I might well be mistaken, but I think if his assertion that he owns the DVD was true BEFORE any alleged download occurred, then it removes any wrongdoing from him. Let me explain:
The only laws I can think of at work here apply are the DMCA (that is, to have a movie in a downloadable form, one would first have to "circumvent a protection device" by breaking CSS) and laws regarding distribution/sale of copyrighted material without consent.
One could certainly make the case the the person who OFFERED the movie for download likely did both of those things, it seems that someone who owns the movie on DVD might well have done neither, irrespective of whether the alleged download even occurred.
I think that either I'm missing something in the text of this bill, or someone else is. As I read it, the bill's prohibition of removing commercial material relates to companies providing this as a service. What this section (start on page 27, line 8 in the version I just grabbed) seems to be doing is indemnifying companies that modify movies for families. That is, if someone bought a copy of "The GodFather" and would let their kids watch it if only it wasn't for the horse head scene, a company could legitimately provide a service whereby they remove that scene from the movie for a price so that this person's kids can watch it.
I don't read it as saying that we can't SKIP commercials, but rather that I can't set up a company where you send me a movie and I remove all the trademarks and commercial symbols within it.
That seems pretty fair to me. I don't think people should be able to remove "universal pictures" from the opening of a movie and replace it with "joe bob's films" and then distribute them legally.
Am I just misreading this?
Slashdot Mirror
I might well be mistaken, but I think if his assertion that he owns the DVD was true BEFORE any alleged download occurred, then it removes any wrongdoing from him. Let me explain: The only laws I can think of at work here apply are the DMCA (that is, to have a movie in a downloadable form, one would first have to "circumvent a protection device" by breaking CSS) and laws regarding distribution/sale of copyrighted material without consent. One could certainly make the case the the person who OFFERED the movie for download likely did both of those things, it seems that someone who owns the movie on DVD might well have done neither, irrespective of whether the alleged download even occurred.
I think that either I'm missing something in the text of this bill, or someone else is. As I read it, the bill's prohibition of removing commercial material relates to companies providing this as a service. What this section (start on page 27, line 8 in the version I just grabbed) seems to be doing is indemnifying companies that modify movies for families. That is, if someone bought a copy of "The GodFather" and would let their kids watch it if only it wasn't for the horse head scene, a company could legitimately provide a service whereby they remove that scene from the movie for a price so that this person's kids can watch it. I don't read it as saying that we can't SKIP commercials, but rather that I can't set up a company where you send me a movie and I remove all the trademarks and commercial symbols within it. That seems pretty fair to me. I don't think people should be able to remove "universal pictures" from the opening of a movie and replace it with "joe bob's films" and then distribute them legally. Am I just misreading this?