You Go RIAA!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dean Roddey]

Well, Congress provided you with fair use rights and can remove them. But anyway, no they aren't making any such claim, so it's a moot point. They support your right to make a backup copy of your CDs or to rip them to your computer.

[flatfinger]

Just remember; that needs to go in the "shared" folder in order to be in compliance.:poke:

[slight-return]

 

Well, Congress provided you with fair use rights and can remove them. .

 

 

Fair use was actually judicial doctrine (it was entered into code 17USC107 as part of the NET act) and exists not as specific rights in-and-of themselves, but as limitations on the negative rights of copyright holders

(one of the reasons it is an affirmative defense)

[Dean Roddey]

OK, I stand corrected, but still the point is that fair use is not something granted in the Bill of Rights and Congress could take it away unless you feel that the Supreme Court would negate any such attempt that Congress made.

 

The Millenium Copyright act of Congress pretty clearly put limits on it, so you have no effective fair use right with DVDs, because the DMCA says that you cannot break encryption on a product and DVDs are encrypted.

[slight-return]

 

OK, I stand corrected, but still the point is that fair use is not something granted in the Bill of Rights and Congress could take it away unless you feel that the Supreme Court would negate any such attempt that Congress made.

 

 

There are two ways the courts can have check on such laws

1) looking at the constitutionality

2) interpretation of the law itself...this was actually the nature of fair use as doctrine. Beforme 17USC107, fair use was seen as behavior that countervened 17USC106, but that fell beyond the scope and meaning of that law.

So, while we have to take a look at a prospsal

 

[note on conlaw : while the Bill of Rights gets a great deal of focus, it is not the only part of the consitution. Acutally those are REVISIONS to the constitution

like Article I contains some basics to copyright law, for instance, that a copyright cannot last in perpetuity. Some of the conlaw arguments over copyright law happen over the preambulatory statement "To promote the Progress To promote the Progress ..." which can get real interpretive]

 

 

The Millenium Copyright act of Congress pretty clearly put limits on it, so you have no effective fair use right with DVDs, because the DMCA says that you cannot break encryption on a product and DVDs are encrypted.

 

There could be a couple of issues there

 

1) A technical consideration could be, if the copy protection was actually circumvented, or not (some streamrippers for instance got in trouble bc they intercepted streams pre-handshake. Post-handshake rippers don't)

 

2) An affirmative defense admits to contraveneing a specific law, but offers evidence (as an affirmative defense the burden is on the D, which is a bigger deal than I think folks sometimes give it) that the contravention is legally justafiable.

 

For instance, in Soderbergh, et al v Cleanflicks, et al - the issue wasn't circumvention 17USC1201 (though they were copying DVDs digitally)

but was based on 106/107

 

[Cleanflicks lost...not on anything 1201, on good ole 106 rights]

 

[interesting note about the DMCA, it is a body of law that is intented to put us in compliance with international treaty. It was actually known as the WIPO bill when being drafted]

[Dean Roddey]

BTW, I assume people heard the news that Exxon reported $40B in *profit* last year. This would mean that this one company cleared five or so times more than the entire music music industry grossed in the same period. So, it's a little hard to believe that all those people out there are stealing from the labels because of their outrageous profits but they aren't out protesting Exxon.

[rasputin1963]

 

+1 The last thing I want is a virtual album on a POS iPod.

 

 

True dat. Modern recordmakers greatly underestimate the impact that those beautiful & informative album covers of the 60's and 70's were in enhancing the listener's experience of the sound...

[Billster]

 

This is out of left field, but Cleanflix founder in trouble with the law

 

Thompson formerly operated Clean Flix - a business in Orem that edited feature films to remove or alter conduct deemed inappropriate for children or discriminating movie-goers. The store closed in December after threats of legal action from Hollywood studios. The booking documents state Thompson told the 14-year-olds that his film sanitizing business was a cover for a pornography studio. He asked the girls if they would participate in making a porn movie, but they refused, the documents state. Police found a "large quantity" of pornographic movies inside the business, along with a keg of beer, painkillers and two cameras hooked up to a television. Thompson told police he didn't know the teenagers were under 18 or that they were paid for sex. He said pornography found at the business was for "personal use," according to the documents. Thompson was released Friday after posting $30,000 bail.

 

:lol::lol:

[slight-return]

WHEW!

 

I guess he got "public service" and "pubic service" confused

 

Thompson told police he didn't know the teenagers were under 18

 

can you say strict liability?!?

[astring]

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/03/riaa-racketeeri.html

 

If this goes into discovery that may well be the end of the RIAA:thu: