>> Because those rights always existed until the media cartels decided to try and take them away? Again, the VCR is a classic example.
I'd say those rights weren't so much granted as with the technology of the time it was difficult enough to enforce that nobody bothered to specify either way. I wouldn't say that this grants full access rights to all commercial content perpetually.
>> To be specific, the right is called "fair use", and it's pretty well established in law. In fact, format- and time-shifting is *still* legal, and considered fair use, even in the wake of the DMCA.
Reading up on fair use laws in the US, it appears fair use is subject to quite a few limitations.
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall includeâ" (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
It appears timeshifting and formatshifting for personal use does satisfy 1), although since we're discussing the "spirit of the law" in regards to copyright I'd say the spirit of fair use in this particular clause is for copyrighted works to be used in nonprofit educational settings, which private viewing at home isn't really. I'll leave a lawyer to work that one out.
2) doesn't seem particularly relevant. 3), though, might be, since most fair use cases only use an excerpt of a work, whereas with the access we're talking about here we're looking at the whole of the work. 4) is obviously the point that is the one that gets brought up the most in media downloading cases, but isn't particularly relevant for personal copying.
So, it looks like personal copying may or may not satisfy the conditions listed above, depending on how you argue it. However, fair use only specifies that you MAY use the content this way - not that the content must be provided to you such that you CAN use it this way. And if it's not provided as such, any attempts to circumvent the protection IS illegal under the DMCA. I think this particular point was well clarified on/. when the DMCA was first introduced - even if the act of copying is not illegal, circumventing protection to do so is.
So, I don't think fair use is a good argument against DRM, since it doesn't say anything about whether the content must be provided to be fair-usable. And hey, if you really want to use the content for fair use purposes, you can always take a camcorder and record it as it plays on your TV.
>> And I think your expectations are coloured by the fact that you've just come to expect content to be restricted (heck, depending on your age, you've probably become fully indoctrinated in the idea).
21, and Canadian. That should tell you about the contents of my harddrive;) It just bugs me when people act like unrestricted content access is their god-given right, because I know the cost of "producing" the content I download - the rippers, etc, are constantly risking their hide because what they're doing (circumventing protection, and probably violating a few clauses of section 170 above) HAS been ruled illegal, and I appreciate that fact. I just wish other people did as well, and and don't act like they somehow deserve this kind of access straight from the manufacturer.
>> What's "illegal" about translating my copy of "Escape" from one format to another or one device to another?
It's illegal because that's not the right you paid for. You only paid for the right to view it, in private. If you tried to show it in public you'd get in just as much trouble.
>> In some places, this is even a statutory right that isn't even watered down by newer laws bought by Big Content.
If you could find and quote those statutory rights, and are located in a region where those rights apply, then I'm sure you could bring it up with the people who provide you with those rights to make sure those rights are offered by the content providers in that area. If they are unable to do that then they have no business offering those rights to you.
Maybe it is different in the US than here, but I'm not sure why you expect rights like format-shifting and time-shifting - who granted those rights to you? In the digital world, just because you paid for BluRay doesn't mean you have the rights to do whatever you please with the content - you only paid for the right to use the content as they intended, as that's all they've offered for sale. There's no law that states that when a content provider offers some content for sale it must offer the same access as you can get with... when was the last time content was freely format and time shiftable? VHS? Cassette? If you really want those rights you can go rent the film reel - fully time and format shiftable (though again, probably not legal as that's not what was offered for sale).
I think the nerd community's expectations of digital rights is tainted by the availability of ripped downloads (I hesitate to say pirated here because real piracy is very very different, and sucks immensely) - those offer unrestricted access to the content, so why should content providers offer any less when selling their content? But you have to realize that the unrestricted access to the content offered by ripped downloads was never legally granted, and nobody should expect it as any kind of "right".
Well, technically Blu-Ray is compressed too with MPEG-4 part 10, but generally BluRay movie contents come at something like 20-30GB per. An intimidating download, at least, and I can't see anyone offering downloads true to that quality any time soon with our infrastructure. Not to mention the harddrives you'd need to maintain even a modest film collection.
So if they set the DRM so that the limitations are removed when the copyright runs out, you'd be all for it? Digital Rights Management, after all, could be used to manage the rights in accordance with copyright law.
Somehow I feel like the "spirit of copyright" is used as a red herring by people who'd rather all this just came free to them. And that's fine, but don't pretend there's some righteous cause behind it.
The only thing more annoying than smug theists are smug atheists, and they tend to be even more in-your-face about it, while applying no more of the "logic" or "reason" they purport to have backing them. Not only are they gnostics, they are hypocritical gnostics.
Why would they port the GameCube games when you can already play those in the Wii? Then again, why would the remake it for the Wii? It's not like there's any aim-and-shoot gameplay like in RE4.
The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are moving headlong to Free Software
Software resellers are moving headlong to Free Software? What is their business model supposed to be?
I'm going to assume this line is trying to say "The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are going to bankrupt themselves for the Free Software cause, for no particular reason".
Are you honestly incapable of considering the possibility that the context there is "within the movie industry"? Your nerd bias is seeping through the pores.
Unless MS promises to monitor and try and prevent people from sharing copyrighted material.
Sure, they could do that. But how would it benefit them? Who's going to pay them to find potentially copyright infringing media, and then block it? How would you even figure out if certain media is copyrighted or not? AFAIK Youtube still relies on requests from the copyright holder to remove copyrighted material.
The RIAA could try to pay them off, but then nobody would use their service. They WANT people to use their service because it gives them ad revenue and market share, which benefit them more than whatever the RIAA can come up with. You could be sharing the entire $900,000 (according to the RIAA) worth of your copyright infringed music collection there; what does Microsoft care? They won't get the $900,000, and even if the RIAA pays them some trivial amount for each copyright violation caught (they won't, since the RIAA is not guaranteed to get that $900,000 either. Might even lose money in court fees), they'll be scaring off tons of users from their service. The equilibrium point is when you lose all your users, and now the RIAA stops paying you anything because your service is worthless.
So, let's summarize how your supposed strategy will work, assuming you figure out how to filter copyrighted material and the RIAA is willing to pay you to do it:
1) Create filesharing service 2) Each user results in a gain of lump sum value X, which is the aggregated value of market share, brand recognition, ad revenue, etc. 3) RIAA pays you amount Y to filter copyrighted content 4) Users find they can't share copyrighted media files, stop using your service. 5) The only users left are the ones who don't share copyrighted media, ever. Your income X approaches zero. 6) The RIAA doesn't care about these users, stops paying you to filter files. Your income Y drops to zero. You could remove the filter now, but you've already put the time, effort, and money into making it. 7) ??? 8) You lose.
If you were in charge of marketing and proposed such an idiotic plan to me, I would fire you on the spot.
You could have a point. Why have MS increasingly enabled DRM in their operating systems? My guess is that they are hoping for a cut of all digital movie and music sales.
Oh I don't know, maybe because DRM usage by content providers is getting more popular than when XP was the flagship OS? And Microsoft is increasing support for it when the usage increases?
And how would MS get a cut of all digital movie and music sales by providing support for accessing the contents of those sales?
Slashdot Mirror
>> Because those rights always existed until the media cartels decided to try and take them away? Again, the VCR is a classic example.
I'd say those rights weren't so much granted as with the technology of the time it was difficult enough to enforce that nobody bothered to specify either way. I wouldn't say that this grants full access rights to all commercial content perpetually.
>> To be specific, the right is called "fair use", and it's pretty well established in law. In fact, format- and time-shifting is *still* legal, and considered fair use, even in the wake of the DMCA.
Reading up on fair use laws in the US, it appears fair use is subject to quite a few limitations.
107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall includeâ"
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
It appears timeshifting and formatshifting for personal use does satisfy 1), although since we're discussing the "spirit of the law" in regards to copyright I'd say the spirit of fair use in this particular clause is for copyrighted works to be used in nonprofit educational settings, which private viewing at home isn't really. I'll leave a lawyer to work that one out.
2) doesn't seem particularly relevant. 3), though, might be, since most fair use cases only use an excerpt of a work, whereas with the access we're talking about here we're looking at the whole of the work. 4) is obviously the point that is the one that gets brought up the most in media downloading cases, but isn't particularly relevant for personal copying.
So, it looks like personal copying may or may not satisfy the conditions listed above, depending on how you argue it. However, fair use only specifies that you MAY use the content this way - not that the content must be provided to you such that you CAN use it this way. And if it's not provided as such, any attempts to circumvent the protection IS illegal under the DMCA. I think this particular point was well clarified on /. when the DMCA was first introduced - even if the act of copying is not illegal, circumventing protection to do so is.
So, I don't think fair use is a good argument against DRM, since it doesn't say anything about whether the content must be provided to be fair-usable. And hey, if you really want to use the content for fair use purposes, you can always take a camcorder and record it as it plays on your TV.
>> And I think your expectations are coloured by the fact that you've just come to expect content to be restricted (heck, depending on your age, you've probably become fully indoctrinated in the idea).
21, and Canadian. That should tell you about the contents of my harddrive ;)
It just bugs me when people act like unrestricted content access is their god-given right, because I know the cost of "producing" the content I download - the rippers, etc, are constantly risking their hide because what they're doing (circumventing protection, and probably violating a few clauses of section 170 above) HAS been ruled illegal, and I appreciate that fact. I just wish other people did as well, and and don't act like they somehow deserve this kind of access straight from the manufacturer.
A much better option, as the former will actually make me liable in all sorts of unpleasant ways...
>> What's "illegal" about translating my copy of "Escape" from one format to another or one device to another?
It's illegal because that's not the right you paid for. You only paid for the right to view it, in private. If you tried to show it in public you'd get in just as much trouble.
>> In some places, this is even a statutory right that isn't even watered down by newer laws bought by Big Content.
If you could find and quote those statutory rights, and are located in a region where those rights apply, then I'm sure you could bring it up with the people who provide you with those rights to make sure those rights are offered by the content providers in that area. If they are unable to do that then they have no business offering those rights to you.
Maybe it is different in the US than here, but I'm not sure why you expect rights like format-shifting and time-shifting - who granted those rights to you? In the digital world, just because you paid for BluRay doesn't mean you have the rights to do whatever you please with the content - you only paid for the right to use the content as they intended, as that's all they've offered for sale. There's no law that states that when a content provider offers some content for sale it must offer the same access as you can get with... when was the last time content was freely format and time shiftable? VHS? Cassette? If you really want those rights you can go rent the film reel - fully time and format shiftable (though again, probably not legal as that's not what was offered for sale).
I think the nerd community's expectations of digital rights is tainted by the availability of ripped downloads (I hesitate to say pirated here because real piracy is very very different, and sucks immensely) - those offer unrestricted access to the content, so why should content providers offer any less when selling their content? But you have to realize that the unrestricted access to the content offered by ripped downloads was never legally granted, and nobody should expect it as any kind of "right".
Trouble is some people actually care about legality.
Well, technically Blu-Ray is compressed too with MPEG-4 part 10, but generally BluRay movie contents come at something like 20-30GB per. An intimidating download, at least, and I can't see anyone offering downloads true to that quality any time soon with our infrastructure. Not to mention the harddrives you'd need to maintain even a modest film collection.
>> Also, they can take my SD CRT television when they pry it from my cold, dead hands.
I can see why you think DVD is "good enough".
Personally, I can't stand blurry SD video anymore.
So if they set the DRM so that the limitations are removed when the copyright runs out, you'd be all for it? Digital Rights Management, after all, could be used to manage the rights in accordance with copyright law.
Somehow I feel like the "spirit of copyright" is used as a red herring by people who'd rather all this just came free to them. And that's fine, but don't pretend there's some righteous cause behind it.
What university do you go to that has engineering, CS, and math departments which produce a total of seven graduates a year?
I have synesthesia, you insensitive clod!
Give K-Y® a try!
You're claiming that it's more likely that some Chinese soldiers burned themselves to death to frame some crazy cultists?
Did you read the article? You're about to get royally penetrated.
I guess you haven't been talking to many string theorists lately :P
Please, please mod parent up.
The only thing more annoying than smug theists are smug atheists, and they tend to be even more in-your-face about it, while applying no more of the "logic" or "reason" they purport to have backing them. Not only are they gnostics, they are hypocritical gnostics.
Why would they port the GameCube games when you can already play those in the Wii? Then again, why would the remake it for the Wii? It's not like there's any aim-and-shoot gameplay like in RE4.
The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are moving headlong to Free Software
Software resellers are moving headlong to Free Software? What is their business model supposed to be?
I'm going to assume this line is trying to say "The MCPs that don't go bankrupt in turn are going to bankrupt themselves for the Free Software cause, for no particular reason".
I think it's actually mocking the superfluity of this article.
None of these statements appear to be true. Are you relaying hearsay, or what?
Are you honestly incapable of considering the possibility that the context there is "within the movie industry"? Your nerd bias is seeping through the pores.
Unless MS promises to monitor and try and prevent people from sharing copyrighted material.
Sure, they could do that. But how would it benefit them? Who's going to pay them to find potentially copyright infringing media, and then block it? How would you even figure out if certain media is copyrighted or not? AFAIK Youtube still relies on requests from the copyright holder to remove copyrighted material.
The RIAA could try to pay them off, but then nobody would use their service. They WANT people to use their service because it gives them ad revenue and market share, which benefit them more than whatever the RIAA can come up with. You could be sharing the entire $900,000 (according to the RIAA) worth of your copyright infringed music collection there; what does Microsoft care? They won't get the $900,000, and even if the RIAA pays them some trivial amount for each copyright violation caught (they won't, since the RIAA is not guaranteed to get that $900,000 either. Might even lose money in court fees), they'll be scaring off tons of users from their service. The equilibrium point is when you lose all your users, and now the RIAA stops paying you anything because your service is worthless.
So, let's summarize how your supposed strategy will work, assuming you figure out how to filter copyrighted material and the RIAA is willing to pay you to do it:
1) Create filesharing service
2) Each user results in a gain of lump sum value X, which is the aggregated value of market share, brand recognition, ad revenue, etc.
3) RIAA pays you amount Y to filter copyrighted content
4) Users find they can't share copyrighted media files, stop using your service.
5) The only users left are the ones who don't share copyrighted media, ever. Your income X approaches zero.
6) The RIAA doesn't care about these users, stops paying you to filter files. Your income Y drops to zero. You could remove the filter now, but you've already put the time, effort, and money into making it.
7) ???
8) You lose.
If you were in charge of marketing and proposed such an idiotic plan to me, I would fire you on the spot.
You could have a point. Why have MS increasingly enabled DRM in their operating systems? My guess is that they are hoping for a cut of all digital movie and music sales.
Oh I don't know, maybe because DRM usage by content providers is getting more popular than when XP was the flagship OS? And Microsoft is increasing support for it when the usage increases?
And how would MS get a cut of all digital movie and music sales by providing support for accessing the contents of those sales?
This'll only affect the retards who can't figure out how directory links and folder permissions work.
Can I have your copy? Or are you just going to keep it forever as some sort of silent boycott?
Never mind that if you're a subsistence farmer, the Chinese government can seize your land at any time.
Perhaps you have not heard of Eminent Domain....
That'll be a real shocker the next time your government decides your lawn would be a nice resting ground for a set of rail tracks.