No, wrong. Your Fair Use rights are enshrined in the the 'Fair Use Act' in the USA. In the UK, it's in our Copyright Act which dates back to 1709 and was brought in with the invention of the printing press or something daft like that. That's the kind of stupidness we're up against in the UK.
The EUCD was meant to homogenise various member states' copyright acts, except if you're French. They took it to mean 'do their own thing'.
Except that, here, as I said, Congress can change these laws. Even the Constitution can, and has been amended, though the barrier for that is deliberately set high, as it should be.
From the Constitution;
"Section 8
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
...
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
That is just a small part of Article 1, Section 8. But it is ALL that is said about it in the Constitution, all laws refering to it derive from those two statements.
All of those laws are subject to change, or even to be expunged. The fair use doctrine comes from the wording above, in that one sentence. It is not a part of the Constitution in any way. It is an expression of what was thought to be part of the INTENT of the statement.
But, the Constitution is infinitely malleable. The founding fathers (lovely term, isn't it?) saw, as you would see in their writings, that the future held possibilities that they could not see.
The intent, therefore, was to leave the Constitution deliberately vague in many spots so as to allow easy modification.
In those areas in which they believed modification would be much more serious, they made it possible, but difficult.
There is nothing about copyright that can't be changed, other than to grant a simple infinite length to it.
I guess you should look up why apps like CloneDVD are made by fake off-shore companies, or why MacTheRipper's website goes down every now and then.
CloneDVD's website lists a mailing address in utah, and the only offshore reference I found was one saying they couldn't be based in europe.
MTR seems to have been threatened a couple times by macrovision, but it seems like nothing ever came of it.
What about Roxio? They are a legit US corporation, aren't they? Why aren't they sued by the studios?
If anything, these examples seem to show that the studios don't really have a case. I just don't get how this law can be taken seriously when it's impossible to find a case of it actually being enforced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Yes, it trumps fair use. Congress is allowed to write laws that modify copyright, trademark, and patent law almost any way they see fit.
But in actual, real life use, it doesn't appear that it has trumped fair use. If making a backup of media that you've purchased is made illegal, if that fair use right has been taken away, has a single case been prosecuted successfully for this?
Just curious, does the DMCA specifically say that the fair use principles in previous laws are null and void? That those laws are no longer valid? What specifically does it contain that means that it trumps fair use? Because if it doesn't, it's just a law that contradicts another law, and that's a situation for the judicial branch to sort out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
In talking to people I know in the industries, I have always found that they don't care much about people making a backup copy, though they would rather sell another different copy on different media, if people want that. It's their concern that people will make several copies for their friends and thus cut their sales that they worry about.
And that's where the DMCA goes overboard. It certainly could have spelled out restrictions on distribution and file sharing without taking away fair use. But I guess without fair use, it's hard to force people to keep buying the same content over and over.
I'd have more sympathy for the guys trying to enforce copy protection if they hadn't got greedy and tried to take away fair use rights.
But PalmOS is one of the worst OS's going for running multiple apps on and has severe limitations. That's why Palm took to rewriting it and bought BeOS.
Believe it or not, most people, including myself, have absolutely no interest in running multiple apps on their phone.
Quote:
Symbian evolved from Psion EPOC OS, which got a complete rewrite back in the days of the Series 5 and a really terrible UI. They've been gradually bodging it since. The apps though were pretty good. Symbian OS9 and UIQ 3 is another rewrite and it's taking them ages. The 990 was announce almost 2 years ago.
Er, bodging? Is that good, or bad?
I can't tell from what you are saying whether you think it really good now or not. Or behind its goals. What do you think?
9quote]
They're all pretty useless IME which is why I use a ThinkOutside bluetooth keyboard. I use QuickOffice. http://www.quickoffice.com/[/quote]
I bought a fold-up keyboard as well which works well. But I'm not about to carry it around with me.
Quote:
Apple's phone OS would have to be fantastic for it to lure developers away from other mobile platforms and for them to port apps like QuickOffice or Route66. I think that's one reason why they will use someone else's OS with their own UI.
It would have to be. My thoughts are that if, with the capabilities of new phones, that a phone X would allow Mac developers to possibly have cut down versions of their own software.
But in actual, real life use, it doesn't appear that it has trumped fair use. If making a backup of media that you've purchased is made illegal, if that fair use right has been taken away, has a single case been prosecuted successfully for this?
We are talking about two things. The first is the law, and the second is enforcement.
There are actually people who obey laws, even when they know they won't get caught. That's what makes a civil society.
I don't know if it has been prosecuted, as you're hinting, it would have to be discovered first.
Quote:
Just curious, does the DMCA specifically say that the fair use principles in previous laws are null and void? That those laws are no longer valid? What specifically does it contain that means that it trumps fair use? Because if it doesn't, it's just a law that contradicts another law, and that's a situation for the judicial branch to sort out.
Actually it doesn't. In fact, it acknowledges those laws, EXCEPT where DRM is concerned. Then it says that DRM may not be contravened.
Quote:
And that's where the DMCA goes overboard. It certainly could have spelled out restrictions on distribution and file sharing without taking away fair use. But I guess without fair use, it's hard to force people to keep buying the same content over and over.
It does mention much of this.
You can read the Executive Summery. It explaines this.
We are talking about two things. The first is the law, and the second is enforcement.
And in this case, the law looks to be unenforcable, contradictory, or both.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There are actually people who obey laws, even when they know they won't get caught. That's what makes a civil society.
And there are people who disobey laws because they know those laws are unjust. Laws don't go away until you challenge them successfully.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I don't know if it has been prosecuted, as you're hinting, it would have to be discovered first.
They certainly know about companies like Roxio who seem to be obviously violating the DMCA and are based in the USA. Why hasn't a company creating DVD copy software been successfully prosecuted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Greed is everywhere. The pirates are greedy, even though they will never admit it.
SlySoft Inc. is a software company located in the capital city St. John's, Antigua and Barbuda in Antigua and Barbuda. Its products consist of software to copy CDs and DVDs. A few of these products disable the copy lock and so they aren't allowed in every country. CSS decrypting software AnyDVD and DVD Shrink) allows a region-specific DVD to be copied as an all-region DVD. It also removes Macrovision, Content Scramble System (CSS), region codes, and disabled user operations (UOPs).
Quote:
What about Roxio? They are a legit US corporation, aren't they? Why aren't they sued by the studios?
Because Roxio offers no software that can decrypt DVDs?
Roxio or Sonic will not copy a commercial film DVD such as movies which you rent/purchase. This is because these movies are CSS (Content Scrambling System) encrypted and our software does not bypass any level of encryption.
Exactly. You can use Popcorn to copy DVDs but you have to use MacTheRipper to remove the copy-protection on the DVD first. It is legal to make a copy of a DVD for archival/personal use, but illegal to distribute that copy. In other words it is legal to rip a DVD to your computer as long as it is used for personal purposes only. I have all of my legally purchased movie files copied onto my computer for viewing on my iPod and future iTV.
However I would like to say that this entire line of debate doesn't really belong in a topic about a possible Apple phone, even if that phone plays videos. Perhaps y'all could have started a different thread for this?
I want an iPhone. I don't care if it runs PalmOS apps, I don't care if it is a proprietary OS. If Apple makes one it is garaunteed to work better with my Mac and the content on it than any other phone/smartphone out there. There is nothing that pisses me off more than having a product that refuses to do what it is supposed to, and that is the experience I have had with all of my spartphones. Shoddy Mac support, poor application integration, lack of styling, all of these plague the smartphone market. Apple could easily break into the market by offering a product that solves all three of these issues. Remember that there was an MP3 player market before the iPod, but the products were overpriced, had poor integration, and looked like crap. I remember that the only hard drive MP3 players around when the iPod came out were the same size as CD players! The market responded to the beautiful and extremely functional iPod, that made carrying your music around easy. They could do the same thing for the phone market, combining the MP3 player and phone is a wonderful idea. We can expect that if Apple does it, they will get it right.
And in this case, the law looks to be unenforcable, contradictory, or both.
Unenforcable, not contradictory.
Quote:
And there are people who disobey laws because they know those laws are unjust. Laws don't go away until you challenge them successfully.
Not unjust, necessarily. A heavy-handed approach to a real problem.
Quote:
They certainly know about companies like Roxio who seem to be obviously violating the DMCA and are based in the USA. Why hasn't a company creating DVD copy software been successfully prosecuted?
I haven't used that software, so I don't know exactly what it does. If it allows copying of DRM'd DVD's then it is illegal, I would think, but perhaps not. None of us here know enough about the situation. Just assumptions.
After reading the links posted by Chucker, it would seem that Roxio is doing nothing illegal after all. No DRM cracking.
Quote:
So two wrongs make a right?
Of course not. But that's assuming that what you think is right.
Exactly. You can use Popcorn to copy DVDs but you have to use MacTheRipper to remove the copy-protection on the DVD first. It is legal to make a copy of a DVD for archival/personal use, but illegal to distribute that copy. In other words it is legal to rip a DVD to your computer as long as it is used for personal purposes only. I have all of my legally purchased movie files copied onto my computer for viewing on my iPod and future iTV.
No. Illegal to crack DRM in order to make that copy, no matter what use it is put to.
But in actual, real life use, it doesn't appear that it has trumped fair use. If making a backup of media that you've purchased is made illegal, if that fair use right has been taken away, has a single case been prosecuted successfully for this?
I'd have more sympathy for the guys trying to enforce copy protection if they hadn't got greedy and tried to take away fair use rights.
The thing is, fair use is still a distinct issue.
Note that DCMA comes into force when you're trying to break a DRM scheme in order to grant yourself more rights than the original DRM license would have allowed you.
When you break the DVD's encryption to create an unencumbered video file, you're giving yourself additional rights: For example, the right to make infinite copies and send them to all your friends.
Say, instead, that you chose to make a bit-for-bit copy of the raw contents of the DVD. In that situation you are not breaking the DRM scheme, so DCMA doesn't come into play. Now, you're left with a file that is totally useless for most people: Typically, your only choice would be to burn that bit-for-bit image onto a blank DVD in order to make any practical use of it. Depending on your nation's definition of Fair Use, that may or may not be a legal thing to do.
But practically speaking, you cannot send that bit-for-bit copy of the DVD onto an iPod, for example, because iPods don't know how to decrypt the data.
There exists a possibility that you may come up with a new firmware patch for the iPod which would make it capable of decoding the CSS encryption in real-time as it plays back the file. (Assume for the moment that the iPod has enough computational power to do the job. That point is debatable.) Suppose further that you design the firmware so that it's impossible for the iPod to output that decoded video stream through any means except for the on-unit display (or possibly a digitally watermarked version on the S-Video output).
Alternatively, suppose that Apple comes up with a system whereby users can rip a DVD, the file is internally decrypted and transcoded, and then automatically re-encrypted with a FairPlay type of DRM encryption that an iPod can natively decode. Assume that the license terms of the re-encrypted file are rather rigid, eg. movies can only be played on the actual computer where the transcoding took place or on iPod; they cannot be burnt etc.
There is a section in the DCMA that allows the vendors of a product to reverse-engineer a competitor's technique of DRM for the sole purpose of providing product interoperability. The clauses make it quite clear that such reverse engineering must not result in giving the end user any additional rights that had not been possible under the original DRM license. A case could be made that either of those solutions we hypothetically designed for the iPod might possibly be in compliance with this part of the DCMA.
But these laws are untested so far, and it's uncertain how far either of those proposed solutions could actually get if litigation started. And again, it is now a separate issue to determine whether or not we're proposing a scheme that fits within the confines of your country's definition of Fair Use.
Believe it or not, most people, including myself, have absolutely no interest in running multiple apps on their phone.
So you never want to use your address book whilst you're on a phone call to look up a number. Or look something up in your calendar whilst having a conversation. Or grab an image midway through an email?
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Er, bodging? Is that good, or bad?
I can't tell from what you are saying whether you think it really good now or not. Or behind its goals. What do you think?
Bad up until recently. Psion's EPOC was focussed on a keyboard driven PDA. It took seemingly forever to translate that into what was more important in a phone.
UIQ 3 has brought more focus on consistency even if some of it is bad like the huge 'Back' button they seem keen on now instead of the jog dial or better application design in the first place. The UI on the p800/900/910 seems to have evolved in no defined manner. IMHO, worse than even Apple's Metal/Aqua/OS9/Unified UI mess. At least it's all skinnable now on UIQ3 so I guess the first thing I'll be doing is skinning it with a Mac interface. :-)
The original Palm UI has always struck me as consistent, free of clutter and well thought out even if the OS underneath was too restrictive and plain old for a modern OS now.
Symbian was sort of the opposite way round. Relatively modern OS underneath with a not terribly well focussed UI and some ugly design. I'll see what UIQ3 brings though. The screenshots look not that different from UIQ 2.1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I bought a fold-up keyboard as well which works well. But I'm not about to carry it around with me.
It's not something I carry around a lot but if I'm out with a bag, it's usually in there and saves having to cart a laptop around. I've SSH and VNC on my p910 so it's quite useful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It would have to be. My thoughts are that if, with the capabilities of new phones, that a phone X would allow Mac developers to possibly have cut down versions of their own software.
It'd have to be cut down an awful lot. Most of the smart phones have 32-64MB RAM in them with the exception of the Windows beasts that need much more. I'm not sure OSX on a mobile wouldn't be any more appropriate than Windows on a mobile either. It's about time someone concentrated on a UI fit for purpose.
No. You misunderstood. There's two falsehoods you've conflated.
1) 'Fair use' does not mean you can copy a whole DVD. That is not what 'Fair use' allows. Fair use allows you to copy non-substantial parts. 'Fair use' gets dropped in to these conversations all the time and it's totally irrelevant. Please look up the law before using it again.
That's not supported by the courts. Sony was taken to court over the VCR's use for timeshifting and the courts ruled in their favor. There's no question that they were talking about recording programs in their entirety. Looking at the law, there are four guidlines defining fair use. They don't all have to be met in every case (for example parody, in which case full songs are often used).
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Conflating a misunderstanding of what 'Fair use' allows you and a law that is unenforceable at the consumer level (DMCA/EUCD) does not mean that Apple has a viable business model. Far from it.
Wow, so now Apple's entire business model isn't viable? That seems ridiculous since they (and many other companies) are selling tons of product that you seem to feel can only be used illegally.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
It does not.
If it really doesn't, why did the courts find in favor of Sony in a vcr case involving exactly that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
I just picked one battle. There are many.
You picked one where the DCMA didn't win. Are there any where they have? Where are they? I have yet to see a single case where this law was upheld.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Do you think Apple could rely on 3rd parties and illegal practices as a business model?
That's what they're doing to some degree so far. Does it seem to be hurting them any? And what alternative do you suggest? After all, isn't EVERY video playing device in the exact same situation?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
Digital downloads is currently the only legal way to get copyrighted material onto an iPod.
Where in US copyright law is it illegal to record a broadcast program and put it on an iPod? Don't forget, the courts have already said it's OK to record television in the Sony case.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
The Sony VCR case in the US established a legal precedent for vcrs and TV. It did not establish a legal precedent for DVD ripping.
So why do you think it's illegal to record broadcast TV and put it on an iPod?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
DVD ripping software has only one purpose, that of infringement of copyright material. VCRs have other purposes.
I don't consider playing back the content you purchased on DVD on an iPod copyright infringement. So far the courts haven't either as far as I know. Can you provide a legal example that shows otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
The law, convenience, space, time, lack of legal software to do it....
None of which stops you from doing it. You think it's illegal and too inconvenient. That doesn't change the fact that it's possible and that many people are doing it already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
The same wasn't true with MP3s as music has an established fair use and the ripping thereof is not against the law.
Where in US law does it say that copying music (including complete albums, I assume?) is fair use and legal, but doing the same with video content is illegal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
He knows he can't ship DVD ripping software...
And he doesn't have to since third parties have it covered. Been there, done that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aegisdesign
'here' in an illegal sense, yes.
Congratulations, you're in the tiny minority that cares.
It is legal to make a copy of a DVD for archival/personal use, but illegal to distribute that copy. In other words it is legal to rip a DVD to your computer as long as it is used for personal purposes only.
That's what I think, but there are a number of folks in this thread who seem to disagree.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lfmorrison
When you break the DVD's encryption to create an unencumbered video file, you're giving yourself additional rights: For example, the right to make infinite copies and send them to all your friends.
True, but when you're breaking the DRM you are also regaining fair use rights that should never have been taken away in the first place. You've paid for the right to watch that content. Doing it on an iPod isn't copyright infringement.
Where in US law does it say that copying music (including complete albums, I assume?) is fair use and legal, but doing the same with video content is illegal?
If you actually read the responses to your posts, you would have this answer by now.
A CD-DA usually comes with no copy protection. A DVD-Video usually comes with CSS copy protection.
Ripping media with copy protection requires circumventing (i.e., breaking) copy protection.
Circumventing copy protection is a violation of DMCA, regardless of Fair Use rights, and regardless of whether it's for personal use or not.
Circumventing copy protection is a violation of DMCA, regardless of Fair Use rights, and regardless of whether it's for personal use or not.
So the fair use argument is DRM content versus content without, not music versus video, as was stated. "Music has an established fair use" isn't true, especially now that CD's are shipping with copy protection.
Ripping an audio CD with any sort of copy protection (even if it is easily bypassed) is no longer fair use, is it not?
Well, here's the way I look at it. It IS legal to make a copy for archival/personal use if you've purchased the content. It isn't legal to break DVD encryption, but once it's broken you have a legal right to the content. In other words it is legal to have copies of all your DVDs on your computer/iPod, but it isn't legal to break the DRM. So, don't get caught breaking the DRM and you're good to go.
Ripping an audio CD with any sort of copy protection (even if it is easily bypassed) is no longer fair use, is it not?
Sure it is still fair use.
But, as has been pointed out too many times to count: Despite being fully able to exercise your fair use rights, you may have broken a separate and distinct law in gaining access to useable content in the first place. The two are distinct issues!!!
With most forms of CD DRM, the raw CD DA must still be physically present on the disc in a totally useable form. It has to be that way, otherwise the disc won't play back on conventional CD players.
Instead, most copy-protected CDs I've heard of include a computer data track (which is invisible to conventional players). That data track installs some sort of hook in a computer's OS which prevents the computer from being able to reach the raw CD DA content. In one high profile case, the DRM disc pointed the computer to a series of low bitrate DRM'ed WMA files which were also recorded on the CD's data track instead. When the PC "rips" such a CD, it's actually just making copies of the DRMed WMA files that are already on the disc, and the user is left having to abide by the license terms encoded within those WMA files.
If you inserted such a disc in a Mac, then the Mac will not be capable of interpreting the Windows hooks, so it won't automatically use them. Instead, it will look at the raw CD DA tracks. And when it rips the CD, it is simply operating as though it were a conventional CD player. I personally don't think there's anything wrong or illegal about that. It's a limitation in the scope of the DRM method used (ie. DRM-protected content is only actually available if you're attempting to use the disc in a device that knows about Windows rootkits), not a circumvention of the DRM.
Think of it this way: One cannot claim that DRM is being circumvented if there's no detectable indication that there's any DRM present to be circumvented in the first place...
The issue isn't fair use, you've first got to get past DCMA and EUCD laws. Then you've a legit market for software that rips DVDs to your iPod.
Even still, it doesn't follow that because a judge has ruled that copying TV programs to a betamax cassette is fair use, that ripping a movie to an iPod is. It will be challenged and could fall, just as Napster fell because it's defence, based on the Sony argument of time shifting as fair use fell.
Comments
No, wrong. Your Fair Use rights are enshrined in the the 'Fair Use Act' in the USA. In the UK, it's in our Copyright Act which dates back to 1709 and was brought in with the invention of the printing press or something daft like that. That's the kind of stupidness we're up against in the UK.
The EUCD was meant to homogenise various member states' copyright acts, except if you're French. They took it to mean 'do their own thing'.
Except that, here, as I said, Congress can change these laws. Even the Constitution can, and has been amended, though the barrier for that is deliberately set high, as it should be.
From the Constitution;
"Section 8
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
...
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof."
That is just a small part of Article 1, Section 8. But it is ALL that is said about it in the Constitution, all laws refering to it derive from those two statements.
All of those laws are subject to change, or even to be expunged. The fair use doctrine comes from the wording above, in that one sentence. It is not a part of the Constitution in any way. It is an expression of what was thought to be part of the INTENT of the statement.
But, the Constitution is infinitely malleable. The founding fathers (lovely term, isn't it?) saw, as you would see in their writings, that the future held possibilities that they could not see.
The intent, therefore, was to leave the Constitution deliberately vague in many spots so as to allow easy modification.
In those areas in which they believed modification would be much more serious, they made it possible, but difficult.
There is nothing about copyright that can't be changed, other than to grant a simple infinite length to it.
For further reference:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitut....html#articlei
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/17/s...nfree-support/
I guess you should look up why apps like CloneDVD are made by fake off-shore companies, or why MacTheRipper's website goes down every now and then.
CloneDVD's website lists a mailing address in utah, and the only offshore reference I found was one saying they couldn't be based in europe.
MTR seems to have been threatened a couple times by macrovision, but it seems like nothing ever came of it.
What about Roxio? They are a legit US corporation, aren't they? Why aren't they sued by the studios?
If anything, these examples seem to show that the studios don't really have a case. I just don't get how this law can be taken seriously when it's impossible to find a case of it actually being enforced.
Yes, it trumps fair use. Congress is allowed to write laws that modify copyright, trademark, and patent law almost any way they see fit.
But in actual, real life use, it doesn't appear that it has trumped fair use. If making a backup of media that you've purchased is made illegal, if that fair use right has been taken away, has a single case been prosecuted successfully for this?
Just curious, does the DMCA specifically say that the fair use principles in previous laws are null and void? That those laws are no longer valid? What specifically does it contain that means that it trumps fair use? Because if it doesn't, it's just a law that contradicts another law, and that's a situation for the judicial branch to sort out.
In talking to people I know in the industries, I have always found that they don't care much about people making a backup copy, though they would rather sell another different copy on different media, if people want that. It's their concern that people will make several copies for their friends and thus cut their sales that they worry about.
And that's where the DMCA goes overboard. It certainly could have spelled out restrictions on distribution and file sharing without taking away fair use. But I guess without fair use, it's hard to force people to keep buying the same content over and over.
I'd have more sympathy for the guys trying to enforce copy protection if they hadn't got greedy and tried to take away fair use rights.
But PalmOS is one of the worst OS's going for running multiple apps on and has severe limitations. That's why Palm took to rewriting it and bought BeOS.
Believe it or not, most people, including myself, have absolutely no interest in running multiple apps on their phone.
Symbian evolved from Psion EPOC OS, which got a complete rewrite back in the days of the Series 5 and a really terrible UI. They've been gradually bodging it since. The apps though were pretty good. Symbian OS9 and UIQ 3 is another rewrite and it's taking them ages. The 990 was announce almost 2 years ago.
Er, bodging? Is that good, or bad?
I can't tell from what you are saying whether you think it really good now or not. Or behind its goals. What do you think?
9quote]
They're all pretty useless IME which is why I use a ThinkOutside bluetooth keyboard. I use QuickOffice. http://www.quickoffice.com/[/quote]
I bought a fold-up keyboard as well which works well. But I'm not about to carry it around with me.
Apple's phone OS would have to be fantastic for it to lure developers away from other mobile platforms and for them to port apps like QuickOffice or Route66. I think that's one reason why they will use someone else's OS with their own UI.
It would have to be. My thoughts are that if, with the capabilities of new phones, that a phone X would allow Mac developers to possibly have cut down versions of their own software.
But in actual, real life use, it doesn't appear that it has trumped fair use. If making a backup of media that you've purchased is made illegal, if that fair use right has been taken away, has a single case been prosecuted successfully for this?
We are talking about two things. The first is the law, and the second is enforcement.
There are actually people who obey laws, even when they know they won't get caught. That's what makes a civil society.
I don't know if it has been prosecuted, as you're hinting, it would have to be discovered first.
Just curious, does the DMCA specifically say that the fair use principles in previous laws are null and void? That those laws are no longer valid? What specifically does it contain that means that it trumps fair use? Because if it doesn't, it's just a law that contradicts another law, and that's a situation for the judicial branch to sort out.
Actually it doesn't. In fact, it acknowledges those laws, EXCEPT where DRM is concerned. Then it says that DRM may not be contravened.
And that's where the DMCA goes overboard. It certainly could have spelled out restrictions on distribution and file sharing without taking away fair use. But I guess without fair use, it's hard to force people to keep buying the same content over and over.
It does mention much of this.
You can read the Executive Summery. It explaines this.
http://www.copyright.gov/reports/stu...executive.html
I'd have more sympathy for the guys trying to enforce copy protection if they hadn't got greedy and tried to take away fair use rights.
Greed is everywhere. The pirates are greedy, even though they will never admit it.
I have much more material on this but it entails a good deal of reading sometimes dense verbiage.
If you are interested, I will give the links later.
We are talking about two things. The first is the law, and the second is enforcement.
And in this case, the law looks to be unenforcable, contradictory, or both.
There are actually people who obey laws, even when they know they won't get caught. That's what makes a civil society.
And there are people who disobey laws because they know those laws are unjust. Laws don't go away until you challenge them successfully.
I don't know if it has been prosecuted, as you're hinting, it would have to be discovered first.
They certainly know about companies like Roxio who seem to be obviously violating the DMCA and are based in the USA. Why hasn't a company creating DVD copy software been successfully prosecuted?
Greed is everywhere. The pirates are greedy, even though they will never admit it.
So two wrongs make a right?
CloneDVD's website lists a mailing address in utah, and the only offshore reference I found was one saying they couldn't be based in europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slysoft
SlySoft Inc. is a software company located in the capital city St. John's, Antigua and Barbuda in Antigua and Barbuda. Its products consist of software to copy CDs and DVDs. A few of these products disable the copy lock and so they aren't allowed in every country. CSS decrypting software AnyDVD and DVD Shrink) allows a region-specific DVD to be copied as an all-region DVD. It also removes Macrovision, Content Scramble System (CSS), region codes, and disabled user operations (UOPs).
What about Roxio? They are a legit US corporation, aren't they? Why aren't they sued by the studios?
Because Roxio offers no software that can decrypt DVDs?
You're likely talking about Popcorn.
http://www.roxio.com/enu/products/po.../features.html
Copy non-encrypted DVDs,*
Emphasis "non-encrypted".
http://kb.roxio.com/content/kb/DVDit/000022CR
Roxio or Sonic will not copy a commercial film DVD such as movies which you rent/purchase. This is because these movies are CSS (Content Scrambling System) encrypted and our software does not bypass any level of encryption.
Emphasis "non-encrypted".
Exactly. You can use Popcorn to copy DVDs but you have to use MacTheRipper to remove the copy-protection on the DVD first. It is legal to make a copy of a DVD for archival/personal use, but illegal to distribute that copy. In other words it is legal to rip a DVD to your computer as long as it is used for personal purposes only. I have all of my legally purchased movie files copied onto my computer for viewing on my iPod and future iTV.
However I would like to say that this entire line of debate doesn't really belong in a topic about a possible Apple phone, even if that phone plays videos. Perhaps y'all could have started a different thread for this?
I want an iPhone. I don't care if it runs PalmOS apps, I don't care if it is a proprietary OS. If Apple makes one it is garaunteed to work better with my Mac and the content on it than any other phone/smartphone out there. There is nothing that pisses me off more than having a product that refuses to do what it is supposed to, and that is the experience I have had with all of my spartphones. Shoddy Mac support, poor application integration, lack of styling, all of these plague the smartphone market. Apple could easily break into the market by offering a product that solves all three of these issues. Remember that there was an MP3 player market before the iPod, but the products were overpriced, had poor integration, and looked like crap. I remember that the only hard drive MP3 players around when the iPod came out were the same size as CD players! The market responded to the beautiful and extremely functional iPod, that made carrying your music around easy. They could do the same thing for the phone market, combining the MP3 player and phone is a wonderful idea. We can expect that if Apple does it, they will get it right.
And in this case, the law looks to be unenforcable, contradictory, or both.
Unenforcable, not contradictory.
And there are people who disobey laws because they know those laws are unjust. Laws don't go away until you challenge them successfully.
Not unjust, necessarily. A heavy-handed approach to a real problem.
They certainly know about companies like Roxio who seem to be obviously violating the DMCA and are based in the USA. Why hasn't a company creating DVD copy software been successfully prosecuted?
I haven't used that software, so I don't know exactly what it does. If it allows copying of DRM'd DVD's then it is illegal, I would think, but perhaps not. None of us here know enough about the situation. Just assumptions.
After reading the links posted by Chucker, it would seem that Roxio is doing nothing illegal after all. No DRM cracking.
So two wrongs make a right?
Of course not. But that's assuming that what you think is right.
Exactly. You can use Popcorn to copy DVDs but you have to use MacTheRipper to remove the copy-protection on the DVD first. It is legal to make a copy of a DVD for archival/personal use, but illegal to distribute that copy. In other words it is legal to rip a DVD to your computer as long as it is used for personal purposes only. I have all of my legally purchased movie files copied onto my computer for viewing on my iPod and future iTV.
No. Illegal to crack DRM in order to make that copy, no matter what use it is put to.
But in actual, real life use, it doesn't appear that it has trumped fair use. If making a backup of media that you've purchased is made illegal, if that fair use right has been taken away, has a single case been prosecuted successfully for this?
I'd have more sympathy for the guys trying to enforce copy protection if they hadn't got greedy and tried to take away fair use rights.
The thing is, fair use is still a distinct issue.
Note that DCMA comes into force when you're trying to break a DRM scheme in order to grant yourself more rights than the original DRM license would have allowed you.
When you break the DVD's encryption to create an unencumbered video file, you're giving yourself additional rights: For example, the right to make infinite copies and send them to all your friends.
Say, instead, that you chose to make a bit-for-bit copy of the raw contents of the DVD. In that situation you are not breaking the DRM scheme, so DCMA doesn't come into play. Now, you're left with a file that is totally useless for most people: Typically, your only choice would be to burn that bit-for-bit image onto a blank DVD in order to make any practical use of it. Depending on your nation's definition of Fair Use, that may or may not be a legal thing to do.
But practically speaking, you cannot send that bit-for-bit copy of the DVD onto an iPod, for example, because iPods don't know how to decrypt the data.
There exists a possibility that you may come up with a new firmware patch for the iPod which would make it capable of decoding the CSS encryption in real-time as it plays back the file. (Assume for the moment that the iPod has enough computational power to do the job. That point is debatable.) Suppose further that you design the firmware so that it's impossible for the iPod to output that decoded video stream through any means except for the on-unit display (or possibly a digitally watermarked version on the S-Video output).
Alternatively, suppose that Apple comes up with a system whereby users can rip a DVD, the file is internally decrypted and transcoded, and then automatically re-encrypted with a FairPlay type of DRM encryption that an iPod can natively decode. Assume that the license terms of the re-encrypted file are rather rigid, eg. movies can only be played on the actual computer where the transcoding took place or on iPod; they cannot be burnt etc.
There is a section in the DCMA that allows the vendors of a product to reverse-engineer a competitor's technique of DRM for the sole purpose of providing product interoperability. The clauses make it quite clear that such reverse engineering must not result in giving the end user any additional rights that had not been possible under the original DRM license. A case could be made that either of those solutions we hypothetically designed for the iPod might possibly be in compliance with this part of the DCMA.
But these laws are untested so far, and it's uncertain how far either of those proposed solutions could actually get if litigation started. And again, it is now a separate issue to determine whether or not we're proposing a scheme that fits within the confines of your country's definition of Fair Use.
It is legal to make a copy of a DVD for archival/personal use
Not if, in doing so, you are cracking copy protection.
In other words it is legal to rip a DVD to your computer as long as it is used for personal purposes only.
Not if, in doing so, you are cracking copy protection.
Believe it or not, most people, including myself, have absolutely no interest in running multiple apps on their phone.
So you never want to use your address book whilst you're on a phone call to look up a number. Or look something up in your calendar whilst having a conversation. Or grab an image midway through an email?
Er, bodging? Is that good, or bad?
I can't tell from what you are saying whether you think it really good now or not. Or behind its goals. What do you think?
Bad up until recently. Psion's EPOC was focussed on a keyboard driven PDA. It took seemingly forever to translate that into what was more important in a phone.
UIQ 3 has brought more focus on consistency even if some of it is bad like the huge 'Back' button they seem keen on now instead of the jog dial or better application design in the first place. The UI on the p800/900/910 seems to have evolved in no defined manner. IMHO, worse than even Apple's Metal/Aqua/OS9/Unified UI mess. At least it's all skinnable now on UIQ3 so I guess the first thing I'll be doing is skinning it with a Mac interface. :-)
The original Palm UI has always struck me as consistent, free of clutter and well thought out even if the OS underneath was too restrictive and plain old for a modern OS now.
Symbian was sort of the opposite way round. Relatively modern OS underneath with a not terribly well focussed UI and some ugly design. I'll see what UIQ3 brings though. The screenshots look not that different from UIQ 2.1.
I bought a fold-up keyboard as well which works well. But I'm not about to carry it around with me.
It's not something I carry around a lot but if I'm out with a bag, it's usually in there and saves having to cart a laptop around. I've SSH and VNC on my p910 so it's quite useful.
It would have to be. My thoughts are that if, with the capabilities of new phones, that a phone X would allow Mac developers to possibly have cut down versions of their own software.
It'd have to be cut down an awful lot. Most of the smart phones have 32-64MB RAM in them with the exception of the Windows beasts that need much more. I'm not sure OSX on a mobile wouldn't be any more appropriate than Windows on a mobile either. It's about time someone concentrated on a UI fit for purpose.
No. You misunderstood. There's two falsehoods you've conflated.
1) 'Fair use' does not mean you can copy a whole DVD. That is not what 'Fair use' allows. Fair use allows you to copy non-substantial parts. 'Fair use' gets dropped in to these conversations all the time and it's totally irrelevant. Please look up the law before using it again.
That's not supported by the courts. Sony was taken to court over the VCR's use for timeshifting and the courts ruled in their favor. There's no question that they were talking about recording programs in their entirety. Looking at the law, there are four guidlines defining fair use. They don't all have to be met in every case (for example parody, in which case full songs are often used).
Conflating a misunderstanding of what 'Fair use' allows you and a law that is unenforceable at the consumer level (DMCA/EUCD) does not mean that Apple has a viable business model. Far from it.
Wow, so now Apple's entire business model isn't viable? That seems ridiculous since they (and many other companies) are selling tons of product that you seem to feel can only be used illegally.
It does not.
If it really doesn't, why did the courts find in favor of Sony in a vcr case involving exactly that?
I just picked one battle. There are many.
You picked one where the DCMA didn't win. Are there any where they have? Where are they? I have yet to see a single case where this law was upheld.
Do you think Apple could rely on 3rd parties and illegal practices as a business model?
That's what they're doing to some degree so far. Does it seem to be hurting them any? And what alternative do you suggest? After all, isn't EVERY video playing device in the exact same situation?
Digital downloads is currently the only legal way to get copyrighted material onto an iPod.
Where in US copyright law is it illegal to record a broadcast program and put it on an iPod? Don't forget, the courts have already said it's OK to record television in the Sony case.
The Sony VCR case in the US established a legal precedent for vcrs and TV. It did not establish a legal precedent for DVD ripping.
So why do you think it's illegal to record broadcast TV and put it on an iPod?
DVD ripping software has only one purpose, that of infringement of copyright material. VCRs have other purposes.
I don't consider playing back the content you purchased on DVD on an iPod copyright infringement. So far the courts haven't either as far as I know. Can you provide a legal example that shows otherwise?
The law, convenience, space, time, lack of legal software to do it....
None of which stops you from doing it. You think it's illegal and too inconvenient. That doesn't change the fact that it's possible and that many people are doing it already.
The same wasn't true with MP3s as music has an established fair use and the ripping thereof is not against the law.
Where in US law does it say that copying music (including complete albums, I assume?) is fair use and legal, but doing the same with video content is illegal?
He knows he can't ship DVD ripping software...
And he doesn't have to since third parties have it covered. Been there, done that.
'here' in an illegal sense, yes.
Congratulations, you're in the tiny minority that cares.
It is legal to make a copy of a DVD for archival/personal use, but illegal to distribute that copy. In other words it is legal to rip a DVD to your computer as long as it is used for personal purposes only.
That's what I think, but there are a number of folks in this thread who seem to disagree.
When you break the DVD's encryption to create an unencumbered video file, you're giving yourself additional rights: For example, the right to make infinite copies and send them to all your friends.
True, but when you're breaking the DRM you are also regaining fair use rights that should never have been taken away in the first place. You've paid for the right to watch that content. Doing it on an iPod isn't copyright infringement.
Where in US law does it say that copying music (including complete albums, I assume?) is fair use and legal, but doing the same with video content is illegal?
If you actually read the responses to your posts, you would have this answer by now.
A CD-DA usually comes with no copy protection. A DVD-Video usually comes with CSS copy protection.
Ripping media with copy protection requires circumventing (i.e., breaking) copy protection.
Circumventing copy protection is a violation of DMCA, regardless of Fair Use rights, and regardless of whether it's for personal use or not.
Circumventing copy protection is a violation of DMCA, regardless of Fair Use rights, and regardless of whether it's for personal use or not.
So the fair use argument is DRM content versus content without, not music versus video, as was stated. "Music has an established fair use" isn't true, especially now that CD's are shipping with copy protection.
Ripping an audio CD with any sort of copy protection (even if it is easily bypassed) is no longer fair use, is it not?
Ripping an audio CD with any sort of copy protection (even if it is easily bypassed) is no longer fair use, is it not?
Sure it is still fair use.
But, as has been pointed out too many times to count: Despite being fully able to exercise your fair use rights, you may have broken a separate and distinct law in gaining access to useable content in the first place. The two are distinct issues!!!
With most forms of CD DRM, the raw CD DA must still be physically present on the disc in a totally useable form. It has to be that way, otherwise the disc won't play back on conventional CD players.
Instead, most copy-protected CDs I've heard of include a computer data track (which is invisible to conventional players). That data track installs some sort of hook in a computer's OS which prevents the computer from being able to reach the raw CD DA content. In one high profile case, the DRM disc pointed the computer to a series of low bitrate DRM'ed WMA files which were also recorded on the CD's data track instead. When the PC "rips" such a CD, it's actually just making copies of the DRMed WMA files that are already on the disc, and the user is left having to abide by the license terms encoded within those WMA files.
If you inserted such a disc in a Mac, then the Mac will not be capable of interpreting the Windows hooks, so it won't automatically use them. Instead, it will look at the raw CD DA tracks. And when it rips the CD, it is simply operating as though it were a conventional CD player. I personally don't think there's anything wrong or illegal about that. It's a limitation in the scope of the DRM method used (ie. DRM-protected content is only actually available if you're attempting to use the disc in a device that knows about Windows rootkits), not a circumvention of the DRM.
Think of it this way: One cannot claim that DRM is being circumvented if there's no detectable indication that there's any DRM present to be circumvented in the first place...
Mindbender, go read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_v._Reimerdes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Co...Studios%2C_Inc.
The issue isn't fair use, you've first got to get past DCMA and EUCD laws. Then you've a legit market for software that rips DVDs to your iPod.
Even still, it doesn't follow that because a judge has ruled that copying TV programs to a betamax cassette is fair use, that ripping a movie to an iPod is. It will be challenged and could fall, just as Napster fell because it's defence, based on the Sony argument of time shifting as fair use fell.
Back to mythical phones now?