Copy Protection

[drshame]

For the first time since I have had my HUMAX unit, I was prevented from burning a DVD because of "copyright limitations".

But it would still transfer to a VCR if I had one.

Is this something new?

Under the digital copyright act and recent court rulings...I thought we had the right to use our digital information whoever we want to as long as it's not reused or seold commercially?

NOT into Pirating...just want to use my material I've PAID FOR!

[lafos]

DRM impacts digital transfers, such as the Humax to DVD. The conversion to analog is different. I think you can find a lot of information in these forums or by searching the web.

[yerf89]

I note that this copy protection issue started once Tivo provided the Amazon connection for downloading movies. It does not affect movies I recorded off HBO before June 1 but covers all movies after that point. It is frustrating since I bought my Tivo DVD burner to take movies with me when I travel.

I guess the only option I have is to try TivoToGo but the website indicates that Tivo's with burners cannot use this feature but it is coming soon.

[classicsat]

TiVoToGo works on DVD recorder TiVos, since September 2005, although copy flags may affect its operation.

[lafos]

If the copy flag is set, such as an Amazon purchase, TTG will not permit a transfer, nor can you use MRV to get it on another TiVo. As a matter of fact, the info screen states that the "Save to VCR" function will not work, either, but I assume if a VCR was connected to the outputs, it would record. Never tried it, myself.

[drshame]

Thereare always going to be ways of overiding ways of "protecting" content.

I thought the Courts basically ruled if it's your material that you legally bought and paid for...you can do what you want with it FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE.

While the content providers may require copy protection to release their movies...it still weighs against us using what we pay for as we see fit...and that's not fair!

We can legally use it...but can't legally defeat copy-protection technology aimed at limiting our use of content we've paid for.

Not to encourage them...but Hackers will never fade from the scene..and there will always be a way around the problem.

Sorta like Spy Vs. Spy in Mad Magazine!

[bicker]

I thought the Courts basically ruled if it's your material that you legally bought and paid for...you can do what you want with it FOR YOUR OWN PERSONAL USE.That is actually NOT the case. With only minor exceptions, personal use does not excuse violating the license you're granted when receiving or purchasing copyright content.

While the content providers may require copy protection to release their movies...it still weighs against us using what we pay for as we see fit...and that's not fair! That's because you're mistaken. You cannot decide what you want to buy, and then force sellers to sell you THAT. Instead, the sellers, who before you buy anything, actually own what there is to be had, decide what they want to offer for sale. It is their stuff until they sell it to you, and so they retain full rights to determine just what to sell and how. Your choice is to either accept their offer or walk away and do without.

[drshame]

That's your opinion and I respect it.

But there are 2 sides or more to every issue and a multitude of ways to interpret it.

I'll bet there are legal seminars and debates held on this issue...including reviews of any appelate rulings and if the cases ever made it up to higher courts.

Out of fairness to everyone reading this, I believe this remains a continuing debate. And for everyone who says the real answer falls on just one side of the issue, there will be plenty of others who disagree and believe they are the only ones correct.

I stand by my OPINION.
Unless you're from Harvard Law School or a Digital Rights Expert from another respected Law School....you're just giving me an opinion that may be really no better than mine.

But I respect your opinion nevertheless.

[bicker]

Which is a wonderful way of rationalizing transgressive behavior.

Sorry, but I cannot respect your perspective on this.

[drshame]

"Vescere bracis meis."

[bicker]

And that comment underscores the lack of respectability I noted.

[PPC1]

Unless you're from Harvard Law School or a Digital Rights Expert from another respected Law School....you're just giving me an opinion that may be really no better than mine.



I can assure you that there are many, many fine intellectual property lawyers that did not attend Harvard law, or even Ivy league law schools.

[Scott Atkinson]

You cannot decide what you want to buy, and then force sellers to sell you THAT. Instead, the sellers, who before you buy anything, actually own what there is to be had, decide what they want to offer for sale. It is their stuff until they sell it to you, and so they retain full rights to determine just what to sell and how. Your choice is to either accept their offer or walk away and do without.


Well, not exactly. What you outline is the position most holders of intellectual content have, and which the courts have tended to back. But it's just a position, not a fact.

The history of intellectual property is a lot more complicated than 'take it or leave it.'

Copyright, for instance, was supposed to be a limited use/limited time rule. Opponents of the current expansion of copyright - I'm in that group - believe the scope and duration of it has expanded far past what was originally intended.

Elsewise, why would there be exemptions for personal use, critical analysis and scholarship written into the law?

One thing that's pretty clear: historically, intellectual property was not the same thing as physical property, over which you do have pretty much "full rights."

s.

[bicker]

Well, not exactly. What you outline is the position most holders of intellectual content have, and which the courts have tended to back. But it's just a position, not a fact.You're correct that people can choose to ignore the law and do whatever they selfishly want.

[drshame]

"You're correct that people can choose to ignore the law and do whatever they selfishly want."

You seem to belittle anyone who disagrees with you..making it very personal.

It's a debatable issue, pros and cons on both sides. Why can't you accept that?

You can have an opinion and I can too. In your mind it seems ...anyone who doesn't agree with you 100% is open for personal attack.

This is a DEBATABLE issue with major points on BOTH SIDES.

Thats' all I have written about all along...with you apparently unable to accept that there are many sides to this issue..and WE on the other side of your opinion are not any less "correct" than you on your side.

Flame me dude..I'm an adult and have never resorted to any personal insults other than "Vescere bracis meis".

[bicker]

You seem to belittle anyone who disagrees with you..making it very personal.Absolutely not true. Rather, I object only to those seeking to violate the law, those who don't live up to the agreements they enter into, and those who seek to hold other to expectations that are not supported by explicit promises those others made. There are debatable issues, and then there are non-debatable issues. Check out the discussions with Justin about open and closed cable systems. I believe my cable system is open; he believes my cable system is closed. That's a legitimate disagreement. I still think he's wrong, but grant that he's entitled to his opinion there because there isn't a definitive factual determination by the courts or the regulators -- they're very good as writing a lot but saying nothing. However, with copyright law, the courts have been consistent and definitive.

[Scott Atkinson]

Absolutely not true. Rather, I object only to those seeking to violate the law, those who don't live up to the agreements they enter into, and those who seek to hold other to expectations that are not supported by explicit promises those others made. There are debatable issues, and then there are non-debatable issues. Check out the discussions with Justin about open and closed cable systems. I believe my cable system is open; he believes my cable system is closed. That's a legitimate disagreement. I still think he's wrong, but grant that he's entitled to his opinion there because there isn't a definitive factual determination by the courts or the regulators -- they're very good as writing a lot but saying nothing. However, with copyright law, the courts have been consistent and definitive.

Just so I'm clear here, are you saying the issues of copyright and fair use are settled at this point?

You're wrong to equate people who disagree with your interpretation as simply wanting to be selfish or violate the law. There are many people like me, who have never illegally downloaded anything nor failed to pay (repeatedly in some cases) for the media products they own, who nonetheless believe the pendulum has swung too far to the side of the property owners.

What I don't like about your position is that it's strictly black and white, when intellectual property law was clearly designed as shades of gray.

FWIW also, I manage a fair amount of intellectual property in my professional life, so I have a very clear take on the potential abuse by non-payers and free riders.

Scott A.

edit - Let me throw a couple of real world examples onto the fire, to see if we have some common ground.

It would be wrong, in my view, to crack the unbox drm and be able to watch your rental forever, or transfer it to dvd, in the same way that it would be wrong to go to your local Blockbuster, rent a dvd and copy it.

I don't view that as theft, but it does pretty clearly violate both the law and spirit of copyright.

OTOH, if I buy, say, Bruce Springsteen's 'Live in Barcelona' and burn the audio off it for use in my car, I don't believe I've done anything wrong, though the law would likely disagree, based on the DMCA.

I have not deprived the seller of a sale - I bought the dvd, after all - and my conduct does not speak to whether I have deprived the seller of a potential future sale, i.e., if Barcelona is ever released as an audio only product.

In terms of real world experience, I'd suggest my actions are likely to encourage, rather than discourage sales. I recently bought the dvd of Brian Ferry's Bob Dylan album, which was released a few weeks before the cd. Listening to the audio only portion of the dvd prompted me to buy the cd when it was issued.

s.

edit, edit - a personal, and galling, example of how the balance between buyers and sellers is out of whack.

My cell phone account is thru' Verizon. Recently, in order to get rid of my teenagers' overages on texting, I tried to sign up for Verizon's long-delayed "unlimited" plan.

I was told that to do so, my contract would be extended another year, on top of the additional charge.

I don't think this is fair, right or proper - but at least they told me up front. I bit the bullet and said yes.

Shortly after, I discovered I needed to download some camera phone pics from my phone to my computer. Since other people I know with the same phone do it routinely, as a way of backing up casual shots they've made, I assumed I could as well.

What I then discovered was that my phone is crippled under Verizon's system, and even though it has a USB port, there is no way to transfer photos directly to your computer. Instead, you have to go through Verizon's toll road - mailing yourself the pics - in order to get the pictures you own, from the phone you own.

On top of that, the only way I could find that Verizon "tells" you about the crippling is through an absence of infrormation about how to download.

In fact, the guy I spoke with at Verizon technical support wasn't sure at first.
(Other, more experienced tech folks set him straight, but told him to tell me there are third party hacks that might fix the problem, or might trash the phone completely.)

[drshame]

Scott,
My point exactly:

It is NOT a simple Black and White issue and I believe the current legal interpretations reflect that.

It's getting to the point where it's like Mad Magazine's "Spy vs. Spy."

As tougher digital "locks" are enacted, tougher "hacks" come out giving LEGITIMATE owners the ability of using the digital material THEY PAID for as THEY choose for their OWN private use.

Are they "breaking the law"?

I believe it is debateable....and even Congress is looking at expanding the LEGAL multi-Use of the Digital material we've bought and paid for.

[bicker]

Just so I'm clear here, are you saying the issues of copyright and fair use are settled at this point?I'm saying that changes necessarily have to be made to the existing laws, before anyone presumes to engage in practices that have already been found to be in violation of the existing laws.

believe the pendulum has swung too far to the side of the property owners.I think you're in a minority. One of the major news magazines (I don't remember which) recently had a cover story on Hillary Clinton and how she's best buddies with business. Even the Democrats are on the side of business. Your perspective is simply out of touch with the vast majority. The pendulum is definitely swinging, but all indications I see is that it is still swinging in business' direction, not the consumers' direction.

I'm not questioning the validity of your frustration. I'm simply stating that your frustration, and the frustration of all other consumers, including myself, doesn't trump the desire by these very same consumers for a hefty return on investment in their retirement accounts, nice bonuses from their corporate employers, etc.

[Scott Atkinson]

I think you're in a minority. One of the major news magazines (I don't remember which) recently had a cover story on Hillary Clinton and how she's best buddies with business. Even the Democrats are on the side of business. Your perspective is simply out of touch with the vast majority. The pendulum is definitely swinging, but all indications I see is that it is still swinging in business' direction, not the consumers' direction.


Point taken, though I think it's more accurate to say most people don't care one or the other as long as their stuff works and they can engage in low level taking without much risk.

I would never count on Democrats, as a party, to fix this. Their relationship with the entertainment industry is well known, and steeped in cash.

I think it's the job of consumers to push back, to argue the point and to vote with our dollars.

s.

[bicker]

vote with our dollarsThat's really it. "Back in the day" the way consumers got their way was by strategically "doing without" when things weren't being offered at a reasonable price. Now, it seems, consumers cannot brook with the idea of doing without anything they want, so effectively they're abandoning their power base.

[Scott Atkinson]

That's really it. "Back in the day" the way consumers got their way was by strategically "doing without" when things weren't being offered at a reasonable price. Now, it seems, consumers cannot brook with the idea of doing without anything they want, so effectively they're abandoning their power base.

But...I once again disagree with you putting all the weight on the consumer.

It seems clear to me that wanting un-DRM'ed media, on platforms I can understand and modify, is not some reckless act of selfishness. In fact, it's pretty much what I had with lp's, 30 years ago.

The market here is not pure, (the circumstance under which consumer sacrifice would make sense) and in my view won't ever be without government intervention.

(For anyone who wants to argue that I'm interfering with free markets, let me only point out that what we have here with copy protection is less a free market, and more a cartel.)

A good read, even if you don't agree, can be found in a just-published Cory Doctrow article:

Broadcast flag history (http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=201000854&pgno=1&queryText=)

[bicker]

But...I once again disagree with you putting all the weight on the consumer.What do you mean by "weight"? What I said was that consumers have the power to drive industry by their purchasing decisions: Deciding to purchase something communicates, "good value," while deciding not to purchase something communicates, "bad value." It's very simple, and it worked when back when my parents were raising me, and when their parents were raising them.

It seems clear to me that wanting un-DRM'ed media, on platforms I can understand and modify, is not some reckless act of selfishness.It's also not a right. The FCC has to weigh the needs of consumers against the needs of business, government, and international relations (typically, those are the four constituencies of federal agencies). Sometimes the consumers get their way, but most often the result is a compromise, providing each constituency some part of what it wants, while ensuring each received what is absolutely needs (which is why consumers get cheap lifeline cable, even if it means cable companies have to take a loss on providing that level of service).

In fact, it's pretty much what I had with lp's, 30 years ago.You never had the ability to transfer a 100% accurate and perfectly reproducible copy of an LP.

[Scott Atkinson]

What do you mean by "weight"? What I said was that consumers have the power to drive industry by their purchasing decisions: Deciding to purchase something communicates, "good value," while deciding not to purchase something communicates, "bad value." It's very simple, and it worked when back when my parents were raising me, and when their parents were raising them.

I'm not sure history would bear you out on this. Regardless, my only point is that voting with your wallet is insufficent in this day and age.

While I'm by no means a liberal, I don't discount all government regulation either, and it seems to me that this is a classic case of government regulation being needed.

It's also not a right. The FCC has to weigh the needs of consumers against the needs of business, government, and international relations (typically, those are the four constituencies of federal agencies). Sometimes the consumers get their way, but most often the result is a compromise, providing each constituency some part of what it wants, while ensuring each received what is absolutely needs (which is why consumers get cheap lifeline cable, even if it means cable companies have to take a loss on providing that level of service).

Disagreed on the specific. I think copyright law and fair use exemptions absolutely established it as a right, further ratified by the Betamax case. I disagree with the recent reversals/modifications of those laws/decisions.

You never had the ability to transfer a 100% accurate and perfectly reproducible copy of an LP.

I'd be more comfortable with that argument if the industry hadn't attempted to raise the demon of copying in all instances, including the aforementioned Betamax case.

IMHO, the 'pristine copy' argument doesn't wash, and there is no unbiased research that I know of to the contrary. It seems more likely that they're in the business of erecting new toll roads, while claiming they're stopping piracy.

It's an interesting argument to have, and I think the best underlying question is - what effect do free riders have?

s.

[bicker]

I'm not sure history would bear you out on this. Regardless, my only point is that voting with your wallet is insufficent in this day and age.We'll have to agree to disagree about that.

While I'm by no means a liberal, I don't discount all government regulation either, and it seems to me that this is a classic case of government regulation being needed.Government regulation is needed to ensure ready and affordable access to necessities. And lifeline cable is regulated, and as a result readily accessible and affordable. For luxuries, like extended-tier cable, government's job should be to clear out the obstacles in the way of competitors entering the market. So the FCC should have banned unreasonable obstacles local franchising authorities placed in the way of new entrants. That's what the FCC should have done.

I disagree with the recent reversals/modifications of those laws/decisions.At least you recognize that the way things are moving are toward more protection for content-owners. You wouldn't believe some of the discussions I've participated in -- where people who feel as you do about how things should be, distort that in their own minds into the way things actually are. :)

Again, on the specific, we'll have to agree to disagree. I believe using a case about timeshifting analog video to say something about tools that could be readily abused to make perfect copies of digital video is just-plain-wrong. Perfection, and even near-perfection, changes everything.

IMHO, the 'pristine copy' argument doesn't wash, and there is no unbiased research that I know of to the contrary.It is a judicial decision based on what's best for the country, not the result of a scientific study.

what effect do free riders have?As someone who's livelihood depends on respecting copyrights, I hope we NEVER find out what effect they could have if these reasonable obstacles weren't in place.

[Scott Atkinson]

At least you recognize that the way things are moving are toward more protection for content-owners. You wouldn't believe some of the discussions I've participated in -- where people who feel as you do about how things should be, distort that in their own minds into the way things actually are. :)


This is one of those arguments that draws such strong feelings that it's easy to get more heat than light.

I think we're at a weird point: a year or two ago I would have agreed with you about the trend being toward content owners.

Now, I'm less sure. I see signs in both directions.

For my part, I run a small television newsroom in upstate New York, and end up dealing with issues of how our content is used - and by whom - all the time.

best,

s.

edit - I also fully agree with your comments on what the FCC should have done.