DMCA Exemptions Desired To Hack iPhones, Remix DVDs 188
An anonymous reader writes "For copyright activists, Christmas comes but once every three years: a chance to ask Santa for a new exemption to the much-hated Digital Millennium Copyright Act's prohibitions against hacking, reverse engineering and evasion of Digital Rights Management (DRM) schemes protecting all kinds of digital works and electronic items. Judging from the list of 20 exemptions requested this year [19 shown], some in the cyber-law community are thinking big. The requests include the right to legally jailbreak iPhones in order to use third party software, university professors wishing to rip clips from DVDs for classroom use, YouTube users wishing to rip DVDs to make video mashups, a request to allow users to hack DRM protecting content from stores that have gone bankrupt or shut down, and a request to allow security researchers to reverse engineer video games with security flaws that put end-users at risk."
Reader MistaE provides some more specific links to PDF versions: "Among the exemption proposals is a request from the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic to allow circumvention of DRM protection when the central authorization server goes down, a request from the EFF to allow circumvention to install third party programs on phones, as well as a request for ripping DVDs for non-commercial purposes. There were also several narrow requests from educational institutions to rip DVDs for classroom practices."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
but that makes too much sense!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but that makes too much sense!
Not really. Wanting to share reproductions in no way constitutes "criminal intent".
Re: (Score:2)
Except for all case where 'share' includes 'exchange for compensation'.
Re:How about this (Score:5, Funny)
Regards,
Mafiaa
Re:How about this (Score:5, Insightful)
Sharing reproductions is not necessarily copyright infringement. Copyright infringement is usually not a criminal matter. Using correct and precise terminology is important to having an informed debate, as opposed to losing without the debate happening by letting your opponents set the terms.
Why is it that geeks have no trouble using the precise, correct terms when writing code, but so commonly fail to transfer that precision to other areas where it is equally important?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Do not judge too quickly. I have seen terms used for variables and functions that made sense once upon a time but the program has morphed around it such that 'cvs blame' would indicate the original developer was picking words from the dictionary at random.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because our opponents in the RIAA are using an aimbot.
most geeks frown on cheaters.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you assume that the good coders are the same people who can't be precise when they are speaking?
Re: (Score:2)
The trouble is, more and more there is a push (and seemingly some success) to make more and more and more copyright infringement cases prosecutable as a criminal offense.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Why is it that geeks have no trouble using the precise, correct terms when writing code, but so commonly fail to transfer that precision to other areas where it is equally important?"
Because there is an infinite amount of knowledge to have, and only a finite amount of time in which to acquire. Many people on Slashdot have dedicated a lot of time and energy into learning how to write good strong code in a variety of languages, few have dedicated much time or energy at all into doing the same for legal docum
so why would you ask a programmer for legal advice (Score:2)
Because Code is Law?
</lessig>
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Show us the parse tree for English and we'll start using perfect grammar.
The problem is, the parse trees for most sentences in the language are ambiguous.
Further complicating the fact is that English may not be enumerable - I know the way most people speak it, it's not even a recognizable language, let alone decidable.
French, however, I hear is Turing decidable. Why else would they be so smug...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hardly. It's possible to make sense out of French!
Parse tree for English (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That would be just meaningless. And well, it will would render the anti-circumvention clause completely useless. That sounds like a very good reason to do it, I'm all for it.
Re:How about this (Score:5, Insightful)
The exception needs to be "except for in fair-use situations."
Imagine ripping DVDs being illegal unless you're only going to make a mashup video for youtube? Sure that's part of fair-use, but if that's all you ask for, and that's what they grant, then we're all retarded. What the hell are these people thinking?
So many times people try to fight fires at the top of the flames, and wonder why they never go out. Talk about slippery slopes, eh? See? We're fair! We can remove your right of second sales, because look- we agreed to dvd rips for youtube mashups only!
GAAAAAWD! I get so angry. I need some pie brb.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about this (Score:5, Insightful)
As far as our government is concerned right now, ripping DVDs IS illegal when doing so circumvents the CSS, which is a violation of the DMCA. Everything that is being asked for is CURRENTLY illegal under the DMCA, regardless of what you or many other wishful thinking nerds believe. I don't understand why asking for these exemptions are a slippery slope -- how can you give up rights that you currently don't have under the law?
Now I understand your frustration, because it really is unfortunate that this is where we're at. But we don't succeed by ignoring the laws. We succeed by working with them, compromising, and then, hopefully, overcoming them with logic, common sense, and hopefully the backing of the American populace.
For example, one of the exemptions listed was for Media Film Studies education. The exemption was granted in 2006 and was a boon to that academic industry. This year, they are arguing that their 2006 exemption was so successful and necessary that they are asking to expand the exemption to encompass even more uses. They used clear factual examples, compelling legal arguments, and logic to show the LOC that it is necessary to expand their rights, and I hope that they get it.
To some (or most) these may seem like small potatoes sure, but they're a legitimate foot in the door. The odds of an exemption being granted that simply asks for something as broad as "everything that is under fair-use" is extremely unlikely. But, if we continue to succeed at these exemptions and show Washington that this is where the people are heading, this is what society needs, and these are the reasons why we are having issues, maybe that becomes one more brick in the wall to convince them that the DMCA is not a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as our government is concerned right now, ripping DVDs IS illegal when doing so circumvents the CSS, which is a violation of the DMCA.
Really? I was under the impression, based on several readings, that it is not illegal to circumvent CSS for fair use purposes, but it _is_ illegal to help anyone do so, though instruction, software, etc. The upshot is that you have to be able to decrypt it yourself (i.e. find the key and code the decrypter). That is, of course, nearly impossible for the vast majority of people, which makes it effectively impossible without making it illegal.
Hence, my ownership and use of AnyDVD - provided I use it for "fair
Re:How about this (Score:4, Interesting)
You're right, and so's the GP. The GP is right about how the law is written, but you're right about how the courts have chosen to interpret it.
Luckily, some judges have seen fit to ignore the letter of the DMCA and given people the right to do what they should always have been allowed to do.
Asking for these exemptions might cause the government to realize what total idiocy the DMCA is though.
Re: (Score:2)
We can always hope...
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, and so's the GP. The GP is right about how the law is written, but you're right about how the courts have chosen to interpret it.
No, the GP is not correct.
The letter of the law specifically says that fair use is permitted and is not copyright infringement, even if the action would otherwise violate a portion of the DMCA:
17 USC 1201(c)(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
The DMCA was codified in Title 17, sections 1201-1205 of the United States Code (USC), and you can see by the text that anything otherwise permitted by Title 17 is not a violation of the DMCA portion.
It all works out to "for fair use, you can violate the DMCA, but contributory infringement is not fair use". Contribut
Re: (Score:2)
Now I understand your frustration, because it really is unfortunate that this is where we're at. But we don't succeed by ignoring the laws. We succeed by working with them, compromising, and then, hopefully, overcoming them with logic, common sense, and hopefully the backing of the American populace.
because we overcame prohibition by not drinking right?
we overcame harsh labor conditions by not picketing and sometimes rioting right?
we overcame racial prejudice by staying OUT of the white soup kitchens and bathrooms and saying "yes massa" when they told us to stop marching in protest on major cities, right?
we overcame onerous british invasion of several generations of de-facto independence by NOT rising up in 1776, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you can shoot the water above the flames and put it out faster in most in house situations in a Grimwood's modified '3D attack strategy'.
Anyways, this isn't just an exception per se it is the definition of the fair use for which the anti circumvention applies.
The law says
(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, ad
Re: (Score:2)
. If you want more, like being able to buy a program to decode DVDs for fair use or the ability to unlock your TIVO or mod your Xbox to run Linux, then you need to lobby congress to change the laws (treaties forbid getting rid of it). That won't be too difficult if you have a good enough reason and don't stray into calling Disney or the RIAA evil and such.
yeah, this moderate approach has worked over the past decade, with a preponderance of evidence which makes the MAFIAA's side of the argument look like the funniest segment of "world's dumbest criminals".
The corruption is rife.
there are 3 ways to get around this:
-move your operation out of us jurisdiction
-deliberately disobey the law and go underground
-lock and load
1 and 2 are much more reasonable and less ethically/legally risky than the third, but i'm sure if they enforce things strictly enough or get too
Even better (Score:5, Insightful)
Make it legal, always, period.
There are already laws against the criminal things you've suggested. I really don't see why it should also be illegal to break DRM with the intention of doing that -- why should the intention matter at all? Maybe you broke it with the intention of watching it on your Mythbox, and later got the idea (independently) of using the cracked version for something criminal?
No, that's all needlessly vague and complex. If you want to make it hurt more to pirate stuff, change those laws -- which wasn't even a criminal offense until recently, but rather, a civil matter.
Think about that -- it is a federal crime to crack the DRM. It's merely a civil offense to redistribute the music. One goes on your record, the other doesn't. WTF?!
Tag says it all: justrepealit. Or, if you're going to ask for exemptions, don't ask for such pathetically small ones -- are iPhones mentioned specifically? Why can't I crack an iPod Touch, then?
Re: (Score:2)
Legislators love specific exceptions much more than just getting he law right generally in the first place. This is because they measure their output by quantity. They seem to think that the job of a good congressman is to pass a lot of bills, or better yet introduce a lot of bills that get passed. It's a miracle that anything gets voted down *at all*.
It's not entirely their fault though. IMO, the ideal congressman sits on his ass all day because nothing needs changing. How many voters really feel the
Re: (Score:2)
This is because they measure their output by quantity.
That's fine -- just measure it as a combined quantity of bills passed and bills repealed.
Or measure it as a quantity of money you saved the taxpayers, or of people who have actually been positively affected by what you're doing.
IMO, the ideal congressman sits on his ass all day because nothing needs changing.
But do you actually believe nothing needs changing? Would you bother to vote for an incumbent if you were so content? You'd probably be much more interested in voting the bums out when you aren't content...
I agree, in principle, but in practice, there's far too much broken, and it ta
Re: (Score:2)
Legislators... they measure their output by quantity. They seem to think that the job of a good congressman is to pass a lot of bills, or better yet introduce a lot of bills that get passed. It's a miracle that anything gets voted down *at all*.
It's not entirely their fault though. IMO, the ideal congressman sits on his ass all day because nothing needs changing. How many voters really feel the same way.
Repealing acts also require bills, and republicans could win virtually the entire 12-35 demographic if they promise to repeal this one.
They seem to like repealing many other laws, so I don't see why this one should raise objections.
Re:The test of whether one supports copyright: (Score:5, Insightful)
Do you want to do your job for free? Do you want to not get paid for any work you do? If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.
I get paid when I work. I don't get paid today because I worked 4 years ago for one week, and people still benefit [sic] from what I did. Violation of copyright says "You did you job, good job. Now get over it and get BACK to work like the rest of mankind!" and not "I don't think you should get paid for what you do."
I have zero sympathy for those untalented hacks who spent a whole week in a recording studio and now want me to feed them, their whores, and their children for the rest of their pathetic lives. If they want to eat, they need to go out and win bread like the rest of us!
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. I believe in Copyright only inasmuch as others shouldn't be able to claim they wrote something that I wrote (or created, more generally).
If Tom Clancy wrote a novel and some hack copied and republished it as his own, that should be wrong.
If however, I loan the book to a friend or cite a few paragraphs as an example of how he foresaw the future of warfare (or not), that should not be illegal.
It seems so common-sense, until the government lobbyists get involved.
Re: (Score:2)
See, here's my problem: After Tom Clancy dies, he no longer benefits from sales. So why should it be illegal for some hack to copy and republish his book? As copyright stands today, if you live slightly longer than average, anything you write after you're 8 years old will be copyright until after you're dead. That's bullshit. Why should some company that didn't even _do_ anything continue to profit from someone else's work for so long? It should be illegal to copy and resell someone's work until they have h
Re: (Score:2)
If you cannot sell the rights of your book, you might as well die out of starvation.
So, to make you able to sell your book, it must have some value to the buyer.
The buyer needs some kind of assurance that the book is still valuable after you suddenly die out of a car accident.
Also, most people (not all) feel it incentive that their children or grandchildren benefit from their work. If writing books is not working this way, but earning money by dish washing is, most people would give up on writing books in f
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But see, your child doesn't get paid because you washed dishes. Your child gets paid because you save money and give it to them. Same can be said of writing books.
Copyright isn't supposed to protect the publishers, it's supposed to protect the artists. If you happen to die of a car accident...well, that sucks, but you don't need the money, and I doubt the publisher does either. It'd just be an additional risk of business. Though honestly I don't think copyright should expire when the artist dies - it just s
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with the 10 year limit, in general, but I fear that the actual quality of the content being produced would go way down. You see, since they can't reset the clock by extending the original copyright, they will simply produce and push a new work every ten years. Quantity will go way up, but eventually everything will begin to resemble reality tv.
Re: (Score:2)
When was the last piece of commercially produced culture you saw that you honestly believe will continue to have cultural relevance after a decade or 2?
I mean, I agree entirely that the content industries are producing more, faster, worse content than ever before, but I don't think copyright terms really have a bearing on that fact. I'd say it has more to do with the fact that:
a) it's cheap to produce
b) financial turnaround for such productions happens within a year or three in 99% of cases
c) they've taught
Re: (Score:2)
Mickey Mouse
Chronicles of Narnia
Lord of the Rings
etc, etc, etc
It isn't common, but it happens.
Re: (Score:2)
Would any of these projects have been scrapped if the producers knew they'd only get to collect the first 10 years' worth of commercial revenue?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
most people would give up on writing books in favour of washing dishes.
In other news, dishwashing is a way more popular career than book-writing.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The problem with this logic is that without copyright protection in some form, it would be much harder to be a self-sufficient producer of original work whether that be writing, movies, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this logic is that without copyright protection in some form, it would be much harder to be a self-sufficient producer of original work whether that be writing, movies, etc.
your utterly specious argument is debunked by:
programmers
web developers
architects
graphic designers
garage, small time local, cult, and underground bands
every "new sound" that's ever arisen (how long before rap was "acceptable" to established labels?)
Without copyright, you could spend years working on a novel, and only sell a few copies, since someone could legally reproduce your novel, distribute it, and not give you a dime.
restrict copyright only to commercial production and that ceases to be an issue. This is done quite nicely with the print media example, as it's expensive for both the reproduction and enforcement sides. With audio-visual it's much more lopsided.
But, once again
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No they dont.
Do you get to charge license fees in perpetuity for the lines of code you write for your employer? If you do they're morons, because that's not standard.
architects don't either.. they're paid hourly or salary
same for graphic designers
local bands are paid by the gig and for merchandise by fans
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I can understand the reason for getting paid royalties and having your own work copyrighted but I have no sympathy for the untalented hacks their children or whores are (whether they are corporate (Disney) or individual (Yoko Ono)) years after the original artist or group has ceased (benefitting from his work). I also have no sympathy for the hacks that are trying to profit from the same work MULTIPLE times from the same people.
There should be a limit that cannot be extended for work done and it shouldn't b
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the e
Re: (Score:2)
OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the equivalent income from selling their art as any other skilled person? Do you have sympathy for them? Or do you lump all artists into that extremely tiny subcategory just to make yourself feel better when you rip them off?
Show me one of those who buys laws every few years to deprive the public of more and more rights
Show me one of those who abuses the DMCA like a cudgel against everything that moves
Show me one of those who houses an army of lawyers in his basement with which to launch horribly asymmetric attacks against defenseless individuals often on the edge of poverty.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
OK, fair enough. What about the other 99% of artists, who do spend more than a week in the recording studio (or on location at a film, or in their studio painting, etc), or who some consider to be talented, or who can't get anywhere near the equivalent income from selling their art as any other skilled person?
Touring, selling t-shirts and stickers on their website, and having day jobs if they're not making enough money off their hobbies... like the rest of us do. I live and work in Los Angeles, and so I have friends (the kind who actually consider ME their friend) who range from small time entertainment to international superstars that are used to seeing their faces on the front of tabloids. I'm not so detached from the industry that I'm unaware at how a change like this would affect them personally, and I tel
Re: (Score:2)
Do you want to do your job for free?
Strawman. [wikipedia.org]
Do you want to not get paid for any work you do?
Strawman. [nizkor.org]
If not, then you support copyright restrictions. Because violation of copyright is exactly the same thing as hiring someone but not paying them.
Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
They're rhetorical questions, not strawmen. The idea is that you answer an emphatic "no" to the both questions (obviously), and then the last ties it back copyright infringement. He's not misrepresenting someone else's argument, he's merely creating his own.
Sure it's technically fallacious, but he's most of the way there to a decent argument. What he missed was the premise that if you want to be paid for your work, then you want the same for everyone else. It's true that you
Re: (Score:2)
They're rhetorical questions, not strawmen. The idea is that you answer an emphatic "no" to the both questions (obviously), and then the last ties it back copyright infringement. He's not misrepresenting someone else's argument, he's merely creating his own.
The fact it's rhetorical doesn't change the fact it's a straw man. Its a fallacy so obviously misrepresentative as to be absurd.
Being paid for your work is not the same as being paid in perpetuity for work you once did.
Sure it's technically fallacious, but he's most of the way there to a decent argument. What he missed was the premise that if you want to be paid for your work, then you want the same for everyone else. It's true that you may well be an asshole, and want just yourself to be paid, and you could give a flying Foxtrot if anyone else gets paid for their work.
The disconnect in the fallacy is not the implied idea that everyone should be paid for their work, it's the equation of (not) paying someone for their work with paying someone forever for work they did.
The question I'd suggest to ask GGP is:
"So, when I spend a day flipping burgers, I should t
Re: (Score:2)
how about (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if you personally aren't making a profit, you could be impacting the profit of the copyright owner, which is the whole point of the DMCA.
Which is bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
If I put up a sign next to a shitty restaurant saying "Do not patronize restaurant X, the food is crap", that's my free speech right.
If a city puts in a new highway that means less people drive down a service road that was previously the highway, and a number of businesses don't get as much impulse "I think I'll stop there" business, they either adapt or move or die, they don't get recompense.
Nothing should be different with DRM. DRM is a method by which the companies try to infringe on the CONSUMER'S right to fair-use activities like space-shifting, nothing more. DRM itself should be illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing should be different with DRM. DRM is a method by which the companies try to infringe on the CONSUMER'S right to fair-use activities like space-shifting, nothing more. DRM itself should be illegal.
Agree, except for the last part. Company X should be able DRM all they want, as there will always be Company Y that will not use it. Let the people decide who survives.
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming that you have the necessary permits to hang a sign and aren't trespassing to do it, it is still different because those are your words, not mine or someone else'. DRM would be me not letting you tresspass to do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Except controlling distribution of your creative work is a Constitutionally protected right:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.
So to make your analogies work, it'd be like you setting up a large sign in front of a restaurant's doorway, blocking its customers and employees from entering - violating their right to operate and associate freely Or building the new highway
Re: (Score:2)
Uhm, no.
Congress gives you the right, legally speaking, to control commercial production of your intellectual property. That is, if you write a screenplay or theater play, or a book, or produce some other piece of art, you have the right to stop others from reproducing it unless you give them permission (possibly, but not always, in exchange for some form of restitution).
What you do NOT have the right to do is block the public's fair-use privileges, such as quoting a limited portion of the work, space-shift
Re: (Score:2)
Nothing should be different with DRM. DRM is a method by which the companies try to infringe on the CONSUMER'S right to fair-use activities like space-shifting, nothing more. DRM itself should be illegal.
On the contrary, the laws "protecting" drm from commercial circumvention should be repealed.
Many proponents of DRM claim "the free market" will sort out whether people want DRM, carefully masking the fallacy that the DMCA makes it illegal for firms to provide remedies for this cancer.
DRM did exist before the DMCA, for a very long time. The difference is companies could manufacture circumvention tools, so anybody who didn't want it could get rid of it.
I'm by no means a free market fundamentalist, but in thi
Re: (Score:2)
Not me. I would not only like it completely repealed, but a new law with the DMCA name on it passed that said if you protect your work technologically it loses copyright and enters the public domain.
DRM is a useless fantasy. There is no reason for the law to protect useless fantasies.
Re: (Score:2)
What defines "protecting [my] work technologically"?
If I only distribute a program in binary form, is that protecting it technologically? After all, you don't have access to my source code.
If I only distribute lossy versions of music/movies, is that protecting them technologically? After all, you don't have the original lossless files used to create it, and are beholden to whatever quality level I used.
If I use a firewall on my computer, is that protecting any work that I have on it technologically? After a
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I would go even further. I would require that any company employing DRM must ensure that the files, program, whatever is usable in non-infringement ways for the entire length of the copyright plus 20 years and if that is not possible, they must provide the ability to remove the DRM free of charge with no strings attached.
Re: (Score:2)
How about changing the DMCA so that any copyright holder who uses DRM agrees to only a 17 year copyright term on the DRM encumbered work. If they want the longer (I.E. unreasonable) length term then they have to forego DRM.
The original term of copyright in the USA was 14 years plus another optional 14 if the author was (a) alive and (b) made the effort to renew. And there was no DRM.
So, why should DRM users get any copyright at all? I say make it like trade-secret vs patents - if you want to keep it locked up, then you don't get copyright protection. Just like if you keep the details of your invention a secret, you don't get patent protection on it.
Too late to file? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it too late for Psytar [macrumors.com] to file for an exemption? ~
We need exemptions for any software used to do the (Score:2)
We need exemptions for any software used to do the same type of stuff form cars to printer ink.
Re: (Score:2)
Was their plan to sell non-apple laptops with otherwise legitimate copies of OSX, or just to copy it a bunch of times over? "Pre-loaded" is a very suspicious software term.
You are getting / paying a copy of mac os x on eac (Score:2)
You are getting / paying a copy of mac os x on each system. Dell and others per load images on there systems apple likely does the same thing as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Personally, I
add bypassing of hardware locks / lockin software (Score:3, Interesting)
add bypassing of hardware locks in software so people can BUY mac os x and run it on any system that they want. There also been other apps and that used other types of hardware lock in as well. Also add bypassing printer ink lock out chips used to keep 3rd party's out.
You should also have the right to add bigger hd's to game consoles / drvs and other devices that try sell you there own hd size upgrades at very high cost.
Smart phones also need to have the right to bypass any type of sim locks / network locks / even phone app network locks as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Lol.. Do you really think it is the **AA's and not the WIPO treaties that require the protection to be there?
Don't confuse the cheerleaders for the players [wipo.int] in the game. [wipo.int]
Playing Movies on Free Operating Systems? (Score:4, Insightful)
Is someone at least requesting it?
I suppose if we get an exception we could play both DVDs and BluRays on Linux.. legally. Well except for the codecs, but shh.
Re: (Score:2)
If they allow me to legally bypass CSS in order to watch the movies I own then what will I complain about?
Rip clips from DVDs (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd want to expand on this one: "university professors wishing to rip clips from DVDs for classroom use"
Make it: "Allow home users to rip DVDs for personal use"
So if you rip the video off of the DVD to put it on your home media server, you're fine. If you rip a bunch of children's DVDs to compile a single DVD with your kid's favorite episodes, you're ok. Basically anything you do where the video doesn't leave your "personal zone" would be allowed. Things like sharing clips, classroom use, or YouTube mashups would be a separate exemption.
Then, perhaps, we could get set top boxes that would take DVDs in, rip them to an internal hard drive, and allow home users to choose from hundreds or thousands of movies without handling any discs. As any parent with little kids will tell you, you want to keep the discs away from kids' hands, but keep them in reach enough that you can access them quickly and easily. A set top box like this would be ideal.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't you read the article summary, where it says the EFF submitted a request for ripping DVDs for non-commercial use
Re: (Score:2)
This is in fact being asked for.
Personally, I'd rather someone asked for the right to invalidate any digital Copyright system that violates the rest of Copyright as it stands. That is to say, a DRM system that doesn't allow personal backups would be invalid. A DRM system that won't let me pull out a clip of a song for a review would be invalidated too.
I have nothing against DRM, IF it works within the confines of the law and my rights and that includes self-sacrificing the DRM layer when the law says that
"Abandonware" should also include version antics (Score:5, Interesting)
I've had two situations in which I had a legally-obtained older version of software for which the provider had dropped support, which included dropping support for the DRM built into the products.
In one case, you had to call in, give them your product ID and get a DRM key. I wanted to move the product from an older machine to a newer one. I called in and they told me they had dropped support, including handling the DRM keys, and to buy their new product. The old product served my needs, and the new one had improvements that were useless to me. Luckily, one tech support person was nice and told me where I could find the DRM key value in the old installation, that I hadn't yet deleted. Had I needed to reinstall for any reason, I would have been stuck.
In another case the DRM required either an internet connection or printer access during installation. This was not explained in the installation instructions. I was installing software on a new machine and hadn't yet set up either internet or printer. With that (early) DRM, if you didn't go through the procedure at installation time, there was no opportunity to do it later. The provider later came out with other versions and dropped support for this version. I moved on to using a FOSS product, so I never tried to resolve the issue, but I have a useless copy of that particular software. It didn't set me back any cost, because I had won a copy of the product in a drawing at a trade show booth for people who sat through a demo of something.
If DRM support is dropped for a version of a product, it should be treated as an abandoned product, even if the DRM is maintained for later versions.
I wish people would fly closer to the truth. (Score:2)
I have found a number of places where people have exaggerated the effect of DRM on their use cases far beyond reality. Others have quoted officers of corporations who were clearly lying about the reasons they made business decisions to restrict access, and attempting to direct the blame to other companies. I wish people wouldn't do this, because these errors of fact are clear to anyone with a reasonable familiarity with the situation, and cast any argument against DRM... even the many many valid ones... int
A simple request (Score:2)
I would like to request this exemption: Let me do what I want with the things I paid for.
DIVX (Score:3, Interesting)
Among the exemption proposals is a request from the Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic to allow circumvention of DRM protection [copyright.gov] when the central authorization server goes down
Which first lists Circuit City's Digital Video Express (DIVX) disks under "DRM-based Stores Have Failed In the Past":
I hope it includes allowing for the authorization of my lawfully purchased copy of DVD X Copy Gold which I didn't get activated before the company was served with a cease-and-desist. That would be sweet irony.
Harvard Cyberlaw Clinic (Score:2)
They're proposal is very similar to one I made here [slashdot.org] and at Content Agenda [contentagenda.com] (it's the last comment on the page) a month or two back. Their proposal seems much more detailed.
I would've sworn that I submitted my version to copyright.gov, and got a confirmation, but I can't find any evidence of it now. Hopefully, it will be considered as an additional vote for this version.
NOT big enough! (Score:2)
Anti-circumvention regulations have a chilling effect on education and small business, and form a defacto barrier to entry to competition in important areas of technology. Further, it drives business and innovation to take place in other nations that do not have such regulations.
Like the encryption export r
Re:Jailbreaking (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
However, I think that jailbreaking an iPhone to run unauthorized apps would be considered a grey area at best.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The act of "jailbreaking" an iPhone is not illegal, unless the _owner_ of the device has agreed to some TOS/EULA disallowing such an act. The responsibility falls on the owner of the device, not any individuals or corporations aiding in a modification.
Using a unlocked phone to circumvent copy protections may be illegal (DMCA), but I don't know of any media where such circumvention would be necessary simply for use on a hacked device. Of course applications may have EULA's or TOS disallowing their use apar
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The act of "jailbreaking" an iPhone is not illegal, unless the _owner_ of the device has agreed to some TOS/EULA disallowing such an act.
No, No, NO! Why do people continue to perpetuate this?
Violating a company's EULA is not illegal. Period. Full stop.
illegal
-adjective
1. forbidden by law or statute.
2. contrary to or forbidden by official rules, regulations, etc.
-noun
3. Informal. illegal alien.
Tell me which law or statue I'm violating by doing something that isn't allowed by an EULA.
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly contract law, which would be illegal in the civil sense (i.e. they can sue you about it.), if the EULA can be considered a legally valid contract.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought I heard that, in some jurisdictions, an EULA was considered an implied contract, and thus breaking it would be a breach in contract (but I really have no idea).
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention, that we recently have a nice new precedent in the Lori Drew case...where if you break the TOS, you can get charged with some pretty bad fines and jail time. I mean, it *is* just a little more of a stretch to convict someone of breaking the TOS for a phone plan. Remember..she was NOT convicted in any way of hurting that girl that committed suicide.
Seems like a fair stre
Re:Fist Prose (Score:5, Funny)
Devil's Advocate (Score:2)
I presume if you are watching clips in class, the professor has either a computer or a DVD player hooked to a large monitor or projector. Why not just cue up the particular discs? Especially with licensed DVD player software it's easy to jog forward to the clip necessary and the professor need only mark the time code on his notes to find the clips quickly. Nothing here is restricted, it's just less convenient and make take an additional 15-30 seconds of load time, during which the professor may be discussi
Mod Parent Up (Score:2)
You make an EXCELLENT point, one that I'd like to amplify.
I keep odd hours and like the History and Science channels. In the very early morning hours, there are short shows specifically called out for classroom use. HERE'S THE KICKER: At the end, there's a statement to teachers recording the info for classroom playback that copyright restrictions require them to erase and not use the given program after some certain date. From my memory, it is a VERY short time span.
No way do I believe that this has anyt