<a href='http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,67853,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,...3,67853,00.html</a>

Quote:Rep. Rick Boucher is a rarity in Congress when it comes to digital media. He's taken the side of consumers -- not Hollywood and the music industry -- in the sundry controversies surrounding digital entertainment.

When it comes to file sharing, Boucher says he'll fight attempts to stifle it.

He thinks tech companies shouldn't be held liable for products that can be used for unlawful purposes, like pirating media.

He says the balance of copyright law has tipped too far toward the entertainment companies' interests, hampering consumers' rights to use digital media.

And he wants government sponsorship of universal broadband.

While other lawmakers have long-standing relationships with the entertainment industry, whose chief concern is piracy, Boucher sees his pro-technology policies as a way to further education, communication and job creation.

Boucher, a Democrat representing the rural 9th District of Virginia, has introduced a bill to restore some of the fair-use rights taken away by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

If you wrote a computer program or novel for profit and found that it was being electronically transmitted and used without just compensation, would you still believe that consumers' rights were being violated?

RandyMc Wrote:If you wrote a computer program or novel for profit and found that it was being electronically transmitted and used without just compensation, would you still believe that consumers' rights were being violated?

Agree with you there. As I have stated before, I use software such as "LimeWire" but know it "should" be illegal. These guys are in it for the money. Open Source like BSD, etc.? FINE! So long as they ALLOW it to be free, but don't assume ALL performers want their stuff given for free.

What DOES piss me off is the "artists", and I use those quotes loosely, bitching about America and Capitalism and demanding that they get profits from everything. Don't piss down my leg and tell me it's raining. If you are principled, BE principled. If not, and you state that, you are just a glory-whore. Dave Matthews Band :wave: .

RandyMc Wrote:If you wrote a computer program or novel for profit and found that it was being electronically transmitted and used without just compensation, would you still believe that consumers' rights were being violated?

DMCA's fair-use provisions are pathetic and weak. Under the DMCA it's essentially illegal to borrow your neighbor's hammer when it comes to intellectual property. Might I add "Intellectual Property" has spiraled way out of control, to the point that things like a drop down menu and the concept of a "favorite icon" are patented things.

Quote:Opening arguments are about to begin in a closely watched trial that observers say will test the limits of a controversial federal copyright law.

The trial -- unfolding this week in U.S. District Court in San Jose, California -- pits the Russian software firm ElcomSoft against federal prosecutors who claim the company broke the law when it created a program that breaks the encryption on Adobe eBook files.

Prosecutors and defendants headed to court on Monday for jury selection. Opening arguments are slated for Tuesday.

Observers say the case could set significant legal precedent in interpreting the reach of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, a law drafted to protect intellectual property owners that has drawn criticism for stifling the public's ability to freely use copyrighted materials they purchase.

"The issue at stake here is: What is the balance of rights between copyright holders and citizens?" said Joe Kraus, co-founder of DigitalConsumer.org, a group that promotes fair-use rights. The court's decision, he said, ought to shed some light on the question of whether a potentially useful innovation may be deemed illegal because it has the potential for foiling copyright protections.

<a href='http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,56673,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,...7,56673,00.html</a>

Examples of DMCA illegal activity:
- It is illegal for you to backup/rip your DVD to ANY media, including a computer or another DVD.
- It is illegal for you to backup/rip any CD with "prevention" measures to ANY media, including a computer or another DVD.
- It is illegal to play a DVD in Linux.
- It is illegal to play a DVD in OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD.
- It is illegal to play a DVD in BeOS.
- It is illegal to play a DVD in OS/2 Warp.
- It is illegal to pay to pay for a song from iTunes and then burn it onto more than 5 CDs -- god forbid you mix up a CD-RW of your favorite songs to listen to in the car / CD player
- It is illegal record a radio song onto a cassette tape
- It is illegal to record a TV show onto a VHS.
In fact, the MPAA fought against VHS like the RIAA fought against the MP3 -- they were both seen as the next doomsday of the entertainment industry -- pirate tools for the masses. Funny they both turned out to be the bread and butter of their cashflow....
- It is illegal to buy a program and then back it up onto a CD.
- It is illegal to buy Windows and back it up to ANY media.

Do I really need to continue?

To put it simply... when you purchase a CD ... a DVD... a program... you have paid the owners of said item(s) their royalty. It is your property then. You should have the ability to do WHATEVER YOU WANT TO WITH IT (provided it is for your own purposes).

georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:[QUOTE=RandyMc,Jun 19 2005, 12:48 AM]

To put it simply... when you purchase a CD ... a DVD... a program... you have paid the owners of said item(s) their royalty. It is your property then. You should have the ability to do WHATEVER YOU WANT TO WITH IT (provided it is for your own purposes).

RIght on, If it is our property and we aren't selling copies for production, who cares?

GTS,

I think you have a few of your alleged "facts" about the DMCA wrong. When you "buy" that sound recording, you are really buying a license to play the sound recording that is on the physical medium that you bought. The copyright statute expressly provides for certain backups. What you cannot do is make derivative works. In light of those strictures, let's go through your list:

YOUR Examples of "DMCA illegal activity":
- It is illegal for you to backup/rip your DVD to ANY media, including a computer or another DVD.

WRONG. You MAY backup you DVD to any media. What you may NOT do is rip it so that you have a small part of it that you mix with a small part of something else to create a derivative work.

- It is illegal for you to backup/rip any CD with "prevention" measures to ANY media, including a computer or another DVD.

It is illegal to "circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected (by copyright)". 17 USC 1201. However, "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." 17 USA 1201&copy;(1). Backups fall into that fair use exception. Rips do not. Note that there are also extensive exceptions for security research projects.

- It is illegal to play a DVD in Linux.
- It is illegal to play a DVD in OpenBSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD.
- It is illegal to play a DVD in BeOS.
- It is illegal to play a DVD in OS/2 Warp.

This is a common misconception. It is NOT illegal to play DVD's on these systems, but because these systems have refused to take a license to decrypt the copy protections, the DVD's will not play on these systems. While I personally think that the DVD manufacturers are being overly heavy-handed in their use of the encryption software to limit uses of DVD's by region, I think they are within their rights to do so. Having said that, I also believe the market demand will ultimately cause them to cave in on this point.

- It is illegal to pay to pay for a song from iTunes and then burn it onto more than 5 CDs -- god forbid you mix up a CD-RW of your favorite songs to listen to in the car / CD player

Why do you want to burn a tune to more than 5 CDs? Sounds to me like you are getting ready to violate a copyright by selling the tune rather than engage in a fair use backup. Re:CD-RW favorites mix, I don't know what the iTunes license says, but as long as it was for personal use only and you bought the tunes, then there would be a good fair use argument. The question would be whether you created a derivative work or simply made the copies you paid for on a single CD.

- It is illegal record a radio song onto a cassette tape

Yep. That is neither new nor part of the DMCA. You are not licensed to make a copy of a song from the radio - you are supposed to go buy the CD, record, tape, whatever.

- It is illegal to record a TV show onto a VHS.

Not entirely true. There is an exception for "time shifting". In essence, this is a provision that allows you to copy the show for the purpose of viewing it at another time. The critical issue is that you are supposed to view it once and then erase it since your license would only extend to one viewing, as if you were watching it on TV without recording it.

- In fact, the MPAA fought against VHS like the RIAA fought against the MP3 -- they were both seen as the next doomsday of the entertainment industry -- pirate tools for the masses. Funny they both turned out to be the bread and butter of their cashflow....

Very true. What it did do is buy them enough time to figure out how to deal with the issue and get plugged into the cashflow.

- It is illegal to buy a program and then back it up onto a CD.

NOT true. Backups are expressly allowed. See 17 USC 117. What you can't do is "back it up onto a CD" and then run it from the CD on another machine. If you do that, it ceases to be an "archival copy".

- It is illegal to buy Windows and back it up to ANY media.

WRONG. See above re: backups. Having said that, MicroSloth may have written this restriction into their shrinkwrap and clickthrough licenses, but I haven't looked. If so, you could arguably be breaching their license agreements to make that back up. Having said that, you would also have a very strong federal preemption argument based on 17 USC 117.

The long and short of it is that you are telling half the story, just like the MPAA did and RIAA is now. That is the nature of the democratic process - I lobby for my view, you lobby for yours and neither of us gets all of what we want!

The funny thing is that "illegal" downloads of music have led to me buying a number of CDs and discovering a number of bands that I otherwise would have never been into on name alone. Included in this list.....Bright Eyes, Kasbian, Block Party, the Bravery, Kaiser Chiefs and those are just the ones in the last couple months. With all the crap out there, I like to know what I am getting into before purchase.

blah Wrote:The funny thing is that "illegal" downloads of music have led to me buying a number of CDs and discovering a number of bands that I otherwise would have never been into on name alone.

The even funnier thing is that I represent several bands who were unable to get a recording contract or radio play time, so they did independent albums and released portions of each song on their websites, encouraging downloads. One of these bands ultimately went to a straight, download the songs you want for $x per song model and simply do not have any "record" distribution through normal channels. They are now getting some radio play time based upon listener requests!

The fact that a few bands are starting to use this business model that cuts the record labels out of the deal, making it bad for the record industry (hence the opposition), but ultimately makes it better for the bands and the public, so long as there isn't just rampant copying and distributing instead of downloading for the fee. As a practical matter, doing it this way makes it easier to make the illegal copy, but also makes it easier to do it right and, because you get to pick and chose, makes the ultimate cost not that much different. It appears that, at least anecdotally, when people are given the means to do it right, even if it costs them a little more, then they will do what it right. It is just a huge shift in business model with billions at stake.

RiceDoc Wrote:

blah Wrote:The funny thing is that "illegal" downloads of music have led to me buying a number of CDs and discovering a number of bands that I otherwise would have never been into on name alone.

The even funnier thing is that I represent several bands who were unable to get a recording contract or radio play time,

Is this you or your competition?

As I promised...

<a href='http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050601/global-entrepreneur.html' target='_blank'>http://www.inc.com/magazine/20050601/globa...trepreneur.html</a>

Quote:John Buckman never much cared for the music business. He'd always found it corrupt and unfair to artists. But now it was personal. Jan Hanford, Buckman's wife and a composer of electronic music, had just been dropped by her label because of weak U.S. sales. Buckman and Hanford were upset, though not especially surprised: Any electronic music fan knows that the genre thrives not in the U.S., but in places like Singapore, Mexico, and Israel. If only Hanford could get her music into those markets.
...
That includes artists like Hanford. Once her music was available on Magnatune, she went on to sell more albums in six months than she had over the previous eight years.

The linked reference is NOT me or one of my clients, but I do have several clients that have done the same basic thing.

Quote:- It is illegal for you to backup/rip your DVD to ANY media, including a computer or another DVD.

WRONG.&nbsp; You MAY backup you DVD to any media.&nbsp; What you may NOT do is rip it so that you have a small part of it that you mix with a small part of something else to create a derivative work.

Care to explain why DVD X Copy was sued out of buisness using the DMCA then??
EFF: Extinct Gizmos: DVD X Copy || Why it's extinct: Hollywood sued the company that made DVD X-Copy out of existence, successfully arguing that it violated the highly controversial "anti-circumvention" clause in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
<a href='http://www.eff.org/endangered/list.php#dvdxcopy' target='_blank'>http://www.eff.org/endangered/list.php#dvdxcopy</a>

If you don't call that illegal to backup a DVD, what DO you call it?

Quote:This is a common misconception.&nbsp; It is NOT illegal to play DVD's on these systems, but because these systems have refused to take a license to decrypt the copy protections, the DVD's will not play on these systems.&nbsp; &nbsp; While I personally think that the DVD manufacturers are being overly heavy-handed in their use of the encryption software to limit uses of DVD's by region, I think they are within their rights to do so.&nbsp; Having said that, I also believe the market demand will ultimately cause them to cave in on this point.&nbsp;

It is indeed illegal to play a DVD in Linux, *BSD, etc. You can *easily* play DVD's in Linux, but for most major distributions, you have to go elsewhere to get the necessary software to do it, as I am unaware of a major distributor at this time who has distro-native support for it. Linux is open source, and thus will not pay for a decrypt license; yet the code to decrypt and play a DVD in linux is ... ohhh.. 20 lines? It's technically illegal for all the open source / small OS's to play DVD's, because they refuse to pay for a decrypt license. The fact that the MPAA still hasn't provided Linux with one despite .... hmm... 75+ million worldwide users... speaks alot. Do I need to Google up the interview with the MPAA goon and a MIT Student where the student made him eat his lunch over Linux and the MPAA's failure to provide Linux with fully legal DVD playback capability?

Quote:Why do you want to burn a tune to more than 5 CDs?&nbsp; Sounds to me like you are getting ready to violate a copyright by selling the tune rather than engage in a fair use backup.&nbsp; Re:CD-RW favorites mix, I don't know what the iTunes license says, but as long as it was for personal use only and you bought the tunes, then there would be a good fair use argument.&nbsp; The question would be whether you created a derivative work or simply made the copies you paid for on a single CD.

I use to own a Rio Volt .. it would allow me to play data CD-RW discs with mp3's on them.. thus allowing for you to have alot of music on 1 disc and not have to keep buying discs. If I used iTunes, and I had a favorite song I always wanted on the disc... and I reburned the disc with my current favorites ... say... once a month... in half a year I would be SOL, as the iTunes DRM would not allow me to legally burn it to ANY CD EVER AGAIN. To circumvent the DRM and burn it again is ILLEGAL UNDER THE DMCA; EVEN IF YOU ARE CLAIMING FAIR USE RIGHTS. Why? Because you broke the DRM to do it. They don't give a damn about your fair use if there is DRM on it.

Quote:NOT true.&nbsp; Backups are expressly allowed.&nbsp; See 17 USC 117.&nbsp; What you can't do is "back it up onto a CD" and then run it from the CD on another machine.&nbsp; If you do that, it ceases to be an "archival copy".

Let me be somewhat more specific... try backing up an XBOX / PS2 game. That is considered illegal under the DMCA. This relates again to the whole DRM nightmare.

Quote:WRONG.&nbsp; See above re: backups.&nbsp; Having said that, MicroSloth may have written this restriction into their shrinkwrap and clickthrough licenses, but I haven't looked.&nbsp; If so, you could arguably be breaching their license agreements to make that back up.&nbsp; Having said that, you would also have a very strong federal preemption argument based on 17 USC 117.

Microsoft considers backing it up to any media a violation of their EULA, which will ultimately be enforced by the DMCA should they sue somebody for it.

<a href='http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html' target='_blank'>http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.10/tail.html</a>

READ THIS. I think most of you will appreciate it.

GTS,

Perhaps it is because I deal with these types of issues for a living that I am drawing finer lines than you are. Where you see "backups" and "archival copies" as being found to be illegal, I don't. However, I DO see use of decryption software being found to violate the anti-circumvention portions of the DMCA. That is admittedly a distinction that the general public does not understand (or care to understand), but it is a viable legal distinction. As a result, DVD X Copy did NOT get put under as a result of copying per se, but rather because they were using deCSS software in order to make the copy. It was the circumvention of the cyptography that was the problem, not the copying. Nevertheless, for the average consumer, those are distinctions without practical differences.

FYI, DVD X Copy did make an interesting argument, which apparently was found to not have facts to support it.* DVD X Copy claimed that it was NOT circumventing because it was capturing the audio and video after the decryption but before rendering, so that they were only copying decrypted material, not decrypting it themselves. While that is an interesting approach, it seems to me that it might make more sense to go back to the old luddite, DOS based approaches and just bit copy the whole thing, cryptography and all. Then you don't have to decrypt and, as long as it fits into the fair use categories, there is no copyright infringement and no circumvention problem.

*As Ben Franklin said, "There is nothing uglier than a beautiful theory brought down by a vicious pack of facts!"

Regarding MicroSloth's EULA, I doubt they would come after you under the DMCA for copying Windows; they would go after you for breach of contract (the EULA is a contract) and straight copyright infringement for making an unauthorized copy. It is easier to prove and severe penalties, so they can get where they want to be without resort to the DMCA.

As a practical matter, I agree with you on a personal level (I reserve the right to take diametrically opposed positions on behalf of a client!) that something needs to happen because the statute is having many unintended consequences. Problem is that the copyright owners have a well funded lobby while the opposition is neither well-funded nor well-organized by comparison.