A bill to fix America's most dangerous computer law

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Barcey

1) If you've paid a monthly fee for access to the Netflix content why is it any different than broadcast TV where personal recording and time shifting is allowed? Not everyone has internet access everywhere they go. Trains, planes, automobiles, camping etc... I can understand why cable cutters feel they should be able to PVR streamed video just like broadcast video.

Because netflix video is already "pvr'ed" for on-demand viewing, for one.
Because netflix is an ad-free contract service, not a common carrier. Netflix has contractual obligations and so does the viewer.
Because netflix streaming business is about competing with cable, which is online only, and not with offline rentals like iTunes, XBOX video, or Vudu.
They have never allowed it and if they did all their content would be taken away.

If you want offline viewing, get season passes at XBOX or Amazon. They both allow offline viewing on TVs, PCs, phones, and what not.

As for folks without "broadband everywhere", they first need to articulate how making free and permanent copies of netflix video serves the common good. All I hear is the usual "I wanna" entitlement-speak, not a significant social need. "Everywhere" access to Netflix content is hardly a human right or a social ill.

So some folks want to pretend netflix is in a different business than they really are? Well, I want to win the lotto without playing.
We'll both be equally disappointed.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

No. It is not.
It is being done today all over *without* breaking DRM.
I'm not the only one reading Kindle books on the same device as Nook epubs or as Apple iBooks for those that lean that way.
There might even be more people doing that than reading on eink devices.

If the goal is one-stop reading instead of an Anti-DRM crusade there is no need for a new law.
Now, if the goal is being able to move licensed ebook across walled gardens, and probably put the rest of Amazon's competition out of the ebook retail business...


As I said, poor choice of justification.

Any law that attacks DRM has to allow for secure loans and rentls or it won't make it out of committee.

How do you interpret this as a law that "attacks DRM"? It still allows DRM to be used for rentals and library loans, it just clarifies that DRM is not a trump card that makes non infringing uses illegal.

[Barcey]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Because netflix video is already "pvr'ed" for on-demand viewing, for one.
Because netflix is an ad-free contract service, not a common carrier. Netflix has contractual obligations and so does the viewer.
Because netflix streaming business is about competing with cable, which is online only, and not with offline rentals like iTunes, XBOX video, or Vudu.
They have never allowed it and if they did all their content would be taken away.

If you want offline viewing, get season passes at XBOX or Amazon. They both allow offline viewing on TVs, PCs, phones, and what not.

As for folks without "broadband everywhere", they first need to articulate how making free and permanent copies of netflix video serves the common good. All I hear is the usual "I wanna" entitlement-speak, not a significant social need. "Everywhere" access to Netflix content is hardly a human right or a social ill.

So some folks want to pretend netflix is in a different business than they really are? Well, I want to win the lotto without playing.
We'll both be equally disappointed.

A lot of the arguments you're making are the same that the broadcasters used when they argued that VCR's and PVR's had to be illegal. I don't believe that they were correct at the time and I don't believe in your absolutes. You have your opinions and others have theirs. The point is that the decision on what is or isn't allowed shouldn't be a unilateral decision made by party deploying DRM. If it's ruled a fair exemptions, it's a fair exemption.

For what it's worth, I don't feel strongly that a PVR for Netflix is a fair exemption. I just understand the viewpoint that it should be. Their payment model is a monthly fee and it's not a pay per view so I understand why people view it as equivalent to their cable service.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Barcey

For what it's worth, I don't feel strongly that a PVR for Netflix is a fair exemption. I just understand the viewpoint that it should be. Their payment model is a monthly fee and it's not a pay per view so I understand why people view it as equivalent to their cable service.

Recording either Netflix or a cable service would surely grant you access to the material after you'd terminated your contact, would it not? What would be to stop someone from buying a month's worth of Netflix, recording everything, and then spending the next year watching it?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Recording either Netflix or a cable service would surely grant you access to the material after you'd terminated your contact, would it not? What would be to stop someone from buying a month's worth of Netflix, recording everything, and then spending the next year watching it?

Nothing.
Worse, the automated tools are commercially available and cheap.
And Netflix offers a free monthly trial.

That is 720 hours that can be ripped for free right now, law or no law.
Make it legal and the Napster wars will be but a skirmish.

This, in a sector where pirates release content *before* it gets to legal channels.

Netflix offers a good service at a good price, they make decent but not Apple/Google money, and 42million customers are happy.

It ain't broke, it doesn't need fixing, and Congress is not going to mess with it. Not with 42Million voters at stake.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by meeera

Ah, spoken like someone with reliable, uninterrupted internet access ... :/

But I do have to agree with the Netflix argument as being crap. If that's one of the arguments being use to get this bill passed, than this bill is going to fail. Netflix was never meant to have the streaming content stolen. It's meant to be streamed and it's meant not to be copied. When you use Netflix, there is NO buy link anyplace. The button is labeled WATCH which is what you do.

The combining of eBooks from different sources is also a poor reason for this bill to pass. Hardly anyone merges eBooks.

Use the only reason(s) for this bill so when you buy an eBook (because the links say you are buying), then you can strip the DRM and be able to keep the copy of the eBook you've bought. You don't have to rely on your computer, the DRM server(s), or what device/app/program you have to read with. You can do what you need/want to be able to read your eBooks the way you want. Also, there is Fair Use which is what was in place before DMCA. So another thing this bill does is make it so there won't have to be any court cases to decide on the issue of removing DRM.

Another reason to break DRM is because you cannot use what you bought on the hardware you have. Let's say you bought a blu-ray disc and you want to watch the movie on your laptop or tablet while on vacation but you do not have a blu-ray player. You remove the DRM on your desktop that has a blu-ray player and copy the movie to your portable device.

But please don't use stupid arguments like merging eBooks or hacking Netflix.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by Barcey

A lot of the arguments you're making are the same that the broadcasters used when they argued that VCR's and PVR's had to be illegal. I don't believe that they were correct at the time and I don't believe in your absolutes. You have your opinions and others have theirs. The point is that the decision on what is or isn't allowed shouldn't be a unilateral decision made by party deploying DRM. If it's ruled a fair exemptions, it's a fair exemption.

For what it's worth, I don't feel strongly that a PVR for Netflix is a fair exemption. I just understand the viewpoint that it should be. Their payment model is a monthly fee and it's not a pay per view so I understand why people view it as equivalent to their cable service.

But the cable service is ad supported.
(And the content owners have *won* a lot of their battles over how time and place shifting can be done. Remember Aereo?)

And you do realize that a lot of cable is drm'ed and expires even when PVR'ed, right? That digital cable HD can't be pvr'ed outside the cableco boxes?
More, cable isn't viewable everywhere. It is tethered and they charge extra for viewing in different rooms. Netflix lets you roam and watch anywhere there is broadband.

They're trying to force Netflix to do something cable can't do by comparing it to cable. That is not going go pass muster.
Easy win for the "bad" guys.

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by drjenkins

Yes, that is why I said "it should not be illegal" because in reality it is illegal. That is what the bill intends to correct.

Here's a pertinent article for ebook DRM:

U.S. Copyright Office Publishes Final Rules With DMCA Exemptions/

This is a good thing because it means we can strip the DRM because the DRM gets in the way of accessibility and we don't have to have just one version accessible to not be able to strip the DRM.

Update: One reader pointed out that I should have read more carefully. The exceptions for disabled readers is actually broader than before. A couple restrictive clauses were removed. For example, the exception used to state that all versions of a title must have the accessibility features disabled. Now someone can strip the DRM of a legally purchased Nook ebook just because that is the one they own. It doesn't matter if the other formats are accessible.

But, there is still Fair Use and it's quite possible that if a case of DRM removal goes in front of a Judge, it will be ruled in favor of DRM stripping. There is a precedence in place to rule in favor of DRM removal. When the eBook Locked In by John Scalzi was released, it wasn't properly released without DRM at all stores. Both Scalzi and Tor (the publisher) said it was allowed to remove the DRM. Scalzi even posted a link to where to get the DRM removal tools on his blog. So in this case, both the author and publisher said it was allowable to remove the DRM and linked to the tools. The rights holders of Locked In said go and remove the DRM. So that then gives the tools legitimacy.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

Another reason to break DRM is because you cannot use what you bought on the hardware you have. Let's say you bought a blu-ray disc and you want to watch the movie on your laptop or tablet while on vacation but you do not have a blu-ray player. You remove the DRM on your desktop that has a blu-ray player and copy the movie to your portable device.

And even there the studios offer ULTRAVIOLET files bundled in with a lot of (most?) new releases. You enter the code and get a free downloadable digital version of the movie. All perfectly legal but only doable via DRM.

As long as content providers make reasonable provisions for the most common usage models there is not going to be enough outcry to outlaw DRM.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

This is a good thing because it means we can strip the DRM because the DRM gets in the way of accessibility and we don't have to have just one version accessible to not be able to strip the DRM.

Despite your opinions to the contrary, Jon, the majority view is that the exemption that allows disabled people to remove DRM when no "accessible" version of a work is available applies only to disabled people, not to everyone.

[crossi]

There is nothing in that ammendment that forbids DRM or makes it legal to copy library books. It just says if you BUY an ebook you can use it on any reader (note I said reader not tablet with multiple applications) that you own. It would still be illegal to distribute the de-DRM'd ebook or to remove the DRM from a library book. It doesn't say libraries can't use DRM. It doesn't say publishers can't use DRM.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

And you do realize that a lot of cable is drm'ed and expires even when PVR'ed, right? That digital cable HD can't be pvr'ed outside the cableco boxes?

That isn't true. The FCC has specifically ruled that third party DVRs must be allowed via the cable card standard. My TiVo's work just fine, and nothing on them ever expires.

The amendments to the DMCA aren't going to change copyright law. They just are going to prohibit making otherwise non-infringing uses legal just because they require breaking encryption.

The examples cited are dumb, but here is a simpler example: I bought a DVD. What is the principled reason why I should not be able, for my own use and not to share or upload, to 1) make a backup of the DVD, 2) transfer it to a device so I can watch it without the actual disc, such as a phone or computer?

None of that would be illegal under copyright law. I can legally do these precise things with audio CDs, which lack encryption. It's only illegal because of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Why shouldn't I be able to do that? "Because other people might abuse it" is not really a good answer.

[pwalker8]

Originally Posted by whitearrow

That isn't true. The FCC has specifically ruled that third party DVRs must be allowed via the cable card standard. My TiVo's work just fine, and nothing on them ever expires.

The amendments to the DMCA aren't going to change copyright law. They just are going to prohibit making otherwise non-infringing uses legal just because they require breaking encryption.

The examples cited are dumb, but here is a simpler example: I bought a DVD. What is the principled reason why I should not be able, for my own use and not to share or upload, to 1) make a backup of the DVD, 2) transfer it to a device so I can watch it without the actual disc, such as a phone or computer?

None of that would be illegal under copyright law. I can legally do these precise things with audio CDs, which lack encryption. It's only illegal because of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA. Why shouldn't I be able to do that? "Because other people might abuse it" is not really a good answer.

The most obvious example is the ability to backup and enjoy content that you have purchased even if you are off-line, or if the original store goes belly up. Example, if you purchase a movie from iTunes, and you download the movie to your computer, you still can't watch it if your computer/AppleTV is offline since Apple's DRM require authorization each time you access the movie.

When Sony closed down their ebook store, you would be out of luck if one of the ebooks you purchased wasn't transferred to Kudo (which several of mine were not) and you replaced your authorized device.

Frankly, I can't think of a legitimate rational for not allowing people to remove DRM from content they have lawfully purchased. It's simply a method of locking down devices so content providers can control exactly how you use the content. Remember that Disney's CEO famously declared that people who didn't watch commercials when watching a show owned by Disney were stealing.

There are two views in this world. Some people believe that anything that is not expressly forbidden is allowed. Others believe that anything that is not expressly permitted is forbidden. I object to playing "mother may I" every time I want to read a book or watch a movie.

[whitearrow]

Originally Posted by pwalker8

There are two views in this world. Some people believe that anything that is not expressly forbidden is allowed.

This is how laws, particularly criminal laws, generally work -- they specify what is illegal, not what is permitted.

[SteveEisenberg]

Originally Posted by HarryT

This bill stands how much chance of making it into law?

Little at this point.

Both sponsors are from the minority party in the US Congress.

If it was going to pass, I would expect to see a bunch of Republicans quickly jump on as co-sponsors. Googling failed to find any of that.