01-31-12, 02:03 PM #601
I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but here we are halfway to another 20 pages, and the adoucette show seems to be hitting its stride. Do we really, really need to get to page 40?
01-31-12, 02:09 PM #602
new property rights?
Most video tapes come with a copy protection signal embedded on the tape. One popular product in this arena is made by Macrovision. According to Macrovision, "The technology is applied to over 550 million videocassettes annually and is used by every MPAA movie studio on some or all of their videocassette releases. Over 220 commercial duplication facilities around the world are equipped to supply Macrovision videocassette copy protection to rights owners." Also, "The study found that over 30% of VCR households admit to having unauthorized copies, and that the total annual revenue loss due to copying is estimated at $370,000,000 annually." So, it's a pretty big problem.
the era of vhs
css is a logical extension of old tech to new media
01-31-12, 02:15 PM #603
01-31-12, 02:18 PM #604
01-31-12, 02:26 PM #605
01-31-12, 02:28 PM #606
01-31-12, 02:35 PM #607
01-31-12, 02:35 PM #608
Not the same thing at all.
As far as "circumventing CSS to copy a DVD generates an offense under the DMCA", is not quite true. As the court said it only creates "new grounds for Liability", but, the DMCA doesn't apply if you aren't making or trafficking in a device that infringes (as in Real Nets case) or what you are doing by circumvention isn't infringing, as in the case of making Fair Use backups or shifting formats.
The anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA create new grounds of liability. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused circumventor must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the circumvention at issue and a use relating to a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization
01-31-12, 02:40 PM #609
I would suggest that if one were using mediocre equipment for playback, and good equipment for reproduction, then yes--the copy would be virtually identical, from a human perspective.
But if one were to use good equipment for playback--for both the original and the reproduced--the copy would be different, though not necessarily inferior, from the original, from many a human perspective.
Unless by "good equipment" you mean like using a 40 thousand dollar lathe to "copy" a record...
01-31-12, 02:40 PM #610
It limits a users ability to copy because it limits a users access.
Besides, this issue was addressed in Chamberlain:
Chamberlain’s proposed severance of “access” from “protection” in § 1201(a) creates numerous other problems. Beyond suggesting that Congress enacted by implication a new, highly protective alternative regime for copyrighted works; contradicting other provisions of the same statute including § 1201(c)(1); and ignoring the explicit immunization of interoperability from anticircumvention liability under § 1201(f); the broad policy implications of considering “access” in a vacuum devoid of “protection” are both absurd and disastrous.
Under Chamberlain’s proposed construction, explicated at oral argument, disabling a burglar alarm to gain “access” to a home containing copyrighted books, music, art, and periodicals would violate the DMCA; anyone who did so would unquestionably have “circumvent[ed] a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under [the Copyright Act].” § 1201(a)(1). The appropriate deterrents to this type of behavior lie in tort law and criminal law, not in copyright law. Yet, were we to read the statute’s “plain language” as Chamberlain urges, disabling a burglar alarm would be a per se violation of the DMCA.
01-31-12, 02:47 PM #611
01-31-12, 02:53 PM #612keith1Guest
Keep close to mind that it is most likely that all artistic and religious activities may be worthless, time-slot stuffing, self-aggrandizements, and petty amusements of the insane.
01-31-12, 02:53 PM #613
01-31-12, 03:11 PM #614
Real tried to argue that since consumers had fair use to copy, they should be allowed to make something that could be used for that purpose.
But that led to Patel's famous quote:
“The court appreciates Real’s argument that a consumer has a right to make a backup copy of a DVD for their own personal use,” she wrote. “While it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally-owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.”
So no, Patel's ruling applies to Real for "making and trafficing, and NOT to consumers for their fair use.
But software makers found a way around that.
By no one making and trafficking in a single device which did so.
01-31-12, 03:16 PM #615
I don't just point to a court case and say FIND IT, I post the relevant sections that pertain to the issue.
You can do the same and that isn't being "spoon fed"
What is the specific language in what court case that supposedly supports your position?
Failure to post said language indicates it doesn't actually exist.
01-31-12, 03:25 PM #616
I even went as far as asking you if you thought it was legal to buy something that it was illegal to sell, which sent you on your little "But millions of people are using it and not getting arrested" tirade.
01-31-12, 03:32 PM #617
"Here, the court finds that CSS technology still effectively controls access to DVD content for the average consumer."
"CSS is a “technological measure” that effectively controls access to copyrighted DVD content and RealDVD permits the access of that content without the authority of the copyright owner."
"Real has violated section 1201(a) of the DMCA by trafficking in RealDVD products for the purpose of circumventing CSS technology."
"The court has found that CSS technology was developed to create a secure system for the dissemination and playback of copyrighted content on DVDs, and that the CSS system accomplishes this by combining multiple layers of encryption with an authentication process to protect a DVD’s content from unauthorized access as well as from unauthorized consumer copying."
Supports my argument because it states that it does both (which I have aknowledged).
Note that 1201(a) is the access control provision, not the copy control provision:
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that–
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a
technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(c) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
The only person being preposterous here is you.
It's right there, as quoted, in the Real case.
Last edited by Trippy; 01-31-12 at 03:41 PM.
01-31-12, 03:47 PM #618
01-31-12, 03:49 PM #619
No Trippy, you just agreed, that it is ALSO Copy control.
Before you said:Originally Posted by Trippy
the broad policy implications of considering “access” in a vacuum devoid of “protection” are both absurd and disastrous.
By the way, you have not linked to MPAA's suggested method of making copies of your DVDs without breaking CSS.
Last edited by adoucette; 01-31-12 at 03:58 PM.
01-31-12, 03:52 PM #620
By Trooper in forum PoliticsLast Post: 01-17-12, 11:56 PMReplies: 12
By dbnp48 in forum Computer Science & CultureLast Post: 02-27-11, 08:25 AMReplies: 6
By Ziad S Homsi in forum World EventsLast Post: 06-23-10, 04:13 PMReplies: 1746
By James R in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 11-21-09, 07:29 PMReplies: 28
By madanthonywayne in forum Ethics, Morality, & JusticeLast Post: 03-03-09, 01:37 AMReplies: 19