A few days ago, several countries signed ACTA, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. As you are probably aware, ACTA was drafted up in secret, and is basically Obama/Biden’s attempt to impose the US’ draconian pro-big business/big content protection laws on the rest of the world (‘sign it, or else’). The European Parliament still has to vote on it, and as such, Douwe Korff, professor of international law at the London Metropolitan University, and Ian Brown senior research fellow at the University of Oxford, performed a 90-page study, with a harsh conclusion: ACTA violates fundamental human rights.
The Greens in the European Parliament, together with Korff, presented the result during a press conference today. You can watch the press conference as a video-on-demand, including the questions-and-answer sessions which followed, and you can download the full 90-page study as well.
Green MEP Jan Phillip Albrecht summarises the study’s findings – and it ain’t pretty. “As the study points out, encouraging the ‘cooperation’ between internet providers and the content industry amounts to privatised policing, violating the rule of law and the right to fair judicial process. ACTA also allows for the monitoring of internet users without initial suspicion, the handing over of their personal data to rights holders on the basis of mere claims and the transfer of this data even to countries without adequate data protection, all of which is in clear conflict with legal guarantees of fundamental rights in the EU,” he states, “The agreement does not contain ‘fair use’ clauses or exceptions for trivial or minimal infringements. It therefore tilts the balance – both in terms of substance and of process – unfairly in favour of rights holders and against users and citizens.”
The final conclusion from the study itself isn’t much rosier. “Overall, ACTA tilts the balance of IPR protection manifestly unfairly towards one group of beneficiaries of the right to property, IP right holders, and unfairly against others. It equally disproportionately interferes with a range of other fundamental rights, and provides or allows for the determination of such rights in procedures that fail to allow for the taking into account of the different, competing interests, but rather, stack all the weight at one end,” the study concludes, “This makes the entire Agreement, in our opinion, incompatible with fundamental European human rights instruments and -standards.”
Of course, most of us already knew this, but it’s always good to have a detailed study from a reputable source to point to whenever you enter into a discussion about this topic. ACTA is pure, concentrated evil in liquid form, and I find it inconceivable that anyone would support this – other than big business and big content, of course.
Finally in the open what I have predicted years ago when MP3 started to gain popularity and the first lawsuits appeared.
This is nothing more than covert extreme law abusing and politician arm twisting to control an important media conduit: the Internet.
This has to stop. And I’m going to write to representatives in the EU parliament to urge them to vote against this.
To write to your MEPs, you can use the form at http://www.writetothem.com/
Simply enter your postcode and it will list all your elected representatives. You can then write a single message to all your MEPs at once or craft individual messages to each of them (you are represented by between three and ten MEPs depending on which region you live in)
This treaty was started during the Bush/Cheney administration. It was continued under Obama.
Correction:
The groundwork was laid by Clinton, accelerated under Bush at first (before stalling), and continued under Obama.
I thought it started under Clinton but I wasn’t 100% sure.
I’m pretty sure that neither of them actually were the originators nor were they pushing it through…
The real puppet-masters are the global media conglomerates. Vivendi being the French one…
I’m just curious as I didn’t see in the article. Just what human rights are being abused here?
As far as I can tell, it talks about fines and seizing property in counterfeit cases.
Maybe in some kind of libertarian paradise, this would be a violation of human rights. But in a world of income taxes, heavy regulation, attempts to monetize every kind of work, globalized free trade, patents, legal trademarks… this hardly seems extraordinary.
Edited 2011-10-04 15:53 UTC
Justice and/or due process.
Due process isn’t a right, it is a procedural restriction on the government to prevent it from acting arbitrarily and in conflict with the law, so that is doesn’t illegally infringe on actual rights. So in other words: you don’t have a right to due process, you have rights and the government cannot infringe on those rights without first following the due process of law.
Copyright is itself a violation of individual rights that is created and enforced by the government because the law allows for it. “Fair use” is a common law creation of the courts that have poked limited holes in the monopoly granted by copyright law. But common law precedent can in most cases always be superseded by statute or treaty where those statutes/treaties aren’t in violation of some superior law such as a constitution.
How this all applies to civil law systems found throughout Europe, I’m not sure because I’m no expert in them. But it seems to me that deep philosophical debates about inalienable human or natural rights are so 18th century… governments these days, and most sheeple for that matter don’t care as long as they aren’t too inconvenienced while getting strip-searched at the airport or being spied on by CCTV on every corner.
And some of us do care, so it isn’t moot. Hence this discussion.
Dave
As far as I know, at least in the US, it is a right, inscribed in the Fifth Amendment to the US Constitution (the amendment being part of the “United States Bill of Rights”), which reads, in part:
“[No person shall] be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”.
Now of course I am not a constitutional lawyer, so I might be wrong. After all, all I do is read what the letters say in English, not Legalese…
[edit: typos]
Edited 2011-10-05 09:41 UTC
Your citation is exactly how i phrased it. Due process is a restriction on arbitrary government action in order to protect rights (life, liberty, property, etc.), not a right per se. There is a large semantic difference between the two. Similar to how requiring a warrant to search your home is a restriction placed on the power of government, it is not itself an individual right. And in following the legal requirement to acquire a valid warrant, the government is meeting its due process obligation.
The Bill of Rights is a bit odd in that respect (for some explanation as to why, see the Federalist Papers: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Federalist_papers#Opp… ). Basically, your interpretation is essentially why some of the authors of the US Constitution did not want a Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is very explicitly about the government, not the people: it does not list rights the people have, it lists (some examples of) rights the people already have independent of the Bill of Rights which the government is not allowed take away.
Of course, this is philosophy and Bill of Rights is not always interpreted as I described.
Uhm, no. Due process is an inalienable right – it’s in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Declaration of Human Rights, and the US Bill of Rights.
Interestingly enough, it’s not part of the Dutch equivalent of the Bill of Rights (chapter 1 of our Constitution), since we consider the European Declaration of Human Rights to be conclusive in this regard. There’s a lot of pushing going on to include it in our Constitution anyway.
The words “due process” are not even present in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Much of that document is silly anyways… universal human right to paid holidays… ha!
Did you not read beyond the first paragraph?
Sure, it’s an EU based study so they are using EU law as a benchmark but “countries without adequate data protection” and I’ll add the potential of countries already known to institue human rights violations.
I think much of the issue is around imposing US draconian enforcement on other nation states primarily through removal of due legal process. It’s a nice political document designed to allow RIAA to take the law into it’s own hands by whatever definition of “evidence” is convenient at the time.
(“RIAA” being used to mean it and it’s counterparts outside the US.)
And like I said, given our current state of laws, this is hardly a big deal.
“As the study points out, encouraging the ‘cooperation’ between internet providers and the content industry amounts to privatized policing”
Encouraging cooperation? Privatized policing is everywhere… private security guards at events, private security at homes and malls.
“ACTA also allows for the monitoring of internet users without initial suspicion”
And what about speed cameras, DUI check points…
“The agreement does not contain ‘fair use’ clauses or exceptions for trivial or minimal infringements.”
Governments love banning things. Everything from cigarettes, to marijuana, to guns, to transfats…
“Overall, ACTA tilts the balance of IPR protection manifestly unfairly towards one group of beneficiaries of the right to property, IP right holders, and unfairly against others”
Isn’t this pretty much what most laws do? Pit one group against another. Public sector union negotiations tip the balance of power to the public sector unions against the rights and property of the general population.
These laws just aren’t that out there… especially when you consider the general state of affairs in the EU.
Presuming that’s true it still doesn’t mean we should just let things erode even further.
Security guards is not “policing”. Those people can’t charge you with anything, can’t conduct investigations and can’t arrest you – that what policing means.
So… In what country are there privately operated DUI checkpoints and private speed cameras?
Nope… In countries with a proper legal system, constitutional courts actually review fairness of laws. Remember that Franch three strikes law actually was stopped by the constitutional court.
The term negotiations is not the eye candy in that sentence…..
Really? EU? Considering UK with it’s archaic laws and non-codified un-constitution is part of EU along with Scandinavian and Baltic states with very modern laws, you can’t talk about EU in general.
You don’t give your location in your profile but you do give your website address. So, from your August 2nd posting:
The default is freedom (liberty, lets say).
It is up to the government to prove harm.
Yet, in your responses in this discussion, you are questioning why it is wrong to remove police/government from the situation and place the powers of law in the hands of corporations (RIAA and similar) along with granting them authority over other companies (ISP). You don’t think authority for a corporation to act without due legal process conflicts with “proving harm”?
And, you suggest that the default in a free society is freedom yet you suggest we suspend individual’s freedom at the mere unsubstantiated claim of wrongdoing by for profit corporation. So “innocent until proven guilty” – “er.. unless it’s a major content providing corporation in which case ‘guilty until proven less guilty'”.
Am I the only one having a little cognitive dissonance in trying to correlate all this?
Let’s make it simple;
– the law should not be places in the hands of for-profit corporations or any other entity with a vested interest in the guilt of the accused. The law should remain within the hands of an independent third party.
– the law of one nation should not be forced on another independent state. (sign ACTA or else you get put on the “do not trade” list)
No one is saying “go infringe copyright all you like”. The issue is the legal cock waiving being done expressly for the purpose of removing rights granted to the individual by copyright law.
Sounds like a corporate-run police state is fine by you … maybe even desirable. Or am I missing something? That’s what we’re moving to here in the U.S. & both major parties, plus the so-called “Tea-Party” (=$$$-party) are on board. Personally I’m not enjoying it.
Basically, the UK has a parlimentry act that was passed in 1998. This is ‘The human rights act, 1998.
These are:
•the right to life
•freedom from torture and degrading treatment
•freedom from slavery and forced labour
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and freedom to express your beliefs
•freedom of expression
•freedom of assembly and association
•the right to marry and to start a family
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
•the right to an education
•the right to participate in free elections
•the right not to be subjected to the death penalty
Trying to inforce these USA laws on the people of the UK, violates at least these
•the right to liberty
•the right to a fair trial
•the right not to be punished for something that wasn’t a crime when you did it
•the right to respect for private and family life
•the right to peaceful enjoyment of your property
and if the USA did push for this in the UK, then they’d also violate;
•the right not to be discriminated against in respect of these rights and freedoms
Laws around the world differ, even in the states of America the laws differ. You can not expect the Law of the land from one country to be replicated in another, and you certainly can not force your law upon another.
That is oppression, and there will be war.
But you can convince them to enact it of their own accord. Thats not war, silly, thats politics.
Edited 2011-10-04 22:10 UTC
Everybody misunderstood the meaning of the slogan “yes, we can”.
Obama wanted to tell that he would have done what Bush did, if he was at his place, and that he could do what Bush would, in case Bush was at his place.
But if I’m not stealing content or media, what’s the problem? y’all the same people complain about the TSA and airport screening, but let a plane blow up and its all this manufactured outrage about why no one was screening people right?
If you think either the TSA or ACTA will ever stop a terrorrist or criminal… I have a bridge to sell you.
On top of that, many of the things ACTA deems illegal are legal in my country.
Funny, since no planes have blown up lately, TSA just might be considered some form of deterrent. Ask all the idiots that thought it was cool to pack a gun in their suitcases how the flight went.
Depends on whose laws you’re basing it on.
“Stealing” content or media was not even a crime until recently, under pressure from the content providers to redefine what constitutes “theft”.
It is laws like these that, for example, makes it technically illegal to even watch DVDs on Linux using VLC.
As a rule, I tend to avoid illegal copying of media, I prefer to own^Wlicense my copies of movies, but laws like this have far too much scope for abuse.
PS. IANAL, above may be complete fabrication etc.
Edited 2011-10-04 21:56 UTC
Arguably, it isn’t illegal to watch DVDs on Linux using VLC. One has paid for the optical DVD drive, one has paid for the DVD, and one has a license to run the VLC software. When one buys a DVD player and a DVD, one expects to be able to play it. “Playing” is what DVDs are meant for, afetr all, so the right to play them is implicit in the sale transaction.
The VLC software itself is not a copy of any other software, and it does not employ “stolen” keys nor any other information other than what is on the DVD itself. The decoding library (called libdvdcss) written and used by VLC has never been challenged in court. The VLC software does not have a “copy DVD” function, it is a player not a copier. The encoding used by DVDs is very weak, it is neither novel nor original, so it shouldn’t have any patents applicable to it.
Why should it be illegal to watch a DVD on Linux using VLC?
No one who suggests it is illegal is ever able to explain what law has allegedly been breached by such an act.
Edited 2011-10-04 22:14 UTC
No, but its well within the Law of Straw Man Examples.
You can rip DVDs with VLC by streaming them to a file. VLC also must have some kind of copy protection workaround because it’s able to play and stream copy protected DVDs.
Having said that, it’s still not something that will get you in trouble. This isn’t a Orwellian police state, the FBI aren’t going to know what you used to play a DVD with and frankly they don’t care. They’ll care if you start selling bootlegs. So ultimately it has to do with what you do with this software rather than the software itself.
ACTA sucks, but chances are you aren’t going to be affected by it. Especially if you’re a US citizen.
Edited 2011-10-05 04:34 UTC
Fair Use granted by Copyright to the content license holder says I pay to license the content not the medium it is delivered on. It also says that I can, for private use, access that content any way I like. Music comes on CD, I can legally convert it to mp3 to enjoy using my digital music player. Movies come on DVD, I can legally convert it to a digital format to vew though digital media players.
But boy howdy does big content put a lot of effort and lobbying into trying to remove fair use from copyright so they can sell me the same content license over and over on different storage mediums.
So all the movies, music, audio books, et al, showing up on the interwebs is just “fair-use” right not “theft”? Last I checked the RIAA wasn’t going after people that burned their movies/music/for use in the comfort of their own home…unless one lives in a bit torrent site.
So please stop this facade about fair use and how evil corporations are. Enjoy your product for your personal use and you’ll have no problem. Whats the issue?
Maybe read what I wrote not what you wanted to hear.
A quick note on “theft”
– when copying content deprives the source of that content, we can call it theft. Best of luck with that one though unless one can change the physics of digital duplication.
– when it’s proven that one infringement is indeed equal to one lost sale, we can call it theft. Best of luck with that though as one infringement has yet to ever equate directly to one lost sale; the majority of people will actually happily pay to license good content and those who wouldn’t where never going to in the first place even long before digital duplication became possible.
Now, back to your accusation:
Please point to precisely where I said any such thing. Heck, point to anywhere that I suggested it was ok to infringe copyright by downloading unlicensed content or distributing it to unlicensed recipients. What, someone mentions “fair use” and it could only possibly be for the purpose of trying to promote infringement?
Now that you mention it though, if one has a legally purchased DVD representing a license for the content contained within, what exactly is the issue with downloading that content in a more usable format from another content license holder who has done a better job of converting it? Heck, if the source does not have a license for the content it’s still not an issue for the recipient if they do have a license.
Now, this is the part where one normally points to those digital copies that some DVD/Blueray bundles now include. Try using that DRM crippled digital copy outside of a Windows/osX machine. One is still limited to cracking DRM or downloading a usable copy of the content and guess which method free market forces have chosen.
Just to be clear, I do agree with legal action against massive distributors of infringing content especially when that distribution is honest to goodness counterfeit product sold for profit. I don’t agree with attacking someone who have a copy of a CD or a few songs to a friend as mix tapes and small scale sharing have always been a part of the market and have done far more to promote content sales. Smart companies would call this free marketing.
Yeah, they had to stop threatening individuals over fair use since the 2010 federal court decision that fair use was indeed except from the DMCA. How long has the law been on the books now?
You’ll forgive me if I put more stock in the word of content creators rather than the parasitic corporations that feed on them though.
G8’s a bitch when you have someone who someone business savvy who also makes there living off created content.
here’s a bit more
http://slashdot.org/story/06/04/27/0015239/canadian-music-stars-fig…
Seems the content creators feel differently than the megacorp claiming to act on there behalf:
http://drm.info/node/40
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/spyware/artists-revolt-against-drm/726
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2005/12/16/more_artists_t…
http://www.copyleft-music.com/2005/12/17/artists-against-drm/
Being aware of corporate motivations and critical of resulting behavior does not equate to promoting copyright infringement. So please stop this facade about the poor starving RIAA executives.
the copy protection used in DVD encyption is Content Scramble System (aka CSS) and is licensed to venders for use in DVD player hardware and software from the DVD Forum. They are a collection of companies who designed and setup the DRM (CSS) for use with DVDs in the first place. The cost is $10-15. The (Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) for the USA members here, forbids VLC from playing DVDs.
Legally, if you are in the USA and use VLC to play a whole movie you are doing something illegal because you don’t have a license to play DVDs. That license does NOT come as part of a DVD disc.
Of course, USA laws don’t apply to everyone else, regardless of if the DVD Forum is made up of company around the world.
Lastly, VideoLAN and who created the libdvdcss that VLC uses, is a French non-profit organization and there is nothing the USA can do about that with the DMCA.
Edited 2011-10-05 06:26 UTC
The DMCA is the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. It is meant to prevent copying of copyrighted works, it is NOT meant as a means to enforce collection of bogus fees-for-use.
VLC does not use the software from the the DVD Forum, therefore there is no need to purchase a $10-$15 licesne from the DVD Forum to run VLC.
There was a case of a printer manufacturer who tried to put “copy protection” into prinetr ink cartridges, and then to charge users a premium price for printer ink catridges. A competing firm made cheaper ink cartridges for that printer, and the printer firm sued, claiming a DMCA violation. It went to court, the printer firm lost.
The DMCA is NOT a law for enforcing collection of license fees or locking other products out of markets or locking people into expensive support, it is strictly for the protection of copyrighted works.
While it is true that the DMCA does not provison the locking out or collection of license fees, it enforce any digital rights management included on digital media. The DMCA is a pain in the ass, but well as serveral other things that are included in the DMCA, it does provide companies with anti-circumvention of their encryption methods.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/
You might want to read up on what the DMCA actually allows you to do. That site is what google uses when they have takedown notices for search results.
Remember it only applies to members of the USA – its not enforable anywhere else in the world, as such and like I said, is why the VideoLAN (who are in France – that outside of world America) people were able to create the libs and thus why VLC player works without a takedown notice. If the libs or VLC was created in the USA, then it’d have been removed long ago.
Edited 2011-10-06 10:56 UTC
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/02/4636.ars
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2004/10/4352.ars
“To the extent compatibility requires that a particular code sequence be included in the component device to permit its use, the merger and ‘scenes a faire’ doctrines generally preclude the code sequence from obtaining copyright.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sc%C3%A8nes_%C3%A0_fai…
VLC software is not a copy of any other software. VLC does not use the software from the DVD consortium. The actual CSS algorithm is effectively a “scene that must be done” in order to play a DVD. Playing a DVD does not copy its content in a way that violates copyrights. As long as the VLC software in question is being used to play videos, and consumers legally bought DVDs and a DVD drive, then essentially it would seem there is no case for VLC to answer. Even under the DMCA.
When actual illegal content (i.e. content which violates a copyright, even a copyright held by an American interest) is hosted on download sites, such as Rapidshare, anywhere in the world, copyright owners (even American ones) are able to use the DMCA and issue a “takedown notice” to get that content removed.
There have been no takedown notices issued for VLC. Playing a DVD using VLC is not illegal.
Edited 2011-10-07 03:07 UTC
I am curious, did you read the parent’s post? I am only asking because it basically spells out what part of using VLC could be considered illegal. It also spells out why you wouldn’t find a DMCA notice issued for VLC.
Did you mean this?
http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/
“In order to control the distribution and use of their works, copyright owners are increasingly embedding access (keep you from accessing the work) and copy (control what you do with the work) protection schemes in their digital works. Under section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), the circumvention of these access mechanisms is illegal, with only a few narrow statutory exemptions. The DMCA also prohibits the distribution of programs that can be used to circumvent both copy control and access control technologies.”
Neither VLC nor CSS itself does anything with regard to “control what you do with the work”. VLC does not copy works on DVDs.
CSS is a means to “keep you from accessing the work”. However, I quoted a decision from a court case where even the DMCA cannot “keep you from accessing the work” insofar as accessing the work is what is required in order for people to do what the product was intended to provide. When people have legally purchased a DVD and a DVD drive, then they have the right to play the DVD, since doing that is what they have paid for.
In other words, “circumvention provisions” are not protected under the DMCA if they don’t actually circumvent copying the work in order to violate copyright. Lexmark found this out when they tried to use the DMCA to prevent someone from making Lexmark-compatible printer ink cartridges. Lexmark found out that the “anti-circumvention” provisions of the DMCA didn’t apply here, because the DMCA is an anti-copying law, not an anti-competition law.
In an entirely similar fashion, the mere naming of CSS as a “copying prevention device” does not make it one. VLC implements CSS in order to play DVDs, not to copy them. Therefore, anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA do not apply to VLC software.
The Lexmark case is very strong legal precedent for this. I’m sorry that I didn’t make this clear enough so that you were able to follow the reasoning.
As for the fact that VLC is written in France, that too is a red herring. If a French website hosted an illegal copy of a movie for which an American firm held the copyright, then the American firm would indeed be able to get the infringing copy taken down.
Edited 2011-10-07 05:26 UTC
The finding was the the DMCA applies to circumvention of copyright protection mechanisms, but Lexmark just was trying to apply it as a protection of a functional mechanism (their printer-toner system). It showed the weakness of the DMCA as Lexmark was trying to apply it, but not in the general case. Reading your links (which I did initially) the findings were that
A movie and VLC are different, as VLC may violate specifically the DMCA (copyright circumvention clause), where-as France likely already has copyright laws that would cover hosting a copyrighted movie. That is why an American firm could prosecute/take-down a copyright infringement in France.
No. VLC does not copy videos, it plays them.
A person who has purchased (or rented) a DVD has paid for the right to play it. They have not paid for the right to copy it and sell that copy to someone else.
Anti-copying laws are meant to prevent the latter but not the former acts.
Playing is not copying. Therefore, a person (having paid for a DVD) is allowed to access the DVD, in order to play it. This is a legal act.
The DMCA is not meant to prevent this legal act of playing the DVD (rather, it is meant to prevent the illegal act of copying the DVD on to another media for the purposes of re-sale to someone else).
Since VLC implements CSS for the purposes of a legal act (playing a DVD), and not for any illegal act of copying, then the anti-copying provisions of the DMCA simply do not apply to VLC. VLC doesn’t copy videos.
Just as the anti-copying provisions of the DMCA did not apply to Static Control Components (who reverse engineered a chip so that their generic toner products could still be used with Lexmark printers).
Why is this apparently so difficult for you to grasp?
I grasp the DMCA. It contains a provision which prohibits the circumvention of copyright protection mechanisms. The Lexmark mechanism didn’t protect copyrighted works, so the DMCA didnt apply.
VLC does contain a mechanism to circumvent a copyright protection mechanism (CSS), so it may violate the DMCA.
I think this explains it fairly well:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/anticircumvention/faq.cgi#QID91
I’m asserting that VLC circumvents the access control mechanism CSS, which is disallowed by the DMCA. By the way VLC can also copy DVDs.
I’m sorry, can you point out what I’m not grasping?
The DMCA contains provisions to prevent copying. Its provisions do not apply to, and are not meant to prevent, playing a DVD, which is a legal act.
While I am asserting that all DVD players work by accessing the DVD contents and unscrambling CSS, for the purposes of playing the DVD, which is a legal act allowed by the DMCA and every other law one can think of. If it was illegal, then there would be no DVD players.
If that is so, then that would be illegal in the US I suppose. In my country, format and media shifting for personal use is OK, the illegal act is re-sale of a copy.
If your interpretation is correct, then there would be no reason for VLC to remove any “copy” function it may have. If you are correct, merely by being competition that the DVD Forum did not want makes VLC illegal. What incentive is there for VLC to be a player only? How would such a law serve the people?
If my interpretation is correct, then circumvention of copyright controls is only illegal if it is done to copy content. If my interpretation is correct, then the DMCA can be seen as an enhancement of copyright laws, and hence fair enough, in that it did not make illegal anything that was legal before. If my interpretation is correct, then manufacturers cannot abuse the DMCA as an anti-competition mechanism (i.e. as a monopoly creator).
If my interpretation is correct, then the Lexmark vs SCC case makes sense.
Edited 2011-10-07 09:11 UTC
I don’t believe the DMCA makes any allowances based on for what purpose you circumvent a copyright protection mechanisms: if you circumvent CSS to legally play OR copy a DVD, both are disallowed by the DMCA. This is why people, understandably, dislike it.
This is the a huge part of controversy surrounding the DMCA, that it disallows people to do what they want with their legally purchased media. You probably wouldn’t even know about the DMCA if this weren’t the case.
DVD players are not circumventing the mechanism: they are using it as intended; they have been granted the appropriate keys. You’re not breaking encryption if someone honestly gave you the key.
The CSS unscrambler (encryption is too strong a word for CSS) written by Videolan, called libdvdcss, does not use any illegally obtained keys. libdvdcss uses only information read from the legally purchased (or rented) DVD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libdvdcss
“libdvdcss is not to be confused with DeCSS. While DeCSS uses a cracked DVD player key to perform authentication, libdvdcss uses a generated list of possible player keys. If none of them works (for instance, when the DVD drive enforces region coding) a brute force algorithm is tried so the region code of a DVD is ignored. Unlike DeCSS, libdvdcss has never been legally challenged.”
In effect, libdvdcss does not use the method of unscrambling CSS on DVDs as provided by the DVD Forum. Instead libdvdcss uses different methods.
Edited 2011-10-07 11:31 UTC
Why is encryption too strong of a word, btw?
On the libdvdcss method: it uses a generated list of possible player keys. So if I sit down at your machine start trying to guess your password from a list of common passwords, that’s not me trying to break your authentication mechanism?
It doesn’t matter if they use a different method either, they circumvent it, they get around it, that’s the point.
Additionally, Debian won’t distribute libdvdcss due to legal issues.
Because the method itself only calls itself the “Content Scrambling System”.
It is necessary to “get around it” in order to do the very thing, to play the DVD, that the DVD is intended for. If you don’t de-scramble the video data, the DVD is not fit for purpose. It is illegal to sell things that are not fit for purpose. That is the point.
Due to risk. People like you, and probably the DVD Forum, try to pretend that the DMCA makes legal things illegal. Debian can’t afford to defend in court, so it is not worth their risk shipping libdvdcss. This is not an admission that libdvdcss is illegal.
Edited 2011-10-07 12:04 UTC
Doesn’t mean it’s not encryption. It is. They just didn’t stick it on the label in exactly those words.
Yes, and the getting around part is the thing that DMCA disallows. But thanks, as you’ve just admitted that libdvdcss “gets around” CSS. Since
the DMCA states that you’re not allowed to do that, you’ve just proven my point. Thanks again.
Don’t act like I’m being obtuse here, I’m just reading the DMCA and applying the definitions. I think Debian has a better view of the risk of the DMCA than either you or I. Or was I mistaken and you are actually a lawyer? And in that case you should explain your expert legal argument to the Debian packaging team and they can include it in the next release.
The DMCA disallows circumventing a “protection measure” in order to copy protected content without permission. Agreed.
Your not being obtuse at all, you state your position quite well. The majority of people would probably agree with you that the DMCA probably disallows getting around CSS even for the legitimate purpose of playing the DVD.
I would word it differently and call this act “circumventing a protection measure for a non-protected purpose”. Since playing the DVD isn’t actually what the protection measure is supposed to be protecting, I would pursue a case that one hadn’t actually circumvented the protection (insofar as the purposes of the DMCA law applies). Clearly I am not a lawyer, but I do think there is a sound argument here.
To give you a picture (because that sometimes helps people see an opposing viewpoint): it is a bit like having a law requiring barriers to prevent people from falling down staircases, but the DVD Forum have put the barriers both at the top and the bottom of the staircase. It is quite debatable if the law actually applies to someone who goes around the barrier at the bottom of the staircase.
The Debian packaging team can’t afford to take this kind of argument to court, and it simply isn’t worth their while even to try.
Edited 2011-10-08 08:54 UTC
The DMCA disallows circumventing the access mechanism of copyrighted works for any purpose. Unless you can find a section of the act which restricts it for the purposes of copying copyrighted works, then that is its meaning. If you can find such a section, then I’d gladly change my opinion.
DVD region codes were not a method to lock out competition. It’s been used from the start to keep prices down in regions of the world where a DVD would be expensive otherwise.
For example, in Europe (UK in this instance) a new movie would have cost around £25 on DVD when they first released. In india, the same movie may have been released there in a difference region code, and it may have only cost the equivalent of £5.
However the cost of living and wages mean that while someone would get £800 wage in the UK and that £25 not being much, in India the wage would only be £10. Very expensive, but not nearly as expensive as it would have been if the DVDs were the same price for everyone world wide.
It also stops poeple buying in bulk from a cheap DVD sales, such as India and taking them back to UK and selling at UK prices, making a large markup and evading tax.
There is also instances where movies have been Banned in certain countries, or the release date has been pushed by due to post production, voice overs, subtitles, art work etc. And then a region code would be used to stop the playback of movies at the ‘wrong time’ of release.
The region code is part of the CSS licensed by the DVD Forum. DVDs had to license the region CSS in order to allow play back DVDs encrypted with a region.
There is no monoply when DVD can be released without CSS, no region code, and hardware such as PC DVD Drives, standalone DVD players etc could if they wanted to, sell without any CSS/region included.
There are lots of region free movies out there, and there is no monopoly created by CSS.
The practice of having a higher price just for Australia is actually against the law in my country.
The law in my country specifically allows “parallel importing”, or as it is sometimes called, “grey product”, in order to get around attempts by some countries to charge Australians more.
The same is true for New Zealand, I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parallel_import#Australia
It even goes as far as having many TVs and DVD players that can play either PAL or NTSC.
One DVD player that I bought came with a firmware upgrade disc, specifically for Australia, which removed the region code restrictions that the player had by default. Without the ability to remove the region code restrictions, AFAIK the DVD player would not be legal to sell in Australia (or New Zealand).
“The presence of parallel imports in the marketplace prevents the holder from exploiting the monopoly further by market segmentation, i.e. by applying different prices to different consumers.
Consumer organisations tend to support parallel importation as it offers consumers more choice and lower prices, provided that consumers retain equivalent legal protection to locally sourced products (e.g. in the form of warranties with international effect), and competition is not diminished.”
If a US DVD exporter can make a profit selling it for $5 in India, they can also make a profit selling it for $5 in Australia/NZ.
Edited 2011-10-07 11:55 UTC
Thats a pretty nice law you have there. We’re affectionatly known as ‘Rip off Britan’ because of the stupidly high prices we’re having to put up with, and its not always vs other places in the world either. Its being ripped off by companies and trades in the UK, by the UK people themselfs. Funny but true.
Libsdvdcss are released by VideoLAN under the GPL. It can be hosted anywere, even in the USA if they wanted to as the software is not a copy of the CSS software or any copyright secure keys used by the DVD Forum, but rather Video LAN’s own work, created and released under the GPL.
Copyright movies are copyright by the whoever made them. Copyright law exists in France, most other EU places will honor copyright issues as well from a takedown notice just in the same way if music, software, books, pictures or anything else that has been copyrighted.
Let me just quote the VideoLAN’s website just once more so we’re all clear on the matter of libdvdCCS that allows playback.
CE 10e et 9e sousÂsect URL http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichJuriAdmin.do?oldAction=rechJuri…
From the pages you’ve linked, Judge Merritt said;
So DMCA is, was and continues to provide measures for the “prohibit the pirating of copyright-protected works such as movies, music, and computer programs”
Regardless of how you want to read into the DMCA, it no longer affects DVD play back anymore, but you seem hell bent on trying to pass on the rights of the rest of the world in the USA for some reason.
And you are right in one instance. VLC was never illegal – American’s using it to watch or rip DVDs were using it illegally.
Actually, you own copies of movies. There is no license with movies, just like with books.
Pointless measures created by panick’ed politicians and pushed by companies making a good buck.
With your argument any punishment is ok.
Off with their heads!
I believe that is important to maintain intellectual property, this ACTA act in my country – Portugal – violates two important laws or rights:
The first is that the proportion of the punishment to the crime. If the US wants that a single infringement be punish with a fine starting in $150.000 USD, imagine a single MP3 track to be punish in this way. Its completely illegal in my country.
The second, this act wants to invert the “innocent until proven guilty” right, by given the power to punishing without trial, and only by allegations to commit a crime or infringement. This is also illegal in my country, and I believe even in US, but laws are bend to the will of few.
In a few years, if nothing done against these laws-benders, I believe that the Internet as we know will disappear – maybe it appears another “Internet” parallel to the one that exists today, but more free.
Sorry for my English.
Innocent until proven guilty, is not really popular outside of common law countries. I bet Portugal, like most other Civil Law countries, have the Schroedinger’s Cat of guilt/innocence doctrine. But depriving someone of possessions without a trial is however illegal.
Having studied my own county’s constitution a lot, I can say that ACTA would violate the constitution without even touching on human rights issues. And the article that would be violated can’t be changed without a 75% approval in a referendum.
without consulting the people. We have no inbuilt human rights laws in our constitution, nor freedom of speech. We’re screwed.
We could argue that Australia mostly relies on British common law, and that this violates British common law (innocent until proven guilty), but no politician in Australia would care about this. I shall have to investigate further.
Dave
There is no freedom of speech in the UK either
Pretty good summary thom. I’ve got my aluminum bat ready. I have supplies to make several boards with nails in them. Who’s with me.
Edit: wait, can we take this stuff on airplanes? how the hell else are we going to get to dutchland. I’m certainly not taking a boat. I think we may have to fight this one out with words. Lets start a petitiononline.com page. That way they’ll have to listen
Edit 2: sigh this keeps getting worse and worse
Edited 2011-10-05 02:51 UTC
I’m proud to see that two Dutch representatives, on behalf of ALDE, are the biggest opponents of this deal. I’m of course talking about Sophie in ‘t Veld and Jeanine-Plasschaert:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7tqyKD3e0I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7wCDxaxxvk
Why do EU citizens let US try to enforce their stupid laws in EU? ACTA isn’t the only toxic law they try to shove down our throats. In the name of “defense of intellectual property”, “war on terrorism”, “think of the children” they tried multiple times to pass some laws which can affect our freedom, rights and privacy. Last time I’ve checked, EU isn’t under US sovereignty.
We should make clear to them that this is unacceptable. After all, we don try to coerce them to pass laws or to do anything. As a matter of reciprocity, they shouldn’t try to interfere with our internal affairs.
Please don’t blame the US citizens. We don’t want these laws here in the US or in other countries. We did not get the chance to vote on them. Not that voting matters anymore. If voting made a difference the government would ban it. The last three presidents had a hand in passing this illegal mess. Both parties supported it because members of the RIAA poured millions into their pockets. “Land of the free” is just a memory.
Fully agreed. Out of experience – Americans rock. I’m not being sarcastic – I really like you guys. I’d take the average American over the average Dutchman anytime.
Edited 2011-10-05 14:00 UTC
I’m not blaming the regular US citizens, I’m blaming “The Man”.
But in a democracy, aren’t we all “The Man”?
These are amongst why people all over the world hold US in high regard:
and
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/articles/2011/10/07/romney_god_…
You are confusing “in high regard” with “dislike your gung-ho superiority complex”.
Because there’s a reciprocal benefit to both parties.
Right, but only in the way that any extortion scheme has reciprocal benefits. You don’t get your store trashed, we get some money…
It’s not new news but, holy bejeebus! USG is REALLY getting out of hand. Time to prune the hedges…
🙁
Remember all those cease-and-desist and ‘pay us $2,000, and we won’t file suit against you’ letters? The evidence was collected privately. And, as long as people are part of public networks, that aspect of policing isn’t going away anytime soon. The difference, I think, is that this law aims to make it easier for the police to target and extract compensation/punishment from/for people.
Look, I know that we all don’t want a Big Brother state. But, when the shit hits the proverbial fan — and if this law ever sees the light of day — it’s primarily going to be an issue for the great unwashed among us who have no idea how to anonymize ourselves properly. That doesn’t mean I’m in favor of this law. I’m not. But there are always countermeasures, and that’s what it might come down to…
But corporations are people too!
I just don’t get how it is a human right to steal.
Bad attempt at trolling. Sorry, not gonna fly.
The problem isn’t that stealing be or not an human right, cause it isn’t. The problem is how they determine that you have steal.
I.E. You have an wifi router that is cracked and someone use your network to steal. They want that you be the responsible for that steal. Without investigate deeper cause is very difficult to determine that abuse.
Another example is that a family can have the Internet access cut-off just because the infringement of one of the elements of the family. Imagine that my daughter make an illegal download and I stay without Internet. This is also abusive and attempt to the freedom of individuals. These examples are human rights abuse.
I would add the stipulation of due dilligence in owning and using a wifi router. If your running wide open, with WEP or with a weak password then your neglegence did indeed contribute to the copyright infringement (or at minimum, the neglegence of the company that shipped you a wifi router with weak default settings).
But that might be just me as I don’t fuck around when it comes to computer and network security.
jabbotts,
“I would add the stipulation of due dilligence in owning and using a wifi router. If your running wide open, with WEP or with a weak password then your neglegence did indeed contribute to the copyright infringement”
Do you realize that this is contrary to alot of initiatives for public wifi? For example see fon.com. Open hotspots can sometimes be deliberate, and it’s not morally wrong – at worst, it’s a violation of your ISP’s terms. Many campuses/coffeehouses/hotels/etc have open hotspots.
As for copyright lawsuits, well that is a problem. Unfortunately the courts have no easy way to deal with the fact that IP addresses don’t correlate to individuals – so they have to drastically lower the burden of proof, to the point of stabbing in the dark sometimes, in order to try some of these cases. Since the burden of proof is so low, it’s quite likely that many innocent people are caught up in the dragnet. Even if a case is completely bogus, it can still be cheaper to settle than to hire defense lawyers and fight it.
If you have any solutions to these problems, I would like to hear them.