PTravel

Possibly the same way that they used to sell hacked DirecTV and cable boxes.

PTravel

Then it's time to get a new lawyer. That is exactly what I do for my clients.

Laws are written by legislators. However, you are right -- more and more, Congress caters to the lobbyists, and it was they who were responsible for the DMCA and other bad IP law.

Let's see -- the IT professional thinks that the lawyer doesn't understand the legislative process?

No, it does not. The rental company couldn't care less what I do with the DVD, as long as I return it in good condition and on time. It probably does, however, violate the DMCA. The DMCA, on its face, is contradictory because (1) its express language indicates that it does not implicate traditional fair uses, but (2) copying it to my hard drive requires using a program that breaks CSS, which is violative of the DMCA. I'm not aware, off the top of my head, of any cases that have tested this particular use, but the inherent contradiction in the DMCA is well known . . . among IP lawyers.

happytravelling

I am planning on taking the LSAT this year and becoming an intellectual property rights lawyer. I appreciate this discussion...

The discussions have been very specifically been about dvds and the DCMA. I might as well discuss my method of movie watching while travelling and why I believe that there are no legal issues associated with this method. I am prepared for learning that it is illegal.

fair use with pre-DMCA technology(ie vcr). My understanding is that the DMCA only applies to digital formats, and is not retroactive to legacy formats. Legacy formats from such equipment as vcrs and tv are not bound by the DCMA and because of fair use, I should be able to make a copy on my hd or a make a dvd with movies made from legacy formats. The vcrs that I have are very old and allow me to make a video of non-copyrightable movies, but because the equipment was made before the DCMA was enacted, it is not illegal to use for fair use (I know, I am waiting for the response on this.) I bought several before the DCMA was enacted to avoid illegal activity in the future. My understanding of the DCMA is that it disallows the selling of equipment that circumvents encryption, but the owning and use of such equipment is only illegal if it violates the copyrights laws not including fair use. This allows use for copying purposes because I although I may be using equipment that circumvents encryption, the DCMA does not apply because the equipment was obtained before the DCMA was enacted.

What does this mean? I can make a dvd or make mpg files for hd viewing from legacy formats (which are not bound by the DCMA) by going to the local video store and renting videotapes for viewing while travelling (under fair use doctrine.)

What do you think?

themicah

Good luck with the LSAT. And remember that learning things about law (even bad law like the DMCA) will have absolutely no effect on your LSAT score. It's all about the ability to solve puzzles and parse language.


If your source material does not contain a "technological measure that effectively controls access" to it, then Section 1201 of the DMCA should not prohibit making copies that fall within fair use. The DMCA issue with time-shifting commercial DVDs is that css "controls" access to the video information on the disk, so you have to break css to rip the DVD. You therefore might run into similar trouble if you copy VHS tapes that are protected by Macrovision, since that may be considered a "technological measure that effectively controls access" to the video, too.

Of course all this talk about DMCA violations is very theoretical. As PTravel pointed out, there isn't any authoritative answer out there as to how the fair use protection provisions of the DMCA interact with 1201(a).

happytravelling

The following is your statement: If your source material does not contain a "technological measure that effectively controls access" to it, then Section 1201 of the DMCA should not prohibit making copies that fall within fair use. - if equivalent to - "if source does contain ... , then section 1201 should prohibit ... making copies ... that fall within fair use. I disagree with this statement for the following reason" : exceptions to circumvention.

I disagree with your interpretation. I am not talking about the DCMA interacting with fair use doctrine. I am saying that that the following 1201 subsection of the DCMA permits CIRCUMVENTION and is PERMITTED and therefore your discussion of css is irrelevant.
----
(1) CIRCUMVENTION PERMITTED- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title, if--
...
`(B) in the normal course of its operation, the technological measure, or the work it protects, collects or disseminates personally identifying information about the person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, without providing conspicuous notice of such collection or dissemination to such person, and without providing such person with the capability to prevent or restrict such collection or dissemination.
----
This section is applicable to the equipment that I have in that it does not provide any notice that a video is playing a videotape that has Macrovision protection and thus circumvention is allowed under this provision. I was very specific as to the type of technology and application used. It is no longer possible (as far as I know) to obtain this equipment and the DCMA makes it illegal to sell this equipment (sellers on Ebay are liable under the DCMA, but not the buyers as I interpret the DCMA).

Since the DCMA is not applicable for disallowing by circumventing the DCMA, the copying would then be permitted only if allowed within the fair use doctrine.

PTravel

The DMCA has nothing to do with formats, and everything to do with copy protection schemes. Read the statute. You'll find it at 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(a)(1)(A):

"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected uner this title."

Nothing about digital. Nothing about "legacy formats."

Absolutely, unequivocally dead wrong. Perhaps, instead of making up the law, you should wait 'til you study it before giving an opinion as to what it is.

What is a "non-copyrightable movie"? All movies are works of authorship within the meaning of the copyright act and, as such, "copyrightable."

You've got your response: You're completely wrong.

You haven't avoided anything.

That's one of the things it does.

Wrong, and this is the problem with the DMCA. It says that it doesn't effect fair use doctrine, but it does . . . activities that would have been within fair use are precluded because they violate the "no circumvention" provision.

Not even close to reality. This is completely wrong.

I think you should wait 'til you complete your legal studies and pass the bar before you start construing the law for other people.

happytravelling

I had provided a more detailed response with the provisions discussed. I have not done more than tell why I feel comfortable with putting movies on my hard drive. I look forward to going to law school, but I hope that I don't pick up the same kind of self rightous attitude that you have developed.

PTravel

Perhaps, when (and if) you become a lawyer, you'll understand the frustration that results when lay people with no understanding of the law argue with you about what it means. Arrogance isn't necessarily a bad trait for a lawyer, but, when coupled with ignorance, it's deadly.

happytravelling

I have formed my opinion based upon an important section of the DCMA that allows encryption circumvention. As you yourself have tried to justify your use of copying dvds, and given your opinion on the subject, I am giving an opinion on why the method I have discussed is appropriate . Everyone who wants to watch movies while travelling is affected by these laws, but I have no intention of paying a lawyer to give me an opinion on this subject. Your ambiguity in your opinions while you also put movies on your hd does not give you any moral authority to discount other opinions.

When the law was being drafted, this is the provision that the lawmakers incorporated into the law that would (supposedly) still allow fair use for legacy equipment. Yes, I paid attention to the opinions of the lawyers before and after the run up to the DCMA and I have read the law. I also recognize that interpretation does not have to follow intent, but the DCMA does allow encryption circumentiion.

No, you are not arrogant. You are self righteous for calling people ignorant if they are not lawyers and want to try to understand the law. If you don't want to exchange ideas, but instead legal technicalites with other lawyers, this is not the forum you should be on.

PTravel

You don't want to understand the law. You think you already do.

Go to law school. Get a JD. Get admitted to the bar. Work in the field for a decade or two. Then, I'll consider your opinion.

I don't argue the law with lay people.

themicah

Whoah. I often think PTravel gets a little overbearing in his legal discussions, but he does know what he's talking about. Meanwhile, you brought up a technicality in the law that you thought might present a loophole, PTravel explained how it doesn't really work that way, and now you're complaining that he wants to argue legal technicalities? Puh-lease.

If you can find the place where PTravel says that it's immoral to copy DVDs (or VHS tapes or whatever) to your hard drive for later personal viewing, I'd like to see it so I too can admonish PTravel for making such a dumb statement. But if you ask a question about whether something violates the DMCA on a thread monitored by lawyers who know what they're talking about, expect them to give you an answer, and don't get all defensive simply because your theory was wrong.

The bottom line: most of us don't believe that time-shifting DVDs is immoral--even if you use css or some other on-its-face-DMCA-violating method. I, like many people, think 1201(a) of the DMCA is a stupid law and has nothing to do with morality or protecting "art" and everything to do with wealthy media executives trying to protect their business interests. But could you in theory get in trouble for violating it? Yes. For all its stupidity and self-contradictory provisions invoking fair use, 1201(a) is the law, and because there is no clear judicial guidance on how the fair use and anticircumvention provisions interact, copying DVDs (or VHS tapes or whatever) to your hard drive may technically be illegal.

happytravelling

No, my point is that he never explicitly commented on the technicality that I discussed and gave his opinion on everything else as well as insulting me. I love to dig into rules to look for loopholes - I would gladly accept his calling me ignorant if anyone (and I don't meant PTtraveler) would comment on the encryption circumvention allowance. The opportunity to learn is more important than having thin skin and if I learned I would be the better for it. PTTraveller just about reinforces every negative thing I have heard about lawyers - condescending and insulting.

I never said PTtraveler admitted to doing anything immoral - he makes a lot of statements but does not give an opinion. - "As an intellectual property lawyer, I am not prepared to say that copying a DVD to a laptop to view on the plane is violative of law (nor am I prepared to say that it is not)". What are we supposed to believe? Maybe that he knows it is illegal, but won't admit it. I wouldn't put it past this one...

I have not seen a response to my question on the specific details that I asked concerning the DCMA and insulting me about my ignorance of the law does not help me understand the issue (themicah, I am not talking about you). Since I don't expect to hear from PTtraveller for about 23 years, I am still curious about this issue and hope that I can learn more about this issue. I accept his statement about case law not being a guide, but I can see that we will be different types of lawyers.

I do appreciate your (themicah) bottom line view which I had intended to state as well. That it is probably legally safer to copy to a hd rather than copy a movie to a dvd.

Dodge DeBoulet

I think we'd all hold your opinions in somewhat higher regard if you'd at least get the acronym for the act right. It is the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act," often referred to as the DMCA. Not, as you've written over and over again, the "DCMA."

Or were you discussing the Defense Contract Management Agency?

ScottC

bdjohns1

It's certainly a flippant argument to make, but I've heard a few people make the argument recently that CSS doesn't constitute an "effective" access control mechanism because a 16-year old kid from Norway was able to figure out how to circumvent it.

I can't imagine any judge buying it (aside from a judge with a slightly twisted sense of humor who had it in for the entertainment industry). That said, I do think that the use of CSS-stripping software for the purpose of interoperability (ie playing a DVD in Linux circa 2000-2001) should be explicitly permissible, subject to fair use doctrine.