Jack Valenti died!

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

Some people will always think they have "RIGHTS" to things that other people went through great time and expense to create.

Quote

So now you agree that you DO in fact still have that right??
That right was NOT stolen from you?

.

Funny how quickly you contradicted yourself.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Thanatos340 1]

I guess I am just too slow for alls you smart folks..

I dont see the contradiction. All along I was saying no one ever lost any rights in this matter. (I stand by that statement).

I was just asking you to confirm that you do in fact still have your right (As you had just stated) and that no rights have actually been stolen as Dorbie claimed.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

I give up.

Some people will always think they have "RIGHTS" to things that other people went through great time and expense to create.

...... then sold to consumers for money that those consumers labored so hard to earn.

You want to simultaneously place rights in quotations to imply that they are fictitious while pretending that they are not being erroded which implies they exist.

This is an ongoing struggle to retain rights we enjoy and the pigopolists will take as much as we let them.

There is an ongoing attempt to move the goalposts despite their own remarks before the supreme court.

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

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Funny how quickly you contradicted yourself.

Even while I was typing.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

... and that no rights have actually been stolen as Dorbie claimed.

There you go again.

You repeating page after page of the same twaddle while contradicting yourself and ignoring pages of posts on fair use which encompasses concepts like first-sale just highlights your ignorance.

And this is just as the DMCA related to fucking DVDs, frankly I barely give a shit about DVDs, the ramifications of the DMCA are broader as you'd know if you had a clue. But you breezed past those posts and the points the raised just as you breeze past all points made by repeating your dogmatic mantra.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

then sold to consumers for money that those consumers labored so hard to earn.

What did they sell to the consumer??
They sold a LIMITED right use the contents in a specific manner.

Did you know that you do even have the RIGHT to play a CD in a Public place where others can hear it?? Even in a non-commercial venue?? This is true.

You can Purchase that Right by paying a subscription to ASCAP or BMI. (IF you own or work in a bar or restaurant that plays music you will run into this sooner or later.) This had nothing to do with DMCA and has been in place long before.

When you buy a CD you buy a right to listen to the music in certain Private places. That is it. You are granted the right to make a back up and even transfer it to other media. That is all you get for your $10 or $14 or $21 or how ever much you agree to pay for that CD.

Why did Michael Jackson spend MILLIONS to buy the Beatles catalog many years ago?? He could have just bought the album collection for a whole lot less. Because he wanted the RIGHTS. Those RIGHTS did not come with just buying the Albums, Cassettes or CD`s..

Commercially available MP3 files (Sold over the internet) have additional restrictions. For 99 cents you get a file that has limited legal rights as to how it can be used. Another business model allows you to “Rent” the music 9Usually Unlimited downloads) for a set monthly fee. Once you quit paying the monthly fee, The songs quit working. DRM makes this possible. Don’t like that, DON’T BUY IT!!

Want additional rights to do other things with that copywriten material.. That can be purchased. But it will cost more than 99 cents per song or $21 per CD.

One last time (Last Time I swear..).. If you don’t agree to that, DONT BUY IT!! It is your choice. You don’t have to have that CD.

OK.. Since I have really grown bored with this thread.. I will finally address your ”Fair Use”. Fair Use is convoluted and not easily defined and very subject to interpretation. (Which is why I suspect that you cannot come up with a single perceived RIGHT that you have lost).

Scream Fair Use all you want. They (The publishers) offered you something at a certain price, You accepted that and paid that price. Now if you want something more.. I don’t see how you lost your “Rights”.

[billvon 2,400]

>I will finally address your ”Fair Use”. Fair Use is convoluted and not
>easily defined and very subject to interpretation.

If that is true, then it is unreasonable to expect consumers to understand it - and a reasonable consumer, using the material he bought in a reasonable way, is protected. That's good news.

[PLFXpert 0]

Allow me to mediate, if I may.

Dorbie, please give a personal example in which you believe DRM has violated the fair use doctrine w/in copyright law.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[dorbie 0]

Good of you to finally recognize the existence of fair use, but these are not privileges granted by copyright holders. They are rights established in law.

It is simply not the case that copyright holders can unilaterally establish any contract they like and impose it upon consumers and say take it or leave it. The law recognizes that this would be grossly unfair. Moreover it has recognized that these rights extend to copying and portability through doctrines like first-use.

DMCA has already undermined this in a power grab by copyright holders who deliver using encrypted media and now the same guys who admitted first-use as fair use while shutting down various websites through the supreme court now want to extend the evisceration of fair use to non copy protected media.

i.e. in addition to making free and open DVD players illegal the digital media power grab now for example would make iTunes CD reading illegal, ultimately outlawing simple and legal functionality that exists today and is enjoyed by law abiding iPod users everywhere.

We're in the midst of a massive opportunity for media creators VIDEO and now DVD sales are a great example of a market that never existed but is now huge, and all they can think to do is throttle the goose in the hope that it will lay a bigger golden egg for them.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Allow me to mediate, if I may.

Dorbie, please give a personal example in which you believe DRM has violated the fair use doctrine w/in copyright law.

I have already mentioned several. If someone 'debating' does not understand what I have written then they should learn enough about the issues so that they can at least PRETEND to recognise the terms of art before the very end of the thread.

Look for T-shirt in this thread, go look up DVD Jon.
Understand what this meant for Linux players
I have a large DVD collection, fair use is eviscerated for encrypted media and I shouldn't have to explain to anyone posting what this means. I'm a software engineer the broader ramifications and chilling effects of the DMCA through both SLAPP lawsuits and other abusive annoyances has been pervasive.

Finally the founding fathers and revolutionaries did not have to be tea drinkers to oppose an injustice.

[Thanatos340 1]

Quote

I have already mentioned several. If someone 'debating' does not understand what I have written

Or may you should learn to make a clear and concise point.

You condescending attitude and repeated thinly veiled personal attacks I have pretty much shrugged off.

You have not made a single concise point in this entire thread but insist on repeatedly calling me the uninformed one.

You attack and call horrific names to a deceased person that I happen think did much Good.

You have made so many FALSE statements that it is laughable. When you are called on these false statement, you change the subject and personally attack the person pointing out you fallacies.

I have grown tired of this and since you continue with the thinly veiled personal Attacks, I will leave. It is clear that you will never listen to an opposing opinion.


Bye Bye.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

You have not made a single concise point in this entire thread but insist on repeatedly calling me the uninformed one.

I have, you have ignored massive signposts in single sentence replies like "fair use" only to pretend at the end that you knew exactly what you were talking about all along. You cannot get more concise.

Quote

You attack and call horrific names to a deceased person that I happen think did much Good.

He deserved it as anyone else would who did as much to undermine our rights as he did. I would no more praise Valenti's lich than I would Joseph Goebbels. A few more pricks like Valenti and we'd truly be in the shit. He did immense harm and I hope the greedy bastard is dancing on a pitchfork. He lived his life unmolested (unlike some of his victims) and the least I can do is heap some much deserved scorn on his legacy.

Quote

You have made so many FALSE statements that it is laughable. When you are called on these false statement, you change the subject and personally attack the person pointing out you fallacies.

What self indulgent tripe. Parroting a mantra for 20 posts while ignoring the obvious is not a cogent argument.

Quote

I have grown tired of this and since you continue with the thinly veiled personal Attacks, I will leave. It is clear that you will never listen to an opposing opinion.

You calling PA does not make it so, get off your moral high horse, you're the one advocating the wholesale removal of rights while you "enjoy pushing my buttons" not the other way around.

That's the third time you've said you were leaving in boredom or the huff.

[PLFXpert 0]

The wheels on a bus go 'round & 'round...

I'll take identical posts re-worded for 1,000 times, Alex.



By the way, I have no concrete opinion on this issue--just following along for the hell of it.

I am familiar with the fair use doctrine. I LOVE law. I also get really pissed when I believe my rights are violated. And addtionally, I believe in protecting one's (fair & legal) livelihood, shit, property, ideas, work, personal art, etc.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[kallend 1,623]

Quote

The wheels on a bus go 'round & 'round...

I'll take identical posts re-worded for 1,000 times, Alex.



By the way, I have no concrete opinion on this issue--just following along for the hell of it.

I am familiar with the fair use doctrine. I LOVE law. I also get really pissed when I believe my rights are violated. And addtionally, I believe in protecting one's (fair & legal) livelihood, shit, property, ideas, work, personal art, etc.

The law has been established to provide a balance between the use of intellectual property by society at large, and the right to compensation by the creator (or his/her boss). The various encryption technologies currently in use have tilted this balance way out of kilter, such that LEGAL fair use apparently now requires special decrypting/ripping software that most fair users do not have, and don't even know that it exists.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[dorbie 0]

The situation is worse than that for many users. Merely playing a DVD requires decryption. The DMCA makes that decryption an illegal act circumventing copy protection (it would previously have been deemed bog standard reverse engineering). A key component of Open Source code to play DVDs is therefore illegal. This source code of course has been readily available to 'criminals' and widely disseminated for 8 years. As I mentioned much earlier you cannot currently make an Open Source distro with a DVD player.

Of course many distros ship with a player kinda lilke windows media player, but all those 'criminals' out there need to patch their OS with libdvdcss2 to be able to play DVDs they legally purchased.

At last check you cannot purchase a closed source proprietary DVD player to make your free OS functional (you know the OS that is the product of the intellectual endeavors of thousands of engineers worldwide). And why should you have to, someone wants to give you the free one they legitimately and fairly wrote and they are called criminals for doing so.

This idiotic state of affairs keeps the movie industry's comfort blanket intact.

Meantime the DMCA is being abused in insidious ways to encrypt and construct artificial barriers to legitimate engineering activities. I think reasonable people will agree with my earlier observation that if the DMCA had been around when IBM was defending their BIOS, the PC industry would have turned out very differently.

[PLFXpert 0]

Believe it or not, I completely understand & validate your complaint.

In the end the supreme court will likely have to make a ruling, and it seems they're avoiding the issue for obvious reasons made clear in this thread--there is no easy answer.

From a business standpoint, companies & persons need to be able to better protect their capital. It's not just a matter of overseas countries making copies of just about everything, it's about them being able to produce a product with no development cost, packaging it pretty & shipping it the U.S. to stores for half the price. That's a huge problem, imo, for too many reasons to take the time to list.

On the consumer side, a person should be able to use what they purchased as many times as they want & on as many devices as they want so long as such devices are personally owned. Consumers CAN still do this, but not nearly as easily and almost too difficult to the point where it would seem the fair use doctrine in copyright law has been undermined.

What is so hilarious about this thread's debate is little to no points have been conceded (and other things that are just personally hee-larious to me), just both sides repeating their point ad nauseam. There are a TON of valid arguments from both sides. And only when both sides can concede to a few points from the other will this issue be resolved. This thread is exactly why, imo, the Supreme Court is avoiding the issue altogether. I can just hear the courts arguing over how & where "Old School" can be watched.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[DSE 3]

Fair Use isn't "fair use." The sooner people understand that, the sooner we can move on in the discourse. Fair Use is a legal term that applies to society as a whole, not the individual.

What makes you think the Supreme Court is avoiding the issue?? They're not. It has to be brought to them, not the other way around.

[PLFXpert 0]

Quote

Fair Use isn't "fair use." The sooner people understand that, the sooner we can move on in the discourse. Fair Use is a legal term that applies to society as a whole, not the individual.

It's fair use.

The bottomline is fair use is a limitation on copyright (not just a term). It is not set in stone, but rather must be determined on a case by case basis. While it is understood making copies for oneself is fair use it is not defined as such. That's why I said "seems" in my post.

As Thanatos pointed out, no rights have been taken away. It certainly seems this way to many, however.

My support most definitely leans heavily toward the business standpoint. But, I am biased. I buy a DVD for to watch once in a while on my DVD player. I buy a CD on rare occassion for to play in my car CD player. That's the extent to which I care about my options for using such things.

Paint me in a corner, but my color comes back.

[dorbie 0]

Quote

Fair Use isn't "fair use." The sooner people understand that, the sooner we can move on in the discourse. Fair Use is a legal term that applies to society as a whole, not the individual.

What makes you think the Supreme Court is avoiding the issue?? They're not. It has to be brought to them, not the other way around.

That doesn't say very much of anything. Fair use includes concepts like first-sale which protects the individual's right to make copies and transfer media, it's what protects some of iTunes' functionality.

But I'm pretty sure that if I purchase a DVD I should have the right to play it in my DVD player on my Linux machine using readily available software without being branded a criminal, thanks to the DMCA I can't.

The MPAA et.al. lobbying for their own benefit has caused other serious problems leading to abuse for example threatening those who reverse engineer remote file access or login password schemes (not cracking users password mind you, just allowing them to log in with their own passwords remotely). Ever used Samba? I have it's bloody IMPORTANT to me and many others, a lot more important than movies.

The artists might just start giving a shit when all the linux software they happily use gets the shaft due to monopolistic prohibitions that get creative with the DMCA and their intranets become illegal or crippled.

But just move along folks, nothing to see here, we've not lost any rights according to some and fair use is a mere legal technicality according to others.

[DSE 3]

Linux has nothing to do with it. Either you've got a decoder or you don't.
Fair Use has nothing to do with right of first sale. This statement alone demonstrates how you're talking through your pockets.
Maybe a few minutes reading might help you understand the concept of Fair Use. "Use" is cap'd because it's a specific subject; Fair Use is explicitly explained, with general interpretations in Sec 107 of the US Copyright Act.
First Sale Doctrine is covered under Sec 109 of US Copyright Act.
First sale allows you to resell used media, but overall, the First Sale Doctrine applies to software and games more than anything else. It also allows some freedoms for schools and churches to display movies where there is no admission charge, for specific purposes other than sheerly being entertainment. In other words, you cannot put up a screen and projector in your church and show "The Passion of the Christ" and charge admission for it, and can't do it if there is no admission and no subsequent discussion of the movie following the viewing of the movie.
Sec 109 also makes it legal to broadcast movies into hotel rooms via non-cable for enrichment/enjoyment of hotel guests.
Overall, Sec 109 (as I remember it, I could be wrong) is that it's relative to education, religious institutions, libraries, and transmittors of media (television, radio, cable, ISP/webcaster).
You keep going on and on about Linux. Write a decoder. Download VideoLan. http://dvd.sourceforge.net/
I've been an artist for nearly 30 years, and I don't use Linux, so why should I care? In fact, I don't know *any* working artist in NYC or Hollywood, Austin or Seattle, Miami or Chicago using Linux as their primary toolbox. I could not care less if Linux just went away. 99% of the computer users of the world couldnt' care less.
its' not "thanks to the DMCA that you can't play the content on your Linux box", it's that you've deliberately chosen an open source that isn't entirely supported and doesn't pay for licensing of technologies.
You haven't lost any rights, you're just pissed cuz you don't have rights that you want. There is a SIGNIFICANT difference. You've never, ever had the right to copy and redistribute content. Ever. You may have once found it easier to do, but you've never had the right. Fair Use isn't a technical term, nor is it arbitrary. I know exactly what Fair Use is, but apparently you (like most folks that have never read the US code) don't know what it means, or you'd quit applying it to this discussion.

[dorbie 0]

If you use a mac you use a derivative of Free BSD, the original free OS, and definitely Open Source, many other components are similarly derived.

The free in free software means "liberty", i.e. the freedom to look at and modify the code. Apple can explain better than I why Free BSD, Linux and similar OS' are attractive options to informed computer users:

http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/

I particularly like their "Come on in it's OPEN" sign, it sums it up nicely.

But it's not about you DSE, I don't give a shit if you use Linux or not, in major effects studios it dominates esp. for rendering etc. I do care about others rights to use and modify it and run the functionality THEY have legally written.

Regardless of how you spin it or where you see the authority coming from, the right of a user to make copies of their media for example to transfer from their CD to their ipod for personal enjoyment has been undermined by the DMCA such that it is eviscerated in the case of DVDs through legal intimidation entirely because of the provisions of the DMCA in relation to copy protection, worse, decryption code essential in players is deemed illegal.

As for licensing technologies, what technology? Someone buys a DVD and they need an additional license to play it? Maybe you think so but the only reason a legitimately reverse engineered product has issues, is the DMCA. If it was about licensing the DMCA would be a non issue they could pursue players over their claimed I.P. not over copy protection circumvention.

You think a search on sourceforge undoes the damage of the DMCA? You present a fig leaf as if DVD Jon was not prosecuted after pressure from the State Department, and incredulously claim that major distros don't ship the css lib with mplayer by some support oversight, that's utter crap. The don't ship them for fear of the legal ramifications of the DMCA w.r.t. copy protection circumvention. They'd love to ship the lib & the code to compile it.

Samba does not need to license squat, this is an interoperability product that has been legitimately reverse engineered and faces DMCA threats over encryption based protocols, which threaten to allow monopolies to control access to their customers data.

Many corporations and almost all major effects studios have farms of Linux systems to perform their rendering these days, the hardware the serious effects tools run on is also designed using Linux systems, most chips are sold these days are designed using large clusters of Linux systems. Samba is a key component of the interoperability required to make this work. Major corporations like IBM support Linux and along with several others pool their patents to protect the operating system from the predatory practices you pretend Linux flouts. Like it or not Linux is pervasive and for good reason, just something else you were unaware of.

In any case, that you perceive any user group to be in the minority is absolutely no reason to ignore their rights, and you should be ashamed for suggesting that, but it's merely ONE of many issues with the DMCA riding roughshod over consumer rights, to the detriment of the public good.

[DSE 3]

I suppose I could laugh harder at you trying to tie Linux being deployed as a slave in a render farm to decrypting DVDs for personal use, but I'm already amazed at the constant twists and turns you've taken to make your point. Are we talking about personal computers still, or are we now in the realm of corporate IT? Until this very moment, it's been a discussion on personal use. Or maybe you believe corporate Hollywood is interested in ripping DVDs?

I'm well aware of Linux and it's uses in the industry in which I've worked for probably longer than you've been breathing. The people in my industry are the ones trying to protect themselves from those that would pirate their work. they're not the ones trying to decrypt DVDs for pirate or personal use. They're quite aware that DVD players have decryption built in, as do software DVD systems.

Great job at trying to spin it otherwise. Utterly ridiculous, but "A" for effort.
There is a significant difference between ILM using Linux for SGI work, and someone trying to play a DVD on their personal computer.

When you've got something worth listening to or looking at, come talk to me about copyright. Til then, it's just blah, blah, blah from a 3 jump AFF student telling Fastrax what's wrong with their exits.

[dorbie 0]

That's not what I said at all. It's amazing that in the same post you profess knowledge of industry use when you don't know or confuse what I mean when I say rendering inside production studios. Samba was the issue there and that was crystal clear from my posts and interoperability is impacted by DMCA, as are many other spheres of engineering. There is more than one issue as I've been saying.

Apart from that, clearly you're overlooking the Kalidescape lawsuit and the studios pursuing ESS, all over a product that is used to rip your personal DVD collection to a redundant hard drive array for personal use in your home theatre.

As for your condescending tone, you're playing the apologist who doesn't understand the bigger picture or doesn't care about what happens to people impacted who are off your radar. You're left with no place to retreat to so you resort to mockery of a position I never took.

You're going too far when you appeal to your own authority with assumptions about my experience. Frankly you have a cheek calling me a 3 jump wonder to your Fastrax.

[billvon 2,400]

Both of you cut it out.

[dorbie 0]

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1656/159/