About this Author
Ernest Miller pursues research and writing on cyberlaw, intellectual property, and First Amendment issues. Mr. Miller attended the U.S. Naval Academy before attending Yale Law School, where he was president and co-founder of the Law and Technology Society, and founded the technology law and policy news site LawMeme. He is a fellow of the Information Society Project at Yale Law School.
Ernest Miller's blog postings can also be found @
Copyfight
LawMeme
Listen to the weekly audio edition on IT Conversations:
The Importance Of ... Law and IT.
Feel free to contact me about articles, websites and etc. you think I may find of interest. I'm also available for consulting work and speaking engagements. Email: ernest.miller 8T gmail.com
|
Category Archives
July 19, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
I'm a little late coming to the party, but there has been a great deal of discussion on the net of the recent lawsuit against the Internet Archive, in particular, accusing the Wayback Machine of allowing a law firm to access archived copies of a website, which shouldn't have been available according to Archive.org's policies regarding voluntary compliance with a robots.txt file. The Archive's policy is to not allow access to archived webpages if the URL includes an exclusionary robots.txt file. This policy is applied retroactively, so that if a webpage didn't have a robots.txt file when archived, access to the archived file will be prohibited if the current version of the page has the exclusionary request.
Reportedly, a law firm interested in the archived version of pages was able to get around the Archive's policy through the simple expedient of repeatedly requesting the documents until the system, for whatever reason, spit them up.
What has gotten many commentators interested is that the anti-circumvention provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act have been invoked against the law firm that accessed the files by repeatedly requesting them from Archive.org.
Read the (massive download) complaint here: Healthcase Advocates v. Harding Complaint [PDF].
Some of the commentary here: The first important thing to note about the case is that the Wayback Machine is not being sued for violation of the DMCA itself, but only for a variety of contract-based claims, for not taking care to ensure that their robots.txt voluntary compliance actually did what they claimed was the policy.
The only party that is alleged to have violated the anti-circumvention provisions of 17 USC 1201(a)(1) are the lawyers who actually accessed the archived pages. The key element of this charge is here: 44. The denial text string in the robots.txt file on the computer server hosting the www.healthcareadvocates.com web site effectively controlled access to the archived historical content of the www.healthcareadvocates.com web site through the Wayback Machine at www.archive.org. Nope. According to Wikipedia, Robots.txt: is purely advisory, and relies on the cooperation of the web robot, so that marking an area of your site out of bounds with robots.txt does not guarantee privacy. Many web site administrators have been caught out trying to use the robots file to make private parts of a website invisible to the rest of the world. However the file is necessarily publicly available and is easily checked by anyone with a web browser. Pretty open and shut case. Robots.txt is not a technological measure under the DMCA. If it were, then all you'd have to do is slap a little text into any file saying something along the lines of "don't copy this" and suddenly it would be technological control measure. This would also pretty clearly eviscerate 17 USC 1201(c)(3), the no technological mandates provision: Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1). The fact that the Internet Archived voluntarily agreed (perhaps even contracted) to comply with the robots.txt file doesn't change a thing. Either something is a technological measure under the DMCA or it is not. It can't be one thing for one party and something else for another. Either it meets the definition under 1201(a) or 1201(b), and is applicable to all parties, or it does not. Otherwise, you could see collusion between two parties to make "don't copy this file" into a technological measure under the DMCA, at least for their purposes.
You can't have a DMCA violation if you don't have a technological control measure. So, if the plaintiffs want to maintain a DMCA violation they're going to have to base it on something other than a robots.txt file.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
June 23, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
A couple of days ago I wrote a post about Jupiter Research analyst and DRM-proponent Michael Gartenberg, who had grown so frustrated with Microsoft Reader's ebook DRM that he apparently circumvented the DRM, which is generally illegal under the DMCA (DRM Proponent Fed Up With DRM - Violates DMCA). Well Gartenberg has now replied, indirectly (My Last Word on DRM... Today). Here's my last word on drm. I repeat, I'm not against the concept and most consumers aren't either unless they bump into it while trying to use content they purchased in a legitimate way. I am against the way msft has supported folks using their Reader software and being locked out of my content. Some of you also suggest I may have violated the dmca when I posted my solution. I don't know. Honestly. It seems to me the program does nothing to the files, they are quite protected and must be run on an activated computer that reads them. The DRM is not stripped out at all. That's more akin to ouputting my iTunes files to a CD or a cassette tape. But maybe not. So for now, I'm deleting the files and the program and will inquire of folks who know more about the legal aspects. Perhaps, if he is promoting DRM, he ought to know a little bit more about the law that makes DRM viable for consumer goods. Hopefully, this will be a good learning experience. I hope that he will publish a posting giving his lawyer's take on the issue.
In related news, another good customer gets upset with faulty Adobe DRM (Open Letter to Adobe). Let’s be clear about this. I’m not stealing your software.
But you’re treating me like a criminal. Twice in the past few weeks, I’ve had to talk to one of your activation support reps because your online activation system is broken. It has several times just decided that I’d activated enough, and was suspicious. Never mind that I was reinstalling on a brand new replacement computer. Never mind that on the first occasion this happened, there was no grace period, and the software simply would not run until I talked to a representative on the phone, who, by the way, are ONLY AVAILABLE DURING WEST COAST BUSINESS HOURS. [emphasis in original] Read the whole thing.
via Darknet
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
June 21, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Michael Gartenberg, Jupiter Research analyst and DRM-proponent, has grown fed up with Microsoft Reader's ebook DRM and taken his rights into his own hands (MS Reader DRM Issues Solved... Permanently). While I'm still waiting for MSFT support to help me get back into the content I purchased for MS Reader (so far two emails and a rather fun 45 minute session with MS Tech support by phone, which is totally clueless about Reader. I was sent to Office support, Windows Activation and even though I kept telling them that there's no product activation code for Windows, my words fell on deaf ears). I finally took matters into my own hands. With a little help from a lovely free program called Amber LIT conversion, I was able to take all my MSFT .lit files and convert them to unprotected .PDF files for Tablet viewing and Word files that converted easily to eReader format. Took about a minute for each book. The program works with protected .LIT files but needs to be run on a machine with an activated and valid MS Reader. Since my old computer did have Reader on it, the process was a snap. This doesn't excuse MSFT. While DRM is a necessary evil, the notion of not being able to de-activate an older machine with a limited number of installs is user hostile at worst. Good case study for firms on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT DRM solutions. [link, ALL CAPS in original] Despite the fact that the Gartenberg ran his program on files he legitimately purchased and the program requires an activated and valid MS Reader to run, this still sounds like a blatant violation of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, 17 USC 1201.
It appears as if Gartenberg BROKE THE LAW! If we were to ask Jack Valenti, I'm sure he would say that Gartenberg is a THIEF!
The company that made and distributes the software Gartenberg used appear to be a BUNCH OF DISGUSTING HACKER PIRATES!
Or, perhaps, this is a good case study for governments on HOW NOT TO IMPLEMENT ANTI-CIRCUMVENTION laws.
Comments (6)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
Blink ›
Seth F on Blizzard v. BnetD Oral Argument
posted by Ernest Miller |
 |
# |
0 |
0
June 20, 2005
Blink ›
Download the Blizzard v. BNETD Oral Argument
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Geist on Canada's New Copyright Bill
Ubercanadiancyberlawprof Michael Geist on Canada's proposed new copyright law (Canada Introduces New Copyright Bill). There is simply no denying that the lobbying efforts of the copyright owners, particularly the music industry, have paid off as they are the big winners in this bill. The bill focuses almost exclusively on creating new rights for this select group including a new making available right, legal protection for technological protection measures, legal protection for rights management information, the ability to control the first distribution of material in tangible form, new moral rights for performances, a reproduction right for performers, and an adjustment in the term of protection for sound recordings....Anyone who has followed copyright reform history will not be surprised to learn that individual Canadians are the big losers today. Of course.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
Earlier today I spoke about the coming oral argument in Blizzard v. BNETD before the Eighth Circuit regarding EULA and DMCA issues (Oral Arguments in Blizzard v. BNETD). Well, we have our initial report on how it went from EFF (Upholding the Legality of Reverse Engineering). It sounds as if it didn't go as well as one would have hoped, but not entirely negative either: "The judges were struggling with the right questions," said Schultz [EFF staff attorney]. "They're trying to balance copyright interests with the right to reverse engineer. They clearly recognized the public interest in reverse engineering, but they admitted this would be a hard case to decide." Now we just wait and hope the judges understand the importance of the "Freedom to Tinker". via Copyfight
UPDATE 1835PT
Groklaw has a more indepth report (Reports from the Blizzard v. BnetD Hearing). The gist of his [Blizzard's representative] presentation was "Piracy, Piracy, Piracy". Through the emphasis in his voice, and the timing of his words, he wanted this court to understand that this was all about stealing. This was about the Defendant/Appellants taking something that did not belong to them. The overall sense of it was that he was trying to scare the judges and paint the Defendants/Appellants as being in the same group as the hackers and scam artists taking over people's machines with viruses and worms. He pointedly observed that Defendants/Appellants had used fifty icons from the Plaintiff/Respondents server application to make their own product. Of course. It's always piracy, piracy, piracy. If you listened to the copyright holders, anything of which they don't approve is theft.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
Blink ›
DVD Format Wars in the NY Times
The New York Times has a good report on the ongoing next-gen DVD format wars (Video Marches On, Without a Standard). Of course, if you get stuck on the losing side it will most likely be illegal under the DMCA to copy your pre-recorded content from the losing format to the winning one. That's gotta be helpful to the consumer electronics' industry, hasn't it?
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Blink ›
Violating the DMCA to Make Home Movies
JD Lasica continues his excerpts from Darknet: Hollywood's War Against the Digital Generation with a piece from Chapter 7 in which an executive from Intel attempts to educate a number of clueless Washington types about the difficulties with DRM (Story: The Tech Exec Who Broke Federal Law (and Why the Law is Broken)). The best part is when the exec shows a homemade video clip, that could only be made by breaking the law: Whiteside explained how the homemade DVD came to be. His nine-year-old son Timmy played on a Pop Warner team called the Typhoons, and Whiteside spent the better part of a football season capturing images of the action with his digital camcorder. At long last Whiteside culled together the highlights, imported them into his PC, and began creating his digital masterpiece. “I used a program to copy a few seconds from the DVD of the movie Rudy,” he said. “It’s the scene showing the final game of the Notre Dame season with Rudy’s family in the stands cheering wildly when he got to play. I then spliced in some snippets of pro players doing a touchdown dance from NFL Films, and I overlaid it with audio from ‘Who Let the Dogs Out?’ "I stitched this all together with video of my son, and it turned out to be the piece of home video that gets watched the most in our house. When relatives or members of the football team come over, we pop it in and we just laugh. The added scenes and music really bring it all to life.” Not only did making the home movie violate federal law, whoever provided the means for circumvention of the DVD's DRM also violated federal law. Read the whole thing.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
If there is a decision in Grokster later today, this news will probably be lost in the shuffle. That would be unfortunate.
Later today, the Eighth Circuit will hear oral arguments in the case of Blizzard v. BNETD, which involves EULA and DMCA issues regarding internet services, in this particular case, a videogame. The outcome of this case will likely be an important precedent.
EFF represents three open source programmers who reverse engineered the protocol used by Blizzard's client games to communicate with the game server. Thus, the open source programmers were able to create their own server.
Read EFF's press release: Consumers’ Rights at Stake in Eighth Circuit Videogame Case.
Groklaw explains why this case is important to open source programmers (Blizzard v. BnetD Hearing Tomorrow Morning).
LawMeme has a brief piece (Blizzard v. BnetD on Monday).
My analysis of the district court decision here: Major DMCA/EULA Loss - District Court Clueless in BNETD Case.
I was one of the first to write about the case extensively, beginning with the cease and desist letter sent back in 2002. LawMeme: Analysis of BNETD and Blizzard.
I think there is a reasonable chance for some sort of victory here as the lower court probably went too far. Of course, I wouldn't want to be arguing the case today ... the Grokster decision might have some impact (though it might not).
UPDATE 0950PT
C|Net News' Declan McCullagh reports on the story, adding his usual (ridiculous) claim that EULAs should be enforceable so long as the terms are commonly expected, thus allowing copyright holders to decide what is enforceable (Putting the DMCA on Trial).
UPDATE 2035PT
I've linked to a couple of reports on the Blizzard v. BNETD oral arguments (Report on Oral Argument in Blizzard v. BNETD Case). Now you can listen to them yourself via Joe Gratz, who has made a handy MP3 file (BnetD Oral Argument Audio Available).
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
June 17, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Frank Field points out a very interesting statement from Sony BMG regarding the CD DRM they've begun using (Sony BMG Explaining How To Circumvent Its Own Protections?). According to a Reuters wirestory on Yahoo! News, Sony BMG is telling its own customers how to bypass the DRM (Sony BMG Hinders Music Pirates with Protected CD). Apple Macintosh users currently face no restrictions at all. What's more, if users go to a Web site to complain about the lack of iPod compatibility, Sony BMG will send them an email with a "back door" measure on how to work around the copy protection. Frank questions whether or not this would violate the anti-circumvention provisions of 17 USC §1201. This does raise some interesting legal points.
The DMCA is very fact and technology specific. Unfortunately, the technical specifications for the DRM at issue aren't readily available. The company that produced the DRM is a UK company with the unfortunate name First 4 Internet. In addition to DRM, the company also produces a filtering program that can supposedly recognize pornographic images. [I've always wondered about these image analysis programs. If they're actually any good, I figure there are far better markets for their use than filtering pornography.]
In any case, the DRM can be found here: XCP-Aurora. Specifically, the DRM would likely be XCP2 - Press Protect. XCP2 Press Protect is an effective content management solution for use on commercial pressed CDs. XCP2 protected discs are designed to have full playability across all players while ensuring unhampered sound quality. Additionally consumers are able to save and copy the content securely for personal use. Presumably, this copy protection relies on the autorun feature of Windows to force those placing the CD into a PC running Windows to load and use DRM software. However, in order to play on regular CD players, standard audio tracks must also be present. We already know that this system doesn't work with Macintosh operating systems. I'd wager good money it doesn't work with Linux, either.
The first question, then, is whether such DRM is covered by the DMCA at all. It wouldn't appear that this initial protection, forcing use of DRM software on Windows machines, would be a technological protection measure under §1201(a), which requires that the technology, "in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work." Certainly that would not be the case for Macintosh and Linux, since the data is in the clear. It isn't even clear that this would be applicable in the case of Windows PCs, given that the data is provided in the clear. Presumably, a purchaser of the CD is tacitly authorized by the copyright holder to access the cleartext data, since the data is there for use on alternative operating systems. It is not clear why this authorization to access the cleartext data on some operating systems is rescinded because the user has Windows installed. After all, the Windows user could boot into Linux and access the cleartext with the copyright holder's tacit authority.
Under §1201(b), a technological protection measure "'effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title' if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title." Once again, the loopholes for Macintosh and Linux users make me question whether this is applicable even to someone who uses a Windows computer. One also wonders what the "back door" measure is. Would it really be considered bypassing or avoiding? That isn't clear without knowing more about the technology. For example, is holding down the shift key when inserting a CD in order to disable autorun bypassing the DRM, or is it bypassing an annoying feature of Windows? Is holding down the shift key something that is not "ordinary operation"?
In any case, if this "force DRM upon load if Windows" technology is covered by the DMCA, then things get interesting. For example, is Sony BMG authorized to do this? Who can authorize people to circumvent the technology? This is probably controlled by contract with First 4 Internet. If it isn't then there would likely be grounds for First 4 Internet to sue Sony BMG (though very unlikely). After all First 4 Internet presumably has used its own technology to protect its own copyrighted works. It would also raise the question as to whether Sony BMG could sue third parties for redistributing the hack. Sony BMG might not have that right, though First 4 Internet would. See, Who Can Sue Who Under the DMCA?.
Likely, we'll never get the answers to these questions, which is too bad. Nor is it likely that Sony BMG will explain why, if they're so concerned with "casual piracy" as they put it, they'll explain to anyone who is frustrated by their DRM how to bypass it. Odd.
More about the recent adoption of CD DRM by major record labels here:
Record Companies Intend to Make Criminals of Us All
Record Labels Fear Apple's Lock-In?
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
June 16, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Well, my last two posts have been about Macrovision's copy-protection, this one might as well be too. See, Macrovision Invokes DMCA for Analog Copy-Protection Technology and Mark Cuban Has Questions About the Macrovision DMCA Lawsuit.
Anyway, the copy-protection scheme that Macrovision provides for DVD players is called Analog Content Protection. Macrovision claims that, Macrovision ACP prevents or distorts copies of DVDs made over an analog interface to DVD recorders, PCs, digital video recorders (like TiVo, ReplayTV and Media Center PCs), in addition to D-VHS recorders (DVRs) and VCRs. By preventing copying onto digital devices, Macrovision ACP dramatically reduces the digital sharing of this content, including sharing among PCs, DVRs, and over peer-to-peer networks. When you don't want to call something a lie, you might use the phraseology, "it is, at best, highly misleading."
Well, the above claim by Macrovision is, at best, highly misleading. At best, Macrovision prevents some users from uploading new files onto filesharing networks. It reduces this initial dispersion of the files. Unfortunately, that is a pretty high cost for very low return: Speed Bumps on Your Car.
In this next paragraph, Macrovision demonstrates excellent use of qualifiers and half-truths. I shall annotate. Macrovision ACP is the world’s leading device-to-device analog content protection system [Thank you, 17 USC 1201(k), which mandated use of the technology], protecting over 4.5 billion DVDs for Hollywood and other rights owners since the format’s introduction [Protecting them from what? The internet? Commercial infringers? It is interesting that they protect "DVDs" and not "copyrighted works"]. Macrovision ACP closes the analog hole on nearly every DVD player, DVD recorder, PC, and digital video recorder. [Nearly. In a world where reproduction is effortless, "nearly" doesn't count for much.] It is supported through a worldwide ecosystem which includes extensive licensing to PC, CE and IC manufacturers. [Why does Macrovision act as if legal mandates aren't the real reason for this extensive licensing, like they did it themselves or something?] In support of this worldwide content protection ecosystem, Macrovision has developed industry-accepted test and certification facilities used to support proper functioning of ACP on nearly all manufacturer’s DVD players, drives, and recorders prior to market release. [There's that "nearly" again.] Gosh these guys are good. No wonder they got Congress to mandate their technology.
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management | File Sharing
Posted by Ernest Miller
Mark Cuban has noted the Macrovision DMCA lawsuit and wonders what the heck it is all about (What Am I Missing Macrovision?). Apparently he doesn't read this blog, because then he would already know a lot more about the lawsuit (Macrovision Invokes DMCA for Analog Copy-Protection Technology). Anyway, Cuban asks, Now maybe I’m reading this wrong, but the way I understand it, the CEO of MacroVision, a company that sells copy protection software to DVD publishers, is sending out a press release saying…
”Our software doesn’t work. It sucks. We can’t stop a bunch of little companies from writing software that completely busts our copy protection that we are selling for millions of dollars to publishers.”
If that’s the case, why in the world are DVD publishers paying Macrovision any money at all? Pretty much because the DVD publishers were the main ones (other than Macrovision itself) who helped push Congress to mandate that VCR manufacturers include Macrovision technology Hollywood knew didn't work to stop commercial copyright infringement in the first place. But the point wasn't to stop commercial copyright infringement. The point was to inhibit personal use copying (you could always sell it back as a priviledge, later) and to establish control over the devices that citizens could use. The point was also to establish another precedent for Congress to mandate copy-protection technology in consumer goods, such as the Digital Audio Home Recording Act of 1992, which mandated the adoption of the Serial Copy Management System. (Congress sure mandates winning technologies, doesn't it?) So just what is the purpose of having Macrovision copy protection on DVDs? To raise the price to consumers? To make things more difficult for them? To make sure its illegal to backup DVDs we have purchased?
Am I missing something here? If the DVD publishers stopped ensuring that Macrovision got paid, then the whole DMCA scheme might be up. Why do DVD publishers continue to pay for the failed DRM scheme known as the Content Scrambling System or CSS? It certainly isn't because copyright infringers can't make copies of DVDs. It continues to be supported in order to control the manufacturers of DVD players and to support the DMCA. The real issue is that, without the DMCA, Hollywood fears a total loss of control over how its product is experienced and distributed. Its fear of challenging new business models, fear of competition, basically, fear of change that is driving Hollywood to hold on to the DMCA for dear life (that is, when they're not trying to get more DRM mandates, such as the Broadcast Flag, passed). So hows bout we cut consumers a break and get this shit away from our DVDs. The only way to do that is to elminate the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
I would also recommend those interested in understanding what DRM is really about read: .
Comments (5)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
June 15, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Constitutional Code reports that Macrovision is invoking the Digital Millennium Copyright Act against an analog "signal noise" reducer. This touches on the little-known 17 USC 1201(k), the "Macrovision provision" of the DMCA (Macrovision DMCA Lawsuit Targets DVD Copying Products). This isn't about digital anti-circumvention (the most commonly invoked), but analog anti-circumvention. The following is probably not directly invoked in the case, but will shed some background: [1201](k) Certain Analog Devices and Certain Technological Measures. -(1) Certain analog devices. -(A) Effective 18 months after the date of the enactment of this chapter, no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in any -(i) VHS format analog video cassette recorder unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology;
(ii) 8mm format analog video cassette camcorder unless such camcorder conforms to the automatic gain control technology;
(iii) Beta format analog video cassette recorder, unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology, except that this requirement shall not apply until there are 1,000 Beta format analog video cassette recorders sold in the United States in any one calendar year after the date of the enactment of this chapter;
(iv) 8mm format analog video cassette recorder that is not an analog video cassette camcorder, unless such recorder conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology, except that this requirement shall not apply until there are 20,000 such recorders sold in the United States in any one calendar year after the date of the enactment of this chapter; or
(v) analog video cassette recorder that records using an NTSC format video input and that is not otherwise covered under clauses (i) through (iv), unless such device conforms to the automatic gain control copy control technology. (B) Effective on the date of the enactment of this chapter, no person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide or otherwise traffic in -(i) any VHS format analog video cassette recorder or any 8mm format analog video cassette recorder if the design of the model of such recorder has been modified after such date of enactment so that a model of recorder that previously conformed to the automatic gain control copy control technology no longer conforms to such technology; or
(ii) any VHS format analog video cassette recorder, or any 8mm format analog video cassette recorder that is not an 8mm analog video cassette camcorder, if the design of the model of such recorder has been modified after such date of enactment so that a model of recorder that previously conformed to the four-line colorstripe copy control technology no longer conforms to such technology. Manufacturers that have not previously manufactured or sold a VHS format analog video cassette recorder, or an 8mm format analog cassette recorder, shall be required to conform to the four-line colorstripe copy control technology in the initial model of any such recorder manufactured after the date of the enactment of this chapter, and thereafter to continue conforming to the four-line colorstripe copy control technology. For purposes of this subparagraph, an analog video cassette recorder ''conforms to'' the four-line colorstripe copy control technology if it records a signal that, when played back by the playback function of that recorder in the normal viewing mode, exhibits, on a reference display device, a display containing distracting visible lines through portions of the viewable picture. (2) Certain encoding restrictions. - No person shall apply the automatic gain control copy control technology or colorstripe copy control technology to prevent or limit consumer copying except such copying -(A) of a single transmission, or specified group of transmissions, of live events or of audiovisual works for which a member of the public has exercised choice in selecting the transmissions, including the content of the transmissions or the time of receipt of such transmissions, or both, and as to which such member is charged a separate fee for each such transmission or specified group of transmissions;
(B) from a copy of a transmission of a live event or an audiovisual work if such transmission is provided by a channel or service where payment is made by a member of the public for such channel or service in the form of a subscription fee that entitles the member of the public to receive all of the programming contained in such channel or service;
(C) from a physical medium containing one or more prerecorded audiovisual works; or (D) from a copy of a transmission described in subparagraph (A) or from a copy made from a physical medium described in subparagraph (C). In the event that a transmission meets both the conditions set forth in subparagraph (A) and those set forth in subparagraph (B), the transmission shall be treated as a transmission described in subparagraph (A). (3) Inapplicability. - This subsection shall not -(A) require any analog video cassette camcorder to conform to the automatic gain control copy control technology with respect to any video signal received through a camera lens;
(B) apply to the manufacture, importation, offer for sale, provision of, or other trafficking in, any professional analog video cassette recorder; or
(C) apply to the offer for sale or provision of, or other trafficking in, any previously owned analog video cassette recorder, if such recorder was legally manufactured and sold when new and not subsequently modified in violation of paragraph (1)(B). (4) Definitions. - For purposes of this subsection:(A) An ''analog video cassette recorder'' means a device that records, or a device that includes a function that records, on electromagnetic tape in an analog format the electronic impulses produced by the video and audio portions of a television program, motion picture, or other form of audiovisual work.
(B) An ''analog video cassette camcorder'' means an analog video cassette recorder that contains a recording function that operates through a camera lens and through a video input that may be connected with a television or other video playback device.
(C) An analog video cassette recorder ''conforms'' to the automatic gain control copy control technology if it -(i) detects one or more of the elements of such technology and does not record the motion picture or transmission protected by such technology; or
(ii) records a signal that, when played back, exhibits a meaningfully distorted or degraded display. (D) The term ''professional analog video cassette recorder'' means an analog video cassette recorder that is designed, manufactured, marketed, and intended for use by a person who regularly employs such a device for a lawful business or industrial use, including making, performing, displaying, distributing, or transmitting copies of motion pictures on a commercial scale.
(E) The terms ''VHS format'', ''8mm format'', ''Beta format'', ''automatic gain control copy control technology'', ''colorstripe copy control technology'', ''four-line version of the colorstripe copy control technology'', and ''NTSC'' have the meanings that are commonly understood in the consumer electronics and motion picture industries as of the date of the enactment of this chapter. (5) Violations. - Any violation of paragraph (1) of this subsection shall be treated as a violation of subsection (b)(1) of this section. Any violation of paragraph (2) of this subsection shall be deemed an ''act of circumvention'' for the purposes of section 1203(c)(3)(A) of this chapter. Phew! Did you get all that? Most of it doesn't directly apply to this case, but I thought readers might want to look at the extent of format and technology micromanaging that Congress thinks is necessary in copyright law. All this to keep people from copying VHS to VHS (which will soon be dead technology). Don't you love the law? The Home Recording Rights Coalition has some of the legislative history of this provision ( Macrovision Legislative History).
This is called the "Macrovision provision" of the DMCA because it essentially mandates use of Macrovision's Analog Copy Protection in VCRs. Wouldn't you love to have your technology mandated by law? Must be nice.
One example of the products under fire is the GoDVD! Model CT-2. Because it is not actually a VCR it doesn't fall under 1201(k), but it would likely run afoul of 1201(b), which makes it illegal to distribute anti-copy protection devices. However, 1201(k) makes it quite clear that Congress considers this technology copy protection technology, and because it is mandated for VCRs, makes arguing around it quite difficult.
Read the Macrovision press release: Macrovision Files Lawsuit Against Sima and Interburn’s DVD Copying Products.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act
June 14, 2005
Blink ›
Balance the Broadcast Flag with DMCA Reform?
Rep. Rick Boucher (D-VA) has a provocative op-ed in C|Net News today, offering a compromise with the MPAA: they get the broadcast flag and consumers get DMCA reform (A Deal Made in Washington?). If the MPAA expects Congress to ratify a rule that would limit the ability of ordinary consumers to share lawfully acquired digital broadcast television programs with one another, then it shouldn't be surprised if Congress insists that the MPAA accept in return a restoration of the fair use rights taken from consumers through the enactment of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 13, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
Posted by Ernest Miller
Denise Howell endorses (Putting The DMCA To Good Use) Kevin Marks's idea to use the notice-and-takedown provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act to attack "spamblogs" (Using the DMCA for Good). There are spammers who copy entire blog posts from others to act as fresh bait for their search spoofing tricks. This is commercial use, and a violation of most CC licenses (and indeed default copyright).Stephanie Booth recently did this [issued a DMCA notice and takedown] to a spammer at www.famous-people.info who plagiarized one of her posts on Jennifer Garner, on what was a Google Adsense supported spamblog. When she sent a DMCA notice, they took down the page and apparently lost their Adsense status. [links in original] Although I sympathize with the desire to inhibit spamming and enforce copyright, I must demur. I cannot endorse use of the DMCA's notice-and-takedown provisions, unless there are no other reasonable legal alternatives.
The problem with the provisions is that they lack important procedural safeguards for free speech. Copyright holders can easily, with virtually no justification and no judicial oversite, cause a website to remove speech that is perfectly legal for days, if not weeks. There is no requirement that the copyright holder actually file a lawsuit, if there is a counter notification. There is no recourse for damages for false takedown notices as long as they were issued in "good faith." This makes the DMCA ripe for abuse (EFF: Unsafe Harbors: Abusive DMCA Subpoenas and Takedown Demands) and, among other reasons, an unjust law.
We should not use unjust laws, giving them legitimacy, unless there are no reasonable alternatives. In this case, there are a number of alternatives, such as sending a polite request, sending a threatening legal letter, contacting the ISP directly, or even suing for copyright infringement (statutory damages are your friend).
We should not be so quick to use law to terminate speech merely on our say so. You say spam, I say free speech (until a court rules otherwise).
UPDATE 0835PT
Please see the comments for a continued debate.
Comments (13)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Freedom of Expression
June 10, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
Yesterday, C|Net News ran a story I initially didn't pay much attention to about Microsoft potentially jumping into a subscription music service (Microsoft Planning Music Subscription Service). Yawn. Who isn't?
So, I didn't even read the story. Luckily for me, Good Morning Silicon Valley did (Psst, Kid, You Really Gotta Try Some of This WMA. First Taste is Free.). News.com reports that Microsoft, long envious of Apple's iTunes storefront and its grip on the digital music market, is planning an iTunes exchange, a service that would enable us to download a Microsoft-formatted version of any song we've purchased from the iTunes Store. Well, that would be quite a trick. This is where the DRM really hits the road.
Look at it from Microsoft's point of view. Every song you purchase from iTunes with Apple's proprietary, DMCA-protected DRM is one more bit of lock-in to Apple. When you've got a hundred or two hundred or more of your favorite (let's face it, you buy your favorites first) songs in iTunes format, you've got some significant lock-in in the form of very high switching costs. Just the way Steve Jobs likes it.
And that lock-in is growing at a rate of millions of songs every month.
What is a would-be player in the digital music distribution world to do? One option, of course, is to do what Microsoft apparently plans to do, which is pay an unknown sum (but likely rather substantial ) to let people download (again) music they've already purchased from Apple. There is the mechanical license, of course. And you don't think the artists and recording companies are going to let the music publishing companies make money and they don't, do you? This is going to be expensive. Microsoft can probably afford it, now, before digital downloading really takes off. Can you say "barrier to entry"? I knew you could.
Of course, it remains to be seen whether Apple will make it easy for Microsoft to pull such a switch or not. I imagine that, if they did, they would expect require Microsoft to do the same. Although Apple probably will cooperate with Microsoft as much as they did with Real (Apple Gets Real Serious About Harmony).
In any case, how many times do you think this game of downloading again, and again, and again can go on? We're going to see some consolidation pretty darn quick. At least for now, as the players try to capture market share at all costs, consumers will probably be okay. If one of the music services goes out of business, their customers will almost certainly be picked up with a generous transfer by one of the other services (most likely Microsoft, since they'll most likely be the ones behind the DRM).
One of the scary things is, of course, that we will no longer have the current oligopoly of the music industry, but a duopoly of DRM camps. And once you've settled into lock-in with one DRM provider for music, are you going to choose another for movies, or television? Ultimately, we are probably looking at a duopoly for all mass-produced multimedia content.
And this is supposed to be good for artists, right?
Comments (10)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
Posted by Ernest Miller
Andrew Raff Rox0rz! Yesterday, on IPTAblog, he posted what is likely the first vblog on a particular FCC indecency decision (And Now, Something Different).
I want one of these for every FCC decision.
Download the video: Arrested Development, Indecency and the FCC [Quicktime, 17.6MB, 5min].
(I had a little trouble with the playback, your mileage may vary.)
Read the 4-page decision it is based on: In the Matter of FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC., Memorandum and Order [PDF].
BONUS: Andrew Raff says he got the video of Arrested Development off a DVD. That likely means he violated the DMCA. Way to go, Andrew!
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Freedom of Expression
Blink ›
Too Many Competing Interests for Monolithic DRM to be Successful
Jonathan Peterson has a short piece on why the DMCA is not about copyright infringement, but about preventing compeition and, more importantly, why this won't work (Why Open Computing Will Beat Closed Media). DRM has nothing to do with protection from piracy and everything to do with protection from competition - and that is a losing battle. The record companies can’t manage to agree on standards for DRM. Even if [they] did agree, consumer electronics companies would want their share for helping to lock in the content and telcos would want a slice for carriage. Multiply by hundreds of different regulatory environments worldwide, and is it clear that a monolithic, secured, un-hackable Medianet cannot be created. [emphasis in original] Perhaps, but it sure can cause a heck of a lot of trouble. It doesn't have to be 100% effective in order to seriously impact free speech.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
June 09, 2005
Blink ›
Engadget: RIP DVD Decrypter
Engadget mourns the passing of the DVD Decrypter, one of more more popular DVD rippers (The Clicker: R.I.P. DVD Decrypter). It happened on Monday. Quietly and with little fanfare, a fabulous product evaporated into the great digital ether. Choosing not to rage against the dying of the light, DVD Decrypter instead weighed its options and, like so many before it, chose to take up residence in the digital version of the Bermuda triangle, the Cease-and-Desist Zone. It’s that magical place where both fledgling and fully-featured programs go to never be seen again.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
Earlier this week I noted that the Supreme Court would not be hearing the Lexmark v. Static Control case (Supreme Court Rejects Lexmark's DMCA Appeal). Lexmark had been hoping to the use the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's anti-circumvention provisions to prevent third-parties from refilling used toner cartridges. A similar case, Chamberlain v. Skylink, involving third-party garage door opener remotes has also been rejected by the courts (this one on quite flimsy grounds - Judge Asserts Pseudo Distinction to Preserve DMCA).
Where is the outrage from DMCA proponents?
Many of the arguments for supporting the DMCA seem exceedingly applicable to the world of Lexmark and Chamberlain. So why isn't there a big movement on their behalf?
For example, one often hears the argument that DRM allows different business models to flourish, such as those based on price discrimination (This Summer's Horror Flick: "It's from the Federal Government, and It's Coming to Help Us"): Imagine three customers. A wants a CD for his home stereo. B wants an extra copy to play in his car as well. C wants both of those uses, plus another copy on his iPod. A logical structure that would benefit all would be three different prices, say, $12 for A, $14 for B, and $16 for C.
Under the theory of H.R. 107, [an anti-DMCA bill] this structure is not possible. All three customers must receive the same package of rights, and all must be charged the same price. This means the price will wind up somewhere in the middle, probably around $14. A is not allowed to say: "Hey, I only want one use; how about giving me a price break?" C is happy, of course, since he gets subsidized by A, which may show that the constituents for this bill are rich yuppies who can afford $500 iPods and like being subsidized by those who are less well off.
Of course, as a result, some As will be priced out of the market, so the cost of the CD will rise further, which will price some Bs out, and so on. Price will reach an equilibrium, but at the cost of significant loss of consumer benefit. Okay. Let's assume arguendo that this is a valid argument. Why isn't it valid for Lexmark as well? Wasn't this precisely what Lexmark was trying to achieve with its pricing structure for toner cartridge refills? Why isn't this argument valid for Chamberlain? Some people don't need to buy replacement garage door opener remotes. Without a DMCA that protects Chamberlain's business model, these people will have to pay more for their garage door openers.
How many business models are being squelched because the supporters of the DMCA don't seem to care about the Lexmarks and Chamberlains of the world?
Comments (1)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
June 07, 2005
Blink ›
DOJ Busts X-Box Modders for DMCA Violations
Missed this last week, but the DOJ is crowing about busting an X-Box modding company for violations of the DMCA (and some copyright infringement) (Local Commercial X-Box Retailers Plead Guilty to Copyright Felonies). During 2003 and 2004, Pandora’s Cube assembled and sold modified Microsoft Xbox video game consoles, which Pandora’s Cube called “Super Xboxes.” The Super Xbox was specifically designed by Pandora’s Cube to defeat the Xbox’s integrated copyright protection system and to permit customers to avoid purchasing, and paying the retail price for, authentic Xbox game discs. Assembled with a modification chip, new software, and an enlarged hard drive, the Super Xbox allowed users to copy video games from an authentic game disc, save the copied games onto its hard drive, and play the video game directly from the hard drive without the authentic disc. Additionally, Pandora’s Cube illegally copied large quantities of Xbox video games onto the hard drives of the Super Xboxes and sold the copied games at very substantial discounts to customers. The massive copyright infringement gets short shrift compared to what could also be characterized as enabling fair use, though it would still be illegal under the DMCA. via p2pnet.net
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
The Center for Democracy and Technology has released a report today arguing on behalf of a balanced approach to copyright enforcement, a carrot and stick (CDT Proposes Balanced Framework for Online Copyright Protection). via Constitutional Code, which has many worthwhile comments
Read the 14-page report: Protecting Copyright and Internet Values: A Balanced Path Forward: Version 1.0 – Spring 2005 [PDF].
Note: I've long favored the carrot and stick approach. See this interview with GrepLaw in September, 2003 (Ernest Miller on DRM, Privacy and Hemingway). (You know, I think my answers stand up to the test of time pretty well.)
However, I think the CDT report favors the stick a bit much, treats citizen/creators as mere consumers, doesn't consider structural reform of copyright law, and doesn't provide much in the way of a carrot, among other flaws.
Read on for a more detailed take on the report...
...continue reading.
Comments (3)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Broadcast Flag | Copyright | Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management | File Sharing | Freedom of Expression | INDUCE Act
June 06, 2005
Blink ›
Supreme Court Rejects Lexmark's DMCA Appeal
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
Posted by Ernest Miller
Earlier, I responded to Prof. Michael Madison's conjecture about the distinction between a "licensed" work and one with built-in DRM. Basically, I didn't get the distinction (DRM: Add On or Integral Part?). Madison has replied, trying to clarify his point (Tom Waits and Creative Commons). There’s nothing in copyright law (even pre-DMCA copyright law) that says that the author can’t produce, and sell, a thing characterized as a “DRM-enabled-CD.” You can’t “license” a “book,” but so far as I know, and aside from vague prohibitions on equitable servitudes in chattels, there’s no clear rule holding that you can’t sell a “restricted use book.” I still don't get it. What is the difference between a "restricted use book" and a licensed book as far as copyright is concerned? You can embed technical protections in a book, for example, using red print in order to thwart photocopiers. Does this, should this, change our copyright analysis if someone does photocopy a portion of the book? I would say, no, we're still looking at some sort of implied contract, covenant, negative easement, what have you and I don't think that flies with copyright, which should essentially exhaust all implied contracts regarding copyright. Suppose the digital download service characterizes the product that you buy (not license) as a DRM-enabled-CD. Suppose further that the point of the DRM is to limit playback to you and you alone. You can move the file from device to device, but it will play only on your devices (say, your iPod) – set aside the technical reality that this won’t actually work. Now, run the DRM-enabled-CD through the Section 106 rights, with the Section 107, etc. limitations, and ask: What happens when you loan your iPod to a friend? Are you liable for copyright infringement? What if the characterization (not license) for the DRM-enabled-CD is that the point of the DRM is to prevent quotation. You can do anything, except quote from the CD. Has this effectively vitiated fair use rights? What if the seller sold the one with the DRM for $1, characterizing it as the anti-fair-use-rights version and the one without the DRM for $10. Should this make a difference in the analysis if someone does manage to quote from the DRM-enabled-version? I don't think it should or how one could successfully make the legal argument for a distinction, absent a contract. And before this sounds too fanciful and metaphysical, consider the Creative Commons license. No one assents to CC licenses – the “legal code” versions of the CC “deed” purport to constitute a sort of CC-wrap, but that language is so far removed from ordinary CC license notices that it really stretches the shrinkwrap fiction beyond the breaking point. I can’t imagine a court enforcing a CC license on a contract theory. So, suppose a user of a CC-licensed work violates the license. Does the author of the work have a remedy? I’d like to think so. But I suspect, also, that the only legitimate way to get there may be to argue that the user accessed a “CC-licensed work,” no assent to terms involved, rather than a “work.” The question of Creative Commons license enforcement is a very involved one that I don't want to address right now. However, there is a distinction. Creative Commons licenses purport to give people rights above and beyond existing copyright law. For example, normally, reproduction and distribution would be infringement, but Creative Commons licenses frequently allow people to do this. On the contrary, DRM-enabled-CDs purport to take away rights that copyright law reserves to the public.
UPDATE 1000PT
Madison responds (More on CC and Things). With regard to Creative Commons: [T]hat depends on the relevant CC license and the relevant term. CC licenses give authors some rights that copyright doesn’t – most importantly, attribution/non-attribution rights. (Also, the commercial/non-commercial distinction maps only imperfectly to the “commercial” dimension of fair use.) CC doesn't give authors any rights that copyright does not. If you want to make fair use of my works, there is nothing that CC can say on the matter. However, if you wish to infringe copyright, then CC provides the terms under which one may do so.
There seems to have been a misunderstanding on some of the other disagreements: More generally, Ernie argues (I infer) that copyright law means that you can’t design information goods in ways that defeat statutory rights, so my “DRM-limited-CD” is no different, really, than a book wrapped with a “no fair use” label (my simplifying example, not his). That's not what I'm arguing at all. It should be perfectly legal to sell DRM-encumbered books, CDs, what have you. However, it should be just as perfectly legal to circumvent these restrictions. There might be exceptions, antitrust is one possibility, copyright misuse another, but in general, I have nothing against DRM-encumbered items. I oppose legally enforcing that DRM.
Comments (2)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Copyright | Digital Millennium Copyright Act | Digital Rights Management
Blink ›
DRM: Add On or Integral Part?
Writing about the royalties lawsuit involving Tom Wait's music, which I've written about (here and here), Prof. Michael Madison considers the distinction between DRM as add on and DRM as integral part of a product (Downloads and Licenses). iTunes downloads come with DRM. So, given the accompanying DRM, if we’re “buying” the download, what we buy isn’t really the equivalent of a CD or vinyl. And it’s not recording + DRM, either. DRM is integral, rather than a legal or technical add-on. It’s designed in. The DRM-limted-iTunes-download is a new and different thing, not the equivalent of a CD but the equivalent of a DRM-limited-use-CD. I don't see the distinction. Is there some contract involved? If not, why can't I do whatever I want to do with the recording, so long as it doesn't violate copyright law?
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 24, 2005
Blink ›
The MPAA's DVD Hardware Police
Fascinating article in the EETimes a couple of weeks ago concerning the MPAA's investigation and enforcement of DRM requirements for DVD players (DVD Police Target IC, System Makers). "We are not just the heavy hand out there suing people," said Hunt [CTO for the MPAA]. "I have a couple of engineers on staff who work with companies proactively on next-generation copy protection and security architectures for future products. For instance, we have been working closely with Microsoft on their next-generation OS and other product plans." via EFF: miniLinks
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 22, 2005
Blink ›
Wax Cylinders Same as MP3s Says German Court
Well, not really. But ConstitutionalCode, who I am beginning to suspect speaks and reads German and may be located somewhere in Europe, reports that German courts have declared DVDs and Videotape to be the same for contractual copyright purposes (Germany: DVD = Video Cassette for Copyright Eploitation): The Bundesgerichthof affirmed a lower court ruling and noted that a mere technological novelty would not bring a new use (of commercial exploitation). The use must be an independent economic form of use, and since the DVD is to be seen as a replacement of the video cassette, this was not granted. I don't really have anything to say about the merits of this case, but I do think that "mere technological novelty" can be far more powerful than is normally realized. TiVo is often described as a digital VCR, but it is far more than that and leads to highly disruptive changes in viewing habits. Seemingly minor changes can spur development in radically different ways. DVDs are significantly different from videotapes. If we ever get rid of the DMCA, it is likely we will see all sorts of disruptive uses for them.
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 13, 2005
Blink ›
CoCo: Anti-DMCRA Spin
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 12, 2005
Blink ›
Translation of French Decision Making DVD DRM Illegal
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
May 09, 2005
Blink ›
Hilary Rosen Laments Apple's DRM Strategy
posted by Ernest Miller |
|
# |
0 |
0
March 30, 2005
Posted by Ernest Miller
One of the best commentaries on the oral argument in the Grokster case, which was before the Supreme Court yesterday, comes from Timothy K. Armstrong, a DC appellate attorney/Harvard LLM student. Read the whole thing: A Few Notes from the Grokster Argument.
I found this passage particularly interesting: At least some of the Justices, Scalia in particular, seemed troubled by how an inventor would know, at the time of inventing, how its invention might be marketed in the future. How, some of the Justices asked MGM, could the inventors of the iPod (or the VCR, or the photocopier, or even the printing press) know whether they could go ahead with developing their invention? It surely would not be difficult for them to imagine that somebody might hit upon the idea of marketing their device as a tool for infringement.
MGM’s answer to this was pretty unsatisfying. They said that at the time the iPod was invented, it was clear that there were many perfectly lawful uses for it, such as ripping one’s own CD and storing it in the iPod. This was a very interesting point for them to make, not least because I would wager that there are a substantial number of people on MGM’s side of the case who don’t think that example is one bit legal. But they’ve now conceded the contrary in open court, so if they actually win this case they’ll be barred from challenging “ripping” in the future under the doctrine of judicial estoppel. [emphasis added] We don't have the actual transcript yet, so it isn't entirely clear precisely what MGM has admitted or what sort of estoppel would apply. However, if the gist of this exchange is true, then MGM has conceding something that Hollywood has been loathe to concede and I've never, ever heard them actually concede in public, let alone in a courtroom: that format-shifting or space-shifting outside the scope of 17 USC 1008 (which basically covers DAT and cassette tape players) is a lawful activity.
Now no one ever really expected Hollywood to go after people for ripping their CDs to an MP3 player. That would be foolishness on a grand scale, since courts are likely to expressly find such actions to be legitimate fair use. So they haven't. Still, they seem to base a lot of their legal theories and rhetoric on the fact that such space-shifting is illicit, particularly with regard to DVDs.
Ignoring the DMCA for a moment, if ripping your CD to MP3s is legal fair use space-shifting, why isn't ripping your DVD to DiVX also legal fair use space-shifting? What would be the principled distinction between the two types of space-shifting? I can't imagine one.
So, remind me of the reason for the DMCA again? It doesn't stop determined infringers and mostly keeps companies from selling devices to enable all sorts of lawful uses. And, if ripping a DVD is a lawful use, how is it that copyright protection turns it into unlawful "access"?
UPDATE 1000 PT - 31 Mar 2005
Constitutional Code also addresses this concession ( MGM's Concession and the DMCRA).
Comments (7)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Digital Millennium Copyright Act | File Sharing
November 04, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
Comments (0)
+ TrackBacks (0) | Category: Audio Edition | Digital Millennium Copyright Act
October 01, 2004
Posted by Ernest Miller
|
