[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA
- From: "aicra(at)well.com" <aicra(at)well.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 12:11:17 -0400
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
Here's a question:
Where there or not copy controlled music CDs? And if there were, did anyone
bypass the encryption? Were those files then passed along? If so, then all
the music that resulted from those would be a DMCA violation.
However, it is my belief that because of the AHRA music is legally shared
otherwise. With regards to music that did not have copy control or cds that
were not encrypted, then shared "music" is NOT a DMCA violation.
Perhaps I am mistaken about the music section of the DMCA, but I believe it
had most to do with subscription services, not music copies... The AHRA on
the other hand specifically states:
A personal computer is not a device specifically designed to store and
From: Richard Hartman firstname.lastname@example.org
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:37:43 -0700
Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
The thing is that there _is_ amgiguity in fair use.
There is, however, _no_ ambiguity in the DMCA. If you
bypass the TPM to get to the content, you're guilty. Even
if the act of copying the content is not in itself illegal.
Fair use is one area. Backups are another.
-Richard M. Hartman
186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Gengler [mailto:email@example.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:31 PM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
> I phrased it like that because the DMCA was a set of massive
> changes to
> copyright law, so the DMCA could be considered a subset of copyright
> law. I wasn't really getting into fair use, which I probably should
> have mentioned along with that.
> Although, fair use isn't really a concrete thing either, the way it's
> laid out in the law is a series of tests for a judge to consider. I'd
> much rather see fair use actually be codified, so that there's no (or
> less) ambiguity as to what is a fair use.
> On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:23, Stephen L Johnson wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 19:08, Phil Gengler wrote:
> > > Violating the DMCA implies you're violating copyright laws, but
> > > violating copyright laws doesn't mean you're violating the DMCA.
> > No. The first part of your statement is not necessarily
> true. I can be
> > violating the DCMA by ripping some "Exclusive Bonus
> Material" on a DVD.
> > But the purpose of the copying to is to provide an except
> to emphasis a
> > point in my online video critique of the DVD. That falls
> well within the
> > bounds of fair use.
> > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:04, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > > > Violating copyright laws and violating the DMCA are
> _not_ the same thing.
> > > >
> > > > Vigilante actions are typically against the law -- law
> enforcement is in the hands of the police agencies, not the
> individual (or the corporations).
mail2web - Check your email from the web at