Posted on 06/22/2007 10:30:37 AM PDT by ShadowAce
Back in April, a court found that Kaleidescape's high end DVD jukebox was perfectly legal, despite complaints from the entertainment industry. The DVD jukebox clearly was not for pirating materials. It would rip DVDs and store them on a hard drive, but it included all kinds of copy protection and cost $27,000. This wasn't for kids ripping DVDs in their bedrooms. When that lawsuit came out, the group in charge of the DVD spec, DVD-CCA whined that the lawsuit would delay the rollout of the latest DVD specs -- though it wasn't clear why. Now we know. PC Magazine has reported that the group has proposed a new amendment that would ban any product from making DVD copies or allowing DVD content to be watched without the actual DVD present. This is getting some attention on various tech sites, but it seemed pretty strange. How could an industry association, rather than the government, create the laws by which legally purchased DVDs could be used? However, as the EFF explains, it's the DMCA's fault. The DMCA effectively allows the industry to define what's acceptable innovation.
It's a little confusing how this works (and most of the initial reports aren't getting into the details). Obviously, the DVD-CCA can't change the laws and really "ban" DVD copying. DVD copying for personal use is protected fair use. However, in order to read a DVD you have to license the technology from DVD-CCA. So if you want to create a product that reads/copies/plays a DVD, you're supposed to agree to DVD-CCA's license terms first. The DMCA, with its anti-circumvention clause, means that anyone who ignores the license terms is guilty of violating the DMCA. Therefore, all the DVD-CCA needs to to in order to hinder innovation is change the terms of their license -- and ignoring it would breach the DMCA... even if all you're doing is providing tools for perfectly legal purposes (outside the DMCA). History is littered with examples of what happens when you put in incumbent industry to determine what kind of innovation is "allowed" and it never turns out positively. The incumbent industry is interested in protection, not innovation.
Copying a DVD is strictly legal.
Copying a DVD that is protected by a copyright, is not.
End of discussion.
Even for your own use at home?
I disagree. Fair use does still come into the discussion.
Kaleidescape makes an awesome product.
I came to know about them as they use the same ERP solution that we have and I was exchanging technical information with them.
I would love to have one in my house but it’s a little to rich for me.
The golden rule.
Copying a DVD that is protected by a copyright, is not.
End of discussion
Unless you are lucky enough to be amongst the 80% of the world's population where these rules don't count.
What a bunch of suckers we all are.
I disagree.
Copying a DVD for your own use (including backup) is strictly legal.
Copying a DVD for the purpose of selling or redistribution is not.
The golden rule.
It's their Intellectual Property, such as it is. They should be able to regulate the profitable transfer of their work product.
That Golden Rule, right? Not the silly one where He who has the gold, makes the rules?
The company I work for protect what I do by copyright protection laws, I have no reservation about the music industry protecting theirs as well.
“Even for your own use at home?”
Would you attempt to make your own aspirn, Nyquil or Zocor at home, having acquired (by means fair or foul)the “recipe” and the technical means to do so? Just because you can do something, it doesn’t automatically follow that you should.
As to the “it’s strictly for personal use argument” it’s a short leap from “I do it only for my own use” to “my brother-in-law asked me for a copy, and I figured, what the hell?”. Once you’ve bent one rule (or broken one law), what’s the harm in bending/breaking another, especially if “no one finds out”, right?
Not to mention that literally millions of folks are gainfuly employed in the production and distribution of entertainment DVD’s. The copyright laws don’t soley exist to protect the CEO’s, they also protect those who earn a decent living (even a tertiary living) from that copyright.
So, you see, besides the practical considerations (like, ummm, obeying the law, perhaps?) there are also moral and economic issues at play. This is one of those of situations where the exercise of a “right” (the right to copy legally-protected intellectual proprty) infringes upon the rights of others.
Why are illegal aliens called undocumented Americans?
Why does a guy who's not the biological father have to pay child support?
Why do birds suddenly appear, every time.........
Fain, Fair Use is valid. However, the legal system has defined the parameters of Fair Use, and in the areas where those parameters are/might be fuzzy, the legal process will eventually work them out.
As evil as I think these idiots are, I have to side with them. It’s their product. They can sell it any way they choose. If they want to sell it on a one time use basis, or pay as you use, fine.
It’s my right to choose not to buy what they sell.
It is the only way that’s fair.
There's a whole list of Golden Rules out there, like that one. The most famous being, "Treat others as you would have yourself treated."
Agreed--but we aren't talking medicine here--we're talking about consumer products.
Once you’ve bent one rule (or broken one law), what’s the harm in bending/breaking another, especially if “no one finds out”, right?
No law is being broken--or even bent--by copying a DVD for personal use. However, the RIAA and MPAA have decided that they don't like that practice--they want you to purchase multiple copies of every piece of music or video you own just you you can keep a backup.
Sorry--While I respect copyright, I will not buy 2-3 copies of movies just so my kids can watch them for more than a year without scratching them beyond usability.
Why amend the Constitution anymore when Hollywood can just get the Legislature to keep amending legislation instead and the courts won’t hear cases about the Constitutionality of such “laws”?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.