Beta
×

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!

MPAA Sues Company For Selling Pre-Loaded iPods

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the services-aren't-allowed-anymore dept.

393

ColinPL writes, "The MPAA has launched yet another 'defensive attack,' this time on a small business that is pre-loading movie DVDs onto iPods and reselling them. The original DVDs of the movies that are loaded are also given to the customer. The MPAA is claiming that the service Load 'N Go Video offers is completely illegal because ripping a DVD is against the DMCA. The MPAA is also suing the company for copyright violation."

cancel ×

393 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

'Nothing to see here' (0, Troll)

s7uar7 (746699) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891910)

I think the MPAA won.

Re:'Nothing to see here' (5, Insightful)

Feyr (449684) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891948)

no i think this is exactly what we need to get this stupid law overturned. this is clearly an infringement on the user's fair use right. no one is "stealing" any content, merely shifting the content from one format to another. the mpaa gets its money, the user gets the content, a third party is making money for the service of shifting it.

Re:'Nothing to see here' (5, Interesting)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892094)

Putting aside for a moment that "format shifting" hasn't really been tested yet in court, the end-user is not the one doing the copying here. It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.

Re:'Nothing to see here' (5, Informative)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892254)

Putting aside for a moment that "format shifting" hasn't really been tested yet in court,


It doesn't need to be. The Legislature has already spoken. See Title 17 Section 1008 of the U.S. Code [cornell.edu] :

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

(Emphasis mine). It says "no action". The use of a digital audio recorder by a consumer for non-commercial purposes is pretected. Note that the definition of "digital audio recorder" seem to include MP3 players or iPods. The grey area in this case is that it's not the consumer who's doing the transfer, it's the company selling the equipment.

Re:'Nothing to see here' (5, Informative)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892280)

It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.

No, copyright is about making money distributing copies. The one doing the copying is not making a copy of their own DVD, they are making a copy of the customer's DVD for the customer.

Making a backup copy of a copyrighted work is completely legal and is explicitly spelled out in copyright law. If you don't own or don't know how to run a CD burner, is paying someone to make the backup copy for you illegal?

There's a reason the MPAA is invoking the DMCA, and that's because the DMCA is what makes breaking encryption illegal even if the actions performed thereafter are legal under copyright law. Were it not for the DMCA, the MPAA would not have a case here at all.

point of copyright (2, Insightful)

dmahurin (2128) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892414)

The purpose of copyright is not about "making money distributing copies".

If that was all it was, it would be no more legit than a pyramid scheme.

The meaningful purpose of copyright and patent law is to encourage useful innovation in science and art.

Yes, the DMCA and other copyright extensions are contrary to that purpose.

Re:point of copyright (1)

BRUTICUS (325520) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892610)

To encourage people to invent and discourage people from stealing other's inventions would be the ideal and meaningful purpose of copyright law however is that really what judges are thinking when at their podium? Maybe not. But they definitely should be. The sad fact is these old farts just can't or can't be bothered to keep up with technology or keep themselves informed.

Re:point of copyright (2, Insightful)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892668)

The purpose of a law and what the law is about are not the same thing, and in fact the purpose of a law may not appear in the text of the law at all. The purpose of copyright law is presented in the Constitution. The law itself deals strictly with copying, distribution, commercial usage, and so forth. This isn't unusual, since law general deals with prohibiting something, while "purpose" is generally about achieving some effect. In theory one leads to the other.

In practice, we get the Sony Bono Copyright Act and the DMCA. :(

Re:'Nothing to see here' (4, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892662)

No, copyright is about making money distributing copies.


Its about both, and even doing either without making money, which is why all of those are exclusive rights protected under copyright.

The one doing the copying is not making a copy of their own DVD, they are making a copy of the customer's DVD for the customer.


Right. They are selling the service of making the copy along with the goods (the source and target media.) It therefore is not noncommercial copying by the end-user for personal use, and insofar as there may be exceptions for noncommercial format-shifting for personal use (a disputed point!) that would cover DVD ripping, this is not covered by them.

Making a backup copy of a copyrighted work is completely legal and is explicitly spelled out in copyright law.


Really, where? At least in the US, this is a popular myth, not a fact: "a library or archives" has a right to make backup copies with certain limits (see 17 USC 108), and the making of an archival copy of a computer program is expressly allowed (17 USC 117), but this is not generally the case for copyrighted works.

If you don't own or don't know how to run a CD burner, is paying someone to make the backup copy for you illegal?


Since the exception for archival copies states "... it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided...", probably not, where it is legal to make a backup in the first place.

Not that the copy being made here is for archival purposes, nor would a court probably find that it is of a computer program, though that's less clear. (A DVD contains principally, of course, one or more audiovisual works, it also includes some instructions that might make it a computer program. I don't know if whether the 17 USC 117 exception applies to DVDs has been litigated.)

There's a reason the MPAA is invoking the DMCA, and that's because the DMCA is what makes breaking encryption illegal even if the actions performed thereafter are legal under copyright law.


No, because the MPAA is charging infringement as well as DMCA violation and seeking remedies for both; the DMCA expressly does not change the scope of any of the provisions or exceptions to infringement, so adding the DMCA claim does nothing to help their other claims.

Re:'Nothing to see here' (1)

Arcane_Rhino (769339) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892388)

I agree.

The MPAA (and the RIAA) have systematically and emphatically drawn a line that delineates between "no rights for the consumer" - approved, and "everything else" - criminal.

Because of their hard stance that consumers have NO rights and their disregard of fair use rights, they have forced me, because I want my fair use rights, to become their opposition.

Now, if any of their reps are reading this, they should understand exactly what I mean and why they should notice. I am one of those people who believe that ripping a movie with the intention of watching it and keeping it, but never paying for it, is stealing. (And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)

Consequently, for me to side against the RI/MPAA means that I find their actions more objectionable than those whose philosophy I do not respect or agree with. They have driven this and I will oppose them at every measure.

And, no, I don't use my disgust at the MP/RI AA to justify ripping movies or music that I do not already own or legally download. I still don't do that.

But I will side with those who do engage in this type of activity against those who would steal MY rights every time. MP/RIAA change your ways or find yourself fighting those who might otherwise have supported your argument.

Re:'Nothing to see here' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892458)

(And, I am not interested in the lawyerly distinction between copyright violation and theft, etc. In my opinion, if you take something that does not belong to you, it is stealing.)

But "copying" is not "taking". That's the whole point.

Re:'Nothing to see here' (0, Redundant)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892560)

That's not what's important. They have to make it appear as though the 'ripping' of a dvd is illegal, no matter for what purpose, to prevent borderline cases. It's idiots protecting themselves from morons.
http://www.lyricslist.com/ [lyricslist.com]

Re:'Nothing to see here' (1)

thegsusfreek (769912) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892712)

Which is the exact argument that was used for movie editing companies. I don't have the software/time/expertise/desire to edit a movie myself so I pay someone else to edit my copy for me and burn it to another disc for me. Plain and simple. I would not buy some of the movies that I have bought if it weren't for placed like family flix.

Sadly, this argument did not hold up in court... at least not during this first go around. I think the decision is going to be appealed.

"experimental threading One Two Three Four" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16891928)

Anyone else seeing links in the subject line bar of comments that, well, do absolutely nothing?

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four" (4, Funny)

Rosco P. Coltrane (209368) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891974)

It's disabled because the MPAA is sueing Slashdot for copyright infringement [imdb.com] .

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four" (0, Offtopic)

EmperorKagato (689705) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892100)

oh my. Mod up

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892112)

Earlier today some of them minimized the comment I clicked on, leaving others in the thread open. Now they all do the same as clicking the comment title.

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four" (3, Informative)

Asztal_ (914605) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892274)

Since I haven't found an explanation elsewhere...

One and four either shows the parent and its replies or the collapsed parent and a message stating "4 hidden comments" or whatever.
Two toggles the collapsed state of the comment you click and any of its children that don't meet your threshold or something.
Three basically just toggles the collapsed state of the comment you click, but doesn't modify its children, except from when you're going from four to three, in which case it collapses ones that don't meet the threshold.

The difference between one and four is that in One, upon expanding a comment, if one of the children was collapsed before, it will stay collapsed, while number Four expands all the children too.

I vote for One or Two... :)

Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four" (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892270)

It does something (completely unintuitive and impossible to grok) if you hit the checkbox to enable testing the horrible new discussion system. In regular mode it indeed sticks to just generating javascript errors.

I think ... (0, Offtopic)

FFFFHALTFFFF (996601) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891930)

Everything started in U.K.

Double Edged Blade (5, Insightful)

Tainek (912325) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891936)

While i Feel sympathetic for the Company under fire, this is only good news for consumers, when my mother read this she thought it was shocking and is appauled at the DMCA, having not known what it meant before

Stories in the press like this only hurt the Big bad Companys, by raising awareness

Re:Double Edged Blade (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892326)

Clearly, this news needs to be shown to as many people as possible then.

Re:Double Edged Blade (1)

mr_matticus (928346) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892512)

The mistake people make is to draw a conclusion between this court case and individual, personal use.

This case is neither applicable nor consistent with personal format shifting, so while it might get someone's attention who'd never considered the issue, it's not really relevant to them.

If someone wakes up and is appalled by the DMCA because of a snippet s/he reads about this case, then they've been fed some crap by someone, be it a friend, a son, or a reporter. These kinds of suits would have happened with or without the DMCA in effect--it's unauthorized distribution and if they didn't have the DMCA to rely on, there would be nine other ways to pursue litigation.

Re:Double Edged Blade (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892658)

But the people are buying the movies. The company in this case is just doing the format shifting for them. If I format shift DVDs for a friend, because they don't know how to do it, then I don't think there's anything wrong with it. Even if I'm not really their friend, and charge them a fee to do the format shift. Just like I can take an NTSC VHS tape I bought, and make a copy in PAL so I can watch it in my PAL VCR. I can even pay someone to do the format shifting for me.

Re:Double Edged Blade (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892622)

You need to work on capitalization. Proper nouns, the first word of a sentence, and the personal pronoun 'I' are three general rules.

and we see again (5, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891938)

The MPAA is claiming that the service Load 'N Go Video offers is completely illegal because ripping a DVD is against the DMCA. The MPAA is also suing the company for copyright violation.

This is essentially the same way they sued mp3.com into the ground, and yet another example of why the DMCA is such a fucking horrible law. There's no damage being done here except to the iron grip the MPAA exerts over movie distribution.

They have no problem with the idea of selling movies on hard disc, it's just that they don't want competition.

Re:and we see again (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892138)

Just to clarify, the DMCA had nothing to do with mp3.com, but this case is a good example of why section 1201 et al are really awful.

Re:and we see again (1)

Wesley Felter (138342) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892346)

It's certainly true that the MPAA members don't want competition, but this isn't even competition IMO. If you buy a movie on DVD and then rip it, that doesn't compete with DVD sales.

Re:and we see again (5, Insightful)

BootNinja (743040) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892372)

It's competition because they want to sell you the physical DVD and then sell you a digital copy for your ipod. Most consumers don't know how to rip a cd or dvd, and so would probably buy the digital versions if they weren't offering this service. Therefore, this creates a (percieved) loss of income for the MPAA.

Re:and we see again (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892480)

So I guess the DMCA and MPAA are killing all company's that want to sell, as a service, the exercising of individuals fair use rights.

The MPAA can keep up this activity till they're blue in the face. The DVD is not going away anytime soon, and as long as movies are rentable on DVD, decss is out there in the wild, and I use Linux, they can fuck off.

Yes, I admit I'm 'guilty' of what I'm implying above and will continue to do so despite their continued shennanigans. And no. I don't feel any remorse.

Re:and we see again (1)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892506)

They have no problem with the idea of selling movies on hard disc, it's just that they don't want competition .

Um, yeah. I mean, no, they don't want competition. Nor should there be competition. That's what a monopoly means, which is inherent in the term 'exclusive,' which is in the Constitution...

Art. I, Sect. 8, Cl. 8: . . . securing for limited times to authors . . . the exclusive right to their respective writings . . .

Re:and we see again (3, Insightful)

User 956 (568564) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892688)

Competition selling a specific work and competition in an industry are two different things. Copyright law doesn't grant monopoly for an entire sector, nor should it.

Your computer shop down the street is allowed to sell a copy of Windows pre-installed on a machine, if they include the original CD, right? They can also offer a service to install a legit version of Windows. Neither one is considered a crime, (or a copyright violation).

Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (5, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891972)

The MP3.com case (remember that one) seemed to hinge on the fact that even though the service was trying to verify that consumers already owned the CDs, they were doing the actual ripping from a copy that the service had purchased.

Now we've heard that space-shifting falls under fair use, as long as you don't distribute the copy. This is the principle under which it's legal to rip tracks from your own CDs and load them on your iPod.

Now, we've got someone who is oofering (1) a legit copy of the music and (2) a service that will take your DVD and transfer it to your iPod. All copies made under fair use are transferred at the same time.

Now it may be that circumventing copy protection is illegal under DMCA... but does that make it an infringement of copyright?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (4, Interesting)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 7 years ago | (#16891996)

A decrypted copy is made isn't it?

Imagine this scenario instead:

Company purchases a DVD
Company decrypts the DVD and burns to another DVD
Company sells the decrypted DVD with the original DVD

How is that different or more legal than this:
Company purchases a DVD
Company decrypts the DVD and encodes to MP4 onto an iPod
Company sells the iPod with the original DVD

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (5, Funny)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892060)

Exactly.

Neither senario should be "wrong."
Good thing for me, I believe in Moral Relativity. If it's wrong, but not really wrong.

Guns don't kill people.
People w/ decrypted movies that portray guns kill people.

Don't let the terrorists watch the Matrix on their IPOD!

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892200)

Funny, I imagine both scenarios as wrong.

The scenario I think is "right" is as follows:

Company develops an iPod compatible program that plays DVDs
The company then provides a program to copy DVDs onto iPods without circumventing CSS
The company then sells iPods preloaded with this software, to copy and play back

At no case has the company violated the DMCA nor copyright law.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

DRAGONWEEZEL (125809) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892238)

whops should have used PREVIEW

If it's wrong, but not really wrong, I'm generally not going to do it. However, I wouldn't feel guilty if I did.
Imagine your going down a hill, the speed limit is 35, but you coast accidentally to 40. Should you report yourself for speeding? didn't think so.

Now let me walk inside your minds....
Imagine...

You just purchased a movie in all it's XHD glory on FormatX. You watch the movie. It must be a real good flick Maybe Harry Potter, Real Genius, Boondock Saints or something because you watch the whole thing. Now just suppose that the movie is so good, you willfully want to watch it a second time. (I know a stretch, bear with me my ADD brethren) in inferior quality on your portable device. Perhaps over an airplane flight or something?

You have a few options:
  1. you could obey the law, and resist your EVIL* desires
  2. You could spend forever ripping/converting/moving the movie to your ehpod
  3. The last option that neither one of us could have considered, and IMHO is a good idea, is to pay someone to do it for you from your own discs.
  4. Or you could buy an IPahd allready Preloaded with your favorite movies, and get the original discs all at once!


*Some religions believe that governmental laws are sacred, and should be followed as the will of GOD

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

Fonce (635723) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892168)

Technically it's the same. And that's wherein the problem lies.

It's absolutely absurd to think that selling a pirated disc (as a backup copy is just that under current law) is the same thing as a company providing the courtesy of pre-loading a movie onto an iPod when you're purchasing both the iPod and the DVD, whether copy protection is being circumvented or not. This is why these laws are stupid. Add to this the fact that you can pre-load music and you've got sheer stupidity on your hands.

Why, again, doesn't fair use for music match fair use for video?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (0)

2nd Post! (213333) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892224)

Why is it absurd?

I can now copy the file of my preloaded iPod and upload the file to the internet. Why isn't that the same as a pirated disc?

The company should instead offer to preload fully encrypted videos onto an iPod, which does not violate DMCA, and instead write a program that allows iPods to play CSS encoded videos; by licensing a CSS key they have then fully complied with the licensing terms of the DVDs.

If the DMCA did not exist, then this would not be the issue, instead it would merely be a copyright issue.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

Fonce (635723) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892380)

It's absurd in the same vein of the same perpetual argument: to watch that movie on my iPod, I have to convert it to a different format and I have to circumvent the copy protection. The fact that it's now in a format that's easier to distribute should neither find me guilty of any crime, nor should it prevent me from putting video in an easier-to-distribute format. Telling me, the consumer, that I'm wrong and that Apple should fix this is not a solution. I have a video player and I want to play video on it with no limit to what I can play (see: betamax).

Copying a DVD to keep in case I scratch the original (or better yet, playing the copy and preserving the original) should not be illegal. If I then choose to sell any copy of that DVD or even give it away, then yes, that should be illegal. Similarly, I should be able to not only copy data from a DVD, CD, or other format, I should be able to transcode that into any format I so choose, per my convenience. Then I've got a choice as to what I play it on and how. I should not, however, be able to then distribute any copy I make of that, either for free or for cost.

So to recap, it's absurd because I, the consumer, have to go way the hell out of my way to watch a movie that I've purchased the rights to watch on a device other than the one the MPAA would have me use. They're limiting my choice and options and, as a collective agency of the motion picture studios, should be treated as a monopoly. While they allow me to choose what brand of DVD player I use, why are they allowed to control what format in which I watch my video? By their arguing and common rationale, the video iPod and all of its counterparts should be illegal, as they can be used to watch pirated movies.

Just because I prefer video in convenient formats doesn't mean I'm a pirate, contrary to the beliefs of the MPAA, and it's this format-Nazi attitude that pisses me off. Who put the MPAA in charge of the pre-crime division?

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892686)

except it's nothing like that, because it's loaded in an encrypted format on the ipod. it's a fucking load of bullshit end of story.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (2, Interesting)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892264)

I hit submit too early. What I'm getting at is that the decryption and the redistribution of copyrighted material look like two different issues.

Imagine this scenario:

Company purchases a DVD.
Company copies the DVD without decrypting it.
Company sells the copy and original to the same person.

Or this one:

Company purchases a DVD.
Company pulls the data off the DVD and puts it on a hypothetical device that can play encrypted DVD data.
Company sells the device with the original DVD.

If the copy and the original were ever separated, then yes, that would be a clear copyright violation. But as far as copyright itself is concerned, all of these scenarios are on the level of copying music to your iPod, then selling the iPod along with your CD collection.

The only difference is the decryption.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892022)

Argh... hit submit by mistake. What I'm trying to get at is, the MPAA is trying to slap them for two things: circumventing DRM *and* violating copyright. It seems to me that those are two different issues, as the "copyright infringement" involved is the equivalent of asking someone to transfer songs from your CDs to your iPod. Unless the other person keeps a copy of the music, it takes pretty insane troll logic to decide that it's copyright infringement.

Not that the MPAA isn't known for using insane troll logic, but still...

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (2, Interesting)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892226)

Unless the other person keeps a copy of the music, it takes pretty insane troll logic to decide that it's copyright infringement.

No, not really.

It is prima facie infringement, that's certain. But the argument is that it is a fair use, and thus the infringement is defended against. The problem is that while it may be a fair use for the end user, there is a general principle that one party cannot stand in another's shoes for fair use purposes. Just because Alice could win on a fair use argument when she rips CDs herself, that doesn't mean that Bob will win if he does it for Alice, trying to stand in her shoes. One example of how this has cropped up in the past is that students might fairly make xeroxes from reference books for their classes, but copy shops that do it for the students get sued and lose. I've been noticing the first indications that this principle might be on the wane, but it'll be a while yet. In the meantime, those who would want to stand in another's shoes are going to need to make a fair use argument that works with regard to them, rather than borrowing someone else's.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

SQLz (564901) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892586)

One example of how this has cropped up in the past is that students might fairly make xeroxes from reference books for their classes, but copy shops that do it for the students get sued and lose. I've been noticing the first indications that this principle might be on the wane, but it'll be a while yet. In the meantime, those who would want to stand in another's shoes are going to need to make a fair use argument that works with regard to them, rather than borrowing someone else's.

Not a good example. The copy shop is not giving the student the original book, but keeping it make more copies. In this case, the customer gets their original copy, and an IPod pre-loaded with a copy of media they just purchased. Basically, they are just saving the consumer time, doing something they could easily do themsevles.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892714)

The example is of how Alice might have a fair use argument, but Bob acting on behalf of Alice might not. Nothing more.

Basically, they are just saving the consumer time, doing something they could easily do themsevles.

Given that the students were using library books they didn't own, the copy shop made the same argument: it's just saving the students' time, doing it for them instead of making them do precisely the same thing themselves.

This argument hasn't really worked yet.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892438)

It's essentially like prosecutors tossing in a conspiracy charge in addition to the criminal charge (if they think you might have had a partner). Trials are funny things and it's generally easier to let a bogus charge get dismissed than try to add it later if the evidence makes a judgment look probably or conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.

Re: DeCSS is not illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892080)

> Now it may be that circumventing copy protection is illegal under DMCA

But DeCSS uses a *legitimate* key to decrypt the video stream... the fact that the key was exposed accidentally is irrelevant.

AFAICS, decrypting a DVD with a legitimate key is NOT circumvention, and therefore not illegal.

Re: DeCSS is not illegal (2, Informative)

lrodrig (609126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892156)

If you are not licensed to use the legitimate key to decrypt the video stream, and you use it, it is likely that what you are doing is illegal.

Oh yes it is. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892410)

What you're saying implies that the only reason why playing a DVD on a DVD player at home is legal is because it employs a legitimate key for which the user has obtained a license by buying the DVD player.

The only problem with that legal theory is that it's false. The user has purchased a DVD player, not leased or licensed it, and he has not agreed to a license of any kind whatsoever, not even a shrink-wrapped one.

They can't have it both ways (though obviously they will try to do so). If it's legal for your purchased DVD player to play the DVD, then it's legal for DeCSS to use a legitimate key to play it as well.

Re:Oh yes it is. (1)

lrodrig (609126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892488)

The cost of the license to decrypt the DVD is included in the price you pay for the DVD player.

Re: DeCSS is not illegal (2, Interesting)

cpt kangarooski (3773) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892312)

No, the key doesn't matter per se. It's what's done with it and how it became available that is relevant. Otherwise your argument would be akin to saying that if someone loses their house key by accident, it's not illegal for you to use it to go into their house; obviously, that's a loser of an argument.

The copyright holders authorized DVDCCA to sub-authorize decryption. DVDCCA has sub-authorized certain manufacturers to make decryption devices, if they conform to certain criteria DVDCCA has set forth (e.g. respect UOP instructions on the disc), and users who use those devices in their stock configurations, with all the DRM turned on, etc.

Use anything else, or use those things in the wrong ways, and you're circumventing. It doesn't matter whether you use the same key the authorized player uses; you aren't authorized to use it that way.

I would suggest reading the excellent essay What Colour Are Your Bits? [sooke.bc.ca] for some illumination into kinds of distinctions the law typically makes.

Re: DeCSS is not illegal (1)

Chris Burke (6130) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892330)

The key is not 'legitimate' because you aren't licensed to use it. It doesn't matter that it's an actual decryption key. If you found the key by brute-force hacking it would be the same key, and still illegal to use.

The DMCA is such a fucking stupid law. I break it every time I watch a DVD on my computer, a DVD that in each and every case I paid in full for. Good thing I don't mistake legality for morality, or might feel bad!

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (2, Interesting)

lrodrig (609126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892108)

IANAL yet, but... Copying a DVD requires circumventing the CSS copy protection technology, and circumventing effective technological protection measures like CSS is expressly prohibited by the DMCA. The copyright infringement issue is not so clear. If copying music to an iPod from a legally purchased CD can be considered fair use, it is likely that copying video to an iPod from a legally purchased DVD is fair use too. Again. What makes copying legally purchased DVDs illegal is the circumvention of the CSS copy protection technology.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

sqlrob (173498) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892402)

If it's that easy to get around, it's not effective, is it?

And CSS isn't really copy protection. You can copy it bit for bit and play the resultant copy. You don't have to understand encrypted bits to copy them.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

lrodrig (609126) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892530)

The "effectiveness" point is a good one, but not good enough for the courts. I know that technically CSS isn't copy protection; it is a form of "access control". But the DMCA applies to access control technologies too.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892460)

I think effective is the key word here - encrypting the contents of the disc and then storing the encryption key on the disc seems not to be an effective copy protection measure.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (4, Interesting)

mo (2873) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892408)

Now it may be that circumventing copy protection is illegal under DMCA... but does that make it an infringement of copyright?


IANAL, but I did work at mp3.com. AFAIK, any copying of copywrited work in a commercial setting violates copywright. This would include: Kinko's using their copiers to dupe textbooks for their owners. mp3.com ripping CDs for people who already owned them. Also, I'm fairly certain it includes google's practice of scanning textbooks.

It's quite likely that the company mentioned in TFA is going to either lose or settle, but I'm interested in how this will pan out for google's lawsuit from the Author's Guild.

Re:Illegal maybe, but copyright violation? (1)

crankyspice (63953) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892590)

Now we've heard that space-shifting falls under fair use, as long as you don't distribute the copy. This is the principle under which it's legal to rip tracks from your own CDs and load them on your iPod.

As far as I'm aware, space-shifting has only really been discussed in the Diamond case (RECORDING INDUSTRY v. DIAMOND MULTIMEDIA SYS., 180 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 1999)), which was specific to audio. As such, 'space-shifting' was analyzed under the Audio Home Recording Act.

Copyright law reserves the 17 USC 106 enumerated rights as exclusive to the copyright holder, except as modified (carved out) by subsequent sections. The Audio Home Recording Act, codified at 17 USC 1001 et seq, carves out an exemption for private copying of digital audio. There's no such carve-out for video, so the blanket prohibition (reservation of the right as exclusive to the copyright holder) against reproduction (copying) remains intact.

Also, I don't believe space-shifting in a commercial context is a fair use. The facts of RIAA v. Diamond were pretty specific; end-user space-shifting of digital audio -- held to be OK by at least one Federal Circuit and binding on lower courts in the 9th Circuit (including all of California). I don't believe a third party engaged in commercial 'space shifting' would fall under fair use.

Now it may be that circumventing copy protection is illegal under DMCA... but does that make it an infringement of copyright?

See above. Copying the video is a reproduction of a copyrighted motion picture work, without a carve-out that would permit even private shifting, let alone commercial...

Seems within the law, for better or worse... (4, Interesting)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892016)

Much as this sounds like a convenient service, I think the MPAA is completely legally right here: making copies is an exclusive right under copyright, so this is a regular copyright violation; copies for noncommercial format shifting purposes by the end-user might be "fair use"—IIRC, format-shifting hasn't been conclusively litigated—but that's not what is happening here. And DVD copy protection is pretty clearly covered under the DMCA, and bypassing it is a DMCA violation.

Should the law be changed to allow this? Perhaps, certainly I wouldn't object to deep sixing the DMCA, or to writing some kind of reasonable express format-shifting protection into the law, though its difficult to craft without undermining copyright entirely (unless you require destruction of the original before transfer.)

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse... (0, Troll)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892192)

I have VERY liberal opinions about what copyright should cover. For instance, I think that copyright should only apply to commercial use - personal use should be completely open. I also think that something like 15 years seems like an appropriate term for copyright.

That said, this is a company making a copy for a profit... I can't really say that copyright should be changed to allow for this. This company is making a profit off of someone else's intellectual property.

If I do it myselff... but if I pay someone... (2, Insightful)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892510)

If I do this format shifting copy myself its 'fair use' but if I think its a pain and would rather pay a service to go through the effort for me then it isn't fair use anymore and is a clear copyright violation?

No, I think that is complete BS. It doesn't make any sense. Maybe they can force seperating the buying of the product and the shifting of the format but if we allow an individual to do $x, we should definately allow them to pay someone else to do $x for them.

Re:If I do it myselff... but if I pay someone... (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892694)

but if we allow an individual to do $x, we should definately allow them to pay someone else to do $x for them.
Let's say you are legally allowed to record something off television for your own use (which is probably true though may not be depending on where you are). Do you also think it is reasonable to pay someone else for a copy of something they made from TV? That would effectively remove the copyright holder monopoly on retail DVDs. I think it's fairly reasonable that fair use is limited to non commercial activity.

Re:If I do it myselff... but if I pay someone... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892724)

If I do this format shifting copy myself its 'fair use'


Maybe. There is a little case law on "space shifting", but it can be distinguished from format shifting being done here, so its not clear that "format shifting" is clearly "fair use" to start with, legally.

but if I think its a pain and would rather pay a service to go through the effort for me then it isn't fair use anymore


When it stops being noncommercial, personal copying for personal use, the case for considering it "fair use" gets considerably weaker.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse... (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892578)

That said, this is a company making a copy for a profit... I can't really say that copyright should be changed to allow for this.

And they are selling the copy together with the original - copyright doesn't need to be changed to allow this, it doesn't prohibit it to begin with. It's only the DMCA they are violating.

This company is making a profit off of someone else's intellectual property.

See, that's the problem with the made-up concept of "Intellectual Property": copyright grants a limited monopoly on an artistic work to the author (perfectly reasonable), but the idea that once you create something it's your property forever and no one can profit in any way associated with it is just preposterous. By that logic companies that manufacture TVs and DVD* players should not be allowed to profit from the "property" of those who create the content they display.

Main problem is that the *AA's aren't content to just create a product and sell it to people at insane profits, they want to control every aspect of what you are and are not allowed to do with it once you've purchased it, in order to squeeze every last cent possible out of their consumers. It's a ridiculous proposition, I don't know how it came to be taken for granted.

* Firefox's spell checker doesn't know what a DVD is? Weird.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892218)

You neglect (or forget) that the MPAA sold the copy and under the first sale doctrine, making copies is legal for the purchaser. The MPAA sold their exclusive right (and made a tidy profit) on that first sale. The service that puts a copy on an electronic device transfers that originally sold copy with the electronic device. So no illegal copy has been made. Put differently, when you buy a copy of a work from the MPAA (more specifically a member company of the MPAA) you can copy that work onto an electronic device. You have not violated the MPAA member company's copyright. They gave up their so-called exclusive copyright when they sold that first copy to you.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892286)

You neglect (or forget) that the MPAA sold the copy and under the first sale doctrine, making copies is legal for the purchaser.


You are mistaken. The first sale doctrine means that the purchaser is free to transfer the physical copy they have received, not to make copies of it.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse... (2, Insightful)

Phil_At_NHS (1008933) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892256)

"though its difficult to craft without undermining copyright entirely (unless you require destruction of the original before transfer.)" BULLPUCKY. "It shall be legal for the LEGAL OWNER of the original distributed copy of a DVD, CD, or other media, including legally purchased or aquired electronic media downloaded from the interent or other distribution meduim, to make AS MANY COPIES, IN AS MANY DIFFERENT FORMATS as the owner wishes, to support their personal use. Ownership of any of these copies is dependent upon ownership of the original distribution copy: IF the DVD, CD or other original distributed copy is sold of given away, ALL copies made from that original or generational copies thereof, regardless of format and storage medium, must accompany the original distribution copy, or be destroyed immediately upon transfer of the original." Very simple, crafted in plain English, and does not in any way undermine copyright. It is stupid and unreasonable to require possession of only a single copy, which is what destruction of the original would result in. First of all, BACKUP is a primary consideration. Regardless of what the self serving lying bastards first said about CDs and DVDs, they are NOT "virtually indestructible". They have a limited lifetime, even if NRFB, and any child can damage one with very little effort. Second of all, it is stupid and unreasonable to suggest that I can have a CD OR a copy on my MP3 player, but not both, or a DVD OR a copy on my portable multimedia device, but not both. As long as I must own the original to own the copies, and all copies are used merely to support my personal enjoyment, there is no harm to an artist's legitimate copyright. Period.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse... (2)

Lordpidey (942444) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892310)

My only possible qualm with that is that idea is if you copy the original, and the original gets busted, you have no way of selling it since selling is dependant on the original. Aside from that, good job.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse... (1)

Phil_At_NHS (1008933) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892412)

Only if you are talking about about a downloaded file. Even then, you could make allowances for the electronic receipt. IF My original DVD is scratched up 'cuz my two year old got hold of it, well, that is what backups are for. I still have the disk, scratched or otherwise, so I still have ownership of my "personal use copyright". That YOU may not wish to purchase it is your problem and your choice, just like you may not wish to purchase my Ipod becasue the screen is cracked. Other than that, "good job" for what? This is all common sense. The artist has the right to ensure he gets whatever price he wishes to charge for his work, and the consumer has the right to ensure they can use what they pay for and protect that investment.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse... (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892376)

"It shall be legal for the LEGAL OWNER of the original distributed copy of a DVD, CD, or other media, including legally purchased or aquired electronic media downloaded from the interent or other distribution meduim, to make AS MANY COPIES, IN AS MANY DIFFERENT FORMATS as the owner wishes, to support their personal use. Ownership of any of these copies is dependent upon ownership of the original distribution copy: IF the DVD, CD or other original distributed copy is sold of given away, ALL copies made from that original or generational copies thereof, regardless of format and storage medium, must accompany the original distribution copy, or be destroyed immediately upon transfer of the original." Very simple, crafted in plain English, and does not in any way undermine copyright.


Actually, it does, unless you include a notice requirement of the status of copies to the recipient, who otherwise has either (1) just become free to distribute all the copies separately, or (2) will be held accountable for a law he could not have known he was violating (and if the law is phrased the second way, chances are the courts will enforce it the first way.)

More importantly, the prohibition of copying is the core of copyright (hence the name), because as a practical matter the proliferation of copies virtually guarantees that they become dispersed.

Even more importantly, your provision wouldn't allow what was being done here, because the initial format-shifted copies were not made to support anyone's "personal use", they were made to add resale value to a commercial product.

So I don't think you solved the problem posed.

Re:Seems within the law, for better or worse... (1)

Phil_At_NHS (1008933) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892534)

"Unless you include a notice requirement of the status of copies to the recipient," Big deal. Add a requirement that a copyright notice be distributed along with copies noting their original source. After that, it is their problem to understand the law. Minor details that are easily worked out, AS LONG AS YOU KEEP THE MUDSUCKING LAWYERS out of it, who don't do ANYTHING easily. "the prohibition of copying is the core of copyright (hence the name), because as a practical matter the proliferation of copies virtually guarantees that they become dispersed." BullPucky. I have copies of every CD I own. I have not dispersed them. Selling beer would, under your example, be the same thing as encouraging people to drive drunk since, as a practical matter, give enough people access to beer, SOMEONE will DUI. Copying for personal use is a SEPARATE ISSUE from copying for dispersement, and the LAW can treat them separately. "your provision wouldn't allow what was being done here, because the initial format-shifted copies were not made to support anyone's "personal use", they were made to add resale value to a commercial product." Sure it would. You would have a person in a company copying DVDs. They would not be using it for any purpose OTHER than personal use. Then they sell the originals AND the copies, which are sold to someone else for personal use. The goal of a copyright law is to prevent piracy: To ensure that a producer of material gets his price for the material. My proposal accomplishes that, and so does what this company provides. If you want to add a few more words to make this explicitly covered, fine. The bottom line here is: This is not piracy. The one thing that the MPAA will not be able to prove against this company is DAMAGES. There are none. The DMCA is crap, and goes far beyond any requirements to stop piracy.

Shouldn't be a surprise (1, Insightful)

LoverOfJoy (820058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892070)

This shouldn't be a surprise after what happened to CleanFlicks

Re:Shouldn't be a surprise (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892244)

CleanFlicks was decided under a completely different set of reasoning.

Essentially, the Director of the film has the innate right to not get his work edited and sold by someone else.

In the U.S. this "moral right" applies to visual creations, so artists and film directors are allowed to say "No, you can't do that to my film/painting/picture".

DRM was an issue, but it wasn't the deciding factor in the case.

Didn't ask (2, Interesting)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892098)

They didn't ask, "Mother, may I?" or Simon didn't say, "Preload movie for consumer." Fair Use be damned.

In future plans, the MPAA will be suing people who have unauthorised memories of watching movies as that constitutes illegal copying to memory. From then on, brain surgeons will wait outside theaters to scoop out people's brains.

Re:Didn't ask (1)

joe 155 (937621) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892172)

The MPAA wants to be the de facto law maker in the US over the whole of copyright law (and the RIAA for the music). They have been allowed to do this by the government, and to some extent by the people who keep buying this shit.

Fight the laws.

Re:Didn't ask (1)

yancey (136972) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892456)

Only for people who have "photographic" memories.

It's your law, so fix it goddamn! (-1, Troll)

Thondermonst (613766) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892136)

Sorry to say but the MPAA is right on this one.

Hey, yanks, please wake up for a moment and fix the shitty state your in.

But first things first:

1) Impeach Bush
2) Roll back the fascict laws, introduced by the Bush Administration (Patriot act, DCMA, and the likes)
3) Change your political system, 2 parties just aint enough, it's like choosing between bad and worse...
4) Read your constitution, it isn't that bad, you should follow it instead of abandon it.

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892178)

The DMCA was signed into law by Clinton. If you know nothing about American politics, shut the fuck up.

Mod parent up, even if he does have a potty mouth. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892258)

Well said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA [wikipedia.org]

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn! (1)

Thondermonst (613766) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892440)

You're right, the DMCA was introduced during the Clinton administration. That's why I proposed you changed your political system, because frankly I don't see many differences between the Dems and the Reps, both are reigned by their sponsors. So in fact, it's the big companies that run the country, not the people.

PS: I live in Belgium and although I like living here, the political situation isn't optimal either. So you probably right to state that I should shut the fuck up, until I fix the situation overhere.

But, actually I don't exist: http://zapatopi.net/belgium/ [zapatopi.net]

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16892700)

Woah, man. Chill out. No need to be so hostile. Clinton may have signed DMCA, but this Belgian seems like he's on to a few things, here. Take a deep breath, and think of peace.

Re:It's your law, so fix it goddamn! (1, Troll)

dugn (890551) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892332)

What a disappointingly naive response. There's no value this post brings to the discussion. And barring your typo in DMCA, it wasn't the Bush administration that signed DMCA into law.

If anything, some administration - I don't care who - should reconcile the divide between Fair Use and DMCA once and for all so we all know whether we can rip our own music from copies that we own (even if it takes circumventing copy protection to do so).

Until that fundamental question is resolved, these John Q. Public vs. RIAA/DMCA/ issues and discussions on /. will continue...

Free clue for the MPAA (4, Insightful)

rewt66 (738525) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892146)

These people are selling your product for you. In other words, you're suing your own salesmen!

I can't think of a more stupid strategy for any business.

Re:Free clue for the MPAA (5, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892250)

It seems like a logical progression from suing their customers...

Re:Free clue for the MPAA (1)

ewl1217 (922107) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892320)

1. Sue copyright infringers
2. Sue customers
3. Sue salesmen
4. ???
5. PROFIT!!

Re:Free clue for the MPAA (3, Funny)

Hinhule (811436) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892348)

4. Sue yourself?

Re:Free clue for the MPAA (1)

ewl1217 (922107) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892390)

Whoosh...

Re:Free clue for the MPAA (1)

sxtxixtxcxh (757736) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892446)

clearly step 4 in this case is:

4) WTF?!

Re:Free clue for the MPAA (1)

kocsonya (141716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892366)

> These people are selling your product for you. In other words, you're suing your own salesmen!
> I can't think of a more stupid strategy for any business.

Well, this particular salesman wanted to make a little profit.
Wouldn't a druglord order the wasting of a pusher who's making a bit on the side?
Doesn't seem to hurt their business and they have the same business model:
selling shit to the junkies, total control of the product from manufacturing to
the customer, extortion prices and very heavy-handed treatment of customers or
distributors who don't want to toe the line or pay the price.

Re:Free clue for the MPAA (2, Insightful)

Myopic (18616) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892616)

These people are selling your product for you. In other words, you're suing your own salesmen!
I can't think of a more stupid strategy for any business.


Sure you can: suing your actual customers.

delicate (4, Interesting)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892216)


  This case may end up depending on: (answer what you want)

  (1) Does the market allow for the selling of an iPod and a separate DVD disc?
  (2) Does the market allow for someone to buy a movie onto their iPod?
  (3) What is the difference between a movie on a DVD and a movie on an iPod? Are a distributor's rights changed?
  (4) Can a business do for users what they can do for themselves? For example, rip a DVD copy onto a viewing device?
  (5) Can a user pay someone, in any way, to copy their DVD onto any other device they own?

  I bet there are some non-intuitive answers that the RIAA would put up there.

This is nothing more than a "frightener" (2, Interesting)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892272)

Personally, whilst circumventing copy protection may be deemed as illegal in certain countries, the fact of the matter is that *NOBODY* has ever been incriminated for format shifting a CD or a DVD that they have legally purchased. That particular aspect of the law has yet to be tested.

Yep, I've no doubt that with these new laws, someone pirating music or movies will get done for both copyright infringement and breaking copy protection. Likewise, I'm sure there are laws that cover the way retailers can distribute media - this is no different to a movie rental company renting out retail DVDs that have "Not for rental" stamped on the back cover.

All this is about is a demonstration by the MPAA to "scare" people into not format shifting the stuff they've bought - after all, the MPAA/RIAA/BPI etc would much rather you rebought all your movies and music everytime a new format is released, or, even better, have you the consumer treat them (the movie and record companies) like a utility company in as much as you rent what you want for a period that lasts as long as you pay rental.

I rip my DVDs to DivX and my CDs to MP3 for portability purposes and this case is not going to change that behaviour one iota. In just the same way that nobody has ever been incriminated for lending a friend a CD or a DVD, I defy any court in any country to prove that any of the format shifting I do has caused any big fat corporation to lose any money - which ultimately is what all these laws are about.

This iPod retailer will be subject to certain rules and regulations meaning that they cannot legally offer format shifted media, even if they hand out the original DVD and that is what the MPAA will get them on.

But they don't stand a hope in hell of making anything like this stick on a private citizen who has done this with media they've legally purchased.

There really is *NOTHING* to see here...

Re:This is nothing more than a "frightener" (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892432)

the MPAA/RIAA/BPI etc would much rather you rebought all your movies and music everytime a new format is released...
Now THIS is stealing :)

How does this happen? Easy follow the money... (4, Interesting)

i_want_you_to_throw_ (559379) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892324)

Orrin Hatch got this piece of crap introduced and passed and has also taken almost $400K From the entertainment lobby. [opensecrets.org]

America, best government money can buy®

Re:How does this happen? Easy follow the money... (3, Informative)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892548)

Actually, Howard Coble and Orrin Hatch co-introduced this measure into their respective houses of Congress after the relevant treaty was signed by the Clinton Administration's representative at WIPO.

Sponsors of the original bills introduced into each house:

Senate:
Sen Kohl, Herb [WI]
Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]
Sen Thompson, Fred [TN]

House:
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]
Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6]
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-26]
Rep McCollum, Bill [FL-8]
Rep Bono, Sonny [CA-44]

These folks in the House co-sponsored it after it was amended from its original form, though it still included the anti-circumvention provision:
Rep Paxon, Bill [NY-27]
Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) [MS-3]
Rep Bono, Mary [CA-44]

Copyrights and wrongs (5, Interesting)

Alan426 (962302) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892526)

So, if I make a backup copy of my customer's disk before working on his computer -- a service provided for a fee -- have I violated copyright law? What if I use Norton Ghost to make the copy, because some files are encrypted? Have I then violated DCMA as well?

IANAL, but this makes my head hurt!

I may be wrong here (1)

terrymr (316118) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892552)

But I thought it was understood as far as copyright goes that the purchaser (licensee) of a work make a copy for their own use on the understanding that if they resell the original then the copy must be transferred with the original or destroyed.

The DMCA encryption question is another deal, but I'm sure the argument can be made that CSS is not an *effective* copy protection measure.

Re:I may be wrong here (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892696)

But I thought it was understood as far as copyright goes that the purchaser (licensee) of a work make a copy for their own use on the understanding that if they resell the original then the copy must be transferred with the original or destroyed.


This is not generally the case, though there are specific rules very much along those lines for computer programs when either necessary for use or a single archival copy, and somewhat different rules allowing copying by libraries and archives.

Better Targets? (5, Interesting)

SomeOtherGuy (179082) | more than 7 years ago | (#16892608)

This reminds me of mp3.com

As an "honest" consumer -- I thought it was the best win/win situation ever.
I whip out my credit card and pay $15 for a CD, and I get to download and
listen to the songs I just bought right away until the CD itself showed up
in the mail in a week or so. Everyone gets paid the full amount and everyone
is happy.

Yet -- they chose to take mp3.com down to the ground because of it.

In this case they are marketing the ipod to people who are also paying the full
price for the physical media......

This is said....I don't shed tear 1 when they "take down" the criminals that stealing movies
or music where the content makers don't profit....But to take down the people who are selling
your product at full price seems pretty stupid to me. The people that suffer the most
are the honest consumers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>