At the risk of yet another 100 post thread beginning, keep in mind that this site is sponsored by 321, a company that makes DVD ripping/duplication tools. At issue is the decryption of encrypted media, not an issue of making a personal copy. Of course it's in their best interest to fight for changes in Fair Use.
Anyone with a basic understanding of Fair Use doctrine will quickly understand that they present a very one-sided view on the 321-sponsored website. As an example, they claim it's legal to photocopy a page from a book you own. This is true, until you use those photocopies as part of a school curriculum, published work, church handout, etc. Same with their example of making a cassette of your music collection. That's legal too, until you start making copies of your music collection for friends.
In the case of 321, they circumvent the copy protection schemes implemented on DVD. So, while I side with 321 on this issue, they also should be willing to step up to the pump and tell the whole story, not just half of it. I think that all reasonable people would agree that copy protection is unfortunately necessary at commercial levels whether it's legal or technological in implementation.
Out of curiosity, if you create a DVD for public distribution and put copy protection flags in the disc stream such as Macrovision, would you feel that it's fair for users to have easy access to tools that bypass the copy protection that you've placed on the DVD? Knowing you spent as much as $1 for every disk you had replicated with the flags/copyprotection? (it's usually around .25, depending on the size of the disk replication run)
Keep in mind, we're also not discussing copyright here. Fair Use is a legal doctrine that is necessary and exceptionally important for everyone.

<dvdude pulls up a chair and opens a beer.....>

Dude-- ROLF!

Others, I know who's sponsoring the site. Still, they make a vaild point!

J--

Personally Speaking If I had A Film on DVD THAT I had worn out then I would no doubt buy a new One... Also By the time the Film is worn out Usually a new Format or newly mastered DVD is Available.. Look at Star Wars how many people have bought the NEXT latest version... I know I did.. BUT If I had something Valuable like Computer Software I would make Copies For backup ...I Have never tried to copy Films Except to VHS OFF the TV AND then Nine Times out of Ten I dont watch it because of the Poor Quality..

The heart of the problem with the , is that it gives industry the tools to treat their customers as adversaries.

Examples:

A media company (like Sony) sells me a flash memory MP3 player, but then tells me I cannot legally rip my CD tracks into MP3s. While I don't think anyone has been sued for ripping CDs that they own, the next generation of digital media specifications is going to prohibit exactly that.

The future connections between home theater components, using digital connections, will require that the receiving device be able to validate that it has the proper license to play the content being streamed to it. I am not talking about "streaming" in the sense of content going over the Internet, but instead just the video going from your DVD player to your monitor.

I am still amazed by the paranoia in the media industry. They just don't get it. When I ran Ventura Software, we estimated that at least half the users out there had ripped off our software. Xerox, who was our marketing partner, desperately wanted us to add copy protection (such as it was back in the 1980s), but we refused. Our reasoning — which was sound then, and is sound now — is that:

1. Copy protection schemes don't stop those determined to circumvent them (exhibit 1: DeCSS).

2. If you could devise a perfect copy protection / content management scheme, the people that heretofore were stealing your stuff probably won't now start buying it. They'll get something else instead.

3. You alienate your own loyal customers with copy protection, because it stops them from doing what they need to do (I can give dozens of real-life examples, but this is too long already).

4. Illegal use provides "free" marketing. Of course you cannot control the extent of your "expenditure," but you will find that many of your most ardent proselytizers are people who didn't get their copy (at least initially) through legitimate channels.

5. The content providers need to provide more than just the initial product. The RIAA is so lost, they can't find the toy in their box of Crackerjacks. The solution to rampant music sharing isn't to sue it out of existence, but rather to compete against it. Wow, what a concept: Provide a better alternative!! The paid music sharing services are a start, but what is really needed are services that provide things that can't easily be shared online, with quality that can't be guaranteed by peer sharing. This would include services that users could subscribe to that would provide extremely high-quality MP3s, combined with a disc service (so I don't have to waste my time burning my own discs) that would create professional discs using WAV files or, better still, digital audio versions of songs, on discs with custom dye-sub labels. It would also include subscriptions to live performances that I could get on my satellite, but only with a subscription to the music sharing service.

6. The vendors cannot send a mixed message and expect their customers to understand. Sony sells me a VCR with the implicit understanding that I am going to use it to copy anything that I can connect to it (broadcast, cable, satellite, camcorder tapes, DVDs). The Fair Use act spells out what can and cannot be copied, but the average user has no clue as to what is legal and what isn't. If the next generation of devices suddenly prohibits what the user has long been doing, there will be a big backlash. Don't believe it? Find out how many people purchased Apex players that are easily changed into Region-free players. Also, I almost cry every time I think of our friends over in Europe whose camcorders have the analog pass-through feature artificially defeated in order to "protect" several European trade unions.

The point here is that once you go down this route of scripting exactly what is going to be allowed and what isn't, there is absolutely no end to it, and you end up with really stupid restrictions like "no analog pass-through."

It is amazing to me to hear many people in the entertainment industry bash "large corporations" (can anyone spell "Michael Moore?") and big, obtrusive government, and yet be totally willing to let those same large corporations and bureaucratic government decide that I can record TV to a videotape, but not to a hard disk (the Tivo/Replay 4000 controversy).

I have dozens of other ideas as well, but the key is this: treat your customers as allies, not adversaries. Everything else flows from that. Once you've put that element of distrust in the vendor-customer relationship, they will never, ever be loyal to you, and your company will lose in the long run.

Would "fair use" allow me to do the following?

I rent a DVD from a local store. I don't get around to watching it before it is due back. I rip it then burn it onto an RW disk until I can watch it. After I watch it, I erase the RW disk and delete the files from the hard disk. I have paid for the rental and I have just "time-shifted" the viewing - as is the case with a VCR.


On a more philosophical note...History is full of evidence that creations can not be limited nor controlled. Trying to do so always has a significant down side. This is true whether it is your art or your children.

> rent a DVD from a local store. I don't get around to watching it before it is due back. I rip it then burn it onto an RW disk until I can watch it. After I watch it, I erase the RW disk and delete the files from the hard disk. I have paid for the rental and I have just "time-shifted" the viewing - as is the case with a VCR

Wouldn't that come under the heading of "unauthorized copying" and therefore in breach of the agreement you "signed" by watching the legal disclaimer on the disc?

I was under the impression that fair use only allows you to make a backup of stuff that you actually OWN - not stuff you've rented/borrowed etc.

>Personally Speaking If I had A Film on DVD THAT I had worn out then I would no doubt buy a new One... Also By the time the Film is worn out Usually a new Format or newly mastered DVD is Available..

You're either a rich man or you don't have young kids.

No your right I dont have Kids..Also and perhaps because I dont have Kids I have never worn a DVD out...

dvdude, good point. I really don't know much about this stuff but I can see both sides. As a follow up to your post, what about this:

I go to the library and check out a book on local building codes (this is a book published by a private company, not the municipality). I bring it home, find the page that has the info I want and then copy that page. Then I return the book to the library. Some time later, I use the info on the copied page to get my plans and my building permit. Then I throw away the page I copied. Is that "fair use" of the information in the building code book?

If so, I don't see why that is different than a rented or borrowed video?

new2dv: Both examples you cite are not legal. However, in both cases, you can easily circumvent the law, and the harm done (since you paid for your rental, and the library paid for the book) is difficult to measure.

The difference in the future is that your choices on what you can do will be limited -- not just to what the law is today, but even more restrictive versions that will come in the future (e.g., the ban on passing an analog signal through a digital camcorder that the European trade unions successfully lobbied to have removed from all camcorders shipped in the EU).

I think this is where Common sense comes in to Play...

The book from the Library is an information Book and is there for the user to gain Knowledge By copying that page for yourself You have Helped yourself remember that knowledge Because you Borrowed from the Library Or Purchased then this is what fair use is for.

An Artists work is different in that its entertainment..with production costs running PERHAPS into Millions that have to be recouped..

Im not saying whether you should be able to copy films off the TV Or make Backups That is For Parliament Or Congress to decide... My PERSONAL PERSONAL View is.... When you buy a Film On DVD Then you bought the right to own that film for your own Household to use... And copy for your own Imediate Family only OF Course this may NOT be the LAW ...

I think it should be :):):)

johnmeyer: thanks, I did not know that even the copying of the book was illegal.

I did a little investigating on fair use and I am totally confused. Even the "four factor" test seems nebulous and ambiguous. I am further confused by why "time-shifting" is legal with a VCR (the 1984 Betamax case) but not legal with a DVD. What, then is the legality of using a digital VCR (a la JVC)?

Hmmm.....

That IS more or less the law, Mark2929. You can make a PERSONAL, backup copy of any electronic media you have. You don't own the media, but a license to listen/watch it. You DO own a shiny silver disk or whatever the media is living on. You have a license, per Fair Use, to make a protective, backup copy of that media. But, you don't have license to make more than one copy. Copying a book is a different ball game and set of laws altogether from electronic media forms. It's argued that for purposes of anything other than educational reference or research, you can't legally copy a book from the library, and most libraries have notices to this effect posted next to the copying machines.
See Stanford's website (their law dept is one of the best copyright research labs in the world) for more information. For a small fee, you can even have copyright research done for you by an undergrad.

> While I don't think anyone has been sued for ripping CDs that they own, the next generation of digital media specifications is going to prohibit exactly that.

No need to wait for the next generation. The future is here. Go to Buy.com music downloads and read the stipulations set by the record companies on their downloadable music. You MUST have a Digital Rights Management (DRM) enabled device to play them because they are DRM encrypted.

The terms of use are:

You may download them to one (1) computer. You may back them up to two (2) additional computers that are registered with the site for playback only! You may burn them to CD 10 times but only from the one computer. You have unlimited transfers to a DRM enabled playing device.

Those are the rules. If you don’t like them, don’t buy the music. The last thing you want to do, I repeat THE VERY LAST THING you want to do is buy that music and defeat the copy protection to use it as you want. That will send the wrong message and only encourage them to make more. They’ll see people buying it, assume the people love it, and they will WIN! If you don’t agree with them telling you what you can personally do with the music you buy then please don’t buy it and send a clear message that you are not interested. I’m all for protecting artist’s rights but I’m not going to buy a product that limits my personal use rights.

I prefer MP3 files because my Creative Muvo NX MP3 player batteries last longer in MP3 mode than WMA mode. I also have a large MP3 library and don’t care to start using another format. So I was going to buy some of this downloadable music to convert to MP3 and use. Once I read the restrictions, I decided not to purchase it. My money, my choice.

Johnmeyer, I agree with your points 100%. People who pirate music simply aren’t going to start buying it. They were never your customers to begin with. You are just hurting your loyal customers with copy protection.

~jr

I understand about the difference with content that is considered entertainment. I am thinking more about the technology than the content. What I don't understand is how, if there is some legal fair use of copyrighted digital work, how can having the tools to actually exercise that fair use be illegal?

It is legal for a reviewer to quote short passages of a book in his review. I suspect the same is true for a film critic. (Ebert, et al have been doing it for years!) If a film critic is reviewing a new DVD and wants to show a clip of a movie in the course of review, how does he get that clip without going through the movie studio or distributor? This might be difficult and it is plausible (even likely?) that a distributor would pick and choose which reviewers had access to clips. One of the things that I read on fair use talked about how the difficulty of getting the copyrighted material favors the copying for fair use. (not sure where I am going with this one - it's just a thought I had...)

So, at this point, my basic question is whether there is any legal fair use of copyrighted digital material, including entertainment. If there is, how can it be illegal to have a tool (like DeCSS) to exercise the right to fair use.

Thanks Spot... HMMmmm Should have made it clear In my last Post thats Just MY Understanding... Certainly not what may or may not be Legal ...

To SPOT and others--I was in law publishing before my present incarnation. Copying a library book has to be seen in the right light, where your example is not fiction but a reference book, i.e., with information that could be used to apply for a builidng permit. In that case, the only thing you're doing wrong is making a Xerox of a page. If you hand-copied the reference information that's not only legal, it's the purpose for which the book was published. You can't copyright an idea, only the "expression" of the idea. The page layout and the way the words are printed on the page would be the expression, but not the reference information (the idea) on the page. It's like saying you can't tell someone the definition of a word because you looked it up in a dictionary. But you can't take the dictionary page and reprint it--legally.

The library example is a very narrow example, though, because it doesn't deal with fiction--such as a novel. And fiction is much closer to the notion of entertainment media. You wouldn't rip a copy of Star Wars because you want to build a light saber. The laws presume that making more than one archive copy is done with the intention of some kind of profit, i.e. saving or making money.

>>>Johnmeyer, I agree with your points 100%. People who pirate music simply aren’t going to start buying it. They were never your customers to begin with. You are just hurting your loyal customers with copy protection.<<<

Amen. However, some resellers WON'T accept products without copy protection on them. Walmart is pushing this very hard for their future sales, and on our training DVDs, most of the vendors are demanding that we have Macrovision, even though we feel it's a waste of time and money. Which effectively means aside from the added cost, it may well be that it will discourage 4-5% of those that would otherwise pirate the DVD. Look around hard enough, you can find my Vegas DVDs on the web as a DivX stream. I'm sure in coming weeks, you'll find the VASST DVDs too. In fact, just this morning I found Total Training's newest Adobe workflow DVDs on the web as a DivX stream, and that product was only released at NAB last week.

*vitalforces, thanks for clarifying what I was saying about copying a library book. There are SOME reference pieces available for free copy, such as code books. There was recently a case where a private publishing company reprinted a municipal code book that sued a contractor for reprinting the codes for his subs. The contractor and municipality won. I can't find the case citation though. Bigger point though, is that copying a book is different than copying electronic media. Different laws overall, but I think that's what you were saying anyway?

I couldn't resist...

Ok, here is just a question. Sort of off topic to the Vegas Video side of things but going along with downloading music and so on. I speak as a music fan and as one who lives here in the United States.

That being said - how does anyone *personally* feel about 'finding' an artist that you like in some way only to find out that their music is *not* available in your country? Perhaps the only way to "legally" get that artist's CD (if they have one you can find for sale) is to purchase it from Amazon.com or some such outlet as an import. So instead of paying, say $10 - $15.00 US you will pay 25 - $45.00 US for it plus shipping as an import. (Minus any sort of currency conversion fess that may happen along that way) Die hard collectors aside, would the average person want to do this? Or rather does this 'legal' method better serve the artist than if the artist has downloads, free or otherwise, available via legit means *or* via not so legit means.

My reason for asking is that whenever the topic of downloading or P2P comes up in relation to music most of the time we argue/discuss based on well known and top selling artist - say a Madonna or Metallica or the like. But what about an act like say...well, ok...I get media emails all the time about a band/act called Blue. I guess they are huge in the UK but personally I have never heard them. I also get mailings about Atomic Kitten (Who I have heard - meaningless pop yeah, but I kind of like them) who seem to be fairly big in the UK as well. Most people here have never heard of either act. Things are the same for acts just a few hundred miles away in Canada - take Chantal Kreviazuk for example. She has played the states a few times and I personally begged Sony to get access to her for an interview. Sony Canada sent me over the Sony US publicist (Who also handled media for Destinys Child and Jessica Simpson to name a few - so I had delt with her before) and she blew me off because 1> Chantal was not the headliner (Bare Naked Ladies were) and 2> She had no product here so Sony could care less about her. (Sony Publicist words - "She has no product in the states so we really don't care to push her.") (I should add that the following year Sony did put out an album here in the States - it came and went with hardly any notice. Sony didn't push that either) (and the fact someone I know just had their 3rd showcase for Sony really scares me...but that is another whole very off topic thread)

So - is this method better than allowing potential fans to download the music? And in the case of artists who have no CD out in a certain country would it be worth it for a label to take some 15 year old in any country to court if there wasn't any product available in that country? Now let me bring this into the film world - thanks to the internet it is easier to 'see' films in other countries (or from other countries) that might not otherwise be available. Turn back the clocks - for those in the UK who might relate to this - I have worked with one action star who is from England and he used to get a hold of bootleg videos of Bruce Lee films because certian parts were cut over in the UK or were "x" rated, so as a teen he could not see them. This was long before the internet and easy availablity of "import" films and the like. This guy now has actually pruchased all the films, probably on DVD as well. He based his whole early life on being like Bruce Lee, and the reason he wanted to be if films and learn martial arts was because of him. Based on much of the discussion we have anymore this guy, if he was a kid 2004 England, would have been hunted down / locked up / held as a terrorist / held up as an exmple of why studios are loosing so much money and on and on.

So I have to overall disagree with the comment People who pirate music simply aren’t going to start buying it. They were never your customers to begin with. because if you look outside of your own little box you start to see an entire world out there - now easly accessed via the internet. People are out there - millions and millions of potential fans who would buy the movies and or CD - yet due to BS at all levels this doesn't always happen. And when it does start to happen it isn't always because of 'legal' means. If people think Metallica is huge now I think they would have been even more so had their early means of being openly 'bottlegged' been via the internet and not cassette tapes being duplicated and traded all over the world. (Yeah I love telling about Metallica because they are prime examples of looking gift horses in the mouth when it comes to this sort of thing)

Filmy,

You are talking about point 4 in johnmeyer’s post:

4. Illegal use provides "free" marketing...

I agree with that too. (I agreed with all his points) There will be people who will experience your product that wouldn’t have and then become customers. I agree that this happens, and is a positive side-effect, but just a 'side-effect' none the less but the majority of people pirating content are not going to buy it.

So I agree that free samples are a great marketing strategy and one that companies have used for years. It’s just not legal to create your own free samples. ;-) That’s why legal music download sites allow you to listen to the song first. You can discover new music quite legally these days via the internet so I don’t agree that “pirating creates new customers” is a valid excuse anymore for the music industry.

~jr

or certainly in my case, there have been and will be a number of purchases I would have made IF the issues of shipping didn't arise...just recently I bought 5 Acid loop cds: the shipping to Spain cost the equivalent of one of these cds...It's really quite depressing and just makes these things so much more expensive..I would much rather give my money to Sony than to a shipping company...

Its a bit like the free cd that came with Vegas 4 (and had free shipping even for those who downloaded if in the US) well the shipping costs were somehing around 30$. Eventually asked permission from Sonic Foundry to make a copy of the original cd which had come with a friend's boxed version - which thakfully they granted...

I would certainly buy stuff if it were available as a download...