site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Search Topic:
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
AuthorAll Replies

jmuskratt

join:2000-11-21
New Orleans, LA
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

reply to funchords

Re: Contract Law

quote:
I can also ask my daughter to dig into my storage boxes, dig out my DVD's of "Adam-12" and have her upload them to me.
Under the DMCA, you can't. In order to copy them, you have to break the CSS, thus violating the DMCA. Fair use or no, the DMCA probits defeating copy-protection mechanisms.


MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC

1 edit

No, and no. The DMCA doesn't trump fair use (yet), and doesn't prohibit the actual breaking of copy protection (yet). It only prohibits distributing technology to do it with.

In any case many public domain DVDs aren't encrypted anyway.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party.


RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11

Real Networks is in the process of being sued by the Big Six studios over its DVD ripping software due out next week. Real claims it does not violate DMCA since it does not permit distribution beyond the computer the file is ripped to. Nevertheless, the suit has been filed. Whether this will have any effect on DMCA interpretation regarding copy protection avoidance is anyones guess at this point but it does show how jumpy the MPAA et. al. are about this.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.



MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC

They are violating the DMCA by distributing cracking technology. The user is not.


jmuskratt

join:2000-11-21
New Orleans, LA
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

reply to MrMoody
Yes, using DeCSS, which you need to rip a DVD, does.

17 USC Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

. . .

(e)(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that;

(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

(3) As used in this subsection —

(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and



kamm

join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY

reply to MrMoody

said by MrMoody:

No, and no. The DMCA doesn't trump fair use (yet), and doesn't prohibit the actual breaking of copy protection (yet). It only prohibits distributing technology to do it with.

In any case many public domain DVDs aren't encrypted anyway.
Actually it DOES prohibit the circumvention of CP machanisms - which clause alone renders the whole DMCA illegal - EXCEPT certain cases though.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE]

RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11

reply to MrMoody
It is not 'cracking technology' though according to Real. It allows a 'fair use' transfer from one media to another, not the creation of another copy of the work. This is some murky (and deep) water.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange.



MrMoody
Free range slave
Premium
join:2002-09-03
Smithfield, NC

1 edit

reply to jmuskratt

said by jmuskratt:

Yes, using DeCSS, which you need to rip a DVD, does.

17 USC Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

(a) VIOLATIONS REGARDING CIRCUMVENTION OF TECHNOLOGICAL MEASURES- (1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
Hmm, seems I was wrong about that.

But in any case:
quote:
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
So cracking is not infringement if you otherwise had the right to make a copy, which means the cracking itself would have to be criminally prosecuted. Would never happen to a private citizen making personal fair use copies, there'd be too much political fallout.

So the *AAs have to concentrate on preventing the enablers ...

(edit)
Chamberlain v. Skylink, 2004:
quote:
"The plain language of the statute ... requires a plaintiff alleging circumvention (or trafficking) to prove that the defendant's access was unauthorized-a significant burden where, as here, the copyright laws authorize consumers to use the copy of Chamberlain's software embedded in the GDOs that they purchased."
I read that as saying as long as you are authorized to access the DVD, you are authorized to crack it.
--
Electile Dysfunction: the inability to become aroused over the choice for President put forth by either party.

jmuskratt

join:2000-11-21
New Orleans, LA
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

Again, not entirely correct.

Making a backup copy for personal use *may be* legal fair use.

Using DeCSS to break the protection to make that copy, violates the DMCA.

So, if your Adam 12 DVDs didn't have CSS, then you'd be ok. Now whether there'll ever be a prosecution for using AnyDVD or DVD43, I can't say. The DMCA, however, does render otherwise legal fair use into banditry.

From UNIVERSAL CITY v REIMERDES:

We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original. Although the Appellants insisted at oral argument that they should not be relegated to a "horse and buggy" technique in making fair use of DVD movies,36 the DMCA does not impose even an arguable limitation on the opportunity to make a variety of traditional fair uses of DVD movies, such as commenting on their content, quoting excerpts from their screenplays, and even recording portions of the video images and sounds on film or tape by pointing a camera, a camcorder, or a microphone at a monitor as it displays the DVD movie. The fact that the resulting copy will not be as perfect or as manipulable as a digital copy obtained by having direct access to the DVD movie in its digital form, provides no basis for a claim of unconstitutional limitation of fair use. A film critic making fair use of a movie by quoting selected lines of dialogue has no constitutionally valid claim that the review (in print or on television) would be technologically superior if the reviewer had not been prevented from using a movie camera in the theater, nor has an art student a valid constitutional claim to fair use of a painting by photographing it in a museum. Fair use has never been held to be a guarantee of access to copyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user's preferred technique or in the format of the original.



funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Yarmouth Port, MA
kudos:5

said by jmuskratt:

Again, not entirely correct.

Making a backup copy for personal use *may be* legal fair use.

Using DeCSS to break the protection to make that copy, violates the DMCA.

So, if your Adam 12 DVDs didn't have CSS, then you'd be ok. Now whether there'll ever be a prosecution for using AnyDVD or DVD43, I can't say. The DMCA, however, does render otherwise legal fair use into banditry.

From UNIVERSAL CITY v REIMERDES:

We know of no authority for the proposition that fair use, as protected by the Copyright Act, much less the Constitution, guarantees copying by the optimum method or in the identical format of the original. Although the Appellants insisted at oral argument that they should not be relegated to a "horse and buggy" technique in making fair use of DVD movies,36 the DMCA does not impose even an arguable limitation on the opportunity to make a variety of traditional fair uses of DVD movies, such as commenting on their content, quoting excerpts from their screenplays, and even recording portions of the video images and sounds on film or tape by pointing a camera, a camcorder, or a microphone at a monitor as it displays the DVD movie. The fact that the resulting copy will not be as perfect or as manipulable as a digital copy obtained by having direct access to the DVD movie in its digital form, provides no basis for a claim of unconstitutional limitation of fair use. A film critic making fair use of a movie by quoting selected lines of dialogue has no constitutionally valid claim that the review (in print or on television) would be technologically superior if the reviewer had not been prevented from using a movie camera in the theater, nor has an art student a valid constitutional claim to fair use of a painting by photographing it in a museum. Fair use has never been held to be a guarantee of access to copyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user's preferred technique or in the format of the original.
Sorry, but not based on that case.

Quoting the ever fallible Wikipedia,
The particular facts and litigation posture of the defendants was pivotal in this case. The district court found that the "primary purpose" of the defendants' actions was to promote redistribution of DVDs in violation of copyright laws, because the defendants admitted as much. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). The finding was upheld by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on the specific facts of the case, but the appellate court left open the possibility that different facts could change the result. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Corley, 273 F.3d 429 (2d Cir. 2001), at footnotes 5 and 16.
In my example "Adam-12" case, and assuming that it is CSS-scrambled, I have the permission to decrypt -- I purchased and own my copy, which must be decrypted in order to display the work. Secondly, I'm not circumventing anything, because the copy protection isn't intended to block me from content that I bought the rights to play. Thirdly, the copyright holder doesn't have any exclusive rights that I'm violating (17 USC 106 prohibits reproduction by copies - plural). Forth, never in history that I'm aware has a copyright holder prevailed against any person who made and used a backup copy without any further violation of the copyright holder's exclusive rights. Finally, if all of those arguments fail, I still hold a fair use argument because my activity will have zero market impact.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon
More features, more fun, Join BroadbandReports.com, it's free...

fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
kudos:3

reply to RadioDoc

said by RadioDoc:

It is not 'cracking technology' though according to Real. It allows a 'fair use' transfer from one media to another, not the creation of another copy of the work. This is some murky (and deep) water.
.. and for once, we agree.

Monday, 13-Feb 09:53:51 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online! © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics