backtop


Print 75 comment(s) - last by juggalo0707.. on Mar 10 at 11:15 PM

Excessive restrictions of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act may be a thing of the past if U.S. Representative Rick Boucher has his way

The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) is making its stance very clear on digital copying: Allowing users to make copies would "legalize hacking," it says. However, a new bill in the U.S. Congress aims to allow consumers to copy and safely play digital material that they legally own, and to protect user rights for consumers of copyright material. The bill also aims to protect fair use in hardware devices, which The RIAA is strongly against as of this moment.

Under the Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship (FAIR USE) Act, users will be allowed to copy material they own, but will also be granted exemptions to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, or DMCA. According to the FAIR USE Act, consumers will be allowed to make limited copies of copyrighted material for personal purposes as well as for reviews, news reporting and education. Additionally, manufacturers and service providers will not be held accountable for what customers do with their devices and services.

"The fair use doctrine is threatened today as never before," said U.S. Representative Rick Boucher. "Historically, the nation's copyright laws have reflected a carefully calibrated balanced between the rights of copyright owners and the rights of the users of copyrighted material. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use," Boucher added.

A snippet from the FAIR USE doctrine reads (PDF):
The court shall remit statutory damages for secondary infringement, except in a case in which the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the act or acts constituting such secondary infringement were done under circumstances in which no reasonable person could have believed such conduct to be lawful.
The RIAA has already shown its disdain for the proposed bill.  "The difference between hacking done for non-infringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce," said the RIAA in a statement.

Late last year, Congress previously ruled that users are no longer allowed to rip DVD movies to their iPods, even if they own the movies legally. What the RIAA emphasizes is that some manufacturers may be creating devices that are intentionally easy to hack, circumventing the onboard protection measures, so that the "feature" may be attractive to end users.

According to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), which has stood against the RIAA in many cases, the FAIR USE Act would help consumers who are being sued for wrong doing when they have not committed any crime. "The bill would loosen the grip of the DMCA, which restricts circumvention of digital rights management (DRM) restrictions even for lawful uses," said the EFF in a statement.

Since its implementation several years ago, the DMCA has been viewed by many as being too restrictive, both on consumers and on manufacturers. Many compare their current collection of DVD movies and music CDs to their old video and audio cassettes. Copying and making backups were normal everyday practices that millions did. The RIAA's stance is that digital copying has significantly impacted music sales in a negative way. Research proved that the RIAA was making unfounded claims -- while sales of actual physical CDs dropped, overall sales of music has risen tremendously.

Boucher is also an advocate of Net Neutrality and U.S. patent reform.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Don't hold your breath ...
By Ajax9000 on 3/7/2007 6:25:24 PM , Rating: 4
That one congressperson is thinking reasonably is wonderful.

That lobby groups will persuade congress as a whole to kill this is pretty much a given. :-(




RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By AMDfreak on 3/7/2007 7:02:29 PM , Rating: 5
We have the power to not let that happen (ideally). Every single person that agrees with the FAIR USE Act should tell their Representative. Send an e-mail, write a letter, make a phone call, then tell your friends to do the same. If enough of us do it, then maybe they'll see just how fed up people are with the DMCA.


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By Polynikes on 3/8/2007 11:17:28 AM , Rating: 4
See, theoretically that's the way it should work. Sadly, most people are too lazy to bother contacting reps in government. Plus, there's the chance a lot of them just plain won't listen. I can't even get a response from a state legislator. I'm sure the boys at the federal level care even less.


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By umerok on 3/9/2007 11:44:34 AM , Rating: 2
It depends on your state. One of California's Senators, Dianne Feinstein, actually sent me something back when I contacted her about Net Neutrality. Even though she's against it, she still took the time to formulate a response, which counts for a lot in my book.


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By glennpratt on 3/10/2007 1:36:15 PM , Rating: 2
Interesting. Every time I've written a letter (or even form letter from the internet to my reps (I'm in Texas) I've gotten a response. While I'm sure some/most are form letters, at least I know someone formulated a response.


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By Gatt on 3/7/2007 7:07:58 PM , Rating: 1
Nope,

The comprimise is going to be the ban of P2P software that allows a user to upload anything he wants.

That's the root of the problem anyways, no one cares if people make copies for themselves, no one cares if people make a copy or two for friends. The issue is (On some sites) hundreds of thousands of downloads from one copy.

It's really not a question of if, it's a question of when it'll happen.

But this will pass, especially with election years coming up.


By Soviet Robot on 3/7/2007 9:51:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, if the RIAA and MPAA had the ability to catch everyone who made a legal backup copy of a cd/movie they own or made a copy for a friend, we would all be sued.


By Lazarus Dark on 3/8/2007 12:05:30 PM , Rating: 2
The riaa would arrest your newborn child if they could just for the potential that it may rip a dvd in fifteen years to the gen12 ipod.


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By NoSoftwarePatents on 3/7/2007 7:45:37 PM , Rating: 2
It won't fly-while I would support such a thing, most of the friends I have don't care about consumer rights, and couldn't be bothered into writing/calling a senator. Most of my friends are non-technical, which helps to explain this a little.

Until you have some event that sinks deeply into the mind of the AVERAGE person where they can see the issue affecting them personally, don't expect much of a response from the voting masses. The only hope is if content companies are forced to fight other companies, but in the case of the DMCA, there was support from content providers and non-content providers like Microsoft along with lots of senators and including former president Bill Clinton.

Blizzard Entertainment loves the DMCA, for example and will use it anytime and any way they can, like many companies do-even if it is technically not correct (like using the DMCA to try to silence a critic). All those millions of people who play WOW, are basically supporting a company that likes the DMCA and they'll use some of that cash to keep their wishes enforceable...so the corporation speaks while the voters do not, nor care.


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By Zelvek on 3/7/2007 11:04:16 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunaly that is very true so I say that those of you who do care should instead write a letter with a patition then get your friends to sign and send it off to your rep. Or print out multipule copies of the letter and get your friends to sign those and send them out.

PS I say those of you who care because I am a Canadian and so cannot do anything to sway your congressmen. But I do care because laws like this affect other countries as well. Groups similar to the RIAA use laws like the DMCA to help convince their countries government to pass stupid laws like the DMCA. Therefore a law like this would reduce how convincing they are.


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By jconan on 3/8/2007 12:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
2nd that. Everyone who cares should call or have their friends call in to their Congressman and ask them to support this bill. Isn't this is what freedom is about.


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By dgingeri on 3/8/2007 1:33:07 PM , Rating: 1
How is Blizzard using the DMCA at all? I have seen no evidence at all of this. Some details are all I ask for.


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By dgingeri on 3/8/2007 6:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
no reply, Zelvek? You have no details on this?


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By Zelvek on 3/8/2007 8:10:13 PM , Rating: 2
No and seeing as how it was NoSoftwarePatents and not I who said those comments about blizzard I fail to see as to why I should have any sort of response?


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By NoSoftwarePatents on 3/8/2007 11:08:52 PM , Rating: 2
Here ya go!

http://www.chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?Weather...

http://www.marklectic.com/2006/03/30/blizzard-abus...

(this is the "resolution" to the above link)
http://news.com.com/Blizzard+abandons+DMCA+threat+...

Just google "Blizzard DMCA" and you'll see how much they love it. Note-Blizzard Entertainment is one of the few ESA members who actively uses the DMCA, so this is pretty specific to Blizzard Entertainment.

NOTE-I do not play, legally or illegally World Of Warcraft and have no interest in it (yes I have seen it, and I have friends who play it-often). After the BNETD incident, I quit buying their stuff as a form of personal protest. THE FROZEN THRONE is the very last purchase I will ever make from them...


RE: Don't hold your breath ...
By theslug on 3/10/2007 1:41:22 PM , Rating: 2
How about basing your purchasing decisions on the quality of the software instead?

I don't see any wrong-doing. In that first link, it sounds like they had a valid reason for suing.


:p
By Magius on 3/7/2007 6:51:19 PM , Rating: 2
If it were up to the RIAA we would be paying up every time we hear or see some type of media and be grateful about it.

They have been on a roll for a while now, it's about time the government knocks them back a peg or two.




RE: :p
By fic2 on 3/7/2007 7:04:24 PM , Rating: 3
Totally agree. If they ran book publishing you would have to buy a book to read at home, the same book to read on the subway/bus on the way to work, another copy to read at lunch, etc. And once you were finished with that "one" book you couldn't give or sale it to someone else to read.


RE: :p
By BladeVenom on 3/7/2007 8:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
And they would cost 10 times as much. Papers expensive, but paperbacks are cheap. Blank CDs are cheap, but music CDs are expensive.


RE: :p
By derwin on 3/7/2007 11:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
The thing I've gotta say about that is that a paperback book by John Steinbeck or a Shakspear play are worth probably far more than just 9 bucks, just like a great CD. I wouldn't mind paying 10 bucks (or 12 bucks, for 15, whatever you usually pay, but ten is easy to type when tired) for a Pearl Jam cd, or 10 bucks for any other great band's cd. I do mind however when a band like say The Strokes or The Backstreet Boys put out a CD and try to charge me 10 bucks for (not that I would buy either, but irreivant). What I am saying is that it is hard to justify paying 10 dollars for a piece of media worth maybe 10 cents if we obviously are not paying based on the quality of the music, just the mere fact that there is music on the media. By some people's logic, it could just be "Pip farting on a snare drum," and it would still show up in Best Buy for 10 bucks.
If you examine the correlation here, there is a zero correlation between CD price and quality of music, and a near 1 to 1 correlation between the fact that music produced by the Record Industry is on a CD and the price of it.


RE: :p
By PitViper007 on 3/8/2007 8:48:26 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree in principle with what you are saying, there is a little point to be made. What you consider "worth" the "10 bucks" to you, may not be to someone else and vice versa.

PitViper


RE: :p
By iNGEN on 3/8/2007 12:16:08 PM , Rating: 2
You are trying to account for taste. Which, as Justice Scalia put it, "That is not law. That is politics-smuggled-into-law."


RE: :p
By fic2 on 3/8/2007 12:49:59 PM , Rating: 3
What I find annoying is that CDs from 10/20/30 years ago are still $10 and usually more. I would probably rebuy the vinyl albums that I have as a CD if I could get them for something like $3-5. Why can I buy a movie that that has been out on DVD for 3 years for $5 but I can't buy a CD that has been out for 30 years for less than $10?


RE: :p
By rdeegvainl on 3/8/2007 12:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, that would be the last thing they would want. Cause then to sustain existance they would have to lower prices to about 1 cent per pop, and nobody would pay to hear or see 99.999% of the crap they put out and so they would be forced to make quality music and movies.
They would rather you had absolutely no way to judge music and movies before you bought or saw them, so that way you have to buy it to even sample it.


RE: :p
By Lazarus Dark on 3/8/2007 12:12:50 PM , Rating: 2
If it were up to the riaa, you would pay everytime you remembered copyrighted material. Actually viewing new material would require your firstborn.


Where are they?
By yangyoning on 3/7/2007 10:46:19 PM , Rating: 3
masher2 or tomz to swoop in and saying stuff like this..

"No one FORCE you to buy DRM content, It is their rights to protect their stuff/property, so if you don't like their product or how they control u to use their product, don't buy it etc etc" ^^

Seems like they hate DRM but they didn't ^^




RE: Where are they?
By r8devil on 3/8/2007 12:17:26 AM , Rating: 1
"No one FORCE you to buy DRM content, It is their rights to protect their stuff/property, so if you don't like their product or how they control u to use their product, don't buy it etc etc"

I do not agree with that argument for DRM. If I pay for it, doesn't it belong to me? I shouldn't be sharing it thru P2P but I should have the right to make copies as backup or to use in multiple devices that I own. Also if the RIAA could DRM everything, they would and what other avenues would I have to get music that wasn't DRMed. I know there are bands out there that distribute their music thru other channels and are not DRMed but that would account for a small % as compared to music that goes thru RIAA.


RE: Where are they?
By Chillin1248 on 3/8/2007 8:44:33 AM , Rating: 2
And I agree 100% with both of their reasoning.

Put aside the fact that it is the RIAA and the MPAA and look at it as a third company. Let's use "Tune" for the music company:

"Tune" starts up and starts signing up artists and and recording studios. Tune becomes highly succesful beyond belief and becomes one of the top music companies. Tune then goes ahead and charges for each of their songs $5 and imposes a crazy DRM scheme that monitors each time the music is listened and charges for that.

Now Tune (putting aside the US copyright laws for a second and looking at it as a Capatilistic view) should be able to do that without any question as long as they followed all their commitements to inform/agree with their artists and studios, etc. Now here is where capitalism kicks in; if people agree with the price change and think it is fair to pay that to listen to the bands who wish to be part of "Tune" then Tune will continue to be highly succesful.

However if the market rejects the idea of paying $5 for music and instead turns to other studios and artists then "Tune" will soon find itself in a very big ditch.

The fact that you want to listen to the music means you have to pay what the owner of the music wishes. But you must really want to listen to that music for the high price and restrictions place on it because that is what it is worth to you.

However if the artist/song in question is not worth $5 then you will have to choose another artists music which is satisfactory.

Look at the Bigfoot NIC "Killer" card or Phsyx "AGEIA" card for good examples. They were not worth their high price to many people or people had alternatives they would rather choose and so far (please someone put up a statistic if I am wrong) have not suceeded in the market. But I didn't hear anyone say that because they were the biggest "Physics card" or "Network gaming card" producers that they thought the prices were unfair and would go ahead and steal the products; so why is the logic here any different?

If you hate DRM/RIAA that much or think they are very unfair then here is the easy solution:

DON'T BUY FROM THEM

They are not the only Music studio around and you have plenty of artists who give away their music even for free. But if you think the RIAA has good music that you like then you have to be willing to pay the price to listen to their music which they bought, marketed, produced, etc.

-------
Chillin


RE: Where are they?
By Spivonious on 3/8/2007 10:35:29 AM , Rating: 2
I already posted so I can't rate your post, so I'll just say that this post is excellent.


RE: Where are they?
By iNGEN on 3/8/2007 12:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think the heart of this problem is the concept of intellectual property has become common, yet its trappings and confinements have not kept pace with the evolution of the property itself. The American music purchasing market now requires a more standardized and concise definition of what exactly they purchase when they purchase music and video.

Unlike software, which contains a EULA to be entered into voluntarily, music and videos contain no such consensual contract. In lieu of legislating a requirement that the distrobution medium provide for such a contract, which would be entirely possible for digital media. I think it better we as Americans, through the legislative process, create a clear definitition of what property is truly conveyed by the puchase of music and video. Such a solution would eliminate not all, but much of this dysfunction.

Until that occurs, the free market is, in my opinion, incapable of proclaiming, "If you don't like what's in Hustler Magazine, don't buy it!"

[with a tip 'o the hat to Chillin]


RE: Where are they?
By Chillin1248 on 3/8/2007 1:27:07 PM , Rating: 3
I understand what you are saying, and I agree to an extent.

However instead of EULA there are US laws, but granted there are broad definitions and loopholes.

And for the record I am very anti-DRM. As for the RIAA, well I live in another country where the native music is better than anything (in my opinion) coming out of the states recently; so the RIAA really don't disturb me much.

For more on the Copyright laws:

quote:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 11 > § 1101

§ 1101. Unauthorized fixation and trafficking in sound recordings and music videos

--(a) Unauthorized Acts.— Anyone who, without the consent of the performer or performers involved—

-(1) fixes the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance in a copy or phonorecord, or reproduces copies or phonorecords of such a performance from an unauthorized fixation,

-(2) transmits or otherwise communicates to the public the sounds or sounds and images of a live musical performance, or

-(3) distributes or offers to distribute, sells or offers to sell, rents or offers to rent, or traffics in any copy or phonorecord fixed as described in paragraph (1), regardless of whether the fixations occurred in the United States,
shall be subject to the remedies provided in sections 502 through 505, to the same extent as an infringer of copyright.

==(b) Definition.— As used in this section, the term “traffic in” means transport, transfer, or otherwise dispose of, to another, as consideration for anything of value, or make or obtain control of with intent to transport, transfer, or dispose of.

==(c) Applicability.— This section shall apply to any act or acts that occur on or after the date of the enactment of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act.

==(d) State Law Not Preempted.— Nothing in this section may be construed to annul or limit any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State.


================================================= ==================

quote:

TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201 Prev | Next

§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems

How Current is This?

(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. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rulemaking, the Librarian shall examine—
(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;
(ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
(iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.

(D) The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.

(E) Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability of the prohibition contained in subparagraph

(A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.

(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

(B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

(b) Additional Violations.—

(1) 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 protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof;

(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or

(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof.

(2) As used in this subsection—

(A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and

(B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.

(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.

(2) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish vicarious or contributory liability for copyright infringement in connection with any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof.

(3) Nothing in this section shall require that the design of, or design and selection of parts and components for, a consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing product provide for a response to any particular technological measure, so long as such part or component, or the product in which such part or component is integrated, does not otherwise fall within the prohibitions of subsection (a)(2) or (b)(1).

(4) Nothing in this section shall enlarge or diminish any rights of free speech or the press for activities using consumer electronics, telecommunications, or computing products.

(d) Exemption for Nonprofit Libraries, Archives, and Educational Institutions.—

(1) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution which gains access to a commercially exploited copyrighted work solely in order to make a good faith determination of whether to acquire a copy of that work for the sole purpose of engaging in conduct permitted under this title shall not be in violation of subsection (a)(1)

(A). A copy of a work to which access has been gained under this paragraph—

(A) may not be retained longer than necessary to make such good faith determination; and

(B) may not be used for any other purpose.

(2) The exemption made available under paragraph (1) shall only apply with respect to a work when an identical copy of that work is not reasonably available in another form.

-(3) A nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution that willfully for the purpose of commercial advantage or financial gain violates paragraph (1)—

=(A) shall, for the first offense, be subject to the civil remedies under section 1203; and

==(B) shall, for repeated or subsequent offenses, in addition to the civil remedies under section 1203, forfeit the exemption provided under paragraph (1).

-(4) This subsection may not be used as a defense to a claim under subsection (a)(2) or (b), nor may this subsection permit a nonprofit library, archives, or educational institution to manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, component, or part thereof, which circumvents a technological measure.

-(5) In order for a library or archives to qualify for the exemption under this subsection, the collections of that library or archives shall be—

==(A) open to the public; or

==(B) available not only to researchers affiliated with the library or archives or with the institution of which it is a part, but also to other persons doing research in a specialized field.

================================================= ==================

quote:
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 10 > SUBCHAPTER B > § 1002

§ 1002. Incorporation of copying controls

(a) Prohibition on Importation, Manufacture, and Distribution .— No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any digital audio recording device or digital audio interface device that does not conform to—

(1) the Serial Copy Management System;

(2) a system that has the same functional characteristics as the Serial Copy Management System and requires that copyright and generation status information be accurately sent, received, and acted upon between devices using the system’s method of serial copying regulation and devices using the Serial Copy Management System; or

(3) any other system certified by the Secretary of Commerce as prohibiting unauthorized serial copying.

( b) Development of Verification Procedure .— The Secretary of Commerce shall establish a procedure to verify, upon the petition of an interested party, that a system meets the standards set forth in subsection (a)(2).

(c) Prohibition on Circumvention of the System .— No person shall import, manufacture, or distribute any device, or offer or perform any service, the primary purpose or effect of which is to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or otherwise circumvent any program or circuit which implements, in whole or in part, a system described in subsection (a).

(d) Encoding of Information on Digital Musical Recordings.—

(1) Prohibition on encoding inaccurate information.— No person shall encode a digital musical recording of a sound recording with inaccurate information relating to the category code, copyright status, or generation status of the source material for the recording.

(2) Encoding of copyright status not required.— Nothing in this chapter requires any person engaged in the importation or manufacture of digital musical recordings to encode any such digital musical recording with respect to its copyright status.

(e) Information Accompanying Transmissions in Digital Format.— Any person who transmits or otherwise communicates to the public any sound recording in digital format is not required under this chapter to transmit or otherwise communicate the information relating to the copyright status of the sound recording. Any such person who does transmit or otherwise communicate such copyright status information shall transmit or communicate such information accurately.


RE: Where are they?
By Chillin1248 on 3/8/2007 1:31:22 PM , Rating: 3
Well what do you know?

I just stumbled around the RIAA website and came upon this:

http://www.riaa.com/issues/copyright/laws.asp

Seems they have all the laws in their pockets.

-------
Chillin


RE: Where are they?
By r8devil on 3/8/2007 8:03:59 PM , Rating: 2
I understand where you are coming from chillin. I had thought of that analogy initially but the main difference here is that movies and music can be digitized easily and passed around. For you to make a copy of a graphics or or any physical product would cost too much. So to protect their investment this is the only way that the RIAA/MPAA have thought of.

I just feel that they need to come up with a better way and not screw their customers all the time.

I do agree with you guys that if you dont like the way they do business dont buy from them. But the problem here is with the whole system. And things need to change.

I am all for something like itunes without DRM and at low prices. I would happily get on there and buy stuff. Currently I feel its still too expensive cos if you were to divide the cost of purchasing a CD by the number of songs there and remove the cost of manufacturing the CD and packaging, its still cheaper than an itunes song. Given that itunes has connection costs and server hw costs.

Anyway just wanted to put my opinion in.


RE: Where are they?
By GotDiesel on 3/8/2007 1:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
I quite agree.... now, can you please point me to a source of NON DRM high def movies, songs etc..

i'm more than willing to pay.... that has never been the issue..


?
By nomagic on 3/7/2007 6:35:27 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
"The difference between hacking done for non-infringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce," said the RIAA in a statement.


Is this RIAA's argument for blocking legitimate owners from making music backups for personal use? If so, RIAA has no respect for their customers.




RE: ?
By hubajube on 3/7/2007 6:46:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is this RIAA's argument for blocking legitimate owners from making music backups for personal use? If so, RIAA has no respect for their customers.
They not only want us purchase the original, they want us to purchase the copies too simply because they can't prove whether or not we're going to use the copies legitimately. I guess that makes sense to them somehow.


RE: ?
By PitViper007 on 3/8/2007 8:43:24 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm, I guess someone had better lock me up. That tire iron that I bought to change my car's tires COULD be used to bash in someone's head.

Sound stupid? Well that's the EXACT thinking that the RIAA is using here.

PitViper


RE: ?
By Spivonious on 3/8/2007 10:30:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well, it's more like you could use the tire iron you bought to change your tires to remove the tires from someone else's car illegally.


RE: ?
By Oregonian2 on 3/8/2007 6:05:43 PM , Rating: 2
Except that you shouldn't be allowed to do that unless you re-purchased that same tire iron over again seeing as how you'd be using it in a different fashion than that for which it was originally purchased.


RE: ?
By FITCamaro on 3/7/2007 7:43:44 PM , Rating: 2
I thought the hundreds of lawsuits were proof enough of that.


RE: ?
By MrTeal on 3/8/2007 8:52:23 AM , Rating: 2
The only reason that it's impossible to determine between hacking done for legitimate purposes and hacking done to steal is that the DRM that the RIAA and MPAA use forces legitimate users to hack. Selling the user something and conceding they can technically legally own a copy of it, but that the act of making or aquiring the copy is illegal is absurd.


RE: ?
By lufoxe on 3/8/2007 9:13:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
If so, RIAA has no respect for their customers.

That's a given.


So let me get this straight
By jimmy43 on 3/7/2007 6:33:05 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The RIAA has already shown its disdain for the proposed bill. "The difference between hacking done for non-infringing purposes and hacking done to steal is impossible to determine and enforce,"


Therefore, lets assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent. I always though the law stated the exact opposite but maybe im confused?




RE: So let me get this straight
By alifbaa on 3/8/2007 9:12:17 AM , Rating: 2
That was exactly what I was going to say.


RE: So let me get this straight
By Serenade on 3/8/2007 10:24:27 AM , Rating: 2
It's an assumption that benefits their profit margin; law is secondary priority.


RE: So let me get this straight
By walk2k on 3/8/2007 5:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
The Golden Rule: The one with the most gold makes the rules.


By Spivonious on 3/8/2007 10:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
OT but, in the UK it is guilty until proven innocent.


RE: So let me get this straight
By iNGEN on 3/8/2007 11:37:03 AM , Rating: 2
At the risk of making it sound like I support the RIAA, actually yes, you are confused. Although misinformed would be a better term.

The phrase "Citizens are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in a court of law" has with rare exception always been interpreted to mean "Citizens are presumed innocent in a court of law unless proven guilty". The statement refers to treatment of those accused of criminal offenses by agents of government. It has not been enforceable upon private parties. It also doesn't pertain to civil wrongdoing.

There are exceptions, but that's a good simplification.


In case anybody else was wondering...
By slashbinslashbash on 3/7/2007 10:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
Rep. Rick Boucher, D-Va.

DT, take note!




RE: In case anybody else was wondering...
By Spivonious on 3/8/2007 11:03:33 AM , Rating: 2
I was about to say something. Isn't what slashbinslashbash said the proper way to refer to a Congressman in a news article?


By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 3/8/2007 3:19:23 PM , Rating: 2
Party affiliation has strict guidelines in the AP styleguide -- though when to use them is not as strict.

DT is not a political site, and I generally try not to introduce material that raises bipartisan discussion.


RE: In case anybody else was wondering...
By Hawkido on 3/9/2007 11:53:03 AM , Rating: 2
I am glad you also posted Boucher's other pet bills.

quote:
Boucher is also an advocate of Net Neutrality and U.S. patent reform.


Because the way Congress works is he will put this bill up and tack the other 2 on with it. Net Neutrality is a double edged sword. I will have to read up on U.S. Patent Reform.

If this does become a bill we will need to read it carefully to see how many Trojans get in the Wooden Horse, so we will know if we want it in the gates.

Man, am I ready for Line Item Veto; or, if you fear the Line Item Veto is too much Presidential Power, Single Purpose Bill Legislation, which would limit the number of topics that Congress can put on a bill to a narrow field of legislation.


By darkpaw on 3/9/2007 3:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
Single purpose bills would be the best thing they could ever do to actually get government moving. The number of amendments that get tacked on to any given bill today is insane, and in the end nothing gets done because enough people will object to something about anything.

Sadly, as long as the money keeps flowing in to accomplish nothing, our political process will not change.


It's about damned time.
By HaZaRd2K6 on 3/7/2007 9:16:34 PM , Rating: 3
That's all I can say. Thank God somebody woke up and realised that, yeah, a country shouldn't be governed by corporations but by a government. Although I seriously doubt that it'll ever pass (only got the RIAA and "lobbyists" to thank for that), it's nice to see someone with half a brain take a stand. And he's all for net neutrality as well, which is great (keeps the tubes on an even keel for everyone ;) ).




RE: It's about damned time.
By Hawkido on 3/9/2007 11:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
I understand what you are saying but be careful. The way you said it is exactly opposite of the way our country was founded. This country is not to be governed by a government or by a corporation but by the people, for the people, and of the people (listed out of order for clarity).

America was governed by a government (the British Empire) before the revolution, and found it harshly oppressive. That is why they (the Founding Fathers) crafted and wrote the constitution and Bill of Rights to accomodate the people and limit the government.

But I know what you meant, and I agree with your post, but the way you phrased it could further misguide the ignorant, that's all.


America the land of the .. prosecuted? sued?
By Anosh on 3/8/2007 5:57:11 AM , Rating: 1
As a european America has always been seen as the land of the free where poeple have fought to gain what they have now and many have given their lives building the country.

After 9/11, whoever really was responsible for it, America for many people (read Europe) changed.

US as it somehow feels more aproriate to say after 9/11 doesn't bring forth the same sence of liberty and fredom as America once did. And yes I do realize they are both the same. Yet they're no longer representing the same picture.

While US is now considered and seen by many as a federal police state America was considered and seen by many as the land of future and posibilities.

DCMA was a product of US.
FAIR USE is a product of America.

I'm glad, even if this bill doesn't pass, that there is still someone left, except perhaps Barak Obama, who in public is still willing to truly represent the interest of the people.

Perhaps there is still some of America left in US. I really hope so.




By Ryanman on 3/9/2007 12:38:13 AM , Rating: 2
mm obama is not my favorite. He came down to alabama (where i live) to commemorate a civil rights march. Both he and Hillary Clinton tried to play the comman man card- she talked in a southern accent and he pretended he was black. She did worse after all though, people arent allowed to get mad at black men anymore without gettting sued anymore. All in all, i WAS going to vote for a dem president until those two showed their true colors.


Did you read it?
By JonB on 3/8/2007 8:20:11 AM , Rating: 3
Only the third clause will have much impact on home users. This is primarily protection for Education and Libraries.
It speaks of "an act of circumvention" - breaking the protection - as the defining action, not copying.

quote:
(iii) an act of circumvention that is carried out solely for the purpose of enabling a person to transmit a work over a home or personal network, except that this exemption does not apply to the circumvention of a technological measure that prevents uploading of a work to the Internet for mass, indiscriminate redistribution;


Though I do like this part:

quote:
(g) CERTAIN HARDWARE DEVICES.—No person shall be liable for copyright infringement based on the design, manufacture, or distribution of a hardware device that is capable of substantial, commercially significant noninfringing use.




By Golgatha777 on 3/8/2007 10:56:09 AM , Rating: 3
What the RIAA emphasizes is that some manufacturers may be creating devices that are intentionally easy to hack, circumventing the onboard protection measures, so that the "feature" may be attractive to end users.

The first HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player with the option to turn off the ICT "feature" will sell by the truckloads to people with HDTV sets that don't have HDMI ports.

I know my old secondary DVD player with Macrovision disabled has a lot of value to me when I want to record a DVD onto a VHS tape to play downstairs on the TV/VCR combo or in our van.

I guarantee both legitimate consumers and consumer electronics manufacturers hate the RIAA, MPAA, and DMCA.




what a country!
By walk2k on 3/8/2007 1:43:07 PM , Rating: 3
In America, you can manufacture and sell semiautomatic weapons, which the sole use is to KILL people, and that's perfectly legal.

BUT you can't write a program that's designed to bypass copy protection for the purpose of Fair Use... oh no, that's totally illegal!

What a country!




By kilkennycat on 3/7/2007 7:52:14 PM , Rating: 2
It is vitally important that as well as the hardware, ANY SOFTWARE WHICH ACTUALLY DOES THE COPYING also be declared legal FOR PRIVATE/PERSONAL USE ONLY, as an explicit part of the text of the bill. Otherwise the RIAA will attempt to go after both the creators of such software and the users of that software.




Yeah!!!
By Schmeh on 3/7/2007 10:35:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is wonderful news. Not that we might get the right to make backups of stuff we buy, this should have been a right all along. No, the wonderful news is that there is at least one intelligent adult (U.S. Representative Rick Boucher) among all the brain dead children in congress.




There's alot of MIX
By juggalo0707 on 3/10/2007 11:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
I have alot of mixed feelings on this subject.

Many of us feel that backing up our movies and Cd's is the only way now adays. Because of the easily mistakes we do in life can inflect on the original media itself. That's one of the reasons why Portable devices like the iPod are there to store our OWN goodies. As a consumer it is a MUST. I also see how it is bad. As people can distrubute media in a blink of an eye across the world in just minutes for FREE most of the time. Now that is wrong, BUT can be very helpful. What if all your Cd's got jacked or you needed some extra money at the pond shop OR you just don't have the money because your going to college. Those are reasonable means of Downloading copyrighted material. Now if your a Pirate who enjoys Downloading streams of media I still think it's not wrong. The only people he or she is really hurting is no one. By means that person just doesn't want to waste alot of money on stuff he could be using it for home improvements. Sure it's hurting the media a lot, but is'nt entertainment suppose to be free in a since of viewing from PAID services like Internet and Digital cable.

I may have not been clear in this post but I still wanted to voice my opinions.




Here's how it works...
By Ryanman on 3/8/2007 2:00:48 AM , Rating: 1
1.The congressmen get paid by the buisnessmen, the recording industy, the lobbyists, whoever.
2. Numerous Laws and Amendments are passed, forcing us to give up constitutiional rights and freedoms (congressmen get more money)
3. Five people complain. They are phonetapped, then maced by police, then sent into a giant pyramid in D.C. The Patriot act is never cited, but you know it is screming MWAHAHAHAHAHA while this goes on. Copies of 1984 are not printed for an indefinite period of time.
4. In the next election, the stupid and fearful people (95% of America) vote for the congressman who bashes his opponent the most. Or they vote based on hair, or vote for Hilary Clinton because, after all, it IS time for a woman in some type of office. (I'm serious I'm all for women in office. But Hillary Clinton? Jesus what were we thinking???)
5. Return to Step One.

The fact is, Ladies and Gents, our Government is a corrupt Police State. Its too late to change anything, we should just play Half Life 2 (steal a copy via p2p) and hope to god that valve makes a real Gordon Freeman.




Another politician pandering to get re-elected...
By Beenthere on 3/8/07, Rating: -1
By rdeegvainl on 3/8/2007 12:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
Fair use means one copy for use only by the original purchaser, on one machine, at one time. That is fair use. Anything else is exploitation of the originator of the art

So your kids can't listen to your music, and you can't use more than one player, and you must have a copy for each person that watches a movie in your house, or listens to a cd you have playing in a home stereo system?
Would you also be in favor of not allowing people to decide who eats the food they buy, or the car they drive, and what streets they drive on? Cause it really sounds like your that kind of idealist. If you want to restate your post, to say what you mean that would be great. But if you truly meant what you wrote, then you have a very distorted view of "FAIR USE".
Oh and no one is agruing distributing copies. they want to make copies for there own use. But great way to try and distort an argument to show the worst a situation can allow.


By iNGEN on 3/8/2007 12:42:17 PM , Rating: 2
No, he is accurate. The RIAA, in particular, has argued in federal court that fair use is limited only to the purchaser of the content. They have argued that playing content you purchase legally at say, your New Year's Eve party, is unauthorized distrobution and therefore copyright infringement.


By rdeegvainl on 3/8/2007 2:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

from the following website
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

I think that fair use would constitute making copies.
That is what I oculd come up with on fair use. If you have a link that is more up to date or anything share the knowledge.


By walk2k on 3/8/2007 6:43:58 PM , Rating: 2
The famous "VCR" ruling also made it so that Fair Use is applied to time-shifting and format-shifting for the sake of convienence. (I.e, ripping a CD to play on your iPod, or DVR'ing a TV show to watch later..)

Fair Use also allows one "archive" or back-up copy to be made...


By SmokeRngs on 3/9/2007 4:56:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Fair use does NOT mean making and distributing copies of legally purchased digital media. Fair use means one copy for use only by the original purchaser, on one machine, at one time. That is fair use.


From what I know of Fair Use, some of this is incorrect. You are correct about being able to make one copy. However, it is not tied to one machine or person necessarily. But, only one copy can be in use at any particular time.

You can't lend your friend the copy of a CD and decide to use the original while he has your copy. This would be the same for any other media or format.

I'm not sure about legalities, but I would assume the "only one copy" would not be enforced. You could probably have the original CD put up for safety, a copy of the CD in your car and a copy ripped to the computer. As long as you are only using one of the copies at a time, you would be covered under fair use.


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki