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

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.

Comments

Documentary torrents in 3...2...1...

[vakuona]

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

Ripping is stealing

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Bona fide documentary film makers

[Hal_Porter]

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]

Re:Bona fide documentary film makers

[nine-times]

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.

Re:Bona fide documentary film makers

[Hal_Porter]

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

Re:Bona fide documentary film makers

[guises]

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.

Be careful for what you wish for.

[jellomizer]

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.

Hey, I have an idea!

[JohnFen]

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.

apparently Filmmaker != Copyright Holder

[Sloppy]

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.