(OT) Intellectual Property Protection Act

[Fezmid]

And current laws already have addressed your camcorder-DVD burner issue. What's at stake here is good old simple fair-use.

126129[/snapback]

 

Exactly. And just a few months ago, it was made a FELONY to videotape a movie in a movie theater... I can steal all of your apples from your apple cart (to bring up that example again), and it's not a felony. Record your movie in a movie theater, BAM, 5 years in prison even if there's no evidence of intent to sell it.

 

Not that the above is fair use, but it's an example of the ever-increasing laws being created just to protect the MPAA and RIAA. It's ALWAYS been illegal to record a movie in a movie theater; the punishment was just increased for no apparant reason. You can drink, drive, and kill someone and get less time in prison than if you record a movie in a movie theater. (see Lenard Little from the Rams as proof).

 

CW

[CosmicBills]

(as an aside, I think this is the longest thread I've ever read here where people are debating and there's no flames flying around!!! ).

 

(BTW, how was the movie? )

 

CW

126126[/snapback]

 

Agreed! It's nice to see that it actually is possible to have a discussion on this board without escalating into a flame war

 

Of course, it could be because it's a topic that only a couple of us care about:) lol

 

You all make very good points I think we are both want the same thing we just have different approaches to it.

 

The movie was...okay. Not great. Kinda cool, but kind of a rip off of the DaVinci Code. I'm not a huge Nick Cage fan but he was pretty good in it.

[GG]

Too bad I don'tr have time for a full reply. Will come back later.

 

Tgreg & OGT are right - Fez, sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

The only major fault with the proposed act is the concept of the intent to commit fraud. That's dangerous, and should be removed. Everything else is on the correct path.

 

Take it to PPP, and you'll get lawyerly opinions.

[Fezmid]

Tgreg & OGT are right - Fez, sorry, you're barking up the wrong tree.

 

They're not right, you just agree with them. I'm not barking up the wrong tree, you just disagree with me.

 

Minor clarification, but there really is no "right and wrong" in this.

 

CW

[JLO]

here's an idea; GO READ A BOOK!

[Dan Gross]

All right, let's try to straighten things out here. I certainly read the Bill "wrong" the first time, but took another read at it without automatically thinking it was a "bad thing."

First the "Family Movie Act." Here's the key text:

      (B) Exemption From Copyright and Trademark Infringement for Skipping of Audio or Video Content of Motion Pictures- Section 110 of title 17, United States Code, is amended--

 

            (1) in paragraph (9), by striking `and' after the semicolon at the end;

 

            (2) in paragraph (10), by striking the period at the end and inserting `; and';

 

            (3) by inserting after paragraph (10) the following:

 

            `(11) the making imperceptible, by or at the direction of a member of a private household, of limited portions of audio or video content of a motion picture during a performance in or transmitted to that household for private home viewing, from an authorized copy of the motion picture, or the creation or provision of a computer program or other technology that enables such making imperceptible and that is designed and marketed for such use at the direction of a member of a private household, if--

 

                  `(A) no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology; and

 

                  `(B) no changes, deletions or additions are made by such computer program or other technology to commercial advertisements, or to network or station promotional announcements, that would otherwise be performed or displayed before, during or after the performance of the motion picture.'

The spirit of the law was to allow movies for home viewing be available in an "edited for TV" version done automatically by the DVD player/TIVO box/etc. It basically allows the product/software to modify a movie as it is playing, with restrictions. Note this Bill is an extension, which actually gives more rights. This is not furthering restrictions.

Looking at the letter of what is written there is nothing that bars you from fast forwarding (fast forwarding does not change/delete/add content, just the speed that it is going by). By the same token, neither does a "chapter skip." Again, since this is an extension of rights, if fast-forwarding through commercials is illegal by this law, it would have already been illegal prior to this law being passed (note that this is all listed as an "Exemption").

There are two potential sticky parts here:

a.) Video editing software. You can use video editing software to remove commercials from broadcast movies, and have always been. The illegality of that does not change (again, these rules extend the rights), and though the draft could have been better written the spirit is intended to stop manufacturers from making products that automatically remove the ads from shows.

b.) "Cross marketing/product placement." According to the text of the bill, it is uncertain what happens to scenes that have a "placed product" (James Bond driving around in a Mercedes, for example). Are such scenes non-editable under the "commercial advertisements" wording? By spirit, no, but by letter...

 

And now taping in a movie theater

Exactly.  And just a few months ago, it was made a FELONY to videotape a movie in a movie theater...  I can steal all of your apples from your apple cart (to bring up that example again), and it's not a felony.  Record your movie in a movie theater, BAM, 5 years in prison even if there's no evidence of intent to sell it.

 

Not that the above is fair use, but it's an example of the ever-increasing laws being created just to protect the MPAA and RIAA.  It's ALWAYS been illegal to record a movie in a movie theater; the punishment was just increased for no apparant reason.  You can drink, drive, and kill someone and get less time in prison than if you record a movie in a movie theater. (see Lenard Little from the Rams as proof).

 

CW

126134[/snapback]

Actually, depending on the value of the apples and your prior record you could get charged with a misdimeanor petty larceny charge or a felony grand theft charge (Yeah, I know, Grand Theft: Apple would make for a fun game ). This is an extension to existing rules about making illegal recordings of live performances (Section 2319A). Further, the penalty is no more than 3 years on first offense (Sec. 2319A, is 5 years). And your cutesy example leads to problems not with the creation of the laws but the prosecution. Vehicular manslaughter is at the very least a Cladss D felony, punishable up to 7 years. 1st degree V.M. is considered by some states a Class B felony, punishable up to 25 years. So guess what: if Leonard Little is caught taping a movie in the theater, he'd probably get off with a slap on the wrist as well. Yes, there's a point where there's an implied "intent to sell" which is what makes it a felony, but there's also a provision, like in 2319A, that allows you to get permission from the copyright holder beforehand. Then you are doing something perfectly legal.

 

I'm deciphering the "sharing" stuff right now, but in short it does look poorly written, as the term "copies" is never clearly indicated. I've provided enough to read here. I was with you, Fez, when I first read the rhetoric, but reading the Bill I don't see where a person who has been doing no wrong has anything to worry about.

[CosmicBills]

I was with you, Fez, when I first read the rhetoric, but reading the Bill I don't see where a person who has been doing no wrong has anything to worry about.

126320[/snapback]

 

That was what I was trying to say. Like I said earlier, Fez and I have our disagreement on the issue but it is because we are both coming from opposite ends of the issue. Fez is rightfully concerned about his rights as a consumer whereas I am concernced about my IP rights as a producer of IP material.

 

But from talking with collegues who all deal in similiar IP products we all come to the same conclusion that we want the law to protect our product without inhibiting other people's ability to enjoy them. At the end of the day I don't think many people will care what individuals are doing in their homes so long as it doesn't interfere with the marketplace.

[Dan Gross]

That was what I was trying to say. Like I said earlier, Fez and I have our disagreement on the issue but it is because we are both coming from opposite ends of the issue. Fez is rightfully concerned about his rights as a consumer whereas I am concernced about my IP rights as a producer of IP material.

 

But from talking with collegues who all deal in similiar IP products we all come to the same conclusion that we want the law to protect our product without inhibiting other people's ability to enjoy them. At the end of the day I don't think many people will care what individuals are doing in their homes so long as it doesn't interfere with the marketplace.

126463[/snapback]

 

Oh, BTW, as for you, if you work in IP, you should know that "copywrite" is what ad people do, for which they can get a "copyright" from the LOC.

 

And WRT VCR's, companies did not decide to accept them, they were told to accept them by the Supreme Court. http://www.virtualrecordings.com/betamax.htm

[CosmicBills]

Oh, BTW, as for you, if you work in IP, you should know that "copywrite" is what ad people do, for which they can get a "copyright" from the LOC. 

 

And WRT VCR's, companies did not decide to accept them, they were told to accept them by the Supreme Court.  http://www.virtualrecordings.com/betamax.htm

126536[/snapback]

 

You're right

[GG]

They're not right, you just agree with them.  I'm not barking up the wrong tree, you just disagree with me.

 

Minor clarification, but there really is no "right and wrong" in this.

 

CW

126148[/snapback]

 

Yes, this is a case where I both disagree with you and you are wrong. You were misleading in transcribing the proposed law as a step by the government to curtail your rights. You are wrong in this regard.

 

The law is meant to clarify and enhance the rights of the copyright creators over the perceived rights of the public in the legal fair use of the copyright. There is nothing in this law that would prevent you from continuing to legally enjoy the copyrighted works, as you had in the past.

 

Yes, we disagree in what rights the creators should have in profiting from their work vs rights the end users should have.

 

To use your apples analogy, you again misrepresented the analogy. A copyright creator's property is not like the apple bushel, but the whole apple tree. It's not whether the farmer sold you an apple bushel and you can do what ever you want with the apples. The proper analogy is you telling the farmer that since he already sold a bushel of apples to me, you should get your bushel for free, because the farmer already made the sale.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

CW we will continue this later, I am off to go see National Treasure...

Damn, I almost forgot to bring my camcorder

(hey, I finally found a good place to use the    icon!) lol

125622[/snapback]

 

...and the award for "Best Placed Icon" goes to tgreg99 ...

 

By the way, compelling arguments from both sides. Nice to read the well thought out opinions of my fellow TBDers, without the B.S.

[CosmicBills]

Nice to read the well thought out opinions of my fellow TBDers, without the B.S. 

126586[/snapback]

 

Agreed! I just wish it could be like that on every thread

[SDS]

screw all you dumb-asses.

[CosmicBills]

screw all you dumb-asses.

126602[/snapback]

 

[KurtGodel77]

There are fair use laws which give consumers certain rights. If I buy a book, fair use laws allow me to lend it to a friend, regardless of what a publisher says. If I buy a tape or CD, I'm allowed to make a backup copy.

 

The problem with laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is they restrict technology that has legitimate fair use purposes. For instance, if I buy a DVD, I might want to burn a backup copy. This activity is a protected right. However, companies use encryption software to deny me this right, and the person who made the DVD decryption software (which allowed me to get around the software protection) will be prosecuted.

 

I agree that piracy is a threat to the intellectual property industry. On the other hand, major media and software companies have abused their power, by

 

1. Creating overly restrictive licenses

2. Forcing people to view too many ads

3. Using technology to prevent the fair use of their products allowed by law

 

Take cable television for example. In the beginning, the idea was you paid a monthly fee to avoid seeing ads. Now, the main cable channels all have ads. The fact there is now a device to allow consumers to skip these ads doesn't bother me. Consumers are getting--and should be getting--a little more power in their relationship with content providers. Content providers will just have to adapt, by relying on those monthly cable fees, by increasing the use of product placements, and by making commercials interesting. It seems a lot of advertisers try to hit you with the same commercial over and over again in some effort to brainwash you. This complete lack of effort to even try to entertain their audience shows the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of corporations, and needs to swing back towards consumers.

[CosmicBills]

There are fair use laws which give consumers certain rights. If I buy a book, fair use laws allow me to lend it to a friend, regardless of what a publisher says. If I buy a tape or CD, I'm allowed to make a backup copy.

 

The problem with laws like the Digital Millenium Copyright Act is they restrict technology that has legitimate fair use purposes. For instance, if I buy a DVD, I might want to burn a backup copy. This activity is a protected right. However, companies use encryption software to deny me this right, and the person who made the DVD decryption software (which allowed me to get around the software protection) will be prosecuted.

 

I agree that piracy is a threat to the intellectual property industry. On the other hand, major media and software companies have abused their power, by

 

1. Creating overly restrictive licenses

2. Forcing people to view too many ads

3. Using technology to prevent the fair use of their products allowed by law

 

Take cable television for example. In the beginning, the idea was you paid a monthly fee to avoid seeing ads. Now, the main cable channels all have ads. The fact there is now a device to allow consumers to skip these ads doesn't bother me. Consumers are getting--and should be getting--a little more power in their relationship with content providers. Content providers will just have to adapt, by relying on those monthly cable fees, by increasing the use of product placements, and by making commercials interesting. It seems a lot of advertisers try to hit you with the same commercial over and over again in some effort to brainwash you. This complete lack of effort to even try to entertain their audience shows the pendulum has swung too far in the direction of corporations, and needs to swing back towards consumers.

126686[/snapback]

 

It's difficult to separate fair use from piracy in the current climate due to the rapid advance of technology. 10 years ago, book publishers didn't have to worry about fair use vs piracy because how many people had access to photocopy machines to mass produce the product? Not many. Instead it was just people handing books back and forth. Yet today, with the advent of digitial scanners and copiers virtually everyone has access to these duplication machines.

 

The record companies for years have been on the forefront of this particular battle because once they moved to cassette, their product became very easy to duplicate. Every attempt they made at adding security features to their products backfired (or were easy to dismantle), yet they caught hell for violating fair use laws for their efforts. So they moved to CDs which were both cheaper and more secure. But now, technology has caught up to them again and they are fighting the battle all over again...only this time virtually EVERY IP industry that has joined in because the technology has outgrown the law.

 

It is a very complex issue, one that is not easily solved. How do you go about crafting a law that both protects fair use AND protects the copyrights? The answer they seem to have arrived upon is stopping the DUPLICATION TECHNOLOGY from becoming widespread (which is a losing battle) rather than the individual. Similar attempts were made a long time ago with the MPAA attempt to stop the manufacturing of VCRs...that is until they realized they could turn a nifty profit with home videos.

 

The reality is that you are never going to stop piracy completely. Also, you are never going to have big Entertainment companies coming into your house and arresting you for violation of copyright or fair use laws unless you happen to be making a living off of pirating materials. Yet the laws do need to be adjusted to keep up with the technology.

[KurtGodel77]

@tgreg: I agree that technology which allows fair use can also allow piracy. There has to be a balance. Giving IP companies everything they want can (and has) resulted in a situation far from ideal for consumers. On the other hand, giving consumers everything they want (a free product with no advertising) would result in the elimination of the IP companies.

 

What is becoming increasingly less common is a happy medium between consumer and company. The consumer is either the predator (IP pirate) or the prey. By "prey" I mean someone who is restricted by onerous technology that prevents fair use. I mean someone who is subjected to an endless stream of advertising to watch substandard cable television content the consumer is actually paying for.

 

I've heard the argument, "if you don't like the license, don't buy the product." The problem with this line of reasoning is this: intellectual property holders are all monopolists. If I'm a purchaser of grade A wheat (a commodity) I can go to any farmer I want. If a certain farmer is a pain in my neck (with restrictive licensing agreements and so on) I'll go to the next farmer. But if I want to watch Star Wars, I have to go through George Lucas. While this monopolistic situation is necessary to protect those who created the IP, and to give them a fair return on the time and energy invested, it can (and has) led to abuses of power.

 

It's true that pirates have too much power with respect to the IP companies. But IP companies have too much power with respect to consumers. Any laws passed should reduce not just the incidence of piracy, but also the power IP companies have with respect to consumers.

[Dan Gross]

The Act was revised in the Senate (watered down considerably), and is now known as the Family Entertainment and Copyright Act.

Hot-Pocket summary...Changes relative to this discussion (a whole "boxing safety" provision was added, at the bequest of John McCain ) are:

provisions around "changing, deleting" advertisements in Family Movie Act portion removed.

The Piracy Deterrence and Education Act (which purportedly would make peer-to-peer sharing illegal) was dropped.

 

Left in were the "illegal to tape movies" and "illegal to provide pre-release works" provisions...

[stuckincincy]

"The Congressman's Game".

 

 

1) Accept money from private and business entities wanting regulatory or taxation favors.

 

2) Enact legislation.

 

3) Await public outcry over passed legislation.

 

4) Accept money from private and business entities aggreived by the legislation.

 

5) Introduce legislation to rescind previous law.

 

6) Garner praise that you can refer to when you run for election.

 

7) Repeat as often as necessary.