Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Filmmakers Want The Right To Break DRM and Rip Blu-Rays (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by msmash on from the tussle-continues dept.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Breaking DRM or ripping Blu-Rays discs is a crime In the United States. While there are fair use exemptions, these don't apply to the public at large. Interestingly, filmmakers themselves are now urging the Copyright Office to lift some of the current restrictions, so that they can make the films they want. [...] Technically speaking it's not hard to rip a DVD or Blu-Ray disc nowadays, and the same is true for ripping content from Netflix or YouTube. However, people who do this are breaking the law. The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions specifically forbid it. There are some exemptions, for educational use for example, and to allow for other types of fair use, but the line between legal and illegal is not always clear. Interestingly, filmmakers are not happy with the current law either. They often want to use small pieces of other videos in their films, but under the current exemptions, this is only permitted for documentaries. The International Documentary Association, Kartemquin Films, Independent Filmmaker Project, University of Film and Video Association and several other organizations hope this will change. In a comment to the Copyright Office, which is currently considering updates to the exemptions, they argue that all filmmakers should be allowed by break DRM and rip Blu-Rays. According to the filmmakers, the documentary genre is vaguely defined. This leads to a lot of confusion whether or not the exemptions apply. They, therefore, suggest to apply it to all filmmakers, instead of criminalizing those who don't identify themselves as documentarians.

107 comments

  1. Documentary torrents in 3...2...1... by vakuona · · Score: 4, Funny

    If this works, then I forsee lots of documentaries on torrent sites.

    1. Re:Documentary torrents in 3...2...1... by johanw · · Score: 0

      Why bother? People in the free world ignore those industry-bought US laws anyway.

  2. Stand alone complex by hackwrench · · Score: 1

    https://www.urbandictionary.co... We've finally discovered that sentient-kind is a stand alone complex.

  3. Ripping is stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Unless we do it. Ripping for archival or personal viewing is crass immoral and evil, but if we need to do it to make a buck it is holy and just

    1. Re: Ripping is stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it's sad and pathetic but at this point there's nothing that can be done about it short of a real social revolution. People are complacent and do not care anymore, period. If you're among the few who care everytime you get screwed and while the legal system protects and caters to the rich, you might as well laugh about it because stress doesn't help (plus reduces your longevity) and nothing else will either.

      I'm with OP, I make fun of mass stupidity as well and have been bordering on joining the group screwing the stupid for years now but alas, I have some worthless conscious that seems to stop me.

    2. Re:Ripping is stealing by gnick · · Score: 2

      This kind of sarcasm is like making fun of how stupid and ignorant the average citizen is.

      The average citizen is of average intelligence. I believe I could put that in the form of a proof. Your perception of the average citizen just tells us where you consider yourself compared to your peers.

      --
      He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
    3. Re: Ripping is stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "social revolution" will do nothing. You need guns and nuclear bombs.

    4. Re: Ripping is stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a tad extreme.

      If you started to hang every politician that takes money from corporations then it would probably get rid of most corruption.

    5. Re:Ripping is stealing by alexgieg · · Score: 1

      Ripping for archival or personal viewing is crass immoral and evil, but if we need to do it to make a buck it is holy and just

      What about placing a disk on the Blu-Ray player, hitting play, then pointing a camera to a 4K TV and filming the video on there? That doesn't bypass any security measure as one isn't ripping the media nor breaking the DRM. Or does it?

      --
      Conservatism: (n.) love of the existing evils. Liberalism: (n.) desire to substitute new evils for the existing ones.
    6. Re:Ripping is stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nerds calling nerds nerds.

    7. Re:Ripping is stealing by pezezin · · Score: 1

      What you describe is known as the analog hole (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analog_hole), and it's why watermarking algorithms were invented. Some devices will refuse to play the resulting video if they detect a watermark and the video doesn't come from a reliable source.

    8. Re:Ripping is stealing by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Some devices will refuse to play the resulting video if they detect a watermark and the video doesn't come from a reliable source.

      The player is playing a reliable source. The video camera is recording what it sees, and when the filmmaker uses that video in his product, it will be a "reliable source" and play just as well.

      Filmmakers are being dishonest about their reasons for this. They don't need a law allowing them to rip a DVD to get video for use in their products, they just ask the copyright holder for approval and then it's ok. And in the short term, if they need to have something playing on a TV in a scene they're filming, they just play it on a TV in the scene they're filming. No ripping required.

    9. Re:Ripping is stealing by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      What about placing a disk on the Blu-Ray player, hitting play, then pointing a camera to a 4K TV and filming the video on there?

      Not only is that perfectly legal, the copyright industry even specifically cited it as the reason why it wasn't a terrible thing that the anti-circumvention clause prevented legal uses of copyrighted materials.

    10. Re:Ripping is stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some devices will refuse to play the resulting video if they detect a watermark and the video doesn't come from a reliable source.

      The player is playing a reliable source. The video camera is recording what it sees, and when the filmmaker uses that video in his product, it will be a "reliable source" and play just as well.

      Not quite. "Reliable" is the wrong word here: "authorized" is better. Blu-rays contain data in a portion of the disc that can be read, but writeable discs cannot write to that location, nor will ripped formats (e.g. MKV) contain that data. A player can detect a watermark and compare it against that data (similar to a public key) to see if playback is authorized. This is exactly how, at a high level, Cinavia works. If a player is licensed for Blu-ray playback, it is required to look for this watermark and either stop playback or mute the audio and show a warning on-screen if the key is not present. Cinavia is designed to be usable even when format-shifting by corrupting the audio stream very subtly in a way that is very obfuscated and not many people understand. In your example, a player that knows to look for Cinavia (or some other hypothetical watermark) would detect the watermark, the lack of key accompanying it, and interfere with playback.

      In practice, so far, this only matters when copying movies on Blu-ray discs. In your example, I would expect most players to play back the format-shifted movie just fine, although it will look and sound like a bootleg.

    11. Re:Ripping is stealing by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      In your example, a player that knows to look for Cinavia (or some other hypothetical watermark) would detect the watermark, the lack of key accompanying it, and interfere with playback.

      Uhhh, I've got a Blu-ray of some video I want to include in my film. It's a legal Blu-ray, bought from a store and viewable using any Blu-ray player. There is no missing watermark or key. It plays fine.

      I point my camera at the scene with the TV playing the Blu-ray video. It records the entire scene. I create a film including this scene. It may or may not be published in Blu-ray, but if it is, there will be a watermark and key for my film, and it, too, will play on any Blu-ray system.

      So how does this "watermark" "authorization" stop me from doing this, and force me to rip any Blu-rays? Why do I need it to be legal to rip a Blu-ray when I have done what I need without it? And if I get the copyright holder's permission to use this in my film in the first place (which I will just to protect my profits) why can't I rip the Blu-ray anyway? It's with his permission.

      In your example, I would expect most players to play back the format-shifted movie just fine,

      What "format-shifted movie"? The original disk is not "format-shifted", and my Blu-ray product is not "format-shifted".

      although it will look and sound like a bootleg.

      "Oh look, Martha, that TV in Obfuscant's movie is playing a bootleg copy of someone's Blu-ray video!" What?

  4. Ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I am a film maker too!

    1. Re: Ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I made a film with your mom

    2. Re: Ahoy! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I saw that one, she stuff her penis in your gaping ass. Gross.

  5. Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We can make it so only authorized people can unlock the DRM crypto but still keep everyone else out. Easy. Then we can do it for law enforcement and cell phones too.

    Oh wait.

    1. Re: Sure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Blu-Ray isnâ(TM)t encrypted - the key is well known to everyone now. The security from a Blu-Ray comes from being physical; you canâ(TM)t put a physical disc on the internet for download.

      Private keys to communications arenâ(TM)t the same.

      Itâ(TM)s still strange how commercial interests seem to be hacking every device we own to extract every byte they can. In app malware, microphone taps, gyro taps, keyloggers, backdoor passwords. Doing the same to them is somehow highly illegal though. We just donâ(TM)t know who to prosecute because these corps just point fingers at each other and say âoehe dunnitâ. Usually the person they point at is the janitor or some other handy scapegoat and I tâ(TM)s not fair that they can readily deflect all criminal proceedings. The government seems complicit in these crimes because they can use commerce to extract even more intel and further grind the boot down for that totalitarian state theyâ(TM)re all wet for.

    2. Re: Sure by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      Blu-Ray isn't encrypted - the key is well known to everyone now.

      Huh? Of course it's encrypted. That the key is widely available doesn't change the mathematical fact.

      The insidious thing is that, legally speaking, it doesn't have to be encrypted in order for it to be illegal to bypass. All that has to exist is some form of access control. The type (or effectiveness) doesn't matter.

  6. Bona fide documentary film makers by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Funnily enough the FEC's case in Citizens United was that they weren't a bona fide documentary film maker but that Michael Moore was

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

    Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain-Feingold Act) modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. Section 441b to prohibit corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate in any context) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, Citizens United, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.[11] The FEC later dismissed a second complaint which argued that the movie itself constituted illegal corporate spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, which was illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found that:

    The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the film made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates. The Commission found no reason to believe the respondents violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act.[12]

    In response, Citizens United produced a documentary, called Celsius 41.11, highly critical of both FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.[13]

    In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie and to air the movie on DirecTV.[14]

    --
    echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    1. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007.

      It's kind of funny. They behaved inauthentically and deceptively in order to establish that they were acting in good faith, so that they could abuse the law.

    2. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by Hal_Porter · · Score: 3, Informative

      Do you really think the government should be in the business of saying that Michael Moore's films are documentaries and were therefore OK but Citizens United's were campaign spending and hence were not?

      They just did a sort of Socratic method series of queries and actions and ended up winning this Supreme Court case which held that First Amendment protections applied to both.

      That seems to me far better than having some Democrat appointee ban CU's film and at the same time pretend Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary and not a tiresome propaganda piece, as Hitchens pointed out memorably here

      Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore

      To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

      In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something-I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now-has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.

      Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:

      1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.

      2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.

      3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.

      4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.

      5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.

      6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)

      It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all-the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002-or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the fact

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    3. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by guises · · Score: 3, Informative

      You started by actually addressing the topic of political speech, in your way, and then devolved into a "Clinton is teh evil" diatribe... So I'm going to pretend that you stayed on topic, and I'll address the one thing and not the other:

      The question is not whether Michael Moore's documentary was politically motivated, ha said repeatedly and explicitly that it was, there were two questions: Was the film advertised via broadcast within the period in which political broadcast advertisements are prohibited, and did those advertisements in and of themselves constitute political advertising? And second: Did the film constitute a corporate monetary contribution in favor of a candidate?

      The to the first question was no - the film was not advertised via broadcast during the prohibited period, rendering the second part of that question moot. The answer to the second question was no - the film was commercial activity (the most profitable documentary ever, in fact) and so was not a contribution. There are any number of right-wing examples of this same rule, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. were all flagrantly right-wing but did not qualify as contributions. This contrasts with Citizens United, who existed only for political reasons.

      Also, this happened in 2005 so those "dems at the FEC" that you're complaining about were Republican appointees.

    4. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by nine-times · · Score: 2

      Do you really think the government should be in the business of saying that Michael Moore's films are documentaries and were therefore OK but Citizens United's were campaign spending and hence were not?

      Well first, to give a direct and simple answer: Yes, the government should be "in the business" of deciding what legally constitutes a campaign contribution, and what does not.

      To explain a bit more, the government should have some role in regulating campaign contributions, in order to prevent bribery and other forms of undue influence. Once you accept that, then before the government can even consider whether a given campaign contribution is legal, it needs to decide what constitutes a "campaign contribution". There needs to be some legal basis for that decision, and the law should be applied evenly and fairly, but absolutely the government needs to "be in the business" of deciding what's a campaign contribution and what's not.

      Now, how that gets applied is an additional question on top of that. Part of the distinction that the government apparently ended up making is that Michael Moore is a "bona fide" filmmaker, and Citizen's United is not. I wouldn't argue that should be the only factor in deciding a case like that, but it seems reasonable to include that distinction as part of the decision-making process. Michael Moore has a long career of making documentaries on a variety of subjects. Sure, there is a definite political slant to most of his films, but it's clear that he's not just making a political campaign ad masquerading as a documentary.

      What I was really pointing out, though, was the irony of engaging in a bunch of behaviors and doing what they can to become a "bona fide" filmmaker, intentionally so that they could then create political campaign advertisements masquerading as documentaries. In case you're not quite getting it, "bona fide" basically means "in good faith". They're intentionally trying to subvert the law so that they'll have to be considered "bona fide" filmmakers. They're acting in bad faith to meet the legal requirement of acting in good faith. Hence, irony.

      Now what does the government do about that? If the meet any legal standards for acting in good faith, and there's no legal evidence that they're acting in bad faith, then it's true the government probably needs to treat them as "bona fide" filmmakers. That's the nature of the law. There still might be other legal restrictions that will prevent them from doing some of the things they'd like to, but they'll have to be treated as "bona fide" even though they clearly aren't.

    5. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by Hal_Porter · · Score: 0

      Documentaries or films are speech, not a campaign contribution. And the US government is not allowed to regulate speech.

      Which is what the SCOTUS decided

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      I think if you disagree you've lost touch of your principles quite frankly. E.g. if they banned Moore and allowed CU I think you'd be saying it was a First Amendment violation.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    6. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      The to the first question was no - the film was not advertised via broadcast during the prohibited period, rendering the second part of that question moot. The answer to the second question was no - the film was commercial activity (the most profitable documentary ever, in fact) and so was not a contribution.

      You realise your argument would give the government the power to ban films it didn't like so long as those films are not commercially successful? I'm guessing you're not a fan of the people currently in charge of the White House or Congress.

      Don't you see a problem there? At least the CU vs FEC decision means the government doesn't have that power. Which means when people worry about Trump muzzling the media, that's one less reason for them to worry. And frankly given some of the things he said, the worry that he'd use any powers he had to silence his opponents is not completely unfounded. And Democrats seem to be even worse, as your rationalisation of an attempt to ban the CU film shows.

      So rejoice, all these people won't be able to censor documentaries. Thanks to the SCOTUS's CU vs FEC decision.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    7. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by nine-times · · Score: 1

      Documentaries or films are speech, not a campaign contribution.

      Well it seems that was part of the dispute: How do you distinguish between a documentary film with a political slant and a campaign commercial pretending to be a documentary?

      The answer seems to be: You can't. Not really.

      None of that changes that Citizens United doesn't produce bona fide documentaries. They produce campaign advertisements disguised as documentaries. It's sort of like how late-night infomercials sometimes pretend to be talk shows. They're ads.

    8. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by guises · · Score: 1

      Not successful, successful doesn't matter, it just had to be commercial activity. I was using Moor's success as an example of that activity, not as a prerequisite for being commercial. The law also didn't say that the government could ban films, only that political advertisements were prohibited from broadcast during a certain period in proximity to elections. This also has nothing to do with Trump's ability to muzzle the media, since the media consists of commercial activity (I gave the example of Fox News above).

      I see lots of problems with lots of things, I have said nothing here in defense of this law (though, since you ask, my feelings on it are mixed). However, the problem that is most evident to me in this case is your eagerness to see conspiracies when all of the officials involved here have acted in good faith. The dems at the FEC who you said were causing all of this partisan evil were nonexistent, and the republicans there applied the law as it was written accurately and by all appearances in a fair and non-partisan fashion. There is nothing to indicate that the lawmakers who wrote the law had any goal in mind, other than limiting one more avenue for corruption. It is apparent that they were making an effort to mitigate one way in which companies with deep pockets influence politicians.

      The fact that you would see this and assume villainy is a big problem. It concerns me much more than any misgivings that I may have about how the law was implemented.

    9. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      None of that changes that Citizens United doesn't produce bona fide documentaries. They produce campaign advertisements disguised as documentaries. It's sort of like how late-night infomercials sometimes pretend to be talk shows. They're ads.

      You could say the same thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 and all the other crap Michael Moore has put out.

      It's intellectually dishonest to claim that Michael Moore is putting out documentaries and CU is putting out advertising when both are doing pretty much the same thing - they produce advertisements to vote for one side, or at least not vote for the other. Plus of course there's the fact that the First Amendment says

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

      Back when the McCain Feingold bill was signed into law but President Bush he said there were 'serious constitutional concerns'.

      https://spectator.org/25356_mc...

      Here's a classic example of what I'm talking about when I say that the president has an independent duty to uphold the Constitution rather than simply defer to the Supreme Court: George W. Bush's decision to sign the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill into law. President Bush clearly believed significant parts of the bill were unconstitutional. His own presidential signing statement cited "serious constitutional concerns," "questions [that will] arise under the First Amendment," and "reservations about the constitutionality of the broad ban on issue advertising."

      The American Spectator links to this

      http://supreme.findlaw.com/leg...

      Many other Presidents have thought they had an independent duty to prevent violations of the First Amendment, as well as violations of states' rights, criminal defendants' rights, and other constitutional freedoms.

      For example, when Congress in its 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts sought to outlaw criticism of incumbents (sound familiar?), Thomas Jefferson campaigned against these laws and later, as President, refused to support a new Sedition Act when the old one expired. Jefferson also pardoned all those who had been convicted under the old Act, even though federal courts had upheld these convictions over First Amendment objections. To Jefferson, the question was not simply what courts had done or might do, but what his own independent constitutional conscience dictated.

      Consider also what President Andrew Jackson wrote in 1832, as he vetoed a bill on constitutional grounds even though the Supreme Court had already upheld a similar bill against constitutional challenge:

      The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.

      Before last week, George W. Bush clearly sided with Jefferson and Jackson. During the 2000 campaign, pundit George Will explicitly asked Bush whether he thought "a President has a duty to make an independent judgment of what is and is not constitutional, and veto bills that, in his judgment he thinks are unconstitutional." Bush's reply was an emphatic "I do."

      When asked if he would therefore veto the version of McC

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    10. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by Hal_Porter · · Score: 1

      I think it's depressing how many Americans seem intent on wrecking things like the First Amendment for a short term political gain.

      As Benjamin Franklin observed "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". The First Amendment is an essential liberty and trying to stop CU from make Moore-like partisan polemics/attack ad documentaries is a temporary safety.

      I don't think people are particularly villainous. I think they're unprincipled and are playing a naive game where they don't see the long term effects of the laws they're defending.

      And to be honest that seems to apply to both sides of American politics more than it does to UK politics. Most British people can vote for a party on a 'lesser of N evils' basis and not think the party is blameless or that its opponents are evil incarnate. Americans, or at least the ones who rant and rave at me pseudonymously online, don't seem to be able to do that. Republican government is probably not compatible with this mindview in the long run.

      --
      echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
    11. Re:Bona fide documentary film makers by guises · · Score: 1

      You're speaking in general terms now, instead of sticking to the topic, but I'm going to assume that when you say, "wrecking things like the First Amendment," what you're actually talking about is, "putting some restraints on political advertising funded by corporate donations." You do get specific in implying that stopping Citizens United from broadcasting their advertisement during the proscribed period is the goal of people who object to this decision... I don't know why you believe this, but my confusion is irrelevant.

      I came into this thread to correct you: You said that the application of this law was partisan. That was untrue. You've equated Moor's film and the CU film in the eyes of this law. That was invalid. You are now claiming that people who disagree with you are thinking short-term. This is also untrue.

      Really, the least you could do here is try and understand why people argue against this decision. To put this as unambiguously as I can: the goal in opposing this decision is not about Citizen's United, or their advertisements, or advertisements in general, or Hillary Clinton, or partisan politics. This is all about stopping corruption and anything else (limiting corporate political donations, etc.) are means to that end.

      You may disagree with the method if you like. You may also disagree with the goal, maybe you love corruption or something. That's your prerogative. But whatever you may think of opposing corruption in this manner, it is not a short-term goal. It is not a partisan goal. And it's also, according to the Supreme Court, not an unconstitutional violation of the first amendment.

      The Citizen's United decision didn't strike down the laws for violating the first amendment, it struck down those laws for going further than the court believed was necessary. The court was perfectly okay with putting limits on speech in the interest of preventing corruption, it just felt that preventing communication between the donor and the politician was sufficient in meeting that goal. So it struck down the further limitations enacted by the laws as being unnecessary.

  7. Thank You So Much by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thank You, msmash, for not using the word "Pirate" when quoting an anonymous reader describing copyright issues. Perhaps now we can have a reasonable debate.

  8. Be careful for what you wish for. by jellomizer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Laws made to restrict people rights, will often come back to hurt others.
    A weapon in one persons hand is a tool in an others. When making laws and rules, that restrict using a tool and/or a weapon (being physical or abstract) it needs to be done carefully, with planning and research. Not a gut instinct and pushing a majority vote based on party lines.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I predict that this request will be resolved as follows: the wealthy will get what they want, and the rest of us will get nothing.

    2. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Probably,
      But I think it is because we are in a 2 party system, with one election. During the last election there were very little people voting for a candidate, they were for the most part voting against an other.

      We need a system where there are repercussions for our voice being heard or not.
      Not just vote for the other guy, making them think we like what he is saying.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    3. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many names were on your ballot? There were at least 5 on mine...

    4. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Laws made to restrict people rights, will often come back to hurt others. A weapon in one persons hand is a tool in an others. When making laws and rules, that restrict using a tool and/or a weapon (being physical or abstract) it needs to be done carefully, with planning and research. Not a gut instinct and pushing a majority vote based on party lines.

      It's true that laws should be made with planning and research. But the absence of any perfect solution is also not a valid reason to avoid making any regulation at all. And I find the true reasons behind many people's positions are more ideological than factual. Like for example to what degree society should ban or restrain something to protect a few individuals that are unable or unwilling to use it responsibly or would use it with ill will against others and how far we should go to preempt it.

      I mean you could look at say drunk driving and say "Until there's an accident caused by intoxication there's no harm done" or "We should arrest the people who get behind the car drunk" or "We should mandate breathalyzers in every car to stop drunk driving" or "We should re-introduce Prohibition to stop drunk driving". All are arguably valid positions based on the same facts depending on strong measures you think are necessary.

      For example in the gun control debate a fundamental question is how important personal self-defense is to you. It's not about whether regulation works or if gun-free zones are actually gun free, but whether you should be principally dependent on the police and their ability and willingness to help you or if it's your right in any situation to try defending yourself. Even if it's clear that in many situations a gun on your hip would have made no difference at all. Even though many couldn't and shouldn't have guns and would be unable to defend themselves against those who do have guns.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      We need a system where there are repercussions for our voice being heard or not.

      You make the common mistake of thinking because your preferred candidate lost that your voice was not heard. Your preferred candidate was obviously the better choice, so if he did not win then there is obviously something wrong with the process. It could not possibly be that enough other people disagreed with you so that their preference won.

    6. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      No, the fundamental problem with the two party system is that it usually results in two completely unacceptable candidates.

      If there's nobody who can represent you in the offing, then your voice isn't heard.

    7. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by luther349 · · Score: 1

      nobody says they have to use the drm on there media. this disk play just fine without it.

    8. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      No, the fundamental problem with the two party system is that it usually results in two completely unacceptable candidates.

      I recall a plethora of names on the ballot.

      If there's nobody who can represent you in the offing, then your voice isn't heard.

      "Your voice" is the voice expressing which candidate you want elected. Whether they do what you want them to do is something else, and is still showing the problem that you think they should do what you want and if they don't they aren't hearing your voice. There are other people involved in the political process, and they have the right to have their voices heard, too. If there are more of them with their opinion than you and those who agree with you, it isn't "my voice isn't heard", it's "their voice was louder".

      It's like the toddler who whines "you aren't listening to me", to which the parent responds "we heard you, but you still aren't getting ice cream for breakfast." The parent listened and was unconvinced. The election process listened but was unconvinced by your vote.

    9. Re: Be careful for what you wish for. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well said. I prefer things to be in the direction of individual freedom, corporate responsibility, and strict consequences.

      Individual freedom - you want to carry the gun? Ok. You want to drive without seat belt? Ok. You want to take that drug? Ok.

      Corporate responsibility - whatever product or service you offer must be accurately labeled with any dangers to customers e.g. food allergens , drug side effects, gun safety , trampoline safety, etc.

      Strict consequences - a corporation that repeatedly harms consumers can be fined increasing amounts , and people who do unsafe things like drive without seat belt or drive under influence or leave a gun unlocked at home get higher penalties IF something goes wrong, stop with the pre-emptive tickets.

    10. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      "Your voice" is the voice expressing which candidate you want elected.

      My point is that when you don't want any of the candidates to be elected, you have no voice.

    11. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      My point is that when you don't want any of the candidates to be elected, you have no voice.

      If I understand your point, you want every election for a public office to have a "no" option, and if enough people vote "no" then nobody is elected and the office sits vacant until the next election?

      I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the current write-in situation, where you can write-in your selection, and if enough people write the same name he wins. That would seem to be your voice. Yes, that requires some planning ahead of time, but so does running any candidate for office.

    12. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      If I understand your point, you want every election for a public office to have a "no" option, and if enough people vote "no" then nobody is elected and the office sits vacant until the next election?

      That's not my point. My point is simply that a two-party system is deeply flawed, in that you must choose between option A and option B even when neither option is acceptable.

      Take the last election, for instance. I had no voice not because my preferred candidate didn't win, but because there was no viable candidate that I was OK with. That's the two-party system in action.

    13. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      That's not my point. My point is simply that a two-party system is deeply flawed, in that you must choose between option A and option B even when neither option is acceptable.

      No, the flaw you are describing is based on not having a "no" option, because even though there are two main parties, there are a lot of other parties. Even with ten parties on a ballot, if there are no candidates you like you much choose one of them -- or not vote, which you can do under the alleged "two party" system. There is no "must choose between", because "not voting" is always an option.

      I had no voice not because my preferred candidate didn't win,

      First you say you have no voice because there is nobody you want to vote for, now it is you have no voice because the one you voted for didn't win. Sorry, but if you voted you had a voice, it was just a case of not enough people agreed with you to manage a victory. There is a significant difference between "having no voice" and "my preferred candidate didn't win." You had a voice, it's just that your voice doesn't overrule the others who also have a voice and chose otherwise.

      That's the two-party system in action.

      In the last presidential election (which is what I assume you mean by "last election") there were many more than just two parties on the ballot. Your issue is not with the two party system, but with a system where someone always wins even if none of them are who you want. That leaves us back at having a "no" option and leaving the office vacant if enough people vote "no". That might be interesting, but it would be horribly inefficient if it ever happened. Can you imagine going through the entire presidential election process again immediately if "no" won? Another barrage of political ads, primaries, and then another main election ... very costly, annoying, aggravating, and unlikely to result in much gain.

    14. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      even though there are two main parties, there are a lot of other parties

      Yes, they exist. No, they have almost no chance of ever winning (no matter how qualified their candidates). This because of institutional rules that the two main parties maintain for this reason.

      First you say you have no voice because there is nobody you want to vote for, now it is you have no voice because the one you voted for didn't win.

      You misunderstood what I wrote. I said that it wasn't because the one I voted for didn't win.

      there were many more than just two parties on the ballot.

      True, they are there. But they may as well not be, as I said before. Their technical presence is required to maintain the illusion of choice, but it's just an illusion.

      That leaves us back at having a "no" option and leaving the office vacant if enough people vote "no".

      No, it leads us back to changing the system to make third (and fourth, and fifth, etc.) parties actually viable.

      Although, since you keep saying this, I should point out -- a "none of the above" option is something to consider. It wouldn't address the issue I have with US elections, but it would be at least something. But if "none of the above" wins, that doesn't mean the office remains vacant. It means that the election needs to be held again.

    15. Re:Be careful for what you wish for. by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      You misunderstood what I wrote. I said that it wasn't because the one I voted for didn't win.

      No, I understood. You voted for someone who didn't win. But you claim you had no voice because there was nobody you could vote for. But you voted for someone who didn't win. Confusing.

      True, they are there. But they may as well not be, as I said before.

      Whether they are likely to get enough votes to win or not is irrelevant. Being able to vote for them is how you express your voice. That's true for a true two-party system, or for a 100 party system.

      No, it leads us back to changing the system to make third (and fourth, and fifth, etc.) parties actually viable.

      If enough people stop thinking their voice isn't being heard when they vote for a non-major party candidate and thus don't vote for anyone, maybe they would win. You can't claim that your voice isn't heard if you never say anything when you have the chance, and if you take advantage of the chance you can't say your voice wasn't heard. All you can say is that there weren't enough people who agreed with "your voice" to elect the person you wanted.

      We all have a voice in the process. Your voice is no better or worse than anyone elses. It gets counted along with everyone elses and the winner ... wins. That's how democracy works. "Two party" has nothing to do with it. This holds true for the election for dog catcher where there are no parties at all, all the way up to President where there are half a dozen parties.

      Although, since you keep saying this, I should point out -- a "none of the above" option is something to consider.

      I've already considered it. It's not workable. We can't have a political system where nobody gets elected.

      But if "none of the above" wins, that doesn't mean the office remains vacant. It means that the election needs to be held again.

      Well, if you think we could have an entire presidential election between "the first Tuesday in November" and the day in December that the electoral college votes, I don't agree. Even if you extend that to Jan 21 when the new President is sworn in you'd be pushing it. When the old one runs out, and if there is no new one, someone has to be in charge. The VP leaves the same day so it would have to be the Speaker of the House, who was not elected to be President by anyone and thus not the result of anyone's voice. If you are upset that your voice isn't being heard when your preferred candidate isn't elected, imagine how most people would feel when someone they never had a chance to vote for at all took over. (Wow! A president that was elected by the people of one state -- and we have enough whining because of the electoral college distributing the election process among all the states now.)

  9. Did you say ALL filmmakers? by zarmanto · · Score: 1

    ... They, therefore, suggest to apply it to all filmmakers, instead of criminalizing those who don't identify themselves as documentarians. ...

    Cue abrupt chorus of voices, all saying, "I'm a filmmaker! I'm a filmmaker!"

    1. Re:Did you say ALL filmmakers? by mrbester · · Score: 2

      I'm a filmmaker, and so is my wife!

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    2. Re:Did you say ALL filmmakers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a filmmaker, and my wife is a film star! (there, I fixed it for you)

  10. Honest Trailers by romiz · · Score: 1

    Do the people that produce the Honest Trailers or Cinema Sins clips on YouTube really have permission, as well as unencrypted sources to avoid the effects of the law?

    It is pretty much a given that when they started, they used the rips directly, but today they're large enough to interview the real actors, be nominated for an Emmy award or have their harrasment scandals of their own. If they want to retain the power of saying offensive things, they need to be able to take the movies they want without needing to ask, but today it looks this can only happen through some kind of "criminal" activity.

    1. Re:Honest Trailers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trick is to fly under the radar until you are big enough to play.

      Many sayings have equivalences in multiple languages but I have never heard "Go big or go home" used outside of the US.

  11. All filmmakers? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Great! So anyone with a smartphone that can capture video is a filmmaker, did I get that right? Because, well, he can make a film?

    Oh, he needs to have made one? Fine... *grabs cellphone, punches buttons*

    Can I now circumvent the DMCA with impunity?

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:All filmmakers? by slashrio · · Score: 2

      I'm sure they'll change the wording into 'certified film maker'.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    2. Re:All filmmakers? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      No problem. I'll have that certificate printed in no time.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:All filmmakers? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      No problem. I'll have that certificate printed in no time.

      Da! Russia print all certificate you want. Nice with bow and wax seal, even.

      We advertise service on Facebook. Please like!

  12. Don't apply to the public, what? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    Breaking DRM or ripping Blu-Rays discs is a crime In the United States. While there are fair use exemptions, these don't apply to the public at large.

    wha wha wha? Since when? A quick search turns up dozens of free and commercial DVD rippers. There's a few blu-ray ones too, plus the open source libraries. I can't remember of the last time I saw a court case where someone was sued for using libdvdcss in a fair use manner. This is clearly spelled-out in US copyright law.

    1. Re:Don't apply to the public, what? by Jason+Levine · · Score: 2

      Breaking DRM is technically a crime but it's something that is hard to impossible to prosecute. Suppose you buy a dozen DVDs and rip them, but keep the rips only for your own personal use. You're technically breaking the law, but there's no way for the authorities to know and thus no chance you'll be prosecuted. If, however, you grab clips from these ripped films and include those clips in your own movie, you now have provided proof of your ripping activities. If you offer your film for sale and there's a ripped clip in your movie, you can be charged with a crime. There really is no purpose to this law beyond "the MPAA doesn't like that their precious DRM system was hacked quickly."

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    2. Re:Don't apply to the public, what? by slashrio · · Score: 1

      If ripping is a crime in the USA, then do it abroad, and bring the result home.

      --
      "Trump!!", the new Godwin.
    3. Re:Don't apply to the public, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since when?

      Since 1998?

      I can't remember of the last time I saw a court case where someone was sued for using libdvdcss in a fair use manner. This is clearly spelled-out in US copyright law.

      Well, it seems pretty clear to me and it seems pretty clear to the MAFIAA. If it were true that non-infringing uses were exempt from section 1201, there would be no point to having a specific exemption review process.

      But let's hear your argument: in the case of, let's say, private home viewing of a legitimately purchased DVD, what statute or case law supercedes section 1201, and why do you believe that's the case?

    4. Re:Don't apply to the public, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Breaking DRM or ripping Blu-Rays discs is a crime In the United States. While there are fair use exemptions, these don't apply to the public at large.

      wha wha wha? Since when? A quick search turns up dozens of free and commercial DVD rippers. There's a few blu-ray ones too, plus the open source libraries. I can't remember of the last time I saw a court case where someone was sued for using libdvdcss in a fair use manner. This is clearly spelled-out in US copyright law.

      Since the DMCA.

      Also, while yes it is clearly spelled out in copyright law, that spelling is that it is illegal if encryption is used.

      The more general of a DMCA exception, the narrower of a group it tends to apply to.
      Since you mention fair use (I'm assuming you actually meant fair use in copyright chapter 17, not fair use as defined in the DMCA) you should be aware that unless you are a certified library registered with the copyright office as such, there is NO blanket fair use exceptions in the DMCA that apply to you.

      There are more specific exceptions, like the one for jailbreaking a phone, which applied to everyone. But that is clearly specific to jailbreaking a phone, not all copyright matters in general.

      Again, the more blanket the exception, the more specific of a group it applies to. The more specific the exception, the more blanket of groups it applies to.

      While chapter 17 may very well define some fair use provision to you, and a judge can always decide to apply it to you if they think it should, the fact of the matter is the DMCA forbids you to decrypt the work to which those fair use rights might apply.

      There has also been plenty of court cases since 2001 against people for violating the DMCA to do what was/is legal under copyright law without the DMCA.

    5. Re:Don't apply to the public, what? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      A good start is the Wikipedia article on fair use. It specifically enumerates court cases that have decided that fair use must be checked before issuing a DMCA notice. It quotes the relevant judgements and sections of law. Now, we know corporations often don't do that, and that money wins. But the summary's blanket claim that fair use doesn't apply to the "public at large" is fearmongering. Every day someone jailbreaks their phone, or rips a DVD to. Every day dozens of companies sell one or more DVD ripping products.

      The trouble the US has is that it has two completely conflicting laws. Heck, even the DMCA itself is self conflicting because it states that possessing and distributing the tools are illegal, while simultaneously state that fair use is an exception.

    6. Re:Don't apply to the public, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So how do niggeurs get away with copying actual music and shouting over the top?

    7. Re:Don't apply to the public, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term "DMCA notice", in common parlance and in the sense that Wikipedia uses it, means a notice that is sent to an online service provider according to the requirements of DMCA section 512. Such a notice relates to copyright infringement, i.e. the distribution of a creative work without the authorization of the copyright holders. Likewise, the legal term "fair use" (as far as I'm aware, and as far as Wikipedia describes it) only relates to copyright infringement.

      DMCA section 1201, on the other hand, has nothing to do with copyright infringement. It's about circumvention of technological measures, an act that is orthogonal to copyright infringement. For example, one can:
      * watch a DVD at home, using an authorized DVD player (neither infringement nor circumvention);
      * watch a DVD at home, using an unauthorized DVD player (circumvention, but not infringement);
      * distribute encrypted VOB files to the public (infringement, but not circumvention);
      * decrypt, re-encode, and distribute a DVD video to the public (both circumvention and infringement).

      TFS uses the phrase "fair use exemptions", which is nonsense. Presumably this was meant to refer to the section-1201 exemptions that are issued periodically by the Librarian of Congress. Those have nothing to do with the legal doctrine of fair use.

    8. Re:Don't apply to the public, what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless you have Windows 10 Ver 1984. Oh wait.

  13. Why can they not ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2

    seek permission from the copyright owner of the film that they want to use. This might involve payment of a fee of some kind. What is good enough for the rest of us should be good enough for them.

    I can see that the real losers will be the small/independent film maker who have their stuff ripped off by the big boys, who will find some mechanism to prevent the small guy from doing this with their output.

    1. Re:Why can they not ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is good enough for the rest of us should be good enough for them.

      That is just something poor people say to feel better. It is not, and has not EVER, been how the real world works.

      The actual guiding principle here is: rank has its privileges.

    2. Re:Why can they not ... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      seek permission from the copyright owner of the film that they want to use.

      Because the issue they're addressing isn't the rights to use the clips, it's the ability to legally break the DRM.

      Remember, it's illegal to break the DRM even when your use of the material is otherwise 100% legal and/or authorized. That's why the anti-circumvention clause is bad joke.

    3. Re:Why can they not ... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      That is just something poor people say to feel better.

      No, it's an aspirational statement about what we need to be working to achieve. It's not a delusional one misrepresenting "the way things are".

    4. Re:Why can they not ... by Alain+Williams · · Score: 1

      Because the issue they're addressing isn't the rights to use the clips, it's the ability to legally break the DRM.

      But if they go to the copyright owner and seek agreement to use then they will, presumably, be given a DRM free copy.

    5. Re:Why can they not ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if the "DRM" can be broken, then it is not DRM, and therefore no infringement has occurred.

    6. Re:Why can they not ... by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The law disagrees. It specifically says that it doesn't matter how weak the access controls are, it's still illegal to bypass them.

  14. Of Course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of an issue on Vimeo a couple of years back when they introduced music fingerprinting. This also applied to private videos and suddenly, in production videos using the common practice of temporary soundtracks were being disabled. They were forced to suspend it for pro users.

    Nobody in their right mind pays a license fee without testing if something will work. Everyone is a potential video editor now and youtube is full of reviews featuring clips that fall under fair use.

  15. YouTube?? by bagofbeans · · Score: 1

    ...ripping content from Netflix or YouTube. However, people who do this are breaking the law. The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions specifically forbid it.

    Exactly what is being circumvented grabbing rather than streaming a Youtube video? Access to Youtube is not constrained by a contract (unlike FletNix), and there's no encryption.

    1. Re:YouTube?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Advertisements are being circumvented. The only thing that matters.

      Scenario A: Watching the same video on Youtube 100 times.
      Scenaro B: Downloading a video from Youtube to watch 10 times.

      In Scenario A, Youtube gets 100 commercial views (+- depending on the video).
      In Scenario B, Youtube gets up to one commercial view. Even if you are subjecting yourself to the commercial 10 times, Youtube is only paid for one.

      Overhead costs, inefficiencies, network availability, and other real factors are not allowed in the debate.

    2. Re:YouTube?? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      So Youtube misses out on revenue they need to run their service. And you can make that right by getting a Youtube Red subscription, which allows you to download videos (to some degree) and remove the ads. Except that "YouTube Red isn’t available in Netherlands". Cry me a fucking river, Google.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
  16. Reeks of millennial by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    'Real' film makers will actually go through the steps to secure rights or get permission from the original creator or rights holder. This has millennial whining about not being permitted to co-opt other people's work at will written all over it. And yes, to me, in case they are younger, the children of millennials are just more millennials. Weak sauce!

  17. Dear filmmakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please eat your own sh*t

  18. Isn't every person a potential filmmaker? by cjonslashdot · · Score: 1

    Many filmmakers get started making small short films. If they have not yet published a film, are they not a filmmaker? Seems like any definition of "filmmaker" would unfairly exclude some people.

    1. Re:Isn't every person a potential filmmaker? by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      I don't know about that. In my view, a "filmmaker" is someone who makes video, period. It doesn't speak to whether or not they ever publish the video, or are talented, or are recognized.

    2. Re:Isn't every person a potential filmmaker? by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 1

      Seems like any definition of "filmmaker" would unfairly exclude some people.

      That's the whole point.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    3. Re:Isn't every person a potential filmmaker? by BlueStrat · · Score: 2

      Many filmmakers get started making small short films. If they have not yet published a film, are they not a filmmaker? Seems like any definition of "filmmaker" would unfairly exclude some people.

      Of course, and that's exactly what they want: "Law for Thee but Not for Me!"

      Seeing as the general political demographics for film makers tend to skew heavily Left, this mindset is not surprising, especially when it is about who gets to create and distribute content that can influence/inform/persuade people politically and ideologically. The Left does not tolerate diversity of opinion when it comes to political, social, or ideological topics, one need only look to recent events at the Berkeley campus in California to see it in violent action.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    4. Re:Isn't every person a potential filmmaker? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      As an interesting side note;

      ...one need only look to recent events at the Berkeley campus in California to see it in violent action.

      It's only taken roughly 40 years for riots at Berkeley to completely switch from being pro free speech to being anti free speech.

      Strange days, indeed.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  19. Hey, I have an idea! by JohnFen · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since the anti-circumvention clause does nothing but make a mockery of the law on every level, let's just get rid of it entirely.

  20. apparently Filmmaker != Copyright Holder by Sloppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    DMCA defines circumvention as breaking the DRM without the authority of the copyright holder. The copyright holder can always grant permission for anyone and everyone to crack DRM on their own works. If I were to make a Blu-Ray disc containing my video, then I could give everyone in the world the right to crack the DRM on my disc. This is not an exemption; it's something right in the definition of circumvention.

    It could even be argued that if I had granted that right, and you manufactured, imported, offered-to-the-public or trafficked in the tool primarily intended to play my disc despite the DRM, that might be legal as well. (This is less certain than the above paragraph, though.)

    (And all this ignores any trade secrets which may be required to make or play Blu-Rays. I'm just talking about DMCA.)

    If these filmmakers think they don't already have this right, then I have to conclude that they don't hold the copyright on their own movies, and someone else (the studio) is denying them permission to watch their own movies. Well, that sucks. So, filmmakers, maybe you should think about just what value (if any) studios provide to your filmmaking, such that you are letting them have the whole fucking thing. Everyone should hold them accountable for their decision to start the relationship in bad faith.

    And of course, if using the media you bought is too hard to use, I'm sure someone else already did the hard work and has made the file available. So you might want to think twice about purchasing anything DRMed in the first place. You should feel dirty whenever you pay them.

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:apparently Filmmaker != Copyright Holder by Z00L00K · · Score: 1

      And if it's not possible to find the copyright holder? A lot of companies have gone defunct over the years for one reason or another.

      --
      If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
    2. Re:apparently Filmmaker != Copyright Holder by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      I think the idea here is to allow circumvention in a specific case where fair use would apply.

      Disclaimer: IANAL, but here's why that's a thing: Copyright law and the DMCA address things slightly differently. Copyright bans copying, period, but over time the courts have said there are certain defenses against copyright violation that apply for various reasons, one of which presumably is to stay on the right side of the constitution. Those defenses are called "Fair use". As an example, quoting something for the purposes of critiquing it is considered fair use.

      Fair use does not mean you haven't violated copyright law, it just means the copyright holder can't stop you or get compensated.

      The DMCA bans certain forms of technology (tools that circumvent what it refers to as Access Control Devices, IIRC, what you and I call DRM) including creating, distributing, and possession. There are no "fair use" defenses because the same technology that might allow you to copy a clip from a DVD so you can use it in a parody is the same as you'd use to copy the entire movie to your hard drive in preparation for distributing it to millions of anonymous strangers. You might intend to use it only in ways that wouldn't result in prosecution, but you possess it anyway.

      So, the Copyright Office does carve out some exceptions to the DMCA to ensure that fair use is protected, it just doesn't do it automatically, people have to lobby for it.

      So, no, asking for the authority of the copyright holder doesn't solve this problem. The copyright holder may well not want the content copied. That doesn't mean the film maker wouldn't, if they had the content in 35mm form, legally be able to copy it with or without the copyright holder's permission. The lobbying is to make sure this ability continues.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    3. Re:apparently Filmmaker != Copyright Holder by spire3661 · · Score: 1

      Copyright does not ban copying, it is far more concerned with distribution to others. For the most part you can copy anything you want at home, what you cant do is share the results (copyright violation) or methods (DMCA, see George Hotz v Sony) with others.

      --
      Good-bye
    4. Re:apparently Filmmaker != Copyright Holder by JohnFen · · Score: 1

      The copyright holder can always grant permission for anyone and everyone to crack DRM on their own works.

      And what if you want to use the work in a way that is completely legal, but which the copyright holder doesn't want to give you permission for?

      Permission of the copyright holder is not necessary for all kinds of uses.

    5. Re:apparently Filmmaker != Copyright Holder by luther349 · · Score: 1

      or they can skip using the drm you can make dvd/blueray without it.

  21. Aren't we all filmmakers now? by mpercy · · Score: 1

    The obvious answer.

  22. I used to rip my kid's DVDs by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    when she was little so she could have the rips and not destroy the originals. That way she could play around with a .40 cent disc instead of a $30 dollar one. Yeah, it was only useful for a few years, but we still have those discs now that she's older.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:I used to rip my kid's DVDs by JohnFen · · Score: 2

      Making a copy of the video for the use you describe is perfectly legal.

      Breaking the DVD encryption to do it is a violation of the anti-circumvention law.

      That's a wonderful example of how ludicrous the law has become.

    2. Re:I used to rip my kid's DVDs by luther349 · · Score: 1

      people do this every day its just one of those things they can never enforce. the anti-circumvention law is a total joke it always will be. they only use it on the big players like the guy the hacked the ps3 and taunted sony about it.

  23. I don't think anyone ever supported the DMCA by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    except major corporations. Everyone saw the potential for abuse. But our electorate is heavily divided by wedge social issues, leaving the corporations free to bribe their way to an oligarchy.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  24. Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Filmmakers should simply declare themselves to be documentarians - rip the parts required, release them in an actual documentary, and then copy the parts needed for their other work out of their own documentaries. Simple.

    1. Re:Easy solution by luther349 · · Score: 1

      or print there works on unencrypted blueray/dvd shocker you can do that.

  25. #freedumbs: one law for the elite filmakers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and a different law for the rest of you..

    ahahaha! WHAT A SHITHOLE!!

  26. DAWWWW so adorbs... by thegreatbob · · Score: 1

    ... laws for thee and not for me ... the inversion.

    --
    There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
  27. Greetings, class of 2018 filmmakers! by mtutty · · Score: 1

    We are all filmmakers now, right? Just stick to the story and don't ruin for everyone, Doug.

  28. OP's Assertion Is Incorrect by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

    Consumers ("end users") in the United States have a right to make archival copies, DRM or not.

    Making archival copies falls square under the Fair Use rules that have been in place for many, many decades.

    1. Re:OP's Assertion Is Incorrect by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      To clariy:

      In this way, the anti-decryption provisions of the DMCA directly contradict other, existing laws.

      There were some rulings, years ago, that the right to archive overrides the proscription from decrypting, but then... you still have to decrypt.

      Nearly all of DMCA is trash, and needs to go. The "Safe Harbor" provisions are about the only good provision in that whole set of laws.