I am not a lawyer, though it seems hard to be a consumer these days without the training. As I understand it, however, we have the right to make archival copies of the content that we buy (or license) such as computer software or music CDs or DVD movies. This protects our investment so that [...]
[url=http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2009/08/hdtv_almanac_dvd_archiving_at_risk.php]Read Column[/url]
HDTV Almanac - DVD Archiving at Risk
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
-
brewster
- Member
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2007 9:33 pm
I've been following the Kaleidescape case for a long time now...I can't believe that they're being hounded like this.
I agree with your comment that archiving is big concern; IMHO the more nebulous problem is DMCA and the MPAA actions violates the "fair use" aspect of time and place shifting that seems to me is well established now. If I buy a movie I want to be able to watch it on my (generic no DRM) portable player or my (linux) laptop.
Why is watching content I purchased on those devices breaking the (DMCA) law? Why should copying some "oddball" VHS tapes (macrovision protected) to my computer so I can watch them after my last $50 VCR gives up the ghost be against the (DMCA) law?
Nobody needed to create a new law when we copied records to cassette to use in portable players (yeah, just dated myself). But along with the Sony decision it established a precedent that in the end made the studios billions and billions by allowing technologies they never would have created.
If the MPAA et.al. don't like US copyright law then the MPAA can come up with their own contract that they can make every purchaser of their products sign. Then they can put in whatever silly ideas they want. Like a contract rule that says you can only watch a movie on Tuesday.
Copyright law was designed to balance the overall needs of society as a whole, both the producers and consumers. DMCA (marginally) benefits *only* producers and is clearly detrimental to consumers. That unbalances Copyright law.
The recording industry (partially) woke up and realized that DRM was a bad idea and allowed (non DRM) MP3 sales. Last I checked new bands were still making new music, concerts are happening (and ticket prices get worse), the radio is still playing, and people are still making some money despite the downturn. Yeah, some parts of the recording biz are in trouble but maybe they outlived their economic life anyway - that does happen in a capitalistic economy. For years they had us believe the world would end. Though they still keep pointlessly suing their customers for millions of dollars so maybe they aren't totally on board yet.
So yes, preserve my right to *archive* when it also includes preserving my ability to watch it on what ever the latest shiny gadget it.
I agree with your comment that archiving is big concern; IMHO the more nebulous problem is DMCA and the MPAA actions violates the "fair use" aspect of time and place shifting that seems to me is well established now. If I buy a movie I want to be able to watch it on my (generic no DRM) portable player or my (linux) laptop.
Why is watching content I purchased on those devices breaking the (DMCA) law? Why should copying some "oddball" VHS tapes (macrovision protected) to my computer so I can watch them after my last $50 VCR gives up the ghost be against the (DMCA) law?
Nobody needed to create a new law when we copied records to cassette to use in portable players (yeah, just dated myself). But along with the Sony decision it established a precedent that in the end made the studios billions and billions by allowing technologies they never would have created.
If the MPAA et.al. don't like US copyright law then the MPAA can come up with their own contract that they can make every purchaser of their products sign. Then they can put in whatever silly ideas they want. Like a contract rule that says you can only watch a movie on Tuesday.
Copyright law was designed to balance the overall needs of society as a whole, both the producers and consumers. DMCA (marginally) benefits *only* producers and is clearly detrimental to consumers. That unbalances Copyright law.
The recording industry (partially) woke up and realized that DRM was a bad idea and allowed (non DRM) MP3 sales. Last I checked new bands were still making new music, concerts are happening (and ticket prices get worse), the radio is still playing, and people are still making some money despite the downturn. Yeah, some parts of the recording biz are in trouble but maybe they outlived their economic life anyway - that does happen in a capitalistic economy. For years they had us believe the world would end. Though they still keep pointlessly suing their customers for millions of dollars so maybe they aren't totally on board yet.
So yes, preserve my right to *archive* when it also includes preserving my ability to watch it on what ever the latest shiny gadget it.
-
alfredpoor
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 1805
- Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:27 am
Re: DVD Archiving at Risk
All I can say is that you're preaching to the choir on this one.
And I still have a bunch of mix-tape cassettes that I recorded from records some 35 years ago. Sounds as though we're from about the same archeological strata.
Alfred
The answer is that it's against the law because that's what the law says (or appears to say; I'm not a lawyer). To find out why it says this, you'll have to ask the Congress that passed the law in the first place. And if you think that it is important to preserve the right to archive (and time-shift and place-shift) the content you have purchased (or more likely licensed), then your Congressional representatives are the ones you should ask these questions. Absent a court decision striking down this aspect of the DMCA, the Congress is our best hope to restore some balance in this area.Why is watching content I purchased on those devices breaking the (DMCA) law? Why should copying some "oddball" VHS tapes (macrovision protected) to my computer so I can watch them after my last $50 VCR gives up the ghost be against the (DMCA) law?
And I still have a bunch of mix-tape cassettes that I recorded from records some 35 years ago. Sounds as though we're from about the same archeological strata.
Alfred
-
Roger Halstead
- Major Contributor
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2006 4:13 pm
It is not illegal tomake back up copies, BUT
It's not illegal to make back up copies. To me it's readily apparent that the RIAA and MPAA saw this loop hole when they were (and still are complaining about piracy) So, they persuaded our congress critters to pass the DMCA making it illegal to break copy protection. In one fell swoop they made it illegal for the legal user to make backups if they had to circumvent the copy protection without changing the law that permits making backups. So it is legal for the user to make backups but it illegal for them to break the copy protection to do so. For that matter IIRC it is now illegal to own software capable of doing so and I believe it was their goal all along. OTOH almost any experienced programmer is in possession of the knowledge to circumvent most of the copy protection. Remember they tried to prevent tape decks from copying music, VCRs from copying TV, and they did pretty much squash the digital audio tape.
Now if the RIAA and MPAA would center their efforts on marketing a product at a reasonable price and not resort to the tactics of organized crime harassing the individual, they could probably save as much or more than they lose to off shore piracy. And that is where the big piracy operations are located, not here. The DMCA needs to be repealed, or modified drastically, but with the two organizations pumping millions into campaign funds and lobbying I see little chance of a fair law or fair treatment of the consumer
At my age there is little need for copying except on my DVR so I can watch the late shows at a more reasonable time, but I no longer have any sympathy for these groups. The artists deserve a fair wage, but do you think any but the big names get one?
Now if the RIAA and MPAA would center their efforts on marketing a product at a reasonable price and not resort to the tactics of organized crime harassing the individual, they could probably save as much or more than they lose to off shore piracy. And that is where the big piracy operations are located, not here. The DMCA needs to be repealed, or modified drastically, but with the two organizations pumping millions into campaign funds and lobbying I see little chance of a fair law or fair treatment of the consumer
At my age there is little need for copying except on my DVR so I can watch the late shows at a more reasonable time, but I no longer have any sympathy for these groups. The artists deserve a fair wage, but do you think any but the big names get one?