Proposed Legislation Would Legalize Removal of eBook DRM in U.S.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Bear in mind, though, that taping a TV programme and permanently keeping that recording is still illegal. .

Are you sure about that? Any cite?

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by ApK

Are you sure about that? Any cite?

Yes, I'm quite sure. It's copyright infringement. The whole basis of the decision in the Sony v. Universal Studios Supreme Court case which ruled that video recorders were legal to sell in the US was that recording for the purpose of time shifting constituted fair use. But only for time shifting. If you keep a recording permanently, that's not fair use.

[Turtle91]

ahhhh....but does it limit how much time I shift??

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Turtle91

ahhhh....but does it limit how much time I shift??

You'd probably find it difficult to convince anyone that you simply hadn't got around to watching a recording after 5 years. As always, though, this is a legal provision which is vanishingly unlikely to land anyone in legal trouble. I've certainly never heard of anyone getting into trouble for home recording, even if it is technically illegal.

[Greg Anos]

That issue has not been adjudicated. Nor, at this distance, do I ever expect it to be adjudicated. You would have a clear collision between the First Use Ruling (as currently in place) along with the Betamax decision, and the limits of copyright control.

Please note, in the US, everything is <legal>, unless explicit made illegal by law (properly adjudicated). A law can be passed and found unconstitutional, rendering it null and void. It is not removed from the books, merely made legally unenforceable. This leads to many grey areas. They are presumed to be legal, unless later adjudicated and found to be illegal, at which point, (technically from the time of filing the case) the action would be illegal. As long as no case is adjudicated, and there is no explicit statue against it, it is legal. The issue of how many times a <legal> (Betamax decision) recording can be watched is undefined. One time is explicit. More than once is undefined. There is no explicit statue stating how many times, nor has the issue been adjudicated, therefore is must be presumed that there is no limit. If one disagrees with that interpretation, one is free to file suit, in the US, and make his/her legal argument that there is a limit of only one viewing is legal. Until then....it's legal...

Consider the Betamax ruling. The MPAA <could> have sued all manufacturers for not selling recorders with a playback-once feature as part of the machine (per the Betamax ruling), using the ruling as legal reason for demanding the change (it was not technically unfeasable). Note the the MPAA <did not> file said lawsuit. Why? It wasn't lack of resources. If your argument was correct, it would have been an open-and-shut case. If it would be filed today, the question of why it took 35 years to file would be raised. So it won't be filed, and the dog will be left sleeping...

[cfrizz]

It is simply another meaningless law that is totally unenforceable. They can pass them all they want but people will always find ways to do what they need to, to have full access of their property.

I'm not talking about blatant dumb fools that upload tons of stuff on and easily tracked network like a college network and get busted for it.

I'm talking about just normal folks like me who have spent a ton of money on books and have every intention to put them on as many of my ebook reading devices as I can.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That issue has not been adjudicated. Nor, at this distance, do I ever expect it to be adjudicated. You would have a clear collision between the First Use Ruling (as currently in place) along with the Betamax decision, and the limits of copyright control.

Please note, in the US, everything is <legal>, unless explicit made illegal by law (properly adjudicated). A law can be passed and found unconstitutional, rendering it null and void. It is not removed from the books, merely made legally unenforceable. This leads to many grey areas. They are presumed to be legal, unless later adjudicated and found to be illegal, at which point, (technically from the time of filing the case) the action would be illegal. As long as no case is adjudicated, and there is no explicit statue against it, it is legal. The issue of how many times a <legal> (Betamax decision) recording can be watched is undefined. One time is explicit. More than once is undefined. There is no explicit statue stating how many times, nor has the issue been adjudicated, therefore is must be presumed that there is no limit. If one disagrees with that interpretation, one is free to file suit, in the US, and make his/her legal argument that there is a limit of only one viewing is legal. Until then....it's legal...

Consider the Betamax ruling. The MPAA <could> have sued all manufacturers for not selling recorders with a playback-once feature as part of the machine (per the Betamax ruling), using the ruling as legal reason for demanding the change (it was not technically unfeasable). Note the the MPAA <did not> file said lawsuit. Why? It wasn't lack of resources. If your argument was correct, it would have been an open-and-shut case. If it would be filed today, the question of why it took 35 years to file would be raised. So it won't be filed, and the dog will be left sleeping...

The issue of why it's being brought up now that VCR tapes are pretty much outmoded as a medium for recording movies would also be brought out I'd think. I remember how the transition from VCR tape to DVD went. 1. Only VCR tapes 2. Some DVD's but 3/4ths VCR tapes 3. half DVD half VCR 4.3/4ths DVD 1/4th VCR 5. No movies on VCR all movies on DVD. Blu-ray is basically an improved DVD if I understand it right and there are more and more blu-ray disks out now. I imagine there will be a similar change (though in software rather than hardware) in ebooks over time.

[6charlong]

Lawsuits are based on the existence of an injury caused by the action of another. It would be hard for the film industry to prove they are injured by a practice that quickly grew until it provided the lion's share of their revenue. Isn't that the importance of this change in the law? The law itself requires a review of the facts with a presentation to Congress and a review of how the change is working out to be done one year after it goes into effect. If it does what we think it will, what Tor and others have found when they dropped DRM, it will either remain unchanged or be strengthened.

The hopeful thing is that someone is willing to do a trial and get the facts, to everyone's benefit.

[Ninjalawyer]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

Lawsuits are based on the existence of an injury caused by the action of another. It would be hard for the film industry to prove they are injured by a practice that quickly grew until it provided the lion's share of their revenue. Isn't that the importance of this change in the law? The law itself requires a review of the facts with a presentation to Congress and a review of how the change is working out to be done one year after it goes into effect. If it does what we think it will, what Tor and others have found when they dropped DRM, it will either remain unchanged or be strengthened.

The hopeful thing is that someone is willing to do a trial and get the facts, to everyone's benefit.

In many U.S. copyright cases, statutory damages will apply, meaning you do not have to prove actual damages.

As for your second sentence: VCR only grew to be a major source of revenue after home taping was found to be legal, not before; if the case had gone the other way it may have had a chilling effect on the uptake of the technology and resulted in (ironically) less revenue for the movie studios.

The law has been in effect for more than a year.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ninjalawyer

In many U.S. copyright cases, statutory damages will apply, meaning you do not have to prove actual damages.

As for your second sentence: VCR only grew to be a major source of revenue after home taping was found to be legal, not before; if the case had gone the other way it may have had a chilling effect on the uptake of the technology and resulted in (ironically) less revenue for the movie studios.

DRM can certainly have an impact on the uptake of recording technologies. Take consumer BluRay recorders, for example. Commonplace items in Europe, with dozens of different ones on sale in any decent audiovisual store, but extremely rare in the US. Why? Because virtually all TV programmes in the US are transmitted with DRM which prevents them from being recorded onto external disks.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

DRM can certainly have an impact on the uptake of recording technologies. Take consumer BluRay recorders, for example. Commonplace items in Europe, with dozens of different ones on sale in any decent audiovisual store, but extremely rare in the US. Why? Because virtually all TV programmes in the US are transmitted with DRM which prevents them from being recorded onto external disks.

That is something for which there is an explicit statue (DCMA), that results in a situation that has not been adjudicated. The Betamax decision clearly states the right to "time shift". DCMA prevents that right from being exercised. You never know how the SCOTUS will rule on anything, but the clear precedent would be to overrule the DCMA for "time-shifting". The SONYs of the world have found it simpler to "blow off" the US market and sell to the rest of the world, rather that fund another court case. A classic example of the "chilling effect", in action...

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

That is something for which there is an explicit statue (DCMA), that results in a situation that has not been adjudicated. The Betamax decision clearly states the right to "time shift". DCMA prevents that right from being exercised. You never know how the SCOTUS will rule on anything, but the clear precedent would be to overrule the DCMA for "time-shifting". The SONYs of the world have found it simpler to "blow off" the US market and sell to the rest of the world, rather that fund another court case. A classic example of the "chilling effect", in action...

You're certainly right about the makers of BluRay recorders not entering the US market, but I'm not so sure about your point about the right to time-shift being unable to be exercised. Most US TV programmes are transmitted with "record once" DRM, which means that they can be recorded on hard disk recorders (ie TiVo-style devices). That allows them to be watched with time-shifting (in accordance with the Betamax decision), but the hard disk recording can't then be copied to any other medium (eg DVD or BluRay) for permanent storage. That seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation of the Betamax decision.

[calvin-c]

Originally Posted by ApK

Do we want to be a society where we pass and live under bad laws, flaunting them, ignoring them or enforcing them at capricious whim?

I think we need to change society first. A classic case can be found in race discrimination-a cop stopped a car with blacks for an infraction but ignored a car with whites that had the same infraction. The cop's reason? "I didn't notice the other car." That could be true-but in this case (as I recall) the cop had a lengthy history of 'not noticing' infractions by whites.

It's worse when the law explicitly leaves it to enforcers judgment when and against whom to enforce the law but the result is the same-we can't change the fact that laws will be enforced at capricious whim until society changes. Until then all we can do is try to get rid of laws that appear to be 'bad'.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're certainly right about the makers of BluRay recorders not entering the US market, but I'm not so sure about your point about the right to time-shift being unable to be exercised. Most US TV programmes are transmitted with "record once" DRM, which means that they can be recorded on hard disk recorders (ie TiVo-style devices). That allows them to be watched with time-shifting (in accordance with the Betamax decision), but the hard disk recording can't then be copied to any other medium (eg DVD or BluRay) for permanent storage. That seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation of the Betamax decision.

But that is restricting recording to only one type of device. (DVR) The same flag could be incorporated in a BLU-RAY recorder. The BETAMAX decision was hardware neutral...

[shalym]

Originally Posted by HarryT

You're certainly right about the makers of BluRay recorders not entering the US market, but I'm not so sure about your point about the right to time-shift being unable to be exercised. Most US TV programmes are transmitted with "record once" DRM, which means that they can be recorded on hard disk recorders (ie TiVo-style devices). That allows them to be watched with time-shifting (in accordance with the Betamax decision), but the hard disk recording can't then be copied to any other medium (eg DVD or BluRay) for permanent storage. That seems like a pretty reasonable interpretation of the Betamax decision.

Why do you think that a Tivo recording can't be copied? I can copy a Tivo recording to my computer, and convert it to .mp4 format and put it on my tablet to watch it later. All perfectly legal, and done with software that I got with my Tivo. My Tivo box also has the option to send it directly to VCR or DVDr directly from the Tivo device.

Shari