I bought CRUNCH but....

[sandman42]

I know of a case of a pianist, whose name I cannot remember, who released recording of another very obscure artist as if it was her own. It got very good reviews in classical music publications and sold well for a while. (Actually she did this more than a few times.) Eventually somebody figured out the scam and the scandal hits. The artist who originally recorded the performance could not sue her to claim what should in a fair sense belong to him. Apparently he had to show damages and his sales went from none to sizable due to the scandal. As he actually benefited from this fraud, she got away. Well, she died in the meantime, so maybe I should say her estate got away with it.

The pianist was Joyce Hatto. I think that case is complicated, as there seems to be some debate about whether it's a case of copyright infringement, plagiarism, or some other kind of piracy. Also, it appears that her husband was behind the deception, and he claims that she had no knowledge of it. Regardless, I'd be surprised if a person can't claim 'damages' simply because someone else makes money off their work, whether it furthered their own career or not (but I'm not a lawyer either). In any event, I'm not sure we've heard the last of this story yet, as the late Ms. Hatto's husband's 'confession' was less than 10 months ago, so it was fairly recent. All the articles I have looked at seem to focus on the nature of the hoax and how it was discovered, but not on what the fallout is or will be.

Anyway, getting back to how this relates to us and our iPods, TVs and DVDs, it is still my understanding that one element of the DMCA is to specifically make it illegal to defeat DRM on copyrighted works, which is what you do if you rip a copyrighted DVD, regardless of what you do with the content (it is not necessary to show copyright infringement or damages). Though really, when you get right down to it, what's 'legal' or 'illegal' is what a judge says is legal or illegal when the judge interprets the law in court. Until that happens, we're really talking about what the intent of the law is or how we think it'll hold up in court. From what I read, the law landed pretty heavily on the side of the copyright holders, not the consumers, but time will tell.

 

[akm3]

DMCA doesn't have anything to do with fair use, it has to do with circumventing DRM.

Basically, they killed fair use by saying "fair use all you want...but don't break our DRM or you are breaking the law"

Thus, they killed fair use by requiring you to break the DRM to fairly use.

Thus, fair use breaks the law under DMCA.

Eventually, I hope, DMCA is declared unconstitutional or something and fair use (in practice) is restored - but don't bet on it. We will likely all stay criminals.

...

Vote Ron Paul

 

[TFox]

Thus, they killed fair use by requiring you to break the DRM to fairly use.

Thus, fair use breaks the law under DMCA.

It's interesting that you assume that making a local digital copy of a DVD is a fair use. I doubt you're alone in thinking so, but I don't agree. I think "fair use" is limited to the things in 17 U.S.C. § 107. Thus, you would need to establish that you're making the copy "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research . . . ." I understand that's not supposed to be a totally exhaustive list, but you would need to establish that your reasons for making the copy were "for purposes such as" the things in the list. I don't think "my computer hard drive is a hell of a lot more convenient than a physical media DVD jukebox" is a purpose like those in the list.

Of course, in addition to "fair use," there are other statutory permissions to make copies of certain copyrighted materials. For the reasons we've discussed above, they don't apply to DVDs, so the fair use statute is the only avenue. But I'm not confident that it's been established that a local copy for convenience is necessarily entitled to the fair use defense simply because you and I think it's more fair than the copyright holder's restrictions. If "it seems fair enough to me" were the only standard, the rest of Section 107 would never have been written.

 

[Sijmen]

This is interesting. If I create my own DVD, then somehow copy protect it, and then remove the protection - I would break the DMCA? Or, if I'd create a program with copy protection, and tried to hack it myself to see how good it works?

 

[wmealer]

This is interesting. If I create my own DVD, then somehow copy protect it, and then remove the protection - I would break the DMCA? Or, if I'd create a program with copy protection, and tried to hack it myself to see how good it works?

wow... just... wow.

 

[7on]

This is interesting. If I create my own DVD, then somehow copy protect it, and then remove the protection - I would break the DMCA? Or, if I'd create a program with copy protection, and tried to hack it myself to see how good it works?

but... if it's your own dvd you created... you'd be the copyright holder...

 

[sandman42]

If "it seems fair enough to me" were the only standard, the rest of Section 107 would never have been written.

Right. A lot of people's belief about what constitutes fair use is based on their opinion of what's fair, rather than legal precedent or statute. Unfortunately, the user isn't who gets to determine what kind of use is fair.

This is interesting. If I create my own DVD, then somehow copy protect it, and then remove the protection - I would break the DMCA? Or, if I'd create a program with copy protection, and tried to hack it myself to see how good it works?

No. As others have said, it wouldn't apply to you as the copyright holder. You can't infringe on your own copyright.

 

[Sijmen]

I understood the problem here would not be with the copyright, but with circumventing the protection?

By the way, here in the Netherlands we have something that I really like: reverse engineering purely for compatibility is explicitly defined as fair use.

 

[TFox]

By the way, here in the Netherlands we have something that I really like: reverse engineering purely for compatibility is explicitly defined as fair use.

The DMCA has a similar provision for reverse engineering for purposes of compatibility or interoperability, at least with regard to computer software.

`(f) REVERSE ENGINEERING- (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

`(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

`(3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

`(4) For purposes of this subsection, the term `interoperability' means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

Not everything Congress does is entirely unfair. Note, however, that you still have to pay for the version of the software that you're cracking (duh), and the exception is apparently limited to computer software, so there's no argument that you're simply making your DVDs "interoperable" with your Apple TV.

 

[TFox]

but... if it's your own dvd you created... you'd be the copyright holder...

Right. 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1) says "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title." At face value, that applies equally to the owner of the copyrighted work as well as others. However, 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(3) defines "circumvent a technological measure" to mean "to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner." Problem solved.

 

[akm3]

It's interesting that you assume that making a local digital copy of a DVD is a fair use. I doubt you're alone in thinking so, but I don't agree. I think "fair use" is limited to the things in 17 U.S.C. § 107. Thus, you would need to establish that you're making the copy "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research . . . ." I understand that's not supposed to be a totally exhaustive list, but you would need to establish that your reasons for making the copy were "for purposes such as" the things in the list. I don't think "my computer hard drive is a hell of a lot more convenient than a physical media DVD jukebox" is a purpose like those in the list.

Of course, in addition to "fair use," there are other statutory permissions to make copies of certain copyrighted materials. For the reasons we've discussed above, they don't apply to DVDs, so the fair use statute is the only avenue. But I'm not confident that it's been established that a local copy for convenience is necessarily entitled to the fair use defense simply because you and I think it's more fair than the copyright holder's restrictions. If "it seems fair enough to me" were the only standard, the rest of Section 107 would never have been written.

Making a backup copy of your material is (or should be ) fair use.

 

[HDproducer]

DMCA doesn't have anything to do with fair use, it has to do with circumventing DRM.

Basically, they killed fair use by saying "fair use all you want...but don't break our DRM or you are breaking the law"

Thus, they killed fair use by requiring you to break the DRM to fairly use.

Thus, fair use breaks the law under DMCA.

Eventually, I hope, DMCA is declared unconstitutional or something and fair use (in practice) is restored - but don't bet on it. We will likely all stay criminals.

...

Vote Ron Paul

this is right on. Fair use has nothing to do with it. DMCA says it is illegal to brake the DRM no matter what you do with it. You can't mess with that. That was the industries way of making "fair use" a moot point. And this is very specific and not as subjective as "fair use"

 

[HDproducer]

The way movies work now you are not buying a movie, but a DVD with a movie on it. You have no additional usage rights to that movie. I think in the next few years, that will change. You will buy the rights to that movie, and will have numerous usage options for that movie. ie DVD, ipod, TV or Sony PSP. This of course will not be for all mediums known and unknown for ever, but it will be a finite list. But the usage should change from a single medium, to a single end user. Much like music is already.