For those interested in digital rights and the MPAA/RIAA...

[hexydes]

Digg - Some Interesting Questions Regarding Digital Rights

Just a little diatribe I went off about. Feel free to digg/bury/comment as you feel necessary.

[ChuckNorris]

For the second one- that seems to me to be quite honest a retarded hypothetical-

The idea that a version of the movie exists yet the creators or the rights owners and they are not releasing does not mean you can go around copy right laws--it is a decision they make.

The argument follows this- there's a picture of your favorite actor/artist/whatever on their cellphone, should you have access to it? It's ridiculous.

The owners have the HD version for themselves and if they see fit they'll release to the market. It's still their property and not yours. You have no right to download/hack/steal that and it should be illegal.

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by ChuckNorris

The owners have the HD version for themselves and if they see fit they'll release to the market. It's still their property and not yours. You have no right to download/hack/steal that and it should be illegal.

Well first, it isn't illegal, it's copyright infringement. Sorry, I always take the time to point that out. Copyright infringement being re-termed as being "illegal" is nothing but propaganda from the media industry.

And second, what copyright is it infringing? What if someone already owns the latest version released (DVD), or even better, every version released (VHS, Laser Disc, DVD)? They have an HDTV, and every means possible of playing HD content. The HD version is unavailable commercially, but someone has provided a way of obtaining an HD version. So you're saying that under the established laws, despite them doing everything possible to have an HD experience, and additionally someone making an HD version available, they should wait years and years to watch it in HD, simply because the media industry has decided not to make it available in HD?

I do think that in court, what you are saying would most likely be the decision; I'm simply trying to point out the absurdity of current IP law. The fact that "pirates" are able to release an HD version of a movie, when the media industry doesn't, simply illustrates the degree to which they attempt to artificially manipulate the market. The fact that the law tries to support that is one of the very few things that makes me ashamed of America.

[AdmiralAkbar]

Originally Posted by ChuckNorris

For the second one- that seems to me to be quite honest a retarded hypothetical-

The idea that a version of the movie exists yet the creators or the rights owners and they are not releasing does not mean you can go around copy right laws--it is a decision they make.

The argument follows this- there's a picture of your favorite actor/artist/whatever on their cellphone, should you have access to it? It's ridiculous.

The owners have the HD version for themselves and if they see fit they'll release to the market. It's still their property and not yours. You have no right to download/hack/steal that and it should be illegal.

Of course you are not really looking at all of the angles here: For example, you could argue that for there to really be "theft", that something of value would have to be taken. There are a few retorts to your question that can come out of this:

- Unless you personally copied the digital master copy of the movie into some other format, you technically just recieved another copy.. the orignal holder of the work still has the original. Think if it this way: if you have a copy of the Mona Lisa on your wall, is the original lessened in some way by this? Of course not.

- The other argument is that you have stolen the money you would have originally paid the copyright holder to purchase a copy is moot; the copyright holder does not have such things available. Again, how does the orignial copyright holder get hurt in any way by this?

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAkbar

- The other argument is that you have stolen the money you would have originally paid the copyright holder to purchase a copy is moot; the copyright holder does not have such things available. Again, how does the orignial copyright holder get hurt in any way by this?

This is sort of the other approach I was thinking of, but didn't much touch upon. There really is no product in the market that could ever be infringed upon, in this scenario. I don't see how, especially if someone already owns the DVD version (the most recent physical distribution made available by the industry), this could possibly be considered copyright infringement. Now, if you try to convert that to Blu-Ray format, then you should definitely see a monetary penalty, but I've never once made the case in my life that the true pirates (those that re-sell others' intellectual property) shouldn't be punished.

[MattR644]

Originally Posted by hexydes

Digg - Some Interesting Questions Regarding Digital Rights

Just a little diatribe I went off about. Feel free to digg/bury/comment as you feel necessary.

I wrote an article on the RIAA's litigation strategy/other issues relating mainly to students for the law review I'm on. An interesting area, and it did actually give me a little more sympathy for the RIAA than I had before. These guys are getting raped, but they're also acting like idiots and overreacting by suing/bullying what should be their best customers. If they were smart they would adjust to the market and move more to online distribution and voluntary collective licensing...they are slowly adjusting, but have burned a lot of bridges. Didn't have time to read most of the post as I'm trying to take a 5 minute break from finals, but I'll try to remember to go back, read it, and post some comments next week.

And you're right that all of this is copyright infringement rather than being illegal, but if I recall correctly the DMCA does make some things subject to criminal penalties, but I could be wrong, it's been a few months and my brain is fried right now.

[AdmiralAkbar]

Originally Posted by hexydes

This is sort of the other approach I was thinking of, but didn't much touch upon. There really is no product in the market that could ever be infringed upon, in this scenario. I don't see how, especially if someone already owns the DVD version (the most recent physical distribution made available by the industry), this could possibly be considered copyright infringement. Now, if you try to convert that to Blu-Ray format, then you should definitely see a monetary penalty, but I've never once made the case in my life that the true pirates (those that re-sell others' intellectual property) shouldn't be punished.

Exactly. Its one thing if you don't own the DVD yourself, and you just download a copy instead. You could make the argument that you have "stolen" the $10-20 you would have paid for the DVD. But what if the format you want is unvailable for purchase?

[MattR644]

Originally Posted by hexydes

And second, what copyright is it infringing? What if someone already owns the latest version released (DVD), or even better, every version released (VHS, Laser Disc, DVD)? They have an HDTV, and every means possible of playing HD content. The HD version is unavailable commercially, but someone has provided a way of obtaining an HD version. So you're saying that under the established laws, despite them doing everything possible to have an HD experience, and additionally someone making an HD version available, they should wait years and years to watch it in HD, simply because the media industry has decided not to make it available in HD?

I do think that in court, what you are saying would most likely be the decision; I'm simply trying to point out the absurdity of current IP law. The fact that "pirates" are able to release an HD version of a movie, when the media industry doesn't, simply illustrates the degree to which they attempt to artificially manipulate the market. The fact that the law tries to support that is one of the very few things that makes me ashamed of America.

You're still potentially taking away lost sales from the CR owner in this scenario though. If there are pirates distributing the content in HD, that in itself proves that there's a potential market. If you own the movie in all possible formats, I bet you'd plunk down your $30 or whatever when the movie is released in HD. Who knows why they aren't releasing it; maybe they have a good reason, maybe not, but by having the HD version leaked, they are losing profits if they were planning on releasing it at a later date.

[MSUeddie]

Originally Posted by hexydes

Well first, it isn't illegal, it's copyright infringement. Sorry, I always take the time to point that out. Copyright infringement being re-termed as being "illegal" is nothing but propaganda from the media industry.

And second, what copyright is it infringing? What if someone already owns the latest version released (DVD), or even better, every version released (VHS, Laser Disc, DVD)? They have an HDTV, and every means possible of playing HD content. The HD version is unavailable commercially, but someone has provided a way of obtaining an HD version. So you're saying that under the established laws, despite them doing everything possible to have an HD experience, and additionally someone making an HD version available, they should wait years and years to watch it in HD, simply because the media industry has decided not to make it available in HD?

I do think that in court, what you are saying would most likely be the decision; I'm simply trying to point out the absurdity of current IP law. The fact that "pirates" are able to release an HD version of a movie, when the media industry doesn't, simply illustrates the degree to which they attempt to artificially manipulate the market. The fact that the law tries to support that is one of the very few things that makes me ashamed of America.

You cannot make unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work unless it is fair use, period. A copyright gives the owner the sole right to authorize reproduction. see 17 USC 106.

People fee so strongly about this issue without knowing the law.

[MSUeddie]

Originally Posted by MattR644

I wrote an article on the RIAA's litigation strategy/other issues relating mainly to students for the law review I'm on. An interesting area, and it did actually give me a little more sympathy for the RIAA than I had before. These guys are getting raped, but they're also acting like idiots and overreacting by suing/bullying what should be their best customers. If they were smart they would adjust to the market and move more to online distribution and voluntary collective licensing...they are slowly adjusting, but have burned a lot of bridges. Didn't have time to read most of the post as I'm trying to take a 5 minute break from finals, but I'll try to remember to go back, read it, and post some comments next week.

And you're right that all of this is copyright infringement rather than being illegal, but if I recall correctly the DMCA does make some things subject to criminal penalties, but I could be wrong, it's been a few months and my brain is fried right now.

yes. sec. 1201 carries criminal penalties in 1204. It is illegal to circumvent tech. that limits access to a work

[AdmiralAkbar]

Originally Posted by MSUeddie

You cannot make unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work unless it is fair use, period. A copyright gives the owner the sole right to authorize reproduction. see 17 USC 106.

People fee so strongly about this issue without knowing the law.

People know the law. The point is, in certian situations it makes little sense for stuff to be a violation.

[AdmiralAkbar]

Originally Posted by MSUeddie

yes. sec. 1201 carries criminal penalties in 1204. It is illegal to circumvent tech. that limits access to a work

And this is another interesting point. Take this case:

So I buy a DVD from Best Buy, and I want to play it on my Laptop's DVD player. Say part of this players DRM protections involve installing some third party software on your computer.. something that you don't want to (not should you be expected to) do. The DVD has already been opened, and is unreturnable. How is this fair?

[MSUeddie]

Originally Posted by hexydes

I do think that in court, what you are saying would most likely be the decision; I'm simply trying to point out the absurdity of current IP law. The fact that "pirates" are able to release an HD version of a movie, when the media industry doesn't, simply illustrates the degree to which they attempt to artificially manipulate the market. The fact that the law tries to support that is one of the very few things that makes me ashamed of America.

What an asinine argument. So as a painter of very famous painting, which i dont want to sell posters of, any boob can take a picture, recreate my painting and sell thousands of posters of my paintings without my permission and without paying me?

Copyright law has plenty of warts, but you present a claim nowhere near a disputed area

[MSUeddie]

Originally Posted by AdmiralAkbar

And this is another interesting point. Take this case:

So I buy a DVD from Best Buy, and I want to play it on my Laptop's DVD player. Say part of this players DRM protections involve installing some third party software on your computer.. something that you don't want to (not should you be expected to) do. The DVD has already been opened, and is unreturnable. How is this fair?

that is a shrinkwrap contract question. installing third party software isnt DRM as understood under the DMCA. The DMCA only prevents you from trying to circumvent a "technological measure that effectively controls access to a [copyrighted] work."

DRM is often abused by companies. See adobe using DRM on the public domain work Alice in Wonderland.

IMO the problem isnt the DMCA it is the abusive use of DRM where it isnt protecting anything copyrightable

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by MSUeddie

What an asinine argument. So as a painter of very famous painting, which i dont want to sell posters of, any boob can take a picture, recreate my painting and sell thousands of posters of my paintings without my permission and without paying me?

Copyright law has plenty of warts, but you present a claim nowhere near a disputed area

Uhm, but you DO want to sell your painting. You HAVE sold your painting in the past. In fact, you sold tickets for people to view your painting, you sold low quality versions of your painting, and then ten years later, sold higher quality versions of your painting. Now, ten more years later, you're considering selling even HIGHER quality versions of your painting. However, in the time that you're taking to decide if you want to do that, someone has made a very high quality version available. There are many people that have gone to see your exhibit, as well as purchased multiple copies of your painting. Should you decide to sell it in a higher-quality format in the future, they will buy that as well. However, in the meantime, someone has made a higher-quality version available, and until such a time as you decide to make your own official higher-quality version available, why should they not be able to appreciate your work in the higher-quality version that someone else has made available?

And don't present the argument that people are taking money away from you, because I already stated that true pirates, the ones that take IP and then re-sell it, should have legal actions brought against them. I have absolutely no problem with that, and will be first in line to turn them in. Those people are the scum of the earth; however, those people are not the people that are downloading things. The people that are downloading things are filesharers, and MANY of them are doing so because the media industry is artificially limiting how they can, and arguably SHOULD be able to be using the media that they have fairly paid for (or would like to pay for, but can't because the media industry doesn't even have a comparable product available to purchase).

[hexydes]

Originally Posted by MSUeddie

You cannot make unauthorized copy of a copyrighted work unless it is fair use, period. A copyright gives the owner the sole right to authorize reproduction. see 17 USC 106.

People fee so strongly about this issue without knowing the law.

Uhm, making a backup copy of something you own is constituted as being "fair use"; the only problem is that the ridiculous DMCA creates a Catch-22 situation. While you certainly are well within your right to make a backup of a DVD, the DMCA makes it illegal (yes, ILLEGAL), to circumvent the technology used to restrict your use of the media.

But none the less, it is not copyright infringement to create a backup copy of something that you legally own. That's why you can backup a CD without any trouble (since it has no rights-restricting DRM scheme in place).

[Cyclone_MI]

Dear RIAA,

Go f*** yourselves.

Signed,

The rest of the world.


PS - This is a US issue, for the most part, and it is caused by GREED of the record/movie/software companies, that refuse to innovate and decrease prices to more reasonable standards, all along trying to bully and scare the American consumers into stop downloading. Lower the prices and people will start buying more and downloading less. Keep you current 1 song = 1 dollar and downloading will continue.

[MattR644]

Originally Posted by Cyclone_MI

Dear RIAA,

Go f*** yourselves.

Signed,

The rest of the world.


PS - This is a US issue, for the most part, and it is caused by GREED of the record/movie/software companies, that refuse to innovate and decrease prices to more reasonable standards, all along trying to bully and scare the American consumers into stop downloading. Lower the prices and people will start buying more and downloading less. Keep you current 1 song = 1 dollar and downloading will continue.

Why should the rules of capitalism be different for music and movies than everything else? They charge as much as the market bears. Do you steal gas because it costs too much? They're just running business like everyone else, it's just easier to steal their product anonymously. Granted people follow laws in proportion to how much they respect them (i.e. speeding and underage drinking is much more rampant than murder and rape), but just because it's easy to steal songs doesn't make it any different than stealing anything else because it's priced higher than you think it should be.

[Cyclone_MI]

Originally Posted by MattR644

Why should the rules of capitalism be different for music and movies than everything else? They charge as much as the market bears. Do you steal gas because it costs too much? They're just running business like everyone else, it's just easier to steal their product anonymously. Granted people follow laws in proportion to how much they respect them (i.e. speeding and underage drinking is much more rampant than murder and rape), but just because it's easy to steal songs doesn't make it any different than stealing anything else because it's priced higher than you think it should be.

Rules are the same, I agree. But you have to approach the situation (if you're the RIAA) knowing that you can't arrest every person who downloads material and that downloading will not stop. So you have to be smart and adapt to a new reality, otherwise you will always be on the losing end. People simply don't care. There are many ways to bring both parts together, but the RIAA chose confrontation and bullying, and where did that take them?