Isn't the DMCA just to prevent people from selling cable "descrambler boxes" and such... It only prohibits technology, devices, etc whose **main** use/purpose is to circumvent copyright protection.
The DMCA has many purposes. In this context, what we're talking about is Sec. 1201, "Circumvention of copyright protection systems".
The decrypting of a DVD for playback purposes seems like it would be legal -- this is normal use of DVDs. (all commercial DVD software does this anyway).
It's legal if you're using a legal means to do so - i.e., a licensed DVD playback system. Sec. 1201(a)(3)(A):
[As used in this subsection - ] to "circumvent a technological protection measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological protection measure, without the authority of the copyright owner
The DMCA applies in any case that you are attempting to access a copy-controlled work through use of a means that is not authorized by the copyright holder. It has nothing to do with what you plan on using that work for after you've accessed it; that's still controlled by the pre-DMCA copyright rules. What this means is that if you have a DVD-ripper that is licensed by the DVDCCA, then it's not a violation of the DMCA provisions for you to use it to rip DVDs, but if you are using an unlicensed linux DVD program to watch your DVDs, then it is a violation.
And wouldn't copying encrypted DVD images to a large harddisk (e.g. for a video server) be considered Fair Use?
It could be, depending on what your purpose in loading it up to a hard disk is for. If it's to then distribute the encrypted disk images via torrents or to sell the original disks, then no it would not be.
Also, I don't think this would be "circumvention of a copyright protection system", so long as in creating the disk images, they are exact images.
(Fair Use laws allow copies of copyrighted works to be made for the purpose of increasing computer performance)
I have never seen anything that would imply this is specifically a "fair use", at least in the U.S. Got a cite?
This is all fine and perfectly legal, since these copies are temporary and whose sole use is to increase system performance -- not related to illegal reproduction.
This has nothing to do with increasing system performance - it's copying necessary for functioning of the system, and under U.S. law it's specifically "blessed" in Sec. 117(a) of the copyright act:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other matter.
Now if you load up your server and then sell/lend out your DVDs, things quickly start getting questionable...
It's not questionable - it's copyright infringement.
We are weakening our own freedoms by thinking that the DMCA makes everything illegal.
It's not just the DMCA - much of what people are talking about was illegal under pre-DMCA copyright law.
I'm assuming you're attempting to be funny and failing it badly, because I really can't believe that you're that stupid. The fact that the trend was first NOTICED on the Monday after Thanksgiving 2004 does not necessarily imply that he only used the sales data from that day, it only states that that was the sales season when the "trend" first became noticeable.
That being said, I think it's a bullshit term being used to generate buzz and higher sales of cheap plastic crap.
Or rather "space shifting". The case is Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). That was the Rio MP3 player case.
The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive....Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.
It relies heavily on the time-shifting analysis of Sony. I shoulda included it in my reply below...
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
(aka "the Betamax case")
Essentially, the court found that home time-shifting is a fair use, which is not exactly the same as making "backups", it is extremely similar.
More on point might be American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994). In that case, the court found that making unauthorized copies of journal articles was copyright infringement. The copying there was much more similar to P2P, where there was a library with a single (or a few) copies of the journals, and researchers from texaco were making hundreds of copies so that they could each have their own at their work areas. But the court did state that if the purpose of the copying had primarily been so that a researcher could take the photocopy into the lab and not accidentally damage the original, it probably would have been fair use.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act outlines some specific instances of fair use (criticism, comment, news reporting, etc.), but does not limit fair use to only those purposes, instead codifying the judicial doctrine of fair use (the 4-part test somebody noted above).
Usual disclaimer applies: IANAL, just a well-meaning law student studying hard for his Copyright final.:)
Law schools are also incredibly terrible at educating their students. Law students learn in spite of the so-called "socratic method", not because of it.
I think you miss the point. In this case, there is effectively ONLY ONE WHEEL, and for the internet to function properly, everybody has to share that wheel. As Lessig suggests in the article (you did RTFA, right?), perhaps it all would work out okay if the rest of the world splintered and, established their own root server, so long as the two systems were kept compatible, but I'm not as optimistic that they would, even if it would be in everybody's best interest. I think there needs to be a unified system in order to keep it all working properly, and I agree with both sides in the current debate: the UN shouldn't be running it, but neither should the US. There needs to be a separate institution like the WTO (only more open and democratic) to manage the system.
I may be a nitwit, but you sir are a fucktard, and a coward as well Mr. AC. "You are wrong and here is why..." would have been a sufficient response.
And I shall contend that while I am wrong in part, I am also correct. Fair use is an exception to copyright, as you state, but it is raised as an affirmative defense to what would otherwise be an infringement (absent the fair use doctrine). You are correct though, the proper phrasing is "fair use makes my copy non-infringing". Guess I should go back and re-read that chapter.
FYI - fair use is about taking someone else's work, or a portion thereof, and adding some kind of value based on specific work. You can, for example, take a paragraph out of a book and add some discussion. You can take the melody line from a song and include it in your parody. You can't just take your favorite poem from some authors book of poems and add it to all your advertisements. That's not fair use. What Google is doing is useful, but it's not under the realm of fair use. Someone printing up 10,000 copies of the latest Stephen King novel and selling them at 10% the retail price of a legitimate copy would be useful to about 10,000 people, but it certainly wouldn't be fair use.
Fair use is much broader than that. Time-shifting, for example, is considered a fair use (the infamous Betamax case). There is no requirement that you add something useful or of additional value in order for it to be considered fair use, and sometimes doing so will not be considered fair use.
On the other hand, they are giving publishers a way to opt out, so it's perhaps not as bad as you make it seem.
But should it be the publisher's responsibility to opt out, or should it be Google's responsibility to get permission first? I think traditional copyright law would put the burden on Google to get permission for what they're doing. I'm curious though if what Google is basing its position on the "notice-take down" provisions of the DMCA regarding infringing material posted online. My understanding though is that this is only a defense against a claim of contribution or vicarious liability against ISPs for material posted by their users, not for the infringers themselves.
Re:You are confusing two issues
on
Reining in Google
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It's always been my understanding that Copyright doesn't cover MAKING copies, only DISTRIBUTING them
Incorrect. It covers both.
This means that I can go to the store, buy a CD, and rip it to MP3 to put on my iPod. That makes 3 copies of the work (the rip to WAV (even if it's just in RAM, it's still a copy), compression to MP3, putting it on my iPod). Am I violating copyright there? The courts say no (IIRC, the lawsuit against the Rio covered this). However, I am violating copyright if I give someone else a copy of my MP3s.
Technically, both acts, making the copy and distributing it to your friend, are infringing uses. However, you have a defense to the first infringement, aka "fair use", that you would not necessarily have in the second case.
It's a guarantee that I can't give away or sell full copies of your work.
Or partial copies as well, or plagiarized or derivative works. Copyright is much broader than what you suggest.
They index the copies they make (and keep to themselves) and give only a few lines of text in the search results.
But the copies they make are themselves an infringement. The question is whether Google has a fair use defense that would allow them to make these copies. We discussed Google Print in my Copyright class a week or so ago, my copyright professor seems to think that Google is probably engaged in copyright infringement on a mass scale (although in typical law professor fashion, he didn't come right out and say so).
You totally missed his point. From the summary:...written from a balanced, business-oriented perspective.
The point you missed was that it can either be balanced or business-oriented, but it is highly unlikely to be both. In fact, given the track record of the Economist, it is almost certainly not both.
Owning property is one of the Human Rights, of course, but no economic system assures all of them.
Owning property is NOT per se a human right. A right to be secure in your person and residence is, and it may be that the easiest way to implement and enforce this right is to enforce property ownership, but one does not necessarily follow from the other.
Problem easily solved: don't put them in the iPod itself. have an adapter that plugs into the dock connector (or something like that) to plug into the TV. Yeah, it's one more thing to carry around, but it's probably about the best solution you're going to get.
That being said, I don't think it's gonna be a video iPod. And I don't really care either way.
And you'd be wrong. If there is no disagreeement on the facts of the case, then there is nothing for a jury to hear. The role of juries in the court system is to decide on the credibility of facts, the role of judges is to decide the meaning of the law. You can disagree all that you want, but all you're doing is showing your lack of knowledge of the constitution and how our legal system works.
Aside from feeling the need to rant (and trust me, I would be the last person on earth to deny you that opportunity), did you have a point? At least from reading the article, there's no violation of the 7th amendment.
The chinese connection is even odder... because most of them are FARMERS in WoW.
Well, I certainly hope this does break your addiction, leaving one less racist asshole in the game. The fact that SOME Chinese players are farmers in no way means that MOST are farmers. I've met about as many U.S. as Chinese farmers in the game - does that mean that I should conclude that most U.S. players are FARMERS??
I see you don't quite grok the meaning of "radical". Referring to an entity as radical doesn't imply anything about where they lie on the political spectrum, but rather how far from the mythical center they sit. One can be a radical conservative just as easily as one can be a radical liberal.
Slashdot Mirror
Isn't the DMCA just to prevent people from selling cable "descrambler boxes" and such... It only prohibits technology, devices, etc whose **main** use/purpose is to circumvent copyright protection.
The DMCA has many purposes. In this context, what we're talking about is Sec. 1201, "Circumvention of copyright protection systems".
The decrypting of a DVD for playback purposes seems like it would be legal -- this is normal use of DVDs. (all commercial DVD software does this anyway).
It's legal if you're using a legal means to do so - i.e., a licensed DVD playback system. Sec. 1201(a)(3)(A):
[As used in this subsection - ] to "circumvent a technological protection measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological protection measure, without the authority of the copyright owner
The DMCA applies in any case that you are attempting to access a copy-controlled work through use of a means that is not authorized by the copyright holder. It has nothing to do with what you plan on using that work for after you've accessed it; that's still controlled by the pre-DMCA copyright rules. What this means is that if you have a DVD-ripper that is licensed by the DVDCCA, then it's not a violation of the DMCA provisions for you to use it to rip DVDs, but if you are using an unlicensed linux DVD program to watch your DVDs, then it is a violation.
And wouldn't copying encrypted DVD images to a large harddisk (e.g. for a video server) be considered Fair Use?
It could be, depending on what your purpose in loading it up to a hard disk is for. If it's to then distribute the encrypted disk images via torrents or to sell the original disks, then no it would not be.
Also, I don't think this would be "circumvention of a copyright protection system", so long as in creating the disk images, they are exact images.
(Fair Use laws allow copies of copyrighted works to be made for the purpose of increasing computer performance)
I have never seen anything that would imply this is specifically a "fair use", at least in the U.S. Got a cite?
This is all fine and perfectly legal, since these copies are temporary and whose sole use is to increase system performance -- not related to illegal reproduction.
This has nothing to do with increasing system performance - it's copying necessary for functioning of the system, and under U.S. law it's specifically "blessed" in Sec. 117(a) of the copyright act:
(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other matter.
Now if you load up your server and then sell/lend out your DVDs, things quickly start getting questionable...
It's not questionable - it's copyright infringement.
We are weakening our own freedoms by thinking that the DMCA makes everything illegal.
It's not just the DMCA - much of what people are talking about was illegal under pre-DMCA copyright law.
I'm assuming you're attempting to be funny and failing it badly, because I really can't believe that you're that stupid. The fact that the trend was first NOTICED on the Monday after Thanksgiving 2004 does not necessarily imply that he only used the sales data from that day, it only states that that was the sales season when the "trend" first became noticeable.
That being said, I think it's a bullshit term being used to generate buzz and higher sales of cheap plastic crap.
Or rather "space shifting". The case is Recording Indus. Ass'n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999). That was the Rio MP3 player case.
...Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.
The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive.
It relies heavily on the time-shifting analysis of Sony. I shoulda included it in my reply below...
Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
:)
(aka "the Betamax case")
Essentially, the court found that home time-shifting is a fair use, which is not exactly the same as making "backups", it is extremely similar.
More on point might be American Geophysical Union v. Texaco, Inc., 60 F.3d 913 (2d Cir. 1994). In that case, the court found that making unauthorized copies of journal articles was copyright infringement. The copying there was much more similar to P2P, where there was a library with a single (or a few) copies of the journals, and researchers from texaco were making hundreds of copies so that they could each have their own at their work areas. But the court did state that if the purpose of the copying had primarily been so that a researcher could take the photocopy into the lab and not accidentally damage the original, it probably would have been fair use.
Section 107 of the Copyright Act outlines some specific instances of fair use (criticism, comment, news reporting, etc.), but does not limit fair use to only those purposes, instead codifying the judicial doctrine of fair use (the 4-part test somebody noted above).
Usual disclaimer applies: IANAL, just a well-meaning law student studying hard for his Copyright final.
Law schools are also incredibly terrible at educating their students. Law students learn in spite of the so-called "socratic method", not because of it.
But a private corporation should be? Riiiiiiight....
And of course you're skipping the part where vandalism could sometimes be a positive contribution. Not necessarily legal, but positive nonetheless.
It's good thing then that the internet was a military innovation.
I think you miss the point. In this case, there is effectively ONLY ONE WHEEL, and for the internet to function properly, everybody has to share that wheel. As Lessig suggests in the article (you did RTFA, right?), perhaps it all would work out okay if the rest of the world splintered and, established their own root server, so long as the two systems were kept compatible, but I'm not as optimistic that they would, even if it would be in everybody's best interest. I think there needs to be a unified system in order to keep it all working properly, and I agree with both sides in the current debate: the UN shouldn't be running it, but neither should the US. There needs to be a separate institution like the WTO (only more open and democratic) to manage the system.
And then maybe they'll realize they aren't so damn "special" or entitled to any better treatment than the rest of the world's laboring masses.
It's also a scene in Real Genius
I suggest you re-take the English composition course. Your post is a nightmare.
I may be a nitwit, but you sir are a fucktard, and a coward as well Mr. AC. "You are wrong and here is why..." would have been a sufficient response.
And I shall contend that while I am wrong in part, I am also correct. Fair use is an exception to copyright, as you state, but it is raised as an affirmative defense to what would otherwise be an infringement (absent the fair use doctrine). You are correct though, the proper phrasing is "fair use makes my copy non-infringing". Guess I should go back and re-read that chapter.
I'm (barely) under 30, and I get it.
FYI - fair use is about taking someone else's work, or a portion thereof, and adding some kind of value based on specific work. You can, for example, take a paragraph out of a book and add some discussion. You can take the melody line from a song and include it in your parody. You can't just take your favorite poem from some authors book of poems and add it to all your advertisements. That's not fair use. What Google is doing is useful, but it's not under the realm of fair use. Someone printing up 10,000 copies of the latest Stephen King novel and selling them at 10% the retail price of a legitimate copy would be useful to about 10,000 people, but it certainly wouldn't be fair use.
Fair use is much broader than that. Time-shifting, for example, is considered a fair use (the infamous Betamax case). There is no requirement that you add something useful or of additional value in order for it to be considered fair use, and sometimes doing so will not be considered fair use.
On the other hand, they are giving publishers a way to opt out, so it's perhaps not as bad as you make it seem.
But should it be the publisher's responsibility to opt out, or should it be Google's responsibility to get permission first? I think traditional copyright law would put the burden on Google to get permission for what they're doing. I'm curious though if what Google is basing its position on the "notice-take down" provisions of the DMCA regarding infringing material posted online. My understanding though is that this is only a defense against a claim of contribution or vicarious liability against ISPs for material posted by their users, not for the infringers themselves.
It's always been my understanding that Copyright doesn't cover MAKING copies, only DISTRIBUTING them
Incorrect. It covers both.
This means that I can go to the store, buy a CD, and rip it to MP3 to put on my iPod. That makes 3 copies of the work (the rip to WAV (even if it's just in RAM, it's still a copy), compression to MP3, putting it on my iPod). Am I violating copyright there? The courts say no (IIRC, the lawsuit against the Rio covered this). However, I am violating copyright if I give someone else a copy of my MP3s.
Technically, both acts, making the copy and distributing it to your friend, are infringing uses. However, you have a defense to the first infringement, aka "fair use", that you would not necessarily have in the second case.
It's a guarantee that I can't give away or sell full copies of your work.
Or partial copies as well, or plagiarized or derivative works. Copyright is much broader than what you suggest.
They index the copies they make (and keep to themselves) and give only a few lines of text in the search results.
But the copies they make are themselves an infringement. The question is whether Google has a fair use defense that would allow them to make these copies. We discussed Google Print in my Copyright class a week or so ago, my copyright professor seems to think that Google is probably engaged in copyright infringement on a mass scale (although in typical law professor fashion, he didn't come right out and say so).
Wow, you really have no idea how the US legal system works, do you? Judges' opinions most certainly can and do change the law.
You totally missed his point. From the summary: ...written from a balanced, business-oriented perspective.
The point you missed was that it can either be balanced or business-oriented, but it is highly unlikely to be both. In fact, given the track record of the Economist, it is almost certainly not both.
Owning property is one of the Human Rights, of course, but no economic system assures all of them.
Owning property is NOT per se a human right. A right to be secure in your person and residence is, and it may be that the easiest way to implement and enforce this right is to enforce property ownership, but one does not necessarily follow from the other.
Problem easily solved: don't put them in the iPod itself. have an adapter that plugs into the dock connector (or something like that) to plug into the TV. Yeah, it's one more thing to carry around, but it's probably about the best solution you're going to get.
That being said, I don't think it's gonna be a video iPod. And I don't really care either way.
And you'd be wrong. If there is no disagreeement on the facts of the case, then there is nothing for a jury to hear. The role of juries in the court system is to decide on the credibility of facts, the role of judges is to decide the meaning of the law. You can disagree all that you want, but all you're doing is showing your lack of knowledge of the constitution and how our legal system works.
Aside from feeling the need to rant (and trust me, I would be the last person on earth to deny you that opportunity), did you have a point? At least from reading the article, there's no violation of the 7th amendment.
The chinese connection is even odder... because most of them are FARMERS in WoW.
Well, I certainly hope this does break your addiction, leaving one less racist asshole in the game. The fact that SOME Chinese players are farmers in no way means that MOST are farmers. I've met about as many U.S. as Chinese farmers in the game - does that mean that I should conclude that most U.S. players are FARMERS??
I see you don't quite grok the meaning of "radical". Referring to an entity as radical doesn't imply anything about where they lie on the political spectrum, but rather how far from the mythical center they sit. One can be a radical conservative just as easily as one can be a radical liberal.