Australia Copyright Reform Legalizes Off-Air Recording but Prohibits TV Archiving [Text View]

Dajad

12-06-2006, 05:01 PM

I've argued here for years that , permanent archiving of TV shows, whether on VHS, DVDs or TiVo infringes U.S. and Canadian copyright law. I've had almost everyone here universally disagree with me. Well, its no longer a question in Australia. Their new copyright law, explicitly permits OTA TV program recording for the first time (its about time), and the Attorney General clarifies that permanent archiving of TV shows is explicitly prohibited.

http://daledietrich.com/imedia/2006/12/06/australian-copyright-reform-copying-cds-to-ipods-legal-breaking-drm-or-archiving-recorded-tv-illegal/

Of course, such an explicit provision is not needed under U.S. or Canadian copyright law, but it sure would be nice so I can settle this argument once and for all! :)

Also under the Australian Copyright reforms, mod-chips that permit region-code busting become legal (http://www.daledietrich.com/gaming/2006/12/06/australia-copyright-reform-to-explicitly-permit-region-code-mod-chips/), copying CDs to iPods is legalized as is singing "Happy Birthday" in public. But, as I mention in the post, copying DRM'd content you own will still be a big no-no! Dang!

[Dec. 10 Update: HDTiVo rightly called me on this. I don't know if the new Australian Act was changed as a result of this most recent amendment. What I can say with clarity is that the Australian Attorney General made it clear that librarying of copied televisions and radio programs is not permissible under Australian law. I updated my entry above accordingly.]

...Dale

rkester

12-06-2006, 05:08 PM

So you can record it, watch it then delete, but cannot save it for watching again later?

Isn't that kind of... silly? And pointless? :)

gastrof

12-06-2006, 05:20 PM

I think most would agree with you...except the OP.

steve614

12-06-2006, 06:32 PM

I say if you don't want someone to record and save a program, don't transmit it on public airwaves. :D

Redux

12-06-2006, 07:43 PM

So you can record it, watch it then delete, but cannot save it for watching again later?

Isn't that kind of... silly? And pointless? :)Whether it is or not, it is essentialy the original Betamax decision, which has admittedly broadened during the appeal affirmation and the use of the precedent in other cases. But at the core, that's all there is.

mattack

12-06-2006, 10:37 PM

I've argued here for years that , permanent archiving of TV shows, whether on VHS, DVDs or TiVo infringes U.S. and Canadian copyright law.

On what basis do you argue that it infinges US law?

The (in)famous VCR case specifically states that it does NOT decide the legality of "librarying". They left that up in the air -- could be considered legal by a later decision, could be considered illegal.

Dajad

12-07-2006, 12:02 AM

Search the archives of this forum for all my reasons mattack ... I sure don't want to go over them again. Short answer:

- Default copyright law is that copying of copyrighted works is prohibited except where there are exceptions in the law such as fair use.

- The case was about whether Sony could legally sell Betamaxes - it wasn't about the extent of the rights users will have when using them.

- Sony Betamax decision implicitly created a specific fair use exception for temporary time shifting only - not for permanent archiving (or librarying) of entire shows and series. How long temporary is has never been settled and wasn't an explicit issue in the case.

- There's no need to decide the legality of librarying when you can fall back on basic copyright law.

...Dale

Redux

12-07-2006, 12:23 AM

There's no need to decide the legality of librarying when you can fall back on basic copyright lawWow. I was sure with you up to that.

Copyright is the new kid on the block. I think the the kid needs some considerable protection, and much has been done in recent law.

But the integration of this new class of right-holders, protected from thousands of years of codified and common law, is very much a work in progress.

Amnesia

12-07-2006, 12:48 AM

BobCamp1

12-07-2006, 10:42 AM

Dale is correct. If you have the entire season of a series, then you wouldn't buy the DVD for it. That is damage to the content holder (in the U.S.), and that's why it's illegal.

But remember it's copyright law. It's not illegal until you're sued and lose. And the damage here is minimal. I don't think anyone is going to come after your personal library as long as you quietly keep it. It's like driving 57 MPH in a 55 MPH zone. It's illegal, but no one is going to bother to give you a ticket for that.

You can also argue that hard drives (and maybe DVD-RWs) are not a permanent storage medium as they fail over time and were designed to be continuously reused.

hawk4hire

12-07-2006, 11:02 AM

Wouldnt that also depend on the definition of "permanent"?

Atomike

12-07-2006, 01:08 PM

Two things:
Broadcast shows are substatially different than their DVD counterparts since the DVD versions do not contain commercials.
It seems to me that airwaves are PUBLIC - and that any private entity which desires to use public airwaves is waiving certain rights. I can't videotape a movie while I'm at a movie theatre. However, I am a partial owner of the airwaves - since they're public. To me, it seems as if these Corporations are declaring that they OWN the airwaves - they may as well try to claim ownership of the element Hydrogen.
"We're going to release some hydrogen into the air. Don't breath it, or you owe us money!!!"

ping

12-07-2006, 01:49 PM

But broadcasting something over the public airwaves doesn't make it public domain. It is still protected by copyright.

Amnesia

12-07-2006, 02:47 PM

As long as you don't try to make money off of it, fine. If you're taking something off the public airwaves for your own use, then that's OK...

Dajad

12-07-2006, 07:18 PM

What page of the bill (http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Legis/Bills/Linked/19100601.pdf)leads you to believe that keeping something on your TiVo would be illegal in Australia?

Please engage an Australian lawyer if you want the details. If you want a legal opinion under Canadian or U.S. law, I'm available at my usual hourly rate :) - which I'm certain none of you wish to pay! :)

Suffice it to say, for the purposes of my blog post, among other source, I relied on the Aussie Government Attorney General's official FAQ page (http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/MinisterRuddockHome.nsf/Page/RWPC7B0742318EF6A58CA25723B008145FC) on the Bill where it says:

Does this mean I can keep a library of copied television and radio programs?

No. There is an important difference between 'librarying' and 'time-shift' recording. Librarying is building up a collection to keep indefinitely for repeated use while time-shifting is recording a broadcast at a time when the person can't view it so it can be watched at a later time. A time-shift copy can't be kept permanently for repeated use. However, DVDs and sound recordings of popular broadcasts are increasingly available for purchase.

Again, and I can't stress this enough, this conclusion is based on basic copyright law principles that are learned in any Copyright 101 course. There does not need to be an express provision in the Act banning any particular type of copying for it to be infringing because the basic rule is essentially "thou shalt not copy copyrighted works - for ANY purpose unless there is an exception at law". The exceptions are enumerated, either specifically in the law itself, by general exception in the law and/or by interpretations of the those exceptions by courts. Unless the form of copying (in this case the copying of clearly copyrighted works broadcast over the public airwaves for permanent archives) is expressly or implicitly covered by the Act, or by judicial decisions interpreting the act, it is an infringing activity. [Note: I'm simplifying things a lot here - and please don't interpret this as my providing legal advice - I'm not.]

Whether or not the infringing activity is enforceable in any meaningful way is an entirely different question though!

I hope this helps.

...Dale

Redux

12-07-2006, 07:29 PM

Justin Thyme

12-07-2006, 08:41 PM

Dale, I have a few questions.

Does the copyright amendment bill 2006 say it's ok to timeshift HD?

Do they make any distinctions about transport? OK to copy if it came OTA, but not ok if I record a SkyTv HD show?

If there were a netflix service, can I timshift Dvds that I must return before I have had the opportunity to watch them?

mattack

12-07-2006, 10:10 PM

It seems to me that airwaves are PUBLIC - and that any private entity which desires to use public airwaves is waiving certain rights.

Are you getting your TV over the "airwaves" though? Most people aren't.

Deacon West

12-07-2006, 10:59 PM

Please engage an Australian lawyer if you want the details. If you want a legal opinion under Canadian or U.S. law, I'm available at my usual hourly rate :) - which I'm certain none of you wish to pay! :)

Dale, why would anyone want a legal opion under Canadian or U.S. law of an Australian law regarding fair use of recorded material?

Amnesia

12-07-2006, 11:44 PM

Please engage an Australian lawyer if you want the details. Why would I ask an Australian lawyer for details about which page of the bill leads you to believe that keeping something on your TiVo would be illegal?

bmgoodman

12-08-2006, 08:00 AM

I think that at the time a show is BROADCAST on the PUBLIC'S AIRWAVES, the usual "Copyright 101" stuff has to be amended. The public deserves some consideration for the use of its resource. In my opinion, were it not for the fact that the public airwaves were used, the courts would have specifically clarified the whole "librarying" business, which I believe they left open-ended.

Other countries view public airways differently. I believe in the UK you still need a permit to receive over-the-air TV! :eek: I guess it's the Queen's airwaves, so the subjects must all pay.

Of course, IANAL, so perhaps it is naively that I still expect a government "for the people", at least in some small instances.

stahta01

12-08-2006, 10:05 AM

If I am not allowed to record the TV shows broadcast over the air for my personal use, I would see no reason NOT to sue for heath damage.

The radio/TV signals are using magnetic radiation to send the information over the air waves. I think a good case could be made for the TV/Radio transmitters being found partly responsible for cancer cases in the US. Note, this is because your really don't have to show real proof to win the cases like this.

Note, I do NOT to my knowledge have cancer, but I could argue mental stress and damage that may lead to cancer.

If they claim the magnetic radiation that crosses my property line is still their property then they are responsible for damages done by their property.

Tim S

BobCamp1

12-08-2006, 10:34 AM

Two things:
Broadcast shows are substatially different than their DVD counterparts since the DVD versions do not contain commercials.

The commericals are also copyrighted. The entire broadcast with commercials is copyrighted. So is the content without commercials.

It seems to me that airwaves are PUBLIC - and that any private entity which desires to use public airwaves is waiving certain rights. I can't videotape a movie while I'm at a movie theatre. However, I am a partial owner of the airwaves - since they're public. To me, it seems as if these Corporations are declaring that they OWN the airwaves - they may as well try to claim ownership of the element Hydrogen.

That's silly. How else are they supposed to display and propogate the content? The photons that are emitted from the screen that is showing the content are not copyrighted, and the photons used to transmit the content are not copyrighted, so according to you nothing can be fully copyrighted. That makes no sense.

Corporations don't own the airwaves, and neither do you. We entrust the government to own them. And the governement is the one who created the copyright law (with some help).

And you can't copyright hyrdogen, you patent it. And you can't patent a naturally occuring substance. But the government can pass a law banning the use of certain substances.

I'm not sure why this is a big issue. Everyone knowingly and unknowingly breaks laws every day. And copyright law isn't criminal (unless conducted on a large scale) -- it's civil. So relax and enjoy your illegal library in private.

stahta01

12-08-2006, 10:57 AM

I'm not sure why this is a big issue. Everyone knowingly and unknowingly breaks laws every day. And copyright law isn't criminal (unless conducted on a large scale) -- it's civil. So relax and enjoy your illegal library in private.

I have no illegal library, those are just my time shifted copies that I have not yet gotten around to erasing. That's my first story. Second, I plan to use them as evidence of their property trespassing on my property. I view them sometimes to verify the evidence is still good.

Tim S

Ereth

12-08-2006, 10:58 AM

IF I remember the Betamax decision, Dajad is right. It allowed you to record shows to watch later, but it did not give you the right to create a library of those shows. I remember much discussion about it.

That everyone assumes that if you can record it, you can store that recording is historical fact, however, and as even Dajad points out, going after you at your house because you've recorded every episode of some TV show for your own personal use isn't going to happen (damages would be limited to the amount the network could reasonably expect to get for selling you all those episodes, what? $29 per season at the current rate?) and it's just not worth it.

Doesn't make it legal, simply makes it unlikely to be enforced.

bmgoodman

12-08-2006, 11:39 AM

We need a Consumers' Rights lobbying group so that our interests get heard over the loud screeching of RIAA/MPAA lobbyists! I'm no fan of the perpetual copyright, which has turned one part of the U.S. Constitution into a joke: " To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

The founding fathers would not have cared that Disney's characters were about to become public domain. Let the lobbyists and money flow, though, and Disney is protected to Judgment Day. Hey, Disney would not have even had half his stories had the Brothers Grimm been able to copyright to infinity.

Do you really think no TV or movie would be produced if the rights ended at 7 years? Really? TV would just cease to exist. Actors would just go back to waiting tables?

If people really demanded accountability in the balance between the content creator (actually the conglomerate who owns the rights) and the public, we wouldn't be having to scratch and claw for basic fairness as designed from the founding of the country.

HDTiVo

12-08-2006, 01:31 PM

HDTiVo

12-08-2006, 01:42 PM

Again, and I can't stress this enough, this conclusion is based on basic copyright law principles that are learned in any Copyright 101 course. There does not need to be an express provision in the Act banning any particular type of copying for it to be infringing because the basic rule is essentially "thou shalt not copy copyrighted works - for ANY purpose unless there is an exception at law". The exceptions are enumerated, either specifically in the law itself, by general exception in the law and/or by interpretations of the those exceptions by courts. Unless the form of copying (in this case the copying of clearly copyrighted works broadcast over the public airwaves for permanent archives) is expressly or implicitly covered by the Act, or by judicial decisions interpreting the act, it is an infringing activity. [Note: I'm simplifying things a lot here - and please don't interpret this as my providing legal advice - I'm not.]

Before there was a judicial ruling allowing time shifting, you would have insisted time shifting was illegal under the Act. What good is an opinion about archiving until the subject is tested in court, other than to say what the possibilities would be of a ruling? Citing the basic law, other fair use standards and the precedent of time shifting, and arguing how the courts might rule on time shifting to "infinity" would be interesting if well reasoned.

Dajad

12-08-2006, 03:38 PM

We need a Consumers' Rights lobbying group so that our interests get heard over the loud screeching of RIAA/MPAA lobbyists!

We have one: iPAC (http://www.ipaction.org/) - donate generously!

We also, of course, have the EFF (http://www.eff.org/)

And, for a bunch of others around the world, see the heading "Consumer Proponents" down the right-hand side of my iMedia law blog (http://daledietrich.com/imedia/). It may be time for me to remove Bram Cohen though! See my latest post: BitTorrent to Purchase uTorrent (http://daledietrich.com/imedia/2006/12/08/bittorrent-to-purchase-%c2%b5torrent/)

...Dale

Dajad

12-08-2006, 03:46 PM

How this in any way reinforces your position completely escapes me. If anything it says there was a need in Australia to codify it, and to the extent the laws are similar here, the same need exists. But it has no impact how similar the law here actually is.

Did they codify it HDTiVo? Or was the Attorney General just explaining what the law already was? I honestly don't know - and I have no intention of delving into the minutia of Australian copyright law. I'm not an Australian lawyer and it would be silly of me to defnitively assert what is or isn't the state of Australian law on any point.

While, you are right that the laws could conceivably be different in Canada and the U.S. from those in Australia on this point, I'm certain they are not.

That won't stop people from fantasizing otherwise. Have at it folks! :)

...Dale

Dajad

12-08-2006, 03:50 PM

Before there was a judicial ruling allowing time shifting, you would have insisted time shifting was illegal under the Act.

Well, since I had just finished high school and was a several years away from law school at the time, I didn't have an opinion back then. But, understanding the concepts of fair use (fair dealing in Canada) now, I believe I would have come to the conclusion that temporary time shifting was fair use/fair dealing. But alas, we'll never know for sure.

Why, because time shifting falls within the parameters of "fair use" as I understand them. Permanent archiving of television shows does not - doesn't even come close.

...Dale

HDTiVo

12-08-2006, 08:51 PM

Did they codify it HDTiVo? Or was the Attorney General just explaining what the law already was? I honestly don't know - and I have no intention of delving into the minutia of Australian copyright law. I'm not an Australian lawyer and it would be silly of me to defnitively assert what is or isn't the state of Australian law on any point.

While, you are right that the laws could conceivably be different in Canada and the U.S. from those in Australia on this point, I'm certain they are not.

You said "Their new copyright law, while explicitly permitting OTA TV program recording for the first time (its about time), explicitly prohibits permanent archiving."

You are certain the law is the same, but you are not looking at the Australian version? What makes you certain? If it is the same, obviously since Australia felt archiving needed explicit addressing, US & Canada might need it too.

Your understanding of what is fair use is colored by your knowledged of the Betamax ruling. If back then you were at the same stage in life you are now, can you honestly say you'd conclude time shifting is fair use? It certainly isn't consistent with your method of reasoning on archiving.

Your answers are not consistent logically. I think you should start from the beginning using, as I suggested, basic law, other fair use standards and the precedent of time shifting, plus whatever else might be appropriate and see what you come up with.

bicker

12-09-2006, 09:02 AM

I think most would agree with you...except the OP.And the people who actually own the property that some people would so cavalierly co-op for their personal intents, regardless of the limitations of the license they granted to them in the first place. Copyright law exists to ensure that if I create something, I get to determine how much of it I want to sell. I can keep it all if I want, or sell you just as much of it as I want to sell, at a price you're willing to pay, and I shouldn't have to worry that you'll take more of it than I sold you (i.e., in the case of a television program, watch it more times than I am willing to have you watch it). Your rights are to either accept what I'm offering for how much I'm offering it for, or reject it. It is utterly unnatural this concept that some people have that they, as the buyer, get to tell the seller what the seller actually was selling. Would you do that with a product? "Hmmm... since I bought this DVD Recorder from you, you also have to give me these recordable DVDs, and these cables..." :rolleyes:

This argument has been rehashed on these boards several times and actually very recently. Always, people with an unnatural sense of entitlement overwhelm the thread with their selfish perspectives. Perhaps it is the nature of DVR/DVD recorder owners to feel that they should have gotten more value for the DVRs they've purchased (even though the content owners don't get a dime from the purchase of consumer electronics), or perhaps it is a more general sense of Entitlement Mentality that has spread like a cancer through our society. People are going to do what they want to do regardless of the law and regardless of what is honorable.

bicker

12-09-2006, 09:13 AM

We need a Consumers' Rights lobbying group so that our interests get heard over the loud screeching of RIAA/MPAA lobbyists! I'm no fan of the perpetual copyright, which has turned one part of the U.S. Constitution into a jokeThen just put aside copyright. Let's recast this the way it would work if it was just a contractual issue.

I have something to sell. You want to buy it. We reach an agreement (explicitly, by law, a "meeting of the minds") about the terms and conditions. Isn't it reasonable to expect you to abide by the terms and conditions? No, in the case of creative content, the creative content owners want the protections of copyright. If they get them via copyright law or because they're part of the terms and conditions of the license they grant you to view their creative content it doesn't matter to them -- and it shouldn't matter to you. Integrity dictates that you honor those terms and conditions either way. Copyright law just makes it easier to keep dishonest people honest, which is unfortunately so necessary because so many people are so incredibly selfish.

Amnesia

12-09-2006, 12:28 PM

(...) I shouldn't have to worry that you'll take more of it than I sold you (i.e., in the case of a television program, watch it more times than I am willing to have you watch it). Your misperception is that you feel that you have the right to constrain what I do with a product I've purchased. I certainly agree that I'm not allowed to make money off of your work (without paying you an agreed upon licensing fee), but that's your only right.

Other than that, I can do whatever I want with a product I own.
Your rights are to either accept what I'm offering for how much I'm offering it for, or reject it.But if we're talking about OTA broadcasts, we don't pay for it. You (as a content provider) and I don't even have a contract (or any form of contact). We haven't entered into any agreement.

Adam1115

12-09-2006, 01:15 PM

Your misperception is that you feel that you have the right to constrain what I do with a product I've purchased. I certainly agree that I'm not allowed to make money off of your work (without paying you an agreed upon licensing fee), but that's your only right.

Other than that, I can do whatever I want with a product I own.
But if we're talking about OTA broadcasts, we don't pay for it. You (as a content provider) and I don't even have a contract (or any form of contact). We haven't entered into any agreement.

OTA is fine. But you don't have a right to crack encryption to do things with content that the protection is trying to prevent you from doing.

So, it is legal to receive satellite signals beamed into your back yard and watch them on your TV. It is illegal to circumvent the encryption to watch programming you aren't entitled to.

It is legal to burn OTA programs to DVD and watch them later. It's illegal to crack your .tivo file so you can burn it as many times as you want, as it is also illegal to crack your encryption on your TiVo to transfer unencrypted movies to your PC to burn.

Now whether this stuff SHOULD be illegal is another matter...

Amnesia

12-09-2006, 02:23 PM

It is legal to burn OTA programs to DVD and watch them later. It's illegal to crack your .tivo file so you can burn it as many times as you want (...)As long as you're not making money off of it, what makes you think it's illegal?

It's OK to get a electromagnetic signal through an antenna and run it through a piece of hardware that you own (a TV tuner) to convert it to a viewable picture.

It's OK to convert that electromagnetic signal into a disk file through a piece of hardware that you own (a TiVo).

What makes it illegal to take that file and run it through a program to translate it into another format? Again, as long as you're not making money off of someone else's work...

bicker

12-09-2006, 02:52 PM

Your misperception is that you feel that you have the right to constrain what I do with a product I've purchased.I absolutely have a right to sell what I want to sell, and expect you to only take from me as much as I was willing to sell you, no more. If there is any misperception it is on your part for believing that once you purchase something you can unilaterally change the agreement between you and the seller and dictate to the seller what it is you're going to take.

I certainly agree that I'm not allowed to make money off of your work (without paying you an agreed upon licensing fee), but that's your only right.The sellers rights are whatever the terms and conditions agreed to at the time of the purchase, including the protections included in copyright, but those same protections could be part of the terms and conditions apart from copyright law as well, and you would still be equally obligated to comply with the associated restrictions on your use of what you purchased from the seller.

Other than that, I can do whatever I want with a product I own.No. You can do only what the terms and conditions of the sale said you can do, including all implicit rights and limitations.

But if we're talking about OTA broadcasts, we don't pay for it. You (as a content provider) and I don't even have a contract (or any form of contact). We haven't entered into any agreement.You're mistaken. License to use OTA broadcasts is provided via mechanisms established by our government. You are obligated as per that license, even if you are ignorant that you are subject to it.

Ignorance is no excuse for transgressive behavior.

dswallow

12-09-2006, 05:04 PM

So can you make 20 recordings when it's broadcast and as you watch each one over your lifetime you delete it, thus each is not permanent? Define "recording" as in how a compression algorithm is implemented... as I could create a compression method that essentially has one bit and one unlimited-length sequence; each subsequent bit indicates that the defined unlimited-length sequence is what was recorded. So I can easily make any number of recordings since each recording only requires another bit.

Can you make one recording that will automatically expire and be deleted in 25 years and watch it whenever you want and since it automatically disappears at a point in the future it can't be considered permanent?

Can you re-record a recorded show as you watch it thus the re-recorded version will be what you next watch; thus every "recording" gets watched and deleted but also ends in a new recording being made for next time?

Can you record an extra 60 seconds past what you will usually want to watch and then just stop watching the recording prior to that last minute, thus never fully watching the recording and only needing to delete it once you watch it in its entirety?

If you make a recording but skip over commercials when you play it back, can it be considered that you haven't yet fully "watched" the original recording and don't yet need to delete it?

Why can't legislators ever write a piece of legislation that doesn't itself end up with lots of potential ways around it? Even if they don't eventually succeed, they take up considerable time and resources arguing about in courts... al because they were ignorant and vague in the first place.

Justin Thyme

12-09-2006, 05:57 PM

The sellers rights are whatever the terms and conditions agreed to at the time of the purchase, including the protections included in copyright...You are right. Dead right. Meaning you are right, but dead because the contract you are seeking with the consumer is unenforcable.

Look. Trying to make this IP business model work is hopeless. Neither law nor technical measures are going to do anything but provide a short delay for the inevitable. Sure, there are plenty who will tell content owners what they want to hear, and naturally most will take the conservative position of not abandoning the known, stubbornly clinging to their delusions.

The smart are going to realize that the content industry has irrevocably enterrred the high tech arena where the rule is as Andy Grove says- only the paranoid survive. It's either understand and appreciate implications of new technical developments and adapt in advance or ignore them and die.

bmgoodman

12-09-2006, 06:02 PM

Ignorance is no excuse for transgressive behavior.

If you own the copyright on a book you have published, and you sell it to me, you cannot prohibit me from reselling it, burning it, or burying it in my back yard, no matter what you tell me I may or may not do with it. If you haven't heard of first-sale doctrine, I suggest you look into it.

Granted, software is licensed, I think specifically so that first-sale does not apply. And I think that UCITA was an unctuous attempt to tip the balance substantially in favor of the copyright holder, much as you seem to think it already is. Which just shows that not all copyright is equal.

Often, for now at least, once you sell something, you lose SOME control over what happens to it.

And, needless to say, IANAL. But then, neither are you. ;)

CrispyCritter

12-09-2006, 09:43 PM

If you own the copyright on a book you have published, and you sell it to me, you cannot prohibit me from reselling it, burning it, or burying it in my back yard, no matter what you tell me I may or may not do with it. If you haven't heard of first-sale doctrine, I suggest you look into it.But you can't copy it and give away the copies (or sell them). Your rights are restricted.

Adam1115

12-09-2006, 10:34 PM

As long as you're not making money off of it, what makes you think it's illegal?

It's OK to get a electromagnetic signal through an antenna and run it through a piece of hardware that you own (a TV tuner) to convert it to a viewable picture.

It's OK to convert that electromagnetic signal into a disk file through a piece of hardware that you own (a TiVo).

What makes it illegal to take that file and run it through a program to translate it into another format? Again, as long as you're not making money off of someone else's work...

I didn't say "running it through a program to translate it into another format" was illegal, I said cracking the encryption is illegal.

The Digital Millennium Copyright Act prohibits disabling technological protections, such as encryption, that control access to a copyrighted work, control the distribution, reproduction, public performance, or public display of copyrighted work, or control the creation of derivative works from a copyrighted work.

Redux

12-10-2006, 02:42 AM

the contract you are seeking with the consumer is unenforcableIt doesn't even exist for the most part, as it has been discussed here. A dry attempt at a wet dream.

Nobody _has_ to sell anything. Copyright can, in fact, be absolute if you keep the work in your pocket. Control can be absolute. Once you decide to sell (or even distribute), the real world intrudes on the dream.

There was a time, very early in the history of personal computers, when I used to run across my (unpurchased) software at computer club meetings here and there every week or so. I shared the rage that everybody in the business feels about users/viewers; they should all be in jail and their property confiscated and sold to provide me with the income they have diverted from me. But I took a hard look at the laws, the economic forces, the way the software/entertainment business was going to move forward, and structured my profressional life accordingly. It is a lesson that has to be learned or individuals, and collectively companies in the business, are going to have continual ulcers, real or figurative.

bicker

12-10-2006, 08:38 AM

Why can't legislators ever write a piece of legislation that doesn't itself end up with lots of potential ways around it?Mostly because we live in a collaborative society -- anything that is the result of a committee will be less wholistic than if created by an individual.

bicker

12-10-2006, 08:41 AM

You are right. Dead right. Meaning you are right, but dead because the contract you are seeking with the consumer is unenforcable. Well, not completely. However, this brings us back to the central point of many discussions: Why should enforcement be necessary? Why don't people just comply? There wouldn't be all these arguments if buyers just respected the terms and conditions of sale, including the implicit conditions associated with copyright protection. It used to be that the vast majority of people did. That majority is not quite so vast anymore.

The problem isn't the laws or the terms and conditions. It is despicable behavior on the part of some people.

Trying to make this IP business model work is hopeless.Obviously that's not true. It perhaps serves some people's personal preferences to consider it so, and consider IP owner's efforts "delusional", but that's just a delusion on the part of the people who feel that way.

bicker

12-10-2006, 08:42 AM

Granted, software is licensed, I think specifically so that first-sale does not apply. As is the case with OTA television as well.

Amnesia

12-10-2006, 09:44 AM

I absolutely have a right to sell what I want to sell, and expect you to only take from me as much as I was willing to sell you, no more. If there is any misperception it is on your part for believing that once you purchase something you can unilaterally change the agreement between you and the seller and dictate to the seller what it is you're going to take.(emphasis added).

There's your problem right there---you seem to think that if you have a desire to constrain my use of something I've purchased, then that's all it take. You're wrong. It takes a contract of some sort.

I certainly do not sign a contract when I buy a DVD, nor do I sign a contract when I purchase a TV.

There is no agreement that I'm "unilaterally changing".

You're mistaken. License to use OTA broadcasts is provided via mechanisms established by our government. You are obligated as per that license, even if you are ignorant that you are subject to it.You're wrong again.

It could be that laws exist that attempt to control my actions, but that is not the same thing as a mutually agreed upon license or agreement. I have never signed a contract specifying what I am allowed to do with OTA broadcasts.

You seem to be confusing regulations with contracts. Not the same thing at all. Contracts are mutually agreed-upon. Regulations are externally imposed.

bicker

12-10-2006, 10:55 AM

There's your problem right there---you seem to think that if you have a desire to constrain my use of something I've purchased, then that's all it take. You're wrong. It takes a contract of some sort.In this context, it is called a license. And it does constrain your use of what you purchased (or in the case of OTA, what you tuned in and received).

I certainly do not sign a contract when I buy a DVD, nor do I sign a contract when I purchase a TV.Signatures aren't necessary. Your use constitutes acceptance of the contract.

You're wrong again.How embarassing for you that it is you who are wrong again.

Amnesia

12-10-2006, 12:40 PM

In this context, it is called a license. And it does constrain your use of what you purchased (or in the case of OTA, what you tuned in and received).Sorry, but you're still mistaken. What makes you think that buying a TV somehow magically means that I've agreed to some mythical license while when I buy a file cabinet I do not? In neither case do I sign some special paperwork constraining my usage of my private property.
Signatures aren't necessary. A signature or oral agreement is necessary in a contract.Your use constitutes acceptance of the contract.No it doesn't. A contract requires mutual agreement and acceptance. One party can't unilaterally decide when the other party accepts.

If I sell file cabinets, can I just decide one day that since you bought one of my file cabinets you are agreed to pay me a fraction of the value of anything stored within? No, of course not. You never agreed to that. That's not a contract. That's not a license. Even if the government forces you to give me the money, that still doesn't mean that you've agreed to anything---it only means that you'd rather give me the money than go to jail.

How embarassing for you that it is you who are wrong again.Is it embarrassing that you can't spell "embarrassing"?

Justin Thyme

12-10-2006, 01:05 PM

Obviously that's not true. It perhaps serves some people's personal preferences to consider it so, and consider IP owner's efforts "delusional", but that's just a delusion on the part of the people who feel that way.
Go right ahead. Consider me a chicken little doomsayer, and discount the evidence of other media types that have gone before video. First print, then audio, then video. They didn't have warning. The motion picture folks do. History will show them for being the biggest fools in refusing to adapt, because of this ample warning.

As amazing as it sounds, the print newspaper industry is still wondering and debating about why their businesses are collapsing. You can just hear the words of General Haig in his post war muterings about tanks and machine guns being overrated, and that the horse was still the master of the battlefield. Amazing.

The big question facing major papers is how can they compete with free. News used to be a saleable commodity, now they seem to be giving it away. Source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/6220424.stm) Sound familiar?
Newspapers are still not sure what to do about the internet, no matter how determined they are to prove wrong the doomsayers who claim they are dead. I predict that in 20 years time, Hollywood will still be wondering what went wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, I don't care for the big budget vacuous nonsense that they shovel.

Bicker- if you are in any position of leadership or influence, do a responsible analysis and look at the weaknesses honestly. Explain at least to yourself how video is unique and somehow the defences that didn't work for them will work for video.

Good luck. As far as I'm concerned, I hope you keep to your current opinion, because it will mean the inevitable collapse of the Hollywood machine.

Have a great Sunday.

bicker

12-10-2006, 01:49 PM

Sorry, but you're still mistaken.You might want to stop saying that, since you're just underscoring how little you know.

What makes you think that buying a TV somehow magically means that I've agreed to some mythical license while when I buy a file cabinet I do not?The license has nothing to do with the television. It has to do with tuning into broadcast and cable channels. Your rights regarding content you receive is strictly limited. Tuning in you implicitly agree to the terms and conditions. There are no televisions stations or cable networks in the United States that provide programming that is not subject to license.

A signature or oral agreement is necessary in a contract.Again, wrong.

bicker

12-10-2006, 01:53 PM

As amazing as it sounds, the print newspaper industry is still wondering and debating about why their businesses are collapsing.I agree that eventually some other medium will replace television. What remains constant in all this though is property rights. The manner in which intellectual and creative works are transmitted will surely change over time. The fact that it is in the public interest to protect the rights of property owners won't. It's a timeless principle.

Justin Thyme

12-10-2006, 02:50 PM

I agree that eventually some other medium will replace television. What remains constant in all this though is property rights. The manner in which intellectual and creative works are transmitted will surely change over time. The fact that it is in the public interest to protect the rights of property owners won't. It's a timeless principle.Look, you are preaching to the choir about property rights for intangibles. I am a software engineer. If you think that what I was saying was that TV or the notion of IP was going away, take another look. Yeah. We still have and buy books. There are encyclopedias. There is news. Newsweek survives. There are business models to support media in a "free" environment. What I said was not that those media have been supplanted, but that their model of business have been radically alterred by technology. When I said the motion picture industry's IP business model was wrong, I didn't say that none can work. I said that the current one based on scarcity either enforced by technology or legal constraints is hopeless. The distribution channel is so fluid now that if you charge very much for your online newspaper people will simply bypass you and get it elsewhere.

And decry the lower production quality as the content industry have done for all the other media- you do so at your peril. Just ask Dan Rather what he thinks of the journalism skills of bloggers.

What could Hollywood do? Adopt the dupont motto that if anyone is going put a dupont unit out of business, it better be another dupont business unit. Adopt the Microsoft motto of embracing and extending. [Subtext- embrace and smother]. Abandon big budget. Fund huge numbes of micro projects or amateur film makers, go offshore and do contracts with all the major likely competitors in bollywood and the far east before they try to eat your lunch. Make it all "freely" available in a Second Life like environment where participants exchange such videos and further, they participate in them. Charge a monthly for it- stick adverts in where you can. Assume people will copy and proliferate your content. There are ways you can leverage that assumption. Make it easier for consumers to get content from you that it is from the pirates, and charge for making it more convenient for them.

You know what the upper management will tell you? You have to be insane if you think we are going to cannibalize our multi billion dollar business.

It would not be a career enhancing move.

That's why I think Hollywood will continue to cruise along as if the icebergs that sank the other business models won't sink theirs.

Game over man.

Dajad

12-10-2006, 04:37 PM

You said "Their new copyright law, while explicitly permitting OTA TV program recording for the first time (its about time), explicitly prohibits permanent archiving."

You are certain the law is the same, but you are not looking at the Australian version? What makes you certain? If it is the same, obviously since Australia felt archiving needed explicit addressing, US & Canada might need it too.

Your understanding of what is fair use is colored by your knowledged of the Betamax ruling. If back then you were at the same stage in life you are now, can you honestly say you'd conclude time shifting is fair use? It certainly isn't consistent with your method of reasoning on archiving.

Your answers are not consistent logically. I think you should start from the beginning using, as I suggested, basic law, other fair use standards and the precedent of time shifting, plus whatever else might be appropriate and see what you come up with.

HDTiVo, you are right in calling me out on this. I was lazy in the wording of the title to this thread (which I can't change now) and my initial posting above. I updated the post above to make it more precise and added the following update at the end of the post to clarify the situation.

[Dec. 10 Update: HDTiVo rightly called me on this. I don't know if the new Australian Act was changed as a result of this most recent amendment. What I can say with clarity is that the Australian Attorney General made it clear that librarying of copied televisions and radio programs is not permissible under Australian law. I updated my entry above accordingly.]

That said, as a lawyer licensed to practice law in Ontario and in California, I stand by my statement that permanently archiving copyrighted television broadcasts, whether sourced from over the air, cable, satellite or any other source (without the permission of the copyright owner) is infringing activity under both Canadian and U.S. copyright law.

And, while I am not an Australian lawyer, on basic copyright principles I'd bet a significant sum of money that both before and after this recent Australian copyright reform, that permanent archiving of TV shows in Australia (without the copyright owners authorization) was illegal and infringing under Australian copyright law.

I hope that clarifies things. Sorry for my laziness!

On a side note, without entering into the silly side debate about copyright, contracts and signatures ... folks, just as you don't have to sign a contract with your local municipality for speed limits to apply to you, copyright law applies to your copying activity, and to the benefit of copyright owners, without the blessing or need of your signature! The whole debate you are having is absurd!

...Dale

Amnesia

12-10-2006, 04:40 PM

You might want to stop saying that, since you're just underscoring how little you know.Right back at cha.

Tuning in you implicitly agree to the terms and conditions.Nope. I made no such agreement. Implicit or explicit. You might decide that you've agreed to a contract, but your agreement is not binding on me. The only contracts binding on me are those that I (explicitly) agree to.

There is no such thing as an "implicit contract". Contracts are by their very nature explicit. Two or more parties each agree upon certain terms and conditions and their agreement must be clearly stated. Without that, there's no contract. The whole idea of a contract is to clearly lay out what the parties have agreed to. Without an explicit agreement, that's simply not possible.
There are no televisions stations or cable networks in the United States that provide programming that is not subject to license.If the stations choose to enter into a license agreement with the content providers, that's fine. It has no affect on me. They might even have a license from the government to use certain bandwidth. Fine. That's still not a license that affects me. Another person is not able to agree to a contract for me---only I can do so.
A signature or oral agreement is necessary in a contract.Again, wrong.Really now? So it's OK for me to decide when you have agreed to a contract? Is that really what you believe? Hmmm...what contracts should I decided that you've entered into...?

bicker

12-10-2006, 05:12 PM

It's like talking to a wall. You're just plain wrong, guy. And it would be a real shame if you use your delusion to rationalize transgressions. 'nuf sed'

Amnesia

12-10-2006, 06:43 PM

And it would be a real shame if you use your delusion to rationalize transgressions.A) I'm not the deluded one. You still haven't told me why you think it's OK for me to decide what contracts you've entered into involuntarily.
B) When you start talking "transgressions", it make me wonder if you are confusing regulations with contracts. Regulations (ie laws) can be externally imposed, usually through threat of force. Contracts are mutually and explicitly agreed upon. Two different things, though perhaps you don't realize that.

CrispyCritter

12-10-2006, 07:39 PM

A) I'm not the deluded one. You still haven't told me why you think it's OK for me to decide what contracts you've entered into involuntarily.
B) When you start talking "transgressions", it make me wonder if you are confusing regulations with contracts. Regulations (ie laws) can be externally imposed, usually through threat of force. Contracts are mutually and explicitly agreed upon. Two different things, though perhaps you don't realize that.To get it back to TiVo, do you agree you have a contract with TiVo that includes among other thingsWelcome to TiVo and the TiVo service! This agreement explains the terms and conditions that will apply to your use of the TiVo service, and constitutes a legally binding agreement between you and TiVo Inc. (TiVo). By using the TiVo service, you agree to all the terms and conditions in this agreement (Agreement)....
TThe TiVoToGo feature includes security measures designed to prevent infringement of copyrighted works. You agree not to take any steps to defeat any TiVo security measures or to use any third party applications that may bypass any TiVo security measures.

bicker

12-11-2006, 06:53 AM

Oh but, Crispy, Amnesia claims that he's special and that those tenets don't apply to him, because he didn't verbally agree to them or sign something say that he'll comply with them. :rolleyes: And even if he did, violating them isn't a transgression because they're contractual requirements not laws. :rolleyes:

Sorry for the sarcasm folks, but the stuff this Amnesia guy is saying is off the Entitlement Mentality deep-end.

Amnesia

12-11-2006, 09:47 AM

Amnesia claims that he's special and that those tenets don't apply to him, because he didn't verbally agree to them or sign something say that he'll comply with themI'm not special---no one can be forced to comply with a contract that they didn't sign. If you choose to comply, that's your choice. But it is a choice. Try hard to understand.

If I buy a piece of electronic hardware, it belongs to me. If I choose to use it to record TV shows, that's my choice. There might be laws concerning what I do with the recordings, but not a contract because I didn't sign one. And once again since you're having a hard time understanding: no one signed a contract and so contracts cannot constrain what anyone does with OTA broadcasts.

Does that finally make sense to you? Laws can be externally imposed. Contracts must be explicitly agreed to.

Stormspace

12-11-2006, 09:50 AM

I'm not special---no one can be forced to comply with a contract that they didn't sign. If you choose to comply, that's your choice. But it is a choice. Try hard to understand.

If I buy a piece of electronic hardware, it belongs to me. If I choose to use it to record TV shows, that's my choice. There might be laws concerning what I do with the recordings, but not a contract because I didn't sign one. And once again since you're having a hard time understanding: no one signed a contract and so contracts cannot constrain what anyone does with OTA broadcasts.

Does that finally make sense to you? Laws can be externally imposed. Contracts must be explicitly agreed to.

While I agree with the concept, the current state of click wrap rulings would be to the contrary. Apparently a wrapper on the box with wording on it should you break the seal is now considered a valid contract. :down:

stahta01

12-11-2006, 10:25 AM

While I agree with the concept, the current state of click wrap rulings would be to the contrary. Apparently a wrapper on the box with wording on it should you break the seal is now considered a valid contract. :down:

Name one court ruling that confirmed this to be true? I also heard it has yet to be heard in court has this changed?

Tim S

bmgoodman

12-11-2006, 11:12 AM

Name one court ruling that confirmed this to be true? I also heard it has yet to be heard in court has this changed?

Tim S

I don't know of a court ruling, but Virginia passed UCITA in 2000. I think Maryland is the only other state to do so. This ridiculous legislation tips everything in favor of the software vendor, to include the ability to change the agreement AFTER the fact by sending an e-mail. Your only recourse if you do not agree to the changes is to stop using the software.

Now, where does this stand in terms of court challenges? I haven't heard any news on the matter in years. Clearly the sky didn't fall, but I do wonder if anybody has actually tried enforcing this thing in Virginia?

(IANAL)

Stormspace

12-11-2006, 11:15 AM

Name one court ruling that confirmed this to be true? I also heard it has yet to be heard in court has this changed?

Tim S

Something I found to substantiate what I've read on various news sites.

In 1997, in Hill v. Gateway 2000, Inc., the Seventh Circuit expanded the decision reached in ProCD, by holding that when a customer ordered a computer by telephone, the computer arrived with a license enclosed in the box along with the computer. The license included an arbitration clause, "to govern unless the customer returned the computer within 30 days." The customer was not specifically required to view or agree to these terms before using the computer. The Seventh Circuit held that the manufacturer was inviting acceptance of the terms in the license, and that by keeping the computer past the 30-day period the purchaser had accepted the manufacturer’s offer, including the terms of the arbitration clause.

Elsewhere in the article...

While there does continue to be debate regarding the validity of shrink-wrap agreements, when utilized properly they are quite effective and likely to be determined to be valid by most, if not all, courts. The key to using a shrink-wrap license properly is to do it in a way that allows the purchaser to know in advance the sale is conditioned upon terms of a license found within the packaging of the product.

Source http://nys-stlc.syr.edu/lawlibrary/Contract/shrinkwrap.aspx

Please note that I do not like this type of agreement and think that each person should amend the agreement and send it via registered mail to the manufacturer stating that failure to reply in 30 days constitutes agreement to the amendment. :)

gtrogue

12-11-2006, 11:45 AM

CrispyCritter

12-11-2006, 01:06 PM

I'm not special---no one can be forced to comply with a contract that they didn't sign. If you choose to comply, that's your choice. But it is a choice. Try hard to understand.

If I buy a piece of electronic hardware, it belongs to me. If I choose to use it to record TV shows, that's my choice. There might be laws concerning what I do with the recordings, but not a contract because I didn't sign one. And once again since you're having a hard time understanding: no one signed a contract and so contracts cannot constrain what anyone does with OTA broadcasts.

Does that finally make sense to you? Laws can be externally imposed. Contracts must be explicitly agreed to.And when you ran "Guided Setup", you explicitly agreed to the contract with TiVo which limits what you can do with what you record.

HDTiVo

12-11-2006, 04:01 PM

HDTiVo, you are right in calling me out on this. I was lazy in the wording of the title to this thread (which I can't change now) and my initial posting above. I updated the post above to make it more precise and added the following update at the end of the post to clarify the situation.

[Dec. 10 Update: HDTiVo rightly called me on this. I don't know if the new Australian Act was changed as a result of this most recent amendment. What I can say with clarity is that the Australian Attorney General made it clear that librarying of copied televisions and radio programs is not permissible under Australian law. I updated my entry above accordingly.]

That said, as a lawyer licensed to practice law in Ontario and in California, I stand by my statement that permanently archiving copyrighted television broadcasts, whether sourced from over the air, cable, satellite or any other source (without the permission of the copyright owner) is infringing activity under both Canadian and U.S. copyright law.

And, while I am not an Australian lawyer, on basic copyright principles I'd bet a significant sum of money that both before and after this recent Australian copyright reform, that permanent archiving of TV shows in Australia (without the copyright owners authorization) was illegal and infringing under Australian copyright law.

I hope that clarifies things. Sorry for my laziness!

...Dale
Thanks for the clarification. I know you don't want to detail your reasoning which concludes archiving is infringment, so I will not ask for it.

Dajad

12-11-2006, 04:31 PM

I don't want to stomp on the thread but this topic is sort of in the same vein.
Everyone please write their congressmen about HR 1201 (https://secure.eff.org/site/Advocacy?JServSessionIdr011=2vwfc25rx1.app6a&cmd=display&page=UserAction&id=115)
It is a bill that would reform part of the DMCA to allow for circumvention of copy protection if what you were doing was otherwise legal, ie, making a "fair use" copy. It would also make the tools for circumventing copy protection legal.

I wrote my congressman and received back a nice letter stating that he supports consumers rights and that he would support the bill if it gets out of committee and comes up for a vote in the House. Your congressmen do listen so please let them know this bill is something you want them to support.

Since the last Congress ended at 5:00 a.m. on Saturday the 9th, this bill will now be dead. It will have to be re-introduced into the next Congress. It may very well be re-introduced. If it is, it will likely have another number.

While I certainly don't argue that all American's should write their representatives and Senators on issue they care about, requesting passage of this specific bill will be pointless as it is now dead. You could write your representative and ask that a bill similar to the now dead 1201 be introduced into the next Congress.

My take on this, however, is that this kind of bill will never, alone, pass. Because if it was legal to create, distribute and use the needed circumvention tools, this would effectively gut the practicality of the anti-circumvention rules (for non-fair use). So, I fear that advocating for this type of reform is a lot like tilting at wind mills.

The better option, I believe, is to lobby Congress to get rid of the DMCA anti-circumvention prohibitions altogether. In light of the content industry's powerful lobby, this is also unlikely to happen any time soon but at least the discussion/lobbying effort deals more directly with the problem.

...Dale

gtrogue

12-11-2006, 04:49 PM

Since the last Congress ended at 5:00 a.m. on Saturday the 9th, this bill will now be dead. It will have to be re-introduced into the next Congress. It may very well be re-introduced. If it is, it will likely have another number.

While I certainly don't argue that all American's should write their representatives and Senators on issue they care about, requesting passage of this specific bill will be pointless as it is now dead. You could write your representative and ask that a bill similar to the now dead 1201 be introduced into the next Congress.

My take on this, however, is that this kind of bill will never, alone, pass. Because if it was legal to create, distribute and use the needed circumvention tools, this would effectively gut the practicality of the anti-circumvention rules (for non-fair use). So, I fear that advocating for this type of reform is a lot like tilting at wind mills.

The better option, I believe, is to lobby Congress to get rid of the DMCA anti-circumvention prohibitions altogether. In light of the content industry's powerful lobby, this is also unlikely to happen any time soon but at least the discussion/lobbying effort deals more directly with the problem.

...Dale
I think it is implied that if you would want your Congressman to support this bill you would want them to support the same legislation in the next session of Congress. Boucher will reintroduce the bill in the next session.
The bill has/had a fair amount of support in the House. And you are right, the bill would effectively eliminate the anti-circumvention aspect of the DMCA except as it would apply to someone not making a fair use copy. Meaning that if you were caught distributing en mass copies of a DVD you made you would still be in violation of long existing copyright laws and the DMCA.

Stormspace

12-11-2006, 05:04 PM

I think it is implied that if you would want your Congressman to support this bill you would want them to support the same legislation in the next session of Congress. Boucher will reintroduce the bill in the next session.
The bill has/had a fair amount of support in the House. And you are right, the bill would effectively eliminate the anti-circumvention aspect of the DMCA except as it would apply to someone not making a fair use copy. Meaning that if you were caught distributing en mass copies of a DVD you made you would still be in violation of long existing copyright laws and the DMCA.

Isn't that what copyright law is all about? We didn't need the DMCA to make it illegal to copy things outside of fair use. The whole point of the DMCA was to eliminate the fair use that consumers have in this regard and to make them purchase a copy for each and every application they have for a work.

Dajad

12-11-2006, 05:13 PM

gtrogue - you are exactly right that the existing copyright laws already made illegal that which the anti-circumvention provisions are also trying to achieve. The effect, of course, is that the DMCA does way more to adversely affect consumers fair use rights. It's like using a sledge hammer to insert a thumb tack.

Isn't that what copyright law is all about? We didn't need the DMCA to make it illegal to copy things outside of fair use. The whole point of the DMCA was to eliminate the fair use that consumers have in this regard and to make them purchase a copy for each and every application they have for a work.

That wasn't the stated purpose of the DMCA, but it certainly has that effect! :)

You might want to digitally sign this EFF petition:

http://www.eff.org/share/petition/

I would, but I'm a Canadian! Ha! :)

...Dale

gtrogue

12-11-2006, 07:51 PM

Isn't that what copyright law is all about? We didn't need the DMCA to make it illegal to copy things outside of fair use. The whole point of the DMCA was to eliminate the fair use that consumers have in this regard and to make them purchase a copy for each and every application they have for a work.
You are right, of course. While the content providers, including the MPAA and RIAA, are quick to say that it doesn't alter fair use, those laws and precedents are still on the books they argue, the DMCA effectively makes you have to break a law in order to exercise your fair use rights.
At least some lawmakers have seen the error of their ways and are now trying to fix it.

bicker

12-12-2006, 07:05 AM

If people simply respected property rights, there wouldn't be a need for these measures to be taken. As it is, the lawmakers WE THE PEOPLE have elected are strong advocates for property rights, so expect that those few lawmakers that you say "have seen the error of their ways" will accomplish little or nothing, because they, as a group, have no power. Voice of the people. The people want comfortable retirements, which means government needs to support the protection of business assets (for lack of a better term), including IP. Until WE THE PEOPLE change our attitude, and go back to electing "bleeding-heart liberals" (as opposed to Republicans and DNC Democrats), or invent some new kind of political party, that is consumer-focused, this situation won't change. Transgressors will continue to transgress, and enforcement measures will become MORE invasive, not less invasive.

Justin Thyme

12-13-2006, 11:45 AM

Don't those alcohol bootleggers know that if they don't stop doing their illegal activities that drug enforcement will get more invasive?

The repressive law enforcement solution:

Will not work- trafficing mechanisms are too fluid to block.
Is exactly what is needed if you want illicit trafficing to grow exponentially
Does not result in maximization of IP return on investment

So why dwell on a course of action that will fail?

Because content owners want to cling to the idea that this is not a technological sea change for them. It's understandable where they are coming from, and sure, it would be prudent to be skeptical, since nearly all responses to it would result in a cannibalization of their current operations.

Bureaucracies tend to resist things like that. That's why ultimately I think they are doomed to learn the hard way. It's the pattern that most legacy industries have followed when confronted by such sea change technologies.

HDTiVo

12-13-2006, 11:51 AM

So why dwell on a course of action that will fail?

Because no one cares about what has proven to work and not work in the past.

They're just anxious to state their inexperienced and uninformed opinions.

bicker

12-14-2006, 06:28 AM

To assert that your opinions are valid while those of the industry leaders are invalid is truly ignorant. A shred of integrity would lead you to, at least, grant that perhaps you and they simply disagree. But no: You assert that the legions of business professionals who run media companies are all idiots, and you're the only people who actually understand reality. :rolleyes:

Justin Thyme

12-14-2006, 04:48 PM

If any management techniques are to triumph over this sort of challenge presented by quickly moving technology, it will likely be american. So far our opponents in war have seized on techniques which our leadership resolutely discounted. (Japanese re: naval air power, Germans re: massed mobile tank maneuver)

Our victories in technology industries during the last 60 years have been much better precisely because of the closer monitoring and adaptation to destabilizing technologies before it is too late to react. Note this also means reacting to threats which may not materialize.

However not all industries have benefited, as evidenced by pompous reactions to the warnings of such threat.

Adapt or die. That's the choice in front of the content industries.

Redux

12-14-2006, 05:24 PM

Adapt or die. That's the choice in front of the content industries.I had an afternoon of conversation (about a project; theirs, not mine) with a couple of these people maybe nine/ten years ago. Conversation went to the .mp3 issue; we probably talked half an hour about it, and this was the only part of the conversation that got their intensity up.

They basically said they would die rather than touch on-line distribution in any way. They didn't even want to _talk_ about it, though they _kept_ talking about it once they found out I knew about the technical side of it, including lots of potential DRM strategies.

Here's their logic:

You take all the money that's spent by consumers on music (in this case). Subtract the portion given to artists (NET of all charges and publisher tax benefits from payments to the artists) and costs (exclusive of all salaries above $100,000 per year/benfits/fringes/bonuses, payments to dummy third parties, etc.) They called what was left (which was most of it) "the nut." That's what the current model was all about, and they were going to hang onto that fiefdom until it was wrenched from their cold dead hands.