Coppyright: Brazil's Approach on Anti-Circumvention: Penalties For Hindering Fair Dea

[Iphinome]

title was cut off, should say fair dealing.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5180/125/

Not only does the proposal permit circumvention for fair dealing and public domain purposes, but it establishes equivalent penalties for hindering or preventing the users from exercising their fair dealing rights. In other words, the Brazilian proposals recognizes what the Supreme Court of Canada stated several years ago - over-protection is just as harmful as under-protection.

[wallcraft]

Also, at Ars Technica, see US could learn from Brazilian penalty for hindering fair use:

A moment's thought reminds us that most DRM schemes will eventually run afoul the above provisions, since they apply in perpetuity. That DRMed music file will still be DRMed even after the song has fallen into the public domain.

So Brazil wants to ensure that DRM "has time-limited effects that correspond to the period of the economic rights over the work, performance, phonogram or broadcast." Once copyright has expired, DRM should, too.

I can't think of any current DRM scheme that allows for copyright expiration. As a practical matter, such a DRM scheme could likely be circumvented by changing the date on your computer.

As if that's not enough, Brazil says that DRM can be bypassed in order to make any "fair" use of the work or in cases where the copyright has expired but the DRM has not.

I have argued that even the DMCA in the US probably allows DRM circumvention for fair use by individuals, but this has never been tested in court and the US law certainly does not say this explicitly.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by wallcraft

I can't think of any current DRM scheme that allows for copyright expiration. As a practical matter, such a DRM scheme could likely be circumvented by changing the date on your computer.

I'm pretty sure the people pushing this stuff are against any copyright expiring ever.

[nashira]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I'm pretty sure the people pushing this stuff are against any copyright expiring ever.

Which I personally find disturbing. PD is your friend!

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by nashira

Which I personally find disturbing. PD is your friend!

Not just my friend but yours too! Public domain has enough love for everyone in the world and everyone who will ever be in the world. We can only hope to be worth of that love.

[nashira]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

Not just my friend but yours too! Public domain has enough love for everyone in the world and everyone who will ever be in the world. We can only hope to be worth of that love.

Definitely. Though a disturbing amount of people don't even know what Public Domain is, nevermind why it's a good idea.

[sabredog]

A great and sensible decision from the Brazilian court system.

The publishing cartels simply do not live in or even understand the digital age. Over protectionism in the form of geographic restrictions and DRM is driving people to piracy. They thus have NOTHING to complain about.

Evolve or die out.

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by sabredog

A great and sensible decision from the Brazilian court system.

The publishing cartels simply do not live in or even understand the digital age. Over protectionism in the form of geographic restrictions and DRM is driving people to piracy. They thus have NOTHING to complain about.

Evolve or die out.

I'd bet against evolving, this is the same industry that in the US called used bookstores pirates until congress wrote the first sale doctrine (which is common sense) into law.

[nashira]

Originally Posted by Iphinome

I'd bet against evolving, this is the same industry that in the US called used bookstores pirates until congress wrote the first sale doctrine (which is common sense) into law.

...Ugh, seriously?

[Logseman]

Actually, Sonny [Bono] wanted the term of copyright protection to last forever. I am informed by staff that such a change would violate the Constitution. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_B...on_Act#Support

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by nashira

...Ugh, seriously?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-M..._Co._v._Straus the caseis about a retail store selling at a discount but the publishing industry claimed anyone selling a lawful copy for less than the MSRP was violating copyright.

[sabredog]

Originally Posted by Logseman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_B...on_Act#Support

Crikey

What a stupid request. It is bad enough Disney changed copyright law to keep their monopoly.

[nashira]

Originally Posted by Logseman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_B...on_Act#Support

Originally Posted by Iphinome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobbs-M..._Co._v._Straus the caseis about a retail store selling at a discount but the publishing industry claimed anyone selling a lawful copy for less than the MSRP was violating copyright.

...it's official. The way some people think re:copyright scares me more than all the horror movies/books/real life serial killer books I've read combined.

Edit: Also. Immortal companies aside, HOW do people think forever copyright will benefit them?!

[sabredog]

Scary but truly mind boggling stuff all told.

This just confirms, at least to my mind that publishing companies are truly pre-Cambrian in their thinking and need to control anachronistic distribution models!

[Iphinome]

Originally Posted by nashira

...it's official. The way some people think re:copyright scares me more than all the horror movies/books/real life serial killer books I've read combined.

Edit: Also. Immortal companies aside, HOW do people think forever copyright will benefit them?!

It's an an odd attitude but it goes something like this...

A copyright is just like a tangible object, if I make something I can keep it forever and pass it on to others. it is mine mine mine forever and a day.

Wait copyright isn't like a tangible object, the idea is mine mine mine no one can make copies the same way they make their own bookcase that looks exactly like mine. If they want it they must buy it from meeeeeeeeeeeee.

Also copyright is not like a tangible item because no one may ever use it in a way not approved of by meeeeeeeee. Even if you buy it is it not yours, it's never yours, MINE! You may not change the caption on my cartoon. You may not sell your copy since I sold it to you, someone else will have to buy it only from me. You may not show it to your friends, you may not use clips to make an anime music video, you may not even show it to your friends, they have to pay me because it's mine mine mine.

You may not create on your own anything that references what is mine forever. No sequels, no fan art. you may not write a song about my movie. You may not host a round table discussion with Bilbo, Harry Potter, Luke Skywalker and anyone else who had to take the hero's journey moderated by $wise_old_guy. You must never ever write any fanfic even though there's about zero chance it would ever cut into my sales.

I must be able to keep forever anything that could possibly turn me a profit of one penny because if you don't you're a communist and anything that can't turn a profit has no right to exist because copyright only exists to make money for meeeeeeeee. It never could have any other reason that would be absurd. Why would anyone pass a law for any reason but my personal benefit? Who are these the people you speak of? What are you a commie?

I worked hard, you should pay me, you have to pay me, I don't care if you're not interested. I don't care if my price is too high even if you were interested. I deserve money give it to me now.

Fine shut up you're nothing but a thief anyway, people like you are what's wrong with the world. I hope you go to jail forever it's what you deserve. How dare you suggest that what's mine ever be not mine. MINE MINE MINE.

I hope that sums up the case for hypocritical eternal oppressive copyright.

*Andy Kauffman foreign guy voice* Thank you very much.