Just Because A Banana Can Be Used To Rob A Bank, It Doesn't Mean We Ban Bananas
from the ban-ban-bananas dept
We recently wrote about the RIAA's new war against software that can be used to record or download YouTube videos. As we noted, such software has substantial non-infringing uses, but the RIAA wants to ban it anyway. Michael Weinberg has a great response, in pointing out that just because something can be used illegally, it doesn't mean we ban it:It is possible to use a banana to rob a bank. It is also possible to use a phone to defraud people of millions of dollars. But we do not make possession of a banana or the use of a phone illegal. We make bank robbery and fraud illegal. We do not outlaw bananas and phones because bananas and phones serve any number of socially useful services. It would be dumb to outlaw them just because someone could use them in a bad way.On our last post about this, someone brought up the anti-circumvention issue, noting that if the software circumvents DRM, then under the DMCA it's illegal across the board. But all this really highlights is the insanity of the anti-circumvention provision and how it makes perfectly legitimate activity "copyright infringement." Think about it: if you use this to make a perfectly legal recording of some content, then none of the rights covered by copyright law have been infringed. And yet it's still illegal solely because of the circumvention? That makes no sense. How can it be illegal if no illegal copy was actually made?
That’s why the test that the Supreme Court identified in the famous Betamax case is so useful. As long as a technology is capable of “substantial noninfringing uses” we welcome it. Because those substantial noninfringing uses are great to have, and we cannot stop innovation just because it can sometimes be abused.
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
Filed Under: anti-circumvention, dmca, drm
Companies: google, riaa, youtube
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People
I expect them to self destruct about 2 minutes after they are brought online as they fail to process the Cartels directives and the logic loop causes them to explode.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People
I'm going to go ahead and punish myself for that one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: People
=P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: People
*AA assembles robot horde and turns them loose. Robot horde gets into an area that AT&T swears has three bars of signal and shuts down. Technicians later find it was due to losing the constantly required Internet connection for the AI software's DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
How much money did they pay Google for the development and maintenance of ContentID?
How much money did they spend on "enforcement" to get the budget to include $10 million for ICE to be their private enforcers?
How much money did they spend to get the special access to HotFile where they committed copyfraud?
How come they don't raise prices and pass the costs on, because they can just demand everyone carry the burden for them.
Shoplifting means a physical item is stolen.
"Piracy" means a copy of an item was made, the original is not lost.
Quaint you talk about the law abiding customers, they are the ones forced to be subjected to unskippable anti-piracy messages... and these are the people who aren't pirating, seems stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
2. When fraud is detected, there's a host of financial agencies that investigate. Those are taxpayer funded.
3. Not familiar enough with the Hotfile accusation to comment.
4. SOPA attempted to shift the burden to content companies by giving them the right of private action. This would have put most of the burden on content to police infringing foreign actors after getting an order from the judge. You opposed that. Now you oppose anyone else policing the rights of content owners.
5. I know the difference between theft and infringement. One involves both unjust enrichment and depriving someone of something of value. The other is simply unjust enrichment. In the words of the Supreme Court, "infringement is nothing more than garden variety theft". Oh, and both are crimes.
6. Yeah, the anti-piracy messages seem dumb. Maybe it is to provide prominent notice to guard against the "I didn't know" defense. Or maybe it's just dumb. Take your pick. Personally, I find it less painful than the endless trailers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
The situations are extremely different.
Banks do bear some of those costs, yes. They also have very clear guidelines on their responsibilities on how to prevent major felony crimes, such as money laundering.
There are no clear guidelines when it comes to copyright infringement. When Viacom sued Youtube, even the content owner didn't know for sure which videos they had uploaded and were infringing. It's also just copyright infringement - a civil matter - with no provable harm from the supposed unlawful act.
When fraud is detected, there's a host of financial agencies that investigate. Those are taxpayer funded.
Again, because they are criminal charges, not civil.
SOPA attempted to shift the burden to content companies
That's a laugh. The costs are already supposed to be on the copyright holder, and except when they're subverting the DOJ, ICE, and other law enforcement agencies, they are.
unjust enrichment
You're back to this nonsense again? Instead of going back and forth, the quickest legal definition I could find was on Wikipedia:
"The North Dakota Supreme Court has ruled that five elements must be established to prove unjust enrichment:
1) An enrichment
2) An impoverishment
3) A connection between enrichment and the impoverishment
4) Absence of a justification for the enrichment and impoverishment
5) An absence of a remedy provided by the law"
* Schroeder v. Buchholz, 2001 ND 36, 622 N.W.2d 202
So, lets see if it fits.
1) Ok, someone has enriched themselves with knowledge/content/entertainment
2) Fail. No one is impoverished as the result of copyright infringement. This also knocks out 3 and 4.
5) There's copyright law and all those statutory damages we talk so much about. Fail as well.
The term doesn't fit, just like theft doesn't match copyright infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
Unjust enrichment, 1. The retention of a benefit conferred by another, without offering compensation, in circumstances where compensation is reasonably expected. 2. A benefit obtained from another, not intended as a gift and not legally justifiable, for which the beneficiary must make restitution or recompense. 3. The area of the law dealing with unjustifiable benefits of this kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: People
A better analogy is how retailer are always demanding that the manufacturers of pockets, bags and backpacks bear the cost of shoplifting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: People
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that a banana or your weapon that you're waving at me?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hey! What about rocks?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-circumvention?!
In some countries their maybe an issue, on the part of those who use these site with YouTube main ToS, but that can be avoided by switch to localization the definitely doesn't have anti-downloading rules, e.g. the South African localization, and just like breaking the API ToS is not same as removing macrovision malware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
uh, what?
I encourage you to think about that a bit more.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
BIG FUCKING DEAL.
Nobody cares about the outliers you people cling to every day; like a non-swimmer in the middle of a life raft in every story here, except those like yourself that are so very sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Not any more. The MAFIAA shut down the second-hand finger market over spurious 'copyright concerns'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://articles.mcall.com/2010-03-03/news/all- a9_5bananarobber.7194298mar03_1_knbt-bank-teller-bank-surveillance-video
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Scratch that, you probably just need to Google it-....ooooh, you can't use Google because it's an evil ultra-being bent on destroying the world by giving people what they want....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
...for free, without compensation to the rightful owner.
You're welcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/06/google-play-gets-tv-movie-and-magazine-purchases-f or-nexus-7/
Google today announced the addition of TV, movies, and magazine purchases to Google Play. The service will launch today with major partners on board already. Partners include Disney, ABC, NBC Universal, Sony Pictures, and Paramount for video, and Hearst and Conde Nast for print. Previously, only rentals of such content was offered through Google Play.
SOMEBODY HAS TO STOP THE GOOGLE!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
...for free, without compensation to the rightful owner.
You're welcome."
And here you highlight your confusion. What I want from Google is NOT content. What I want from Google is directions to content. Google gives me what I want and they are the rightful owner of that service.
Content repositories, on the other hand, can be either infringing or not. The people you have an issue with are those holding infringing property, not the mapmakers that show me the streets to get there....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
"...and that is free directions, without having to pay rent for normal uses that fall outside the scope of the work, which some people want to make it look bad and they call themselves "rightful owners" of all intents and purposes, they claim to own all paths and ways and want everybody to pay tribute to them or face severe consequences at their hands"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anti-circumvention prevents innovation
Shouldn't it be legal to playback a DVD on a Linux desktop computer? Wouldn't this be within the realm of the assumed rights of someone who has purchased a DVD for purposes of personal playback?
I participate in another alternative operating system project called Haiku - and we have the same problem. We cannot release Haiku with any built-in DVD decoding software (even though it is freely available and open source), because Haiku, Inc. is a U.S. corporation, and distribution of unlicensed DVD playback software is a potential violation of DMCA.
A similar issue affects emulation of historic game systems, even if you own the original game disc or cartridge - if you don't own a working device to use it on, or you wish to use it on a different display device, you are limited by anti-circumvention laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti-circumvention prevents innovation
But should it be fair use anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti-circumvention prevents innovation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Anti-circumvention prevents innovation
It's ...ridiculous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Anti-circumvention prevents innovation
Thus banning decss does not help stop piracy, it just stops paying customers from using the product the way they want. You'd think the MPAA hates money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lemme hear you say this s*** is bananas...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The use of fingers to eat is considered circumvention of the ban and is punishable by up to $150,000 and/or three years in prison.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My (non-lawyer) observation is that "Betamax" was seriously crippled by "Grokster," with the court attempting to thread the needle by finding a difference between "a tool" and "a business." In the Internet/web world, most tools will exist because "businesses", or something business-like, makes them available on the web. In "Grokster," the court claimed that it was not rolling back "Betamax," but this seems like a statement contradicting the obvious points of the "Grokster" ruling.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Not really. The actual words in the Betamax case were "...it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses." Which mean it doesn't actually have to have any actual uses, just to be capable of it.
And aparently in the Betamax case 9% of noninfinging uses were sufficient:
Source: EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
https://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/betamax_cartoon.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
https://www.kace.com/land/ar-imaging?land=ar-imaging&ad_group=Imaging&utm_campaign =DACH+English&utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&campaign_id=701400000009UzE&gclid=CND ml-rA77ACFdKBfAodugNIwg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I see your disk imiging and raise you the "copy" function with which I made an unauthorized copy of your statement. Its sole purpose is to duplicate content so efficiently that in the space of a heartbeat I was able to make the following copies:
1)into my computer's clipboard
2)into the comment form
3)when hitting the "preview" button (x2)
In addition, when I hit "submit",
5)a copy will be set in a database somewhere
6) -> ?) every time the page is loaded, I will have caused yet another unauthorized copy to have been made.
I thereby add to Dell and their customers anyone who has created a web browser, text editor, paint program, or any other piece of software that has a copy/paste function.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
And let's make this more real. Let's say you walked into a bank with a gun. Let's say you take it out or the clerk sees it in your pants. Let's say the clerk sounds the silent alarm and the SWAT team comes in and shoots you. Sure the second amendment protects your right to possess that gun/banana, but I don't think the jury is going to blink when they hear that you were holding a gun in a bank.
So be careful with this analogy. It actually strengthens the arguments for things like deep packet inspection that target torrent users. Or perhaps ISP users with a usage profile similar to file sharers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
Though the guard might glance at you funny if you should take it out and aim it at somebody for no clear reason.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
You try that in any of the banks in California, you won't even make it IN the bank. You'll trip the metal detector and be stuck in a 3' x 4' room with locked doors and bulletproof glass until the cops show up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
Or not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
Perhaps this is something they do in big cities?
Must be constant fun! Also looks like it's not necessarily automated, and requires constant monitoring.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
The made up part was 'in any of he banks in California'. None of the banks I've entered in the L.A. area have such a thing, and I'm actually armed when I do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
That may be, but even so, the next time you go to a bank you could pay attention to the doors you cross to enter noting the layout of the entrance, some security doors actually look nothing like security doors and are big(see link above).
If you have to cross a set of walls it is probably a man-trap nowadays even if it doesn't look like one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
I used to have a concealed carry permit in California and have gone into my Bank on numerous occasions carrying a .45 under my unzipped jacket.It was plainly visible for anyone looking.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course-- but we do ban brandishing a banana
Lockpicking porn shop.
http://www.lockpicks.com/?gclid=COfc39nB77ACFYwQfAod_GkLvA
Locksport(the art of lock picking competition)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locksport
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/28/lo cksport-competitive-loc_n_661773.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The SCC now has a lot of work on their hands to find this bullshit unconstitutional.
Harper and his cronies wanted into the TPP so badly that we all got screwed as a result.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Perfect Merger
The NRIAA...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kill the bananas and you help off the banana tree by stopping it from spreading!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just picking a technical nit. Violating the anticircumvention provisions is an independent ground for liability. It is not "copyright infringement."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Those laws are just like the ones in Japan, people just keep doing it, they passed the most hilarious laws over there, but everybody is doing Whinny and the police only manage to prosecute a dozen people a year.
Lets not forget France with Hadopi.
It reminds me of the South American countries and their bureaucracies, for every single thing you want to do there is a rule somewhere and so people keep using that to extort money from business, that is called corruption there, and apparently the US wants to become a developing nation legally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and he can rob a bank.
Give a man a bank,
and he can rob the world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone doesn't care about copyright law then why whould anti curcumvention law be any different?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Loony Tunz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Speaking of bananas...
This, in turn will help the 1 percenters...
In time the population will die off leaving only thode who will be able to afford to buy laws exempting them from castration so their families will flourish.
I say let's beat 'em with a chair...
Oh shit, they'll make chairs illegal.
We'll have to stand forever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]