3 ms·

Out of curiosity, do you have any insight about how this works when applied to other mechanisms and tools? YouTube-dl has a lot of use cases, among which are t

• bitwize 6y ago
  > Why are VCRs permissible to distribute but not this software? 1) Because the Supreme Court -- in a narrow 5-4 decision -- ruled them so in the "Betamax case" after the MPAA tried -- and up to that point succeeded -- to have them banned as tools of copyright infringement. The MPAA was sore about this for decades afterward, maintaining that the SCOTUS was simply wrong as a matter of law. My girlfriend's stepfather was a high-powered attorney for the MPAA, and he banned the use of VCRs in the house because to use them to record off the TV was, in his view, unquestionably copyright infringement, SCOTUS ruling or no SCOTUS ruling. And he was one of the foremost experts in the country on this area of the law. 2) The Court, in its Betamax decision, said that "[T]he sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses." However, the DMCA explicitly closes that loophole. Any tool or device whose primary purpose is to circumvent copyright protection is illegal to use or distribute -- save for certain carve-out exceptions including security research, interoperability research, and law enforcement use -- irrespective of whether it has "substantial noninfringing uses" as would, for example, a tool to strip out Denuvo protection from your legitimately purchased copy of Doom Eternal so you can play the game without Denuvo pegging your CPU. The fact that DRM is an irritant that owners of legitimate copies may wish to be removed is immaterial; providing the means to remove it is still a crime.
  • JoeAltmaier 6y ago
    Clearly that's pretty silly. A photocopier fits the rule of devices that violate copyright. So does a camera. Yet they are for sale.
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
• gamblor956 6y ago
  Because VCRs were deemed to be a tool used primarily for fair use in the Betamax case. The analysis that made VCRs possible (and DVRs, for a while) wouldn't hold up today. In a nutshell: When Betamax and VHS VCRs came out, tv shows generally aired once, did not repeat, and were not available for purchase on an individual basis. Recording the show to watch later (aka, "time shifting") was the only means some people had to watch an episode. And importantly: because the episode was not otherwise available (i.e., it wasn't sold or rebroadcast) there was no financial harm to the content owner for copies being made. DVRs like Tivo relied on this logic as well. And it worked, until the studios caught on and began making film and TV content available for purchase on an individual basis, and offering the content for transitory consumption (aka streaming). By doing so, they eliminated the "time-shifting" rationale of the Betamax case (by offering downloadable copies, albeit at a higher fee, they've also addressed the "connectivity shifting" rationale techies keep bringing up). And indeed, that is why Tivo and other companies stopped selling standalone DVRs in the U.S. and Europe a few years ago. (All of the DVRs you can find today in the U.S. are offered by cable companies or the subscription service providers (Hulu, Youtube TV, etc.) pursuant to streaming and time-shifted viewing licenses they have with the studios.) Thus, even if the Betamax case was still binding precedent (it hasn't been since the DMCA), it wouldn't apply today.