Studios unveil 'films to download' - (New Divx?) (1 Viewer)

[John Miles]

Circumvention of copy protection isn't copyright infringement, it's a violation of a law unto itself ... fair use is not a defense to circumvention

At least until the Supremes get their paws on it.

 

[Robert Spalding]

Is that what Dianna Ross is doing these days?

 

[Joshua Clinard]

I see that there are a couple of "urban legends" going on here.

Windows Media Player does NOT have DRM included. Microsoft removed DRM several weeks ago due to consumer demand/backlash.

Windows Media Player 9 series will be very good quality. So good, that theaters will be using the technology to project films theatrically.

Fair-Use Rights apply to all media: films, music, books, etc.

Hope that clears a few things up.

 

[Thomas Newton]

At least until the Supremes get their paws on it.

Precisely. The anti-circumvention provisions as written, and as Valenti demanded them, essentially allow copyright holders to rewrite any pro-citizen parts of the copyright laws that they don't like, merely by adding "protection." The Government steps in to enforce the private pseudo-law with the full force of the criminal justice system.

This is an illegal delegation of powers that the Congress does not have (the power to grant exclusive Rights that intentionally subordinate the overall public good to private gain) to those parties with the most blatant conflict of interest. Since DRM typically never expires, the "limited Times" clause may also be implicated.

Then there are the First Amendment issues that have gotten more attention, and that may be the ones which attract the Supreme Court's attention to the DMCA.

 

[Jeff Jacobson]

Response #1: Only if you consider CSS "protection". Might as well give away a free Chihuahua with every disc along with a threat of severe mauling by said Chihuahua should you attempt to copy. It would be just as effective.

Response #2: A DVD's copy protection does not prevent me from watching it. While it does restrict my fair use rights, which angers me, I can still put it in any DVD player (region coding notwithstanding) and watch it. Copy protected CDs won't play in computers, they won't play in many high end audio players, they won't play in DVD players, they won't play in any player that supports MP3, etc. If my DVDs suddenly weren't playable on half the devices I own, I'd stop buying them, too.

I see what you mean now.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Fair-Use Rights apply to all media: films, music, books, etc.

What urban legend is that statement meant to clear up? No one in this thread has said that fair use doesn't apply to certain types of media. I merely said that no court has held that personal-use copying of films is fair use, not that fair use doesn't apply to films; those are two wholly different concepts.

DJ

 

[Ryan Wright]

Quote:

*grumble* .. Perhaps I should have read your post more clearly. This comment means we are in agreement, thus making this post of mine a moot point.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Enough similar issues have been ruled on that any case against me in my (hypothetical) situation above would be quickly decided in my favor.

I admire your confidence, but you'll excuse me if my desire for a realistic attitude causes me to have doubts. What similar rulings do you speak of? The only case on point for this issue that has been mentioned thus far in this thread is Diamond. That's one. Hardly a sure thing such that your hypothetical case would be quickly decided in your favor.

DJ

edited to fix typo

 

[ThomasC]

Please help me. The dark side is getting ahold of me...
Oh, the heck with it. Strike me down with all your might and your transition to the dark side will be complete.
I can't believe I'm about to say this...
I rented A Beautiful Mind from these bastards the first day it opened up. I had NO IDEA it was going to be in P&S (I got it before this topic mentioned the P&S, and I didn't look thoroughly through the tutorial, how foolish of me), so please forgive me. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE. I'll never rent from these people again, not until they release in OAR and give people longer periods to "rent".
As far as the audio/video quality goes...fine for screening purposes, but definitely not a keeper.
I apologize and will never purchase anything from them again, not until they release in OAR and give people at least 5 days to keep it after they first watch it. I apologize, I apologize, I apologize...
"Apology accepted, Admiral Piett."

 

[ThomasC]

Double post.

 

[John Miles]

This is an illegal delegation of powers that the Congress does not have (the power to grant exclusive Rights that intentionally subordinate the overall public good to private gain) to those parties with the most blatant conflict of interest. Since DRM typically never expires, the "limited Times" clause may also be implicated.

Thomas makes an interesting point here that I haven't seen before. If the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions are considered to be part and parcel of US copyright law, then the limited-time clause really does sound like an obvious way to attack it in court. Damin, any thoughts (one way or the other) on that?

 

[Damin J Toell]

In a footnote to their brief, the Appellants appear to contend that the DMCA, as construed by the District Court, exceeds the constitutional authority of Congress to grant authors copyrights for a "limited time," U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 8, because it "empowers copyright owners to effectively secure perpetual protection by mixing public domain works with copyrighted materials, then locking both up with technological protection measures." For two reasons, the argument provides no basis for disturbing the judgment of the District Court.

First, we have repeatedly ruled that arguments presented to us only in a footnote are not entitled to appellate consideration. Although an amicus brief can be helpful in elaborating issues properly presented by the parties, it is normally not a method for injecting new issues into an appeal, at least in cases where the parties are competently represented by counsel.

Second, to whatever extent the argument might have merit at some future time in a case with a properly developed record, the argument is entirely premature and speculative at this time on this record. There is not even a claim, much less evidence, that any Plaintiff has sought to prevent copying of public domain works, or that the injunction prevents the Defendants from copying such works. As Judge Kaplan noted, the possibility that encryption would preclude access to public domain works "does not yet appear to be a problem, although it may emerge as one in the future."

-273 F.3d at 444-445.

Given that § 1201's protection only lasts as long as copyright protection, the Copyright Clause argument doesn't seem like it would go very far to me. However, the right litigants in the right case making the right arguments down the road may lead to that argument's success. It'll be interesting to see if it ever happens.

DJ

 

[John Miles]

Thanks. Kaplan's decision struck me as awfully short-sighted, and this quote ("does not yet appear to be a problem, although it may emerge as one in the future") certainly reinforces that impression. The copyright industry was handed an amazingly-powerful tool in the DMCA, and it's a shame the courts aren't approaching it with the kind of skepticism that such a one-sided piece of legislation warrants.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Thanks. Kaplan's decision struck me as awfully short-sighted, and this quote ("does not yet appear to be a problem, although it may emerge as one in the future") certainly reinforces that impression.

It should be noted that the opinion I quoted from was authored by Judge Newman (and joined by Judges Carbranes and Thompson) of the 2d Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Kaplan wrote the lower court opinion (for the Southern District of N.Y.), and Newman quoted from it.

DJ