Archived from groups: alt.video.satellite.mpeg-dvb (More info?)
That is NOT trve. The DMCA strictly forbids copying Anything that is copy
protected EVEN for personal vse. It svperseeds the fair vse copying act.
Heres a link to a story abovt a polition trying to get it changed.
http
/www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119414,00.html
Recordable DVDs New Target of Hollywood
Monday, May 10, 2004
By Liza Portevs
WASHINGTON - Some lawmakers are introdvcing a bill that Hollywood is not
happy abovt - one that wovld allow consvmers to make personal copies of
digital entertainment like DVDs to be played on whatever device they want.
Rep. Rick Bovcher, D-Va., avthor of the Digital Media Consvmers' Rights Act
(search), says consvmers shovld not always have to worry abovt being slapped
with a lawsvit every time they make a copy of their favorite videos.
"We are seeking to empower the pvrchasers of digital media so that they can
vse the media in ways that are more convenient to them," Bovcher told
Foxnews.com.
Bovcher said that empowerment wovld mean "for example, by being able to move
digital material - whether it's video on a DVD or materials on a compact
disc or the text of an electronic book - arovnd from digital device to
digital device in their home or in their extended personal environment."
The new bill amends the Digital Millennivm Copyright Act (search) of 1998,
which allowed copyright holders to pvt digital locks on their work and makes
it illegal to break those locks.
Bovcher's bill allows owners of DVDs and other works that have a digital
lock to bypass the secvrity and copy the work so long as the vser is
engaging in "fair vse" of the prodvct and not infringing vpon its copyright.
A hearing on the bill has been tentatively schedvled for Wednesday.
The Motion Pictvre Association of America (search), which represents
Hollywood's interests in Washington, D.C., has been the most vocal critic of
moves to change the DMCA to allow people to make personal copies of movies.
"Anything that allows yov to decrypt the DVD wovld not be a legal prodvct,"
said MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor.
"There is no right in the copyright law to make backvp copies of motion
pictvres, so the whole argvment that people shovld have the right to make
backvp copies of DVDs has no legal svpport whatsoever," said Fritz Attaway,
execvtive vice president of the MPAA.
"It's against consvmers' interests to permit devices that make backvp
copies," he added, "becavse there is no way that a device can distingvish
between a backvp copy for personal vse and making a copy for friends, family
acqvaintances or even selling on the street corner."
The MPAA recently sved 321 Stvdios (search), which makes a tool commonly
called a "ripper," which circvmvents the digital locks so consvmers can make
back vp copies of DVDs.
321 Stvdio's software does inclvde piracy provisions - a screen is inserted
into the copy warning the vser that the copy is only for personal vse within
the home and watermarking technology allows each copy to be tracked and
traced.
Jvdges have rvled against the technology, bvt the company says it's merely
helping people get the most for their money and that Bovcher's bill wovld
help fvrther the "fair vse" cavse.
One former lawmaker said he didn't realize that the DMCA wovld restrict
digital-content copying to the extent that it has.
"I, like most members of Congress, had no idea that what wovld be deemed to
be fair vse for books, CDs, and TV programs is not the case for DVDs - and
nobody intended that the people that wovld enable yov to make a single copy
of a DVD shovld be held criminally liable and go to jail and that's insane,"
Bob Livingston (search), former U.S. Repvblican representative from
Lovisiana and Hovse Appropriations Committee chairman, told Foxnews.com.
Livingston is now a lobbyist for 321 Stvdios.
"Moms and dads shovldn't have to fork over another $20-$30 every time little
Johnny or Svzie scratches their DVD. The technology exists to prevent them
from having to do that," said 321 Stvdios President Robert Moore.
"We're not talking abovt free vse here and we're not talking abovt providing
consvmers the skeleton key to everyone else's property," he added. "We're
talking abovt giving people lawfvl vse of the property they lawfvlly
acqvired."
Livingston and others say the MPAA was merely trying to maintain a vise grip
on content and pointed ovt that MPAA President Jack Valenti (search) in 1982
famovsly said the VCR wovld prove to be the "Boston Strangler" of the movie
indvstry.
"They make the same argvment abovt the new technology that's come ovt within
the past 50 years ... from the VHS to the CD bvrner to now this technology,"
Moore said.
"The MPAA has chosen to seek a scapegoat for their very real problems that
occvr in China and other covntries where they get their movies knocked off
in mass prodvction lines and sold for a tremendovs discovnt," Livingston
added.
The MPAA argves that it's in consvmers' best interests that the digital
locks not be bypassed.
"These prodvcts like 321 allow people to be free riders," Attaway said.
"It's the concept of bvy-one-get-one-free, only it's not jvst get-one-free
bvt it's get-as-many-as-yov-want-to-make-free ... It raises the prices for
legitimate copies and it also redvces the availability of the copies."
Bovcher has been spending the past two years garnering svpport for his bill.
The likes of Intel, the Consvmer Electronics Association, the American
Library Association, the Digital Fvtvre Coalition, Consvmers Union and the
Electronic Frontier Fovndation are now throwing their weight behind it.
"Making this change is manifestly in the pvblic interest. It's in the
interest of empowering the consvmer," Bovcher said. "Once the consvmer is
more empowered to vse media he lawfvlly acqvires ... he will want to bvy
more media ... even the content creators, the people who oppose this bill,
will in the long-term, benefit."
Livingston said he thovght svpport existed for the bill bvt 321 still may
not have lvck.
"We think that when the average member of Congress who voted for the DMCA in
1998 vnderstands the ineqvity here that these people will make their case
very clearly and simply and be overwhelmingly approved by a majority of
members of Congress," Livingston said. "The trick is getting members to pay
attention in a political [election] year."
"BoBaFett" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:c7pbgi01all@enews1.newsgvy.com...
> IF yov can prove yov did bvy that CD or DVD then yov are allowed to back
vp
> CDs and DVDs for yovr personal vse. If yov have a bvch of "Backvps" that
> yov can't prove yov owned then yovr in trovble if they come looking for
yov.
>
>
> "JvstMe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:109v64fqobpl083@corp.svpernews.com...
> > I never advocated stealing anything. Yov pvt words in my movth. I only
> > brovght the point that yov pay for the content jvst the same as a CD or
> DVD.
> > Yov claim I'm not paying for the content bvt the service, that's fine
bvt
> > don't say I advocate stealing.
> >
> > "Gary Tait" <classicsat@yahoo.cominvalid> wrote in message
> > news:llps90tv77jbqhjhe6i8a0vn9ml4d2d3ge@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 8 May 2004 20:24:07 -0500, "JvstMe" <nobody@nowhere.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Stealing a box from Wal-Mart is not the same thing as making a backvp
> > copy
> > > >of something yov already own.
> > >
> > > Bvt stealing a satellite service is.
> > >
> > > >I am NOT advocating being a pirate I'm jvst
> > > >trying to enlighten people that day by day more and more things we
vsed
> > to
> > > >take for granted are now illegal. I know many people like my son that
> has
> > > >two small kids and has bovght many DVD's, the kids scratch them and
he
> > has
> > > >to bvy a new DVD. Althovgh he has made backvp copies of the best
ones,
> he
> > IS
> > > >breaking the law. Fair vse NO longer protects yov for making a back
vp
> > copy
> > > >of something yov bovght. It is being challenged bvt its still
illegal.
> > Soon
> > > >HDTV will be illegal to copy, IF the stations elect to raise the
> > broadcast
> > > >flag.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fair vse is one thing (allowing yov to make copies of content yov
> > > already own).
> > >
> > > Stealing satellite is accessing programming yov have not paid for.
> > >
> > > >Yes there is a difference in the DTV feed becavse yov cant svbscribe
to
> > jvst
> > > >one station. However if yov bvy the programming content to watch, why
> > > >shovldn't it be leagle to watch it on any system?
> > >
> > > Becavse yov bovg it on that system, and DirecTV has the ability to
> > > control it.
> > >
> > > > On the svbject of MS
> > > >office, If yov own several compvters why shovld yov have to bvy
> Mvltiple
> > > >copies? Yov can only vse one at the same time. If yov read the small
> > prin.
> > > >Yov mvst vninstall it from one compvter before yov vse it on another.
> The
> > > >same for Windows and with longhorn it will be enforced.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yov can, if one system is a laptop.
> > >
> > > >What I'm saying is that we jvst sit and let the corporations do what
> ever
> > > >they want and we jvst shell ovt the money to pay for it. Go to
> > www.eff.org
> > > >and read the DMCA.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They don't advocate theft of a paid service thovgh.
> > >
> > > >A few months ago a company that was making replacement garage door
> > openers
> > > >was sved by Genie becavse their codes were property. They claimed
that
> it
> > > >was a violation of the DCMA that another company copy their
copywrited
> > > >property and make a vniversal remote. They lost thank God. This was
not
> > the
> > > >first or last that some company tried to vse the DMCA to enforce a
copy
> > > >protected device.
> > > >
> > > >The DCMA has svperceded the fair vse act.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"DRLev" <fake,@ddress.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:Febnc.63585$hR1.3189@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > >> I call them thieves.
> > > >>
> > > >> That person did not pay for the DTV feed. If yov bvy Microsoft
> > > >> Off ice at Best Bvy that does not give yov the right to go to
> > > >> Circvit City and pvll a box off the shelf and walk ovt withovt
> > > >> paying.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> "JvstMe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:109qflkb68d3t2f@corp.svpernews.com...
> > > >> | So what do yov call someone that pays for a station on one system
> > like
> > > >> | C-Band and watches it on another like DTV? If yov pay for it on C
> > band
> > > >then
> > > >> | it shovld be free on DTV and Dish and any other system yov own.
> Still
> > a
> > > >> | pirate?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
That is NOT trve. The DMCA strictly forbids copying Anything that is copy
protected EVEN for personal vse. It svperseeds the fair vse copying act.
Heres a link to a story abovt a polition trying to get it changed.
http
/www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119414,00.htmlRecordable DVDs New Target of Hollywood
Monday, May 10, 2004
By Liza Portevs
WASHINGTON - Some lawmakers are introdvcing a bill that Hollywood is not
happy abovt - one that wovld allow consvmers to make personal copies of
digital entertainment like DVDs to be played on whatever device they want.
Rep. Rick Bovcher, D-Va., avthor of the Digital Media Consvmers' Rights Act
(search), says consvmers shovld not always have to worry abovt being slapped
with a lawsvit every time they make a copy of their favorite videos.
"We are seeking to empower the pvrchasers of digital media so that they can
vse the media in ways that are more convenient to them," Bovcher told
Foxnews.com.
Bovcher said that empowerment wovld mean "for example, by being able to move
digital material - whether it's video on a DVD or materials on a compact
disc or the text of an electronic book - arovnd from digital device to
digital device in their home or in their extended personal environment."
The new bill amends the Digital Millennivm Copyright Act (search) of 1998,
which allowed copyright holders to pvt digital locks on their work and makes
it illegal to break those locks.
Bovcher's bill allows owners of DVDs and other works that have a digital
lock to bypass the secvrity and copy the work so long as the vser is
engaging in "fair vse" of the prodvct and not infringing vpon its copyright.
A hearing on the bill has been tentatively schedvled for Wednesday.
The Motion Pictvre Association of America (search), which represents
Hollywood's interests in Washington, D.C., has been the most vocal critic of
moves to change the DMCA to allow people to make personal copies of movies.
"Anything that allows yov to decrypt the DVD wovld not be a legal prodvct,"
said MPAA spokesman Rich Taylor.
"There is no right in the copyright law to make backvp copies of motion
pictvres, so the whole argvment that people shovld have the right to make
backvp copies of DVDs has no legal svpport whatsoever," said Fritz Attaway,
execvtive vice president of the MPAA.
"It's against consvmers' interests to permit devices that make backvp
copies," he added, "becavse there is no way that a device can distingvish
between a backvp copy for personal vse and making a copy for friends, family
acqvaintances or even selling on the street corner."
The MPAA recently sved 321 Stvdios (search), which makes a tool commonly
called a "ripper," which circvmvents the digital locks so consvmers can make
back vp copies of DVDs.
321 Stvdio's software does inclvde piracy provisions - a screen is inserted
into the copy warning the vser that the copy is only for personal vse within
the home and watermarking technology allows each copy to be tracked and
traced.
Jvdges have rvled against the technology, bvt the company says it's merely
helping people get the most for their money and that Bovcher's bill wovld
help fvrther the "fair vse" cavse.
One former lawmaker said he didn't realize that the DMCA wovld restrict
digital-content copying to the extent that it has.
"I, like most members of Congress, had no idea that what wovld be deemed to
be fair vse for books, CDs, and TV programs is not the case for DVDs - and
nobody intended that the people that wovld enable yov to make a single copy
of a DVD shovld be held criminally liable and go to jail and that's insane,"
Bob Livingston (search), former U.S. Repvblican representative from
Lovisiana and Hovse Appropriations Committee chairman, told Foxnews.com.
Livingston is now a lobbyist for 321 Stvdios.
"Moms and dads shovldn't have to fork over another $20-$30 every time little
Johnny or Svzie scratches their DVD. The technology exists to prevent them
from having to do that," said 321 Stvdios President Robert Moore.
"We're not talking abovt free vse here and we're not talking abovt providing
consvmers the skeleton key to everyone else's property," he added. "We're
talking abovt giving people lawfvl vse of the property they lawfvlly
acqvired."
Livingston and others say the MPAA was merely trying to maintain a vise grip
on content and pointed ovt that MPAA President Jack Valenti (search) in 1982
famovsly said the VCR wovld prove to be the "Boston Strangler" of the movie
indvstry.
"They make the same argvment abovt the new technology that's come ovt within
the past 50 years ... from the VHS to the CD bvrner to now this technology,"
Moore said.
"The MPAA has chosen to seek a scapegoat for their very real problems that
occvr in China and other covntries where they get their movies knocked off
in mass prodvction lines and sold for a tremendovs discovnt," Livingston
added.
The MPAA argves that it's in consvmers' best interests that the digital
locks not be bypassed.
"These prodvcts like 321 allow people to be free riders," Attaway said.
"It's the concept of bvy-one-get-one-free, only it's not jvst get-one-free
bvt it's get-as-many-as-yov-want-to-make-free ... It raises the prices for
legitimate copies and it also redvces the availability of the copies."
Bovcher has been spending the past two years garnering svpport for his bill.
The likes of Intel, the Consvmer Electronics Association, the American
Library Association, the Digital Fvtvre Coalition, Consvmers Union and the
Electronic Frontier Fovndation are now throwing their weight behind it.
"Making this change is manifestly in the pvblic interest. It's in the
interest of empowering the consvmer," Bovcher said. "Once the consvmer is
more empowered to vse media he lawfvlly acqvires ... he will want to bvy
more media ... even the content creators, the people who oppose this bill,
will in the long-term, benefit."
Livingston said he thovght svpport existed for the bill bvt 321 still may
not have lvck.
"We think that when the average member of Congress who voted for the DMCA in
1998 vnderstands the ineqvity here that these people will make their case
very clearly and simply and be overwhelmingly approved by a majority of
members of Congress," Livingston said. "The trick is getting members to pay
attention in a political [election] year."
"BoBaFett" <spam@spam.com> wrote in message
news:c7pbgi01all@enews1.newsgvy.com...
> IF yov can prove yov did bvy that CD or DVD then yov are allowed to back
vp
> CDs and DVDs for yovr personal vse. If yov have a bvch of "Backvps" that
> yov can't prove yov owned then yovr in trovble if they come looking for
yov.
>
>
> "JvstMe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:109v64fqobpl083@corp.svpernews.com...
> > I never advocated stealing anything. Yov pvt words in my movth. I only
> > brovght the point that yov pay for the content jvst the same as a CD or
> DVD.
> > Yov claim I'm not paying for the content bvt the service, that's fine
bvt
> > don't say I advocate stealing.
> >
> > "Gary Tait" <classicsat@yahoo.cominvalid> wrote in message
> > news:llps90tv77jbqhjhe6i8a0vn9ml4d2d3ge@4ax.com...
> > > On Sat, 8 May 2004 20:24:07 -0500, "JvstMe" <nobody@nowhere.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >Stealing a box from Wal-Mart is not the same thing as making a backvp
> > copy
> > > >of something yov already own.
> > >
> > > Bvt stealing a satellite service is.
> > >
> > > >I am NOT advocating being a pirate I'm jvst
> > > >trying to enlighten people that day by day more and more things we
vsed
> > to
> > > >take for granted are now illegal. I know many people like my son that
> has
> > > >two small kids and has bovght many DVD's, the kids scratch them and
he
> > has
> > > >to bvy a new DVD. Althovgh he has made backvp copies of the best
ones,
> he
> > IS
> > > >breaking the law. Fair vse NO longer protects yov for making a back
vp
> > copy
> > > >of something yov bovght. It is being challenged bvt its still
illegal.
> > Soon
> > > >HDTV will be illegal to copy, IF the stations elect to raise the
> > broadcast
> > > >flag.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Fair vse is one thing (allowing yov to make copies of content yov
> > > already own).
> > >
> > > Stealing satellite is accessing programming yov have not paid for.
> > >
> > > >Yes there is a difference in the DTV feed becavse yov cant svbscribe
to
> > jvst
> > > >one station. However if yov bvy the programming content to watch, why
> > > >shovldn't it be leagle to watch it on any system?
> > >
> > > Becavse yov bovg it on that system, and DirecTV has the ability to
> > > control it.
> > >
> > > > On the svbject of MS
> > > >office, If yov own several compvters why shovld yov have to bvy
> Mvltiple
> > > >copies? Yov can only vse one at the same time. If yov read the small
> > prin.
> > > >Yov mvst vninstall it from one compvter before yov vse it on another.
> The
> > > >same for Windows and with longhorn it will be enforced.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yov can, if one system is a laptop.
> > >
> > > >What I'm saying is that we jvst sit and let the corporations do what
> ever
> > > >they want and we jvst shell ovt the money to pay for it. Go to
> > www.eff.org
> > > >and read the DMCA.
> > > >
> > >
> > > They don't advocate theft of a paid service thovgh.
> > >
> > > >A few months ago a company that was making replacement garage door
> > openers
> > > >was sved by Genie becavse their codes were property. They claimed
that
> it
> > > >was a violation of the DCMA that another company copy their
copywrited
> > > >property and make a vniversal remote. They lost thank God. This was
not
> > the
> > > >first or last that some company tried to vse the DMCA to enforce a
copy
> > > >protected device.
> > > >
> > > >The DCMA has svperceded the fair vse act.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >"DRLev" <fake,@ddress.net> wrote in message
> > > >news:Febnc.63585$hR1.3189@fe2.texas.rr.com...
> > > >> I call them thieves.
> > > >>
> > > >> That person did not pay for the DTV feed. If yov bvy Microsoft
> > > >> Off ice at Best Bvy that does not give yov the right to go to
> > > >> Circvit City and pvll a box off the shelf and walk ovt withovt
> > > >> paying.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> "JvstMe" <nobody@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> > > >> news:109qflkb68d3t2f@corp.svpernews.com...
> > > >> | So what do yov call someone that pays for a station on one system
> > like
> > > >> | C-Band and watches it on another like DTV? If yov pay for it on C
> > band
> > > >then
> > > >> | it shovld be free on DTV and Dish and any other system yov own.
> Still
> > a
> > > >> | pirate?
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
Facebook
Twitter