DMCA Exemptions Don't Matter

sbma44 followed up to the recent news that jailbreaking iPhones is now legal with an article about DMCA exemptions. He says "The American Prospect has an article up that argues that focus on specific DMCA exemptions is silly, the practical upshot is about zero, and the underlying law remains as rotten as ever."

Comments

My first response as well

[OrangeTide]

I had the same reaction myself. These kinds of laws just need to die.

Re:My first response as well

[betterunixthanunix]

The DMCA is not going to die any time soon, and we need to accept that the battle was lost in 1998. Now we have to find a way to live with the DMCA and try to get as many exceptions to the anti-circumvention clause as possible, with a focus on the most relevant and pressing exceptions (jail breaking cell phones, freeing ebooks etc.). That, or we can try to get the majority of people to wake up and realize how their apathy has led to a situation where megacorps take advantage of them, and hopefully those people will actually do something about it -- I won't hold my breath though.

Re:My first response as well

[bit9]

When I look at the current state of IP law, the one thing that always strikes me is how far we've fallen since the Sony vs. Universal case in 1984. That wasn't that long ago, and yet in that relatively short amount of time, IP law has done a complete 180-degree turn. Well, seemingly, anyway - I'm sure if I went back and looked closer, I would probably find that things weren't quite as clear cut in 1984 as it felt like they were. Nonetheless, to go from having SCOTUS declare that timeshifting == fair use to having a federal law that criminalizes fair use (which is essentially what DMCA does, since you have to circumvent CSS et all these days in order to exercise your fair use rights) in such a short time is something I find difficult to wrap my mind around.

Re:My first response as well

[Thinboy00]

IIRC Universal v. Reimerdes (the DeCSS case) failed to consider First Amendment and Fair Use, instead focusing on the fact that DeCSS itself was not intended for fair use. If they went after e.g. libdvdcss, they would IMHO (IANAL) be forced to overturn the DMCA due to those issues.

Re:My first response as well

[betterunixthanunix]

I think it is just as likely that the courts would find that since there are plenty of DVD players licensed by the MPAA, including software implementations, that the DMCA does not deny anyone their rights. "Reasonable and non-discriminatory" is the phrase that comes to my mind; most judges are not free software supporters.

Re:My first response as well

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

When I look at the current state of IP law, the one thing that always strikes me is how far we've fallen since the Sony vs. Universal case in 1984.

If you think a ruling in a case between two major multinational corporations in any way represented a high point in fair use doctrine, you'd want to start thinking again. IP law has always been and will always be structured and modified, for and at the behest of corporations only. No other group has ever or will ever have its interests considered. Read up on the history of copyright and discover that it has always been a publishers law, and all amendments to it have been in the explicit interests of such groups.

Re:My first response as well

[SleazyRidr]

It's also interesting to note that Sony have gone from the people helping to enable fair use, to the evil overlords of the copyright dominion.

Re:My first response as well

[hedwards]

First off CSS isn't protected by the DMCA, it fails to be effective or a copy protection measure. Subsequently the anti-circumvention shouldn't apply in the first place. Secondly, it is neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory. One of the big drivers of DeCSS was the fact that there were no options for many platforms at all. If you use Windows or Mac, fine there's plenty of options, but FreeBSD for instance doesn't as far as I know have one even now that isn't based upon DeCSS.

Secondly, it's an effort to control what players can play the media, not who can make copies, and that's important, even without DeCSS it was trivial to make a copy of a DVD, it would just be bitwise identical to the original including CSS and any region coding.

Re:My first response as well

[MasterOfMagic]

When you go primarily from a content reproducer (Walkman, Discman, VHS VCR) to content producer (Sony Picture Studios, Sony Computer Entertainment), your view on fair use changes. Fair use is good when you are primarily a content reproducer as it ensures that people have a reason to buy your product. Fair use is no good when you are primarily a content producer as it gives people a reason to not buy another copy of your product.

Re:My first response as well

[TrisexualPuppy]

Nay, let's just focus on the facts.

We are in a political quagmire and should take any means necessary to protect our common interests. DMCA exemptions are basically our wedge into the crack, and if we hammer enough wedges, we can make the crack that much bigger. The exceptions really are our best bet right now.

Re:My first response as well

[cynyr]

links to linux dvd players that are in the same price range($0) as mplayer, and vlc, or "reasonable and non-discriminatory" isn't in effect. IMO.

Re:My first response as well

[MikeBabcock]

Effectiveness of the Copyright protection system in question is not part of the DMCA's provisions. Circumventing a password-protected ZIP file could be held against you if the Copyright holder claimed it was an anti-circumvention measure.

Re:My first response as well

[bit9]

Are you just a karma whore, or do you have reading comprehension problems. Why else would you waste your energy pointing out something I already conceded in my original post?

Re:My first response as well

[schon]

First off CSS isn't protected by the DMCA

The legal system disagrees with you. Seeing as they are y'know lawyers and judges, I hope you won't be offended that I believe them over you.

it fails to be effective

Incorrect. It may be ineffective from a technical perspective, but it clearly qualifies as effective under the definition in the DMCA.

or a copy protection measure.

Mu. It doesn't need to be a copy protection measure - it needs to "prevent access" - which it does.

Subsequently the anti-circumvention shouldn't apply in the first place.

Incorrect.

Secondly, it is neither reasonable nor non-discriminatory.

Which is pretty meaningless. Under the DMCA, technological measures have no such requirements. In fact, when addressing the issue of "I can't play these movies on my OS of choice", the Copyright office said that argument was the equivalent of demanding VHS systems play Betamax tapes.

Re:My first response as well

[elrous0]

how far we've fallen since the Sony vs. Universal case in 1984

I think 1984 has pretty much become synonymous with "freedom."

Re:My first response as well

[DontLickJesus]

Agree with parent whole-heartedly. Taking down the DMCA in one full swoop just isn't feasible in our current position. The more exemptions we can tack onto the law the more useless and bloated it appears to law makers. Place enough pebbles on a bridge and eventually it will crack.

Re:My first response as well

[sjames]

It's always been a mess, it's just that it didn't matter as much then.

As with many things applied to human decisions and behavior, as long as the rules are seen as a guideline rather than an absolute and the default is to cut everyone a little slack, things can work OK. The more you try to tighten up the rules, the more obvious it becomes that the rules haven't really captured the spirit of the public's views and don't really fit well with human behavior.

The DMCA was exactly that ill-fated attempt to tighten up the rules.

Enforcement is another issue. As long as enforcement requires actual legwork and effort, particularly if it requires a lot of effort, a sense of proportion is effectively enforced most of the time. We can at least hope the cops spend their efforts going after the real bad guys and leave the rest. When it is reduced down to point and click automation (such as the RIAA lawsuits), it also reveals the flaws in the laws being enforced. Ideally, the laws would be better written to avoid absurdities, respond proportionally, and actually capture the public's beliefs on right and wrong, but it's better than nothing.

Re:My first response as well

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

My point isn't that the case wasn't that clear cut. My point was that regardless of the outcome, the case was never meant to protect or enhance the rights of ordinary people; it was only meant to affect the rights of corporations and content producers. It's not possible to properly understand copyright laws or law cases by assuming that they are concerned with the rights of the general public. In fact, the case never decided on the legality of home recording, merely skirting around the issue by saying that it could be legal in certain circumstances. It only decided on the rights or corporations to enable such activities to take place.

Re:My first response as well

[davester666]

1) This exemption is only good for 2 more years [as it's already 1 year into the cycle], and it's pretty narrowly targeted at schools/educators. And no, claiming to run a class explaining something to your coworkers doesn't cover you ripping Star Wars. And you can bet the lobbying for this exemption to not be renewed [which it has to be, it's not automatic] will get ratcheted up, just to make sure it doesn't get expanded at all.
2) If anything, contract law is doing more to suppress your fair-use rights than copyright law such as the DMCA. The MPAA uses contract law to prevent companies from producing things like DVD jukeboxes [where you rip DVD's to a HD and then play the video from the HD or from Apple being able to add the ability to rip DVD's to iTunes so you can watch movies on your iPad], because you need to sign a contract to gain permission to implement a DVD player.
2) The DMCA is just the newest deadbolt on the door to you exercising your fair-use rights. You're only fooling yourself if you believe the MPAA/RIAA thinks current copyright law is sufficient.

Re:My first response as well

[bit9]

My point isn't that the case wasn't that clear cut.

No, your point was this:

If you think a ruling in a case between two major multinational corporations in any way represented a high point in fair use doctrine, you'd want to start thinking again.

But this is something I already acknowledged by saying this:

Well, seemingly, anyway - I'm sure if I went back and looked closer, I would probably find that things weren't quite as clear cut in 1984 as it felt like they were.

by which I clearly meant that the balance of copyright law in 1984 was not tipped completely in favor of the consumer, but that it merely seems like it was compared to the fucked up situation we find ourselves in now.

If your point is just that copyright law is there to protect corporations and not consumers, you could have just said that instead of beating on a strawman about how 1984 was not a high point of copyright law.

Re:My first response as well

[vuffi_raa]

That, or we can try to get the majority of people to wake up and realize how their apathy has led to a situation where megacorps take advantage of them

It isn't apathy so much as ignorance- most of the public doesn't participate in the argument because they don't understand it. Most of the consuming public don't realize the brick walls are in place till they hit one. At that point they think the laws are ludicrous, but it isn't even in their collective peripheral vision, that's why things like the DMCA get passed- people don't immediately notice or make the connection that they ever will.

Re:My first response as well

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

by which I clearly meant that the balance of copyright law in 1984 was not tipped completely in favor of the consumer, but that it merely seems like it was compared to the fucked up situation we find ourselves in now.

It wasn't tipped in the consumers favour at all. I'd argue that the case itself effectively reduced fair use in the US by refusing to rule on whether home video recording in and of itself was legal or not.

The entire point of your post was that the 1984 ruling represented a high point of sorts from which we have declined. My point is that there has never been a high point in copyright law as far as citizens are concerned, only a long decline since the concept was first introduced. The case wasn't a high point, and while it was a higher point that where we are now, I wouldn't really call it a high point by itself.

Re:My first response as well

[bit9]

The entire point of your post was that the 1984 ruling represented a high point of sorts from which we have declined.

You're almost right, but not quite. If you re-read everything I've posted here, you will see that at no point did I claim 1984 was some sort of local maxima, only that we have declined significantly since then.

My point is that there has never been a high point in copyright law as far as citizens are concerned, only a long decline since the concept was first introduced.

I would mostly agree with that, but I do think there has probably been at least some degree of ebb and flow. Whether or not SCOTUS intended to score any points on behalf of consumers, their 1984 ruling did exactly that. Just because Sony happened to also benefit doesn't mean that it was bad for consumers. If anything, the decline you've mentioned has been in favor of content producers, and the 1984 decision was a definite blow to content producers - a group which Sony was not a member in 1984.

Re:My first response as well

[linuxrocks123]

That page hasn't been updated since 2000. The law has changed substantially since then.

Screw CSS

[Pojut]

FTFA:

"...the exemption now specifically applies only to CSS, the technology used to encrypt DVD contents. There's no mention of AACS, the equivalent technology for Blu-ray discs, or of HDCP, the DRM system most likely to make installing your next TV a nightmarish ordeal"

The CSS portion of that is a HUGE positive. I would imagine that Blu-Ray and HDCP are too new to be considered for this kind of exemption...but knowing that I'm legally allowed to circumvent CSS is extremely noteworthy.

The CSS change and the "unlock phone for any network" change are both huge. WTF is the title talking about, that the exemptions don't matter? People have been wanting just those two for years.

Re:Screw CSS

[Anonymous Coward]

The CSS change and the "unlock phone for any network" change are both huge. WTF is the title talking about, that the exemptions don't matter? People have been wanting just those two for years.

The title is implying that whilst people have been wanting just those two for years, now that it has happened it's too little too late. In other words, it's pandering to public perception whilst pocketing from the industry, who are in fact looking to the next 3 years, not the last (Blu-ray, HDCP, and what have you).

Re:Screw CSS

[jedidiah]

This stuff matters for the reasons that the MPAA and RIAA complained about.

These exceptions carve out rights for individuals in a law that otherwise tries to screw individuals.

It's a far from ideal situation but it is a start.

Re:Screw CSS

[metiscus]

The author is arguing that the DMCA legislates to private citizens the disallowed behaviors that they have with technology devices that they have purchased themselves which may be necessary to simply use the device. The author disagrees with the premise that there should be laws that dictate to private citizens what they can do with their own technology. The final line in the article sums that point up pretty well:

"The exemptions are fine; they hardly matter. It's the fact that we need them at all that's the problem."

Re:Screw CSS

[Pojut]

Agreed, but downplaying successes, regardless of how small (or pandering) they may be, sounds very childish.

Too little, too late? I don't know about you, but my DVD collection is still an order of magnitude larger than my Blu-Ray collection.

Re:Screw CSS

[betterunixthanunix]

A great argument...and 12 years too late. The DMCA is already signed into law, and there is no indication that anyone with any power is going to repeal it. It enjoys the support of democrats and republicans, and both Presidents Bush and Obama are pushing for similar laws to be passed in other countries, as well as for the DMCA to be strengthened here in the USA. The likelihood that this law is going to be repealed or overturned is effectively nil, and that is a reality that we have to live with for the time being.

Exemptions are the new battle, and we need to get as many of them passed as we possibly can.

Re:Screw CSS

[Andy Dodd]

They don't matter. All they mean is that a carrier/phone manufacturer team can't use the DMCA to go after jailbreakers and SIM-unlockers.

However:
They can still put the anti-jailbreaking and SIMlocking technical measures in place
They can still legally put in measures that "brick" phones in response to trying to defeat the above if they wish
They can still structure their service contracts in a manner such that SIM-unlocking doesn't buy you that much.
They can still structure their warranties such that if anything else goes wrong with the phone you're SOL if it's SIM-unlocked or jailbroken

Really, for iPhone users, the DMCA was probably the least of their worries if they wanted to jailbreak or remove SIMlocks.

Re:Screw CSS

[metiscus]

The DMCA is another example of the widening disconnect between the citizenry and the special interest dollars that drive our politics, particularly with respect to matters of IP. I assert that, had the law been brought to a vote by the average citizen in terms of its implications, it would never have become law.

Re:Screw CSS

[blackraven14250]

I think the author of TFA expects for the law to be written correctly, rather than made up on the fly as it is written now.

Re:Screw CSS

[Pojut]

I currently own a bit over 700 DVDs. I also currently own exactly 4 Blu-Ray discs. Most of the time, we get stuff through Netflix (we have the "6 at a time" option, and stream a metric fuckton of movies and shows...Wii for non-HD content, Xbox 360 for HD content.)

The only reason I can play Blu-Ray discs is because I have a PS3.

Also, in case you are interested, here are the four Blu-Rays I've bought:

Blade Runner
The Dark Knight
Lord of the Rings Trilogy
District 9

Re:Screw CSS

[Anonymous Coward]

The average citizen does not understand or particularly care about esoteric copyright concerns, which is why there isn't a widespread outrage over the DMCA outside of the computer nerd subculture.

Besides, it wasn't all bad; the anticircumvention part is pure bullshit but shielding service providers from responsibility of their users infringement was a pretty good idea.

Re:Screw CSS

[Anonymous Coward]

They can still structure their warranties such that if anything else goes wrong with the phone you're SOL if it's SIM-unlocked or jailbroken

People keep saying this, but in practice, doing so would turn into a Magnuson Moss class action faster than you can say "What warranty terms?"

Re:Screw CSS

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

HDCP was only a nightmare when I turned my PS3 on first, THEN my TV initially after plugging it in.

Every subsequent power on, it can go on in any fashion I'd like. same with my cable box.

HDCP is like the diet coke of DRM solutions; doesn't actually solve anything and at the same time doesn't really hinder life.

OTOH, AACS is a different story.

Re:Screw CSS

[Real1tyCzech]

...add to this the fact that while the "exceptions" apply only to CSS...that does not in any way mean the same logic *cannot* be used to argue fair use for AACS...or whatever floats your boat.

*Way* too many people are taking this rulemaking to mean, "This is Legal...everything else is not". Problem is, that is possibly the most incorrect way to interpret this. Fair Use is not about making blanket statements like that. Fact is, any of his talk could be over-ruled in court...today. Fair Use is decided on a case-by-case basis. It does not give *any* use carte-blanche legality or illegality.

The only benefit here is that when making an argument for Fair Use that fits the statements made by the Register of Copyrights, you have some semblance of "official" backing. That's it.

It doesn't make bypassing CSS any more legal, nor does it make doing the same to AACS any less legal. It just gives you a bit more backing when arguing a certain instance falls under Fair Use.

Re:Screw CSS

[AndersOSU]

It's stupid is what it is, and they know that it's stupid. They're basically saying that we know there's a good reason that consumers want to break DRM, ans what's more we agree that it's a good reason and you should be able to break the DRM, but we're still only going to let you do it on outdated tech.

Re:Screw CSS

[AndersOSU]

Unless you're putting together movie clips for commentary, you're still not allowed to break CSS. The library of Congress didn't say you're allowed to break DRM for any fair-use purpose, they said you can break it in order to accomplish the following activities

the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

        (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
        (ii) Documentary filmmaking;
        (iii) Noncommercial videos.

You'll note that backing up your movies or shifting the media of your movies is conspicuously absent.

Re:Screw CSS

[flitty]

To be fair, the exemption did add a provision for using very small amounts of code from the manufacturer, which is a pretty big deal for any modding community. Most of the issues that i've seen come from distribution of the code to end users, because that code usually involved a minor amount of manufacturer code (or didn't involve it and required some work on the end user's part). Now, as long as that code is small enough portion of the overall code, distribution of jailbreaking code is now less of a legal risk.

Re:Screw CSS

[BassMan449]

I think this is the wrong attitude to take. You are conceding that the special interests are too powerful to ever get this law overturned. While I agree that that is likely the case right now, if you aren't willing to fight against it that will never change.

Are Constitution/Government was designed to make it possible to recover from this situation. If we can elect the right people (much easier said than done), it is possible to take back control of our government. We just need people to start taking a more active role in politics. In order to get special interests out of politics we need the electorate to be more responsive. If we can stop bad politicians from being able to get re-elected simply by out-spending any alternatives then we could make the money less important.

Re:Screw CSS

[Lumpy]

I own about as many DVD's and still buy them.
But I have started buying bluray discs but do not own anything that can play bluray discs.. I rip them and play them on my XBMC.

I have not watched a regular DVD in over 3 years now as well, any new DVD I buy we instantly rip it and put it on my home on demand system.

Why? because I dont have 20 minutes to waste for all the "must watch cant skip" crap in the beginning. I want to watch the movie not the commercials and you are a criminal videos..

Re:Screw CSS

[Cajun Hell]

Ok, do that. But also vote against the Republicans and Democrats. Getting it repealed should never be taken off the table, and anyone who runs for Congress without that on their agenda, needs to be told that they're running on the "fuck the public" platform.

Re:Screw CSS

[Eponymous Coward]

Just because it hasn't hindered you, doesn't mean it hasn't for anybody.

A lot of HDTV early adopters have been burned because the first generation sets don't support HDCP. So, even though your TV can do 1080p, your PS3 won't.

You can argue if that's really hindering anything since it will still play at a lower resolution, but I still think it sucks. It certainly curbed my urge to be an early adopter of anything now.

And it certainly did make piracy more difficult. Without HDCP, it would be almost trivial to make a signal capture device to capture the unencrypted video stream. As far as I know, BluRay has only been broken because of software players.

Re:Screw CSS

[hedwards]

Actually, the anti-circumvention rule doesn't apply to CSS.

1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

I don't think that anybody would seriously suggest that CSS is an effective means of controlling a work. Considering that any number of licensed implementations exist and that you can easily do it yourself with DeCSS.

Re:Screw CSS

[hedwards]

It would've almost certainly passed. The populace has been willing to vote for politicians that openly flaunted their opposition to basic human rights, what on Earth would make you think that something more abstract would get a no vote?

Re:Screw CSS

[AndersOSU]

The DMCA helpfully defines "effective" as "well, we gave it a shot."

(B) 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.

Re:Screw CSS

[cynyr]

seems like those would fall under "(iii) Noncommercial videos" to me, it's a video, that i'm not doing anything commercial with.

Re:Screw CSS

[metiscus]

People don't care about Africa but don't get between them and their Heroes season 1 dvd set.

Re:Screw CSS

[russotto]

Exemptions are the new battle, and we need to get as many of them passed as we possibly can.

Exemptions are worthless because as they legitimize the act of circumvention, they do not legitimize the tools for doing so. There's no point in wasting effort fighting over worthless scraps. If the law is evil and can't be overturned or repealed, then the place to spend effort is in devising ways to violate it without getting caught.

Re:Screw CSS

[sbma44]

My point is that *in practice* the specifics of the exemptions don't matter. They establish a foothold, and a gray zone of consumer use in which even tools that violate the DMCA are available. Put another way: how many people reading this thread will now be ripping DVDs that weren't before Monday's announcement?

Yes, the law matters, and no, it's not good to break it. But the point is that the DMCA's mechanisms create a situation where consumers aren't prosecuted for circumventing DRM, but rights-holders are still empowered to suppress innovation. It's a strange, muddy situation, and an inappropriate way to run a legal system.

With that said, those who point out that the DMCA is unlikely to change through legislative action are of course correct; the article makes an argument, but it's not a call to action. At this point the courts and increasingly-broad exemptions are the best hope for improving the legal situation created by the DMCA.

Re:Screw CSS

[icebraining]

shielding service providers from responsibility of their users infringement was a pretty good idea.

Yes, but not being punished for sending fake DMCA takedown notices is bad.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100323/1915138686.shtml

Re:Screw CSS

[russotto]

Besides, it wasn't all bad; the anticircumvention part is pure bullshit but shielding service providers from responsibility of their users infringement was a pretty good idea.

It was, but it was not new; case law already existed (the Netcom decision, for instance) which shielded providers from users infringement. DMCA 512 gave the copyright owners the new bludgeon of the takedown (a.k.a self-service temporary restraining order), without really providing anything in return. And then of course they tried to go back on even that.

Re:Screw CSS

[Real1tyCzech]

Read the statements.

Non-infringing use = Fair Use. All 6 sections are based, 100%, on the 4 guidelines set forth by the Fair Use Doctrine.

Hell, in the register's recommendation, they list 5 factors they must examine in their determination:

(i) The availability for use of Copyrighted works;
(ii)The availability of these works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
(iii) The impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv) The effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v) Such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.

Look familiar?? It should. It is the Fair Use doctrine's guidelines, almost word for word.

So, no. It doesn't make anything "legal" or "illegal". It means these specific uses were found by the Register and Librarian to fall under Fair Use and as such, be judged non-infringing.

fyi: DRM exists to protect against copyright infringement. The statement in question is *littered* with references to copyright, infringement, and non-infringing uses. So yeah, it *is* about copyright. In fact, that is *all* it is about.

Re:Screw CSS

[AndersOSU]

Yes you are. If you circumvent a copy protection measure, you're violating the DMCA irrespective of whether or not you have a right to copy the protected work.

Re:Screw CSS

[AndersOSU]

read it again.

It doesn't say noncommercial videos are ok, it says that if you break DRM solely to incorporate short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, AND it's non-commercial, it's ok.

http://www.copyright.gov/1201/

Re:Screw CSS

[memyselfandeye]

I suppose it's nice that I'm no longer breaking the Law, but personally, I never really liked the idea of UPS telling me what I can and can't do with the package I ordered... and my Satellite provider, plastic DVD from Best Buy, or DRM MP3s are all delivery mechanisms for stuff I bought just as is UPS dropping off a package, except it's information instead of a physical thing. Maybe it's easier for me to understand the concept of information as an abstract?

In parlance, I still can't watch TV how I want to watch it (recorded on my computer). I still can't listen to music unless it's on a Zune/iPod/et. all. I still can't put HD movies on my media computer "legally," just to watch how I want to watch. Yet it's totally legal to sit on my couch and record TV with a handy-cam, or rerecord my music with a microphone. Apparently there's some kind of difference to idiot lawyers and lawmakers.

To me, all DMCA is a law saying UPS can not only deliver my new shower curtains to my house, but can also tell me in what bathrooms and with what curtain rods I can use it in. Maybe a bad analogy, but that's the way I see it at least.

DMCA is one of the few proactive laws in America, and why we hate it so. I can build a bomb, buy a cannon, and do all sorts of crazy stuff. I'm only breaking the law once I intend/plan to do harm, or actually blow up a building, or disturb the peace, or...

In other words, we normally punish the actual crime, not the possible crime (such as possibly violating copyright by potentially uploading to the pirate bay)

Re:Screw CSS

[Joey Vegetables]

Honestly, if you think that the institution of total, coercive government can ever be "taken back" or used in any sustainable way that benefits anyone other than that government itself, then you have not yet grasped the full nature or extent of the problem.

It isn't that the wrong people are in charge. They do suck, but even if you can get different people elected, in time they will get corrupted too.

It isn't just the Constitution is inadequate, or that it isn't being followed. Both of those things are true, but we would still have a problem even if they weren't. You can change the rules (in our case the Constitution) but again, in time, those will be either corrupted or, as in our case, simply ignored.

The real problem is that our whole concept of government is based on the fiction that some people are entitled to rule others without their consent, while the rest of us lack the right to even rule ourselves. In other words, there should be slavemasters on one hand, and slaves - that's us - on the other.

And that is not just a problem with government: it is a problem with us. We deem ourselves incapable of ruling ourselves, yet somehow entitled to rule over others. That is a logical impossibility. But it's one that most of us believe without question, because we have been indoctrinated to do so our entire lives.

BUT . . if you can persuade people to grow up, take responsibility for their own actions, and learn how to live in peace with each other at least most of the time, then the lies that underlie coercive government, and all other forms of slavery, will finally be proven unnecessary, and hopefully along with them, the institution itself.

Until then, we may have to live with tactical victories here and there when we can get them, but the ultimate goal should be bigger: not to merely make slavery more tolerable, but to end it, and, insofar as possible, prevent it from ever happening again.

Re:Screw CSS

[satoshi1]

Each of those points is a separate instance. It applies if you're breaking it for 1) education uses OR 2) documentary filmmaking OR 3)noncommercial videos. How they define "noncommercial videos" is up to them, but it's not all three together, it's any of the three. If this were not the case, the word "instances" would not have been used to describe the list.

Re:Screw CSS

[AndersOSU]

no.

here let me paste the whole thing in:

(1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:

        (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
        (ii) Documentary filmmaking;
        (iii) Noncommercial videos.

First you have to fulfill the conditions under (1), i.e that you're breaking DRM "solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment". Then, once you've met that hurdle, you still have to fulfill any one of the three conditions under i-iii. Hence this clause, "and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:"

Re:Screw CSS

[Lumpy]

Please sho me how to play a bluray on linux. or show me how to play it under windows without a bluray playing app.

Being able to read it and play it are two very different things.

The only way I have to play a bluray is by violating the DMCA.

Re:Screw CSS

[Anne Thwacks]

You could abandon the idea of independence, and become part of the British Empire, which would entitle you to vote for Screaming Lord Such, and his Monster Raving Loony Party", who are not likely to be influenced by commercial bribes - not least because Screaming Lord Such is dead. (Being dead does not disbar you from being a member of the UK government, but may reduce your voting rights marginally). Indeed there are many, including myself, who suspect "the only good politician is a dead politician".

Re:Screw CSS

[Anne Thwacks]

BluRay has only been broken because of software players.OTOH, large numbers of people are convinced BluRay a waste of time and money. HDCP has contributed substantially to this. Here in the UK, research shows that although most people have HD capable kit, hardly any own an HDMI cable, and have never seen HD anyway.

Re:Screw CSS

[staggerlee]

Didn't they uphold the "unlock phone for any network" in Nov. 2006? That's what makes me think the jailbreak business will amount to very little: it's been perfectly legit to unlock your phone for almost four years, but how many carriers are selling unlocked phones? Or unlocking your phone for you at the end of your contract? Hell, is "unlock" even applicable when you're talking Verizon or Sprint and CDMA handsets?

Re:Screw CSS

[Eponymous Coward]

For a large number of people, BluRay is a waste of time and money. As more people get broadband, I think even DVD may become a waste of time and money.

I've been watching a lot of steaming video from Netflix lately and I'm very impressed. The only thing it's missing for me are subtitles.

There is still a market of people who want very high quality audio and video or who want to collect physical disks. I think that market will grow a bit more, before it collapses in the same way that the market for music on physical media has collapsed.

Re:Screw CSS

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

If you have a TV that does 1080p but doesn't do HDCP then you really must be an early adopter. My lousy projection CRT set from early 2004 supports HDCP, and the protocol's been around since 2001.

Re:Screw CSS

[Eponymous Coward]

It's been around since at least 2001, but it wasn't approved for use by the FCC until sometime in 2004.

BTW, if you have a non-hdcp set, I think you will be limited to analog signals by hdcp-enabled devices that limit digital output. There are hdcp strippers out there, but I think they tend to get their certificates revoked, so they stop working on newer content.

Re:Screw CSS

[slimjim8094]

Well, it doesn't often happen but the law provides for prosecution as perjury - which is no joke.

Re:Screw CSS

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

Given that in 2004, 1080p TV sets were by and large way more expensive than comparable 1080p sets now?

Unless you've lost your job recently; there's largely no excuse.

Re:Screw CSS

[jra]

Oh, good; I have an excuse.

Someone buy my car?

Much More To The Point

[jra]

The 5th Circuit ruled the other day that "circumvention" isn't a "crime" *if you're doing it in order to exercise rights you already have -- like watching a movie you bought, or sharing a clip of it with your students as Fair Use...

or doing a Downfall parody, presumably.

Even *more* to the point; this means that jailbreaking your iPhone isn't "a crime"... but it does *not* mean Apple's forced to support you now, when they would have cut you off before.

Re:Much More To The Point

[jra]

I believe this wlil cover the AACP and HDCP issues mentioned above.

Re:Much More To The Point

[bannable]

But what about when Sony claims we only bought a license to view their movie? We're still left with encrypted movies we aren't able to backup....

Re:Much More To The Point

[sconeu]

You sue for false advertising... "Own it Today!!!"

Re:Much More To The Point

[mea37]

Yeah, I remember reading about that ruling. I remember my first thought being "ok, if that's applied universally then what does the anti-circumvention clause actually mean?" So far I haven't been able to find a solid answer to that question, so I wouldn't be surprised to see that particular ruilng overturned sooner or later. I don't know how it is in the lower courts, but the Supreme Court isn't supposed to allow an interpretation that renders part of the statute meaningless.

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see anti-circumvention struck down entirely; but barring a constitutional problem that would have to come from the legislature, not the courts.

Re:Much More To The Point

[bannable]

Disclaimer: "it" is defined as the license to view, listen, and otherwise enjoy our content. Void where prohibited.

Re:Much More To The Point

[BassMan449]

The problem is that the law states otherwise. Technically this ruling should be sound as what we call "fair use" is simply the First Amendment restricting copyright. However, it is still very possible this ruling could be overturned. DMCA 1201 (a)(3)

(A) to circumvent a technological measure means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;

By the reading of the law, circumvention, even for fair use, is illegal. The only way around that is through the First Amendment and "fair use". But "fair use" is only a defense if you are actually sued so even with this ruling it is still likely illegal and you could still get screwed by one judge with a different interpretation.

Re:Much More To The Point

[c 0xFF]

Which simply means that anti-circumvention is a redundant provision in the law. Infringing copyright is against the law either way, so why do we need another provision on top of that?

Re:Much More To The Point

[dkleinsc]

or doing a Downfall parody, presumably.

Cue the Downfall parody in which Hitler finds out that Downfall parodies have been removed from Youtube.

Re:Much More To The Point

[unix1]

ok, if that's applied universally then what does the anti-circumvention clause actually mean?

The judge said the anti-circumvention provision can only apply to what is protected by the Copyright Act. i.e. DMCA doesn't on its own extend outside of the bounds of the copyright law. What does this mean? To me it means (IANAL, not a legal advice):

If you are circumventing but not violating copyright, you are clear.

If you are circumventing and violating copyright, you are on hook for at least 2 violations:
- DMCA anti-circumvention
- Copyright infringement

Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not a legal advice, consult your lawyer.

Re:Much More To The Point

[AndersOSU]

Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see anti-circumvention struck down entirely; but barring a constitutional problem that would have to come from the legislature, not the courts.

Not necessarily, fair-use is codified, and where the law conflicts, it's up to the judiciary to sort it out. I wouldn't hold my breath for SCOTUS to overturn the anti-circumvention statute, but it doesn't have to raise a constitutional issue to be brought up.

Re:Much More To The Point

[cynyr]

great, so then i can get a replacement disk, or download it on the internets, or .. or ... as long as i bought a bluray copy right? I mean it is the highest quality copy around, and I did just by a license to "view, listen, and otherwise enjoy" Cars(tm) in some ways I would rather buy a 1 time forever in all formats license to movies/music/etc at ${QUALITYLEVEL} or lower. Would make me format shifting 100% legal, and downloading it(if i have proof of purchase(say a retail copy) legal.

Re:Much More To The Point

[kevlar3d]

Is this ruling relevant to console modding?

Re:Much More To The Point

[mea37]

Two things:

First, there isn't an inherant conflict in the law between fair use and anti-circumvention. Even before the DMCA, fair use only meant "it isn't infringement to do X, Y, and Z"; it never meant that content providers were required to make it easy for you to do X, Y, and Z, nor that other provisions of law couldn't make it harder to do X, Y, and Z. Anti-circumvention under the DMCA makes it harder to do X, Y, and Z; but that doesn't conflict in a legal sense with X, Y, and Z not being copyright infringement.

Second, while it would be legitimate for the courts to resolve conflicts in the statutes, they still are supposed to do so in a way that doesn't render either of the conflicting clauses moot. Basically, they are interpreting; they get to figure out what they think Congress meant, but one of the rules is that they have to assume Congress meant something in every instance.

Re:Much More To The Point

[david_thornley]

Lots of laws only apply to illegal activities, and simply add penalties. Assaulting somebody is already a crime, so by your reasoning there should be no laws about "assault with a deadly weapon".

Re:Much More To The Point

[hedwards]

Then you keep your copy and download a free replacement online. Since you've paid for a license, you should be able to download a replacement free of charge. Unless of course you're paying for a physical copy, in which case you're legally entitled to make backups of it.

Re:Much More To The Point

[Late Adopter]

But selling a home DVD-ripping set-top-box/media-server is still in muddy legal water, at best. The whole world isn't made of geeks who can do-it-themselves, and people being able to have this technology in their homes shouldn't be dependent on the MPAA's say-so!

Re:Much More To The Point

[pruss]

It wouldn't render the statute meaningless. It would mean that if you circumvent for non-fair use, you end up breaking two statutes: the regular copyright laws, plus the DMCA. It's pretty normal to have a law that says that if you commit a certain crime in special circumstances, you thereby commit another crime.

There is a practical upshot

[Anonymous Coward]

Any developer who wants to work on jailbreaks and do so publicly, with presentations and writing, can do so without fear of prosecution. Companies can also now get involved without fear of supporting something illegal. If Mozilla wanted to release a Firefox for the the jailbroken iPhone, they now can.

Re:There is a practical upshot

[AndersOSU]

Um, no.

While you have a right to jailbreak your phone, or break CSS on your movie (for certain purposes), it is not clear that you have the right to distribute tools to allow others to do the same. If you do this openly you might ultimately prevail in court, but you should definitely plan on being sued, because this issue has not been settled.

Re:There is a practical upshot

[jra]

Well, in fact, it probably is: it's only "criminal" to distribute tools to help other people "break laws".

Which this decision makes clear you are *not* doing by jailbreaking. Since *me jailbreaking my phone* is no longer a "crime", then you're not contributing to one by publishing such tools.

QED.

Re:There is a practical upshot

[AndersOSU]

According to the DMCA;

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

The question is, first, whether the DVD or the cell phone is still "protected under this title." You could probably make the case that cell phone OSs no longer are, so if you're distributing jailbreak tools you're off the hook. So you're probably right on that count.

On the other hand, it's not so clear with DVDs, which is odd since the tools are so much more readily available. The LOC's exemption for DVDs is pretty narrow, so you'd have to argue that DeCSS, for example, is primarily designed to crack exempt DVDs. This, I think, is a harder case to make, not least of all because DeCSS was developed long before any exemptions were granted. If you work at a store specializing in preparing educational films, you're probably in good shape giving educators a copy of DeCSS. If, on the other hand, you are a guy with a mirror on the internet that says: this code can crack the protection on any DVD for any purpose, you're probably still in hot water.

Finally, if you're working on cracking AACS and the MPAA gets a hold of you you're definitely SOL.

Re:There is a practical upshot

[mea37]

I decided to thumb through the statute in hopes of proving you wrong... and found that you are actually correct, except perhaps in one regard.

You say it's unclear whether you can legally distribute tools to help others with circumvention; but actually, if I understand the structure of the statute correctly, it looks to me like Title 17, Chapter 12, sec 1201 subsec (a) par (1) subpar (E) makes it clear that it is still illegal to distribute such tools. From the statute:

(E) Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability of the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.

Subparagraphs (B) and (C) describe the 3-year exemptions in question. "This paragraph" should mean 1201 (a) (10; it includes the direct prohibition on circumvention, but a separate paragraph talks about distribution of circumvention tools.

Re:There is a practical upshot

[AndersOSU]

I think you're right about the meaning of the law, but who knows which way it would go if it were ever brought to court. On the one hand the language of the statute is clear-ish. On the other, Congress and the library of congress have clearly recognized the need for certain exceptions to the anti-circumvention rule, and it's completely unreasonable for every film professor and cell phone wielder to crack the DRM on their own.

It's sort of like legalizing the possession of marijuana but not the growing, sale, or transport. It could be done, but one law is totally incompatible with the other. A court could let it stand despite the affront to common sense it poses, or they could thumb their noses at the legislature (who deserve it).

Re:There is a practical upshot

[jra]

A friend of mine is a paralegal with way too little to do; I'll ask her to Shepardize 17USC1201 tomorrow, and see what she finds.

What do they say a phone is? any thing that can be

[Joe The Dragon]

What do they say a phone is? any thing that can be used as one? any thing with a phone jack? / slot for a modem?

How far does jail breaking go? How about using a PAYED FOR COPY OS X on any pc?

well this sucks

[i_ate_god]

Now that it's legal, it's no where near as much fun...

Re:In Soviet Russia

[ivucica]

Hm, damn the Get More Comments button, it just doesn't work. No frost piss for you.

In America..

[brxndxn]

If the majority of Americans ignore a law, then that law is wrong.

Re:In America..

[Rob Riggs]

Now we just need Sammy Hagar to write a song about it.

Re:In America..

[westlake]

If the majority of Americans ignore a law, then that law is wrong.

How many phones are actually "jailbroken?"

I doubt the numbers keep anyone at AT&T or Apple awake at night. The same can probably be said about the full litany of complaints the geek has about DRM.

It's far too easy to become convinced that you are in the majority, when all you really have is a chance to gripe on a forum like Slashdot.

Re:In America..

[KlomDark]

No, your logic is terrible.

// But the straw man thanks you for the stroke job you just gave him.

Re:In America..

[Sir_Lewk]

Most people don't drive at the speed limit, are the speed limits wrong?

Yes. Local governments routinely lower speed limits, or rapidly change the speed limit on different sections of road as a way to encourage speeding so that they can get more fine money. As it is now, speed limits are not set by engineers who have the technical expertise to set safe speed limits, they are set by politicians who probably barely passed trig in 10th grade.

If the safe drivable speed of a road is higher than the speed limit, then the speed limit is wrong.

Next question?

Re:In America..

[hedwards]

It's not a straw man at all. The thing is that, as unfortunate as it is, that the majority of the people are OK with things the way they are because they don't have a clue as to what's going on. Without popular support you're not going to get it overturned.

The problem

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with DMCA rulemaking is that it's made by bureaucrats, not elected representatives, and the small concessions that we got recently may be taken back at any time

- seanmichelson@yahoo.com

Re:What do they say a phone is? any thing that can

[AndrewNeo]

The law is clear. The text is something along the lines of 'mobile cellular phone'. Also, jailbreaking is specifically in the context of cellphones, involving making said devices interoperable. It has nothing to do with PCs, and jailbreaking has nothing to do with violating the OS X EULA.

Re:What do they say a phone is? any thing that can

[jra]

Did they *really*? Wow; I didn't actually expect Apple to be that cool, anymore.

People are buying OSX and putting it on there syst

[Joe The Dragon]

People are buying OSX and putting it on there systems.

I don't like the screen in the imac and the mini is too small. The mac pro is about $1000+ over priced. Now Is mac os x $1000?? why not make it $200? Why not have a $1200 - $1500 tower?

whats next apple saying that the price of app store is part of the cost of the system and puting a don't bypass the app store file on the iphone that you need to get rid of to jailbreak it.

What a retárd

[kindbud]

On July 26 the librarian of Congress announced six ways you can legally violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Somebody is not clear on the meaning of the terms "legally" and "violate."

Re:What a retárd

[selven]

Google search for "define: violate":

# transgress: act in disregard of laws, rules, contracts, or promises; "offend all laws of humanity"; "violate the basic laws or human civilization"; "break a law"; "break a promise"

legally:

# As permitted by law; not contrary to law; From a legal perspective

On July 26 the librarian of Congress announced six ways you can, in a way permitted by law, act in disregard of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

'permitted by law' means permitted by the whole system of laws, not permitted by the DMCA. If there is a rule that allows you to break another rules, and you use that rule, you're still in compliance with the whole system.

Re:The law isn't going away...

[Grimbleton]

Brass Monkey? The Beastie Boys' lawyer will be in contact with you tomorrow over infringement over their copyright.

I don't think....

[NetNed]

I don't think people who have jailbroken their iphone really care if it is legal or not. They just want the functionality that apple won't give them till the next pay-for-OS upgrade or next iphone model. Legality? Who gives a shit?

citation needed

[Cajun Hell]

But what about when Sony claims we only bought a license to view their movie?

Not trying to be a smartass with the "citation needed" here, but actually want it. Does anyone have any recent (less than 10 years old) statements from movie or music publishers where they've asserted that they sell licenses rather than copies of the movies? All I know of is the Blizzard case (but that's games, not movies).

As others have mentioned, the movie people are advertising with "own it now," and it would be pretty funny (in a Daily Show kind of way) to catch their left hand (sales dept) and right hand (legal dept) blatantly contradicting each other.

Re:The law isn't going away...

[VGPowerlord]

I'm sorry, my client misspoke. He meant to say Copper-Zinc Alloy Monkey.

Bad Summary

[Jean-Luc Picard]

*the recent news that unlocking cell phones is now legal

Re:What do they say a phone is? any thing that can

[elrous0]

Apple has the strangest definition of "steal" I've seen in a long time (if I *paid* for my copy of OS X, I'm not stealing it). A more appropriate name would be "Stop Refusing To Obey Us.kext"

what does copyright have to do with an iphone?

[Trailer Trash]

Seriously - if I buy an iphone, how does copyright come into play? I don't copy anything.

Re:What do they say a phone is? any thing that can

[BitZtream]

You still don't get it. You 'paid' to 'license' OS X, not buy it. You do not own it.

You don't get to go to the rental car place at the airport, rent a car, then use it for whatever you want because 'you paid for it'.

You don't have to 'rent a car', you can go buy one and do whatever. Likewise, you don't have to rent OS X, you can not use it.

Re:What do they say a phone is? any thing that can

[elrous0]

Thanks for the clarification, Steve.