Decius wrote:
] ] File-swappers who distribute a single copy of a
] ] prerelease movie on the Internet can be imprisoned for up
] ] to three years, according to a bill that President Bush
] ] signed into law on Wednesday.

No one here is going to say pirating things is legal. Its not. You will get punished for it. However, like some of the "manditory" drug sentencing, this way too extreme.

What I am surprised about is no one (other than CNN) is reporting what *else* this law does. It protects starts ups and other projects that circumvent DVDs "Do not skip" feature among other things.

The MPAA had said that aftermarket devices that skip through scenes or change dialog are illegal because they are modifying the MPAA's copyrighted work. However this law basically says changing the content on a DVD, or skipping through scenes/removing dialog is perfectly legal. "Unlocking" your DVD to get around this annoying features is now legal. Creating devices that control the DVD, even if they circumvent, is legal.

This is a good thing for Fair Use. I'm willing to put up with some larger than necessary punishments for an illegal act for that.

Acidus wrote:
] This is a good thing for Fair Use. I'm willing to put up with
] some larger than necessary punishments for an illegal act for
] that.

I'm not. This exception is simply to allow conservative christians to avoid hearing dirty words. While I support their right to do that, I don't feel that an exception should have been needed for that. The DMCA is bad law. There are all kinds of fair use scenarios that it screws with. This is just one, backed by a particularly powerful constituancy.

] The DMCA is bad law. There are all kinds
] of fair use scenarios that it screws with. This is just one,
] backed by a particularly powerful constituancy.

Sure there are. How much has that constituancy of black shirted punks who back that "Linux" thing affected our legal rights in the last 6 years of so since DeCSS? The silence of their successes is deafening.

The point, my dear Decius, is this is legal precedence to do I want with the content of a DVD that I purchased, without paying the studios. The glass is half full to me on this new law.

Acidus wrote:
] Sure there are. How much has that constituancy of black
] shirted punks who back that "Linux" thing affected our legal
] rights in the last 6 years of so since DeCSS? The silence of
] their successes is deafening.

Successes? Where? 2600 lost their case and was prohibited from publishing decss. Johanson was prosecuted. Literally everyone who published decss was at least threatened, including Rattle. You cannot play most DVD's under linux without jumping through a lot of hoops, usually illegally. The fight they've been fighting is a good one but I'm not convinced they've really won much in the way of rights.

] The point, my dear Decius, is this is legal precedence to do I
] want with the content of a DVD that I purchased,
] without paying the studios.

No it is not. Not at all. It is in no way a legal precedent to do anything at all without paying the studios. If you pay the studios, you are allowed to skip limited portions of the DVD in very specific circumstances as long as you don't save a copy of the resulting content. You cannot add, recontextualize, make derivative works, cryptanalyze, or do anything else. All they have said is that its ok to make a DVD player that won't play the dirty stuff. Thats it. Precedence isn't even the right word here as this is a law and not a court case.

Here is the text. In particular note the last paragraph.

(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 to be used, at the direction of a member of a private household, for such making imperceptible, if no fixed copy of the altered version of the motion picture is created by such computer program or other technology.'; and

(4) by adding at the end the following:
`For purposes of paragraph (11), the term `making imperceptible' does not include the addition of audio or video content that is performed or displayed over or in place of existing content in a motion picture.

`Nothing in paragraph (11) shall be construed to imply further rights under section 106 of this title, or to have any effect on defenses or limitations on rights granted under any other section of this title or under any other paragraph of this section.'.

Decius wrote:
] You cannot play most DVD's under linux without jumping through
] a lot of hoops, usually illegally.

My TiVo runs Linux and plays every DVD I've ever tried, no hoops required. It also burns MPEG video to DVD-R/RW.

noteworthy wrote:
] Decius wrote:
] ] You cannot play most DVD's under linux without jumping
] through
] ] a lot of hoops, usually illegally.
]
] My TiVo runs Linux and plays every DVD I've ever tried, no
] hoops required. It also burns MPEG video to DVD-R/RW.

Its also a commercial product with a commercially licenced closed source (hardware?) decryptor.