RIAA et al. says CD ripping, backups not fair use

[d_unbeliever]

http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060215-6190.html

The RIAA and other industry representatives have argued that making backups of CDs and DVDs is not fair use, and that even ripping CDs is infringement.

[MOVIEGEEK]

Here's what I say to the RIAA and MPAA......



I bought the disc and I want to listen and watch it how I see fit.

[buzz86us]

man what the hell is wrong with the RIAA they need to step out of the stone age and realize that they are just encouraging more downloading with stunts like that if this type of thing becomes law soon you are going to have to buy a copy of the cd for every cd player and or mp3 player you own at 17 a pop if the DRM happens with hardware and with windoze longhorn i am just going to keep my old pc and linux till companies realize that their hardware isnt selling and microsoft realizes that their software isnt selling nowadays i would buy CDs but recently the quality of the content is shit so i have taken to listening to independent/local bands if i buy it i decide what to do with it i should be able to make a copy for my car in case someone robs it

[dvdguy4]

Then what the hell is fair use in this good ol country of the united states of big business? Just have to see I guess.The more you try to stop someone from doing something just makes them want to do it more. Im not for piracy in anyway shape or form but I really think they need to listen to the consumer and not the bottom line. If they want their sales to increase then maybe the content can be alot better as in music which sucks and as for the mpaa maybe they should stop re-releasing dvds over and over just for a few extra features that people dont really care about anyway and release good movies in the theater, not crap like the shit thats out now . The last cd I bought was in 1999 when I was a Dj and dvd was Bambi 2 for my daughter.

Whatever happened to Adam anyway?

[somebodeez]

So which is it?



http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php

For those who may not remember, here's what Don Verrilli said to the Supreme Court last year:

"The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."

[BJ_M]

someone gave them an inch -- now they are going for the mile

[ebenton]

Screw the RIAA and the broken-down, flea-bitten, swayback horse they rode in on.

[painkiller]

Real Idiots And A*******


sounds right to me

[Faustus]

heh just saw this on another site a few min ago.

I think it may be time to rise up and slay them.

[ROF]

In the United States it is a crime to break through any copy protection system. This is not the same world wide but does include on 50 US states.

Most DVDs and CDs have some form of copy protection system on them.

It's a federal crime to make a backup and for each offense you can be jailed for 5 years and/or pay up to $250,000 dollars.

[dvdguy4]

We understand that its a crime but hey I think if we bought the cd or dvd then its ours. Plain and simple. Maybe they should go around the entire country and bust people for selling their old vhs tapes and cds in yard sales and flea markets to instead of whats going on with internet dls

[ROF]

The DVD or CD is yours. The content is licensed to you to be listened/watched using the original disc on approved devices. You may not like it, I may not like it, but that is the way content laws have always been in the US.

[SilverBlade]

A lot of us think "If the technology is there, I'm going to do it, just because I can. It may be illegal, but I don't care".

[thevoelk]

Does anyone here honestly think anyone is getting sued or charged for ripping their CDs to their iPod. The RIAA will probably kill any renmant of sympathy anyone has for them and their current situation if they bring anyone under suit or charges. By that I mean someone who has bought a CD and ripped it to their mp3 player, with no P2P involved. Of course, they'll probably falsely "prove" that the music was downloaded through their IP Address dragnets.

[RLT69]

In the United States it is a crime to break through any copy protection system.

The content is licensed to you to be listened/watched using the original disc on approved devices.

1. In regards to DVDs, they are not COPY PROTECTED. They are encrypted. The encryption prevents access to the data without a proper key. It DOES NOT prevent copying. You can copy an encrypted file. You won't have access to it unless you have a key to decrypt the file.

CDs, these days, may be employing a COPY PROTECTION method. But that bug-a-boo leads to point number 2.

2. COPYRIGHT LAW.

Copyright law specifically states that we, the consumer, have the right to make a copy of the original material for our own personal use. This right has not changed since the introduction of CDs.

You might want to check out groklaw.net sometime.

3. DVDs and CDs are not LICENSED to the consumer. The consumer owns them lock, stock and barrel. The consumer has the right to SELL the DVD and CDs that they purchased. This gets into another area called PROPERTY. This is something, we in America hold dear. The right to own something. Music companies and hollywood have opposed the selling of "used" DVDs and CDs, but it is our LEGAL RIGHT as a consumer.

In fact the RIAA has tripped itself up by stating earlier in court, the consumer has the right to make a copy of their purchased CDs. Today, they are changing their tune. However it doesn't change the fact that COPYRIGHT LAW specifically grants the consumer the right to make a copy.

[Steen4]

While stating facts:

(1)(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.
http://www.eff.org/cafe/drmgame/copyright-faq.html

ROF disingenuously leaves out subsequent information which would entirely change the legality of certain activities:

(B) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to persons who are users of a copyrighted work which is in a particular class of works, if such persons are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by virtue of such prohibition in their ability to make noninfringing uses of that particular class of works under this title, as determined under subparagraph (C).

(C) During the 2-year period described in subparagraph (A), and during each succeeding 3-year period, the Librarian of Congress, upon the recommendation of the Register of Copyrights, who shall consult with the Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information of the Department of Commerce and report and comment on his or her views in making such recommendation, shall make the determination in a rulemaking proceeding for purposes of subparagraph (B) of whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are, or are likely to be in the succeeding 3-year period, adversely affected by the prohibition under subparagraph (A) in their ability to make noninfringing uses under this title of a particular class of copyrighted works. In conducting such rule-making, the Librarian shall examine-
(i) the availability for use of copyrighted works;
(ii) the availability for use of works for nonprofit archival, preservation, and educational purposes;
(iii) the impact that the prohibition on the circumvention of technological measures applied to copyrighted works has on criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research;
(iv) the effect of circumvention of technological measures on the market for or value of copyrighted works; and
(v) such other factors as the Librarian considers appropriate.
(D) The Librarian shall publish any class of copyrighted works for which the Librarian has determined, pursuant to the rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), that noninfringing uses by persons who are users of a copyrighted
work are, or are likely to be, adversely affected, and the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to such users with respect to such class of works for the ensuing 3-year period.
(E) Neither the exception under subparagraph (B) from the applicability of the prohibition contained in subparagraph (A), nor any determination made in a rulemaking conducted under subparagraph (C), may be used as a defense in
any action to enforce any provision of this title other than this paragraph.

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that-
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
(3) As used in this subsection-
(A) to "circumvent a technological measure" means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
(B) a technological measure "effectively controls access to a work" if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.

Also see http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
and http://fairuse.stanford.edu/

The spirit of this section of the digital millenium copyright act, taken verbatim, is clearly at variance with ROF's narrow, corporation-friendly, deceptively excerpted restating of a small part of it. While this has been pointed out time and again to ROF, he has yet to acknowledge that his reading of the statute is faulty at best, and clearly contrary to the intent of the entirety of the act. Ignore him. He may yet go away...

[ROF]

The spirit of this section of the digital millenium copyright act, taken verbatim, is clearly at variance with ROF's narrow, corporation-friendly, deceptively excerpted restating of a small part of it. While this has been pointed out time and again to ROF, he has yet to acknowledge that his reading of the statute is faulty at best, and clearly contrary to the intent of the entirety of the act. Ignore him. He may yet go away...

Which part of anything you stated includes that the consumer may at their leisure defeat copy protection or encryption methods under any legal manner? Most DVDs and most CDs released in the US contain one or both of these types of protections. Willfully breaking down this copy protection or encryption can result in 5 years in jail or $250,000 in fines for each copy protection or encryption you are found to have reverse engineered or broken through in order to make your copy.

As I stated before, I may not agree with this and neither might you but I can't seem to find anywhere in your post that states it's fully legal for your to copy a DVD or a CD that contains copy protection or encryption methods. Unless the laws have been rewritten today I believe it's still illegal to go about such criminal activity in the United States.

[somebodeez]

Interesting:
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html

Do I have the right to make a copy of my CD for my own personal use?
Yes. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.

Personal use also permits music fans to make "mix tapes" or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or "format shifting." Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is "time-shifting," or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.

As new media present new ways for people to enjoy music, the public's fair use rights accompany them into the electronic frontier. Now, music fans have the right and ability to copy their own music collection onto their own computer storage device and create customized play lists for their own personal use and enjoyment of their music.

It is important to note that while consumers have the right to listen to their own music collection for their own personal use, they do not have the right, however, to make their music collections available to others by uploading them onto the Internet for public downloading.

[ROF]

@Somebodeez

The key phrase in all that you posted is "lawfully obtained copyrighted work".

Reverse engineering and/or breaking down of copyright protections or encryption methods is not generally considered "lawfully obtained".

[gadgetguy]

Two separate issues. The right to a backup copy does not address the breaking down of copyright protections or reverse engineering. If a customer goes into a Best Buy and purchases a CD, they have legally obtained the copyrighted work. By the above article, that customer has the right to make a copy of that CD. Whether reverse engineering or breaking down of copyrighted protections is necessary to obtain a copy has nothing to do with whether the person lawfully obtained the copyrighted work. He clearly did.

[ROF]

Correct, but was the backup copy lawfully obtained?

That's the issue here unless I misread the article and topic of this thread. Most, if not all CDs or DVDs have some form of encryption or copy protection on them. Therefore when you circumvent this copy protection to make a backup copy you have not obtained a lawful backup.

[EAO]

In the United States it is a crime to break through any copy protection system. This is not the same world wide but does include on 50 US states.

Most DVDs and CDs have some form of copy protection system on them.

It's a federal crime to make a backup and for each offense you can be jailed for 5 years and/or pay up to $250,000 dollars.

I formally declare myself the independent country of 'F#@emall' As the first 'F#@emite' I offically do not have to abide by any 'well intended' law that is misapplied and abused by anyone I deem an a@@hole.

[FulciLives]

In the United States it is a crime to break through any copy protection system. This is not the same world wide but does include on 50 US states.

Most DVDs and CDs have some form of copy protection system on them.

It's a federal crime to make a backup and for each offense you can be jailed for 5 years and/or pay up to $250,000 dollars.

I formally declare myself the independent country of 'F#@emall' As the first 'F#@emite' I offically do not have to abide by any 'well intended' law that is misapplied and abused by anyone I deem an a@@hole.

LOL

I would like to become a 'F#@emite'

Sign me up !

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[Steen4]

Please, please do not continue to engage ROF in fruitless discussion, as he will NEVER capitulate to the restating (and restating) of the facts concerning the DMCA. First of all, I'm no legal eagle, but the wording of the section which I reprinted above is pretty damned explicit, and can only be denied by someone wilfully attempting to disseminate disinformation and intimidate the less-knowledgeable into forgoing their rights as consumers of certain types of property. Also, notice that you can find countless instances of ROF parroting the first part of the appropriate section (try viewing ROF's other posts), but never, NEVER, does he wrestle with the subsequent exceptions spelled out in following subparagraphs. As a matter of fact, it wouldn't be far-fetched to say that his position is to basically deny the existence of any text beyond the small subparagraph he clings to as a crash survivor might a life preserver. The tenacity of his position begs the question: why? Why cling so tightly to a clearly indefensible premise unless there is a vested interest in holding it? Hmm... The crux of all this is that the facts are there to be perused by any and all at dozens of websites. The DMCA has been broken down by many reputable legal entities, and their conclusions are not difficult to find. Read for yourselves.

[smearbrick1]

Correct, but was the backup copy lawfully obtained?

That's the issue here unless I misread the article and topic of this thread. Most, if not all CDs or DVDs have some form of encryption or copy protection on them. Therefore when you circumvent this copy protection to make a backup copy you have not obtained a lawful backup.

Where is the copy protection on most CDs? I haven't seen it. Yes, there was that whole rootkit thing and a few other failed attempts at copy protection (one of which, if you remember, offered an already encoded version of the entire CD). If most CDs were copy protected, how in the hell can several consumer devices (Xbox, Set top CD recorders, etc) copy CDs legally? Am I missing something?

Also... I don't think it's necessary for you to keep throwing the whole "it's illegal so you can't complain" comment around. I would venture a guess to say that 95% of the people on this board already know that, under the DMCA, is unlawful to circumvent digital copy protections. I don't think you have to come into every thread where someone is venting over their frustration with an industry bent on subjugating (obliterating)the American consumer's rights. Meanwhile, raking in huge profits while complaining that some nameless, faceless people are "stealing" their precious intellectual property. Who are these pirates? If we know there is such rampant piracy going on, why aren't they stopping the pirates? Why are they hunting down 72 year old grandmothers?

Bad things should happen to these companies.

[gadgetguy]

Correct, but was the backup copy lawfully obtained?

That's the issue here unless I misread the article and topic of this thread. Most, if not all CDs or DVDs have some form of encryption or copy protection on them. Therefore when you circumvent this copy protection to make a backup copy you have not obtained a lawful backup.

That was my pont. You quoted what the fair use article said as if it applied to obtaining the copy. It doesn't, it only states that the user has a right to the copy. The point of the article and this thread is that the RIAA is saying that we don't have that right, regardless of whether there is copy protection technologies involved or not.

[Noahtuck]

Correct, but was the backup copy lawfully obtained?

Yep, i bought all my cd's retail 8)

That's the issue here unless I misread the article and topic of this thread. Most, if not all CDs or DVDs have some form of encryption or copy protection on them. Therefore when you circumvent this copy protection to make a backup copy you have not obtained a lawful backup.

I bought it, i own it (i know all the legal technobabble to argue this so dont bother) I'll do what i want with it for "myself"
Actually on the cd copy protection, out of over 4-5 hundred retail bought cd's, i have yet to own one that would not let me just drop it into my PC and copy it with any program i wish, so as far as i know i have yet to own one with any type of "copy protection"

But i'm with

Here's what I say to the RIAA and MPAA......



I bought the disc and I want to listen and watch it how I see fit.

on this one

[lordsmurf]

Correct, but was the backup copy lawfully obtained?
That's the issue here unless I misread the article and topic of this thread. Most, if not all CDs or DVDs have some form of encryption or copy protection on them. Therefore when you circumvent this copy protection to make a backup copy you have not obtained a lawful backup.

You approach this topic with selectiveness.

This is not much different than people who want to pick-and-choose which religious scriptures they want to follow (or ignore), and then impose on others.

The situation is one of conflict, where a 1998 law disallows prior laws and doctrine. These conflicting laws cannot all be "on the books" as they are now.

While there can be laws to limit and re-define prior ones, you cannot simply counter them. For example, freedom of speech has limits on "obscenity" and "hate speech". But a new law could not suddenly give goverment the power to censor newspapers, as it counters prior established law.

If you ever bother to read commentary by folks who originally voted for the DMCA, this sort of consumer anti-copy effect was never intended. And in this booga-boo age of pretty colored "threat level meters" something like copying CDs falls pretty low on the government's give-a-shit-o-meter, so don't expect to see a resolution anytime soon.

We're on our own. Do what you feel is right, to hell with the contradictory legal advice. Pick the one you feel supercedes, and if you end up in court, just hope you can get judge/jury to see it the same way.

[FulciLives]

Actually on the cd copy protection, out of over 4-5 hundred retail bought cd's, i have yet to own one that would not let me just drop it into my PC and copy it with any program i wish, so as far as i know i have yet to own one with any type of "copy protection"

When I use NERO (I use NERO EXPRESS) to make a COPY (using the COPY ENTIRE DISC option) of a music CD I notice that often times it will say that it has COPY PROTECTION but it makes a copy anyways.

What's that all about *shrug*

- John "FulciLives" Coleman

[ROF]

@gadgetguy

Maybe we aren't reading the same article. The article linked in the OP talks about the DMCA and it's effect/lack of effect on protecting copyright. Have you viewed a DVD published in the US? Have you seen an FBI warning on those DVDs you've purchased? A copyright holder has the right to determine how their intellectual property is viewed and distributed. The FBI warning tells you it's illegal to make a copy because that's the authors copyright determination. Making a backup of a DVD with such a warning label on it means you are violating the terms of fair use as it relates to the contained intellectual property.