Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement

from the why-do-we-let-this-happen? dept

As mentioned, it looks like Canada’s new copyright law will include the “digital locks” provision, which is more accurately described as giving Hollywood a veto on any technology it doesn’t like. If you haven’t followed the specifics, the “digital locks” provision is an anti-circumvention rule that makes it against the law merely to break a “digital lock” (i.e., to route around any form of DRM, no matter how weak) even if (and this is the important part) you are breaking the digital lock for perfectly legal reasons. For reasons that I still cannot comprehend, Hollywood has insisted that anti-circumvention provisions — even if there’s no infringement — are of utmost importance. If it was really about protecting against infringement, they would make it clear that the anti-circumvention provisions only apply in cases where copyright law is broken.

The real reason why they want anti-circumvention even when there’s no copyright infringement is because it gives them a veto on any new technology. All they have to do is put in some sort of weak digital lock and suddenly the company has to “negotiate” a deal or they can be sued out of existence.

This is not theoretical. In fact, we now have yet another very real example of Hollywood’s ability to kill a technology that only has legal uses thanks to the absolute nature of the DMCA’s anti-circumvention clause (on which Canada’s law was modeled). We’ve written about Kaleidescape a few times in the past. The company makes super high end DVD jukeboxes, that allow people to take the DVDs they own and store digital copies on a home (not internet-connected) server, to make it easier to watch those movies. The company has gone to amazing lengths to prevent its product from being used for infringement. Here, I’ll let the company explain the details directly:

Kaleidescape has carefully designed its products to protect the rights of content owners. The hard-disk copy of each DVD retains all of the DVD CCA’s scrambling and adds more encryption. The Kaleidescape System is a closed system that prevents DVDs from being copied to the Internet, to writable DVDs, or to computers or mobile devices. Furthermore, you cannot download a pirated movie from the Internet to a Kaleidescape System.

Every Kaleidescape customer must agree to copy only the DVDs that he rightfully owns, and must reaffirm this agreement upon copying each DVD. Kaleidescape Systems identify rental discs and prevent them from being imported. This combination of business practices and technology has been so effective that after years of searching for evidence that Kaleidescape’s customers use their systems to steal content, the DVD CCA admitted in writing that Kaleidescape has done no harm to any of the motion picture studios, and was unable at trial to show any harm to the DVD CCA itself.

At one point, the company even went to such ridiculous extremes that it required users to put the DVD in the jukebox any time it wanted to play a movie from it — effectively taking away the device’s entire purpose, just to appease Hollywood.

And, none of it mattered. A court has issued an injunction against Kaleidescape selling these devices (pdf and embedded below). The specifics of the case revolve around questions of whether or not Kaleidescape breached the specific CSS license agreement that covers the DRM found on DVDs (which, again, Kaleidescape not only retains but enhances in its product). But that license agreement only has force because of the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.

In other words this product, which can only be used for legal means — and for which there has been no proof presented (ever) that it was used to infringe — has been killed by a court… thanks to Hollywood’s veto on this technology.

And the amazing thing is that all this does is make things worse for Hollywood. Considering how much Hollywood has been whining about DVD sales falling lately, a device like this only serves to make DVDs more valuable, meaning they would sell more.

Kaleidescape was founded in 2001 to bring consumers a fantastic experience for enjoying their movie collections. The Kaleidescape movie server makes digital copies of DVDs and Blu-ray Discs to hard disk drives so families can play back their movies instantly from any room of their home. A movie starts directly from the beginning, without forcing the family to endure advertisements, trailers, and confusing menus. With the company’s wide-ranging innovations, customers can jump directly to the greatest scenes and songs in movies and concerts, and small children can start their movies all by themselves.

[….]

Over the years, Americans have amassed over 13 billion DVDs and Blu-ray Discs – about 110 per household. This means that many American families have a few thousand dollars tied up in a library of movies they hoped to enjoy over and over. However, with collections that size, families soon realize that it takes so long to find what they’re looking for that it just isn’t worth buying more discs. This frustration has led to a well-publicized 58% decline in revenues from the sale of DVDs since 2006.

The Kaleidescape System eliminates that frustration. Because it’s so easy and fun for Kaleidescape customers to enjoy their movies, they start buying movies again, and with a bigger appetite. The average Kaleidescape family owns 506 movies on Blu-ray and DVD.

But thanks to digital locks and anti-circumvention rules, such a product got voted out of existence by the very industry it would help the most.

Filed Under: , , , ,
Companies: kaleidescape, mpaa

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Why Anti-Circumvention Laws Are Evil: Hollywood Gets To Veto DVD Jukebox, Despite Complete Lack Of Infringement”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
110 Comments
Anonymous Coward says:

“Every Kaleidescape customer must agree to copy only the DVDs that he rightfully owns, and must reaffirm this agreement upon copying each DVD.”

Seeing that plenty of websites have terms that require you to upload only material you have the rights too, and yet are packed with pirated material… it seems like an empty promise.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

Any other use besides the obvious for the DVD jukebox?

I can think of many uses for the screwdriver, but I cannot think of too many uses for the DVD jukebox besides being a great way to store your pirated movies, or to more quickly rip the rental movies that your buddy got last night.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

Are you kidding me? A product like this would actually get me to watch my DVDs. They sit on my shelves because I don’t care enough to rifle through them to decide on a movie, then take it over to my XBox, power it up and put it in. The only reason I like DVDs is the element of physical ownership. It’s the same reason I purchase vinyl records, but mostly listen to their digital counterparts. Having a DVD Jukebox would probably get me to collect DVDs in much greater numbers. Unfortunately, I’ve learned of it just in time for it to be outlawed. So enjoy your lost revenue as I continue to sit on my hands, Hollywood.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re:

You are right why buy one device for hundreds of dollars when you can get a screwdriver to do the job.

Lets all buy a Raspberry Pi B and make something that is more powerful and can have multiple uses, not just one, although that DVD jukebox could be hacked to be much more the price probably isn’t right, it is after all a computers with storage space attached that is all it is.

Brilliant thinking you there, lets ban all one time devices that have one use from the market and make it impossible for yourself to create a walled garden too LoL

Chosen Reject (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Do you mean like how we’re all allowed to have knives so long as we promise to be good?

Do you mean like how we’re all told to do our own taxes so long as we promise to be good?

Do you mean like how we’re all allowed to drive around metal boxes weighing over a ton at significant speeds so long as we promise to be good?

Do you mean like how we’re all allowed to purchase ammonia and chlorine (at the same time no less) so long as we promise to be good?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

So to run with your idea, it is Hollywoods fault.

They still put CSS on DVD’s when they know it has been broken by the “bad” people. They continue to pay for a system that has been bypassed and offers them no protection whatsoever, then complain that people are bypassing it.

They keep providing content without actual protections and are “SHOCKED” that people find ways to bypass it, because there is a law that says even a worthless lock means you can’t make your legally authorized backup.

If they were actually serious about cracking down on DVD “piracy” they would withdraw the flawed product from the market.

So in this case I guess the justification for the business model is but but “piracy”, that they totally could stop and opt not to.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2

So to run with your idea, it is Hollywoods fault.

Yes it is Hollywoods fault for holding onto the notion that they can change the will of their customers and stop them from consuming Hollywoods product without asking for permission first. This is like standing in front of a tsunami with an umbrella to hold back the water. It just will not happen no matter how hard you try.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

There will always be those that chose to do what they want.
Good thing the skill level and willingness to destroy the device is also only in a few.
Don’t kill ideas because you fear the few. The jukebox is something I would buy. I have so many DVD’s that it would be very useful to me. I had On Demand and prefer my own collection. So make it happen and I’d likely BUY MORE MOVIES.

chelleliberty (profile) says:

Re: SYNECDOCHE! strikes back

Yes, quite valid point! Websites (ones which are so far removed from the protections built into this product, even to the point that there’s practically nothing in common between the two other that digital media are involved) usually have similar verbiage in their TOS, therefore, clearly, the two are completely analogous and anything you can deduce about one must be true of the other. Critical thinking at its best!

Huh, and I had been thinking the thing that was noteworthy about requiring all users to sign this agreement was that the requirement is in addition to doing most everything short of attaching a TASER? Shockwave? to the product to take down anyone who even thinks about using infringing media with it. Silly me!

I am glad someone pointed out the truly relevant point here. ๐Ÿ˜›

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Re: Re:

Seeing that plenty of websites have terms that require you to upload only material you have the rights too, and yet are packed with pirated material… it seems like an empty promise.

And again I find myself looking for a “bat-shit insane” button and having to settle for “funny”.
More than anything else this article highlights the stupidity and greed of the studios.
Stupidity because there are literally hundreds of software products that will do exactly this for you just fine, better in fact, and without all the restrictions and well within the competance of even a basic computer user. Here is a company that’s TRYING to put as much protection in as possible, far MORE protection in fact than hollywood ever added, trying to play the studio’s game and GIVE THEM A CHANCE AT MAKING MORE MONEY by making their product more valuable. Do the studios embrace it? Do they say “thank you for making our irrelevant plastic discs vaguely relevant again”? No, instead they AGAIN leave anyone who wants this kind of functionality no legitimate route just hundreds and hundreds of illegitimate ones. That has to be the very epitome of stupidity – literally making criminals out of customers.
As for greed, it again makes it clear that the studios want and expect to control every single thing about a movie forever, trying to dictate when and how you can watch it, who with, what equipment you can use, how often you’re allowed to watch it, whether you’re allowed to think about it or offer an opinion on it. What’s next? Specially sanctioned “official popcorn”?

I can only assume you yourself work for a studio. Noone else could be THAT deliberately obtuse about what this company has tried to do, can they?

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Seriously? I’m a crook for thinking that not wanting to eat only hollywood sanctioned popcorn with a film is reasonable? *looks strenuously for “bat-shit insane” button again*

Let’s try this ONCE more: We are talking about a product here that does it’s level best to FORCE you to BUY a DVD first in order to use it and Hollywood thinks this is a BAD idea.

Anonymous Coward says:

does anyone think that at some time the various governments and law makers will ever see how bloody stupid they have made themselves look, how super powerful they have made the movie/music industries and how much harm they have done both to new businesses and to customers by continuously siding with these self-interested bastards! i know of nothing else that is encouraged so much to be bought and once purchased so little can be/is allowed to be done with it. it’s a little circular piece of plastic, for Christ’s sake! get a fucking grip!

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Kaleideswho?

“The Kaleidescape System is a closed system that prevents DVDs from being copied to the Internet, to writable DVDs, or to computers or mobile devices. Furthermore, you cannot download a pirated movie from the Internet to a Kaleidescape System”

Or I can just download/RIP content that can be run from my network on any damn device I choose.
And before the greedtards say oh that’s illegal I ask, how many of you did 55, and came to a complete stop at stop signs today? And say F you greedtards, Ill do what I damn well want with my DVD/Music collection.

Yet another nail into the coffin that is the entertainment industry.

John Doe says:

Just use Handbrake

While this is an abuse of the law, there are plenty of ways around it. Handbrake will rip a DVD to the hard drive. It won’t break encryption, but there is a little ole DLL that will. Put it in the Handbrake directory and you can rip a DRM encumbered DVD to the hard drive in one painless step.

Now we shouldn’t be criminalized for doing this, but it is a risk I am willing to take.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Just use Handbrake

I don’t think so. I believe all lawsuits have been directed at companies “trafficking in decryption software” which is illegal. I believe it is still legal in the US to rip DVDs you own however if I read this article right, that is no longer legal in Canada.

This was an interesting and relevant case though.
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/10/judge-suggests-dmca-allows-dvd-ripping-if-you-own-the-dvd.ars

Jason (profile) says:

Re: Awesome

Yep.

You know, if I had a time machine, I’d be tempted to use it to go to the past to change their fate in the VCR case. Then I could return to the future and see how much less powerful and wealthy Hollywood was.

I personally believe that if they’d have gotten their way with VCR restrictions Hollywood might be making an entire order of magnitude less money today than they currently are.

The VCR example is such a good example of how mindblowingly stupid the entertainment industry is.

If CD’s had had encryption when they were introduced the music industry would have done this same thing to MP3 players. This would mean, no iPod, which would mean no iPhone, no iPad, no Android phones, no Android tablets, no iTunes, no Amazon Digital Music store. The outlook for digital music would be bleak, bleak, bleak. And the music industry would actually be dying instead of pretending to be….

Anonymous Coward says:

Hollywood's remaining life

Someone who has done the research, PLEASE answer this. At the current rate Hollywood is going, and assuming they continue to refuse to adapt to the digital environment, how much longer (an estimate is fine) until they declare bankruptcy, require a government bailout, or something of that nature?

I pose the same question for the RIAA and MPAA as well. For those who have done the question, please answer.

I would like a rough estimate of how much longer these abuses will continue.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hollywood's remaining life

They made billions from shitty movies last year alone. They ain’t going anywhere. The propaganda that they are dying and need more money and more special treatment, has been their specialty for the past 80 years. That’s how they got this dominance position in the first place.

Don’t fall for it, thats what they want.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Hollywood's remaining life

My real fear is that they will succeed at legislating what the want to and kill any new, useful technology that comes along.
Given the amount of money they have to spend and their unabashed tunnel vision, they will put us back to 1950 in user devices to be had.
Given all of the licensing fees they have in place now and want to do as soon as possible, they could easily make a draconian future for all of us and be happy about it.

PRMan (profile) says:

Re: Hollywood's remaining life

I don’t have any evidence, but I think within 50 years people will be able to make great movies on a shoestring budget and market them easily over the internet with a system that pays enough to create new content without ANY RIAA or MPAA involved.

And, as Mike has pointed out repeatedly, they don’t want to make money. They fear losing control, because then they lose everything. And it’s inevitable.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life

I think within 50 years people will be able to make great movies on a shoestring budget and market them easily over the internet with a system that pays enough to create new content without ANY RIAA or MPAA involved.

The future is here! All that you say is can be, and is being, done right now, today.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life

I really have no real talent for making movies and like a few of what Hollywood makes. Seriously, you don’t want to see what I would come up with.
I just wish they would find a way to have people cheering them on, instead of seeing them as the evil empire. I really believe they could do it if they wanted to.

That and the government caring about the people would be cool too.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life

“I don’t have any evidence, but I think within 50 years people will be able to make great movies on a shoestring budget and market them easily over the internet with a system that pays enough to create new content without ANY RIAA or MPAA involved.”

They already can. Those movies don’t make enough money to challenge Avatar, however, so are often ignored by the industry.

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Re: Re: Re: Hollywood's remaining life

They already can. Those movies don’t make enough money to challenge Avatar, however, so are often ignored by the industry.

Which is a shame. I’m trying to think of any film with an Avatar-like budget which I’d actually consider “good” rather than just mindlessly entertaining and I’m coming up short. I’ve nothing against mindlessly entertaining, I’d just like a little more non-mindless too.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Hollywood's remaining life

“I’m trying to think of any film with an Avatar-like budget which I’d actually consider “good” rather than just mindlessly entertaining”

In terms of a Hollywood movie with a bit of a brain, I was quite impressed with Rise Of The Planet of The Apes ($93 million budget) last year, although I’ll admit my initial expectations were low. But even that made only half the gross of Transformers 3, as mindless as they come…

That’s kind of the problem. Hollywood is obsessed with numbers, and even something like Girl With the Dragon Tattoo somehow costs $90 million (the original Swedish movie cost just $13 million). By the time you get to Avatar numbers, where virtually every shot has CGI and special effects techniques were being developed specifically for the film, you’re going to get movies aimed squarely at the lowest common denominator – i.e. mostly mindless.

There’s plenty of decent lower budgeted and independent movies out there to find, it’s just that you’d never know it from the amount of money spent by the majors to push their latest blockbuster – and even that backfires (e.g. John Carter looks to be a massive flop). Lower budgeted movies get to both experiment a bit more and treat their audience like thinking adults, on top of not needing to make obscene amounts of money just to break even.

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Re: Re: Re:3 Hollywood's remaining life

That’s kind of the problem. Hollywood is obsessed with numbers, and even something like Girl With the Dragon Tattoo somehow costs $90 million (the original Swedish movie cost just $13 million).

And I’d pick the “low budget” original over the Hollywood remake in a heartbeat. Same with Nikita vs Assassin and a hoard of others. It sometimes seems that everything Hollywood touches turns to braindead.

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Hollywood's remaining life

No. I think the Hollywood version of Dragon Tatoo is put together better. I don’t think it’s worth the massive difference in production costs. I think it just reflects the nexus of talent that exists in a particular location.

I think the price difference mainly represents just how full of themselves Hollywood is and the fact that they are off in their own fantasy land detached from reality and practical considerations.

We need another Nexus. Current tech may make it possible. Although they may need to “flee from Edison” first.

Rekrul says:

It’s not just new products that the DMCA is killing off.

Most software from the 1980s can’t be copied without circumventing the DRM, which means that it can’t legally be backed up. Considering that most software was sold on floppy disks which will eventually fail, there’s now no legal way to preserve that software.

The Xbox uses a standard IDE hard drive, but you can’t replace it unless you also mod the system, which is illegal under the DMCA.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I heard about it once, some asshole from this band Metallica was calling it the devil. At the time it was funny because his bands success was tied directly to them encouraging fans to share their music taped at shows.
Then there was like some lawsuit.
Then the media companies got ahold of it, turned it into a giant joke, then I think it got turned off and locked a buncha their users out of their “purchased” music licenses or something…

Rekrul says:

Re: Re: Re:

And when was the last time you saw an unmodded original XBOX? I saw one yesterday because I went to an old local game store, they only had one because, and I quote, “People bring in old ones all the time, but we can never accept them since they’ve all been modded”.

My friend actually gave me one a couple weeks ago. He found it at the dump and didn’t want it (he’s an older, technophobe). At least I’m pretty sure it hasn’t been modded due to the fact that at least one of the screws is hidden under the labels on the underside and all the labels are still intact.

weneedhelp (profile) says:

Re: WalMart and UV

You mean rip and inject some other DRM crap into the file. (I am just speculating on that.) I suspect the Mafiaa wouldn’t allow this without SOME form of DRM being injected back in. Otherwise how would they tell a legally ripped version, from a pie-rate one?

Just for fun fellow high lord piracy apologists (Yes I still love that):
http://music.ign.com/articles/718/718259p1.html

Anonymous Coward says:

And this system is exactly what the movie studio need. Think about a system where you can take movies you own and search on them by year, genre, actor, director etc. It can be played anywhere from your house (and would an internet connected device be asking too much) giving untold amounts of value to your movie collection. Such a system would drive more sales then anything else out there today. Such a system is a fantasy though and will only exist through people who do it themselves. Nice job MPAA.

Not an Electronic Rodent says:

Re: Re:

Yeah instead, like most other things, it’s only possible if you use an infringing copy or at least one that hollywood would dearly love to be infringing. As you say, way to go! Bluray as a technology was pretty well obsolete before it “won” the format war with DVD-HD and yet again and again they refuse to sell content in a format that people actually want, then winge again and again about how less people are buying the product. 8-track anyone?

Chris says:

Kaleidescape

as a former employee of Kaleidescape, i wanted to point out that the article TOTALLY missed the point.

the case was NOT about copyright, or hollywood, or studios, or anything like that.

it was about a contract dispute with the guys who hold the keys to DVD encryption. in order for K to build a legal system, they needed to legally use those keys. they examined the contract, they saw no issues, so they signed up and then built their system.

the tricky part is that the main contract you cannot see until you sign up for it with the “lite” contract. and the lite contract does not state that you can do certain things. but the detailed contract does state that you cannot do them. so K has been in a legal battle over these keys due to the fact that what they are doing is not prohibited by lite contract. and since it is the one you sign to get into the party, they argue that the additional details required by the full contract are not valid.

however at the end of the day, as much as everybody WISHES this was about content, or copyright, or hollywood… it is not. it is simple contract law.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Kaleidescape

Ironically, you are the one missing the point, despite mentioning it yourself. Without the combination copyright, the DMCA’s anti-circumvention clause, and the DRM scheme on DVDs, Kaleidescape would not need any absurd licensing agreement with a bunch of useless bureaucrats simply to allow customers to play their legally purchased DVDs where and how they want to play them.

JEDIDIAH says:

Re: Kaleidescape

Without the distortions to copyright bought and paid for by Hollywood, Kaledescape would have been free to completely ignore the DVD and BD encryption cartels.

This “contract dispute” would be irrelevant.

This device is a very expensive way to work around the fact that cheaper and more effective tools are blatantly illegal and would be chased off the market.

Paul says:

I'm in for a fight

I’m sick and tired about all the shit that is going on around the internet where companies and governments are constantly trying to limit our access to the world, information and censoring free speech.
Its time to fight back, comments and opinions on issues just don’t cut it anymore. We have the power, when we fraught SOPA we saw how big that power is when websites censored their content in order to raise awareness on the issue lets tweak that concept a bit. What if instead of censoring all the people from a website we could just censor by IP.
You have an IP from the Hollywood area/city redirect to static page: message Hollywood tries to censor the internet and my access to free speech, I’m censoring Hollywood you are a casualty of this war f you.
Hollywood is just an example and we should not limit ourselves to that we should include capitals where governments take these stupid decisions.

That will be fun, I would like to see a governors face when he wants to read an article an a blog that one of his friends sent him a link to it and get a big f you on the screen. Ahh priceless….

Scott@DreamlandVisions (profile) says:

I think you all missed the key reaon

“A movie starts directly from the beginning, without forcing the family to endure advertisements, trailers, and confusing menus. “

This is why the Kaleidescape had to die. If products that are legal (which this obviously was) *and* allow people, en mass, to skip all the cruft, then the value of that kruft drops significantly.

The movie distributors are PAID to put that kruft on the DVD and force the viewer to sit through it. It’s a major part of the profit made on the DVDs. As the number of eyeballs guaranteed to see that kruft drops through the use of such systems as the jukebox, the price the distributors can charge drops.

It all comes back to business models predicated on control of the viewer and control of the distribution channel. You are not the consumer, in this case, you are the product.

chelleliberty (profile) says:

circumvention not always absol... oh, wait, nevermind...

Stop whining, fortunately the DMCA provides very straightforward and easy-to-obtain exemptions to the anti-circumvention measur…

Sorry, wait, well, there are exemptions, but only if the Librarian of Congress says it’s oka…

No, no; hold a sec… only if the Librarian of Congress agrees after receiving a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights reques…

Ummm… (Wow, there’s a lot of stuff in there, hold on, I’ll get it…) Oh, okay, so: if the Librarian of Congress says it’s okay after having received a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, after consulting with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, then you can… oh… sigh…

Okay, got it this time: if the Librarian of Congress says it’s okay, after having received a recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, who, after having consulted with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce, then reports and comments on his or her views leading to the recommendation, then, finally the exempt…

wait, almost there…

Actually it’s: if the Librarian of Congress (after having received the recommendation from the Register of Copyrights, who consulted with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and reported and commented on his or her views leading to the recommendation) makes the determination, in an on-the-record rulemaking proceeding, that persons using a copyrighted work are adversely affected (or are likely to be so within a 3-year period) by the anti-circumvention rule [wait, wouldn’t that actually be anyone that wanted to do formerly allowed things, like making backups, or playing things on alternate players, or scores of other things?] while considering various factors listed in the law plus the Librarian’s own judgement… THEN it’s perfectly okay to circumvent the measure… Well, for the next three years, until the next round of rulemaking begins.

Sheesh and some of you guys act like the DMCA restrictions on circumvention are, like, onerous and set in stone or something… ๐Ÿ˜‰ ๐Ÿ˜›

[And, don’t give me that bull about how bad it is that they’ve put in this requirement for a proceeding etc. that prevents all you freeturds from just circumventing away and then pretending that it’s okay just because you otherwise would have had a legal justification for your actions… I mean, really, why wouldn’t you want the law to make sure that a further political hearing is required to affirm that you are actually adversely affected by being unable to exercise your rights due to DRM? Hell, maybe you’re better off… builds character… um, uphill, both ways… y’know, get out and get some exercise or something instead of just sitting there circumventing all day. ;)]

chelleliberty (profile) says:

Re: besides, current measures don't "effectively" contr... no, nevermind...

Besides, the law requires that the protection measures “effectively control” the items in question, so things that are already easily circumvented don’t really do tha…

Oh, my bad, “effectively control” just means that the protection measure requires, “to gain access to the work,” either the “application of information, or a process or treatment” with the authority of the copyright owner. [sheesh, so basically it sounds someone could provide a static serial number, “1”, and require that you enter the “1” to gain access, and if you enter “1” without having permission you would be in violation of the anti-circumvention measures. amirite? ahh well, no matter.]

BentFranklin (profile) says:

What Hollywood doesn’t like is your ability to watch the same DVD in any room in your house. They want you to buy a new copy of the DVD for each room. Then they will make it illegal for you to move your DVDs from room to room. Then they will require interlocks between your doors and your DVD players so people can’t watch a DVD playing in one room from outside that room. Then pirates will install Dutch doors, so Hollywood will pay politicians to pass legislation making it illegal to circumvent the anti-DVD-room-sharing door interlocks. People who manufacture or even publish schematics for Dutch doors will be jailed. But people who love freedom will still find ways to room-share.

Anonymous Coward says:

I noticed Scribd and docstoc require you to have a login to download, and at least Scribd requires you to pay a monthly fee. I wonder how much of this is due to increased copy protection enforcement. Does anyone know of a free document archive server replacement that lets you freely upload and download documents to and from others?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

Even when I go to Scribd to download something listed on their homepage, like The complete works of Thomas Jefferson I can’t. I must login and they ask for a monthly fee after a trial period or something.

All of the document sharing sites seem to be doing this after what happened to Megaupload. It seems like the government is destroying every bit of the Internet. Now there is no where people can freely share documents, it’s too expensive thanks to copyright laws. This is ridiculous, there is no one place we can easily archive public domain or permissibly licensed documents anymore.

chelleliberty (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: the start of something big

Indeed. Or, they’ll just ‘reinterpret’ the laws that exist and do whatever they want anyway. Like, y’know, they are already doing.

Without a sea change in the way people view the government, I see little hope of things getting better near-term. Mid- to long- term, however they will screw up like all large bureaucratic organizations, and fall as inevitably and at least as hard as did the Berlin wall…

That could take some time though, so I’m working towards educating people for the sea change. ๐Ÿ™‚

Ninja (profile) says:

Solution:

1- http://www.newegg.com/Store/Category.aspx?Category=3&name=Barebone-Mini-Computers
2- http://www.havetheknowhow.com/Configure-the-server.html
3- http://www.doom9.org/
4- ???????
5- Profit

Notice that 2 was obtained by googling “building a linux media server” without “” and 3 is a site I’ve used before but you can always google your way on ripping DVD’s for free.

TJM1 (profile) says:

ReDigi and flexible file-sharing DRM

I might understand Hollywood IF it were a single, obscure indie ebook author seeking commerical success, but this is just spray and pray tactics. Another victim is ReDigi. Capital Records file suit against the music file-sharing tech company. ReDigi’s system is clever and creates an entire secondary market for music files, but that’s not good enough for big music. I consult for File Secure Pro. We protect PDF files with flexible drm. Since the Megauploads and SOPA/PIPA issues hit critical mass, my Google alerts box has exploded with complex IP battles. Google’s senior counsel, William Patry is skeptical about a copyrighted digital creative market, but his primary role is policy at Google! The first-sale doctrine could be modified, but apparently all the middlemen need to pay their mortgages.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Monitor Everything (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Cool Components (1)
12:42 Tech Companies Ask European Commission Not To Wreck The Internet -- And You Can Too (4)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Play & Listen (1)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Beyond Chiptunes (12)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Updated Classics (3)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Celebrating Cities (1)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Crafts Of All Kinds (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: One Great Knob (13)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Simple Geeky Toys (2)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Gadgets For The New Year (18)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: A Post-Holiday Grab Bag (0)
13:34 How Private-Sector Innovation Can Help Those Most In Need (21)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Towards The Future Of Drones (17)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Artisanal Handheld Games (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: A New Approach To Smartphone VR (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Let's Bore The Censors (37)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Open Source For Your Brain (2)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: The Final Piece Of The VR Puzzle? (6)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: The Internet... Who Needs It? (15)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: The Light Non-Switch (18)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: 3D Printing And Way, Way More (7)
13:00 Techdirt Reading List: Learning By Doing (5)
12:43 The Stagnation Of eBooks Due To Closed Platforms And DRM (89)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: A Modular Phone For Makers (5)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Everything On One Display (4)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Everything Is Still A Remix (13)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Great Desk Toy, Or Greatest Desk Toy? (6)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: Sleep Hacking (12)
09:00 Awesome Stuff: A Voice-Operated Household Assistant (19)
More arrow