×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Brazil Forbids DRM On the Public Domain

kdawson posted more than 3 years ago | from the what-they-said dept.

Government 258

nunojsilva writes "Cory Doctorow reports that the Brazilian equivalent of DMCA explicitly forbids using DRM-like techniques on works in the public domain. 'Brazil has just created the best-ever implementation of WCT [WIPO Copyright Treaty]. In Brazil's version of the law, you can break DRM without breaking the law, provided you're not also committing a copyright violation.' This means that, unlike the US, where it is illegal to break DRM, in Brazil it is illegal to break the public domain."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

258 comments

BANANA (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871660)

BANANA B-A-

Spain Beats the Dutch Oven (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871864)

Gooooooooooooooooooollllllll!!!1!1!!!

In Soviet Brazil (5, Funny)

mjwx (966435) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871662)

Copyright laws work for the good of the people

Re:In Soviet Brazil (5, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871722)

Copyright laws work for the good of the people

What a funny turned upside down world. The first world nations are striving to work against the people, and the not so first world nations have this crazy idea to work for their people.

*sips coffee*

Re:In Soviet Brazil (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871850)

Brazil burns a lot of ethanol (world's first sustainable bio-fuel economy), so they can be energy self-sufficient as well. How the hell will the enlightened world ever be able to embargo them into submission?

Re:In Soviet Brazil (5, Interesting)

Sulphur (1548251) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872006)

They make their ethanol from sugar which is more efficient than corn.

Once an ethanol market is bootstrapped, one can switch to cellulose which uses no foodstuffs.

is a / has a test (0)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872406)

public class MyGirlfriend extends Brazilian{

}

//hmm basic inheritance fail, let me try this one again.

private class MyGirlfriend{

Brazilian brazilian = new Brazilian();

}

Re:is a / has a test (4, Funny)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872888)

Just remember you have to call wait(568024668000) before doing anything with your new Brazilian.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (1)

wall0159 (881759) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872650)

Maybe this is part of your point, but who's the "enlightened world" -- the US or Brazil?

"What a funny turned upside down world." (4, Funny)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871854)

yes, brazil is in the southern hemisphere (mostly)

this is their map they share with the other antipodeans:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6f/Blank-map-world-south-up.png [wikimedia.org]

Re:"What a funny turned upside down world." (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871906)

this is their map they share with the other antipodeans:

What does the Men in Black movies have to do with this?

Re:In Soviet Brazil (1, Interesting)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872246)

It's not crazy or upside down at all.

The United States Economy is built largely on IP law. We export research, science, art and knowledge to other countries which manufacture products based on that investment.

Publishers and Manufacturers just put data on disks and pages. Without IP laws standing in their way they could make DVDs for $0.01 each. They still make just as much profit as before (actually more since they can sell a DVD now for $1 and pocket $0.99 instead of $0.001 profit on manufacturing they would charge before.

They're leading the way because they have no interest in protecting intellectual property.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (2)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872480)

>They're leading the way because they have no interest in protecting intellectual property.

Also, perhaps, because they have a "commie" at the helm?

Re:In Soviet Brazil (3, Insightful)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872276)

What a funny turned upside down world. The first world nations are striving to work against the people, and the not so first world nations have this crazy idea to work for their people.

Funny indeed, if you haven't put a second thought into actually contrasting "nation" with "people"...

Who wants you to / how did you you allow yourself to forget that they are basically the same, or at the least the former is a reflection of the latter?

Re:In Soviet Brazil (3, Insightful)

Sique (173459) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872654)

No. A nation is different from people. Take one of the emirates at the persian golf: Large parts of their population are not part of the nation, but they are still people living there.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (1)

sznupi (719324) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872696)

Of course they are part of the nation. That they might not have citizenship or that the presence of individuals might be, in principle, temporary doesn't change it; they aren't detached from the society they live in, they are an integral part of what it is.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872552)

I can not help but wonder if a work is downloaded legally in Brazil and Americans receive copies from Brazil what effect that has on copyright protections within our borders.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872664)

First world nations? Who told you this hypocritical BS? Your zombo-tv? First world nations are always the poorest ones. Because they sweat working their ass off so that stupid lazy fat dudes from other countries who just happen to be more arrogant and have more guns could buy cheap bananas.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (1)

WoollyMittens (1065278) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871726)

But not in the USA, where is works for the good of the corporation. Like everything else.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871882)

That's because corporations are people too! The Supreme Court said so!

Re:In Soviet Brazil (3, Informative)

the_B0fh (208483) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872328)

actually, it was a court clerk, no the supreme court that said so. they just found it convenient to allow that to stand. someone should challenge this before the supreme court.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (5, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871734)

Nope. This is a proposal, not an actual change to the laws. The article on ArsTechnica [arstechnica.com] makes that very explicit.

For those interested in reading the entire thing - it's available here [google.com] .

Re:In Soviet Brazil (5, Informative)

cappp (1822388) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871772)

The proposed "Fair Use" rules in Brazil read:

Article 46. Not an insult to the use of copyright protected works, dispensing with even the express prior authorization of the owner and the need for compensation by those who use them in the following cases:
I - reproduction by any means or process of any work legitimately acquired, if made in one copy and by the copyist, for his private use and not commercial;

II - reproduction by any means or process of any work legitimately acquired, where to ensure its portability or interoperability, for private, noncommercial

III - playing in the press, news or informative articles, published in newspapers or magazines with the name of the author, if signed, and the publication of which were transcribed;

IV - to use the press, in speeches at public meetings of any kind or of any work, and when it is justified to the extent necessary to fulfill the duty to report on news events;

V - the use of literary, artistic or scientific works, phonograms and broadcasting of radio and television shops, exclusively for customer demonstration, provided that the said establishments market the media or facilities to enable its use;

VI - a theatrical performance, recitation or declamation, the audiovisual display and musical performance, provided they have no intention of profit and that the public can attend free of charge, held in the family circle or in schools, when intended for use by bodies teachers and students, parents and other persons belonging to the school community;

VII - the use of literary, artistic or scientific evidence to produce judicial or administrative;

VIII - the use in any work of short extracts from existing works, of whatever nature, or entire work, when the visual arts, where the use itself is not the main goal of the new work that does not jeopardize the operation normal work reproduced or unjustifiably prejudice the legitimate interests of authors;

IX - the reproduction, distribution, communication and the provision of public works for the exclusive use of disabled persons where the disability involves, for the enjoyment of the work by those people need to use at any particular process or still some adaptation of the protected work, and provided that no commercial purpose in the reproduction or adaptation;

X - reproduction and making available to the public for inclusion in portfolio or professional resume, to the extent required for this purpose, since he who wishes to disseminate the works by such means is one of the authors or person depicted;

XI - the use of pictures, or other form of representation of the image, custom, when performed by the object owner ordered, with no opposition from the person represented or, if dead or absent, his spouse, his ascendants or descendants;

XII - playback of lectures, conferences and classes for those to whom they are addressed, prohibited the publication, regardless of the purpose of profit, without prior written permission of whom ministered;

XIII - reproduction necessary for conservation, preservation and storage of any work, non-commercial purposes, if carried out by libraries, archives, documentation centers, museums, film and other museum institutions, to the extent required to meet its goals;

XIV - the quotation in books, newspapers, magazines or other means of communication of passages from a work for study, criticism or controversy, to the extent required for the specific purpose, stating the name of the author and origin the work;

XV - a theatrical performance, recitation or declamation, the audiovisual display and musical performance, provided they have no intention of profit, which the public can attend free of charge and they occur to the extent required for order to achieve and the following assumptions :
a) for educational purposes only;
b) with the purpose of cultural diffusion and multiplication of public opinion formation or discussion by film society associations, as well recognized;
c) strictly inside the temples only during religious and liturgical activities, or
d) for purposes of rehabilitation or therapy, medical inpatient units providing this service for free, or in prisons, including socio-educational character.

XVI - communication and making available to the public of protected intellectual works that integrate the collections or collections of libraries, archives, documentation centers, museums, film museums and other institutions for research purposes, research or study, or by any means process, within their facilities or through their closed networks of computers;

XVII - reproduction without commercial purpose, of literary work, phonogram or audiovisual work whose latest publication is no longer available for sale, the person responsible for its economic exploitation, in sufficient quantity to meet market demand, and not a available and most recent publication, either, there is no stock available of the work or phonogram for sale, and

XVIII - reproduction and any use of works of visual arts for the purpose of advertising the public exhibition or sale of these works, insofar as is necessary to promote the event, provided it is done with permission of the owner of the medium in which the work materializes, excluding any other commercial use.

Sole Paragraph. Apart from the cases expressly provided in this article, does not constitute violation of copyright reproduction, distribution and communication to the public of protected works, dispensing with even the express prior authorization of the owner and the need for compensation by those who use them when such use is:
I - for educational, instructional, informational, research or for use as a creative resource, and
II – made to the extent required for the end to be achieved, without affecting the normal exploitation of used and not cause unreasonable prejudice the legitimate interests of authors.

Art. 47. Are free paraphrases and parodies that are not true reproductions of the original work nor does it imply disbelief.

Art. 48. The works of visual art and architectural permanently visible in public places may be freely represented, by any means or process, including photography.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (5, Informative)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872174)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries'_copyright_length [wikipedia.org]
Brazil: Life + 70 years

It's a joke to talk about "a fine and balanced approach to copyright law" while ignoring life + 70 years of copyright protection.
They'll be doddering seniors before anything created in their lifetime is public domain.

Re:In Soviet Brazil (2, Insightful)

ultranova (717540) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872774)

It's a joke to talk about "a fine and balanced approach to copyright law" while ignoring life + 70 years of copyright protection.

It's a rather dark humor to realize that this is, indeed, what passes as "fine and balanced" in modern copyright law.

They'll be doddering seniors before anything created in their lifetime is public domain.

But most stars you see nowadays still burn. That's an improvement, right?

Re:In Soviet Brazil (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872648)

This is actually quite reasonable. If they were to change the length of copyright to a more suitable length of time such as 20 years from date of publication then we would have a model for the rest of the world to use.

It's a shame the USA'ian government/corporate masters wont let it happen though... :\

Re:In Soviet Brazil (1)

jbssm (961115) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872940)

It's a shame the USA'ian government/corporate masters wont let it happen though... :\

And what is the USA'ian government/corporate do, invade Brazil ... yeah right? Embargo it and the biggest agricultural production of the planet ... good luck with that? Overthrown the government ... of course, good luck with that one as well, trying to disrupt the most stable country of South America.

In Soviet Brazil, you break DRM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871670)

Basically?

Seems reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871698)

Seems reasonable enough on its surface, but is there an Amazon.br I can buy everything through?

oh so its still illegal? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871700)

This means that, unlike the US, where it is illegal to break DRM, in Brazil it is illegal to break the public domain.

proof-read...

Re:oh so its still illegal? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871738)

I assume it simply meant it is illegal to move public domain works into a form that gives IP rights over it.

Including _fair use_! (5, Insightful)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871732)

This is a masterful inversion of the motivation behind the treaty which more or less makes it impossible to implement any kind of reasonable (in the eyes of the likes of **AAs) DRM --- because the DRM has to enable at least limited copying since fair use/dealing is one of the exceptions the DRM has to enable. If everyone can copy X seconds out of of a work (X > 0), then if enough people join forces, they can copy a work of any finite length.

Re:Including _fair use_! (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871756)

Ah, before anyone jumps on me about the "resolution issue" --- that the "fair use" might be limited to X seconds at a lower resolution --- my impression is that fair use can also cover the case where only a small part of a visual work (e.g., 1/25 of the full frame of a movie) is used at the original resolution. I.e., my original comment is valid, just that the piecing together might have to be both in the time and the space domain.

Re:Including _fair use_! (2, Interesting)

jd (1658) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872048)

If there is a variable encryption key which cannot trivially be deduced from a "fair use" segment, then all the labels have to do is require that reviewers request a set of pre-generated keys for the specific segment they want to quote.

I'm not saying this would be sane or rational, merely that it would meet the objectives of fair use without eliminating DRM. There is no serious fear of a "secure" DRM ever existing - the companies aren't skilled enough to fix trivial flaws, so there's not the slightest possibility of them even reaching the point of making things difficult. In fact, the methodology seems to be one of relying on the law for security with DRM providing a rationale. On that basis, I'd say that the loss of any level of legal protection in any country in the Americas will prove troublesome.

Re:Including _fair use_! (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872572)

Your reply seems to misunderstand the thrust of my post(s): the reasonableness of "fair use" in a particular case is independent of what other parts of the work have been used for "fair use" in other cases. The content owners would have to justify to the court why they don't have to release every single segment --- to different individuals (i.e., they'd have to prove to the court that this was a conspiracy to copy the whole work).

There is no serious fear of a "secure" DRM ever existing - the companies aren't skilled enough to fix trivial flaws, so there's not the slightest possibility of them even reaching the point of making things difficult.

The DRM for the Playstation 3 proves you wrong. DRM can never be made absolutely secure, however, it certainly can be made secure against opponents with limited enough resources. I do agree, however, that the vast majority of "companies aren't skilled enough", and therefore, my observation is most likely academic rather than practical.

Re:Including _fair use_! (3, Insightful)

bzipitidoo (647217) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872638)

There is no serious fear of a "secure" DRM ever existing

True.

the companies aren't skilled enough to fix trivial flaws

But not for this reason. DRM that works is a logical impossibility, and no amount of skill can change that. DRM will always have the flaw that it only takes one successful effort to break it, and once broken it is broken for everyone, always. And that in order to be "consumed", content must be unlocked, and then it can be copied in any number of trivially easy ways. The media companies' real difficulty seems to be an unwillingness to acknowledge this.

Re:Including _fair use_! (5, Insightful)

Kitsune Inari (1801214) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872390)

makes it impossible to implement any kind of reasonable DRM

any kind of reasonable DRM

reasonable DRM

Oxymoron detected.

Re:Including _fair use_! (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872594)

> reasonable (in the eyes of the likes of **AAs) DRM

>> Oxymoron detected

But we all knew already that the **AAs are morons!

Re:Including _fair use_! (1)

FrangoAssado (561740) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872492)

I think you're confusing the technical ability to break encryption with its legality. It seems that the new proposed legislation would allow you to legally break the DRM encryption to use something under fair use. It doesn't say that whoever put DRM must tell you how to break it or give you keys.

Besides, I don't see the point of your scheme. According to Article 46, paragraph II of the proposed law, fair use allows you to make a whole copy of a protected work to "ensure its portability or interoperability", so you wouldn't even need a lot of people, you could do the whole thing yourself (say, to encode in a different format).

Re:Including _fair use_! (1)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872584)

I think you're confusing the technical ability to break encryption with its legality. It seems that the new proposed legislation would allow you to legally break the DRM encryption to use something under fair use. It doesn't say that whoever put DRM must tell you how to break it or give you keys.

Besides, I don't see the point of your scheme. According to Article 46, paragraph II of the proposed law, fair use allows you to make a whole copy of a protected work to "ensure its portability or interoperability", so you wouldn't even need a lot of people, you could do the whole thing yourself (say, to encode in a different format).

I based my post on the following from Doctorow's post:

And what's more, any rightsholder who adds a DRM that restricts things that are allowed by Brazilian copyright laws ("fair dealing" or "fair use") faces a fine.

This probably makes things clearer to you --- although you might have a much better understanding of the proposed law than Doctorow, himself, if you understand the original language.

Re:Including _fair use_! (4, Interesting)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872666)

>I think you're confusing the technical ability to break encryption with its legality. It seems that the new proposed legislation would allow you to legally break the DRM encryption to use something under fair use. It doesn't say that whoever put DRM must tell you how to break it or give you keys.

Actually, it DOES. It states that the DRM MUST allow you to exercise (any and all off) your fair-use rights. It makes it a criminal offense punishable with a fine to prevent them. This means that if a user demands the keys in order to make a backup copy of a piece of media, they would be committing a crime if they refused to provide them, unless of course, the DRM in question is built in such a way that it makes these fair use rights actively doable already (like e.g. steam's allowed-backup system).

That is nice to hear (4, Interesting)

RandomAdam (1837998) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871740)

Nice to hear that at least some places in the world wont criminalise people so x-megacorp can "protect" their investment even after it should have passed into public domain

Fascinating (3, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871768)

<p>
How long will it be before US sanctions and pressure from other governments still controlled by the **AA pirates  forces them to fall in line and adopt more conventional DMCA rules?
</p>

Re:Fascinating (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871842)

That would be a bit hard to do without changing the constitution. Not impossible, but definitively not simple or easy.

The Brazilian constitution is some a short document, like the USA's. Think of how hard it would be for a corporation to actually change the constitution, and you get the picture.

Re:Fascinating (1)

linhares (1241614) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871996)

what? the constitution here is pretty huuuge dude, a real labyrinth: http://www.senado.gov.br/legislacao/const/con1988/CON1988_05.10.1988/index.shtm [senado.gov.br]

Re:Fascinating (1)

GigaplexNZ (1233886) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872274)

The Brazilian constitution is some a short document

I think it was a typo, meant to read something like:

The Brazilian constitution is not a short document

Re:Fascinating (1)

keeboo (724305) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872320)

Indeed. The brazilian constitution is so long, it's almost like they wanted to cram all possible laws in the same text.

Re:Fascinating (4, Insightful)

cyclomedia (882859) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872496)

Actually, Brazil has been plenty socking it to the (Gov't of the) USA lately, as part of one of the BRIC bloc (Brazil, Russia, India, China) of large economy's that don't give a crap what the USA has to say about a lot of issues. Take for example Brazil hosting negotiations and setting up a deal between Turkey and Iran regarding uranium enrichment. USA was not pleased and made a lot of waa waa noises at the UN but as far as those three are concerned the USA can stuff off and get off their lawn, thank you.

The USA is still the most powerful nation on earth, but they're at a tipping point and it's not just the BRIC countries that are coming to realize that they can do whatever the hell they like and the USA can just shut up

Re:Fascinating (3, Funny)

Kreigaffe (765218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872794)

Next time you're trying to talk up Brazil, maybe avoid the part where they help facilitate Iran getting its hands on enriched uranium

Re:Fascinating (1)

jbssm (961115) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872956)

Well, not all the world ... not even all the western world sees that as a bad thing. Many countries actually see it as a way to bring some stability to a zone that is completely unstable due to the presence of a militar super-power (for the region), Israel, and that by giving nuclear capability to other country in the region that would level out the status quo in the zone and prevent most of the violence that we have seen committed by Israel against their neighbours in the last decades.

With Liberty and Justice for all (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871812)

Take that, USA.

not unusual (5, Interesting)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871824)

Really not surprising. When the US was a small, backwater english colony, it was also famous for its piracy (of books, in that time).

It is the countries with the massive content industries that have the strict copyright regimes. Brasil isn't home to Hollywood or very many international music superstars.

Re:not unusual (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871846)

It isn't a piracy issue, it's a public domain issue. More specifically, they want to HAVE a public domain rather than having every byte of information to be owned and exploited by someone, then thrown away once it is no longer a source of revenue.

Re:not unusual (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871848)

If you mean that Brazil don't have Hollywood paying off politicians, you are right on spot there.

Music labels, on the other hand, are pretty strong (ie: giving politicians money) here, tho.

Re:not unusual (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872020)

Brasil isn't home to Hollywood or very many international music superstars.

Ah yes, that explains everything. Obviously Brazil has no talent to worry about, being a back-water berg with no culture to speak of.. /facepalm

Re:not unusual (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872388)

Well, apparently these days one has to spell out everything on /. instead of being able to rely on basic intelligence in the reader.

I'm sure Brasil has a comparative pool of creativity to the US, Europe, Burma, Greenland or any other place on earth. There are some local differences depending on whether or not creativity is valued in a culture or not so much, but as it's a basic human trait, they are pretty small.

However, Brasil does not have a massive industry based on copyright. And copyright is, first and foremost and no matter what they try to tell you, an economic law. It gives you you a monopoly on commercial use of your works.

So, without an industry that is strong in copyright, the country has no major incentives to be a strong proponent of copyright. On the contrary, turning a blind eye to the use of foreign copyrights is a reasonable thing to do (less money flowing out of the country for goods with no tangible value).

Re:not unusual (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872470)

Really not surprising. When the US was a small, backwater english colony, it was also famous for its piracy (of books, in that time).

It is the countries with the massive content industries that have the strict copyright regimes. Brasil isn't home to Hollywood or very many international music superstars.

Actually, it was infamous for its piracy into the 1940's for music and well into the 1980's for technology. It is still infamous for pirating/"adapting" movie plots (this is possible to do in large scale since Americans never look at forreign movies and never read forreign books). E.g. during the Korean and Vietnam war, US companies pirated many Swedish weapon, positioning and communication systems (according to Swedish law at the time, it was illegal to export those systems to US as it was an aggressor in a war on forreign ground and those action was not sanctioned by the right international authorities). Some of these weapons (and two types of compasses) is still manufactured within USA, still without paying any license fees. Another more recent exemple is US patent 4303986 from 1978.

US companies is also notorious for stealing brand names. At the moment I can only recall Cohiba and Silva, but that's because, as an European, I don't use products made for Asian markets, which is the majority of brand names stolen by US companies and used to sell products to asians living in USA.

Re:not unusual (2, Interesting)

ignavus (213578) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872558)

Really not surprising. When the US was a small, backwater english colony, it was also famous for its piracy (of books, in that time).

It is the countries with the massive content industries that have the strict copyright regimes. Brasil isn't home to Hollywood or very many international music superstars.

Yep. Copyright (and patents) is imperialism carried out by means other than tanks. The tanks are just there in case some punk country STILL doesn't pay its tribute (aka copyright and patent licence fees).

Every little country realises that "intellectual property" is intellectual imperialism (a.k.a "we thought of it first!"). Every big country has forgotten that lesson from its past, and just goes around trying to figure out new ways to make the rest of the world pay it more tribute.

At odds with hardware? (1)

kanweg (771128) | more than 3 years ago | (#32871828)

l love this, but isn't it at odds with modern hardware? I believe one can run across the problem that the hardware refuses to play a movie at (very) high resolution because it lacks DRM. That movie could be your own or in the public domain.

Bert

Re:At odds with hardware? (4, Insightful)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872024)

> but isn't it at odds with modern hardware?

It's "at odds" with the concept of DRM, itself, actually, because the DRM system has to enable limited copying (for fair use --- see my comment above [slashdot.org] ).

This is just a proposal for the law, because of its incompatibility with the status quo of global commerce (as you point out one of many problems) I think it has very, very little possibility of actually becoming law in its proposed form. Unfortunately....

How I Learned to Start Thinking and Hate the Jews (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871936)

There are two types of people in the world: people who think there are two types of people in the world and people who don’t. I’m among the first type and I think the world is divided into people who recognize the Jewish problem and people who don’t.

In other words, the world is divided into smart people and dumb people. If you’ve got an IQ of 80, have difficulty operating a can-opener, and recognize the Jewish problem, you’re smart. If you’ve got an IQ of 180, have already won a couple of Nobel Prizes, and don’t recognize the Jewish problem, you’re dumb.

I’ve been dumb for most of my life: it took me a long time to recognize the Jewish problem. I didn’t think for myself, I just accepted the propaganda and conformed to the consensus. Jews are good people. Only bad people criticize Jews. Jews good. Anti-Semites bad. But then, very slowly, I started to see the light.

Recognizing Jewish hypocrisy was the first big step. I was reading an article by someone called Rabbi Julia Neuberger, a prominent British liberal. I didn’t like liberals then, so I didn’t like her for that (and because her voice and manner had always grated on me), but her Jewishness wasn’t something I particularly noticed. But as I read the article I came across something that didn’t strike me as very liberal: she expressed concern about Jews marrying Gentiles, because this threatened the survival of the Jewish people.

That made me sit up and think. Hold on, I thought, I know this woman sits on all sorts of “multi-cultural” committees and is constantly being invited onto TV and radio to yap about the joys of diversity and the evils of racism. She’s all in favor of mass immigration and there’s no way she’s worried about Whites marrying non-Whites, because “Race is Just a Social Construct” and “We’re All the Same Under the Skin”. She’s a liberal and she thinks that race-mixing is good and healthy and Holy. Yet this same woman is worried about Jews marrying Gentiles. Small contradiction there, n'est ce-pas?

Well, no. Big contradiction. She obviously didn’t apply the same rules to everyone else as she applied to her own people, the Jews. She was, in short, a hypocrite. But not just that – she was a Jewish hypocrite. And that’s a big step for a brainwashed White to take: not just thinking in a negative way about a Jew, but thinking in a negative way about a Jew because of her Jewishness.

After that, I slowly started to see the world in a different way. Or to be more precise: I started to see the world. I started to see what had always been there: the massive over-representation of Jews in politics and the media. And I started to notice that a lot of those Jews – like Rabbi Julia Neuberger, in fact – gave me the creeps. There was something slimy and oily and flesh-crawling about them. And it wasn’t just me, either: other Gentiles seemed to feel it too.

Politicians often attract nicknames based on some outstanding aspect of their character or behavior. Margaret Thatcher was “The Iron Lady”. Ronald Reagan was “Teflon Ron”. Bill Clinton was “Slick Willy”. But these are Gentile politicians and their nicknames are at least half-affectionate. Jewish politicians seem to attract a different kind of nickname. In Britain, Gerald Kaufman, bald, homosexual Member of Parliament for Manchester Gorton, is nicknamed “Hannibal Lecter”. Peter Mandelson, now Britain’s Euro-Commissioner and Tony Blair’s suspected former lover, is “The Prince of Darkness”. Michael Howard (né Hecht), the leader of the British Conservative Party, is “Dracula”.

When I noticed this kind of thing, I started to ask questions. What was going on here? Why did Jews attract nicknames like that? And why had Gentiles reacted to them like that not just now, but a long way into the past? Shakespeare seems to have felt the same kind of repulsion when he created the vengeful lawyer Shylock, and Dickens when he created the parasitic master-thief Fagin. Classic “anti-Semitic” stereotypes, but I knew that stereotypes aren’t always wrong. If anti-Semitic stereotypes aren’t always wrong, then there’s an obvious conclusion: neither is anti-Semitism. Gentiles are sometimes right to dislike and distrust Jews.

After all, at the same time I was noticing something else: the massive over-representation of Jews, not just among politicians and journalists, but among crooked businessmen too. In fact, among very, very crooked businessmen, the ones responsible for really big frauds at Gentile expense. Men like Robert Maxwell (né Hoch), Ivan “Greed is Good” Boesky, and Michael Milken. And, on a slightly lesser scale, Ernest Saunders, who finagled an early release from prison because he was coming down with Alzheimer’s, that well-known incurable brain disease from which no-one ever recovers. Only Saunders managed to confound medical science and recover from it.

Slimy. Hypocritical. Crooked. In a word: Jewish. But I didn’t take the final step, the step to full recognition of the Jewish problem, until I watched the reaction to Mel Gibson’s The Passion of the Christ. I’m not a Christian and I have little sympathy with modern Christianity, but I had a lot of sympathy for Mel Gibson as I watched the hysterical campaign against him. The hysterical, well-organized, international campaign by the slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jew Abe Foxman, Head of the Anti-Defamation League, and his fellow slimy, hypocritical, crooked Jews around the world. They didn’t like something and they were moving heaven and earth to get it stopped.

And what was it they didn’t like? A movie about an event at the heart of European art, literature, and culture: the crucifixion of Christ. So here was another obvious conclusion: Jews hate European art, literature, and culture. In other words, Jews hate White civilization and the White race who created it.

After that, it all fell into place. I finally recognized that Jews weren’t just slimy, hypocritical, and crooked, but actively dangerous too. If I thought of something harmful to White civilization and the survival of the White race – mass immigration, feminism, multi-culturalism, anti-racism, gay rights – I realized that Jews were behind it, were promoting it through their control of the media, and had been doing so for decades.

Finally, I had seen the light. Finally, I had gotten smart and recognized the Jewish problem, the problem that even dumb Gentiles subconsciously recognize when they give nicknames like “Hannibal Lecter” and “Prince of Darkness” and “Dracula” to Jewish politicians. Jews really do want to eat us, and steal our souls, and suck our blood, and it’s about time we started firing a few silver bullets.

So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871954)

Is my-drm.public ok?

Logic fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32871980)

"you can break DRM without breaking the law" doesn't mean "it is illegal to break the public domain". Those are two separate parts of the legislation.

Seems like it breaks the public domain to me. (1)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872012)

What if you want to make open source software that uses DRM as an integral part of its function? Like maybe, personal encryption?

Re:Seems like it breaks the public domain to me. (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872070)

What if you want to make open source software that uses DRM as an integral part of its function? Like maybe, personal encryption?

You, sir, clearly do not understand what DRM is.

Re:Seems like it breaks the public domain to me. (4, Informative)

kvezach (1199717) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872088)

Like maybe, personal encryption?

Then it's no longer DRM, which is basically a program that has both lock and key yet tries to hide the key from the user except in "allowed" circumstances. Personal encryption doesn't include both the lock and the key; instead, you have the key and you use it to prove to the lock program that you have (unlimited) access to the encrypted volume/whatever.

Besides, it stands to reason that what you're encrypting is meant to be private, thus, since it's not released, it doesn't fall within the domain of copyright. You're not distributing anything, so limits to distribution don't apply.

Re:Seems like it breaks the public domain to me. (1, Flamebait)

hellop2 (1271166) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872726)

My point is a question of whether or not blocking DRM on all public domain works is in everyone's best interest.

I know what DRM is. Now if you want to talk semantics, imagine you own a work that you want to put on your website, so you encrypt it so that only your friends and family can view it, with your special viewer. This is personal encryption, and it is DRM. Now, my niece goes to jail for uploaded Shakespeare.

Not distributed enough for you? Imagine a Linux based computer like OLPC targeted for kids. Your company distributes Open Source/Public Domain works under DRM to ensure that your users only run software that's up-to-date, reviewed, and covered under your support contract. Now this company can't do business in Brazil.

Why not stick to my post topic, or at least the first/main sentence instead of trying to compare nerd badges.(not directed at you kvezach, but possibly Lord Kano) Can you think of a scenario where blocking DRM legislatively might not be desirable?

Re:Seems like it breaks the public domain to me. (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872972)

Not distributed enough for you? Imagine a Linux based computer like OLPC targeted for kids. Your company distributes Open Source/Public Domain works under DRM to ensure that your users only run software that's up-to-date, reviewed, and covered under your support contract.

Under OLPC Bitfrost [laptop.org] , the user can assign privileges to an app, either through the installer package or later. Some privileges may only be assigned later; for example, an installer cannot simultaneously request network access and the ability to scan the user's home directory. But the user always has the ability to assign these privileges, apart from a couple privileges related to the recovery image that require a developer key. These keys appear to be available upon the child's request with a two-week turnaround to make sure the computer hasn't been reported stolen.

Re:Seems like it breaks the public domain to me. (2, Interesting)

Pentium100 (1240090) | more than 3 years ago | (#32873002)

I know what DRM is. Now if you want to talk semantics, imagine you own a work that you want to put on your website, so you encrypt it so that only your friends and family can view it, with your special viewer.

This is not DRM. If you want to make the information accessible to selected group of people, you can just share the encryption key with them. DRM starts when you want to simultaneously allow your friends to access the content, but also not allow them to copy it and upload to some other site. And this cannot be done. The friend in question can always point a camera at the screen and then upload the recorded video. Hollywood tries to come up with an unbreakable DRM, see how successful they are...

Also, if this was before high speed internet, and you shared the content on film, audio and VHS tapes, floppy disks (for text) or paper? Your friends could still make copies, broadcast the media on radio or TV (if they had access) or just show it to everyone whether you like it or not.

Not distributed enough for you? Imagine a Linux based computer like OLPC targeted for kids. Your company distributes Open Source/Public Domain works under DRM to ensure that your users only run software that's up-to-date, reviewed, and covered under your support contract. Now this company can't do business in Brazil.

Open source software cannot have DRM. Why? Simple, if I have the source code, I can just remove the DRM.
You can use hardcoded checks for updates if you want to, but that can also be patched, especially with access to source code.

Also, you can refuse support if the software is not up to date or not covered under the contract.

Re:Seems like it breaks the public domain to me. (1)

elvesrus (71218) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872754)

Or he could just be trying to come up with one hell of a chastity belt.

Re:Seems like it breaks the public domain to me. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872732)

Encryption = you own the lock on your front door, you own the key to your house

DRM = you own the lock on your front door, I own the key to your house

The technology may be the same; it's not a technological distinction.

All cracking legal? (4, Informative)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872034)

If it is legal to crack/circumvent DRM when you are "not committing a copyright violation", it seems that it is also OK to crack DRM on other works, as long as you do not redistribute it. A few comments up someone posted the actual Brazilian fair use rules, and those seem pretty fair, and explicitly allow a.o. for creating a copy for personal use.

This would make it legal to say strip DRM from your legally bought iTunes songs, in order to make your personal copy.

It would be legal to rip BluRay discs and removing the DRM in the process, again to make your own personal copy.

Redistributing said material with or without DRM in place would be a copyright violation, and rightful so.

It would presumably be legal to create tools to do this - it seems reasonably to expect that to distribute such tools would even be legal.

Now the real fun can start: Brazilian programmer produces tool that removes DRM from material with US-owned copyrights. Fully legal in his native country. Would this person be liable to prosecution in the US? And indirectly by producing such a tool banning himself from visiting the US for the rest of his life?

Re:All cracking legal? (5, Informative)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872270)

Now the real fun can start: Brazilian programmer produces tool that removes DRM from material with US-owned copyrights. Fully legal in his native country. Would this person be liable to prosecution in the US? And indirectly by producing such a tool banning himself from visiting the US for the rest of his life?

Ever heard of Dmitry Sklyarov [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:All cracking legal? (4, Insightful)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872348)

Yes I have (I recall the gist of it at least), and that was what I was thinking of indeed.

Most countries have the power of the courts strictly limited to crimes committed within their own country. Other countries limit their jurisdiction to crimes committed within their borders, and crimes committed outside those borders by their own citizens.

It seems though that the US has no such limitations: certain acts committed by foreigners in a foreign country where such act is fully legal, but which is illegal in the US, may be prosecuted under US law when that foreigner is in the US. And I recall even reports of US agents abducting foreign citizens in a foreign country, taking them to the US, and prosecuting them there.

Scary.

Re:All cracking legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872752)

I'd not heard of such abductions, but if there is any truth in this, it is indeed scary.

One has to wonder then, what is it about the U.S. that the feel they have the right to effectively violate the sovereignty of another nation to protect their own interests?

How would they react if such a crime, (I would consider this a crime), were perpetrated against one of their own citizens?

The arrogance of the U.S. (the self appointed 'world police').

Could this also be why they consider it their "god given right" to have military bases in countries other than their own?

Little wonder there is so much resentment towards them.

Don't suppose they have considered becoming genuine members of the global population, or offering due respect to other countries / cultures, that they seem to think only they deserve due their own self centred righteousness?

Re:All cracking legal? (1)

tapanitarvainen (1155821) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872960)

I'd not heard of such abductions, but if there is any truth in this, it is indeed scary.

There is some truth in it, certainly. One glaring example is Manuel Noriega: he was not only foreign citizen but head of state, abducted by force by the US and flown to USA for trial. (Yeah, he was a thug and deserved what he got, but that's beside the point here.)

One has to wonder then, what is it about the U.S. that the feel they have the right to effectively violate the sovereignty of another nation to protect their own interests?

Because they're powerful enough to get away with it. I suspect everybody else would do it, too, if they could, and sometimes do. Israeli abduction of Eichmann is a good example: they got away with it not because of their military power but because those more powerful supported them, Eichmann being rather deserving of punishment, too. Most countries prefer to do such things less openly, resorting to assassination rather than claiming any legality to their actions - a bit further back in history, Trotsky is a prime example.

How would they react if such a crime, (I would consider this a crime), were perpetrated against one of their own citizens?

It would depend on how it'd suit the politics of the day. If the abductee was someone they wanted to get rid of, perhaps nothing but indignant speeches; if an American hero, anything up to full-scale war.

Re:All cracking legal? (1)

Tim C (15259) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872866)

I suspect that in cases like this, the logic is that although the tool was produced overseas, it was made available in the US itself, and thus there may have been a case to answer.

I'm not saying I agree with it, but if you piss a nation off too much don't be surprised if they're not too welcoming should you ever try to enter the country. (Much like with people - piss me off, don't expect me to welcome you into my house)

Re:All cracking legal? (1)

tapanitarvainen (1155821) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872998)

Most countries have the power of the courts strictly limited to crimes committed within their own country. Other countries limit their jurisdiction to crimes committed within their borders, and crimes committed outside those borders by their own citizens.

Actually quite a few, if not indeed most countries have provisions in their laws to prosecute for crimes committed outside their territory, in particular crimes committed not only by but also against their citizens (although typically with caveat that the it must be criminal also in the country where it occurred), some crimes are often prosecutable no matter what (genocide, airplane hijackings, child abuse being common). And often there's a proviso that prosecution is possible in any case if decided high enough (state attorney or similar).

I'm not aware of any comprehensive survey of this around the world, I know only of a rather random sample of countries - if anyone knows of such a study, I'd be very interested.

Re:All cracking legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872430)

The guy who worked for the company that was found not to have willfully violated US law?

Re:All cracking legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872354)

But who in the world would like to visit the US these days?

Re:All cracking legal? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872374)

Hopefully not you. In fact, I'd love if you just kept your funky ass in your mom's basement for the rest of your life.

Nice trice - but who cares? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872056)

I might be missing the point (and this is more than likely since I did not read the article), but I don't think DRM on public domain works is really a big issues (has anyone encountered this?). The real issue is having some notion of fair-use. A user should be able to break DRM on a copyrighted work so that it can be utilized on a device of my choosing. If I buy a DVD, I should be able to rip it and use on a portable player, media server etc.

These type of laws are just a way for the media companies to try and resell the same works multiple times to the same people.

Re:Nice trice - but who cares? (5, Informative)

FlyingGuy (989135) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872218)

Here I am with MP's yet I feel compelled to respond to you...

If you RTFA you would see that it explicitly sites making a personal copy for use on whatever player you desire. But if you give a copy to a friend with the DRM broken then you are still committing a crime and that is fair since it is NOT fair use.

Now having said that, I certainly expect a flood of torrents to start comming from Brazil if this gets enacted into law because people still think that if they buy a DVD and then rip it to make a copy to "should be able to rip it and use on a portable player, media server etc." they somehow have the right to give it away to their pals and put it on a web server for everyone to have a copy.

That is why this begins with, "I - reproduction by any means or process of any work legitimately acquired, if made in one copy and by the copyist, for his private use and not commercial;" [emphasis is mine] because in point of fact doing anything other then making a copy for personal, non commercial use is a copyright violation even under these terms and is in point of fact illegal and that is as it should be

Re:Nice trice - but who cares? (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872800)

People distributing copyrighted worked stripped of their DRM will happen regardless of whether or not it is legal to remove DRM for your own use.

Shareware? (1)

Lohrno (670867) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872224)

Does this break shareware? IE: If you have a program that you have to pay money to unlock? It could be considered public if it's freely distributable I guess?

No it doesn't (1)

roguegramma (982660) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872724)

Neither freeware nor shareware are in the public domain, the creator still has the copyright.

If the creator places it explicitely in the public domain on the other hand, he cannot expect any compensation, and it is true that the proposed brazilian law would make it illegal even for himself to try and remove it from the public domain by distributing it with DRM later on.

DRM useless except for a few (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872404)

3D movies exists since tenth of years, but now they implement it.. why ? in order to fight piracy and make harder to copy 3D movies on internet wires with the tons of billion bytes it require... DRM is definitly against people, against new world, against modernism.. what it is all about is fullfill the purse of a few.. but not only those whom created copyright material, but also their son and the son of their son.. doesn't it remind you something someway... turns out like a monarchy. no merit to be a king.. for the sole reason you are the son of the king.. like Bush 43 sole skill was to be the son of a president (Bush 41)..

Re:DRM useless except for a few (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872770)

3D makes it harder to copy movies in the theatre with a camera. High def was their attempt to make things hard to copy by inflating the content size by an order of magnitude. 3D doesn't even double the data size required because you can get good compression from the commonality between left and right fields.

It does actually add value though. It had a shaky start but I've genuinely started enjoying certain movies in 3D more than I would have done in 2D.

On the other hand, all the recent stories about bullshit Hollywood accounting have counteracted that and put me off seeing movies at least as much as 3D is going to encourage it.

IP is the new imperialism though. People truly think that "owning" an idea gives them the right to the lions share of the profit from that idea, even if the bulk of the value is added by those working to implement it.

Brazil? Ain't that were they cut all the forests? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872506)

Or is that a movie done by the Python guy? Either case, obscure shit.

T^HButtle

What about SSL? (1)

raju (225812) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872518)

How will the ruling affect web sites that offer public domain content but use SSL?

Re:What about SSL? (1)

IBBoard (1128019) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872858)

It won't, since that's not DRM. DRM restricts what you can do with what you get access to. SSL restricts what other people can see of what you're doing but you can do whatever you want with what was encrypted after you decrypt it (which is part of the transfer process).

failz0rs!! (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#32872900)

*BSD has steAdily

They Can Aprove Whatever They Want (4, Interesting)

famazza (398147) | more than 3 years ago | (#32872906)

There is something you all need to know about Brasil (do you prefer New York or Nova Iorque?), and I can tell, I'm not any proud of it.

The congress can aprove whatever law they want in Brasil, even DMCA-like, which I think it's very unlikely. Once aproved there are no grantees that the law will be respected.

Many laws in Brasil exists only on paper, and has't any kind of regulation nor enforcement. People simply ignore them, and even police, or official fiscalization, does nothing about it, the law is completely ignored by all sectors of society.

For example. Rip a CD or a DVD is not legal in Brasil. But everybody does it, and nothing is done about it. I have discovered about this a couple of month ago.

Another example. It's not legal to sell pirated CDs or DVDs. But in any city, even the smaller ones, it's possible to buy illegal copied CDs and DVDs for as much as US$ 2,50 each movie, US$ 1,50 each CD. It's very easy to buy a XBox 360 game for US$ 10. And as easy as find someone selling this CDs and DVDs on streets is to find a policeman buying from them.

This kind of attitude is not only found in copyrighted material. It's easy for a minor to buy alcoholic beverages or cigars.

So, the congress can even aprove a DRM-like legislation, but it will certainly not leave the paper. USA hungry for copyright protection will be pleased, but the society will ignore the law and thigs will remain the same as they are today.

Try to discuss something more practical about Brasil.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...