Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Apple' started by Ronald Epstein, Jul 26, 2010.
Even bigger. Users may now take micro-snippets (HELLO! Hitler Videos!) as fair use.
Also they have extended the self-retention rules. In other words: if you own it, you store it, there is no penalty! So, while we won't discuss here, now users who physically own a media of any sort cannot be prosecuted for converting it to a digital format for their own use (distribution violates that). So for those of us who store DVD/BD/etc. on network storage.. huzzah! Keep your real discs at the handy, but like CDs, you're now legit! (well, you can't be sued unless you distribute and as long as you do hold the physical real media)
That is indeed big news. So does that mean that our favorite DVD/BD ripping tools on the Mac are officially legal? What about the court case that Real Networks lost over a similar tool (DVD ripping to your hard drive): does this mean the outcome in that case is now nullified?
I don't think so. I think that's the wicket. It's now completely OK for you to make your backups and protect them, you can't be sued.. but making a tool to let you do that is still illegal because it's reverse engineering. So you can do it.. but you can't do it. But if you have copies and backups of your material, you can't be sued from my understanding, as long as you have the physical media somewhere.
But the tool to do it.. yeah that's not out there. That, however, apparently is going to change later this year with an authorized option to do so from Media Center and PS3 Clients, or so the grumble is.
It's not a slam dunk.
I understand his analysis. But that's unrelated to the DMCA decisions enacted this morning. The two just happened at the same time, ships in the sea, but they aren't the same.
Yes, breaking DRM is still a taboo because of the process, but the way the new DMCA exists is that the feds are now contending as long as it's not being used to further distribution or violate the worthiness of a product (see Jailbreaking) then fine.
Which throws up a whole other ball of wax: DMCA ruling from administration says: you can do it, but the tool makers who let you are breaking the law; the fifth circuit says: it's not necessarily against the law to use a tool that lets you look.
Somewhere, we are on a crash course toward the middle. But under the new DMCA, the feds will basically decline to prosecute you if you have the content and the proof of legal ownership of a matching content. So, it's more a "we want prosecute or endorse a lawsuit" rather then a guiding ruling from a court.
(I posted this in the iPhone thread before seeing this thread. )
Re: DVD ripping. It is only for short snipppets for research use. This is not a coverall for ripping your movies for use on iPod. ( alas).
No, that's also not correct
What is said is that it can be used for snippets of research and distribution.. which is ala the creation AND DISTRIBUTION of new works:
The argument being made by those who see the change in the DMCA is that in order to use those snippets for a non-commercial format, a whole must be obtained in order to get snippets from.
Previous administration guidelines as to enforcement, not a ruling. It's a bit like this: having your mirrors mis-adjusted in your car is illegal and can get you a ticket, but how often is it enforced? Same here. What is happening is that the administration has signaled today through changes in the DMCA that they do not intend to support or back SELF USE. This is kind of the trick. The ruling as stated today is this:
Now, the "for use for a documentary" encompasses someone who wants to use and distribute for their own short of any value which is a seperate act then the original. The Non-Commercial videos means that videos which are not sold in a commercial format (which may also be viewed as "abandoned properties" as well as private content is also fair game; and there will be some debate on this front, whether or not something can become "non-commercial" after rights have lapsed or if the content is public-content (ie, PBS may be interested in how this holds out, as technically, none of their works is a commerical interest or a commercial format if branded as such, as a public trust).
But despite the rules of "official" this and that, the bigger hat seems to be that the administration is basically saying: if you distribute content and you sell it, we will come after you. If you own it, you have copies of it, you aren't selling it, we aren't going to do anything. Somewhat like mal-adjusted mirrors.
And that's not bad. (this is mostly signaled in the stances taken in the court cases in which this was the general position as argued by the feds)
BTW, how this all shakes out isn't nearly as important as the fact that now the debate can be legitimately addressed instead of being all shady
Gotcha Matt, I confused myself hopping a few different threads as to which one you were arguing. Jailbreaking a phone is as you have said legal so long as you are not doing so to enable stolen apps or other content. There's a subtle twist to it but still sticky.
Matt thanks for clarification. Is it correct that this is not legal allowance for breaking copy protection to rip whole DVDs for personal use? that was my specific takeaway.
Well, you aren't allowed to break the copyright of any commercially available or commercial product even for your own use (technically), though you can if you contend you are doing so for "research purposes", which is kind of an interesting bit.. I guess you could contend you are researching anything. (example: there are universities that have classes on "Buffy" etc.)
But there are two seperate things;
Legally, you are now entitled to decrypt content if you intend to use snippets of it in your own personal content as a matter of fair use (small excerpts). Think YouTube with a small bit and mixed up (like all those Hitler videos) would now be covered. But you storing them for just to store them.. not so much, technically, still in violation.
On the other hand, in court documents, the feds basically argued that they have no interest in persuing self use to prevent them from really arguing that in court. By basically making the point that the government had no interest in persuing that issue, it didn't get tested in court, but that's the part that a lot of people are talking about too.
Oh god, to use a terrible example but a correct one: Oral sex is illegal in Kansas. And Texas. But the state cops aren't making a big issue about prosecuting people for it. In fact, it basically doesn't happen. So, while the law is on the books, what the feds said in their briefs is that they aren't interested in persuing anything with regards to self-use, provided the user has a legitimate claim to content.
Their whole argument was against distribution, commercial distribution with and without profit motive.
FYI: as an update to this, it was basically pointed out on NPR that publically funded content is in fact, non-commercial. Whether it's sold or not, it is still non-commercial content. So, anything that is a federal archive issue, a PBS grant funded, etc. would fall into that non-commercial camp...
I think the administration is setting up a stick and a carrot. Previously, they have said they will be harsh arbitrators of content rights:
So, the government is saying the harshest penalties imaginable for even just looking for illegal content. But in court, to soften the blow, they have basically said: and hey, if you actually OWN it on a shelf somewhere and you're using it in a different format, then good for you for buying, we'll back off.
Kind of a carrot and the stick. Buy the stuff, and we back off and leave you alone. Think about downloading it when it shouldn't be and WHAM! We'll thomp you.
But at least now this is 100% legit.
I really don't want to take this thread off the rails, but the U.S. Supreme Court struck down all state sodomy in 2003 in Lawrence v. Texas. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas
The laws may still be on the books, but they are now unenforceable -- it isn't that "the state cops aren't making a big issue" -- they can't without violating the constitution.
So far as the small piece vs. entire work -- in order to extract the small piece(s) for your new fan video or documentary, you need to first decrypt/rip the entire work, decide what to edit, edit it, etc. Decrypting the entire DVD is a necessary part of the process.
Ted, your correct. I was just trying to throw out odd, non-enforced law. Your point here is the heart of it.
It may be legal now but apple confirms it still voids your warranty!
Well that was a given. Plus they will still try and break jail brakes with every update they can.
What benefit is there from JB on ios4? Besides tethering.
Load direct apps outside of AppleStore/Itunes
Biggest one for most people: move the iPhone to Tmobile or any other GSM carrier (ie, second-level carriers like Cricket, etc.)
Yeah, but if you do that at this time you'll have to give up 3G ...
I think the biggest benefit is tethering. For me, that's not enough of an incentive to give up the ease of use of iTunes and MobileME integration.
A lot of the "JB" apps could be simulated with Ajax-enhanced HTML 5 which would run on a non-JB iPhone. Google does this now with "Voice" and GCal (among others). I just don't get the allure of a JB'ed iPhone.
Now with Android, I get it: It allows the end-user to ditch the manufacturer-supplied UI and run straight Android (like the new highly-praised 2.2 "Froyo".) But for the iPhone I just don't see the necessity.
Are there worthwhile apps to be loaded outside of iTunes? (and I'm ignoring pirated apps)