U.S. Govt joins piracy fight

[thename]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Wasn't there a case a year or two ago when the company that makes the "Real Player" software was forced to withdraw from sale a DVD "backup" program, on the grounds that it infringed copyright? ISTR in that case that the court ruled that there was no "right" to make a backup copy of a DVD. Would that not also apply to a CD?

There was indeed and you sum it up correctly.

Technically the barrier to backing up a DVD is that one must circumvent the CSS encryption on most DVDs to do so. Others are correct, however, in that the RIAA has largely given up on litigating against those who rip CDs and no real legal definition of the practice's standing is extant.

[thename]

Originally Posted by CyGuy

If that is the case, then DRM (or any kind of encryption) on media that is available for purchase to the general population should be illegal.

I know for a fact that it is the case and agree that we should avoid DRM and definitely should lobby for a DMCA re-write or, at the very least, an exception for DRM-aided-device locking.

Because, as you suggest, it "doesn't add up" in a world of fair use. Alas, nobody ever accused the DMCA of being written according to any calculus other than that of its media-mogul lobbyist backers' profit streams.

We, as normal humans, believe ripping a CD to our computer and copying it to an iPod is fair use. The RIAA believes that this enables listening to it in two places at once (you're out listening and a housemate is home listening) which should (to them) require the purchase of 2 copies. Your copying to allow this, then, connotes "stealing 1 copy." The DMCA (having been largely authored by these folks) largely agrees and definitely agrees if said content is laden with DRM.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by thename

There was indeed and you sum it up correctly.

Technically the barrier to backing up a DVD is that one must circumvent the CSS encryption on most DVDs to do so. Others are correct, however, in that the RIAA has largely given up on litigating against those who rip CDs and no real legal definition of the practice's standing is extant.

Thank you for the link. I see that the illegality here was the DRM circumvention, not a copyright infringement. That obviously doesn't include CDs.

[vaughnmr]

The best illustration of the insanity of it all was when G.W. Bush (former President of the USA) showed off his mp3 player that he used while jogging, filled full of his homemade ripped mp3 tracks off his CD's he had bought. Up to that point the RIAA was arguing hard that ripping tracks off your own CD was illegal, it was ok after that. We don't want to fine the Pres several mil bucks, do we!

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Wasn't there a case a year or two ago when the company that makes the "Real Player" software was forced to withdraw from sale a DVD "backup" program, on the grounds that it infringed copyright? ISTR in that case that the court ruled that there was no "right" to make a backup copy of a DVD. Would that not also apply to a CD?

I don't know the details, but that was most likely a DMCA case of Real Player distributing tools to circumvent copy protection. That's different from a fair use copyright case.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by thename

Seems the judge and jury didn't disagree enough to overthrow the "availability is piracy" suggestion.

Availability is piracy (aka making available) has nothing to do with ripping your own CD being fair use.

So while I appreciate your "RIAA[/MPAA] says but nobody else agrees" sentiment, the DMCA--as written--disagrees and our fair use suffers.

CDs are not covered under the DMCA.

If you want to talk about the MPAA and DVDs, that is a completely different discussion.

[CyGuy]

Patel said the RealDVD software violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 that prohibits the circumvention of encryption technology. DVDs are encrypted with what is known as the Content Scramble System, and DVD players must secure a license to play discs. RealDVD, she ruled, circumvents technology designed to prevent copying.

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?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by thename

We, as normal humans, believe ripping a CD to our computer and copying it to an iPod is fair use. The RIAA believes that this enables listening to it in two places at once (you're out listening and a housemate is home listening) which should (to them) require the purchase of 2 copies. Your copying to allow this, then, connotes "stealing 1 copy." The DMCA (having been largely authored by these folks) largely agrees and definitely agrees if said content is laden with DRM.

You're mixing things together that are separate. Ripping CDs has nothing to do with the DMCA or DRM. Therefore your scenario above doesn't exist.

As far as the RIAA claiming that copying CDs for personal use is illegal, the RIAA has long since reversed their position on that. You're talking about claims they were making back in 2007.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Thank you for the link. I see that the illegality here was the DRM circumvention, not a copyright infringement. That obviously doesn't include CDs.

Exactly.

[Shaggy]

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?

Doing it yourself versus a 3rd party distributing tools that allow you to do it are different things under the DMCA.

But you are basically correct, the "analog hole" still exists. That's why the copyright owners are trying to eliminate it with things like HDMI, etc.

[BooksForABuck]

Patents and Copyright are Federal issues. Shoplifting is a state or local issue. That's the way the American Constitution was written. And yes, if Wal-Mart calls the local police, sure enough the police come and pick up those shoplifters even though you could (and people do) make the case that it's the government protecting the rich.

I confess I share the nervousness I see on this loop when I see the government wanting to "help me" but I don't think reflexive attacks or naive appeals to libertarianism are the right approach. Then again, I'm in the business of creating intellectual value and I don't believe I should have to arm myself with a rifle and personally protect my copyright.

Rob Preece
Publisher, BooksForABuck.com

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

I can sleep better at night now. Our Attorney General is pulling out all the stops to protect us from the threat of terrorism and.... er....never mind....

I do not see it as the Federal Governments job to protect the intellectual rights of corporations. If is is, then why don't they have Federal Marshals at Wal-mart tracking down shop lifters?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by BooksForABuck

Patents and Copyright are Federal issues. Shoplifting is a state or local issue.

Yes, but the real story here is if the Feds are going to get into the habit of investigating/prosecuting civil copyright infringement. That is supposed to be the responsibility of the individual rights holder, not the government.

There's a big difference between "RIAA vs Joe citizen" and "The People vs Joe citizen". The second is only supposed to happen in criminal trials.

[thename]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You're mixing things together that are separate. Ripping CDs has nothing to do with the DMCA or DRM. Therefore your scenario above doesn't exist.

As far as the RIAA claiming that copying CDs for personal use is illegal, the RIAA has long since reversed their position on that. You're talking about claims they were making back in 2007.

You're suggesting that the claims in 2007 have a fundamental difference from the claims they make today which, I would argue, they do not. All of the claims made are violations of our perceived right to fair use and play freely on the lack of a cogent, legal definition of said right it's simply a difference of the media in question.

As for the situation in question I'd offer the Sony rootkit example as evidence it did happen:

1. note CD-ripping is implicitly condoned
2. note DMCA prohibits circumventing DRM
3. add DRM to CDs
4. Profit!
5. Get an enormous black eye

I agree CDs and DVDs are indeed separate under the DMCA. But the DMCA was written to clear difficulties interpreting these very issues. The MPAA went "whoa, look what happened to CDs ... what're we gonna do to make sure it doesn't happen to DVDs?" Result? Their lobbyists virtually wrote the DMCA.

So separate under DMCA? Yep. Separate as far as attempting to remove fair use rights? Nope.

[Greg Anos]

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?

This is a bit complex under US law, so I will explain. 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. Removal of the Macrovision encoding, falls under the DCMA rules. Now, many players are sold in world-wide markets with different laws and different consumer demands. So there is often a hidden control menu allowing things like region code, Macrovision encoding flag, PAL/NTSC/SECAM output to be varied from lot to lot depending on the market being shipped to. Such models used to be in demand as "hackable" machines, mainly to remove region code restriction. This is illegal, but the odds of being prosecuted are nil. (A test case of region restriction versus the US constitutional rights to freedom of speech would make an interesting case law, and the MPAA has made certain that they are involved in no such cases )

If you reset your DVD player, assuming it is capable of being reset, to remove your Macrovision flag, then you could record from your analog outlets. Of course, if you want a digital copy of the recording, you would have to re-encode the analog signal, causing a gen loss in the resulting copy. It would be digital thereafter.

HD signals use HDMI by US law, which remains encrypted through out the signal path until the final decryption inside the television itself. There is an analog hole possible there, which is also illegal, but I'm tired of discussing a noxious subject....

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by thename

You're suggesting that the claims in 2007 have a fundamental difference from the claims they make today

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

As for the situation in question I'd offer the Sony rootkit example as evidence it did happen:

If you're using that to show the RIAA is attempting to stop CD ripping by trying to push DRM on top of a CD, that example has the same problem. It happened back in 2007. I don't believe Sony does that anymore.

I agree CDs and DVDs are indeed separate under the DMCA.

More specifically, CDs are not under the DMCA.

But the DMCA was written to clear difficulties interpreting these very issues.

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.