House Bill Seeks to Exempt Backups from DMCA Violation

[joepic]

http://www.betanews.com/article/House_Bill_Seeks_to_Exempt_Backups_from_DMCA_Violation/1172619649

In an announcement Tuesday afternoon prior to the publication of the bill by the Library of Congress, Reps. Rick Boucher (D - VA) and John Doolittle (R - CA) introduced a bill that apparently would grant a new exemption for private, non-commercial copies of digital content, from violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act - technically creating a new class of "Section 1201 exemptions."

"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act dramatically tilted the copyright balance toward complete copyright protection at the expense of the public's right to fair use," reads a prepared statement from Rep. Boucher's office. With a seasoned lawmaker's skill at creating acronyms, the statement continues, "The FAIR USE Act [Freedom And Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007] will assure that consumers who purchase digital media can enjoy a broad range of uses of the media for their own convenience in a way which does not infringe the copyright in the work."

Consumer Electronics Association president and CEO Gary Shapiro voiced his support for the new bill Tuesday afternoon. In a prepared statement, Shapiro said, "This bill will reinforce the historical fair use protections of constitutionally-mandated copyright law that are reflected in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. It ensures that consumers, libraries and educators will not be liable for otherwise legal conduct and it codifies the important principles of the Supreme Court's Betamax decision. H.R. 1201 provides much needed fair use protection at a time when some in the content industry are challenging consumer rights to make use of lawfully acquired content."

[mh2360]

The combined power and influence of the all the media organisations in the US is pretty strong, and will see that this never happens... 8)

[somebodeez]

According to this article on Slyck:
http://slyck.com/story1420.html

The Bill is a positive step forward, yet even if it were passed, it would not help those looking to make backup copies of their DVD collection.

However , the article also states

There is no mention of DVD or optical disc circumvention and the exemptions are very narrow - and antiquated - in scope. The only circumvention provisions related to DVDs allow for “…consumers to circumvent a lock on a DVD or other audiovisual work in order to skip past commercials at the beginning of it or to bypass personally objectionable content…”, but not backup the work.

So I don't know how one can circumvent a DVD's protections in order to "to skip past commercials at the beginning of it or to bypass personally objectionable content" without reauthoring and burning a copy.

[dnix71]

Would it allow legally removing macrovision, or css or embedded 'do not copy' flags to make a backup?

I don't think they've thought this through.

Beta was immune to Macrovision. Thats' why it had to die.

[olyteddy]

...Beta was immune to Macrovision. Thats' why it had to die...

So was Sony's 8MM stuff....

[joepic]

Boucher DMCA Exemption Bill Would Legalize Commercial-Skipping

http://www.betanews.com/article/Boucher_DMCA_Exemption_Bill_Would_Legalize_CommercialS...ing/1172707864

The six new 1201 exemptions the FAIR USE Act (its name is an acronym, thus prompting the otherwise rude capitalization) would add are further simplified as follows:

Teachers can make copies of audiovisual works for teaching purposes exclusively, and may circumvent copy protection to do so.

Individuals can circumvent any technology that would force them to watch commercials or offensive content (whether a Web page qualifies as an "audiovisual work" in this context may become a re-opened debate). This will be extremely important news to content producers, who have claimed in recent years that commercial skipping mechanisms such as those used on TiVo devices enable users to effectively break the terms of their contract with TV services, constituting not only a breach of contract but, as some executives have argued, outright theft of service.

Circumvention is permitted for individuals making copies of AV files they've downloaded for transmission over their own home networks, but not to the Internet.

You can defeat copy protection if your objective is to seek out a work in the public domain.

If you're a reporter or researcher, you can circumvent copy protection in the act of research or journalism (something very much of interest to us here at BetaNews).

Finally, as we reported yesterday, individuals can defeat copy protection in order to make backup copies of downloaded material.

[oldandinthe way]

I don't know what will pass but I do think that the DCMA will be altered.

Prior to passage, opposition to the DCMA was limited to academics, there was virtually no consumer lobbying at that time.

The academics predicted a significant erosion of the public domain, and increased difficulty in "fair use" for educational purposes.

They were correct, and have continued to lobby congress.

A vocal group of consumers has been added to the mix, due to the heavy emphasis on CSS and DRM.

Within the media there are factions which seek reform. Obtaining clearances is difficult and time consuming with no real understanding of just what the limits of DCMA are. No one wants to be a defendant while the case law is developed.

We offer original source material to researchers and collectors and hold no rights to reproduce (not a problem because we don't reproduce). Yet barely a day does by without us being contacted by filmmakers, publishers or educators seeking permission to reproduce.

The reach of this law is so great that set designers for TV programs and movies have been told to seek clearances for posters on the walls of their sets.

[Todd7]

I believe this law is a step in the right direction, but does not go far enough. As a parent I am finding it harder and harder to find movies that I find completely satisfactory to show my young daughters. Some movies may be 95% acceptable, but there is a scene or two that I find unacceptable. The technology exists for parents to cut out unacceptable scenes or bad language, but the law does not allow it. If I purchase a dvd for my children, I would like the law to allow me to cut out objectionable scenes and foul language. For example a cartoon may meet my approval except for a scene where some of the characters get into a burping contest. As a parent I would like the legal right to cut that scene out of my copy of the dvd to be played in my home.

As we know, the technology exists to allow me to copy a dvd that I have purchased to my home computer, then use video editing software to eliminate objectionable content. I could also either burn the edited movie to a dvd for my home viewing, or even play it on my television from my computer. Unfortunately the law now makes this conduct illegal.

The proposed Fair Use Act of 2007 could be amended to make this conduct legal. The movie industry would benefit, because parents like me could purchase dvds that we now refuse to buy. Parents would benefit by providing content that meet their moral standards. Children would be entertained without being exposed to bad behavior.

I have expressed the above to my senators and congressman. I encourage others to express their thoughts to their representatives. You can contact them through http://www.house.gov and http://www.senate.gov/

[MOVIEGEEK]

The combined power and influence of the all the media organisations in the US is pretty strong, and will see that this never happens... 8)

Sad but true.
Just look at all the copy-protection crap on BD/HD-DVD,if the studios had their way we would all have mind erasing implants so we would have to buy their products over and over.

[TwistedLincoln]

I believe this law is a step in the right direction, but does not go far enough.

I agree. It is high time the law reflects what I believe to be common sense-- that copyright laws should only cover distribution, not use.

If, for example, I buy a copy of a DVD, I aught to be able to make copies of that disc for backup purposes. But why can't I also make additional copies of it for convenience? I have a home theater in my basement, but I also watch movies occationally in my living room. Why shouldn't I be able to make a copy of the same title so that I don't have to walk downstairs every time I want to watch something?

The point here is that there shouldn't be restrictions on how you use something you purchased. If I own a restaurant, I should be able to play a DVD that I legally purchased in my restaurant. I should even be able to charge admission if I like. Licensing content for "private, non-commercial use only" is absurd, as no one is ever willing to spell out exactly what such use means. In my view, if you can't specifically list the restrictions a consumer must abide by on your product, the consumer should be able to use the content in any way they see fit.

I do believe that distribution restrictions are necessary, depending on the content and the circumstances. But use restrictions are almost never justified.

[JohnnyMalaria]

If I own a restaurant, I should be able to play a DVD that I legally purchased in my restaurant. I should even be able to charge admission if I like.

Are you serious?

If you are using the DVD to add value to your business and, therefore, make more money, why shouldn't the copyright holder of that material be entitled to more than just the royalties from the sale of a single unit? To me, it's absolutely right that there should be a requirement to pay performance royalties.

What if I came into your restaurant (which, by the way, I wouldn't since the last thing I'd want to do is watch a DVD....) and said "Right, here's $1. That entitles me to eat everything you have." Methinks you'd cry foul.

For strictly personal, non-profit/non-commercial use, the current situation is absurd.

For business/profit-based use, you should pay more if you are using the content to make money.

[TwistedLincoln]

What if I came into your restaurant (which, by the way, I wouldn't since the last thing I'd want to do is watch a DVD....) and said "Right, here's $1. That entitles me to eat everything you have." Methinks you'd cry foul.

Well I don't actually own a restaurant, but...

My point is that there is a distinct difference between consumption and use. If you demanded to eat everything in a restaurant for a buck, that would be insane because you are consuming a product that has a finite amount available. However if a restaurant owner played back a DVD, it doesn't cost
the distributor any more than if he/she doesn't play the disc.

If you are using the DVD to add value to your business and, therefore, make more money, why shouldn't the copyright holder of that material be entitled to more than just the royalties from the sale of a single unit? To me, it's absolutely right that there should be a requirement to pay performance royalties.

You actually make my point, though indirectly. Who exactly can define what "adding value to your business" means? Having nicely painted walls and good lighting can arguably "add value" to a restaurant, but few would argue that the manufacturer of the paint or lighting fixtures are due any special royalties for bestowing aesthetic enjoyment to those who enter...

And to say that the copyright holder is due any more royalties than "the sale of a single unit" forgets the fact that all you bought was a single unit!

For business/profit-based use, you should pay more if you are using the content to make money.

The problem with this logic is that it goes against the entire idea of physical property, in favor of a purely intellectual property idea. By the same logic, if I buy a dozen eggs from Sam's Club to feed to my family, I should pay a price by the egg. But if I buy them to serve at my restaurant, then I should pay more for them, as I am using them to make myself money...

The problem here is that people have become accustomed to the idea that just because someone creates content, they are somehow entitled to make money off of it in every possible capacity. The fact is that while it is necessary to protect the ability of a content-creator to make a living, it is not necessary to do so at the expense of the rights of the consumer.

If I buy any other type of merchandise, I can expect to use it for personal or business purposes. I can resell it at my leisure for a profit, and I can use it to enhance my home or office. But if we are to accept that despite a person's legal purchase of a product, they cannot use it as they please, then we open ourselves up to the idea that nothing really belongs to us.

I'd rather not see the day where I cannot legally wear my suit to work because it is licensed for non-commercial purposes only...

[JohnnyMalaria]

The flaw with your argument is that, with the DVD example, you have paid a specific amount for the right to watch the DVD as many times as you like as long as it is only for your personal use.

e.g., on my This Is Spinal Tap DVD, it states:

"Licensed for private home exhibition only. Any public performance, copying or other use is strictly prohibited."

Playing a DVD with that license in a restaurant would be forbidden.

You should (rightly, in my mind) purchase a different license that permits such use. For example, if I wanted to turn some of my rolling acres into a outdoor movie theatre, it clearly wouldn't be fair to pay $20 for a DVD and make a small fortune from exhibiting it. If you wanted a flat licensing model so that anyone is free to do anything they like, then the unit cost would go up dramatically. And there'd be more pissed-off consumers about that than there are over the current "home exhibition" restrictions.

As far as the paint manufacturers getting royalties for adding value to your imaginary restaurant, that could happen. It would be pretty odd. But, you could choose to strike a deal with the supplier in that way. The key point is that that isn't the model used.

[TwistedLincoln]

The flaw with your argument is that, with the DVD example, you have paid a specific amount for the right to watch the DVD as many times as you like as long as it is only for your personal use.

You're correct to say that that is how things are currently done. My argument is that the laws should change, that's all.

For example, if I wanted to turn some of my rolling acres into a outdoor movie theatre, it clearly wouldn't be fair to pay $20 for a DVD and make a small fortune from exhibiting it.

I think this is where we disagree. To me, it is unfair that I can't make a small fortune exhibiting the DVD I purchased. I would be the one doing all the work, and investing my property to set up the theater. I would be the one hiring the workers to man the projector and the concession stands. All the content-provider did was sell me a DVD. And yet they want a chunk of all of my sales.

If I bought a vacuum cleaner from Best Buy instead of a DVD, and charged people admission to look at it, no one would tell me that I would be acting unfairly. The fact that no one would likely pay to look at a vacuum cleaner is irrelevant. The situation is the same: I legally purchase a product that someone else produced, and charge others to look at it. In one case, I am told I must pay royalties, in the other, not. And more absurdly, if I were to use the very same vacuum cleaner as part of a maid service, I would be using it to generate revenue. But I would still not have to pay royalties...

Back to the point at hand: the DMCA is a hideous piece of legislation that does nothing but undermine property rights. Those who would make unauthorized copies to distribute can already easily bypass copy protection, and do so readily. Those of us who would follow the law are left to suffer. Since DRM, Product Activation, and other technological restrictions are clearly ineffective against unauthorized distribution, it seems to me that the DMCA and other such laws have proven themselves worthless...

[JohnnyMalaria]

For example, if I wanted to turn some of my rolling acres into a outdoor movie theatre, it clearly wouldn't be fair to pay $20 for a DVD and make a small fortune from exhibiting it.

I think this is where we disagree. To me, it is unfair that I can't make a small fortune exhibiting the DVD I purchased. I would be the one doing all the work, and investing my property to set up the theater. I would be the one hiring the workers to man the projector and the concession stands. All the content-provider did was sell me a DVD. And yet they want a chunk of all of my sales.

I do see the logic in that. For that to happen, though, the cost of the DVD would sky rocket. I have no idea how much a local theatre pays for a movie, but I'm sure it is rather a lot!

[guns1inger]

Don't know what the current rental model is, but back in the olden days, a VHS tape that you or I could buy on sell-through for $15 would cost a video rental store $120.

So if you were prepared to pay $120 - 150 for your DVD's, I'm sure you would be able to get a license for more than personal use. Bus companies pay a licensing fee that allows them to play DVDs etc on the in-house TV for passengers.

Licensing is a passive form of DRM, and something I believe is fair to the owner and the user. This enforced "copy protection" is not.