MPAA Sues Firm For Loading Legally Owned DVDs Onto iPods
from the come-again? dept
It really was just a few days ago that the entertainment industry folks were claiming that it was the consumer electronics industry that was trying to pervert "fair use," right? Somehow, it seems like it's the entertainment industry that's the one pushing the boundaries. Almost exactly a year ago, we had a post about a new service that would sell you a video iPod and DVDs... and would load the video from the DVDs onto the iPod (and then ship you both the iPod and the DVD). This should be perfectly legal. After all, the owner has legally purchased both the iPod and the DVD, and the company is simply making the process easier by transferring the video to the iPod as well -- and it's well established that you can make a personal backup of content you have legally purchased. However, knowing how the industry views fair use, Carlo titled his post "Sue Me, I Dare You" and noted in the text: "the clock's ticking on the first lawsuit." Well, it turns out the clock ticked a little longer than we expected, but it did happen eventually. The EFF is noting that the MPAA has sued a company for doing exactly this. They are, of course, claiming that ripping the DVDs is a DMCA violation, because the DVDs have copy protection, and circumventing that is against the DMCA -- even though physically copying content you own to another format is legal fair use.As the EFF notes in the post, while the MPAA is focusing on this company that does the ripping for you, the meaning is clear: they do not believe that making a personal copy of a DVD is legal -- despite all of the historical precedent set with CDs and software. The only "difference" here is that the DVD has some weak copy protection, and therefore the DMCA applies. In other words, they're not saying that it's illegal to make a copy -- because it's not. They're saying it's illegal to get around the copy protection. And, of course, they're doing this because they want to force you to buy the same content over and over and over again. And, yet, they still claim that it's folks like us who are changing the meaning of "fair use."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Maybe doing something like that would teach the companies that WE are the reason they are around and not to mistreat their customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The point is, you The Public to act as one for a boycott to be effective, and that only happens during major acts of terrorism or when the underdog on American Idle comes from nowhere and wins.
I feel the BEST way to fix this obvious problem is (dare I say it) the government. Change the laws, make it clear cut. There are so many grey areas that it's not clear who the law is trying to protect. Our laws don't appear to be built to deal with a digital world, and that's why you see lawsuit after lawsuit, even in cases like this, where it's clearly a big kid picking on a little kid because he can get away with it-- the rules allow it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I also have dumped my cable TV back in September as I am also sick of all the mindless reality shows and other non-interesting shows so I now read a lot more like I used to and I listen to more music that I have owned for years now.
If we did a huge boycott of RIAA and MPAA then they would in fact feel the heat.It is the oinly way to get at these shmucks who want to steal our fair use rights and they want to rip us off.We need to do what they do back to them.
BOYCOTT is the answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Argh!
:'-(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Crazy Idea
If, and this is a very big if, this court decided this is the case, then perhaps all of the United States should join in a class action lawsuit against the RIAA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Crazy Idea
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahem
So yes , copying something that is specifically designed to not be copied , is illegal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem
So yes , copying something that is specifically designed to not be copied , is illegal."
Just becuase they don't "WANT" it copied doesn't make it illegal. However, that being said, I am not a lawyer nor claim to be one on TV so I cannot tell you if it is or isn't illegal, just thought that I'd point out not wanting something done doesn't make it illegal to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem
uh ...
ugh! ... just forget it ...
*sighs*
*shakes head*
*pulls out hair*
*vomits blood*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem
You are plain wrong.
The supreme court has ruled, in the 1984 Sony Betamax case, that making copies of purchased content by the purchaser is fair use. However the DMCA modified the law that the Sony decision was based upon and now new interpretations are constantly being handed down but judges. This will eventually go back to the supreme court and they will once again rule that regardless of the format, type or content of the media it is fair use to make a copy for the use of the purchaser.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem
what do you think it means?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ahem
Are you some kind of Rep for the Industry of Nazi'ism.
I buy a DVD for way to much money and through accident or bad pressing My DVD wont work anymore.
If I can make a copy and shelve the original so it dost get so hot that it somehow breaks or gets scratched from my kids handling it how is that illegal, THATS WHAT FAIR USE IS ABOUT.
If I choose to watch my property on a different device than a DVD player thats not illegal either, ITS MY PROPERTY.
You represent all that is wrong with the World, ALL THE GREED and NAZI'ISM THAT IS RAMPANT RIGHT NOW.
Laws were made to protect consumers from Nazis like you.
You are a greed Nazi!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use and Copy Protection
These guys are just working overtime to keep absolute control over their artists and their customers. This is another example of the dumbing down of America. People don't even realize they are losing their freedom to these greedy corporations
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use and Copy Protection
Well, not only are the assertions in the article silly, but your comments (along with many of the yes-men in this thread) are silly. Of course these guys should be sued. They have NO RIGHT to create a derivative work and then sell it as a service. Point... if Disney releases CARS with an iPod movie on it, I think it would be fair to say that the company "Load 'n Go" could copy that onto yoru iPod for you as part of the sale, provided they deliver the DVD to you OPENED (in such a state that the copy could have been made from the included DVD).
However, to say that the company has every right to take the DVD, translate it into another format, and sell you that format along with your iPod is rubbish. If an art store sold a poster, and made a small wallet-sized reproduction of the poster, and called it "fair use", they'd also be wrong.
If Amazon.com decided to allow digital downloads of all the books it has for sale in PDF format so that you could read it the moment you bought it... and they did not clear this with the publishers THEY would also be wrong. Why? Because by doing this, the seller is in essence posing as the publisher, assuming an unrestricted right to create a reasonable facsimili of the product, and sell it to you at the same time. Nothing is ever really "free", its simply part of the price they can afford to ascribe to the service and still make a profit.
Let me throw two more examples out there. Plantiff A says, "Company B has deprived us of profits from products we sell by violating our copyright." Defendant B then says, "No, this is within fair use for a customer to make a personal backup." Judge asks, "So, you're asking for us to allow the customer to exercise his/her fair use rights through you as a proxy?" Defendant B, "Um, sure, that's it." Judge, "Plantiff, how are you harmed?" Plantiff A says, "The product Defendant B is giving our customers, is actually something we already sell through other avenues. If we choose to include this product (format) for FREE, it should be our choice. If we sold a DVD in Widescreen format and separately in Fullscreen format... people who purchase the widescreen edition should NOT be able to get a 'fullscreen' facimilie as part of the defendants so called service." Judge turns to the Defendant. Defendant says, "Crap. We're up shit creak, aren't we your honor?" Judge, "Afriad so."
Another example... if you coud "fair use" by proxy, BestBuy could sell "backups" for any DVD or CD you buy. So, you could get 2 copies of every movie you purchased. Of course, this would result in people giving the extra copy to a friend... just like someone who wanted their DVD movies on their iPod may pay for such a service, and be immediately able to sell the original DVDs if the 640x480 iPod versions are fine enough for them. With the upcoming iTV, such an alternative digital library is close to what many will be compiling anyway.
To review:
It's fair use for the person to do it. It's not fair use if the seller does it, because it is part of the sales process, and therefore representative of the altered form of the "product".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may finally force the courts to rule on whether the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA violate the fair use sections of the copyright act. This is something that the courts have so far avoided ruling on. It's almost comical to read the opinions of some of the major cases involving (de)css.
The courts have studiously avoided making a determination of whether the presence of DRM infringes on fair use, choosing to decide the cases on other factors.
Now, we just need to hope that the courts don't rule *against* fair use, or just punt again...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not impossible
Is it my way of making a statement? Yes and no... I refuse to pay $14.99 for a CD when the format has been around for 15 odd years. The same goes for DVDs. But I won't knock the studios for charging what they do, that's capitalism at its best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Good Thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
encoding
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
!!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
In the case of copyright law and the internet, the doctrines of “Fair Use” have not been fully explored; and I stress the word EXPLORED. Please keep in mind that fair use is a doctrine of law based on presidents set over decades of rules. The only way the “system” has of exploring this relatively unknown world is to try a bunch of cases. In the process a “pendulum” swings back and forth until it settles someplace that all parties, while not getting exactly what they want, are treated ‘fairly and just’ under the law. That precedence (body of rulings) is then used by future lawyers and judges as a basis for their rulings which in turn is used by companies and people to dictate their actions.
Right now the pendulum has swung towards the RIAA and MPAA by way of strict interpretation of the DCMA; without president that’s all a judge has to go on right now; but don’t worry, there are plenty of other folks pushing very hard in the opposite direction and making good progress (and yes, getting rich in the process).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: !!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
Dumb fuckin idiot lawyer wannabe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: !!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: !!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
That joke wasn't very funny the first time you told it and it isn't getting any better with age.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: !!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
Greedy, amoral lawyers (not the good ones, mind you) are the scourge of this world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Runaway you Sissy
If the movies and music didn't cost so much, there would be no underground selling of them for a 1/3 of the price. While on a trip to Thailand a person could pickup movies, some that were not even released in US yet, with the covers/box for about $2 each. The copy protection didn't protect the industry from anything, nor did it protect the hundreds of travelers who were so naive as to think that the movies they were buying were legitimate. I knew that the couple movies I aquired were not real and I actually owned the movie legally anyway. I bought it to be able to watch a few disney movies in Thai and see if it still had the same comedic effect.
How can it be fixed? good question. As long as the industry sells dvd/cds for end-use, there will be a way to break the copy protection. If you don't sell that as a service, chances are you won't get sued. Help they are scanning my brain.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
but don't you want my money
So, in their perfect world, we are all in jail. Who does that leave to buy their content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: but don't you want my money
No, they are not suing DOWNLOADERS. They are suing SHARERS.
There is a big difference there. So far, there is no law against the downloading, and the **AAs haven't been willing to get an unfavorable precedent in the courts, so they don't even try to sue for it.
The copyright violation comes in when you share the work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: but don't you want my money
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: but don't you want my money
If you are trying to indicate an invalide use of wildcards, I suggest you take note of the fact that an * can represent zero or more characters. The zero is significant, as it means you can have a million *s in a row and it represents the exact same thing as one.
So basically, you're wrong, and **AA is every bit as good as *AA, only it presents to the reader the sense that there should be more than one character, however technically indifferent the specification is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Put it to the people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
email me at digitalsaint@gmail.com if you are willing to participate in a forum and maybe a wiki designed to let us work out business models for the recording industry.
I will front the costs for a year in advance. Whatever happens next would be up to everyone else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Media comes with copy protection, how many people honestly make backups of all the media the legally purchase? I'm willing to bet very few and of those very few most are interested in the illegal aspect of this (copies of media you don't own).
I personally feel that copy protection violates a number of the rights we have to use the media as we want. If I want to put my dvd I purchase on my video ipod, I don't want to have to use tools to break through the protection. At the same time think about it...if you really want to get the media off, do a little research and get the tools and bam you've got it off and nobody is going to prosecute the individual user for doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Consumer rights and Fair Use protection
Has anyone looked at the implications of this statute? Shouldn't we be writing the Librarian of Congress and Department of Commerce telling them how we (users of copyrighted digital media) are being "adversely affected" by this prohibition? Get DVDs and CDs added to the list. It can be perfectly legal to circumvent the encryption to put a DVD on your iPod.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recording Industry's Next Move
That said, I think the recording industry's next move will be to license you the content instead of sellling you the content.
Say they give you the option of "buying" for $20 bucks and it's yours for all time or "subscribing" for $2 and it's yours for five years?
In the "buy" model you get completely encrypted, non-shareable content with a guaranteed lifetime replacement if you ever lose or damage the content you've purchased.
In the "subscribe" model, you get the same content delivery except your replacement guarantee only lasts for a specified time.
How does something like this fit?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recording Industry's Next Move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recording Industry's Next Move
yeah right! tell me another good one. apple WILL tell you to go pound salt if something happens to your downloaded iTunes media. why would anyone else be any different?
this is the recording industry we are talking about. they would sell CD's that explode in two years if they could get away with it.
the problem with digital formats is the fact that they never degrade. if they never degrade, there is no reason to replace your entire collection every 5 years.
THAT is why CD sales are slipping. THAT is why we have HD-DVD and blu-ray. THAT is why copy protection is so important.
it's not that people are refusing to buy new stuff... it's that they aren't re-buying the old stuff. that is the industry's problem. the unit price of media is falling and there is nothing that they can do about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recording Industry's Next Move
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
as for movies. i try to attend. i also buy dvd's. i lovem. sure i can't make "bacukp" copies or whatnot. there are various products in the opensource/interntional market that allow for ripping of dvds. i don't feel the need to horde all my dvd's or share them on the net. so, if i make a backup copy, who knows? no one. i don't distribute. i don't sell, or whatever.
however i feel the dmca and fair use have been conflicting for many years now. how can we have a law that says we are able to have an archive copy of copyrighted material in case the original is harmed, and then have the original work copyrighted, and have the dmca say you can't work around copyrights for backups?
here's a suggestion. copy with copyrights. sounds dumb, right? not really. first, the backup copy (with copyright) will have an addtional encoding stating it's a copy, made from a legit copy, and therefore can't be copyrighted. next, have the original be able to be "written" to stating that it has been copied. that way, you have a backup copy that you can use like the real thing. this will make fair use eligable again, because you aren't breaking copyrights. the aa's put out the software (for free!!!) so we are all happy.
now, sure people will break/hack this copyright scheem too, but they break drm anyway. so this gives the aa's the choice of saying HERE's your copyprotected legal backup for fair use. all while piracy is still at a consistant level. if they can make the consumer happy, i'm sure piracy will decline, or at least people will start buying more?
oh and one more thing...better content. that'll help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ownership
Whats next am i not going to be able to change the tires on my car because the lugnuts are a "weak" form of protection?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
#26
we don't buy content. we buy a license to "expierence" the different media. we don't own it. we don't control it. we just have the right to "expierence" it a(albeit watching a movie or listening to the audio). that's it.
we can't change/modify it. resell for profit and the like.
we just have the right to expierence it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: #26
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
0-o
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means...
Copyright Act:
Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:
1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
There is no mention of backups, or commercial transfer services, or even personal use. As a matter of fact, it states only 2 uses: Commercial, or non-profit educational.
I fail to see how either applies to "Load N' Go'.
I have no love for the MPAA, the DMCA, or any law who's sole purpose is the support of an outdated and flawed business model, but this misconception that fair-use *grants* any rights to anyone is getting absurd. Fair use implies limited exception only. It grants no rights, whatsoever....to anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As I understand this case, the final use is of non-commercial nature. There is commerce involved in the copy step before the end use, but if this were illegal then so would be commercial photocopy machines.
To be considered by the court.
Again, to be considered by the court.
An increase in value, in this case.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
1.) It is illegal to use Photocopy machines to copy and distribute protected works without the permission of the copyright holder.
2.) In this case, a protected work is both copied, transformed, and distributed, all without the consent of the Copyright holder.
3.) This very same thing was tried not too long ago by Circuit City. They no longer offer this service. There is a reason why, and it isn't because they found something better to do.
This does nothing to increase the value of the work. It has the opposite effect by lowering the value of the work on the format it's being shifted to (since a commercial product for that format already exists).
Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, fair use, which you oppose.
Not only do you seem to be a fair use denier, you also seem to spread untruth. Which **AA do you work for anyway? For anyone else: Here's the _real_ Circuit City story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair-Use
Get a clue, you're been brainwashed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair-Use
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
Go research it yourself.
You show me a law that makes it illegal to move the contents of a CD to an ipod, and I'll show you australia, not the usa. (assumption was made that this discussion is about us copyright law).
You cannot show me any law that says its illegal to platform shift audio cds to an ipod because its perfectly legal. Fair-use allows for it. The DMCA tries to backhandedly prevent its possibility by adding a magical shield of weak encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
1.) It is the Copyright Holders sole and exclusive right to determine how their work is distributed, and in what format it is distributed in.
2.) The Copyright holder holds the sole and exclusive right to transform said work for commercial purposes.
It is illegal for *any* commercial entity, under current copyright law, to perform this service since it involves duplicating (distributing a copy) and transforming (From DVD to iPod).
As stated in my original post, I do not agree with current copyright law. I think it sucks. But claiming such use is legal is uninformed, ignorant, and potentially dangerous to anyone who might actually believe you and start doing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
You have been brainwashed.
the Copyright act does not in any way shape or form prevent platform shifting.
As for distribution, you obviously havent ever heard of the doctrine of first sale. The copyright holder FORFEITS ALL RIGHT TO CONTROL over a physical copy the first time they sell it. I can resell it all I want, for as much as I want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
The only limitations on these rights are Fair Use, which excepts only certain non-profit or educational use, and First Sale, which governs *only* the original physical media obtained, and *not* the digital content which resides upon it.
You are mistaken.
...and since you appear to be both unwilling to support your claims, and unable to accept facts, even when quoted directly from copyright law, I think we're done here.
Funny how one assumes I am the brainwashed one when I am the only one presenting facts, while simultaneously stating my disapproval with the very facts I am presenting...while the only argument you can provide seems to be automatic gain-saying by rote.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
Could have fooled me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big Bad Wolf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
**AA CAN BURN
Personally, if I purchase a vehicle which comes with locks and I don't like the locks, I have every right to remove the locks. However, it probably wouldn't be prudent. Tell me the difference between copying an automobile (if I had the knowledge or the ability) and copying Music or DVD? Either way, once I have purchased an Item, and if I am clever enough, or educated enough, to make a coy of said item, shouldn't I be allowed to?
I personally make back up copies of all my DVDs. I have children who, God bless them, aren't as responsible as I'd like. I'd rather spend $.30 and a few minutes of my time to protect the money I've invested in my collection.
Come on people, give me a break. I bought it, it's mine. I'll do with it as I wish. If I decide to "loan" an original DVD to a friend or a copied DVD to a friend, what difference does it make.
I don't sell them, I don't make a profit, and my friends get to enjoy a movie that they might not otherwise have got to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: **AA CAN BURN
The **AA would rather you invest in a new collection. If it is between what you would rather and what they would rather, guess who is higher up in the pecking order.
Sinner! Burn him!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: **AA CAN BURN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Please
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copy Protection
DRM is a joke. Somebody creates a encryption process, another will break it. Why waste the time. If you treat people as criminials, then criminals they will become.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DMCA and Fair Use
I guess if you're the **AA, you get to pick and choose which of parts of the law you like and which parts you don't like.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is either:
A. An inherent right of the content creator to their expressive labors, including those rights covered in copyright. This view generally includes people who think that copyright law is just the affirmation of what is the "right" thing to do in regards to intellectual property.
B. A temporary measure to reward creators of expressive content, and incentivize their further innovation in the "useful arts and sciences". This view generally includes people who view copyright as an artificially constructed monopoly that serves a singular purpose; To offer content creators an incentive to keep creating.
This is a debate that has existed since before the founding of this nation, and is unlikely to be resolved in any meaningful sense. The truth is that the people who profit from copyright generally fall into category A, and more often than not the creation of content or the protection of copyright is a significant portion of their livelihood. This means they generally spend more time and money to get legislators to see things their way than the people in group B, who are generally consumers.
I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a guy who has read some books and some cases. I fall into category B, but I understand where people with the other point of view are coming from.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I agree that I'd like all my works protected (my writings, my movies, etc.) however, If I decided to sell them to someone, then I'd give up the right to controll what's done with them.
Example: I recently made a wooden table and sold it to an individual (who shall remain nameless). I designed it, bought the materials, and hand crafted to my specifications. Everything is originally created. The individual loved the tablle, and in an inspirational moment, took my design and copied it. Do I have the right to sue him? He bought the table, he owns it. He can do what he wants with it.
This is what it boils down to: Once you have sold an item, you should no longer have any rights to the item. If you don't want it copied, don't sell it. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, and move on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
finally
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
however, the comparison between the table and music/movies is slightly flawed.
when you sell a table, you sell the complete object. the onwer can burn it, chop it up, serve tea on it, use it for other "personal" pleasure. he can also make copies for himself. he can make copies and sell them, as long as you didn't file for copyright.
the deal with music/movies, is that you pay for a license to view/hear the stuff bought. you don't own the song, you don't own the notes/lyrics. you own the "RIGHT" to hear/view the song/movie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
1.To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
2.To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
4. To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
5.To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
6.In the case of sound recordings*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
Copyright already has an obscene overbreadth (duration, current implementation), let's not give them rights they don't have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The correlation between the the table and a dvd (or a cd) is this: I sold it. I still own the original, yet I cannot control the copying of the table, even if I did ingeniously come up with a way to circumvent the ability to copy the table.
It really doesn't matter. Music set to CD or Movies set to DVD become objects. Objects that are sold become property. Property, is by definition, a physical object owned by an individual(s).
To bypass the patent, all the the new owner of the table would have to do is change the wood.
Continuing with this argument all a individual would have to do with a movie is to change what media it is on, i.e. a different format of DVD or CD. This becomes a new object with the same overall appearance of the original, yet it is not the original.
You cannot make me believe that any group, or person, can say that they own the "new dvd" which i created. They didn't create it, in fact, I truly didn't copy it, as I changed the format and media upon which it resides.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This discussion is actually pointless, as we are all preaching to the choir anyway.
My beliefs are simple, and I suppose that some would agree, and others would disagree.
1. If I bought it, I own it.
2. If I sold it, I don't own it.
3. If I can figure out how to copy it, good for me.
4. If you can outsmart me, good for you.
5. Don't get mad at me for being smarter than you.
6. Don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.
As long as we are different people, we will have different opinions. Some people are out to make others suffer, some aren't. Some people don't want you some things, and other people just don't care what you do.
Our society was founded on certian principles, which are slowly being erroded away.
Go back and read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States and compare them with what is happening today.
We are protected for a time from intrusion of our works, but after a time, they become public domain.
This was to help improve our society, not to cripple our society.
So, you tell me, are we improving or are we being crippled?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rights
It is time for we the people to get off our lazy butts and take control of our country again.
Let's try to get it right this time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doctrine of first SALE? Fine. Then we don't sell you the goods. We license them to you. Nyah.
We're playing semantic games, people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Illegal file sharing doesn't work either, as it eventually ends in the "two wrongs don't make a right" notion, as most illegal sharers aren't really tryin to make a political point, they just want to score free content. That's why people will continue to be sued, as dodgy a response as that continues to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heard of Cinavia?/Closing the analog hole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Muted Audio
This content is protected by Cinavia and is not authorized for playback on this device. ERROR 3 _NOT TRUSTED_SOURCE_
I found that this will eventually make its way into software players too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]