Analog Hole Legislation - MPEG to be illegal?

[SatStorm]

Northen Americans.....
I love them!!!!!

I agree with you rkr1958!!! Totally!!!!!

[GullyFoyle]

if auto makers had control over their "intellectual proberty" like the
entertainment media:
1. wrenches would be illegal
2. haynes and chilton manuals would be illegal
3. You could ONLY buy parts from the dealer or face jail
4. each car would have a detection device to alert authorities when
you violated the car makers "work of art" with parts, repairs,
gas, oil, or other items that didn't bear the approval of the
car maker.

Automakers are in fact required to accomodate aftermarket parts and service by law.

In a way they are doing just that by going the computer chip route. That makes it harder and harder for the small mechanic or home mechanic to have the propper diagnostic tools.

[GullyFoyle]

Another take on just how much we should trust corporations
http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/001051.html

Is Sony Trying to Kill the CD Format for Music?

Posted by Andrew Brandt
Wednesday, November 02, 2005, 04:32 PM (PST)


By now, you've probably heard the news that Sony, the media giant, has been quietly installing hidden software on PCs, when people buy music albums published by Sony BMG Music, and try to play them on their computers. The software, called Extended Copy Protection (or XCP) uses rootkit techniques similar to those used by viruses, Trojan horse programs, and spyware to hide the fact that it is installed from the user.

The discovery, by security expert Mark Russinovich (whose outfit, Sysinternals.com, makes several free Windows utilities I find invaluable in diagnosing spyware infestations), details how Sony uses commercial software that automatically installs itself when you put a music CD in a Windows PC's CD drive.

Russinovich's own anti-rootkit software, Rootkit Revealer (a free download), as well as the Blacklight rootkit detection utility (made by F-Secure, an antivirus company, free until the end of the year), now detect the software used by Sony, which was licensed from a British firm called First 4 Internet.

The bigger question people have got to ask is, does Sony not respect the integrity of the computers of its customers? This cavalier act of sneaking software onto PCs not only violates our own Prime Directive -- it's our PC, dammit -- but threatens the entire music industry.

After all, if you suspect that a commercial CD will install software secretly, which you won't be able to remove and which, itself, may increase the already-great security problems of your Windows PC, would you continue to buy CDs?

I'll tell you right now, I won't. I'd much rather buy an unrestricted copy of a song electronically, using iTunes, or Rhapsody, or one of the other music services that offer this feature, than take a chance that some music disc will stick some hidden files in my Windows folder, which I can't see or remove.

Sony has dealt itself a serious blow, and the best thing it -- and the rest of the music publishers -- can do right now is condemn this practice, apologize to the customers that were affected, provide a method to get this junk off affected PCs, and make declarations that they will never, ever do this again.

I don't think they will. And if they don't, I simply won't buy CDs anymore. Period. From any publisher. And I recommend that you don't, either. As a fan of music who respects the need for artists to make a living, and a security-savvy PC user, I'm incensed that Sony -- any company -- would think it's OK to do this. It's not. But the only way (I can see) to send that message effectively to Sony BMG executives is to vote against CDs with my wallet.

Sony was crucial in creating the CD format more than 25 years ago. In this age where every purchasing choice we make affects the level of control we have over our PCs, they seem to be committed to killing it.

[Timoleon]

It's also illegal to archive television.

Have you not heard of a thing called a VCR?

Time shifting with a VCR is legal. Building a permanent archive of TV shows is not...

I was thinking about this "time-shifting" thing: Taken to its logical conclusion, shouldn't it be illegal for the VHS tape manufacturers to include with their products a permanent stick-on label? Isn't that abetting those who would "archive" their recordings? Sort of like selling drug parapharnalia?

[ROF]

It's also illegal to archive television.

Have you not heard of a thing called a VCR?

Time shifting with a VCR is legal. Building a permanent archive of TV shows is not...

I was thinking about this "time-shifting" thing: Taken to its logical conclusion, shouldn't it be illegal for the VHS tape manufacturers to include with their products a permanent stick-on label? Isn't that abetting those who would "archive" their recordings? Sort of like selling drug parapharnalia?

Nope. It's called added value. You would otherwise have to purchase labels for your home movies you record via your VHS camcorder. There is significant non-infringing uses for those labels. Why do you think local stores can sell cigarette rolling papers? There is substantial legal uses for such products.

[dvdguy4]

So that means if you go to Disney or Universal Studios you have to destroy your camcorder tapes after you watch it once. LOL. It is considered copyright infringement since you are copying there logos and characters along with recording other patrons in the parks. Damned if you ,Damned if you dont. I honestly dont care anymore. Ive made 8 copies of my family vacation to Florida and if my family members want another copy of the 2 disc that I made then Ill give them another.

[Jester700]

Just a note on th copyright thingy WRT music...

Some confusion might have arisen from the fact that there is more than one "copyright" in a recorded song. The author(s) of the song have copyright (which actually has 2 halves - writer and publisher). This money will be forthcoming whenever the song is recorded & sold, and is based on a "statutory rate" of 8-ish cents per song (maybe slightly higher now), though that's subject to negotiation. But there is a compulsory nature to this - I can record whatever song I want and release it on a CD, as long as I pay that statutory rate - I don't need permission to record it.

Now, there is also copyright in the recording itself. The author has no involvement in this, but rather the artist, recording company, etc. And the terms of this are subject to whatever contracts exist between artist & record company. This is what people are discussing with the whole file sharing copyright issue.

Of course, there are other income streams and outlets for this creativity - radio/internet play, video synchronization, etc. And copyright holders of both types of copyright have means of getting paid for these uses - but they are still different legal critters.

[adam]

dvdguy4 what you describe is not even close to being copyright infringement.

[dvdguy4]

How can it not be? Its just a question Adam. Ive read everything youve posted and have learned alot so the ill read the answer.

[rkr1958]

To get this thread back on topic, people have fought hard for what few piddly rights they have. Timeshifting, fair use, etc.

You're kidding right? "piddly rights they have ..." ? I don't consider freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality, etc. "piddly rights". "Timeshifting, fair use, ect." while important are not nearly on par with these basic rights.

Talking about rights as it relates to this conversation. This isn't about speech or religion or whatever else you're trying to interject with. That's not the topic.

Just trying to make a subtle point about what seemed like to me some hyperbole on your part.

[ROF]

How can it not be? Its just a question Adam. Ive read everything youve posted and have learned alot so the ill read the answer.

For one, check the back of your disney passes. Valid videotaping and audio recording inside the park is explained with a phone number to call for more info.

[adam]

Because it easily passes each prong of the Fair Use test. Purely incidental copying for non-commercial purposes is exempted. Also, these types of uses are considered de minimus since they have little to no effect on the copyright holder, and this negates the infringement.

Now if you started selling the tapes...

[dvdguy4]

Hey guys ROF and Adam you rock. Would have never looked in the back of the pass. Still have it and gonna check later after work.

[ROF]

I don't like this idea of IP protection for so many reasons. it's a brilliant idea to thwart those who wish to steal movie theater profits by using a camcorder to record the movies while in the theater but for home usage this could infringe upon fair use as Adam has pointed out. If you are recording your childs birthday from a stationary tri-pod and in the background is playing a new movie one of your guests bought your child your recording could be interrupted. Plus, it may be inaudible to humans but what about our furry, scaly, and feathered friends? could this signal harm them in some way?

[SilverBlade]

this legislation will never be put through. This would make any analog cable out there illigal right now. S-Video, composite, even the monitor cables would be illegal. Some indistries who depend on the flexability of these cords would be at the mercy of hollywood even if everything they do with these cables are prefectly legal. I really hope the U.S congress has enough brains in their heads to see the reprocussions of this law, and how it would affect the global electronics industries.

Even though I'm from Canada, this law would affect me heavily too.

[GullyFoyle]

And the next axe falls
http://billboardradiomonitor.com/radiomonitor/news/business/leg_reg/article_display.js..._id=1001434249
House Committee Examines Digital Radio 'Flag'
Nov. 04, 2005
By Brooks Boilek, The Hollywood Reporter

SOURCE: The Hollywood Reporter.com

Entertainment industry executives Thursday attempted to convince lawmakers to approve laws that would ensure copyright holders' ability to protect content delivered by digital TV and radio broadcasts.

Without content-protection measures for digital TV, Hollywood is unlikely to allow broadcasters to air "high-value" programs, and those programs, including sports, TV series and movies, will find a permanent home on pay platforms where they already enjoy copy protections, MPAA chairman and CEO Dan Glickman told lawmakers.


"If program producers cannot be assured that programming licensed to broadcast television is protected as securely as programming licensed to cable and other subscription-based outlets, these producers will inevitably move their programming over to channels where protections are available through contractual arrangements," he told the House Judiciary Committee's copyright panel.

Glickman and RIAA chairman and CEO Mitch Bainwol want lawmakers to give the FCC the authority to approve copyright "broadcast flag" and "radio flag" control regimes. The two technologies function similarly, both designed to prevent digitally broadcast programming from being uploaded on the Internet.

Glickman also urged lawmakers to approve legislation that would plug the "analog hole," which opens when a copy-protected digital TV broadcast is transmitted, then converted to analog for use in some devices and often converted back into digital for use in other devices. When the conversion occurs, the copy protection is wiped off. That technology would be approved by the Patent and Trademark Office.

Consumer Electronics Assn. vp Michael Petricone told lawmakers that the analog-hole legislation is unworkable.

"It's unclear how the Patent and Trademark Office would administrate it," he said, calling the legislation an "incomprehensible and impractical ... half-baked proposal."

At least one lawmaker also balked at expanding the PTO's power.

"That's a very unusual role for the PTO, and I would be very reluctant to assign it to them," said Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif.

Staffers on the House copyright panel began circulating three legislative drafts dealing with the problems this week (HR 11/3). The broadcast flag and the analog-hole legislation are opposed by some consumer-rights groups and some consumer electronics companies.

[jdehn]

How long can you "time-shift" something before you call it an archive?

Or if I plan on playing it later it is just a time-shift.


Dictionary.com

Archive:
1. A place or collection containing records, documents, or other materials of historical interest.

2. A long-term storage area, often on magnetic tape, for backup copies of files or for files that are no longer in active use.
A file containing one or more files in compressed format for more efficient storage and transfer.

[RabidDog]

Totally off topic
ensure <> insure
protect your Hole!! no mpeg wont be illegal (using it will be)
Corporations job is to maximize their revenue (simplified by monopolys and Cartels)
Governments job is to protect the rights of the people, whilst allowing trade to continue.
Monopoly see Microsoft, Ma Bell
Cartel see Pepsi,Coke and Colombians
Prohibition .. didnt work with Booze in the 30's, drugs in the 80's and DigiContent in the 21C

Analog was my forestry teacher.
shouldnt that be analogue ?

[adam]

SilverBlade I agree that this legislation would cause alot of headaches for existing manufacturers but I do not think there exists any cable on the market that has the capability to digitize an analogue source therefore it would not be covered by this proposed law. And then of course any hardware manufactured up until the passing of this law will be exempted.

jdehn, the limitations of time-shifting are outlined in the Betamax ruling which I linked to above. You are allowed to record broadcasts and store them for a reasonable amount of time until you are able to watch them, ONCE. This right is shared among your family so you could watch it then hold on to it until your wife watched it, then your kids, etc... Beyond this, you are supposed to erase the tape or just not use it again.

So time-shifting becomes archiving if you watch it multiple times or if you keep it for an unreasonable time. There is no definition of what is reasonable, it would be something for the jury to determine, but I imagine anything more than a year would be per se unreasonable. Time-shifting is supposed to allow you to catch that show you missed because you were at work, or sleeping, or watching something else. You're expected to exercize your time-shifting right fairly quickly after the broadcast.

[oldfart13]

This is funny...I have tapes that are 25 years old that I haven't got around to watching ONCE. That doesn't make it an archive by the given description...

[adam]

I said 1 year would probably be deemed per se an unreasonable amount of time to exercise your time-shifting rights. Obviously 25 years is too long. Yes it does make it an archival copy by the description I just gave.

[dcsos]

Look I work sometimes in a night club exhibiting clips of movies music videos and visual fodder of all kinds

You're telling me all the activities of this club and all others like it are illegal..I think what you are saying is crap

I personally have over 3000 videotapes, many from the seventies. What ??do I havta erase them??
I think it was always legal to make these off air recordings for personal use
If they(USA) passed a new law , how am I supposed to comply..
Screen all the tapes and erase any images that aren't of my kids, wife or dog?

[adam]

I'm not going to bother wasting my time on someone who concludes that what I am saying is crap without doing a shred of research on the matter much less even reading the single on point authority I cited. I linked to the Betamax ruling. Read it yourself. While you are at it you should start reading Title 17 because you are grosly misinformed. If you are ever in the San Antonio area you can schedule an appointment with my office and I can explain all of this crap to you for a fee.

[pdemondo]

GullyFoyle wrote:
In a way they are doing just that by going the computer chip route. That makes it harder and harder for the small mechanic or home mechanic to have the propper diagnostic tools.

With cars, however, we have "hackers" working at aftermarket car parts
companies that are reverse engineering car programming. These guys don't have to worry about being thrown in prison for their efforts. If all fairness, if it weren't for computer control, cars would be hard pressed to meet emission requirements.

Copyrights were intented to stimulate creativity for the benefit
of society, not corporations. An individual is not motivated to create knowing that a corporation can keep control over their intellectual
creations for 50 -100 years. Copyrights/patents were intended for assignment to individuals not corporations. The inclusion of the later
adds no more incentive for creativity to the process.

The monopoly created by a patent/copyright was intended as a reward
to its author for their effors.

All of these controls/restriction on technology may benefit hollywood but
they will stagnate technical innovation. Having hollywood and their lawyer hacks dictate technology will give us a zero technology growth.

Part of the problem is our legal system with TOO MANY LAWYERS as judges. One should just be able to read and understand english to be an effective judge. If a person needs much specialized training to understand the law, how the heck can all of us unwashed masses be able to know if we are in legal complicance?

So all of you "lawyers" who think you understand image/signal processing and encrytpion, such that you can change laws
that will alter the high tech landscape,
stopy by my office and for a fee, I will tell you why you are
WRONG!

[adam]

Its because of people like you that we have to have legislation like this. You're just always looking for someone to blame and you're just so sure that all of copyright law is corrupt that you don't even need to bother reading it.

If you stopped being so angry and just grew up a little you would have noticed that I'm far from a supporter of this law or any other like it. You would have seen that all I did in this thread was answer people's questions, and clear up their misconceptions, regarding an area of law in which I practice. If you have a problem with anything that I've said than YOU do some research and show me where I've strayed, but don't blame me because you don't agree with what copyright law says. WTF, like I wrote it or something?

The best weapon against overbroad media backed legislation is knowledge. Until you grow up and learn a little about this system you hate so much, all you will ever do is blow the same smoke as all the other ultra-biased, uneducated, extremists out there.

[pdemondo]

Sir, it is becasue of people like me that the means exist to encrytp/trnansmit/process information.

What bull*** am I spreading? I have worked on patents for signal processing/communications/encrtpion designs that I have worked on.
I can tell you, in that area, many patents exist for exactly the same design. Our "legal team" was absolutely no help at all.

Is it not true that patents/copyrights exist as an incentive to the
individual who is doing the creative work? Is it not true that this
incentive exists to keep individuals creating for the benefit of
society.

Would you agree that copyright/patent are not a right based on a
self-evident truth as mentioned by our Founding Fathers?

Is copyright law set in stone? Is it not possible for the "unwashed
masses" to push for change in this area?

If you want to argue call those of us without your special insight "uneducated" or needing to "grow up" I would say at that poing you have noting of substance to say. Why not stick to the arguement, not insulting individuals whose points you do not agree with. If you grow tired of "explainng" you are not forced to post.



Those "nuancies of copyrights" you talk of are precisely the problem.

If all can read and "confirm" your answers, then why can't ANY 9 people
sit on the Supreme Court and end up with the same legal decisions?

[Shadowmistress]

Adam, step back, take a deep breath, and reassess the situation.

The topic itself inspires outrage. People express that outrage along with their uninformed opinions of the law. When you defend the law it sometimes sounds like you defend the thing that inspired the outrage in the first place. All that hostility has got to be directed somewhere and when you stand in front of the bullseye don't be surprised when it heads your way. It's the law they're mad at.

To everyone else, please try to understand the difference between knowledge and opinion. Just because Adam knows the laws that apply doesn't necessarily mean that he supports them. The man has some fine debating skills and sometimes will play the part of devils advocate to inspire creative thinking of solutions to the problem. If he didn't, this thread would just be comprised of a bunch of people whining that the law sucks and degenerate into something quite boring very quickly.

Now play nice. (And Supreme, you can STFU with your mod wannabe crap cause I'm not listening to it.)

[adam]

pdemondo: You're still just bitching about copyright law as if I had something to do with its making. So let me summarize my point again by answering just one of the questions you just asked. No I don't really grow tired of explaining copyright law, I grow tired of people blaming me because they didn't get the answer they wanted.

[lordsmurf]

EDIT: Not quite sure how to say what I want. Let me try again...

Basically, people are more open-minded about how the world should work than those that operate within a confines of legalities and politics (which only deals in how it currently does work). This topic (analog hole) is only the most recent piece in a much larger problem (copyrights) that angers many. Repeating "the stance" of how things work right now isn't going to get any sympathy. People will kill the messenger of "the stance".

[dcsos]

Here are the rules of FAIR USE used by educational facilities NATIONWIDE
you are right since 1984 they're limited to keeping it 45 days!

Any show they wanna tape off the air may not go into their library with permanancy that ADAM for example would label "ARCHIVAL"
so these institutions that actually keep libraries (Colleges, Universities and the like) are also 'violating the law' and have guidlines for not keeping shows below:

The Guidelines were developed to apply only to off-air recording by non-profit educational institutions.
A broadcast program (including cable programs) may be recorded off-air and retained by a non-profit educational institution for a period not to exceed the first forty-five (45) consecutive calendar days after the date of recording.
Off-air recording may be used once by individual teachers in the course of relevant teaching activities, and repeated once only when instructional reinforcement is necessary in classrooms and similar places devoted to instruction within a single building, cluster, or campus, as well as in the homes of students receiving formalized home instruction, during the first ten (10) consecutive schools days in the forty-five (45) day calendar day retention period. "School days" are school session days--not counting weekends, holidays, vacations, examination periods, or other scheduled interruptions--within the forty-five (45) calendar day retention period.
Off-air recordings may be made only at the request of and used by individual teachers, and may not be regularly recorded in anticipation of requests. No broadcast program may be recorded off-air more than once at the request of the same teacher, regardless of the number of times the program may be broadcast.
A limited number of copies may be reproduced from each off-air recording to meet the legitimate needs of teachers under these guidelines. Each additional copy shall be subject to all provisions governing the original recording.
After the first ten (10) consecutive schools days, off-air recordings may be used up to the end of the forty-five (45) calendar day retention period only for teacher evaluation purposes. i.e., to determine whether or not to include the broadcast program in the teaching curriculum, and may not be used in the recording institution for student exhibition or any other non-evaluation purpose without authorization.
Off-air recordings need not be used in their entirety, but the recorded programs may not be altered from their original content. Off-air recordings may not be physically or electronically combined or merged to constitute teaching anthologies or compilations.
All copies of off-air recordings must include the copyright notice on the broadcast program as recorded.
Educational institutions are expected to establish appropriate control procedures to maintain the integrity of these guidelines.