FCC Broadcast Flag

[groover km]

I don't wish to fan the flames here and get off topic, but for the sake of clarity and discussion this is bothering me:

- 'Copyright' (in principle anyways) does not exist to automatically protect the rights of the owner of the intellectual property. It exists to set a limited period of statute during which the IP owner can exclusively benefit before those rights are dissolved and the work(s) becomes part of the public domain. This is stated in the constitution -

"...The congress shall have power ... to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

The idea - as I interpret it anyway - is that 'exclusive right' for *unlimited* time would be detrimental to 'the progress of science and useful arts' (I believe this notion of limited time also applies to patents), and is therefore a BAD thing - allowing the IP/ patent owner to benefit for a limited time before allowing competition/ interpretation is a reasonable 'middle ground'. However, IMHO the principle and intent of this has been bent and twisted by the same interested parties who (obviously) want to extend this limited period both in duration and scope. Increasingly, and more worryingly, the law is being defined to reflect the viewpoint of the IP Owner. Funny - Isn't the law supposed to reflect the constitution?

- Uploading and downloading music (or any form of media) is not illegal; copyright infringement is. Despite what the (interested) parties would have you otherwise believe, copyright infringement is not 'theft' - this distinction is made under the law (US Supreme Court, Dowling vs US, 1985), not by me. However, 'theft' is a far more emotive word and elicits a desired reaction among people, hence the adopted use of the "theft / piracy" vocabulary by the RIAA, MPAA, FACT, and the general media; yet more FUD, as far as I'm concerned.

Now, judging by the number of requests on here for Divx support, the queries to play VOB files over MVP, even the use of DVD2MPEG plugin, I would humbly suggest that there are one or two of us here who may have *unwittingly* infringed copyright in our time (hey, I even sing in the shower - guilty as charged).

Does that make us 'thieves'? I honestly don't believe so, but when one can face three years in prison for producing a crappy camcorder copy of a movie in a theater (with the Feds called, no less), there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this picture. A lesser charge for shoplifting the DVD from Walmart; copyright infringement more serious than theft? Think about that.

And what just irks me the most is, well guess what? TV didn't sound the deathknell for cinema, video didn't kill the radio star, hometaping isn't killing music, and the 'industry' isn't losing 'billions of dollars'. Technological innovation and changing consumer demand are ultimately forcing the restructuring of the supply pipe - as they are supposed to do. This is a GOOD thing.

Personally, I quite like the canadian approach - I believe it is also applied in France as well. It appears to try and accomodate technological innovation and changing consumer demand, while ensuring IP owners benefit (however indirectly) from their 'exclusive right to their writings and discoveries'. I don't know if this is the answer, but it seems more progressive than attempting to shore up (an obviously dated) business model through legislative means - that suggests interventionism and is to my mind, a far more socialist concept that a few cents on a pack of CD-Rs.

Sorry for rambling on.

[sub]

I honestly don't believe so, but when one can face three years in prison for producing a crappy camcorder copy of a movie in a theater (with the Feds called, no less), there is something SERIOUSLY wrong with this picture.

I must admit, I think this is pretty bad. If you camcorder a movie, I bet you its almost certainly a new release targeted at internet distribution. I dont know what the penalty for this should be though. (drugs for supply)

On the other hand your 'shoplifting a DVD walmart' is less serious in my book, and more likely to be someone just wanting to watch the movie. (drugs for personal use)

Personally, I quite like the canadian approach - I believe it is also applied in France as well.

It sounds good, but I doubt the money goes back to those that deserve it. Music artists etc...

[sash]

atomike.. not really broadcast flags and downloading music or any media is all the same . protectionism of an industry bottom line...
well put it this way. if you find it laughable.. are you ever going to stop peer to peer.. not likely are you going to stop piracy?? not likely.. are you going to put every one in jail who ever downloaded music a made a copy of a dvd, or circumvented the broadcast flag .... etc not likely, american already put people in jail for the most stupid of crimes already. and there jail are over flowing . your rights and freedoms are by law really do not exist , you guys have no privacy ( main reason why tivo will never come to canada, it strips away all your privacy, and would is illegal in canada) basically just one thing above a dictatorship or stalanistic russian, your media is censored and as culture you are kept in the dark about the rest of the world. it very egocentral.. this person sues that person for that or this and what have- "I am fat because I eat a 100 burger aday and I did not know it would make me fat"-- blah blah blah. there nothing wrong in taking a proactive route, I have no mind paying 25 cents for every blank media I buy.. or pay and extra 20 bucks on the mini ipod, then to have some multination at some point in time , say hey you're stealing music because you did not buy it from online music store or you have no record of purchase- ( even though I ripped it from my own cd that perhaps I later lost) . you think the canadain goverment just made up and enforces this law. no it was a mutual agreement on the part of the media industry and the canadain goverment.

so it not flanting or bending the rule, because this is canadain law as it pretains to canada. and to the best of my knowegle canada is still a sovereign country.. and US law only pretains to the US.. there is more to this world then the interests of the US..

sorry to any one I may of pissed off with my rant..

sub
quote;
It sounds good, but I doubt the money goes back to those that deserve it. Music artists etc...

I believe under the canadain model 25-50% of the money goes directly to the artist. probably divided up based on sales, and or market share

[sub]

In general I think its quite reasonable that people get paid for the works they produce, but I also believe in fair-use.

If I record a broadcast movie on my PVR, should I:
- be able to record it and play it back later. Yes, this is fair.
- be able transfer it to my portable media player and playback while I'm on the road. Yes, this is fair.
- be able to burn it to DVD to watch in the future. Yes, this is fair.
- loan it to a friend or family member. Legally allowing you to share makes thing more grey, but yes I believe this is fair if used in the way you might loan a video tape (not for wide spread distribution).
- distribute it to large number of people via DVD copies. No, this is not fair.
- distribute it to large number of people via the internet. No, this is not fair.

The problem is that it is pretty much impossible to impose these sorts of restrictions with impacting your own fair-use. I dont blame the copyright owners from believing they need to find a way to protect their rights. Unfortunately they seem to overstep the boundary...

I know I'm a hypocrite on this, since downloaded shows I've missed etc.

[groover km]

Sorry to keep on (maybe this should be moved to general discussion?) but the 'cinema camcorder' punishment... I dunno. Yes, anyone doing that is up to 'no good', but prison? I think if someone was caught doing this, the confiscation of all computer equipment and / or a ruling prohibiting obtaining broadband service for a certain period would appear to be more appropriate (incidentally, the ruling for making a copy of a pre-release DVD, CD, etc., is 10 years in prison; for perspective, the average sentence for manslaughter is 36 months)

I don't know how well the canadian system works with regard to money finding its way back to the recording artistes, but suspect there are probably lots of people with their hand out before it gets that far.... hey! Sorta like the record companies!

I agree with sub's comments and interpretation of 'fair use', and it's pretty much reflects the intent of the fair use provision; in fact, it reflects how I generally use my media anyway and I don't have a problem with it. Our hypothetical camcorder guy falls under (4) or (5) and laws are already in place to deal with this; they need to be enforced, not made draconian - or worse, extending into (1), (2) or (3) as the FCC broadcast flag is intended to do.

Now, is anyone going to write a bittorrent plugin?
(joke!)

[Atomike]

Sub has it almost exactly right. My opinion has been quite misrepresented. I'm very much against the Broadcast Flag, and have no issue whatsoever with breaking DVD copy protection. I paid for it. Fair Use.
However, when you download a song, you've paid nothing.
Here's the best solution: Fair use for anything you've bought. If you bought it, you can do anything you want for your own enjoyment. Edit the crap out of it if you want.
However, peer to peer downloading- heavily fine every single person who does this ($1,000 per offense sounds about right). If you download music for free, you are the direct cause of the broadcast flag. You probably belong in jail, plain and simple. Shoplifting is EXACTLY the same thing. Don't let moral relativists fool you.

But making a Divx movie for your PVR - go for it!!

[sub]

Now, is anyone going to write a bittorrent plugin?

Thats actually come up several times in the past, and I'm actually all for a file sharing plugin, but each time I've stated I perfer a private sharing mechanism where files are only shared with users you've explicitly allowed access.

I'd like a plugin to allow me and some of my co-workers or family to share shows. I guess this can be thought of as more of an electronic form of sharing the old VHS tape (fair use again).

[groover km]

Atomike -

Shoplifting = Theft, Downloading = Infringement. Theft and Infringement are two different things. Neither of them legal - and correctly so - but they are NOT the same.

If they are the same, your claim of 'fair use' for breaking DVD copy protection (ie, circumventing copyright protection mechanisms and thus infringing copyright, as what you actually bought is a 'licenced copy'; the licence prohibits you from breaking the protection) is immaterial, whether you paid for it or not; the copyright owner has expressly tried to prevent you from infringing their rights. You have broken the law as infringement = theft, right?

Maybe I'm missing something here - how is this moral relativism, and not simply flawed logic?

[sash]

Here's the best solution: Fair use for anything you've bought. If you bought it, you can do anything you want for your own enjoyment. Edit the crap out of it if you want.

your biggest problem with this is most times in the US when you buy anything that is copyrighted, you do not own it. you only purchaced the rights to use it. nothing more... and technically if you were ever to resell it you are suppose to give the media industry/software companies a portion of your sales..