U.S. Govt joins piracy fight

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

HD signals use HDMI by US law

I'm pretty sure you mean "by industry standard" not "by US law". Otherwise component cables would be illegal, which they obviously are not.

[vaughnmr]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

So, when I purchase a DVD player, I have in fact purchased a license to play the DVD by descrambling the contents on the media. If I output my DVD player to my VCR and hit “record”, I am not circumventing CSS, correct?

I don't know how you did it, but that wasn't my quote. I was talking about G.W. Bush. The quote you inserted was not done by me, and now I'm starting to get a little concerned...

[thename]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

What claims they make today? Do you have sources for the RIAA making current claims that ripping CDs is illegal?

For two people who seem to agree on the fundamentals of what consumers deserve and can expect we seem awfully unable to agree on why we cannot have said fundamentals.

The fact that the RIAA has given up on CD ripping doesn't mean they changed their mind, just that they decided it wasn't worth pursuing (a feeling with which I can now accutely sympathize). Similarly, the fact that they did but don't seems trivial and limited; relying on the "well, they haven't done it lately" to confer rights doesn't pass the sniff test.

The DMCA was written to create difficulties interpreting these issues. Fair use exists under copyright, the DMCA tries to eliminate it. That's not clarity.

Agreed after a fashion. DMCA was written by lobbyists for media groups who saw troubling issues in courts' decisions vis-a-vis copyright and fair use. It attempts to "clarify" the issues in their favor. Its dissembling as to existing fair use rights is secondary.

My end all point? We need to lobby for changes to copyright law as a whole not pretend it's all OK simply because we can get away with it. That's my piece and I'll now quietly drag my dead horse out of this arena.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

The DVD player, under the legal functions allowed in the US, does not produce a recordable signal on the analog outputs (or digital ones for that matter). The analog out is Macrovision encoded.

Based on industry standards and licensing contracts between movie studios and player manufacturers, not based on US laws.

[Daithi]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

Has anyone wondered if elevators smell different to midgets?

Don't poke fun at midgets, and the quoting system works just fine.

[Greg Anos]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I'm pretty sure you mean "by industry standard" not "by US law". Otherwise component cables would be illegal, which they obviously are not.

I meant what I said. (I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain!) HD signals, as opposed to standard definition signals, are not allow to be carried via component signals for any equipment made after either 2004 or 2005, (I forget which), but only by HDMI cables thereafter. Equipment made before then could use component cable to transfer HD signals.

(This is a perennial pain in the backside for me, personally. I run a Mitsubishi 46 inch HDTV built in 2000. There was no HDMI then. Therefore, I can't use any "upconverting" DVD players to upconvert the signal, because the US law doesn't allow then to output via component cables, only HDMI, which my TV doesn't have. And I refuse to scrap a perfectly good, working HDTV with a nice picture, that cost me $3,000....)

Yes, there are DVD players with "hack codes" to allow component upconverted signals, but they are much fewer and farther between.

BlueRay is it's own animal....

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by thename

The fact that the RIAA has given up on CD ripping doesn't mean they changed their mind, just that they decided it wasn't worth pursuing

No, they actually released public statements saying that they don't believe CD ripping is illegal. It's not that they just stopped claiming it in court, they came out and basically said "we were wrong". The second half of the following quote is in reference to the case you linked to earlier.

Speaking to NPR, RIAA president Cary Sherman flatly said "the story is just wrong." Sherman went on to say that the RIAA hasn't ever prosecuted anyone for ripping or copying for personal use, and that the only issue in the Jeffrey Howell case was -- as always -- sharing files on Kazaa. Perhaps most interestingly, Sherman directly addressed the "ripping is just a nice way of saying 'steals one copy'" comment made by Sony BMG's anti-piracy counsel in the Jammie Thomas case, saying that the attorney "misspoke," and that neither Sony BMG or the RIAA agreed with that position.

[thename]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It's not that they just stopped claiming it in court, they came out and basically said "we were wrong".

As was I. I'll stand by the rest of my arguments.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I meant what I said. (I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain!) HD signals, as opposed to standard definition signals, are not allow to be carried via component signals for any equipment made after either 2004 or 2005, (I forget which), but only by HDMI cables thereafter. Equipment made before then could use component cable to transfer HD signals.

I have never heard of such a law. My PS3 (2007) allows component cables for the HD signal.

[CyGuy]

Originally Posted by vaughnmr

I don't know how you did it, but that wasn't my quote. I was talking about G.W. Bush. The quote you inserted was not done by me, and now I'm starting to get a little concerned...

That was my mistake! I have edited the post. Sorry about that.

[thename]

Originally Posted by Ralph Sir Edward

I meant what I said. (I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain!) HD signals, as opposed to standard definition signals, are not allow to be carried via component signals for any equipment made after either 2004 or 2005, (I forget which), but only by HDMI cables thereafter. Equipment made before then could use component cable to transfer HD signals.

It's not actually law just a license requirement for future Blu-Ray players, Windows monitors, and many upconverting devices so TV makers don't have to stick analog converters in their screens. Most of this effort is to finally kill off the much-hated analog hole.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by thename

It's not actually law just a license requirement for future Blu-Ray players, Windows monitors, and many upconverting devices so TV makers don't have to stick analog converters in their screens. Most of this effort is to finally kill off the much-hated analog hole.

Yep, industry standards and licensing, not US law.

[thename]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

Yep, industry standards and licensing, not US law.

Note that these still establish norms that are enforceable under US law (e.g., agreeing to Kindle's ToS--which are only industry standards and licensing issues--means you can have issues with copyright infringement due to transferring the files to non-licensed devices despite your best guess that such a transfer should be covered under fair use) and it's easy to see why people might miss the distinction.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by thename

Note that these still establish norms that are enforceable under US law (e.g., agreeing to Kindle's ToS--which are only industry standards and licensing issues--means you can have issues with copyright infringement due to transferring the files to non-licensed devices despite your best guess that such a transfer should be covered under fair use) and it's easy to see why people might miss the distinction.

No, if you break the Kindle's ToS then it is a contract dispute between you and Amazon. If copyright says what you did is fair use, but the ToS says you can't do it, then you're not violating copyright law. That is not an example of copyright infringement.

It's also highly questionable whether Amazon can take away fair use rights in a contract clause.

[thename]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, if you break the Kindle's ToS then it is a contract dispute between you and Amazon. If copyright says what you did is fair use, but the ToS says you can't do it, then you're not violating copyright law. That is not an example of copyright infringement.

It's also highly questionable whether Amazon can take away fair use rights in a contract clause.

Once again, we agree fundamentally but differ in the belief that the laws are currently structured as such e.g., EULA violation leading to copyright infringement. I don't think it's a huge leap to read the Kindle ToS (stating that you only own a license to the work, not the work itself) in light of that decision to reach that conclusion.