DVD Makers Say That You Don't Really Own The DVDs You Bought... Thanks To Copyright

from the ownership-sure-is-a-funny-thing dept

So, we already wrote about some of the crazy filings from John Deere and GM claiming that when you buy a vehicle from them, you don't really own it, thanks to the software inside, which those companies argue they still really own. This was part of the opposition to requests for exemption from Section 1201 of the DMCA. Once again, Section 1201 is the anti-circumvention clause, that says you can't break DRM even if it's for non-infringing purposes. But... every three years, the Librarian of Congress is allowed to "exempt" certain classes of items from Section 1201. the responses above concerned locking down automotive software, but there are some other crazy ones as well.

For example, the DVD Copy Control Association (DVD CCA) and the Advanced Access Content System Licensing Administrator (AACS LA) are so worried about an exemption for certain kinds of DVDs that it ran to the Copyright Office to claim that you simply don't own the DVDs you buy, and they'd really appreciate it if people stopped thinking they actually bought the DVD that, you know, they bought:
When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will play back on only a licensed player.
Notice that even this statement is self-contradictory. The first sentence says they are not purchasing any content, but merely a "right to access." And yet, the very next sentence talks about the "purchase [of] the copy." So which is it? Are people purchasing a copy of the movie? Or are they merely licensing access to the content on the plastic?

This is a problem with Section 1201, showing how its expansive nature is fundamentally changing the concept of ownership in ways many people haven't even begun to understand yet.

Reader Comments

The First Word

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • icon
    Violynne (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:56am

    Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will play back on only a licensed player.
    This isn't true, either.

    The content that's on the DVD isn't restricted to the player at all. It's MPEG and pretty much any video player can play the digital file.

    The only damn reason the disk is used is to add the copy protection layer so that other MPEG players can't access the digital file it can easily play.

    Of course, this truth won't be told. There's no way the entertainment industry is going to release $30 movie prices because they have a monopoly on player restrictions.

    This includes their idiotic product/services like UltraViolet.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Roger Strong (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:16pm

      Re:

      The only damn reason the disk is used is to add the copy protection layer so that other MPEG players can't access the digital file it can easily play.

      If only it were that simple and reliable.

      Blu-Ray includes High Definition Content Protection (HDCP) DRM. Your monitor or TV must also be HDCP compliant, because this is where the decryption is done. A lot of early - and not so early - HD monitors and TVs will never show Blu-Ray movies because they don't support HDCP.

      The same goes for satellite TV. Many HD TVs when dark when Star Choice / Shaw Direct in Canada started using HDCP. That included TVs that DID support HDCP, but didn't talk well with other HDCP compliant equipment.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        anony, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re:

        One of the many reasons billions of people download and share content online, if a tv is capable of playing the content but their drm or whatever they want to call it prevents me from doing so then it is not only legal for me to get a copy that works but to help others do so too.

        That is the power of money, purchase something and you own it, unless they are prepared to buy back every dvd and cd i have ever purchased at the price i paid for them they cannot stop me or others from circumventing their anti consumer technology where they attempt to sell content that is not playable.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Roger Strong (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:37pm

          Re: Re: Re:

          This is what Microsoft's PlaysForSure DRM standard was supposed to fix. Twenty-three major hardware vendors and a variety of content providers - MTV, Yahoo, etc. - supported it. It would Play For Sure!!!

          Naturally, Microsoft scrapped PlaysForSure a couple years later in favor of the Zune Marketplace.

          Which was scrapped a few years after that for Xbox Music and Xbox Video brands on the XBox 360 and Windows Phone.

          And of course the XBox One isn't compatible with the 360.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:52pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "This is what Microsoft's PlaysForSure DRM standard was supposed to fix."

            ...and wouldn't have.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:06am

            Re: Re: Re: Re:

            "Naturally, Microsoft scrapped PlaysForSure a couple years later in favor of the Zune Marketplace."

            It's worth adding the rest of the story here. PlaysForSure was a joke. There were huge, widespread compatibility problems, I remember complaints at the time from retailers saying they had huge overheads due to the level of support calls surrounding the DRM.

            When Microsoft realised that this scheme was the white elephant it was, they backed out and rebranded. The fallout was a mess. Zune owners couldn't play music that they had purchased from MSN - Microsoft couldn't even guarantee compatibility with itself! Once PlaysForSure's infrastructure was shut down, nobody could play the music they had purchased, although they were given a grace period to get the music converted. Meanwhile, of course, those who simply decided to pirate their music instead of paying for it remained unaffected.

            Fortunately, there's a silver lining - the utter catastrophe of this episode helped convince labels that DRM was hurting more than it helped and start to reconsider allowing retailers to just offer MP3s. Once they did this, new players in the space such as Amazon were able to enter and the market grew exponentially.

            "And of course the XBox One isn't compatible with the 360."

            This isn't so problematic in my mind, however. Sure, backward compatibility would have been nice, but the internal architecture is different enough that allowing games to play wouldn't have been a simple patch like the Xbox to 360 transition. The One has/ad a huge number of issues, this was way down the bottom of the list.

            When you're talking about differences in a new generation of hardware rather than people pissing around with what should be an open file format, I'm not so concerned.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rich, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:53pm

        Re: Re:

        This is the reason I still buy DVDs over Blu-ray.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    That Anonymous Coward (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:45am

    So if I don't own it and have paid them a fee for the access, I'd like my replacements for their media that has failed to live up to the promise of allowing me access to the content.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Designerfx (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:05am

      Re:

      Something something sony case about restricting linux.

      Are we looking at a hilariously large class action against DVDCCA/AACS about how you owned it when you bought it, but not now? Because if I can't even own the DVD of a movie I buy then it's sure as hell not worth even the $5 in the bargain bin.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    GETTING TIRED OF DICKHEADS, 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:49am

    Don't Own The DVDs I Paid For?

    B U L L S H I T

    Try to take them from me assholes

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:50am

    Where do I return them to?

    I paid legal tender for the purpose of owning the product I was purchasing. If I do not own the product, I want a refund for all of the DVDs I have purchased.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      DigDug, 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:58am

      Re: Where do I return them to?

      I don't know about you, but I could certainly re-use the $15,000 I've spent over the years on DVD/Blu-Ray alone.

      Add in costs for CDs and VHS tapes, and we're talking closer to $30,000.00 over the last 30 years.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Designerfx (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:06am

        Re: Re: Where do I return them to?

        I constantly reuse the $0 I've spent over the last 5 years on DVD/Blu-RAy alone.

        I also probably have as good or more extensive of a collection than you do, with none of the restrictions!

        You are part of the problem.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        ofb2632 (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:13pm

        Re: Re: Where do I return them to?

        You also forgot the storage fees for you storing their property!! The average storage fee in my area is about 70/month

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:03am

      Re: Where do I return them to?

      I don't remember the part either where when I bought and paid for the DVD's, I signed a license agreement stating that I wasn't purchasing their goods

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        Uriel-238 (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:14pm

        Maybe it was a button you clicked-through on the internet.

        One of those By using our website, which you are doing just by looking at this screen, you agree to our terms and conditions.

        People lose so many arms, legs and first-born children that way.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:11am

          Re: Maybe it was a button you clicked-through on the internet.

          I bought most of my huge collection from a store. I don't recall there being a licence agreement there.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Mason Wheeler (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:53am

    I once heard that a few years back, a certain political party in Britain managed to pick up a huge number of seats in an election by doing nothing more than publishing the official platform of their biggest rival and saying "this is what these guys stand for." Seems to me that a similar strategy is called for here. Take these statements, collect them, and say "this is sheer insanity on the face of it, and these people are trying to enshrine it in law."

    It's also worth pointing out that it's called copy-right for a reason, and not access-right or usage-right.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:04pm

      Re:

      Copyright refers to the IP-owners exclusive right to copy. Thus has little to do with the eventual owner of a copy. Arguably the distinct lack of rights for the end-user is the real problem with the current system.

      When you hear about the fights against any and all end-user rights from certain organisations, you see the true face of greed as a right (with the nasty: "If you tolerate this, then your children will be next"-legal uncertainty situation as a guarantee for extra gore).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:55am

    Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:59am

      Re:

      Where does copyright law say the copyright holder has control over the copies once they have sold them?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:13am

        Re: Re:

        First sale doctrine. Oh wait, that's the part that says you can do whatever you want with the physical item after you've bought it, including resale or using as a coaster. The trolls are using their fantasyland version of copyright again.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Pragmatic, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:47am

        Re: Re:

        The problem with the notion of copyright as property gives these people the right (they believe) to exert control over the copyrighted item after we have paid for it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Village Idiot (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:06am

      Re:

      I would certainly hope so, at least in these nonsensical situations that the current mess that is copyright law has created. I hate it too.

      Thank the flying spaghetti monster that technology continues to outpace the dinosaurs robbing me of my property rights.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:41am

      Re:

      He should, considering how often it works against the public interest.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:57am

    I don't remember there being a form to scroll through that I didn't read before accepting this license.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    James Burkhardt (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:58am

    I think the big story here is that by this logic I should get replacements for any lost, stolen or broken DVDs/Blue-Rays. Because its not the disc I am buying. Its access to that content in a specific format. And my access to that content shouldn't be limited to the Temporal nature of the delivery mechanism.

    More seriously, Music tried this very argument against format shifting (ripping and using an MP3 player), that we only bought the music in the cd format. It failed.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:14am

      Re:

      Yep, I've had a few DVDs that have rotted due to manufacturing flaws over the last decade or so. I either paid for access the the content or a physical disc. If I was only paying for access, I would like it returned, at no further cost.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Dreddsnik, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:03am

    They should probably remove the tagline 'Own it ... Today' from every one of their commercials. We'll see how fast they fly off the shelves then.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:16am

      Re:

      "'Own it ... Today' from every one of their commercials."

      The unskippable commercials they plastered over a bunch of their discs (just after the one telling you off for being a filthy pirate, even though the only people who would see the ad were paying customers)? Yeah, they didn't think that one through, did they?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      nasch (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 10:18am

      Re:

      They should probably remove the tagline 'Own it ... Today' from every one of their commercials

      [movie trailer voice]
      License the limited right to play it on an approved player... today!
      [/movie trailer voice]

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    retrogamer (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:04am

    Too bad LDs died off, now that was a good format. They didn't even have Macrovision.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Wilhelm Arcturus, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:05am

    What day is it?

    Copyright being used to undermine fair use, international law, and the longstanding fundamentals of private ownership? Is J. K. Rowling going to show up next and tell me my daughter doesn't really own those Harry Potter books because... copyright?

    I keep expecting the April Fools punchline to all of these stories, and then I look at the calendar and sigh heavily.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:13am

    Alright price accordingly then.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:14am

    Inserts insane laughter.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:26am

    So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

    Umm, okay. And you claim others can't understand plain words.

    This is a low point for even Masnick, just childish incomprehension of facts and law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      anony, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:40pm

      Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

      Wow you are grasping at straws in your personal attempt to attack mike, you are sounding like more and more of an absolute idiot every comment you make, of course you own the movie you purchase and can do anything you like with it, edit it and re-edit it if you want then release it as a parody as something that is covered by law as fair use.

      Now i assume you work for the movie industry or the MPAA, so if you read the comments on here you know you are only one of the 1% that people love to hate and one of the very few uninformed that seem to like to lie your way through life and attack anyone that makes you look like the imbecile you obviously are. Get a life and stop trying to hate on someone like mike who has the public's interest at heart more than you. If you want to suck up to your bosses in the mpaa do it on their website , here you are just laughed at and the butt of many jokes.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
        icon
        GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:46pm

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        Your lack of knowledge about copyright laws is what is laughable.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:44pm

      Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

      Sorry I missed your comment prior to leaving mine. You are about the only other person on here who can see this garbage article for what it is. Clickbait.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      icon
      GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:44pm

      Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

      Sorry I missed your comment prior to leaving mine. You are about the only other person on here who can see this garbage article for what it is. Clickbait.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:56pm

      Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

      Well since you've thought it through, and the rest of us obviously haven't, given our inabilities to understand big words, let's for just a second assume that the studios DO own the content on the DVD, while we the consumer owns the physical medium.

      If the studio says we can't use the content anymore, for whatever reason, how exactly do they think they're going to take it back?

      Involuntarily having the consumer destroy the DVD?
      Using the police to facilitate a mass confiscation?

      I anxiously await your superior-worded solution to my poorly-worded problem.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:37pm

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        Don't know, don't care. I'm talking about what the laws are not how to implement or execute them. I don't disagree with the author, I have a problem with the clueless commenters. I've only seen less than a handful of knowledgeable, intelligent responses.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:48am

          Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

          If you don't know or don't care, DON'T REPLY.

          You were saying something about being clueless?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Pragmatic, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:50am

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        This has already happened where devices were connected to the internet. People downloaded an update which then wiped the content off the device.

        So yes, they can.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:48am

          Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

          And if the media is a DVD, how exactly can they erase THAT remotely?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:28am

    They've been trying this for years with music and arguing to have everything their way.

    They want to say that you're buying the disc, but not the media on the disc, only a license to view the media on the disc, but only the media on that disc, so you don't get a free replacement if your disc gets worn out, damaged, or stolen. And you don't get access to the media in any other format like digital copies or streaming from a server. And you can't have more than a couple friends over to watch it. And you can't lend it to a friend because they have to buy the license too. And you can't make any copies, even for fair use purposes, because you'd have to circumvent copy protection, which we paid to make illegal.

    No one, if actually presented with these terms, would agree to this, especially not at the prices that have been charged in the past for physical media.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:28am

    So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

    Umm, okay. And you claim others can't understand plain words.

    This is a low point for even Masnick, just childish incomprehension of facts and law.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
      identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:30am

      Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

      And by the way, "free speech"
      Masnick is still trying to block me.

      What a fraud.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Baron von Robber, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:37am

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        Trollololol

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 2:14am

          Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

          New Silicon Valley definition of troll: dissenting opinion.

          Good luck with that.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 2:24am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

            New AC definition of dissenting opinion: random personal attacks and whining about censorship where none is present.

            At no point in the above was an alternative opinion on the subject of the article presented. Try again.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:43am

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        What is it your lot is fond of saying? Cluck, cluck?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:50am

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        Actually, to be honest, the only way you could peddle your speech is to make it free. I doubt anyone would pay for it.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:23pm

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        He's not trying to block you, he's trying to quarantine you.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Rich, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:59pm

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        I didn't realize Mike represented the government.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:12pm

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        You should look up a little case history about free speech. but thanks for showing your ignorance.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        BernardoVerda (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 7:01pm

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        I was going to "report" you.

        But fortunately, I quickly realized that this would actually be, in fact, quite counter-productive, and that it would be both easier and more effective to leave your blathering unhindered, for all to see and to judge for themselves.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Just Another Anonymous Troll, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:10pm

      Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

      just childish incomprehension of facts and law.
      What moronic parallel universe did you come from, where buying something doesn't mean you own it? It's sad he has to say this all right, sad that Hollywood needs to be reminded of this.
      Also, Mike is not trying to censor you just because your comment gets held for moderation, that's just an automated anti-spam thing. The fact that your idiotic, insulting comment was published is proof of that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        alternatives(), 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:35pm

        Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

        What moronic parallel universe did you come from, where buying something doesn't mean you own it?

        Computer software - the place where the CD-ROM or DVD-ROM purchase doesn't mean you "own" the software.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:19am

          Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

          Also, computer software - the place where you have to agree to an EULA before you can use it, and often have it included for view before you open the disc case, allowing you to return the goods if you don't agree.

          Where is that agreement on a DVD, because I don't ever recall seeing one?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 2:28am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

            Step 1. Learn to read.

            Step 2. Read the back of a DVD.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 2:50am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

              I'll assume you mean back of the DVD case rather than the back of the DVD. But, even then, a great many do not have any terms listed at all. Rating, specs, plot synopsis, extras, case, sure. But no licence terms. Those that do list some terms simply reiterate general copyright and trademark information, not the things being claimed here.

              Am then I to assume I can do whatever I want with the content, or do you accept that the two things are not comparable?

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 2:08pm

      Re: So you're stating that purchase of a DVD means you own "the movie", the "content"?

      Yeah, I own the content of that disc - which means I can see/hear it anywhere in whatever format pleases me. That's why I paid for the damn DVD - a blank one is waay cheaper.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:35am

    The pro copyright brigade will have anyone in court for copying the media on the cd/dvd and call it copyright theft but the pro copyright brigade has not once taken anyone to court for destroying the copyrighted media when the cd/dvd gets destroyed. I thought destruction of copyrighted media was far more damaging than copying copyrighted media but how wrong was I.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:43am

    Can't wait for this to backfire. GM will owe a lot of people in certain states property tax for their vehicles and state car taxes...I would recommend anyone that owns a car in a state like Virginia should bill GM for this miss-applied tax bills.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    gordwait (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 11:44am

    Simple. Don't buy them.

    I've only watched the handful of live concert DVD's I bought once, maybe showed a few friends some choice cuts.

    Movie DVDs? Save your money. There are so many interesting sources of entertainment now, life is too short to watch the same movie twice. Just wait for the retread - you know - the one where they add a Spiderman role to it.

    There's a meme for someone, insert Spiderman into all sorts of unlikely retreads!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Richard (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:01pm

    "Own it on DVD"

    How many times have we seen the phrase "Own it on DVD" in an advert.

    Let's hold them to it.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 2:08pm

      Re: "Own it on DVD"

      They add a qualifier.

      "Own it on DVD today."

      Tomorrow, we'll say you bought a license, unless of course you want the media replaced, then it is another story again.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    justme, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:18pm

    Wait. .

    So if you purchasing the disc doesn't include buying the content, then distributing the pirated content without the disc result in no loss of revenue, because that comes from sales of the disc not the content??

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    anony, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:25pm

    Bullshit

    When i buy something be it a car a dvd or a file i buy the right to own it in its entirety. No law can take that away from me and if they ever create a law that takes away my rights then i ignore it and refuse to purchase that object, especially a car or computer.

    If the law does change for specific items then those laws must also ensure that if i am only licensing the content then when the disc fails for any reason they must supply me free of charge another copy. Especially games discs that are made to stop working within years of purchse.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    icon
    GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:41pm

    Clickbait article

    I really am starting to dislike this site. The initial premise of the article was possibly fine, but the idiotic comments afterwards are indicative of the fact that the copyright laws aren't understood by people and the writer made no attempt to provide those statues. No doubt it's because of all the pageviews these trolling topics garner.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      jupiterkansas (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:58pm

      Re: Clickbait article

      And I would quit reading the site if every single article tried to explain copyright law to a bunch of trolls that will simply ignore it and instead try to demean the writer.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:14pm

      Re: Clickbait article

      How many time do you have to repeat this. We saw it the first two times.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      Gwiz (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:22pm

      Re: Clickbait article

      ...he idiotic comments afterwards are indicative of the fact that the copyright laws aren't understood by people...

      I have a fair grasp of copyright law. Do you care to point out what is being misunderstood here?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 3:48pm

        Re: Re: Clickbait article

        It's been known for ages that a person "owns" the physical media but does not own the copyrighted content.

        The first sale rule enables the DVD/Book/etc. to be sold and the author or copyright holder cannot limit that.

        This is long established law.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          Gwiz (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 5:03pm

          Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

          It's been known for ages that a person "owns" the physical media but does not own the copyrighted content.

          Not really. Traditionally one has had full property rights to the individual copy that they own. For example, with a dead-tree version of a book I can write on the pages or reorder the pages or destroy chapters I dislike or whatever. Section 1201 (which is what this article is about) changed that by restricting what I am allowed to do with my property in the privacy of my home.

          Section 1201 also impedes Fair Use. Without Fair Use, copyright would run afoul of the First Amendment. I'm of the opinion that Section 1201 is fundamentally unconstitutional, even with the granting of the exceptions.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:55pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

            You're agreeing with me then. You own the media. Do what you want with it. Tear, burn, draw, deface, whatever. It's yours. You can still do that.

            However, the copyright holder has the rights to dictate how you consume the copyrighted content.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Gwiz (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 7:10pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

              However, the copyright holder has the rights to dictate how you consume the copyrighted content.

              Incorrect. Copyright grants the copyright owner the rights enumerated in 17 U.S. Code § 106.

              There is nothing in there about how the copyrighted work is "consumed" whatsoever. There is also nothing about the copyright owner being able to "dictate" anything.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:29pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                No, I'm correct. You're the typical non-lawyer playing semantics and gotchas.

                Read that section and try to absorb what the result is of having the sole right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.

                If I, as the copyright holder, have to sole ability to prepare derivative works, then guess what--I'm dictating how a non-copyright holder gets to use the work. And if that work is video content, I get to dictate how you consume that content.

                Get it?

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 9:32pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                  No, you're not correct. You're the classic religious zealot who cannot be debated with any form of logic. You're religion cannot be questioned.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  eye sea ewe, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:23am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                  If I, as the copyright holder, have to sole ability to prepare derivative works, then guess what--I'm dictating how a non-copyright holder gets to use the work. And if that work is video content, I get to dictate how you consume that content.
                  You've indicated that you have an electrical engineering background. Hence you know that technically what you have said is incorrect.

                  You should well know (if you have the technical background) that irrespective of the medium in which the information is stored that there are many different ways that it can be extracted and used. Left as a homework example for you.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Pragmatic, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:00am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                  Look up "Fair use."

                  Parody is one example, as is news and commentary, etc.

                  So no, you don't have the sole ability (or right) to make derivative works. I do, too.

                  Read that section and try to absorb what the result is of having the sole right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work: it means ZERO fair use and you owe me a license fee if you copy any part of my posts and prepare and post a derivative work (post) based upon my work. Copyright is automatic, remember. You don't have to register it to receive it.

                  Can you see what I did there?

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Gwiz (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                  Read that section and try to absorb what the result is of having the sole right to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; and to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.

                  You are omitting the fact that those exclusive rights are also subject to the exceptions provided in Sections § 107 thru § 122. Which includes Fair Use. It has already been established that time-shifting and format-shifting are valid Fair Uses with digital products. Creating derivative works in the context of Fair Use is also not infringement. Those rights aren't as exclusive as you are making them out to be. Section 1201 impedes my right of Fair Use by making the act of accessing the work illegal.


                  If I, as the copyright holder, have to sole ability to prepare derivative works, then guess what--I'm dictating how a non-copyright holder gets to use the work.

                  Like I said above, that right isn't exclusive as you are thinking. I can cut all the words from your dead-tree book, rearrange them and create a collage and it could be considered Fair Use. I cannot do similar things with a DVD because I would have to circumvent the DRM to do so. See the difference?


                  And if that work is video content, I get to dictate how you consume that content.

                  Repeating something doesn't make it true. Copyright holders have never had the "right to dictate how a work is consumed". Section 1201 doesn't give you that right at all, it only removes my right to circumvent the DRM.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              Gwiz (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 7:42pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

              You own the media. Do what you want with it.

              Ok. You don't seem to be getting my point. Section 1201 specifically restricts me from "doing what I want" with my individual copy. For example, playing a DVD on a Linux box is technically breaking the law. GeoHot was sued for modding his PlayStation 3. That is not really "doing what I want with it".

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:34pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                I get your point, but you don't get the laws. You get to do whatever you want with the physical media. You do not get to do what you want with the copyrighted material.

                You do not get to make derivative works and publish those. You do not get to use the DVD on a non-allowed device because that non-allowed device necessary has to make derivative works or copies.

                Guess who has the right to make copies and derivative works? That's right, the copyright owner only.

                I'm done with this discussion. You clearly don't understand copyright laws and derivative works. Study up a bit on those.

                At the end of the day, I don't like the DMCA and I think copyright laws are out of whack, but the arguments and discussions here are asinine.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:32am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                  Here's the problem:

                  "You do not get to make derivative works and publish those"

                  This is fine, although there's an argument that non-commercial and other non-profit uses should be allowed.

                  "You do not get to use the DVD on a non-allowed device because that non-allowed device necessary has to make derivative works or copies."

                  This, however, is bullshit. If I want to watch the movie on a phone, a device that wasn't invented when the DVD was released, an open source device that's not been "officially" licenced, make a private copy that edits out that one annoying character or use the disc as a frisbee, that should be my right. As long as I'm not publishing or otherwise distributing the content, it's none of their business what I do with it. This is also a new thing - nobody cared what I did with my VHS collection after I bought it, as long as I wasn't selling pirated copies of it.

                  Publishers don't get to control whether I read a paperback novel normally, skip through and read the end first, edit it with a pen or rip out the pages to turn into a paper mache sculpture or line a bird cage with it. They have no control, nor should they. Ditto for the media I've purchased.

                  You're not exactly telling people why they're "wrong" about copyright law, but the above is the reason people find this objectionable, and it's also why it will never work. If you're trying to block private use of something that a person has bought, they will find a way around those blocks. If the restrictions only applied to commercial use, people would understand. When you try attacking what people consider their property (and why wouldn't they, since they were told they had bought it?), that's where it becomes a major problem.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  Gwiz (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:44am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                  I'm done with this discussion. You clearly don't understand copyright laws and derivative works. Study up a bit on those.


                  I believe you are the one who needs to study up a bit since there is quite a bit you seem to be getting wrong.

                  I have been studying this stuff and discussing it with actual copyright lawyers right here in Techdirt for years now.

                  But anyways, this has been a mostly cordial discussion and I appreciate that fact. Take care.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Pragmatic, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:55am

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

              First of all content is not consumed. No peristalsis takes place and it does not turn into poop at any point. Content is experienced.

              The copyright holder does not have any right in any way, shape, or form to dictate whether I merely listen to the commentary while working on something else, nor can (s)he tell me which of my devices I can experience the content on. If you are right you ought to be able to cite a law or link to an article proving your point.

              It's not my job to prove your point.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                Gwiz (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:42am

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                The copyright holder does not have any right in any way, shape, or form to dictate whether I merely listen to the commentary while working on something else, nor can (s)he tell me which of my devices I can experience the content on. If you are right you ought to be able to cite a law or link to an article proving your point.

                I would also like to read an argument like that myself, if one exists. I think it would prove to be pretty humorous. I've done some cursory Google searches and can't find anyone making an argument like that all.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • icon
                  GooberedUp (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:17am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                  Ripping and/or reencoding video is a derivative work. Only copyright holders have the statutory right to do that.

                  Fair use is likely a winnable defense.

                  This stuff is not difficult. The silly setting up and knocking down of strawmen is what's annoying.

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                  • icon
                    Gwiz (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:35am

                    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                    Ripping and/or reencoding video is a derivative work. Only copyright holders have the statutory right to do that.


                    Not true. It's already been determined that I have a Fair Use right to do such things.

                    From RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999:
                    In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose - the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. § 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings," H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift," those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.
                    Emphasis mine.

                    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                    • icon
                      GooberedUp (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:39am

                      Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                      I guess you got me. I didn't even consider Fair Use. Oh, wait . . .

                      Anyway, I'm finished responding to your silly posts. Gotcha games are not interesting to me.

                      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                      • icon
                        Gwiz (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:51am

                        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                        Anyway, I'm finished responding to your silly posts.

                        That's cool with me. I'm kind of tired of correcting your obvious mistakes myself.


                        Gotcha games are not interesting to me.

                        I'm not playing any sort of game here. Just simply correcting your incorrect notions concerning copyright laws. If I get something wrong, I fully expect a copyright lawyer or somebody else who is knowledgeable in this area to jump in and correct me.

                        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                        • icon
                          GooberedUp (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:53am

                          Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                          Funny stuff, you correcting me.

                          I've already corrected you. No need for more attorneys. You fundamentally don't understand copyright law. That's okay. Not many non-lawyers do.

                          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Gwiz (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 10:01am

                            Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                            I've already corrected you.

                            Sorry. That didn't happen. Your corrections were incorrect.


                            You fundamentally don't understand copyright law.

                            Whatever. You are free to your own opinions. I still disagree with that though, In my opinion, you are the one with some trouble understanding copyright law.


                            That's okay. Not many non-lawyers do.

                            That's just a silly type of a "no true Scotsman" argument. You can do better than that.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                            • icon
                              jupiterkansas (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:45pm

                              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                              And the winner is...

                              Gwiz with logic and examples.

                              GooberedUp might do better to avoid the insults and condescension next time and argue his case better like the real lawyer he claims he is.

                              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                          • icon
                            Uriel-238 (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:36pm

                            Law that non-lawyers can't / don't understand...

                            Your notion that copyright law cannot be understood outside the legal system raises an interesting thought.

                            If laws exist that cannot be understood by the laity (or that can only be understood by legal experts) how is this different than an intrinsic corruption of the DoJ?

                            I would argue that laws have to be comprehensible by us 100IQ idiots to be valid, otherwise ignorance of the law becomes the norm.

                            Worse yet, ignorance of the law becomes (is) the norm for law enforcement officers, who have to guess at whether something someone is doing is illegal. Or rather, assumes it is / isn't based on the cuts of their respective jibs.

                            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:31pm

      Re: Clickbait article

      Are you saying that the DVD CCA and the AACS LA did not say

      "When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will play back on only a licensed player."

      and I wonder what they mean by 'retail price.'

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        RD, 23 Apr 2015 @ 2:27pm

        Re: Re: Clickbait article

        "and I wonder what they mean by 'retail price.'"

        What THEY mean by "retail price" is "full price" regardless of what that means legally.

        If something has a "retail price" then it is a product FOR SALE and falls under the first sale doctrine, and is therefore a PRODUCT that is purchased.

        They can't keep using ALL the terminology from all the different sides of sales (retail, wholesale, licensing, etc) and then equating them all as being the same.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:32pm

      Re: Clickbait article

      and property laws are not understood by you obviously.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 2:17pm

      Re: Clickbait article

      ...the idiotic comments afterwards are indicative of the fact that the copyright laws aren't understood by people...

      I'm glad to finally see you admit to your ignorance. That's the first step.

      The second step is fixing it.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 3:50pm

        Re: Re: Clickbait article

        I'm an IP attorney for over 20 years. Along the way I've picked up a little about the subject matter.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 5:51pm

          Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

          Well, that would explain a few things. How many little girls and dead grandmothers have you sued for fun and profit?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:48pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

            I don't remember saying I worked for the xxAA. But then again, clearly reading, understanding and critically analyzing isn't one of your strong points given the kinds of comments I'm reading here.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • identicon
              Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 7:48pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

              Hint: It's not just the RIAA who sues little girls and dead grandmothers. Look up Malibu Media, John Steele, Evan Stone. I have a hunch you would consider them your role models.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

              • icon
                GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:35pm

                Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                Again, don't know, don't care. I don't do any of that stuff you mentioned, so I couldn't care much less.

                reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:47pm

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                  "Don't know, don't care."

                  So when the lawyer sticks his fingers in ears, stamps his feet and screams "LA LA LA LA LA" it's perfectly acceptable, but when a non-lawyer disagrees with things it's "sematics and gotchas".

                  Okay then...

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

                • identicon
                  Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:50am

                  Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

                  Again, if you don't know or don't care, DON'T REPLY!

                  reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          JMT (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:15pm

          Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

          So what you're saying is that you have a vested interest in the promotion of stupid, over-broad, excessively long copyright restrictions that are so complicated and devoid of common sense that high-priced 'specialist' lawyers are required for practically all interactions between producers and consumers of content. Basically the exact opposite of what the public needs or wants. Good for you...

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          CK20XX (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:18pm

          Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

          You probably want to switch careers to something with more long-term prospects then. How about a caregiver? There's no shortage of people getting older and it's a lot more satisfying to help them rather than sue them.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:46pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

            I think I'll do fine with an EE undergraduate degree and experience in designing microprocessors and computers and writing software. There's likely a bit of need of people having that knowledge.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Pragmatic, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:02am

          Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

          Then surely you know about fair use.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 5:59pm

      Re: Clickbait article

      If you claim to be an IP attorney why would you even need the statutes to be provided?

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 6:41pm

        Re: Re: Clickbait article

        So that the commenters understand the law and attempt to make intelligent responses. Read the comments and keep in mind what the copyright statutes really say. You'll see that the vast majority of the comments are spoken by people that have no idea of the laws.

        The author should have put a couple of sentences out there explaining the laws. But of course it would lessen the clicks.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • identicon
          Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:32pm

          Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

          You are the person with the specialist knowledge of relevant statutes, therefore you should be the on to provide the links.
          Why don't you, do think that supplying links is infringing?

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:59am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

            "do think that supplying links is infringing?"

            Some self-proclaimed experts have actually tried to claim that in court. I wonder if he's one of them.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            nasch (profile), 25 Apr 2015 @ 10:29am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: Clickbait article

            You are the person with the specialist knowledge of relevant statutes, therefore you should be the on to provide the links.
            Why don't you, do think that supplying links is infringing?


            How curious that he didn't reply to this...

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:43pm

    response

    When consumers buy a DVD or Blu-ray disc, they are not purchasing the motion picture itself, rather they are purchasing access to the motion picture which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a DVD player), or the Blu-ray Disc format specifications (i.e., through the use of a Blu-ray format player). Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will play back on only a licensed player.


    go stoke it small balls.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonmylous, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:43pm

    It doesn't work

    "When consumers buy a book, they are not purchasing the story itself, rather they are purchasing access to the story which affords only the right to access the work according to the format’s particular specifications (i.e., through the use of a one's eyes). Consumers are able to purchase the copy at its retail price because it is distributed on a specific medium that will communicate information only to someone who has been trained to read."

    So by their interpretation of physical media versus content, reading to your children would become copyright infringement. It really is about making a stupider consumer society, you see.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:16pm

      Re: It doesn't work

      what do you mean 'Buy a book?'

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:38pm

      Re: It doesn't work

      Reading to your children wouldn't be, but reading it to the public as a public performance would be. I'm not sure whether the consumer is the one getting stupider. Silly semantic arguments, well . . .

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:54pm

        Re: Re: It doesn't work

        Except that these "silly semantic arguments" have already been tried in court.

        Rightsholders have pretty bastardized definitions of what counts as "public performance".

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        That One Guy (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 1:03am

        Re: Re: It doesn't work

        Ah, you're one of those kinds of lawyers. 'Screw the public, screw those kids being read to at a library, I gots to get paid!'

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 1:32am

        Re: Re: It doesn't work

        "the public as a public performance would be"

        Define "public performance". Does it depend on venue? Number of people? Does reading to a group of kids at a library count, or does it only apply in a commercial setting? What if the person reading at the library is being paid? Did Ted Cruz infringe copyright for his ridiculous Dr. Seuss reading, or did that venue not count?

        Where these lines are drawn define how much support and respect the rules actually get. If the lines are so tight that educating children suddenly requires a fee to a publisher, the rules become unenforceable because nobody will respect or support that.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:51pm

    Not self-contradictory.

    "Notice that even this statement is self-contradictory. The first sentence says they are not purchasing any content, but merely a "right to access." And yet, the very next sentence talks about the "purchase [of] the copy." So which is it? Are people purchasing a copy of the movie? Or are they merely licensing access to the content on the plastic? "

    It's not that hard Mike, come on. Copy has more meanings than the one you use at Techdirt (Copy: If i've copied it I haven't stolen it.).

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pragmatic, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:06am

      Re: Not self-contradictory.

      copy
      ˈkɒpi/Submit
      noun
      1.
      a thing made to be similar or identical to another.
      "the problem is telling which is the original document and which the copy"
      synonyms: duplicate, duplication, reprint, facsimile, photocopy, carbon copy, carbon, mimeograph, mimeo; More
      2.
      a single specimen of a particular book, record, or other publication or issue.
      "the record has sold more than a million copies"
      synonyms: edition, version, impression, imprint, issue; More
      3.
      matter to be printed.
      "copy for the next issue must be submitted by the beginning of the month"
      material for a newspaper or magazine article.
      "it is an unfortunate truth of today's media that bad news makes good copy"
      synonyms: material; More
      the text of an advertisement.
      "‘No more stubble—no more trouble,’ trumpeted their ad copy"
      verb
      verb: copy; 3rd person present: copies; past tense: copied; past participle: copied; gerund or present participle: copying
      1.
      make a similar or identical version of; reproduce.
      "each form had to be copied and sent to a different department"
      synonyms: duplicate, photocopy, xerox, photostat, mimeograph, make a photocopy of, take a photocopy of, run off; More
      COMPUTING
      reproduce (data stored in one location) in another location.
      "the command will copy a file from one disc to another"
      write out information that one has read or heard.
      "he copied the details into his notebook"
      send a copy of a letter or an email to (a third party).
      "I thought I'd copy to you this letter sent to the PR representative"
      send someone a copy of an email that is addressed to a third party.
      "I attached the document and copied him in so he'd know it had been sent"
      2.
      imitate the style or behaviour of.
      "lifestyles that were copied from Miami and Fifth Avenue"
      synonyms: imitate, mimic, ape, emulate, follow, echo, mirror, simulate, parrot, reproduce;

      I don't think it means what you think it means.

      Are people purchasing a copy of the movie? Or are they merely licensing access to the content on the plastic?

      They've been told they can "Own it now on DVD" but the truth is just being admitted now: they are merely licensing access to the content.

      People don't understand that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 12:54pm

    Okay then.

    I now own the rights to everything ever. The studios can pay me $14bn/yr until this situation is resolved.

    After all, it's the same insane troll logic applied here.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    ofb2632 (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:10pm

    Scratched DVD's

    If they 'own' the DVD i purchased, and it gets scratched, warped, or broken... Do they have to pay to fix it?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:38pm

    Pretty soon, every one will be just like me.

    Name a movie or tv show and I haven't see it and I never will.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    kP (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:54pm

    For Years now the phase "Own It" has been used...

    ... to sell DVDs for years, so how exactly does this whole ownership thing suddenly go out the window?

    http://www.hugomovie.com/registration/index.html
    http://www.lucymovie.com/
    http://intothestormm ovie.com/
    https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=771148839565347
    http://www.highlander-thesource.com/

    (I can find this phrase all day - you get the idea)

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Pragmatic, 24 Apr 2015 @ 6:09am

      Re: For Years now the phase "Own It" has been used...

      It's fraud and they ought to be prosecuted for it. Ignorance of the law is no defense.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 1:55pm

    'This is a problem with Section 1201, showing how its expansive nature is fundamentally changing the concept of ownership in ways many people haven't even begun to understand yet'

    and it will continue to get worse until there is someone with some necessaries who comes up with a sensible change to the law that others in the same position dont do the stupid thing and block it. then you have to educate the people who deal with this sort of thing the most, the judges in copyright type cases and get them to stop siding with the industries that give them 'encouragement' to do so. had the judge in the Sony/Other O/S case and the Sony/Geohot case had used some common sense, the situation probably wouldn't be here now!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 2:08pm

      Re:

      Maybe if there was a law or something that said you couldn't make new copies and then sell them. You still own the copy you 'bought' (and can sell it), but making a new copy and selling wouldn't be allowed. That seems like a reasonable approach. I might vote for a law like that.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    AnonCow, 23 Apr 2015 @ 2:35pm

    If I send the DVD to the movie studio, how much are they willing to pay me for relinquishing my "license"?

    Yeah, didn't think so...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 2:38pm

    Don't buy their shit.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Padpaw (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 2:41pm

    why go halfway on this. We don't own anything we buy, or are even born with. we don't own our cars, clothes, homes or even our dna at this rate.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 4:35pm

      Re:

      Halfway? Well, then what does one say to their grocery vendor when they ask one to regurgitate the last couple of years of meals that they 'rented' from them? Or, should that be the farmers?

      The test will be whether the first sale doctrine or copyright is stronger, and copyright is purchasing all the laws they can to make it the winner (though whiner might be more appropriate).

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    eye sea ewe, 23 Apr 2015 @ 3:30pm

    A clarification on terms being used

    by all and sundry.

    In terms of the discussion above, there is information encoded and there is a physical storage device. More technically correct is that the media is the physical storage device.

    The information is stored by altering some characteristic of the media for the purposes of long term retention of the information.

    What is forgotten is that a specific performance has been recorded for presentation to the public. This recording of information has been achieved by various techniques over a long period of time.

    The current common technique uses an encoding of a number to store the performance information. Now the interesting feature about using encoding of numbers to store information is that any particular number can be used to store quite different sets of information. It all depends on the specific encoding/decoding process. A number is just a number and not copyrightable.

    If you really want to get into a full (very detailed) discussion of this go to the archives for Groklaw and look up the discussion papers by PoIR on this matter. He goes into the technical details in a manner suitable for lawyers, judges and politicians.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 5:32pm

    Does this mean we get to watch in any format?

    If they are claiming we are only licensing the movie, does that mean that once we "license" it on dvd format we can then watch it in any other format?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      GooberedUp (profile), 23 Apr 2015 @ 8:42pm

      Re: Does this mean we get to watch in any format?

      No. It's a derivative work then and you would need the copyright owner's permission. In reality, what are the damages and who will know if you do it in private? That is, if you rip it to Xvid or put it in an MKV container, etc. Clearly buying a DVD copy doesn't give you the right to download a BR copy from the internet.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        PaulT (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 1:45am

        Re: Re: Does this mean we get to watch in any format?

        "In reality, what are the damages and who will know if you do it in private?"

        This, to my mind, is ultimately the crux of this entire issue. People have been infringing copyright in all sorts of ways for decades, and nobody cared. There were various attempts to crack down on *commercial* piracy and some ridiculous propaganda campaigns, but you couldn't realistically prevent people making personal copies for friends, making mixtapes, recording and sharing TV shows on VHS, etc.

        The only difference now is that the sharing is done in public. All the infringement is out there for everyone to see, and it's possible to do easier and quicker than ever. But, in the minds of most people, they're still just sharing the stuff they would have done on CD, tape, VHS or whatever else.

        Attempts to crack down on piracy are failing largely because people are just doing what they've always done. The technology's changed, but the fundamental idea and reasons haven't. When you don't have the commercial motive, things become far more difficult - especially when so many early attempts at cracking down were to treat people sharing a song the same way as they'd treat a commercial enterprise mass producing bootleg copies.

        "Clearly buying a DVD copy doesn't give you the right to download a BR copy from the internet."

        But, an interesting idea that I sometimes think about - is it (and/or should it) be legal to download the DVD copy? If it's legal for me to make a backup copy privately, it would logically be legal for me to ask a friend to do it for me. Now, if that friend is not able to do this in my home, he could rip the disc for me elsewhere and then send me that file. Now, let's say I don't have a friend who can do this for me, but someone else has a copy they made of another DVD, and they send me that copy (which is identical to the copy that would have resulted from ripping my disc). Assuming I legally own a copy of the DVD, at which point does the otherwise legal activity suddenly become illegal? The guy sending the copy might be infringing by sending me the file, but where am I infringing if having a backup copy of my disc is legal?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 23 Apr 2015 @ 10:36pm

    This is why I pirate. Not because I can't afford something, but because, one day, someone will try to say that the thing I bought is no longer mine. Until we get DRM-free purchases of games, movies, and books I will not be satisfied with any purchase I make.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 2:33am

    To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

    Most of us in this community are not lawyers, we're consumers. Consumers who are terribly frustrated with how things are, and to really understand us you are gonna need to read a whole lot more than just this one article.

    I would like to ask you what you think IP law should be. Not what it is, but what it should be. For this hypothetical, let us assume it is 1950. Most of the contributors and commenters here have not been born yet. Neither has Bill Gates, or Steve Jobs. Sony and Cher are around, but they probably haven't met yet. There isn't much software being written as the IBM 360 is still a couple of years away. And the IOC won't air an Olympic game for another 6 years, and their first true telecast won't be for another 10. The MPAA exists, but it has mostly been about censorship to this point.

    Remember, this is not about what the law is currently, it is about what the law should be. And let us remember what the basis for IP is in this country:

    Section. 8.
    The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


    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;

    OK, now we are set, here are the questions:

    1. What sense does it make to reward an author/artist/creator/director etc. after they are dead.?

    2. Should software be patentable or copyright-able?

    3. Should business methods receive protection of any kind?

    4. Why should the IOC be able to force any restaurant named Olympic Pizza to change their name?

    5. Should any country even attempt to force their vision of IP on any other country?

    6. Should there be any control over any product after a sale when copying for resale is already illegal?

    7. Should a publisher/producer etc. be able to retrieve something they sold (and got paid) without reimbursing the purchaser?

    8. Should format shifting be wrong if there is no money made from it?

    9. Should libraries and therefore sharing (as in lending a book to a friend, not selling) be illegal?

    What do you say?

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      eye sea ewe, 24 Apr 2015 @ 5:37am

      Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

      You actually expect him to answer?

      One has to remember that there is currently a complete logical disconnect between IP law (of any form) and the real world. Lawyers rarely understand anything about the real world. They are locked in a mindset that revolves around their specific expertise in the legal domain. I find it also disingenuous of any lawyer who says he comes from a technical background and understands the real world.

      As a matter of course, all lawyers are trained to understand the complexity of the illogical nature of the law and not about whether the law actually make sense in the real world.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:47am

        Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

        Well, we know he made a response at 6:25 am above, so we know he has seen it. If he does not respond, then is it just one more nail in his 'I am not here to be serious, but to protect the business model in IP law that I have chosen' coffin.

        Along the lines you point out attorney's and some other professionals have a way of creating an unnecessary lexicon that is designed to make them necessary. I don't blame GooberdUp for this, it started long long ago. I will blame GooberedUp for participating for personal economic purposes in a profession that is corrupt and an attack and fraud on the common folk.

        He will answer if he has any integrity, so your right, he won't answer.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      GooberedUp (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:22am

      Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

      These are my personal views, so I don't know whether there is much worth here. Like anyone else, my opinions may sometimes be the same or differ from someone else's and won't necessarily follow the laws.

      1. What sense does it make to reward an author/artist/creator/director etc. after they are dead.?

      I think a limited amount of time should be provided. If I am an author and I drop dead the day after I've spent 20 years writing a book, shouldn't there be some type of compensation? I think the duration specified in the original 1790 law was fine. 14 years and renewable for another 14 (if the author was still alive). The Mickey Mouse copyright extensions are way over the top.

      2. Should software be patentable or copyright-able?

      I'm not a huge of software/business method patents. I've done them over the years, but maybe it's my hardware engineer side that nags me about this saying that flow charts and functional boxes really shouldn't be patentable. Copyrights I'm okay with. I think CONTU was right.

      3. Should business methods receive protection of any kind?

      Not a fan. I wouldn't have any issues with that going away.

      4. Why should the IOC be able to force any restaurant named Olympic Pizza to change their name?

      They shouldn't, as long as the restaurant isn't using any IOC trademarks in a way that could cause customers to be confused about affiliation.

      5. Should any country even attempt to force their vision of IP on any other country?

      Only if a unified vision is good for IP generally. And I think the WIPO patent filing system was very good for patents. OHIM was good for trademarks in the EU. Not quite sure about the Berne Convention.

      6. Should there be any control over any product after a sale when copying for resale is already illegal?

      I think the copyright holder gets to decide how to handle its content. Let them succeed or fail on their own.

      7. Should a publisher/producer etc. be able to retrieve something they sold (and got paid) without reimbursing the purchaser?

      No.

      8. Should format shifting be wrong if there is no money made from it?

      No, if you are talking about taking your content and making it viewable on numerous devices for your household use.

      9. Should libraries and therefore sharing (as in lending a book to a friend, not selling) be illegal?

      No. It's only a single copy being moved.

      --------------

      Again, these are only my opinions. I'm sure the xxAA orgs would disagree with some of them.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Anonymous Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:45am

        Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

        Thank you for answering. One more question...why do you deny fair use?

        Oh, and I take back the comment I made about integrity in a post that was held for moderation and I expect to show up some time in the future.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          GooberedUp (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:03am

          Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

          I'm not denying fair use. Fair use is what's termed an "affirmative defense". In other words, the defendant bears the burden of raising the defense and proving that the use was fair and not an infringement.

          I think fair use is great and I believe it does outweigh the DMCA.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • identicon
            Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 11:12am

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

            Fair use is what's termed an "affirmative defense"

            Fair use should be considered by the copyright holder before bringing action, that they don't is having a chilling effect. Direct claims of infringement and use of the DMCA is allowing censorship, because most people cannot afford to hire a lawyer.

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

            • icon
              GooberedUp (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:27pm

              Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

              I'm sure the copyright holder does consider it. But given the deep pockets of most of the copyright holders that are suing, I'd bet it's barely a passing thought.

              reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • icon
        John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 8:47am

        Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

        "Only if a unified vision is good for IP generally."

        I would have been happier if this answer was "only if a unified vision is good for people generally". IP is not (or shouldn't be) an end unto itself. It is a trade-off, and the entire rationale for the tradeoff is that it benefits society in general, not that it benefits the creators of IP.

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

        • icon
          GooberedUp (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 9:10am

          Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

          When I say good for IP generally, I really mean in terms of the ease of filing and reduction of cost. So for inventors (large and small) and the population in general, WIPO filings have been good. Higher IP costs likely would lead to higher product costs.

          reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

          • icon
            John Fenderson (profile), 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:58pm

            Re: Re: Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

            I understand. So you really mean "good for IP". I just have a hard time seeing how "good for IP" means "good".

            reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

      • identicon
        Nick, 24 Apr 2015 @ 12:07pm

        Re: Re: To GooberdUp...OK Mr. IP attorney...Let's Talk Turkey...What should IP law be?

        GooberdUp,

        In response to "I think that CONTU was right" I am wondering what your opinion of the Altai decision is.

        From what I can tell, the CONTU report was (sort of) in favor of allowing the copyrighting of "non-literal" elements of software code. The Altai decision, while not explicitly saying so, basically eliminates this kind of protection for software.

        Do you think that that is a mistake? Or do you think that the CONTU report was didn't really support or understand that aspect of software copyrighting?

        reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 24 Apr 2015 @ 7:17am

    It would appear that while GooberedUp claims to have knowledge and understanding of IP law and professes to have his misgivings about its absurdities, it seems he has no qualms making money off of it and insulting everyone else who disagrees with him.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Nick, 24 Apr 2015 @ 11:42am

    The DMCA makes it unlawful to circumvent digital protection measures, so there are certain things that you can be sued for doing with a DVD that you own.

    The DVD-CA is arguing that the fact that a purchaser of a DVD or Blu-Ray is restricted in the uses that they are allowed to make of their purchased item is equivalent to a license.

    As far as I can tell, their logic is this: there are restrictions on a purchaser's right to use DVDs that they buy (from the DMCA). Licenses are a thing that restrict the uses that purchasers make with the things that they buy. Therefore, people that buy DVDs are entering a license agreement. This is obviously illogical.

    This is part of a broader effort on the part of content producers to attempt to trick courts into allowing the DMCA to bleed back into copyright ownership. The reason it is a problem is that the issue is complex, and judges frequently don't really understand copyright law. I hope that the copyright office makes significant efforts to push back against this trend.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    DKWagner, 4 Apr 2017 @ 2:57pm

    Mechanical & Unique Embedded Licenses are a good thing.

    'At ~dis©US~ we love Blu-ray©'
    When I buy a book, an audio cassette, a CD, a DVD, a Blu-Ray disc, I presume that I am buying a mechanical license for a physical object.
    If the material is coded to cease being readable with restrictions listed, then the disc would still be mine, even though it stopped playing after 'X' number of plays or on a future date; but I still own the disc. If I don't own the disc, then I'm simply renting the product and the product should be returned by a certain date or it ceases to play after 'X' plays or a certain date. i.e. if one buys a vinyl album or CD, uniquely numbered or not - it is still your MECHANICAL LICENSE. You may and can resell it to someone else just like your '57Chevy. The copyright law has always allowed the purchaser to make a backup copy (if possible) in case the original is lost or damaged; but not if resold!!!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 10 Jul 2017 @ 9:48am

    Last word: you own the media, kids, you do not own "the movie itself", the content. So long as on the DVD, you own it. Once off, it's dicey.

    What a classic this one is, with the massive dog-pile and more aggressively wrong assertions than I can count. (I'm up to a hundred twenty-four, just to forestall the inevitable "up to ten" responses.)

    Poor "GooberedUp"! You did succeed in running him off, so big WIN. Congrats. I just wish other reasonable people knew of this thread, would save them much time.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.