the pre-crime division?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[sqlrob]

If it's that easy to get around, it's not effective, is it?

And CSS isn't really copy protection. You can copy it bit for bit and play the resultant copy. You don't have to understand encrypted bits to copy them.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[mo]

Now it may be that circumventing copy protection is illegal under DMCA... but does that make it an infringement of copyright?

IANAL, but I did work at mp3.com. AFAIK, any copying of copywrited work in a commercial setting violates copywright. This would include: Kinko's using their copiers to dupe textbooks for their owners. mp3.com ripping CDs for people who already owned them. Also, I'm fairly certain it includes google's practice of scanning textbooks.

It's quite likely that the company mentioned in TFA is going to either lose or settle, but I'm interested in how this will pan out for google's lawsuit from the Author's Guild.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[nelsonal]

It's essentially like prosecutors tossing in a conspiracy charge in addition to the criminal charge (if they think you might have had a partner). Trials are funny things and it's generally easier to let a bogus charge get dismissed than try to add it later if the evidence makes a judgment look probably or conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[terrymr]

I think effective is the key word here - encrypting the contents of the disc and then storing the encryption key on the disc seems not to be an effective copy protection measure.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[lrodrig]

The "effectiveness" point is a good one, but not good enough for the courts. I know that technically CSS isn't copy protection; it is a form of "access control". But the DMCA applies to access control technologies too.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[SQLz]

One example of how this has cropped up in the past is that students might fairly make xeroxes from reference books for their classes, but copy shops that do it for the students get sued and lose. I've been noticing the first indications that this principle might be on the wane, but it'll be a while yet. In the meantime, those who would want to stand in another's shoes are going to need to make a fair use argument that works with regard to them, rather than borrowing someone else's.

Not a good example. The copy shop is not giving the student the original book, but keeping it make more copies. In this case, the customer gets their original copy, and an IPod pre-loaded with a copy of media they just purchased. Basically, they are just saving the consumer time, doing something they could easily do themsevles.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[crankyspice]

Now we've heard that space-shifting falls under fair use, as long as you don't distribute the copy. This is the principle under which it's legal to rip tracks from your own CDs and load them on your iPod.

As far as I'm aware, space-shifting has only really been discussed in the Diamond case (RECORDING INDUSTRY v. DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)), which was specific to audio. As such, 'space-shifting' was analyzed under the Audio Home Recording Act.

Copyright law reserves the 17 USC 106 enumerated rights as exclusive to the copyright holder, except as modified (carved out) by subsequent sections. The Audio Home Recording Act, codified at 17 USC 1001 et seq, carves out an exemption for private copying of digital audio. There's no such carve-out for video, so the blanket prohibition (reservation of the right as exclusive to the copyright holder) against reproduction (copying) remains intact.

Also, I don't believe space-shifting in a commercial context is a fair use. The facts of RIAA v. Diamond were pretty specific; end-user space-shifting of digital audio -- held to be OK by at least one Federal Circuit and binding on lower courts in the 9th Circuit (including all of California). I don't believe a third party engaged in commercial 'space shifting' would fall under fair use.

Now it may be that circumventing copy protection is illegal under DMCA... but does that make it an infringement of copyright?

See above. Copying the video is a reproduction of a copyrighted motion picture work, without a carve-out that would permit even private shifting, let alone commercial...

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[timmarhy]

except it's nothing like that, because it's loaded in an encrypted format on the ipod. it's a fucking load of bullshit end of story.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[cpt kangarooski]

The example is of how Alice might have a fair use argument, but Bob acting on behalf of Alice might not. Nothing more.

Basically, they are just saving the consumer time, doing something they could easily do themsevles.

Given that the students were using library books they didn't own, the copy shop made the same argument: it's just saving the students' time, doing it for them instead of making them do precisely the same thing themselves.

This argument hasn't really worked yet.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[CastrTroy]

However, it's stupid to copy the entire movie, probalby around 5 Gigs in most cases onto the iPod in 720x480 resolution and AC3 sound when the screen can't even display that resolution, and you're using headphones. It makes much more sense to compress the movie down, shrink the resolution, and lower the sound quality so you can fit 100 movies instead of 15 (assuming an 80 Gig iPod). The movie will look just as good, because the screen is so small, and you won't be able to tell the difference with hte sound, because you only have 2 channel speakers (headphones) anyway.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like we shoot ourselves in the foot here. On one hand we could say DVD Jon did it, he "stole" a CSS decryption key. He did it, put him in jail. And that would be the end of it, the information is public, we're allowed to use it.

OTOH we are trying to say DVD Jon is innocent because he only distributed the means to decrypt CSS. We're all using it on our own risk so we're liable.

So that's what the **** is playing at. We either let someone take the fall or we all take it.

And now I lost my train of thought! I was on a roll. Better post AC!

Anyway, someone might complete my post and get us over this shit. Too much wine to follow my mind.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[jdbartlett]

IANAL, but I'm fairly certain that any method of turning a CSS-protected DVD into an iPod Video compatible movie file could be labeled "circumventing CSS", even if it does so indirectly by capturing a video stream.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[2nd Post!]

Not if your program was a registered and licensed DVD forum approved program. WinDVD, Apple DVD Player, a PS3, and the XBox 360 are all capable of playing DVDs and they all have to "capture a video stream" to display the movie onto the screen.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[jdbartlett]

That's for playback, not for storage. Again, IANAL but I'm pretty sure copyright law only really kicks in when copies are made.

Is anyone certain on the proper definition of "circumvention" as it relates to CSS-protected DVDs?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[jdbartlett]

(BTW, GP: please don't bring up the "cache is a copy" argument. No matter how many times it's suggested, it doesn't sound any less ridiculous.)

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

AFAIK, any copying of copywrited work in a commercial setting violates copywright.

Ugh. Rule of thumb: if you don't even know how to spell something, then you are completely clueless about it.

There's plenty of copying you can do in a commercial setting without violating copyright. This is a decent overview of fair use. Whether or not something is used commercially is a factor, but it's by no means the only one.

Please, in future, if you are so unfamiliar with something that you don't know how to spell it, then just be quiet. You're ruining the signal:noise ratio.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[2nd Post!]

No, I mean, there is no circumvention going on; the VOB files on the iPod are CSS encoded; the program, like Apple's DVD player, would read the encrypted VOB, apply the CSS key, decrypt it, and on the fly convert the MPEG2 stream into a 320x240 MPEG2 stream that the iPod can play back on it's screen.

That is what already happens when you play a 640x480 MPEG2 video on the iPod.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[jZnat]

Don't let the terrorists watch the Matrix on their IPOD!

Bad example; The Matrix wasn't scrambled. I have my copy right here, and it didn't use CSS.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[jZnat]

I can now copy the file of my preloaded iPod and upload the file to the internet. Why isn't that the same as a pirated disc?

I just bought a 9mm glock; what's stopping me from killing someone? I mean, what's the difference between buying a gun and killing someone with it?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[Kelson]

Interesting. It hadn't occurred to me (though I suppose it should have) that audio and video works would be subject to different legal conditions.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[dangitman]

That is what already happens when you play a 640x480 MPEG2 video on the iPod.

WTF? What evidence do you have that the iPod uses CSS-encrypted VOB files? This is the first I've ever heard of it.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[jibjibjib]

WTF? What evidence do you have that the original poster didn't say "Company develops an iPod compatible program that plays DVDs"?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[dangitman]

WTF? What evidence do you have that the original poster didn't say "Company develops an iPod compatible program that plays DVDs"?

Plenty. The post I replied to said this:

No, I mean, there is no circumvention going on; the VOB files on the iPod are CSS encoded; the program, like Apple's DVD player, would read the encrypted VOB, apply the CSS key, decrypt it, and on the fly convert the MPEG2 stream into a 320x240 MPEG2 stream that the iPod can play back on it's screen. That is what already happens when you play a 640x480 MPEG2 video on the iPod.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[clacke]

... is illegal under DMCA... but does that make it an infringement of copyright?

No, in that case we wouldn't have "needed" the DMCA.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[2nd Post!]

The iPod can already play MPEG2, which is what DVDs are natively encoded in. The only thing the iPod can't do is use a CSS key to decrypt the VOB files.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[2nd Post!]

My original post was that this company LnG would have been perfectly legal to develop an iPod compatible program that could read encrypted DVD files.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[DRAGONWEEZEL]

Damn it, I am allways caught w/ technicalities on slashdot....

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[dangitman]

But then you said :

No, I mean, there is no circumvention going on; the VOB files on the iPod are CSS encoded; the program, like Apple's DVD player, would read the encrypted VOB, apply the CSS key, decrypt it, and on the fly convert the MPEG2 stream into a 320x240 MPEG2 stream that the iPod can play back on it's screen. That is what already happens when you play a 640x480 MPEG2 video on the iPod.

You say that iPods already do this. Where is the evidence?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[2nd Post!]

My evidence was that if LnG had written a CSS compliant DVD playing software for the iPod then no circumvention would occur and they could legally sell iPods preloaded with CSS protected content.

I never meant to say it was real, only that LnG had a perfectly legal option. The iPod already plays MPEG2 640x480 video; a DVD is a CSS encoded 720x480 MPEG2 video, so writing a program to play back DVD VOB files is not nearly as hard as writing a codec to play, say, WMV.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[jdbartlett]

Interesting suggestion, but this isn't what the company is being taken to court for. This case concerns movies being ripped from DVD to an iPod-video compatible format; a list which does not include CSS-protected 720x480 MPEG2. I doubt Apple could get the licensing to develop such a concept, and even if they could I'm not certain there wouldn't be further legal or technical issues. As for anyone else accomplishing this: I'm not aware of any custom application development for iPod's default OS.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[2nd Post!]

There are 9 iPod compatible games, 8 of which were not developed by Apple though there was Apple approval for those games. Also Apple has added the ALE, AAC, and Audible codecs via firmware for past iPods that were released without native capability.

The potential is certainly there.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[dangitman]

Ah. The way you wrote it the first time, it looked like "the iPod already does it this way" referred to the entire preceeding paragraph, not just the final sentence of that paragraph. If your post was structured in a different way, it would have been clearer that you were just referring to the scaling, not to the CSS decryption as well.

Also would have been clearer if slashdot had not hidden your first post, yet shown the subsequent reply, but I digress.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[PCM2]

IANAL, but I did work at mp3.com. AFAIK, any copying of copywrited work in a commercial setting violates copywright.

No, any copying of copyrighted work violates copyright if it's done without the permission of the author. It doesn't matter if it's done in a commercial setting or not. If they were jumpy about it at MP3.com, it was probably because the penalties for willful copyright violation are more stringent if it's done as part of a commercial enterprise. In other words, if it were proven that MP3.com had repeatedly violated copyright in the course of its business and it knew that it was doing so, MP3.com would be in a lotta trouble. It makes sense for businesses to cover their asses as much as humanly possible.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[Anonymous Coward]

The example is of how Alice might have a fair use argument, but Bob acting on behalf of Alice might not. Nothing more.

So Alice might be able to do this action herself, but she can't ask her butler Bob to do so?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation?

[DragonWriter]

IANAL, but I did work at mp3.com. AFAIK, any copying of copywrited work in a commercial setting violates copywright.

This is not true. Obviously, copying with the copyright holder's permission does not, even in a commercial setting. Now, commercial purpose weighs against a finding of "fair use" (but does not, in and of itself, preclude such a finding) when you are attempting to rely on that particular exception to copyright instead of acting with the permission of the copyright holder.

There are also other exceptions to copyright besides fair use, some of which are applicable in commercial settings (though none appear to be directly relevant to the DVD-iPod ripping service at issue here.)

Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[DragonWriter]

Much as this sounds like a convenient service, I think the MPAA is completely legally right here: making copies is an exclusive right under copyright, so this is a regular copyright violation; copies for noncommercial format shifting purposes by the end-user might be "fair use"—IIRC, format-shifting hasn't been conclusively litigated—but that's not what is happening here. And DVD copy protection is pretty clearly covered under the DMCA, and bypassing it is a DMCA violation.

Should the law be changed to allow this? Perhaps, certainly I wouldn't object to deep sixing the DMCA, or to writing some kind of reasonable express format-shifting protection into the law, though its difficult to craft without undermining copyright entirely (unless you require destruction of the original before transfer.)

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[MightyYar]

I have VERY liberal opinions about what copyright should cover. For instance, I think that copyright should only apply to commercial use - personal use should be completely open. I also think that something like 15 years seems like an appropriate term for copyright.

That said, this is a company making a copy for a profit... I can't really say that copyright should be changed to allow for this. This company is making a profit off of someone else's intellectual property.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

You neglect (or forget) that the MPAA sold the copy and under the first sale doctrine, making copies is legal for the purchaser. The MPAA sold their exclusive right (and made a tidy profit) on that first sale. The service that puts a copy on an electronic device transfers that originally sold copy with the electronic device. So no illegal copy has been made. Put differently, when you buy a copy of a work from the MPAA (more specifically a member company of the MPAA) you can copy that work onto an electronic device. You have not violated the MPAA member company's copyright. They gave up their so-called exclusive copyright when they sold that first copy to you.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[Phil_At_NHS]

"though its difficult to craft without undermining copyright entirely (unless you require destruction of the original before transfer.)" BULLPUCKY. "It shall be legal for the LEGAL OWNER of the original distributed copy of a DVD, CD, or other media, including legally purchased or aquired electronic media downloaded from the interent or other distribution meduim, to make AS MANY COPIES, IN AS MANY DIFFERENT FORMATS as the owner wishes, to support their personal use. Ownership of any of these copies is dependent upon ownership of the original distribution copy: IF the DVD, CD or other original distributed copy is sold of given away, ALL copies made from that original or generational copies thereof, regardless of format and storage medium, must accompany the original distribution copy, or be destroyed immediately upon transfer of the original." Very simple, crafted in plain English, and does not in any way undermine copyright. It is stupid and unreasonable to require possession of only a single copy, which is what destruction of the original would result in. First of all, BACKUP is a primary consideration. Regardless of what the self serving lying bastards first said about CDs and DVDs, they are NOT "virtually indestructible". They have a limited lifetime, even if NRFB, and any child can damage one with very little effort. Second of all, it is stupid and unreasonable to suggest that I can have a CD OR a copy on my MP3 player, but not both, or a DVD OR a copy on my portable multimedia device, but not both. As long as I must own the original to own the copies, and all copies are used merely to support my personal enjoyment, there is no harm to an artist's legitimate copyright. Period.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[DragonWriter]

You neglect (or forget) that the MPAA sold the copy and under the first sale doctrine, making copies is legal for the purchaser.

You are mistaken. The first sale doctrine means that the purchaser is free to transfer the physical copy they have received, not to make copies of it.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[Lordpidey]

My only possible qualm with that is that idea is if you copy the original, and the original gets busted, you have no way of selling it since selling is dependant on the original. Aside from that, good job.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[DragonWriter]

"It shall be legal for the LEGAL OWNER of the original distributed copy of a DVD, CD, or other media, including legally purchased or aquired electronic media downloaded from the interent or other distribution meduim, to make AS MANY COPIES, IN AS MANY DIFFERENT FORMATS as the owner wishes, to support their personal use. Ownership of any of these copies is dependent upon ownership of the original distribution copy: IF the DVD, CD or other original distributed copy is sold of given away, ALL copies made from that original or generational copies thereof, regardless of format and storage medium, must accompany the original distribution copy, or be destroyed immediately upon transfer of the original." Very simple, crafted in plain English, and does not in any way undermine copyright.

Actually, it does, unless you include a notice requirement of the status of copies to the recipient, who otherwise has either (1) just become free to distribute all the copies separately, or (2) will be held accountable for a law he could not have known he was violating (and if the law is phrased the second way, chances are the courts will enforce it the first way.)

More importantly, the prohibition of copying is the core of copyright (hence the name), because as a practical matter the proliferation of copies virtually guarantees that they become dispersed.

Even more importantly, your provision wouldn't allow what was being done here, because the initial format-shifted copies were not made to support anyone's "personal use", they were made to add resale value to a commercial product.

So I don't think you solved the problem posed.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[Phil_At_NHS]

Only if you are talking about about a downloaded file. Even then, you could make allowances for the electronic receipt. IF My original DVD is scratched up 'cuz my two year old got hold of it, well, that is what backups are for. I still have the disk, scratched or otherwise, so I still have ownership of my "personal use copyright". That YOU may not wish to purchase it is your problem and your choice, just like you may not wish to purchase my Ipod becasue the screen is cracked. Other than that, "good job" for what? This is all common sense. The artist has the right to ensure he gets whatever price he wishes to charge for his work, and the consumer has the right to ensure they can use what they pay for and protect that investment.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[Phil_At_NHS]

"Unless you include a notice requirement of the status of copies to the recipient," Big deal. Add a requirement that a copyright notice be distributed along with copies noting their original source. After that, it is their problem to understand the law. Minor details that are easily worked out, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THE MUDSUCKING LAWYERS out of it, who don't do ANYTHING easily. "the prohibition of copying is the core of copyright (hence the name), because as a practical matter the proliferation of copies virtually guarantees that they become dispersed." BullPucky. I have copies of every CD I own. I have not dispersed them. Selling beer would, under your example, be the same thing as encouraging people to drive drunk since, as a practical matter, give enough people access to beer, SOMEONE will DUI. Copying for personal use is a SEPARATE ISSUE from copying for dispersement, and the LAW can treat them separately. "your provision wouldn't allow what was being done here, because the initial format-shifted copies were not made to support anyone's "personal use", they were made to add resale value to a commercial product." Sure it would. You would have a person in a company copying DVDs. They would not be using it for any purpose OTHER than personal use. Then they sell the originals AND the copies, which are sold to someone else for personal use. The goal of a copyright law is to prevent piracy: To ensure that a producer of material gets his price for the material. My proposal accomplishes that, and so does what this company provides. If you want to add a few more words to make this explicitly covered, fine. The bottom line here is: This is not piracy. The one thing that the MPAA will not be able to prove against this company is DAMAGES. There are none. The DMCA is crap, and goes far beyond any requirements to stop piracy.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[glwtta]

That said, this is a company making a copy for a profit... I can't really say that copyright should be changed to allow for this.

And they are selling the copy together with the original - copyright doesn't need to be changed to allow this, it doesn't prohibit it to begin with. It's only the DMCA they are violating.

This company is making a profit off of someone else's intellectual property.

See, that's the problem with the made-up concept of "Intellectual Property": copyright grants a limited monopoly on an artistic work to the author (perfectly reasonable), but the idea that once you create something it's your property forever and no one can profit in any way associated with it is just preposterous. By that logic companies that manufacture TVs and DVD* players should not be allowed to profit from the "property" of those who create the content they display.

Main problem is that the *AA's aren't content to just create a product and sell it to people at insane profits, they want to control every aspect of what you are and are not allowed to do with it once you've purchased it, in order to squeeze every last cent possible out of their consumers. It's a ridiculous proposition, I don't know how it came to be taken for granted.

* Firefox's spell checker doesn't know what a DVD is? Weird.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well... you actually have conflicting laws on the books. The DMCA basically says that content producers have exclusive control over access of the content. The constitution says that such laws can only exist if they promote the progress of science and the useful arts.

I'm pretty sure this isn't the supreme court we want to hear this case, but if it ever got there, the DMCA supporters must prove that this provision of the DMCA actually promotes the progress of science or the useful arts. The detractors only need to provide some examples of the harm it causes.

It seems like a pretty hard sell to say that supplying a consumer with two formats of a copyrighted work discourages or prohibits the progress of the arts.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

You are mistaken. The first sale doctrine means that the purchaser is free to transfer the physical copy they have received, not to make copies of it.

Supreme Court precedent says otherwise. Considering the first sale doctrine is a Supreme Court construct, you can't just pretend the Supreme Court decision that says you can copy those copies you have been sold does not apply. That would be ignorant.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[RobertLTux]

the trick is you would only use a copy not the original (think Forensics)

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[jonwil]

This service is no different to a computer shop offering a service where you give them your computer and your copy of windows (or whatever other commercial software) and the computer shop (for a fee) installs and sets up the software for you so you dont have to.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[MightyYar]

And they are selling the copy together with the original - copyright doesn't need to be changed to allow this, it doesn't prohibit it to begin with. It's only the DMCA they are violating.

No, they are breaking regular-old pre-DCMA copyright law.

As for the rest of your post, I tend to agree that copyright is out of hand. I think a nice compromise is to shorten the life to something like 15 years (not forever) and not regulate non-commercial uses at all. I don't think that you should be able to hire an "agent" to do things for you, but perhaps we could explicitly allow some types of commercial format shifting.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, it's quite different. For one, DVDs don't need to be "installed." Second, the main problem here is that the DMCA prohibits the decryption of the DVD CSS algorithm by any non-approved method/device full stop. As the law is currently written, any ripping of CSS-encoded DVDs is completely illegal in the US, whether for personal or commercial use. This company is doing just that, and as it currently stands, the MPAA is fully within their legal rights to pursue litigation. And they will most likely win. Do I agree with the DMCA as it is currently written? Hell no! But until it's changed, this is the sort of restriction we have to live with. Let's hope this lawsuit opens the eyes of some people who can actually influence and change the law.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[Overzeetop]

What if it's a copy for non-commercial use made by the owner's agent? Can my son make a copy of The Matrix from my original and load it onto my ipod, at my request? Can a service take my CDs and rip them to a hard drive (providing the service of tagging in the process) so that I can use a digital media player on my home system (one company is doing this right now with apparently zero interest from the RIAA). Does the buy the disc and then rip it for me for my personal use violate copyrights?

It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse...

[DragonWriter]

Installing Windows as you describe is within a specific exception which exists solely for computer programs (and not other copyright-protected works) at 17 USC 117, and which allows the owner to make or authorize the making of a copy that "is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine".

Shouldn't be a surprise

[LoverOfJoy]

This shouldn't be a surprise after what happened to CleanFlicks

Re:Shouldn't be a surprise

[TubeSteak]

CleanFlicks was decided under a completely different set of reasoning.

Essentially, the Director of the film has the innate right to not get his work edited and sold by someone else.

In the U.S. this "moral right" applies to visual creations, so artists and film directors are allowed to say "No, you can't do that to my film/painting/picture".

DRM was an issue, but it wasn't the deciding factor in the case.

Re:Shouldn't be a surprise

[LoverOfJoy]

I agree there's definitely some significant differences between the two cases. I didn't read up on everything but a lot of people on slashdot were making the argument that if it was fair use to create and watch your own edited version then it ought to also be fair use to pay someone to do that for you. The courts disagreed (if they even heard such an argument). It's not surprising that the MPAA would also jump after this kind of service as well. They don't want anyone making money off of any service that gives people something different than what they've sold (including all copy protections) unless they are also getting a cut of it. Sure, the CleanFlicks arguably changes the "artistic integrity" of the movie but I'm sure the MPAA is more concerned about the money and the copy protection than any artistic integrity anyway. Out of curiosity. Those who have ipods, is it just as easy to take a movie off of the ipod and burn it to a DVD? What kind of copy protection is there on the final pre-loaded ipods these guys were selling? I'm guessing that the copy protection is removed to put the movie on the ipod and no copy protection is put back on the movie at that point. Would people on slashdot be defending a service that takes your dvd and sends it back to you along with a copy of it on an unprotected dvd? Do you think the MPAA would be fine with that?

Re: DeCSS is not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

> Now it may be that circumventing copy protection is illegal under DMCA

But DeCSS uses a *legitimate* key to decrypt the video stream... the fact that the key was exposed accidentally is irrelevant.

AFAICS, decrypting a DVD with a legitimate key is NOT circumvention, and therefore not illegal.

Didn't ask

[ackthpt]

They didn't ask, "Mother, may I?" or Simon didn't say, "Preload movie for consumer." Fair Use be damned.

In future plans, the MPAA will be suing people who have unauthorised memories of watching movies as that constitutes illegal copying to memory. From then on, brain surgeons will wait outside theaters to scoop out people's brains.

Re:Didn't ask

[joe 155]

The MPAA wants to be the de facto law maker in the US over the whole of copyright law (and the RIAA for the music). They have been allowed to do this by the government, and to some extent by the people who keep buying this shit.

Fight the laws.

Re:Didn't ask

[yancey]

Only for people who have "photographic" memories.

Free clue for the MPAA

[rewt66]

These people are selling your product for you. In other words, you're suing your own salesmen!

I can't think of a more stupid strategy for any business.

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[TheRaven64]

It seems like a logical progression from suing their customers...

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[ewl1217]

1. Sue copyright infringers
2. Sue customers
3. Sue salesmen
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[Hinhule]

4. Sue yourself?

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[kocsonya]

> These people are selling your product for you. In other words, you're suing your own salesmen!
> I can't think of a more stupid strategy for any business.

Well, this particular salesman wanted to make a little profit.
Wouldn't a druglord order the wasting of a pusher who's making a bit on the side?
Doesn't seem to hurt their business and they have the same business model:
selling shit to the junkies, total control of the product from manufacturing to
the customer, extortion prices and very heavy-handed treatment of customers or
distributors who don't want to toe the line or pay the price.

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[ewl1217]

Whoosh...

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[Myopic]

These people are selling your product for you. In other words, you're suing your own salesmen!
I can't think of a more stupid strategy for any business.

Sure you can: suing your actual customers.

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[Dunbal]

These people are selling your product for you. In other words, you're suing your own salesmen!
I can't think of a more stupid strategy for any business.

Sure you can: suing your actual customers.

      Hopefully they'll soon start suing themselves, and disappear out of space-time with a popping sound...

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hopefully they'll soon start suing themselves, and disappear out of space-time with a popping sound..."

Actually, I would expect it to be a sucking sound.

--

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[Anonymous Coward]

Been done. Sony Music sued Sony Electronics for making mp3 player a little while back.

Re:Free clue for the MPAA

[Per Abrahamsen]

> These people are selling your product for you. In other words, you're suing your own salesmen!

Your salesman is selling two copies of your product, and only paying you for one copy.

Re: DeCSS is not illegal

[lrodrig]

If you are not licensed to use the legitimate key to decrypt the video stream, and you use it, it is likely that what you are doing is illegal.

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn!

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA was signed into law by Clinton. If you know nothing about American politics, shut the fuck up.

delicate

[mugnyte]

  This case may end up depending on: (answer what you want)

  (1) Does the market allow for the selling of an iPod and a separate DVD disc?
  (2) Does the market allow for someone to buy a movie onto their iPod?
  (3) What is the difference between a movie on a DVD and a movie on an iPod? Are a distributor's rights changed?
  (4) Can a business do for users what they can do for themselves? For example, rip a DVD copy onto a viewing device?
  (5) Can a user pay someone, in any way, to copy their DVD onto any other device they own?

  I bet there are some non-intuitive answers that the RIAA would put up there.

Re:delicate

[spisska]

I'm guessing you mean 'law' rather than 'market' in points 1 and 2 -- the market allows anything, it only dictates price. Check out your neighborhood bootleg DVD vendor to find out what value the market gives patently illegal goods.

(1) Does the [law] allow for the selling of an iPod and a separate DVD disc?

Sure. Best Buy, Circuit City, Microcenter, and a ton of other retailers sell both ipods and DVDs.

(2) Does the [law] allow for someone to buy a movie onto their iPod?

Absolutely. ITMS sells Disney movies, as well as TV shows from lots of producers.

(3) What is the difference between a movie on a DVD and a movie on an iPod? Are a distributor's rights changed?

Doubtful, but I don't think anyone's trying to make that point. Hollywood doesn't think, for example, that there is any difference in rights for a purchaser between a DVD and a VHS tape. You are allowed to watch it privately but not to exhibit it publicly. You are allowed to sell the tape/disc, but you are not allowed to copy it or distribute copies. If anything you have more rights with a DVD than with an ITMS-purchased movie since you can't resell the ipod version.

(4) Can a business do for users what they can do for themselves?

Obviously. Jiffylube will change my oil though I am capable of doing it myself. Any number of businesses will disinfect and defrag a Windows system, though those are trivial tasks. Heck you could pay someone to come to house every morning to tie your shoes if you really wanted to.

. . . For example, rip a DVD copy onto a viewing device?

Ah ha. There is another matter entirely, since the MPAA's opinion is that ripping a DVD is in itself illegal, regardless of who owns it or on whose behalf the ripping is being done. With the DMCA, the law would appear to be on their side.

On the other hand, if you were doing the ripping outside of the jurisdiction of the DMCA, I don't think they could attack using the DMCA (although they would probably answer that the ripped copy is still unauthorized and therefore illegal regardless of where it was made, and irrespective of the fact that there is only one owner of the original, the copy, and the playback device.

(5) Can a user pay someone, in any way, to copy their DVD onto any other device they own?

Same point as above -- MPAA would argue that the copying is illegal whether the purchaser does it, or their daughter, or their neighbor, or PutYourFilmsOnYourIpod.com.

Re:delicate

[evanrandael]

(4) Can a business do for users what they can do for themselves? For example, rip a DVD copy onto a viewing device?

I do this almost every day where I work. Copy customer's data to dvd, cd, other hard drives, etc. Sometimes this includes "backup copies" of the music form their iTunes and other digital media. We are usually asked to do this before we do any sort of repair that would require a complete system restore, and charge a little more for the backup service.

So when will the **AA sue our company?

Re:delicate

[Anonymous Coward]

Firstly, lets talk about copying vs decrypting (format shifting). Computers and other electronic devices can copy. Your earliest computer, running (likely) DOS could copy. So can any computer today. A DVD burner can make an exact copy of another disk. For that matter, someone with a pencil, paper and an original copy of a book can make a copy (people can copy too). Format shifting is making an altered copy (changing the format), and thus allowing the content to be viewed in another medium. It could be argued that the machinery to do this violates DMCA, as you are going from an optical medium, to an electronic one, to one where photons are emitted along with (air) compression waves (creating sound). If format shifting is illegal, things should stay optical only (although that would mean nothing to see or hear). If the issue is over encryption removal, then we get into the nasty business of fair use. If a customer wants to watch media content in a particular format, does the company creating that content have control over the content itself, or also the content, and also the medium by which that content is presented? Are we forced to go to the movie theater and buy the popcorn, allergies or no, sit in the cramped seats with our feet on the sticky floor and watch all the ads as the content producers demand, or do we have the choice, especially if we have already purchased a legal copy of the content? Are those creating the content here, not trespassing on the rights of the person who purchased a legitimate copy, to view the content in a format most pleasing to them? Its been this way in theaters (eat the fat laden popcorn from the theater, or none at all, you can't bring your low-fat popcorn in), and now they are trying to exercise rights they have no right to over how people can use their product (and in a way not illegal, nor infringing, except under the stupid draconian law).

Re:delicate

[heinousjay]

As soon as you start selling those copies.

It's nice to see so very many people either miss or deliberately confuse the point.

Mod parent up, even if he does have a potty mouth.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA

This is nothing more than a "frightener"

[pandrijeczko]

Personally, whilst circumventing copy protection may be deemed as illegal in certain countries, the fact of the matter is that *NOBODY* has ever been incriminated for format shifting a CD or a DVD that they have legally purchased. That particular aspect of the law has yet to be tested.

Yep, I've no doubt that with these new laws, someone pirating music or movies will get done for both copyright infringement and breaking copy protection. Likewise, I'm sure there are laws that cover the way retailers can distribute media - this is no different to a movie rental company renting out retail DVDs that have "Not for rental" stamped on the back cover.

All this is about is a demonstration by the MPAA to "scare" people into not format shifting the stuff they've bought - after all, the MPAA/RIAA/BPI etc would much rather you rebought all your movies and music everytime a new format is released, or, even better, have you the consumer treat them (the movie and record companies) like a utility company in as much as you rent what you want for a period that lasts as long as you pay rental.

I rip my DVDs to DivX and my CDs to MP3 for portability purposes and this case is not going to change that behaviour one iota. In just the same way that nobody has ever been incriminated for lending a friend a CD or a DVD, I defy any court in any country to prove that any of the format shifting I do has caused any big fat corporation to lose any money - which ultimately is what all these laws are about.

This iPod retailer will be subject to certain rules and regulations meaning that they cannot legally offer format shifted media, even if they hand out the original DVD and that is what the MPAA will get them on.

But they don't stand a hope in hell of making anything like this stick on a private citizen who has done this with media they've legally purchased.

There really is *NOTHING* to see here...

Re:This is nothing more than a "frightener"

[marcello_dl]

the MPAA/RIAA/BPI etc would much rather you rebought all your movies and music everytime a new format is released...

Now THIS is stealing :)

Re: DeCSS is not illegal

[cpt kangarooski]

No, the key doesn't matter per se. It's what's done with it and how it became available that is relevant. Otherwise your argument would be akin to saying that if someone loses their house key by accident, it's not illegal for you to use it to go into their house; obviously, that's a loser of an argument.

The copyright holders authorized DVDCCA to sub-authorize decryption. DVDCCA has sub-authorized certain manufacturers to make decryption devices, if they conform to certain criteria DVDCCA has set forth (e.g. respect UOP instructions on the disc), and users who use those devices in their stock configurations, with all the DRM turned on, etc.

Use anything else, or use those things in the wrong ways, and you're circumventing. It doesn't matter whether you use the same key the authorized player uses; you aren't authorized to use it that way.

I would suggest reading the excellent essay What Colour Are Your Bits? for some illumination into kinds of distinctions the law typically makes.

How does this happen? Easy follow the money...

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

Orrin Hatch got this piece of crap introduced and passed and has also taken almost $400K From the entertainment lobby.

America, best government money can buy®

Re:How does this happen? Easy follow the money...

[Dachannien]

Actually, Howard Coble and Orrin Hatch co-introduced this measure into their respective houses of Congress after the relevant treaty was signed by the Clinton Administration's representative at WIPO.

Sponsors of the original bills introduced into each house:

Senate:
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI]
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]
Sen Thompson, Fred [TN]

House:
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6]
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-26]
Rep McCollum, Bill [FL-8]
Rep Bono, Sonny [CA-44]

These folks in the House co-sponsored it after it was amended from its original form, though it still included the anti-circumvention provision:
Rep Paxon, Bill [NY-27]
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) [MS-3]
Rep Bono, Mary [CA-44]

Re:How does this happen? Easy follow the money...

[troll -1]

Mod parent up. There's a definite correlation here of money for laws. Here's the long term trend.

Re:How does this happen? Easy follow the money...

[joe_n_bloe]

By all accounts Orrin Hatch is a smart, rational, polite, and reasonable fellow. He's a Mormon, and at least partly independent of that, conservative, but that doesn't make him the devil. If he's in the pocket of media, well, people keep voting for him. Anyway, if Utah elected Barney Frank, apparently the senator from Utah would still support the DMCA. (See above.)

We do watch movies, and we do listen to commercial music, and we do elect these people. If you don't like the controls the entertainment industry wants to place on you, and you're not willing to quietly subvert them, then as an alternative use of your recreational time you can always try gardening, or exercise, or sex, or sitting on your sofa smoking a bowl, or sitting around a fire singing your own songs with your friends. We're just talking about freakin' movies after all. It's not like someone has started rationing air.

Re: DeCSS is not illegal

[Chris Burke]

The key is not 'legitimate' because you aren't licensed to use it. It doesn't matter that it's an actual decryption key. If you found the key by brute-force hacking it would be the same key, and still illegal to use.

The DMCA is such a fucking stupid law. I break it every time I watch a DVD on my computer, a DVD that in each and every case I paid in full for. Good thing I don't mistake legality for morality, or might feel bad!

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn!

[dugn]

What a disappointingly naive response. There's no value this post brings to the discussion. And barring your typo in DMCA, it wasn't the Bush administration that signed DMCA into law.

If anything, some administration - I don't care who - should reconcile the divide between Fair Use and DMCA once and for all so we all know whether we can rip our own music from copies that we own (even if it takes circumventing copy protection to do so).

Until that fundamental question is resolved, these John Q. Public vs. RIAA/DMCA/ issues and discussions on /. will continue...

Oh yes it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

What you're saying implies that the only reason why playing a DVD on a DVD player at home is legal is because it employs a legitimate key for which the user has obtained a license by buying the DVD player.

The only problem with that legal theory is that it's false. The user has purchased a DVD player, not leased or licensed it, and he has not agreed to a license of any kind whatsoever, not even a shrink-wrapped one.

They can't have it both ways (though obviously they will try to do so). If it's legal for your purchased DVD player to play the DVD, then it's legal for DeCSS to use a legitimate key to play it as well.

Re:Oh yes it is.

[lrodrig]

The cost of the license to decrypt the DVD is included in the price you pay for the DVD player.

Re:Oh yes it is.

[Chris Burke]

The only problem with that legal theory is that it's false. The user has purchased a DVD player, not leased or licensed it, and he has not agreed to a license of any kind whatsoever, not even a shrink-wrapped one.

So? The DVD player manufacturer is who has purchased the license. If you did not buy a DVD player that was licensed, then you do not have permission to break the encryption on the DVD. If you get around that encryption, you are breaking the copy protection on that DVD.

The DMCA doesn't say anything about how you circumvent the protection scheme, whether that's by discovering the keys by reverse engineering a licensed player, brute-forcing the algorithm, or finding a weakness in the protocol. The fact is that your player was not authorized to break the encryption, and thus your using it is circumventing the protection.

In fact in DMCA terms a single bit that is supposed to mean "don't copy me unless you have permission" can qualify as a protection mechanism, and not honoring that bit is circumvention. There was an actual case involving this, where someone was sued for copying True Type Fonts, which have a "don't copy me" bit. It's don't recall the result, and it may have failed -- it's the digital equivalent of putting a sign on your front yard that says "My yard is protected by an invisible force shield!" and when someone walks on your yard, charging them with both Trespassing and Breaking and Entering (for busting down your force field). If so that would be a good precedent, but the law itself doesn't distinguish.

Re:Oh yes it is.

[Nethead]

[ot]
Chris: did you ever work for Wygant in PDX?

-Joe Hamelin

Re:Oh yes it is.

[LocalH]

But you're not presented those terms before sale, thus they don't bind you.

Re:Oh yes it is.

[Chris Burke]

Must be one of my clones. Or possibly a robot replica. Not me though, sorry.

Re:Oh yes it is.

[jibjibjib]

So I could create an HTML document, declare that the existence of an tag in the document means "Don't copy this document", then sue people under the DMCA if they copy it?

point of copyright

[dmahurin]

The purpose of copyright is not about "making money distributing copies".

If that was all it was, it would be no more legit than a pyramid scheme.

The meaningful purpose of copyright and patent law is to encourage useful innovation in science and art.

Yes, the DMCA and other copyright extensions are contrary to that purpose.

Re:point of copyright

[BRUTICUS]

To encourage people to invent and discourage people from stealing other's inventions would be the ideal and meaningful purpose of copyright law however is that really what judges are thinking when at their podium? Maybe not. But they definitely should be. The sad fact is these old farts just can't or can't be bothered to keep up with technology or keep themselves informed.

Re:point of copyright

[Chris Burke]

The purpose of a law and what the law is about are not the same thing, and in fact the purpose of a law may not appear in the text of the law at all. The purpose of copyright law is presented in the Constitution. The law itself deals strictly with copying, distribution, commercial usage, and so forth. This isn't unusual, since law general deals with prohibiting something, while "purpose" is generally about achieving some effect. In theory one leads to the other.

In practice, we get the Sony Bono Copyright Act and the DMCA. :(

Re:point of copyright

[mrchaotica]

the Sony Bono Copyright Act

Man, Sony's been so evil lately it's even invading our subconsciousness!

Re:point of copyright

[A beautiful mind]

The purpose of a law and what the law is about are not the same thing

diff -u "purpose of a law" "what the law is"

You know what the previous sentence is? Yeah. It's the _bug_.

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn!

[Thondermonst]

You're right, the DMCA was introduced during the Clinton administration. That's why I proposed you changed your political system, because frankly I don't see many differences between the Dems and the Reps, both are reigned by their sponsors. So in fact, it's the big companies that run the country, not the people.

PS: I live in Belgium and although I like living here, the political situation isn't optimal either. So you probably right to state that I should shut the fuck up, until I fix the situation overhere.

But, actually I don't exist: http://zapatopi.net/belgium/

If I do it myselff... but if I pay someone...

[John.P.Jones]

If I do this format shifting copy myself its 'fair use' but if I think its a pain and would rather pay a service to go through the effort for me then it isn't fair use anymore and is a clear copyright violation?

No, I think that is complete BS. It doesn't make any sense. Maybe they can force seperating the buying of the product and the shifting of the format but if we allow an individual to do $x, we should definately allow them to pay someone else to do $x for them.

Re:If I do it myselff... but if I pay someone...

[Chuck Chunder]

but if we allow an individual to do $x, we should definately allow them to pay someone else to do $x for them.

Let's say you are legally allowed to record something off television for your own use (which is probably true though may not be depending on where you are). Do you also think it is reasonable to pay someone else for a copy of something they made from TV? That would effectively remove the copyright holder monopoly on retail DVDs. I think it's fairly reasonable that fair use is limited to non commercial activity.

Re:If I do it myselff... but if I pay someone...

[DragonWriter]

If I do this format shifting copy myself its 'fair use'

Maybe. There is a little case law on "space shifting", but it can be distinguished from format shifting being done here, so its not clear that "format shifting" is clearly "fair use" to start with, legally.

but if I think its a pain and would rather pay a service to go through the effort for me then it isn't fair use anymore

When it stops being noncommercial, personal copying for personal use, the case for considering it "fair use" gets considerably weaker.

Copyrights and wrongs

[Alan426]

So, if I make a backup copy of my customer's disk before working on his computer -- a service provided for a fee -- have I violated copyright law? What if I use Norton Ghost to make the copy, because some files are encrypted? Have I then violated DCMA as well?

IANAL, but this makes my head hurt!

I may be wrong here

[terrymr]

But I thought it was understood as far as copyright goes that the purchaser (licensee) of a work make a copy for their own use on the understanding that if they resell the original then the copy must be transferred with the original or destroyed.

The DMCA encryption question is another deal, but I'm sure the argument can be made that CSS is not an *effective* copy protection measure.

Re:I may be wrong here

[DragonWriter]

But I thought it was understood as far as copyright goes that the purchaser (licensee) of a work make a copy for their own use on the understanding that if they resell the original then the copy must be transferred with the original or destroyed.

This is not generally the case, though there are specific rules very much along those lines for computer programs when either necessary for use or a single archival copy, and somewhat different rules allowing copying by libraries and archives.

Re:I may be wrong here

[Jester998]

The DMCA encryption question is another deal, but I'm sure the argument can be made that CSS is not an *effective* copy protection measure.

Irrelevant. Technically, the DMCA forbids ANY cracking of copy protection. xor x,0x01 would be sufficient 'encryption' under the DMCA to sue anyone who unencrypted the content.

Better Targets?

[SomeOtherGuy]

This reminds me of mp3.com

As an "honest" consumer -- I thought it was the best win/win situation ever.
I whip out my credit card and pay $15 for a CD, and I get to download and
listen to the songs I just bought right away until the CD itself showed up
in the mail in a week or so. Everyone gets paid the full amount and everyone
is happy.

Yet -- they chose to take mp3.com down to the ground because of it.

In this case they are marketing the ipod to people who are also paying the full
price for the physical media......

This is said....I don't shed tear 1 when they "take down" the criminals that stealing movies
or music where the content makers don't profit....But to take down the people who are selling
your product at full price seems pretty stupid to me. The people that suffer the most
are the honest consumers.

Re:Better Targets?

[g253]

(...)the criminals that stealing movies or music(...)

Please, be careful when you use the word "steal". If I take a dvd in a store and leave without paying, that's theft : the dvd is gone, they can't sell it anymore, they lose money. However, if I can use some sort of sci-fi matter replicator to make a completely identical dvd magically appear in my pocket, leaving theirs untouched, I didn't steal it : I just didn't buy it.

I understand that many companies are very distressed because they're actually selling data containers and it is now possible to copy and share that data at no cost. Really, I do. But don't buy into their propaganda that tries to make you believe that duplicating something and taking it away are the same thing.

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn!

[Anonymous Coward]

Woah, man. Chill out. No need to be so hostile. Clinton may have signed DMCA, but this Belgian seems like he's on to a few things, here. Take a deep breath, and think of peace.

Unintended Consequence

[Phillup]

Seems like you can choose to "break the law" by trying to get legitimate copies... or you can break the law by getting copies that are not so legit.

If both are "illegal"... why should someone choose the more expensive method?

The {RI,MP}AA sues only ordinary Joes

[joe_n_bloe]

Sorry, it doesn't matter whether you're "guilty" or "indicted" when you have to cough up thousands of dollars just to get started with a lawyer - and the MPAA and RIAA takes you to civil, not criminal court. No one needs to prosecute you for ripping a DVD when the MPAA can spend its lawyers' idle time writing up civil complaints against parties who have little ability to defend themselves and often have not even have the foggiest idea how the legal system works. A defendant may not even be the correct party, but if he doesn't have means to make an appropriate motion to have the suit amended or dismissed, the result is a default judgement.

I don't see the EFF or ACLU or other legal organizations hopping aggressively into these lawsuits or doing anything beyond filing amicus briefs. Anyway, it's difficult (as in impossible) to get part or all of a piece of legislation overturned, or a law reinterpreted, when every case is either settled or dropped.

I can't characterize this behavior as SLAPP, because strictly speaking it isn't (SLAPP refers to legal maneuvering to dissuade public discussion), but it's one of those cases where it would be nice if there were a government organization, or powerful private interest, whose business it was to intercede in favor of individuals in these cases of imbalanced litigation on controversial rights issues.

Re:The {RI,MP}AA sues only ordinary Joes

[dircha]

"but it's one of those cases where it would be nice if there were a government organization, or powerful private interest, whose business it was to intercede in favor of individuals in these cases of imbalanced litigation on controversial rights issues."

We must provide individual public defenders and prosecutors for civil cases. They must be mandatory and must be available in all jurisdictions.

We seem to like to think that in our nation justice is accessible to all regardless of social and economic status. But to suggest that individual access to public criminal defenders and prosecutors is sufficient, is a mockery of justice.

Right in our midst our fellow citizens are subject to intimidation of all sorts, threats to their livelihood, and back alley shakedowns. Their abusers act in broad daylight with impunity. Our civil system does not hold them to account. This should not surprise us. Our laws are written by these very abusers: corporations and a cadre of powerful elitists. They use our government to direct our tax dollars into their coffers, while writing laws to ensure that what they can not control by force of government, they shall not be deterred from controlling by impotence of government.

To force a common citizen to face loss of livelihood and the ability to provide for one's children in a trial where a reasonable doubt is no defense, where no defender is provided against law that is illegal for the accussed to declare himself competent to practice, is criminal. It is a despicable and barbarous thing that has no place in a civilized society.

Justice without access is no justice at all.

How will we prevent abuse of such a system? Citizens might first bring their circumstances before a counselor, magistrate, panel, or similar process or body to appeal for a public civil defender or prosecutor. Yet it is far better that we should lose some resources to abuse than that any person should be denied justice, better a hundred times over.

Re:The {RI,MP}AA sues only ordinary Joes

[joe_n_bloe]

It makes no sense for the government to take an active part in defending people against actions brought about under the laws created by the same government.

Retina implants have Macrovision now.

[phreaki]

I can see it now, the MPAA taking a blind user to court because her retina implants put out unintended radiation that allowed the neighbor's kids to watch movies that she was seeing on their tv's. Of course they'll win, since the blind user didn't know the retina implants didn't have an HDMI plug on the end, and Macrovision wasn't applied as a second measure either.

Re:Retina implants have Macrovision now.

[Dunbal]

and Macrovision wasn't applied as a second measure either.

      Hell with macrovision she'd only be allowed to watch the movie with either one, or the other eye - but not both at the same time...

The way I see it...

[Arceliar]

Copyright laws, we all agree I'm sure, should prevent people from illegally copying and reselling content. Originally, this applied pretty much only to printed books, so that's what the initial system was designed for. Once you start having different mediums, an important concept needs to be well defined which I think both sides of the argument have really addressed: When you buy something, are you paying for the copy, or the content?

Essentially, if I go buy a CD, is it the CD that I would own, or the songs themselves? In music and movies, the lines blur more than on other issues. As the system is currently set up, it seems to be leaning pretty strongly to the "Copy" side of the argument, but, at least from my point of view, doesn't seem to be completely well defined. Now, with anti-circumvention laws and the many forms of copy protection out there, it naturally leans to the "Copy" side anyway... and if you ask me, that's not the way it should be. A content-based system of regulations simply makes more sense to me--and until anti-circumvention laws started getting the green light left and right, that's (at least, from what I can remember) the way things worked for the most part. Let's face it, where's the sense in a law which does nothing but require you re-purchase something you already own simply to use it a little differently. That's like requiring you to own a separate car for interstate driving and city driving.

In my eyes at least, the copyright should apply to the content. The price of purchasing something should consist of buying the legal rights to use it, along with the cost of labor and materials for that copy. But you should be free to copy it as you wish, for your own use.

Selling copies of something such as a movie should of course be illegal, but not when a transfer of the license takes place. In this case, following my argument of how the law should be, preloading content from a legally purchased DVD onto an iPod should be perfectly legal.

Of course, lots of things SHOULD be one way, doesn't mean they are. But, at least from my point of view, I think my argument makes a lot of sense. Too bad those who make and enforce the laws so rarely seem to listen to reason, though hopefully after the last election things should start becoming more reasonable.

Re:The way I see it...

[jbengt]

It is the physical copy you are buying, not the "content". Doctrine of first sale says you can do anything you want with that CD - play frisbee, use it as a coaster, share it, start a library. Copyright says you can't copy it without permission. Certain practical exceptions have been figured out because of modern mediums, like the "copy" your computer makes in it's memory in order to play the CD, but in principle, the copyright holder has the government granted monopoly on making any physical copies.
Trying to regulate the content instead could have some pretty Orwellian consequences - think about it.

Re:The way I see it...

[Legion303]

"Copyright laws, we all agree I'm sure, should prevent people from illegally copying and reselling content. Originally, this applied pretty much only to printed books, so that's what the initial system was designed for. Once you start having different mediums, an important concept needs to be well defined which I think both sides of the argument have really addressed: When you buy something, are you paying for the copy, or the content?"

How does the medium change anything here? When I buy a book I'm not paying for the content (I don't have any rights to the written words themselves), but the copy. When I buy a movie, I still don't have any rights to the content itself, only the copy. The MPAA and RIAA want it both ways, of course, but it's obvious that the laws written for printed text apply equally no matter what medium or content we're discussing.

difference of products

[zoftie]

Some people have noticed that dvd have limited life, and are very easily destructible. So to be fair, if one wishes to excersize copyright there should be a provision, whereby owner of a copy can request secondary copies at nominal cost (fraction like 1/10th of the price of the original) of the copy he has purchased, given he/she returns damaged/detiriorated copy. If a business does not provide ways to exchange detiriorated or defective media ( read: not the stores but recording company itself ), then any backing up and/or unlimited replication, can be grated owning entity. Granted, distributors own the media at the time, so they can do as they wish with copies of the dvds, in fair ways. Like backing up customer's media onto their device, prior to purchase. Copyright, is right to copy, not to backup the works. Copy and distribute works as individual. Say if someone purchases a copy and make 10 and sells them. So far that I view situation, is very unfair and retarted.
It is only robbing movie industry of cash will rob it of the interest wealthy people pay to it, and open industry to creative ways they can do business, rather then hiring big shot lawyers to subjugate the lowly gentiles that we are. See, money hurts creativity, because accountants get in the business of telling people what do, in matters of art it is bad. Money hurts creativity and health of the industry, just like it did in the internet bubble. Burger flippers were coming to jobs which they have despised and only wielded computers to minimal extend, for means of cash. Miserable those days were.

So I attend movie viewings of small run movies only , and theaters that are unaffiliated with large recording studios. Rather tired of being treated like an idiot.

Re:difference of products

[cfulmer]

> Rather tired of being treated like an idiot.

Your post didn't help. Now I know how Yoda would sound after a Meth hit.

Re:difference of products

[qzulla]

I see tolerance is working well here. I am guessing you are going for a +5 funny.

It wasn't.

qz

well, yeah

[geekoid]

they took content, copied it and redistributed to other consumers.

Of course that reaks copyright.

Now, if that included the original media, they would be cool. Or if they paid for each copy, also fine.

It seems a lot different then me buying a song and putting in on a bunch of media for my use.

If they go after the owners if purchased iPods, that wuld also be wrong.
If Sony violated a law when it manufactures the playstation, the conxumers wuldn't be liable.

Re:well, yeah

[Anonymous Coward]

From the summary: "The original DVDs of the movies that are loaded are also given to the customer."

You could at least read the summary before commenting.

Re:well, yeah

[wes33]

but then OP would have nothing to say at all

Re:well, yeah

[CCFreak2K]

FTA: Customers pay for the original DVDs, for the iPods and for the service of having them loaded. They even receive the original DVDs they've paid for.

Not as black-and-white anymore, is it?

The truth of it all..

[nickheart]

Anyone can sue anyone.

-ditto- for any reason

Many people are willing to settle to avoid court fees.

Those who aren't willing, will fight and cost the offended party court fees.

If you have enough money, and a product that people aren't willing to stop using (you can chose what movies/songs you watch/listen to), you can continue to spend money in a vain attempt to scare the rest of them into accepting that the example has been made: Don't copy our stuff.

Copyright 101

[mark-t]

Copyright governs _COPYING_... nothing else. If you make a copy of something copyrighted without permission, you are making an unauthorized copy of that work. Period. Notwithstanding, the copyright act explicitly has exemptions of copyright infringement for some things such as fair use. This does not mean that the exemptions make such copies authorized, it merely means that some things like copying for fair use do not constitute copyright infringement. If one makes an unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work and uses that copy for any purpose that is _NOT_ exempt from infringement, then one infringes on copyright. Period. It's worth noting at this point that because copyright governs copies, the infringement applies to the actual making of the copy, and not the act which is not exempt from infringement. The act in such a case should be considered as evidence of infrigement, not the infringement itself.

This company made unauthorized copies, which they proceeded to give to a customer. That's a copyright violation right there, because nowhere in the copyright act does it list an exemption of copying on behalf of somebody else (even where if the other person had done the exact same copying for him or herself, it would not have constituted infringement). This is not included in the copyright act not because of an oversight, but because copyright exists to control the act of copying, and passing the responsibility of making non-infringing copies to the end users of the product accomplishes that more effectively than allowing a middle-man to do it for them.

Re:Copyright 101

[kimvette]

Untrue. They can argue that in court that they are making an archival copy of each DVD they have in inventory, and then as Copyright requires they are transferring all backups along with the original in order to comply with Copyright. When the MPAA WAH!!!! about the DMCA, they can point to the interoperability exclusion contained in the DMCA.

If they actually read the DMCA they will see that they are in the clear - PROVIDING they get a judge who isn't on the take.

The best course, though, is for this to go to a jury trial and have the jury judge the law, and then the law can be nullified.

Re:Copyright 101

[DragonWriter]

They can argue that in court that they are making an archival copy of each DVD they have in inventory,

A (movie) DVD is probably not a computer program under copyright law, and (aside from the special rules applicable to libraries or archives, which don't apply to this kind of company), the only exception for archival copying in copyright law is for computer programs (17 USC 117).

Re:Copyright 101

[positronica]

This company made unauthorized copies, which they proceeded to give to a customer. That's a copyright violation right there, because nowhere in the copyright act does it list an exemption of copying on behalf of somebody else...

But does there need to be a specific exemption for that? I think its perfectly reasonable to make the arguement that the exception that allows an end user to make copies for himself already covers an end user paying someone else to perform the labor required to make the copy.

Re:Copyright 101

[mark-t]

If a middle-man were permitted to make unauthorized copies (note, making unauthorized copies does not _necesssarily_ constitute copyright infringement) on behalf of an end user without infringement, the number of unauthorized copies could very easily be the same order of magnitude as the number of authorized copies, which largely defeats the purpose of someone having a copyright at all (ie, they may as well put it in public domain). If the end user alone bears responsibility for keeping any unauthorized copies non-infringing, the number of unauthorized copies is limited by the subset of users that are willing to invest the time and effort into making said copies (which in this day and age is not much, but it's still there). This subset may be numerically large, but it is still a lot smaller than the number of people out there.

Re:Copyright 101

[joe_n_bloe]

That's true, strictly speaking, and the DMCA has held up to all the challenges that I'm aware of. The "remedy" for it is legislation.

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn!

[bram]

Er zijn niets voor u om hier te zien, Belgische Burger!

This should be:

Er is hier niets te zien voor u, Belgische Burger!

Sounds awkward but would be better than the stuff you wrote.
Or I missed the jest of the joke.

Francophone? :)

In Their Eyes The're Stealing Because

[Chabil Ha']

the current business model for the Recording and Movie Industries is to sell you as many copies of the same content as possible. Sell you one copy on CD. One copy for your portable music player. One copy for your DVD. One copy for your PSP. One copy for your iPod. One copy for your BlueRay player. One copy etc this, one copy etc that.

This is the only way they can make money. If you only pay for one copy anymore, then you have effectively cut deeply into their expected revenue. People aren't going to the theater's because it is a one time experience. Why not just pick the DVD up and watch at your own convenience than sitting in a sweaty, smelly seat with over priced popcorn? Why pay for an iPod offering if you can just rip it from the DVD?

Sure you are stealing, you've cost them over $200 in lost revenue per piece of content. That's why they are lobbying so hard for DRM. That's why none of it is compatible with everything else. Otherwise, you're still only paying for that one copy.

Re:In Their Eyes The're Stealing Because

[Spock the Baptist]

Sure you are stealing, you've cost them over $200 in lost revenue per piece of content. That's why they are lobbying so hard for DRM. That's why none of it is compatible with everything else. Otherwise, you're still only paying for that one copy.

I have not COST them a thing. Your argument reminds me of an old chestnut of a logical problem that math, and logic professors have long loved to give freshman.

Three salesmen went into a hotel to rent a room. The manager stated that he had only one room left, but all three could use it for $30.00 for the night. The three salesmen gave him $10.00 each and went up to their room. Later, the manager decided that he had charged the salesmen too much so he called the bellhop over, gave him five one-dollar bills, and said: 'Take this $5.00 up to the salesmen and tell them I had charged them too much for the room'.
On the way up, the bellhop knew that he could not divide the five one-dollar bills equally so he put two of the one-dollar bills in his pocket and returned one one-dollar bill to each of the salesmen.
This means that each salesman paid $9.00 for the room.
The bellhop kept $2.00.
Three times nine is 27 plus two is 29.......
The Question: What happened to the extra dollar?

The answer is that there is no missing dollar, the whole 'puzzle' is based on misstatement, and semantic confusion.

Your assertion "Sure you are stealing, you've cost them over $200 in lost revenue per piece of content." is also based on misstatement, and semantic confusion. 'They' never had the $200 to began with, so I cost them nothing. 'They' may have believed, that is to say anticipated additional revenue, but the anticipation of additional revenue is not the additional revenue itself. It is the very real and profound difference between *actual*, and *potential*.

Let us examine the 'cola wars.'

I hate Pepsi, I'm ok with Coke, but I prefer Dr Pepper. I have in recent years switched to Diet Dr Pepper, and I will drink Diet Coke if Diet DP is not available, but I'll NOT drink Diet Pepsi.

Now Coke, and Pepsi both try to make restaurants offer their soft drinks exclusively. If I go to a restaurant that offers Diet Pepsi exclusively I'll simply order water, or take my business elsewhere. Now PepsiCo is doing all that it can to insure that I buy a Pepsi product, in choosing not to buy their product am I reducing PepsiCo's *potential* profits. Yes I am, but I am in no way stealing from them. They never got MY money in the first place, therefore it's still my money, and not theirs. I have indeed thwarted their marketing scheme to increase their profits, but that does NOT in any way mean that have cost them their own dollars. I have merely retained my dollars which they had hoped to obtain.

STB

Re:In Their Eyes The're Stealing Because

[Chabil Ha']

I have not COST them a thing. Your argument reminds me of an old chestnut of a logical problem that math, and logic professors have long loved to give freshman.

No flame war intended here, I'm afraid. Perhaps I should have put those dastardly <sarcasm /> tags; the freshmen drown without them.

I'm just pulling the peels off the eyes of people that the idea of DRM and other media locks is infinitely more sinister than petty file trading. You're absolutely right in that they lost no money that belonged to them, but they see it as potential revenue. But then you get into the sticky mess of: "Would the consumer have purchased our content for the device had the locks been there the whole time?" Now we're really slipping down the slope, aren't we?

No, the entertainment industry has landed itself in quite the quagmire. It will be interesting to see how things go as Vista usage increases--to the point where XP disappears like its predecessors. How much will the market withstand before it reacts--if ever? Will everyone flock to Linux? Some nerd's white dream it will happen. But who knows, as it has been said before: We live in interesting times.

Re:In Their Eyes The're Stealing Because

[mrchaotica]

I cordially invite you to take your argument and shove it up your ass, because the MPAA is not entitled to a damn thing! I don't give a fuck about their business model, and I refuse to give you my Fair Use rights. They can either accept that and change their business model accordingly, or they can die. They have no other choice.

Re:In Their Eyes The're Stealing Because

[Chabil Ha']

And I cordially invite you to read this.

They can either accept that and change their business model accordingly, or they can die.

Hear, hear.

They have no other choice.

Well, actually, they can continue to do business as usual, sue and alienate everyone they want, or even pursue the more DRM'd model they're on track to enforce. But as long as there is some device that can play unrestricted formats, it won't work.

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn!

[bram]

Even Clinton made some mistakes. No point in stressing it every time. The Bush administration is just inexcusable.
DMCrAp is something temporary, give us another couple of years and all things will be shareable.

Ah humanity.

My simple solution to stick it too them

[Charcharodon]

I like to donate movies to the local library, especially over-hyped crap ones. That way, without piracy, I can "steal" with a nice clear concious from the movie industry along with everyone else in town. Just imagine if everyone went out just once this year and bought one movie and gave it to the library, what that would do to sales and rentals. A simple and effective way to stick it to them and twist. Maybe they'll start paying attention to what we the customers want...

...yeh right we all know they'll try to either sue the libraries or get laws passed to make it illegal for libraries to distribute copyrighted material without their permission.

You are simply lying

[i kan reed]

Your argument holds no water. I can distribute my copy of a book. I own it. It's completely legal in spite of the fact that I have no consent from copyright owner. What I don't have permission to do is copy it.

I'm not a lawyer and there's a a good 2 centuries of legal precendent on this matter I don't know about, but fair use has to do with the kinds of copying you can do yourself without violating someone else's copyright. The example you usually hear trumpteted is backups.

Re:You are simply lying

[KingArthur10]

The business is making a copy of the DVD to the iPod (not copyright infringement if fair use laws are interpreted to include DVDs with Audio CDs). Then, upon selling the DVD to the consumer, it transfers all copies to the buyer, just as you are suppose to do if you sell a CD to someone else. I see no copyright violations unless the initial copying of the DVD is not protected under fair use clauses. The only true violation is DMCA violations as they are breaking the CSS copy protection clauses.

Re:You are simply lying

[X0563511]

Clearly, the solution is to ban CSS, repeal the DMCA, and make a constitutional amendment that makes lobbying a capital crime.

Re:You are simply lying

[MightyYar]

Audio and video are treated separately under copyright law.

Even if they weren't, this is not a copy made for backup purposes, but a derivative work that is meant to be viewed in addition to the original content.

Re:You are simply lying

[Pofy]

>The only true violation is DMCA violations as they are
>breaking the CSS copy protection clauses.

The encryption would be an access protection though, not copy protection since encryption doesn't prevent copying. In some countries (USA?) access is also protected in some ways under copyright, while in many others it is not and there, the difference between access protection and copy protection is quite important since copying is a aright of the copyright holder while access is not.

if

[Anonymous Coward]

If the MPAA wins, does this mean that companies that provide tape backup services maay refuse to backup any copyrighted material due to fears of litegation?

Agency law.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not the consumer doing it... but it is the consumer's "agent" acting under instructions from the consumer. If they were preloading and bundling BEFORE sale, that would be illegal. But they are doing it AFTER the sale, but before delivery and only upon the instruction of the consumer to do so.

Basic agency law -- if you instruct someone to do something, they are your agent and it is as if you were doing it yourself. There are only a limited and specific few things that you can't do by using an agent like this.

Re: DeCSS is not illegal

[Anonymous Coward]

> Otherwise your argument would be akin to saying that if someone loses their house key by accident,
> it's not illegal for you to use it to go into their house; obviously, that's a loser of an argument.

I don't know why these IP discussions always inspire "house and car analogies," because they are inevitably flawed, BUT to take that idea and run with it...

It's more akin to saying that if you rent instead of own your home, then you can't get two keys and it's illegal to have someone make you a copy of the one you have. God help you if you lose it. Forget about getting into your house; the landlord's right to prevent copying of keys is more important than your right to get through the door.

I wonder if this could be clarified?

[databank]

Multiple times I've heard that DVD's are not considered software and hence the argument of making "archival" copies is invalid.

Here's my question: Why aren't DVD's considered software? What's the exact definition of software that it fails to fall under?

From Wiki, the definition of software is:
"Software is a program that enables a computer to perform a specific task, as opposed to the physical components of the system (hardware). This includes application software such as a word processor, which enables a user to perform a task, and system software such as an operating system, which enables other software to run properly, by interfacing with hardware and with other software."

Further down it defines libraries as well:
"A program may not be sufficiently complete for execution by a computer. In particular, it may require additional software from a software library in order to be complete. Such a library may include software components used by stand-alone programs, but which cannot be executed on their own. Thus, programs may include standard routines that are common to many programs, extracted from these libraries. Libraries may also include 'stand-alone' programs which are activated by some computer event and/or perform some function (e.g., of computer 'housekeeping') but do not return data to their activating program...."

Is it really that hard of a reach that the contents of a DVD aren't part of the "library" for a "program" such as a dvd player or Windows Media Player? Otherwise there really isn't much of a task that a program performs without it. Ultimately its still just a bunch of digitally inscribed data that requires a computer to play it. Isn't the task that is being performed the "viewing" of a movie?

I guess maybe I'm just wondering exactly what is the definition of a DVD that sets it apart from software since for all technical reasons is no different then the programs that are on the DVD media itself? What sets it apart? After all, a bunch of actors may have had to get together to create the content of the DVD but a bunch of programmers had to get together to create the content of the software on the DVD? Where's the dividing line?

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn!

[bogjobber]

Actually, you said this:

2) Roll back the fascict laws, introduced by the Bush Administration (Patriot act, DCMA, and the likes)

Also, when referring to Americans, it is probably not best to call us yanks (at least directly). A lot of people consider that a pejorative term. Unless you mean it that way, I would suggest staying away from it.

Knowledge is Avoidance Power

[pmcizhere]

Why don't people just learn to use relatively simple tools to copy over their movies??? I mean, I taught my own mother how to do it, and she's very "computer illiterate."

DMCA requires all movies on 8-track tapes...

[Anonymous Coward]

When will content developers realize the technology has moved far beyond their tiny little minds original concept?

Would it be smart to have a law requiring all music produced on 78 rpm Albums?
How about movies recorded on Wax Cylinders ?
Only 13" Black and White TVs are legal?
Punched Hole Papyrus based video games?

DVD is F'ing Dead.
Ipods are the new media.

Vacuum Tubes are out.
Long live Solid State iPods.

Grow Up and Embrace and Extend the 2000s -
Stop trying to live in the 1950s.

The Digital Freedom Campaign

[Barkmullz]

I think this is an excellent time to point out that you can do your part and join the Digital Freedom Campaign. You can send a letter to congress or just sign the petition.

Re:The Digital Freedom Campaign

[freedom_india]

Your Digital Freedom Campaign means NOTHING.
1. Does it send campaign money to Senators?
2. Does it provide millions of dollars to their campaign funds?
3. Does it provide their family with cushy jobs?
4. Does it provide free holiday trips to Tahiti and like?
If your answer is NO to one or more questions, then you have as much possibility of repealing DMCA as saddam had for going scot-free.

Re:The Digital Freedom Campaign

[Anonymous Coward]

You are right, apathy and cynicism will make a much greater impact

Not just video...

[bill_mcgonigle]

(5) Can a user pay someone, in any way, to copy their DVD onto any other device they own?

Boy, I hope so, otherwise my clients are going to have to install their own damn operating systems (OSS excluded, of course).

analog hole

[qwp]

Awe.. and who says they are breaking CSS when they do it
couldn't they just as easily said they bought a dvd player, and captured the input and encoded it?
Would that not be a legal way to make a digital copy?

This is really a childish game put on by the MPAA..
They get their dam'ed money in the end, their problem is that they don't get enough..
Saddly Expect to see more of these.
with the speed of internet/cpu's today there is absolutely no reason why we do not have
fully functioning remote libraries of movies purchased with public funds.

Re:analog hole

[loupgarou21]

I would agree with you on most of that, and also agree that there is no technical reason not to have a fully functioning remote library of movies, but I don't believe that using public funds to create a socialized media library of all movies would actually be in the spirit of capitolism.

I think that purchasing a single copy of a movie should grant you complete rights to watch it in any medium (in a personal fashion) and also to make personal copies, but I also believe that my buying it shouldn't give those rights to my neigbor unless he buys it as well.

Ripping outside of USA?

[imuffin]

I live in Texas, just a few hours from the Mexican border. I've often wondered what legal recourse the MPAA would have if I opened up a mail-order DVD ripping shop, but circumvented the encryption in Mexico. I figure I could do all the administrative work here, including loading the customer's encrypted DVD to a hard drive. Then drive down to a Mexican border town once a week and, while I sit in a bar sipping Tequila, or passed out in a cheap motel, my laptop furiously (and legally (?)) decrypts DVDs.

When I return home, hungover, the next day, I send out my customers' backups along with their original DVDs.

Have I broken any American laws?

Re:Ripping outside of USA?

[pembo13]

They'd probably wait until you were in Mexico and send som thugs to beat you into a pulp...ask yourself...why wouldn't they.

Re:Ripping outside of USA?

[SonicSpike]

You will need to talk to two attorneys. A run-of-the-mill criminal defense attorney (preferably one that knows about international/border laws - should be plenty in your area or S. Calif) and then a copyright/"IP" attorney. They will both be expensive to consult with, but will be able to tell you if your business model is legit or not.

Under the DMCA

[j0nb0y]

Under the DMCA, ripping a DVD is illegal.
Making a backup copy of a DVD is illegal.
Format shifting a DVD is illegal.
Possessing a tool which can do any of the above is illegal.
Distributing a tool which can do any of the above is illegal.

If the DMCA had been around in 1980, the VCR would have been shut down by the MPAA long before it ever hit store shelves.

The DMCA is a bad piece of legislation. Congress passed it because the movie industry asked them too.

Congress needs to start thinking for themselves and not passing every single BS piece of legislation that special interest groups ask them to pass.

We just got rid of a whole lot of congressmen, and brought in quite a few new ones, but unfortunately, I see no indications that the new lot will be any better than the old.

Re:Under the DMCA

[Scarletdown]

Congress needs to start thinking for themselves and not passing every single BS piece of legislation that special interest groups pay them to pass.

There, I fixed your typo for you. :D

Re:Under the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

How did the parent get modded so high? IANAL, but lets take a look:

Under the DMCA, ripping a DVD is illegal.

Wrong. Ripping an encrypted DVD is illegal.

Making a backup copy of a DVD is illegal.

Wrong. Making a backup copy of an encrypted DVD is illegal.

Format shifting a DVD is illegal.

Wrong. Format shifting an encrypted DVD is illegal. (Notice a pattern yet?)

Possessing a tool which can do any of the above is illegal.

Wrong. There is a specific exemption in the DMCA for possession of such tools

Distributing a tool which can do any of the above is illegal.

Wrong. Distribution of a tool that allows the circumvention of an "effective" copy protection measure (such as encryption) is illegal. Distribution of a tool that can only copy/backup/format-shift unencrypted DVD's would be legal under the DMCA.

If the DMCA had been around in 1980, the VCR would have been shut down by the MPAA long before it ever hit store shelves

Wrong. If this were true, then it would also be illegal to rip a CD to mp3. However, CD's do not have any encryption on them, and so you can rip, backup and format shift all you like and not be liable under the DMCA.

If you are going to bitch about a bad law, maybe you should actually read it first?

*AA is the new mafia

[jonfr]

All those *AA groups (even those who don't have *AA in there name) is the new legal mafia. They demand protection money, like Microsoft. They act like thugs and theives, lie, cheat and steal from the artist them self to pocket there own bank accounts.

They should all be banned by law.

Re:*AA is the new mafia

[Anonymous Coward]

Not "legal mafia," exactly. It's more like "legal pimps." They take the money, while their employees (the artists) and their customers both get fucked.

Re:*AA is the new mafia

[loupgarou21]

The entertainment industry has historically had some pretty strong ties to organized crime, is this all that suprising?

Where can I donate to their defense fund?

[iendedi]

Seriously, we should all donate to a defense fund (perhaps the EFF) to fight this battle bitterly. The MPAA needs to be given a clear, unambiguous message concerning fair use.

MODS: parent is NOT insightful, and here's why

[mrchaotica]

Wait a second... so you're saying that all these little shops selling white-box PCs and individuals building computers for other people are all committing copyright infringment? I don't know what kind of fantasy world you live in, but I'm sure glad I don't live there too!

Re:MODS: parent is NOT insightful, and here's why

[MightyYar]

The Windows EULA appears to permit this:

Windows EULA

Without the EULA, its not even clear that it would be legal to copy the software to your own computer!

Re:MODS: parent is NOT insightful, and here's why

[RKThoadan]

The idea that it is illegal to copy the software from the CD to your computer (aka install it) is the entire basis for EULAs. I don't know if that has ever been challenged in court yet, but probably not.

Anything that calls inself a license is supposed to be giving you the right to do something that would be otherwise illegal. In this case, it's copying the software from CD to Hard Drive.

Re: DeCSS is not illegal

[mrchaotica]

You know what? This entire topic of discussion is fucking absurd! Do you, or do you not, realize that the movie publishers' act of selling the DVDs ought to mean the buyer is entitled to, you know, actually use the thing he bought? Do you, or do you not, realize that it's insane for an outside party to be able to lock an owner away from using his own property? What gives the MPAA a legitimate right to do this? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!

Try using some common sense for a minute, and you'll see how ridiculous you just sounded.

Encryption?

[one_red_eye]

If they're so worried about having the encryption on the DVD broken, why don't they use stronger encryption? Every time they release a new encryption protocol it gets cracked fairly quickly. If I can encrypt my filesystems such that is would take 100 years of computing to crack, why can't the MPAA encrypt DVD filesystems such that they take more that a week to crack?

Re:Encryption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because even if they encrypt it, the device you are watching it on has to decrypt it. How else are you going to watch it? Therefore no matter how strong of an encryption they use, it can always be broken as the end-user has the key to decrypt it. Doh.

Re:Encryption?

[Unknown_monkey]

The analog hole. Until there are no DVD players with RCA/Svideo outputs and only digital that can communicate the restrictions and all devices are required to have those protocols. This was the secret of the machines. Then they rose up and smoted their former masters.

Re: Encryption?

[AtomicJake]

If they're so worried about having the encryption on the DVD broken, why don't they use stronger encryption?

Because the millions of existing DVD players wouldn't be able to play the stronger encrypted DVDs?

Re:Encryption?

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. In other words, they're giving you the safe and the combination and trying to figure out how to make it so you can only open the safe when they want you to.

Re:delicate but this is LAW we are dicussing

[Anonymous Coward]

The LAW is not SANE as sanity is understood by mere mortals

The following is my understanding of the way one nasty GOTCHA works in the US of A (IANATA [Tax Accountant] IANAL)

CASE 1:
401 k proceedes from old employer sent DIRECTLY to "rollover IRA" account -account holder never sees a check.

CASE 2:
401 k proceedes from old employer sent as a check to account holder, who then deposits check in same "rollover IRA" account

RESULT: Same money in same account

CASE 1: account holder keeps money (in rollover account)
Case 2: account holder keeps money (in SAME rollover account) MINUS (taxes on proceedes AS INCOME plus PENALTIES)

this has been tested the mpaa is out of there mind

[luther349]

the entire dcss thing was tested and proven ripping a dvd you own into another format including breaking the crypto is not illagle even under the dcma. the company is not pireting the dvds couse there also provided to the custmer on the sale that mean guss what you own all the content. but its true the law needs to get tossed out what a wast of the courts time i hope it does to go to court couse thers o reasion for the mpaa to be suing them.

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn!

[luther349]

he was probly stoned at the time.

Oh.

[Sippan]

So, the MPAA's got a DA against an SMB for ripping DVDs against the DMCA, eh? WTF mate?

Re:Oh.

[neminem]

Samba? What does windows file sharing have to do with it? :p

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't believe Clinton had control of either the house or the senate when this law came into being. Republicans of all stripes brought it in, adopted it, and made it so that Clinton couldn't even veto it. You protest too much. You should study American politics, or at least try to figure out who did what. The DMCA was a republican GOP idea. Orrin Hatch is republican, so was Sonny Bono, and his wife Mary (she was one of the three main sponsors when it was reintroduced). The idea was to sell personal liberties for money, so of course it was republican.

Because of the DMCA

[Anonymous Coward]

It makies the trafficking of decryption software for openeing up copyrighted works is illegal. And you are now a self-confessed criminal. Expect the MPAA to be looking you up.

Why dont we all just sue them instead ?

[unity100]

For violating fair use conditionals in expense of the consumer in this and many other incidents and continuing harrasment, intimidation and oppression of consumers through use of law agencies ?

Why dont we 1000-2000 (heck maybe hundreds of thousands) people file a lawsuit and let them get a few billion $ payment in punitive damages ? like in paypal case ?

Re:'Nothing to see here' DVD == Computer program?

[scsirob]

I think there a very strong argument to call the entire content of the DVD a computer program. It contains instruction for the DVD player to assemble a menu and possibly some options, and instructions on how to reproduce images and sound.

The actual 'work of art' isn't on the DVD. On the DVD is a bitstream which describes how to reproduce the work of art. The interpretation of the bitstream is done by a chipset or a piece of software inside the DVD player. This once again makes the bitstream a computer program.

Don't stick it to them that way.

[WK1]

No, don't do that! Don't buy movies!

I agree with giving copyrighted works to libraries. But I disagree that this is a particularly effective way to stick it to them. How many people in your town have a library card?

I fear that the actual buying of a movie to give it to the library might make the MPAA more money than if you hadn't done anything.

Wanna know my solution? I download and share movies with eMule. Sure, it's illegal. But I view it as my duty.

If you want to stick it to the MPAA, but not do anything illegal, you'll have to find another solution. Please don't let it include giving money to the MPAA.

Re:Don't stick it to them that way.

[Charcharodon]

You've never been to a military base library then. Practically everyone on base has a card and know about the movies. We do the same thing college text books as well. It usually takes six months before I start seeing any of the movies I've donated to stick around on the shelves, because they are checked out so often. This method also lets the non-computer literate participate in "Piracy" as well.

The MPAA wrote the law and paid for it, so they...

[HiThere]

The MPAA wrote the law and paid for it, so they should know.

I can accept that this perfectly legitimate business is a violation of the law. It's that kind of a law. Personally I'm in favor of extreme prejudice against every legislator who voted in favor of it, every lobbyist who campaigned in favor of it, and every executive who hired them to do so. This isn't going to happen.

Since the DMCA was passed I have begun to consider pirates more moral than either legislators or businessmen. (I know. I know. Faint praise and all that. They don't rate more than faint praise.)

P.S.: Every time you buy a movie tie-in you are supporting the MPAA. Every time you pay money to see a movie you are supporting the MPAA. This is a bad idea.

Definition of "effective" according to the DMCA

[lrodrig]

According to section 1201(a)(3)(b) of the DMCA "a technological measure 'effectively controls access to a work' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work."

Let's Set the Record Straight

[Anonymous Coward]

There seem to be some misconceptions that need to be cleared up:

1) This is a violation of fair use rights.

No it isn't. Fair use rights are a creation of Congress. Since Congress passed the DMCA the rules of statutory construction dictate that the DMCA supersedes fair use legislation enacted prior to the DMCA. The legal assumption is that any abdication of fair use rights resulting from the DMCA were intentional.

2) The court should make a ruling doing "the right thing"

Courts are not free to ignore the law. Their job is not to decide what is fair, unfortunately. They are bound by the law. As long as the law isn't unconstitutional they must uphold it. That means they can only decide whether the actions of the defendants actually violated the law as it is written - fair or not.

Contrary to what crazed Republicans tell you, judges cannot legislate from the bench. That means they can't even make a ruling on a question that was not presented to them by one of the parties to the suit. If the defendants don't challenge the constitutionality of the DMCA, the judge cannot consider that.

Excuse me?

[woolio]

(Emphasis mine). It says "no action". The use of a digital audio recorder by a consumer for non-commercial purposes is pretected.

Ah, no... Re-Read what you yourself typed:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright ...

There are three key words you left out: "under this title"

The title just says end-users can't be arrested for buying blank CDs/recorders/etc if they using them for non-commercial use.

I should think that using such devices to copy video/musical recordings and then SELLING them would consistute COMMERCIAL USE. (Regardless of what non-commercial uses the end consumer does).

The group in the article will be toast.

The potential

[jdbartlett]

True, but due to technical issues they did not add higher-resolution video support to the older 320x240 capable 5th gen iPod Video.

Apple hasn't released or even hinted at an iPod Video custom development SDK. I hope they do, but doubt they will.

In the meantime, you're welcome to try developing such a system for iPod Linux. I doubt you'll get very far.