DVD Makers Say That You Don't Really Own The DVDs You Bought... Thanks To Copyright
from the ownership-sure-is-a-funny-thing dept
So, we already wrote about some of the crazy filings from John Deere and GM claiming that when you buy a vehicle from them, you don't really own it, thanks to the software inside, which those companies argue they still really own. This was part of the opposition to requests for exemption from Section 1201 of the DMCA. Once again, Section 1201 is the anti-circumvention clause, that says you can't break DRM even if it's for non-infringing purposes. But... every three years, the Librarian of Congress is allowed to "exempt" certain classes of items from Section 1201. the responses above concerned locking down automotive software, but there are some other crazy ones as well.For example, the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) and the Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator (AACS LA) are so worried about an exemption for certain kinds of DVDs that it ran to the Copyright Office to claim that you simply don't own the DVDs you buy, and they'd really appreciate it if people stopped thinking they actually bought the DVD that, you know, they bought:
When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will play back on only a licensed player.Notice that even this statement is self-contradictory. The first sentence says they are not purchasing any content, but merely a "right to access." And yet, the very next sentence talks about the "purchase [of] the copy." So which is it? Are people purchasing a copy of the movie? Or are they merely licensing access to the content on the plastic?
This is a problem with Section 1201, showing how its expansive nature is fundamentally changing the concept of ownership in ways many people haven't even begun to understand yet.
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: 1201, anti-circumvention, dmca 1201, dvds, ownership, triennial review
Companies: aacs la, dvd cca
Reader Comments
The First Word
“More seriously, Music tried this very argument against format shifting (ripping and using an MP3 player), that we only bought the music in the cd format. It failed.
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This isn't true, either.
The content that's on the DVD isn't restricted to the player at all. It's MPEG and pretty much any video player can play the digital file.
The only damn reason the disk is used is to add the copy protection layer so that other MPEG players can't access the digital file it can easily play.
Of course, this truth won't be told. There's no way the entertainment industry is going to release $30 movie prices because they have a monopoly on player restrictions.
This includes their idiotic product/services like UltraViolet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If only it were that simple and reliable.
Blu-Ray includes High Definition Content Protection (HDCP) DRM. Your monitor or TV must also be HDCP compliant, because this is where the decryption is done. A lot of early - and not so early - HD monitors and TVs will never show Blu-Ray movies because they don't support HDCP.
The same goes for satellite TV. Many HD TVs when dark when Star Choice / Shaw Direct in Canada started using HDCP. That included TVs that DID support HDCP, but didn't talk well with other HDCP compliant equipment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That is the power of money, purchase something and you own it, unless they are prepared to buy back every dvd and cd i have ever purchased at the price i paid for them they cannot stop me or others from circumventing their anti consumer technology where they attempt to sell content that is not playable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Naturally, Microsoft scrapped PlaysForSure a couple years later in favor of the Zune Marketplace.
Which was scrapped a few years after that for Xbox Music and Xbox Video brands on the XBox 360 and Windows Phone.
And of course the XBox One isn't compatible with the 360.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
...and wouldn't have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's worth adding the rest of the story here. PlaysForSure was a joke. There were huge, widespread compatibility problems, I remember complaints at the time from retailers saying they had huge overheads due to the level of support calls surrounding the DRM.
When Microsoft realised that this scheme was the white elephant it was, they backed out and rebranded. The fallout was a mess. Zune owners couldn't play music that they had purchased from MSN - Microsoft couldn't even guarantee compatibility with itself! Once PlaysForSure's infrastructure was shut down, nobody could play the music they had purchased, although they were given a grace period to get the music converted. Meanwhile, of course, those who simply decided to pirate their music instead of paying for it remained unaffected.
Fortunately, there's a silver lining - the utter catastrophe of this episode helped convince labels that DRM was hurting more than it helped and start to reconsider allowing retailers to just offer MP3s. Once they did this, new players in the space such as Amazon were able to enter and the market grew exponentially.
"And of course the XBox One isn't compatible with the 360."
This isn't so problematic in my mind, however. Sure, backward compatibility would have been nice, but the internal architecture is different enough that allowing games to play wouldn't have been a simple patch like the Xbox to 360 transition. The One has/ad a huge number of issues, this was way down the bottom of the list.
When you're talking about differences in a new generation of hardware rather than people pissing around with what should be an open file format, I'm not so concerned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Are we looking at a hilariously large class action against DVDCCA/AACS about how you owned it when you bought it, but not now? Because if I can't even own the DVD of a movie I buy then it's sure as hell not worth even the $5 in the bargain bin.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No. We. Freakin'. Can't.
The End.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Own The DVDs I Paid For?
Try to take them from me assholes
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where do I return them to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where do I return them to?
Add in costs for CDs and VHS tapes, and we're talking closer to $30,000.00 over the last 30 years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where do I return them to?
I also probably have as good or more extensive of a collection than you do, with none of the restrictions!
You are part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where do I return them to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where do I return them to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where do I return them to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where do I return them to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it was a button you clicked-through on the internet.
People lose so many arms, legs and first-born children that way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Maybe it was a button you clicked-through on the internet.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's also worth pointing out that it's called copy-right for a reason, and not access-right or usage-right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When you hear about the fights against any and all end-user rights from certain organisations, you see the true face of greed as a right (with the nasty: "If you tolerate this, then your children will be next"-legal uncertainty situation as a guarantee for extra gore).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Thank the flying spaghetti monster that technology continues to outpace the dinosaurs robbing me of my property rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More seriously, Music tried this very argument against format shifting (ripping and using an MP3 player), that we only bought the music in the cd format. It failed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The unskippable commercials they plastered over a bunch of their discs (just after the one telling you off for being a filthy pirate, even though the only people who would see the ad were paying customers)? Yeah, they didn't think that one through, did they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[movie trailer voice]
License the limited right to play it on an approved player... today!
[/movie trailer voice]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What day is it?
I keep expecting the April Fools punchline to all of these stories, and then I look at the calendar and sigh heavily.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What day is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What day is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
This is a low point for even Masnick, just childish incomprehension of facts and law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
Now i assume you work for the movie industry or the MPAA, so if you read the comments on here you know you are only one of the 1% that people love to hate and one of the very few uninformed that seem to like to lie your way through life and attack anyone that makes you look like the imbecile you obviously are. Get a life and stop trying to hate on someone like mike who has the public's interest at heart more than you. If you want to suck up to your bosses in the mpaa do it on their website , here you are just laughed at and the butt of many jokes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
If the studio says we can't use the content anymore, for whatever reason, how exactly do they think they're going to take it back?
Involuntarily having the consumer destroy the DVD?
Using the police to facilitate a mass confiscation?
I anxiously await your superior-worded solution to my poorly-worded problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
You were saying something about being clueless?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
So yes, they can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They want to say that you're buying the disc, but not the media on the disc, only a license to view the media on the disc, but only the media on that disc, so you don't get a free replacement if your disc gets worn out, damaged, or stolen. And you don't get access to the media in any other format like digital copies or streaming from a server. And you can't have more than a couple friends over to watch it. And you can't lend it to a friend because they have to buy the license too. And you can't make any copies, even for fair use purposes, because you'd have to circumvent copy protection, which we paid to make illegal.
No one, if actually presented with these terms, would agree to this, especially not at the prices that have been charged in the past for physical media.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
This is a low point for even Masnick, just childish incomprehension of facts and law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
Masnick is still trying to block me.
What a fraud.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
Good luck with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
At no point in the above was an alternative opinion on the subject of the article presented. Try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
But fortunately, I quickly realized that this would actually be, in fact, quite counter-productive, and that it would be both easier and more effective to leave your blathering unhindered, for all to see and to judge for themselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
What moronic parallel universe did you come from, where buying something doesn't mean you own it? It's sad he has to say this all right, sad that Hollywood needs to be reminded of this.
Also, Mike is not trying to censor you just because your comment gets held for moderation, that's just an automated anti-spam thing. The fact that your idiotic, insulting comment was published is proof of that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
Computer software - the place where the CD-ROM or DVD-ROM purchase doesn't mean you "own" the software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
Where is that agreement on a DVD, because I don't ever recall seeing one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
Step 2. Read the back of a DVD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
Am then I to assume I can do whatever I want with the content, or do you accept that the two things are not comparable?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple. Don't buy them.
Movie DVDs? Save your money. There are so many interesting sources of entertainment now, life is too short to watch the same movie twice. Just wait for the retread - you know - the one where they add a Spiderman role to it.
There's a meme for someone, insert Spiderman into all sorts of unlikely retreads!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Own it on DVD"
Let's hold them to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Own it on DVD"
"Own it on DVD today."
Tomorrow, we'll say you bought a license, unless of course you want the media replaced, then it is another story again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait. .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bullshit
If the law does change for specific items then those laws must also ensure that if i am only licensing the content then when the disc fails for any reason they must supply me free of charge another copy. Especially games discs that are made to stop working within years of purchse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clickbait article
I have a fair grasp of copyright law. Do you care to point out what is being misunderstood here?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clickbait article
The first sale rule enables the DVD/Book/etc. to be sold and the author or copyright holder cannot limit that.
This is long established law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Not really. Traditionally one has had full property rights to the individual copy that they own. For example, with a dead-tree version of a book I can write on the pages or reorder the pages or destroy chapters I dislike or whatever. Section 1201 (which is what this article is about) changed that by restricting what I am allowed to do with my property in the privacy of my home.
Section 1201 also impedes Fair Use. Without Fair Use, copyright would run afoul of the First Amendment. I'm of the opinion that Section 1201 is fundamentally unconstitutional, even with the granting of the exceptions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
However, the copyright holder has the rights to dictate how you consume the copyrighted content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Incorrect. Copyright grants the copyright owner the rights enumerated in 17 U.S. Code § 106.
There is nothing in there about how the copyrighted work is "consumed" whatsoever. There is also nothing about the copyright owner being able to "dictate" anything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Read that section and try to absorb what the result is of having the sole right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.
If I, as the copyright holder, have to sole ability to prepare derivative works, then guess what--I'm dictating how a non-copyright holder gets to use the work. And if that work is video content, I get to dictate how you consume that content.
Get it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
You should well know (if you have the technical background) that irrespective of the medium in which the information is stored that there are many different ways that it can be extracted and used. Left as a homework example for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Parody is one example, as is news and commentary, etc.
So no, you don't have the sole ability (or right) to make derivative works. I do, too.
Read that section and try to absorb what the result is of having the sole right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work: it means ZERO fair use and you owe me a license fee if you copy any part of my posts and prepare and post a derivative work (post) based upon my work. Copyright is automatic, remember. You don't have to register it to receive it.
Can you see what I did there?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
No. Fair Use is a right. And if something is determined to be Fair Use, than no infringement has occurred.
Here is Mike's thoughts on that:
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150222/16392430108/reminder-fair-use-is-right-not-exception -defense.shtml
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
You are omitting the fact that those exclusive rights are also subject to the exceptions provided in Sections § 107 thru § 122. Which includes Fair Use. It has already been established that time-shifting and format-shifting are valid Fair Uses with digital products. Creating derivative works in the context of Fair Use is also not infringement. Those rights aren't as exclusive as you are making them out to be. Section 1201 impedes my right of Fair Use by making the act of accessing the work illegal.
If I, as the copyright holder, have to sole ability to prepare derivative works, then guess what--I'm dictating how a non-copyright holder gets to use the work.
Like I said above, that right isn't exclusive as you are thinking. I can cut all the words from your dead-tree book, rearrange them and create a collage and it could be considered Fair Use. I cannot do similar things with a DVD because I would have to circumvent the DRM to do so. See the difference?
And if that work is video content, I get to dictate how you consume that content.
Repeating something doesn't make it true. Copyright holders have never had the "right to dictate how a work is consumed". Section 1201 doesn't give you that right at all, it only removes my right to circumvent the DRM.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Ok. You don't seem to be getting my point. Section 1201 specifically restricts me from "doing what I want" with my individual copy. For example, playing a DVD on a Linux box is technically breaking the law. GeoHot was sued for modding his PlayStation 3. That is not really "doing what I want with it".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
You do not get to make derivative works and publish those. You do not get to use the DVD on a non-allowed device because that non-allowed device necessary has to make derivative works or copies.
Guess who has the right to make copies and derivative works? That's right, the copyright owner only.
I'm done with this discussion. You clearly don't understand copyright laws and derivative works. Study up a bit on those.
At the end of the day, I don't like the DMCA and I think copyright laws are out of whack, but the arguments and discussions here are asinine.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
"You do not get to make derivative works and publish those"
This is fine, although there's an argument that non-commercial and other non-profit uses should be allowed.
"You do not get to use the DVD on a non-allowed device because that non-allowed device necessary has to make derivative works or copies."
This, however, is bullshit. If I want to watch the movie on a phone, a device that wasn't invented when the DVD was released, an open source device that's not been "officially" licenced, make a private copy that edits out that one annoying character or use the disc as a frisbee, that should be my right. As long as I'm not publishing or otherwise distributing the content, it's none of their business what I do with it. This is also a new thing - nobody cared what I did with my VHS collection after I bought it, as long as I wasn't selling pirated copies of it.
Publishers don't get to control whether I read a paperback novel normally, skip through and read the end first, edit it with a pen or rip out the pages to turn into a paper mache sculpture or line a bird cage with it. They have no control, nor should they. Ditto for the media I've purchased.
You're not exactly telling people why they're "wrong" about copyright law, but the above is the reason people find this objectionable, and it's also why it will never work. If you're trying to block private use of something that a person has bought, they will find a way around those blocks. If the restrictions only applied to commercial use, people would understand. When you try attacking what people consider their property (and why wouldn't they, since they were told they had bought it?), that's where it becomes a major problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
I believe you are the one who needs to study up a bit since there is quite a bit you seem to be getting wrong.
I have been studying this stuff and discussing it with actual copyright lawyers right here in Techdirt for years now.
But anyways, this has been a mostly cordial discussion and I appreciate that fact. Take care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
The copyright holder does not have any right in any way, shape, or form to dictate whether I merely listen to the commentary while working on something else, nor can (s)he tell me which of my devices I can experience the content on. If you are right you ought to be able to cite a law or link to an article proving your point.
It's not my job to prove your point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
I would also like to read an argument like that myself, if one exists. I think it would prove to be pretty humorous. I've done some cursory Google searches and can't find anyone making an argument like that all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Fair use is likely a winnable defense.
This stuff is not difficult. The silly setting up and knocking down of strawmen is what's annoying.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Not true. It's already been determined that I have a Fair Use right to do such things.
From RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Anyway, I'm finished responding to your silly posts. Gotcha games are not interesting to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
That's cool with me. I'm kind of tired of correcting your obvious mistakes myself.
Gotcha games are not interesting to me.
I'm not playing any sort of game here. Just simply correcting your incorrect notions concerning copyright laws. If I get something wrong, I fully expect a copyright lawyer or somebody else who is knowledgeable in this area to jump in and correct me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
I've already corrected you. No need for more attorneys. You fundamentally don't understand copyright law. That's okay. Not many non-lawyers do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Sorry. That didn't happen. Your corrections were incorrect.
You fundamentally don't understand copyright law.
Whatever. You are free to your own opinions. I still disagree with that though, In my opinion, you are the one with some trouble understanding copyright law.
That's okay. Not many non-lawyers do.
That's just a silly type of a "no true Scotsman" argument. You can do better than that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Gwiz with logic and examples.
GooberedUp might do better to avoid the insults and condescension next time and argue his case better like the real lawyer he claims he is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Law that non-lawyers can't / don't understand...
If laws exist that cannot be understood by the laity (or that can only be understood by legal experts) how is this different than an intrinsic corruption of the DoJ?
I would argue that laws have to be comprehensible by us 100IQ idiots to be valid, otherwise ignorance of the law becomes the norm.
Worse yet, ignorance of the law becomes (is) the norm for law enforcement officers, who have to guess at whether something someone is doing is illegal. Or rather, assumes it is / isn't based on the cuts of their respective jibs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clickbait article
"When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will play back on only a licensed player."
and I wonder what they mean by 'retail price.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clickbait article
What THEY mean by "retail price" is "full price" regardless of what that means legally.
If something has a "retail price" then it is a product FOR SALE and falls under the first sale doctrine, and is therefore a PRODUCT that is purchased.
They can't keep using ALL the terminology from all the different sides of sales (retail, wholesale, licensing, etc) and then equating them all as being the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clickbait article
I'm glad to finally see you admit to your ignorance. That's the first step.
The second step is fixing it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
So when the lawyer sticks his fingers in ears, stamps his feet and screams "LA LA LA LA LA" it's perfectly acceptable, but when a non-lawyer disagrees with things it's "sematics and gotchas".
Okay then...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Clickbait article
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Clickbait article
The author should have put a couple of sentences out there explaining the laws. But of course it would lessen the clicks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Why don't you, do think that supplying links is infringing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Some self-proclaimed experts have actually tried to claim that in court. I wonder if he's one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article
Why don't you, do think that supplying links is infringing?
How curious that he didn't reply to this...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
response
go stoke it small balls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: response
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It doesn't work
So by their interpretation of physical media versus content, reading to your children would become copyright infringement. It really is about making a stupider consumer society, you see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It doesn't work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It doesn't work
Rightsholders have pretty bastardized definitions of what counts as "public performance".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It doesn't work
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: It doesn't work
Define "public performance". Does it depend on venue? Number of people? Does reading to a group of kids at a library count, or does it only apply in a commercial setting? What if the person reading at the library is being paid? Did Ted Cruz infringe copyright for his ridiculous Dr. Seuss reading, or did that venue not count?
Where these lines are drawn define how much support and respect the rules actually get. If the lines are so tight that educating children suddenly requires a fee to a publisher, the rules become unenforceable because nobody will respect or support that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not self-contradictory.
It's not that hard Mike, come on. Copy has more meanings than the one you use at Techdirt (Copy: If i've copied it I haven't stolen it.).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not self-contradictory.
ˈkɒpi/Submit
noun
1.
a thing made to be similar or identical to another.
"the problem is telling which is the original document and which the copy"
synonyms: duplicate, duplication, reprint, facsimile, photocopy, carbon copy, carbon, mimeograph, mimeo; More
2.
a single specimen of a particular book, record, or other publication or issue.
"the record has sold more than a million copies"
synonyms: edition, version, impression, imprint, issue; More
3.
matter to be printed.
"copy for the next issue must be submitted by the beginning of the month"
material for a newspaper or magazine article.
"it is an unfortunate truth of today's media that bad news makes good copy"
synonyms: material; More
the text of an advertisement.
"‘No more stubble—no more trouble,’ trumpeted their ad copy"
verb
verb: copy; 3rd person present: copies; past tense: copied; past participle: copied; gerund or present participle: copying
1.
make a similar or identical version of; reproduce.
"each form had to be copied and sent to a different department"
synonyms: duplicate, photocopy, xerox, photostat, mimeograph, make a photocopy of, take a photocopy of, run off; More
COMPUTING
reproduce (data stored in one location) in another location.
"the command will copy a file from one disc to another"
write out information that one has read or heard.
"he copied the details into his notebook"
send a copy of a letter or an email to (a third party).
"I thought I'd copy to you this letter sent to the PR representative"
send someone a copy of an email that is addressed to a third party.
"I attached the document and copied him in so he'd know it had been sent"
2.
imitate the style or behaviour of.
"lifestyles that were copied from Miami and Fifth Avenue"
synonyms: imitate, mimic, ape, emulate, follow, echo, mirror, simulate, parrot, reproduce;
I don't think it means what you think it means.
Are people purchasing a copy of the movie? Or are they merely licensing access to the content on the plastic?
They've been told they can "Own it now on DVD" but the truth is just being admitted now: they are merely licensing access to the content.
People don't understand that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I now own the rights to everything ever. The studios can pay me $14bn/yr until this situation is resolved.
After all, it's the same insane troll logic applied here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scratched DVD's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Scratched DVD's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Scratched DVD's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Scratched DVD's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Scratched DVD's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scratched DVD's
When is that fraud on the people going to be addressed? As you have correctly pointed out, we don't own jack.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Scratched DVD's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Scratched DVD's
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Name a movie or tv show and I haven't see it and I never will.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For Years now the phase "Own It" has been used...
http://www.hugomovie.com/registration/index.html
http://www.lucymovie.com/
http://intothestormm ovie.com/
https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=771148839565347
http://www.highlander-thesource.com/
(I can find this phrase all day - you get the idea)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: For Years now the phase "Own It" has been used...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and it will continue to get worse until there is someone with some necessaries who comes up with a sensible change to the law that others in the same position dont do the stupid thing and block it. then you have to educate the people who deal with this sort of thing the most, the judges in copyright type cases and get them to stop siding with the industries that give them 'encouragement' to do so. had the judge in the Sony/Other O/S case and the Sony/Geohot case had used some common sense, the situation probably wouldn't be here now!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yeah, didn't think so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The test will be whether the first sale doctrine or copyright is stronger, and copyright is purchasing all the laws they can to make it the winner (though whiner might be more appropriate).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A clarification on terms being used
In terms of the discussion above, there is information encoded and there is a physical storage device. More technically correct is that the media is the physical storage device.
The information is stored by altering some characteristic of the media for the purposes of long term retention of the information.
What is forgotten is that a specific performance has been recorded for presentation to the public. This recording of information has been achieved by various techniques over a long period of time.
The current common technique uses an encoding of a number to store the performance information. Now the interesting feature about using encoding of numbers to store information is that any particular number can be used to store quite different sets of information. It all depends on the specific encoding/decoding process. A number is just a number and not copyrightable.
If you really want to get into a full (very detailed) discussion of this go to the archives for Groklaw and look up the discussion papers by PoIR on this matter. He goes into the technical details in a manner suitable for lawyers, judges and politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does this mean we get to watch in any format?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Does this mean we get to watch in any format?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Does this mean we get to watch in any format?
This, to my mind, is ultimately the crux of this entire issue. People have been infringing copyright in all sorts of ways for decades, and nobody cared. There were various attempts to crack down on *commercial* piracy and some ridiculous propaganda campaigns, but you couldn't realistically prevent people making personal copies for friends, making mixtapes, recording and sharing TV shows on VHS, etc.
The only difference now is that the sharing is done in public. All the infringement is out there for everyone to see, and it's possible to do easier and quicker than ever. But, in the minds of most people, they're still just sharing the stuff they would have done on CD, tape, VHS or whatever else.
Attempts to crack down on piracy are failing largely because people are just doing what they've always done. The technology's changed, but the fundamental idea and reasons haven't. When you don't have the commercial motive, things become far more difficult - especially when so many early attempts at cracking down were to treat people sharing a song the same way as they'd treat a commercial enterprise mass producing bootleg copies.
"Clearly buying a DVD copy doesn't give you the right to download a BR copy from the internet."
But, an interesting idea that I sometimes think about - is it (and/or should it) be legal to download the DVD copy? If it's legal for me to make a backup copy privately, it would logically be legal for me to ask a friend to do it for me. Now, if that friend is not able to do this in my home, he could rip the disc for me elsewhere and then send me that file. Now, let's say I don't have a friend who can do this for me, but someone else has a copy they made of another DVD, and they send me that copy (which is identical to the copy that would have resulted from ripping my disc). Assuming I legally own a copy of the DVD, at which point does the otherwise legal activity suddenly become illegal? The guy sending the copy might be infringing by sending me the file, but where am I infringing if having a backup copy of my disc is legal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
I would like to ask you what you think IP law should be. Not what it is, but what it should be. For this hypothetical, let us assume it is 1950. Most of the contributors and commenters here have not been born yet. Neither has Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs. Sony and Cher are around, but they probably haven't met yet. There isn't much software being written as the IBM 360 is still a couple of years away. And the IOC won't air an Olympic game for another 6 years, and their first true telecast won't be for another 10. The MPAA exists, but it has mostly been about censorship to this point.
Remember, this is not about what the law is currently, it is about what the law should be. And let us remember what the basis for IP is in this country:
OK, now we are set, here are the questions:
1. What sense does it make to reward an author/artist/creator/director etc. after they are dead.?
2. Should software be patentable or copyright-able?
3. Should business methods receive protection of any kind?
4. Why should the IOC be able to force any restaurant named Olympic Pizza to change their name?
5. Should any country even attempt to force their vision of IP on any other country?
6. Should there be any control over any product after a sale when copying for resale is already illegal?
7. Should a publisher/producer etc. be able to retrieve something they sold (and got paid) without reimbursing the purchaser?
8. Should format shifting be wrong if there is no money made from it?
9. Should libraries and therefore sharing (as in lending a book to a friend, not selling) be illegal?
What do you say?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
One has to remember that there is currently a complete logical disconnect between IP law (of any form) and the real world. Lawyers rarely understand anything about the real world. They are locked in a mindset that revolves around their specific expertise in the legal domain. I find it also disingenuous of any lawyer who says he comes from a technical background and understands the real world.
As a matter of course, all lawyers are trained to understand the complexity of the illogical nature of the law and not about whether the law actually make sense in the real world.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
Along the lines you point out attorney's and some other professionals have a way of creating an unnecessary lexicon that is designed to make them necessary. I don't blame GooberdUp for this, it started long long ago. I will blame GooberedUp for participating for personal economic purposes in a profession that is corrupt and an attack and fraud on the common folk.
He will answer if he has any integrity, so your right, he won't answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
1. What sense does it make to reward an author/artist/creator/director etc. after they are dead.?
I think a limited amount of time should be provided. If I am an author and I drop dead the day after I've spent 20 years writing a book, shouldn't there be some type of compensation? I think the duration specified in the original 1790 law was fine. 14 years and renewable for another 14 (if the author was still alive). The Mickey Mouse copyright extensions are way over the top.
2. Should software be patentable or copyright-able?
I'm not a huge of software/business method patents. I've done them over the years, but maybe it's my hardware engineer side that nags me about this saying that flow charts and functional boxes really shouldn't be patentable. Copyrights I'm okay with. I think CONTU was right.
3. Should business methods receive protection of any kind?
Not a fan. I wouldn't have any issues with that going away.
4. Why should the IOC be able to force any restaurant named Olympic Pizza to change their name?
They shouldn't, as long as the restaurant isn't using any IOC trademarks in a way that could cause customers to be confused about affiliation.
5. Should any country even attempt to force their vision of IP on any other country?
Only if a unified vision is good for IP generally. And I think the WIPO patent filing system was very good for patents. OHIM was good for trademarks in the EU. Not quite sure about the Berne Convention.
6. Should there be any control over any product after a sale when copying for resale is already illegal?
I think the copyright holder gets to decide how to handle its content. Let them succeed or fail on their own.
7. Should a publisher/producer etc. be able to retrieve something they sold (and got paid) without reimbursing the purchaser?
No.
8. Should format shifting be wrong if there is no money made from it?
No, if you are talking about taking your content and making it viewable on numerous devices for your household use.
9. Should libraries and therefore sharing (as in lending a book to a friend, not selling) be illegal?
No. It's only a single copy being moved.
--------------
Again, these are only my opinions. I'm sure the xxAA orgs would disagree with some of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
Oh, and I take back the comment I made about integrity in a post that was held for moderation and I expect to show up some time in the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
I think fair use is great and I believe it does outweigh the DMCA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
Fair use should be considered by the copyright holder before bringing action, that they don't is having a chilling effect. Direct claims of infringement and use of the DMCA is allowing censorship, because most people cannot afford to hire a lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
I would have been happier if this answer was "only if a unified vision is good for people generally". IP is not (or shouldn't be) an end unto itself. It is a trade-off, and the entire rationale for the tradeoff is that it benefits society in general, not that it benefits the creators of IP.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?
In response to "I think that CONTU was right" I am wondering what your opinion of the Altai decision is.
From what I can tell, the CONTU report was (sort of) in favor of allowing the copyrighting of "non-literal" elements of software code. The Altai decision, while not explicitly saying so, basically eliminates this kind of protection for software.
Do you think that that is a mistake? Or do you think that the CONTU report was didn't really support or understand that aspect of software copyrighting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The DVD-CA is arguing that the fact that a purchaser of a DVD or Blu-Ray is restricted in the uses that they are allowed to make of their purchased item is equivalent to a license.
As far as I can tell, their logic is this: there are restrictions on a purchaser's right to use DVDs that they buy (from the DMCA). Licenses are a thing that restrict the uses that purchasers make with the things that they buy. Therefore, people that buy DVDs are entering a license agreement. This is obviously illogical.
This is part of a broader effort on the part of content producers to attempt to trick courts into allowing the DMCA to bleed back into copyright ownership. The reason it is a problem is that the issue is complex, and judges frequently don't really understand copyright law. I hope that the copyright office makes significant efforts to push back against this trend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mechanical & Unique Embedded Licenses are a good thing.
When I buy a book, an audio cassette, a CD, a DVD, a Blu-Ray disc, I presume that I am buying a mechanical license for a physical object.
If the material is coded to cease being readable with restrictions listed, then the disc would still be mine, even though it stopped playing after 'X' number of plays or on a future date; but I still own the disc. If I don't own the disc, then I'm simply renting the product and the product should be returned by a certain date or it ceases to play after 'X' plays or a certain date. i.e. if one buys a vinyl album or CD, uniquely numbered or not - it is still your MECHANICAL LICENSE. You may and can resell it to someone else just like your '57Chevy. The copyright law has always allowed the purchaser to make a backup copy (if possible) in case the original is lost or damaged; but not if resold!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Last word: you own the media, kids, you do not own "the movie itself", the content. So long as on the DVD, you own it. Once off, it's dicey.
Poor "GooberedUp"! You did succeed in running him off, so big WIN. Congrats. I just wish other reasonable people knew of this thread, would save them much time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Immeasurable benefits
“Immeasurable”… yeah, that’s the word.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]