3 ms·
Let's take a quick look at the understanding of Copyright law that this litigant seems to possess: >Before Section 1201, the ownership of ideas was tempered by
by 6stringmerc 10y ago
Let's take a quick look at the understanding of Copyright law that this litigant seems to possess:
>Before Section 1201, the ownership of ideas was tempered by constitutional protections. Under this law, we had the right to tinker with gadgets that we bought, we had the right to record TV shows on our VCRs, and we had the right to remix songs.
Wait, before the DMCA "we" had the right to remix songs? Okay so this case is going nowhere because the person filing really doesn't quite understand the mechanics of basic Copyright. Just kind of throwing out the concept of "remixes" does a dis-service for the real nuances of how the rights/permissions/compensation system works, has been tested in court, etc.
The subject of ownership and repair is extremely complex and this lawsuit is frivolous when the matter is being actively tested by John Deere and various farmers. Maybe this person could assist in funding that challenge to 1201. There are some glaring flaws in this whole approach, from what I understand about Copyright law and the DMCA.
Also, I don't know why the EFF continues to push erroneous information regarding how Copyright, the DMCA, and Fair Use actually work:
>This ban applies even where people want to make noninfringing fair uses of the materials they are accessing.
Fair Use always trumps the DMCA; the nature of Fair Use, however, is subject to four factor tests, if an IP owner should feel compelled to assert the Fair Use was not in the spirit and letter of the law. Sometimes it seems like the EFF and TechDirt try to claim things that aren't true just to make a point. It's something that bothers me routinely in this subject in particular.
- ivank 10y ago> Fair Use always trumps the DMCA This is not necessarily the case. > However, in a number of cases involving DVD decryption courts have held that there is no fair use defense in circumvention cases. In Universal City Studios v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 294, 322 (S.D.N.Y. 2000), the court stated that "[i]f Congress had meant the fair use defense to apply to such actions, it would have said so."[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#Fair_Use_and_Circumvention https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention#Fair_Use_an...
- 6stringmerc 10y agoOkay, that's a reasonable point. I recall that issue too, but forgot they used the DMCA as the lock-up point, re: copyright. I think the scope is extremely limited in that case though, which is an excellent point of contention (because I don't agree with DMCA > Fair Use in principle).
- zekevermillion 10y agoThis case is well-planned activism. Bunnie and EFF team certainly know more about free speech and copyright than you or I do. Perhaps you don't likr the press release, but that necessarily simplifies and reduces the detailed arguments they will have to brief before the court.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoWe'll see about that. We can revisit this case when it goes further down the line, because I study copyright extensively and follow these cases often. It's not that I don't like the press release, it's that it contains factual errors and if you want to believe them, then that's not constructive.
- Dylan16807 10y agoYour entire last paragraph is the opposite of reality. So you should stop accusing people of factual errors.
- 6stringmerc 10y agoYou're selecting such a limited example that is so far out from what the implication of destroying DRM is that while I've made an error, I did so in a fundamentally honest fashion, which is the opposite of what the EFF is doing. They are lying about remix culture to engender support. So, which error is more egregious in the grand scheme of things?
- eigenmeister 10y agoThe major objection to 1201 is that it legally precludes what would be fair use in an unprotected work. Breaking HDCP, for instance, is still illegal for a use that would pass a four factors test. Do you have a link on the John Deere suit(s) you mentioned? That's one I'd be interested in following.
- dudifordMann 10y agoi think it relates to this: [1] http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere http://www.wired.com/2015/04/dmca-ownership-john-deere [2]https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/farmers-cant-legally-fix-their-own-john-deere-tractors-due-to-copyright-laws/ https://theamericangenius.com/business-news/farmers-cant-leg... it seems to concern the idea, as mentioned above, of ownership vs a permanent license of the goods purchased or in their minds.. leased?
- eigenmeister 10y agoI've read the wired piece; GP said 'is being actively tested by John Deere and various farmers', implying that there were other lawsuits.