Rep. Darrell Issa Wants To Make It Clear That You're Allowed To Rip Your DVDs

from the good-for-him dept

Mon, Nov 19th 2012 12:52pm — Mike Masnick

Back in October, we noted that in the latest triennial DMCA exemption review, the Copyright Office/Librarian of Congress refused to say it was legal for you to rip your own legally purchased DVDs so that you could watch them on a computer or tablet. That seems fairly ridiculous, especially given that similarly ripping your CDs is recognized as legal. Rep. Darrell Issa has apparently recognized how silly this and is planning a bill to fix the Copyright Office's mistake.

"We think we can write at least some clarifying language that would instruct the Copyright Office to more accurately define what is, in fact, fair use," Issa said in an interview [with Roll Call]. "People who make copies on their iPod for jogging are not the problem."

We won't see anything until the next session, but given that at least some of Issa's colleagues appear to agree that it's time to broaden fair use in copyright law, hopefully we can finally see some movement in Congress on bills that actually will allow greater creativity to flourish while also not making most of the nation lawbreakers for simply wanting to watch legally purchased DVDs without having to carry around the plastic discs.

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: copyright, darrell issa, fair use, gop, ripping

53 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

fogbugzd (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 11:44am

One problem with expanding fair use by statute is that it is still relatively cheap to put a real cost on fair use by fining a bogus copyright suit or sending out a bogus DCMA notice. Or you can just let ContentID do the dirty work for free.

If it is to have any impact, any expansion of fair use should also include a provision making copyfraud illegal and putting some real teeth in it. It should also put the burden of proof for copyright violation on the rights holder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sehlat (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 1:09pm

Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
Somebody keep an ear out at MPAA headquarters, will you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
  I think we'll be able to hear the screams from anywhere in the country.
  
  Coming so soon after the study, they'll be in panic mode. Expect to see all sorts of easily debunked propaganda flooding the usual channels.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Atkray (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 1:31pm
    
    Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
    And with a lame duck session about to get into full swing, expect lots of midnight edits to unrelated bills to try to slip the Disney copyright extension of 2012.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - MrWilson, 19 Nov 2012 @ 6:31pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
      And in hundred years, the robot bodies that house our post-human essences will cry out in synthesized vocalizations of anger when the Darth Vader Copyright Act of 2112 passes in order to prevent Star Wars from falling into the public domain...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 1:49pm
    
    Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
    Oh jeez. You mean the next DVD I buy will make me watch MORE crap telling me how evil and selfish I am?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
  It's OK, they'll come to you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gnudist, 19 Nov 2012 @ 6:41pm
  
  Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
  Of course, you cannot pirate stuff legally since piracy refers to copyright infringement.
  
  If you're not breaking whatever the current copyright law you are not a pirate
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Tex Arcana (profile), 22 Nov 2012 @ 3:55pm
    
    Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
    um, gnudist, you ARE a private according to the MAFIAA: you listen to/watch media; therefore, you are a pirate and a criminal, and should pay. And pay big. Really big. Just empty your pockets right here, while we empty your accounts. No, you get no lube, either.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Tex Arcana (profile), 22 Nov 2012 @ 3:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
      PIRATE, not "private"--damn you autocorrect!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 1:46pm

Pirate Mike just wants free stuff!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 19 Nov 2012 @ 6:32pm
  
  Re:
  Yeah, the free stuff he's already paid for...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Zakida Paul (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 1:51pm

Permission to do what everyone has been doing for years, well done.

This just shows me how behind politicians and entertainment industries are when it comes to technology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- silverscarcat (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 2:11pm
  
  Re:
  Hey, at least he's TRYING to get the law more accurate.
  
  Which is better than I can say for MOST politicians.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2012 @ 2:19pm
  
  Re:
  Actually any laws about a topic more recent than 10 years after its "invention" is likely to be completely worthless at best.
  
  The internet in particular is an area where politicians and judges truely lack the technological knowledge to come up with reasonable compromises. A lot of it has to lean on "experts" and with the bias we see in this war of lobbying the ones shouting the loudest and helping most economically will be the ones able to turn bad suggestions into bad laws.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
TheResidentSkeptic (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 2:07pm

Watching while jogging???
... if someone on the jogging path happens to catch a glimpse of the movie, doesn't that make it a public performance, subject to LOTS of charges/fees ??? And since I have to think of the poor corn farmers, do I now have to carry a bucket of popcorn with me while I jog and watch my movie? c'mon... let's see if we can come up with something more stupid than what is about to come out of the mafiaa spin doctors...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Peter Dow, 19 Nov 2012 @ 2:07pm

Is that the same Darrel Issa who voted against $ to insure safety of ambassadors and now wants to roast Obama for failing to protect our ambassadors?

I guess there's some good in any politician...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- gorehound (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 2:59pm
  
  Re:
  He might have a few good ideas on Tech but he is someone I will never Vote for or Support.
  Same man who was in that there Committee who all were MEN but talked about Woman's Body.........Making decisions on Women with no Women present or really allowed to speak.
  That Issa.........he is the one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mr burns, 20 Nov 2012 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  State dept has testified there was no lack of funding to fortify Libyan locations, in fact they had money to buy a fleet of Volts for a least one European embassy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 2:27pm

You also have to make the tools to do it legal, which means making it legal to circumvent encryption for personal use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 2:29pm

Who watches videos when they're jogging?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JEDIDIAH, 19 Nov 2012 @ 6:56pm
  
  Who Watches the Watchers?
  Do it on a treadmill.
  
  I have a MythTV frontend sitting in my exercise room. It's a very nice way to break up the tedium of working out for those that really aren't into it.
  
  It's much like the setup you would find in any corporate or municipal gym.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 10:34am
    
    Re: Who Watches the Watchers?
    Well that makes more sense.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 2:31pm

Ripping stuff to your iPod for Jogging is just "stealling" the ability for the copyright holder to sell you a jogging copy in the same way as you are "stealing" it when you copy someone else's copy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 3:03pm
  
  Re:
  Honest question here: Copyright says that the holder alone is allowed to make copies of his/her work and those whom he authorizes.
  Let's say I have a file I've downloaded, and I, for lack of something better to do, copy it between many devices that I own. Several hard drives, several computers, etc. Does each copy I make mean I'm liable for separate $150,000 fines for each copy, or would I only be fined that amount once, for the initial download? What about when I play the file, would the copying into RAM count?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - crade (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 3:21pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Depends on the law where you are, but more likely it is something like:
    
    Each copy probably *violates* the copyright (unless it is covered by fair use / exception laws, etc)
    but as to what each copy is liable for in fines and such, I believe that would be up to the copyright holder to show how much hypothetical damages they incurred from your copying..
    
    So basically it depends how good the copyright holder is at their bullshit / smoke and mirror show.. How much hypothetical damages can they claim and get away with? Depends on the judge and how good your lawyer is (ie: they can claim whatever they want)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2012 @ 5:08pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I believe that would be up to the copyright holder to show how much hypothetical damages they incurred from your copying.."
      
      Nope. These are STATUTORY damages which have nothing to do with actual damages. But if they went the full $150000 for personal use copies, that would almost certainly get lowered on appeal.
      
      "would the copying into RAM count"
      
      Pretty sure there's an exception for that... although, depending on the wording, the exception might only apply if the copy was legal in the first place. So, I'm actually not sure.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ophelia Millais (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 5:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      In the U.S., for civil copyright suits, statutory damages are usually an option instead of actual damages. In that situation, there doesn't have to be any showing of actual damages; a vague and unsupported claim of "irreparable harm" is normally taken prima facie. Naturally, when given the option, the copyright owners almost always seek statutory damages...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2012 @ 9:18pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Statutory damages per 17 USC 504 are determined based upon the number of individual works that have been infringed, and not upon the number of copies of each such work.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike Robbins, 19 Nov 2012 @ 2:33pm

Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
Thank you Congressman Darrell Issa for actively protecting liberty and consumer rights. Although the software exists to RIP (copy) movies from DVD disks to a hard disk drive for their ow use, consumers must have solid proof it is legal and they will not be sued or prosecuted.

The movie and music industry abuses stifle innovation and competition, and have abused the customers.

The continual "Mickey Mouse" copyright protection period extensions, reportedly to cater to Disney to protect their Mickey Mouse character, have gone too far and stifle innovation and competition. Although I wonder whether a trademark for the Mickey Mouse character would be sufficient to protect it.

The purpose of copyright and patent laws is to provide a period of exclusive ownership rights to create a financial incentive for invention, creation, and innovation. But the protection was not supposed to be so long as to remove the incentive to continually invent, create, and innovate new things.

Entertainment industry abuse of customers includes the following.

Lobbying for laws to criminalize legal and legitimate consumer use of their legally purchased products.

Selling one or a few good audio tracks on a CD padded with filler junk quality tracks.

DVDs that force viewers to watch advertisements such as movie trailers, and disable the ability to skip the ad.

Copy protection that prevents users from making legitimate backup copies of legally purchased movies without special software.

Inserting gratitous violence and sex, and inappropriate political propaganda and social conditioning scenes into movies that often spoils the movies, such as the unnecessary and awkwardly inserted homosexual bed scene in "Burlesque" that ruined the movie.

Mike Robbins
PublicSafetyProject.org
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ophelia Millais (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 5:38pm
  
  Re: Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
  Your letter reads as an insincere thank-you because you use it as a springboard for a lengthy gripe session that you publicly post in forums.
  
  Also, are you suggesting that Congress should do something about gratuitous violence, sex, political POV, and homosexual "social conditioning" in movies, which you consider "abuse" of consumers? Rein it in or GTFO.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 19 Nov 2012 @ 6:39pm
  
  Re: Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
  "Inserting gratitous violence and sex, and inappropriate political propaganda and social conditioning scenes into movies that often spoils the movies, such as the unnecessary and awkwardly inserted homosexual bed scene in "Burlesque" that ruined the movie."
  
  Yeah, ditto what Ophelia said. You had me until you went on a tirade against what other freedom-loving people might describe as freedom of speech and artistic license.
  
  If you don't like the content of the movies, as a consumer you're free to not support them by not watching them. There are websites that will tell you about what kinds of content are in a movie without spoiling the plot points too much. I suggest you use them and let the rest of the viewing populace that consists of adults who can make their own decisions about what they choose to watch and financially support do what they want to do as well.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Alpheus, 20 Nov 2012 @ 3:07pm
    
    Re: Re: Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
    Mike Robbins has a point: once we obtain a copy of the movie, we ought to be free to do what we darn well please with it, up to and including paying someone to remove the objectionable scenes.
    
    The funny thing is, though, the movie industry likes to sue these companies that provide this service, using copyright law as the foundation for their dubious claims.
    
    Many of these movies are produced in versions that can be shown in public places--particularly, airplanes--and while I agree that we can't force anyone to make these versions public, at the very least, altering these movies to our liking should be as much fair use as anything else.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 12:52am
  
  Re: Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
  "Inserting gratitous violence and sex, and inappropriate political propaganda and social conditioning scenes into movies that often spoils the movies, such as the unnecessary and awkwardly inserted homosexual bed scene in "Burlesque" that ruined the movie."
  
  I've not seen Burlesque but I guarantee you there's someone out there who thought that scene was the high point of the movie. In fact there's probably some who only watched the movie because they heard it contained such a scene and/or thought it improved the movie.
  
  As the others above me said, you have some good points, but trying to force your own morals on content ain't going to fly. Don't try to force your prudish sensibilities on my entertainment just because you're too lazy to use the resources available to you to pre-vet the content in case something offends you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fb39ca4 (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 3:37pm

I think the bigger question here is "Who the hell watches movies while they are jogging?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Arsik Vek (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 3:39pm
  
  Re:
  I think the bigger question here is "Who the hell watches movies while they are jogging?"
  
  Joggers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MrWilson, 19 Nov 2012 @ 6:41pm
  
  Re:
  The victims of sad stories on the 5 o'clock news about fatal traffic accidents involving pedestrians?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Niall (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 7:02am
    
    Re: Re:
    You can jog 'on the spot' very easily in front of a TV. Just go to any big gym...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Steve R. (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 3:47pm

Maybe There is Hope
Now that the election is over, I wonder if Obama will resurrect things like SOPA/ACTA at the inauguration speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
temoi, 19 Nov 2012 @ 3:59pm

I want to make it clear that you can still download whatever you want for free just don't get caught.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hugh Mann (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 4:05pm

So . . . .
. . . how many people are watching movies while jogging?

HM
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2012 @ 5:43pm
  
  Re: So . . . .
  I don't know about you, but I'd like to watch movies that I'd like to watch if the airplane doesn't happen to offer it.
  
  Not everyone jogs.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2012 @ 10:59pm
  
  Re: So . . . .
  So... how many people are using the toilet while jogging in the park? None? We shouldn't need to legalise or construct toilets in the park then...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Nov 2012 @ 3:45am
  
  Re: So . . . .
  Ever seen an asus EEEPC?
  
  They don't have DVD drives. How the heck are you going to play a DVD in those?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 19 Nov 2012 @ 5:08pm

After 20 years doing it already, now they want to make it legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mesonoxian Eve (profile), 19 Nov 2012 @ 7:51pm

Retraction of statement in 3... 2... 1...

Cheese for everyone! On the house!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JaseP, 20 Nov 2012 @ 7:08am

Finally, ... A Congressman with some SENSE. I say Darrel Issa for President 2016!

Now, if he can only "clarify" patent law to say that software on a general use computing device (computer, phone tablet, etc.), is not patentable. I'm so sick of the 9th Circuit "over-ruling" and creatively reinterpreting SCOTUS decisions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
forrest, 20 Nov 2012 @ 8:31am

Issa is a republican and is not in bed with the entertainment industry like the democrats are. If you want Internet freedom vote republican or libertarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prokofy Neva (profile), 20 Nov 2012 @ 8:48pm

Really? They Still Rip DVDs?
All the usual fake argumentations of the copyleftists.

What's the modern hipster jogger doing manually ripping DVDs anyway? He, what, bought a DVD and didn't get a service online? He didn't stream from Spotify or GetGlue or something? This isn't even the modern delivery system for content.

And as such, the notion that "I should get to do it because these are my gadgets" is only edge-casing and whining, because in reality, you know full well you won't keep just to your own gadgets, and you are merely looking for yet another way to undermine copyright.If you really believed in "freedom only among my own gadgets" you would subscribe to the idea of licensing or hash-registration of hardware for all the devices, but of course we can't imagine you'd do that, ever.

Give it up, people have to make a living, paws off.

http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/11/joggerdvd.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 21 Nov 2012 @ 1:14am
  
  Re: Really? They Still Rip DVDs?
  You know when the idiocy spouted here by the trolls is getting silly when you see a post like this and I can't tell if it's another moron or a spoof of said morons. If the latter, bravo. If the former - you're a waste of space and need to listen to the real arguments being used rather than the fictions you make up to attack paying customers of the industry you "defend".
  
  "He didn't stream from Spotify or GetGlue or something?"
  
  Yes, because every portable device can do this... Do you people even think?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 21 Nov 2012 @ 12:13pm
    
    Re: Re: Really? They Still Rip DVDs?
    I made the mistake of clicking their username link. I'll never get those brain cells to grow back...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 22 Nov 2012 @ 1:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Really? They Still Rip DVDs?
      I didn't bother clicking links in case he was serious, and was indeed that ill-informed and illogical rather than merely parodying a troll. Looks like I was right.
      
      What a shame there's never any actual reasoning on the other side of this argument, just attacks on customers who don't want to pay multiple times for content they've already paying for. He's not even arguing about "stealing" and "pirates" - he's directly complaining that it's difficult to charge people multiple times for the same product. No wonder these assholes are losing business.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Nov 2012 @ 9:54am

The left hand and the right hand...
In that same hearing, the Copyright Office did issue an exemption for copying personal DVDs in order to create noncommercial music videos. I don't know how they can possibly argue that someone who rips their own DVDs had no intent to create anything with them, so why the silence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]