RSS
Rep. Darrell Issa Wants To Make It Clear That You're Allowed To Rip Your DVDs
from the good-for-him dept
Back in October, we noted that in the latest triennial DMCA exemption review, the Copyright Office/Librarian of Congress refused to say it was legal for you to rip your own legally purchased DVDs so that you could watch them on a computer or tablet. That seems fairly ridiculous, especially given that similarly ripping your CDs is recognized as legal. Rep. Darrell Issa has apparently recognized how silly this and is planning a bill to fix the Copyright Office's mistake.
"We think we can write at least some clarifying language that would instruct the Copyright Office to more accurately define what is, in fact, fair use," Issa said in an interview [with Roll Call]. "People who make copies on their iPod for jogging are not the problem."We won't see anything until the next session, but given that at least some of Issa's colleagues appear to agree that it's time to broaden fair use in copyright law, hopefully we can finally see some movement in Congress on bills that actually will allow greater creativity to flourish while also not making most of the nation lawbreakers for simply wanting to watch legally purchased DVDs without having to carry around the plastic discs.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
If it is to have any impact, any expansion of fair use should also include a provision making copyfraud illegal and putting some real teeth in it. It should also put the burden of proof for copyright violation on the rights holder.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
Coming so soon after the study, they'll be in panic mode. Expect to see all sorts of easily debunked propaganda flooding the usual channels.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
If you're not breaking whatever the current copyright law you are not a pirate
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Cue screams of "legalizing piracy" in 3... 2... 1...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
This just shows me how behind politicians and entertainment industries are when it comes to technology.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which is better than I can say for MOST politicians.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The internet in particular is an area where politicians and judges truely lack the technological knowledge to come up with reasonable compromises. A lot of it has to lean on "experts" and with the bias we see in this war of lobbying the ones shouting the loudest and helping most economically will be the ones able to turn bad suggestions into bad laws.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Watching while jogging???
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
I guess there's some good in any politician...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Same man who was in that there Committee who all were MEN but talked about Woman's Body.........Making decisions on Women with no Women present or really allowed to speak.
That Issa.........he is the one.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Who Watches the Watchers?
I have a MythTV frontend sitting in my exercise room. It's a very nice way to break up the tedium of working out for those that really aren't into it.
It's much like the setup you would find in any corporate or municipal gym.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who Watches the Watchers?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Let's say I have a file I've downloaded, and I, for lack of something better to do, copy it between many devices that I own. Several hard drives, several computers, etc. Does each copy I make mean I'm liable for separate $150,000 fines for each copy, or would I only be fined that amount once, for the initial download? What about when I play the file, would the copying into RAM count?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Each copy probably *violates* the copyright (unless it is covered by fair use / exception laws, etc)
but as to what each copy is liable for in fines and such, I believe that would be up to the copyright holder to show how much hypothetical damages they incurred from your copying..
So basically it depends how good the copyright holder is at their bullshit / smoke and mirror show.. How much hypothetical damages can they claim and get away with? Depends on the judge and how good your lawyer is (ie: they can claim whatever they want)
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Nope. These are STATUTORY damages which have nothing to do with actual damages. But if they went the full $150000 for personal use copies, that would almost certainly get lowered on appeal.
"would the copying into RAM count"
Pretty sure there's an exception for that... although, depending on the wording, the exception might only apply if the copy was legal in the first place. So, I'm actually not sure.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
The movie and music industry abuses stifle innovation and competition, and have abused the customers.
The continual "Mickey Mouse" copyright protection period extensions, reportedly to cater to Disney to protect their Mickey Mouse character, have gone too far and stifle innovation and competition. Although I wonder whether a trademark for the Mickey Mouse character would be sufficient to protect it.
The purpose of copyright and patent laws is to provide a period of exclusive ownership rights to create a financial incentive for invention, creation, and innovation. But the protection was not supposed to be so long as to remove the incentive to continually invent, create, and innovate new things.
Entertainment industry abuse of customers includes the following.
Lobbying for laws to criminalize legal and legitimate consumer use of their legally purchased products.
Selling one or a few good audio tracks on a CD padded with filler junk quality tracks.
DVDs that force viewers to watch advertisements such as movie trailers, and disable the ability to skip the ad.
Copy protection that prevents users from making legitimate backup copies of legally purchased movies without special software.
Inserting gratitous violence and sex, and inappropriate political propaganda and social conditioning scenes into movies that often spoils the movies, such as the unnecessary and awkwardly inserted homosexual bed scene in "Burlesque" that ruined the movie.
Mike Robbins
PublicSafetyProject.org
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
Also, are you suggesting that Congress should do something about gratuitous violence, sex, political POV, and homosexual "social conditioning" in movies, which you consider "abuse" of consumers? Rein it in or GTFO.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
Yeah, ditto what Ophelia said. You had me until you went on a tirade against what other freedom-loving people might describe as freedom of speech and artistic license.
If you don't like the content of the movies, as a consumer you're free to not support them by not watching them. There are websites that will tell you about what kinds of content are in a movie without spoiling the plot points too much. I suggest you use them and let the rest of the viewing populace that consists of adults who can make their own decisions about what they choose to watch and financially support do what they want to do as well.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
The funny thing is, though, the movie industry likes to sue these companies that provide this service, using copyright law as the foundation for their dubious claims.
Many of these movies are produced in versions that can be shown in public places--particularly, airplanes--and while I agree that we can't force anyone to make these versions public, at the very least, altering these movies to our liking should be as much fair use as anything else.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movie and Music Industry Abuses Stifle Innovation
I've not seen Burlesque but I guarantee you there's someone out there who thought that scene was the high point of the movie. In fact there's probably some who only watched the movie because they heard it contained such a scene and/or thought it improved the movie.
As the others above me said, you have some good points, but trying to force your own morals on content ain't going to fly. Don't try to force your prudish sensibilities on my entertainment just because you're too lazy to use the resources available to you to pre-vet the content in case something offends you.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Joggers.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe There is Hope
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
So . . . .
HM
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So . . . .
Not everyone jogs.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So . . . .
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So . . . .
They don't have DVD drives. How the heck are you going to play a DVD in those?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Cheese for everyone! On the house!
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Now, if he can only "clarify" patent law to say that software on a general use computing device (computer, phone tablet, etc.), is not patentable. I'm so sick of the 9th Circuit "over-ruling" and creatively reinterpreting SCOTUS decisions.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Really? They Still Rip DVDs?
What's the modern hipster jogger doing manually ripping DVDs anyway? He, what, bought a DVD and didn't get a service online? He didn't stream from Spotify or GetGlue or something? This isn't even the modern delivery system for content.
And as such, the notion that "I should get to do it because these are my gadgets" is only edge-casing and whining, because in reality, you know full well you won't keep just to your own gadgets, and you are merely looking for yet another way to undermine copyright.If you really believed in "freedom only among my own gadgets" you would subscribe to the idea of licensing or hash-registration of hardware for all the devices, but of course we can't imagine you'd do that, ever.
Give it up, people have to make a living, paws off.
http://3dblogger.typepad.com/wired_state/2012/11/joggerdvd.html
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Really? They Still Rip DVDs?
"He didn't stream from Spotify or GetGlue or something?"
Yes, because every portable device can do this... Do you people even think?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Really? They Still Rip DVDs?
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Really? They Still Rip DVDs?
What a shame there's never any actual reasoning on the other side of this argument, just attacks on customers who don't want to pay multiple times for content they've already paying for. He's not even arguing about "stealing" and "pirates" - he's directly complaining that it's difficult to charge people multiple times for the same product. No wonder these assholes are losing business.
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
The left hand and the right hand...
[ reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]
Add Your Comment