6 ms·

That's how the media industry wants to frame it - that unless you're a developer working in this specific field, you're unaffected. But you are very affected -

by MikeUt 6y ago

That's how the media industry wants to frame it - that unless you're a developer working in this specific field, you're unaffected. But you are very affected - you are denied the use of software that this law prevents a small minority of developers from distributing. So we get DVD players that refuse to play region-locked media, or can't record streaming shows, regressing us back to before VCRs entered the market.

bitwize 6y ago
Regressing us back to before VCRs entered the market is the entire point. Jack Valenti went to his grave still believing that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in the Betamax case. He's not alone, many if not most of the top players in the industry feel that way. A personal story: my girlfriend's parents lived and worked for the MPAA in Washington, D.C. as part of their legal team. Throughout the 80s and 90s, they banned VCRs altogether in the house because in their opinion, despite the Betamax ruling, recording a show was still copyright infringement, and VCRs were illegal piracy devices. Strictly speaking, they're right: the Betamax decision did not allow all recording of personal copies, nor did it make "time-shifting" fair use. All it said was that in this one specific instance: time-shifting in order to gain access to a program you otherwise would have no access to at all, allowances may be made under the fair-use doctrine and thus the VCR has a non-infringing use and is only mostly an illegal piracy device. Fun fact: this is why the DMCA also requires all VCRs sold in the USA to come with Macrovision. Another story: Recently, Tom Cruise was recorded berating the crew on the set of Mission: Impossible 6 in a swear-filled rant because he caught two crew members standing closer than social-distancing orders permitted. Cruise was afraid that if word got out that they were lax on social distancing, the government would shut the production down and shut other film productions down, putting cast and crew members out of work and rendering (some of) them unable to feed their families. He displayed startling and commendable (especially given his Scientology training) awareness and empathy for people on the set who weren't millionaire celebrities and might be living paycheck to paycheck as a gaffer, make-up artist, caterer, or something -- even as he shrieked at his own people. To people in the movie business, piracy is like that. It threatens to shut down the entire industry and put hundreds of thousands of good honest people out of work. There is no greater evil than a movie pirate, who steals food from the mouths of hardworking film crew members and their children, in order to avoid paying the fifteen bucks or whatever it is now to see a movie during its theatrical run, or waiting a bit to pay an even smaller amount to see it on DVD or streaming. Therefore, you can't give a pirate an inch of quarter, lest they consign the entire glorious film industry to the dustbin of history. This isn't just cigar-chomping studio executives crafting a good lie to lobby to legislators and government officials so they protect their vast fortunes. This is what they actually believe. This is how they actually think. So to them, Section 1201 is not an awful law. It is part of the great American tradition of protecting the little guy and allowing them to prosper in the land of the free -- and it is absolutely necessary. When weighing the very livelihoods of hardworking film-crew members against the complaints of a few whiny nerds who could otherwise get cushy jobs elsewhere, which would you -- as a lawmaker or judge -- side with?
- gzer0 6y ago
  Your entire arguement is backed by a single anecdote of Tom Cruise. On top of that, your entire premise is the following statement: "Regressing us back to before VCRs entered the market is the entire point." First of all, let me point out, this statement alone is beyond absurd and I will not be giving it any legitimacy whatsoever. Let me put it bluntly, you're wrong, and here's why: Users don’t experience Section 1201 as a copyright protection. They experience it as the reason they can’t fix their tractor [1], repair their car [2], or even buy cheaper printer ink [2]. And attempts to get exemptions to this law for these purposes—which, again, are unrelated to copyright infringement and create absurd conditions for users trying to use things they own—are always met with resistance. Professor Jessica Litman, of University of Michigan Law School, laid out the problem of 1201 clearly: The business that make products with embedded software have used the anti-circumvention provisions to discourage the marketing of compatible after-market parts or hobble independent repair and maintenance businesses. Customers who would prefer to repair their broken products rather than discard and replace them face legal obstacles they should not. It’s unreasonable to tell the owner of a tractor that if her tractor needs repairs, she ought to petition the Librarian of Congress for permission to make those repairs. 1201 covers pretty much anything that has a computer in it. In 1998, that meant a DVD; in 2020, it means the Internet of Things, from TVs to refrigerators to e-books to tractors. Which is why farmers trying to repair, modify or test those things—farmers, independent mechanics, security researchers, people making ebooks accessible to those with print disabilities, and so on—either have to abandon their work, risk being in violation of the law (including criminal liability), or ask the Library of Congress for an exemption to the law every three years. Put simply, the existing scheme doesn’t discourage piracy. Instead, it prevents people from truly owning their own devices; and, as Litman put it, “prevents licensed users from making licensed uses.” The intent of the DMCA 22 years ago was to discourage copyright infringement but create space for innovation and expression, for individuals as well as Hollywood and service providers. Over the course of the last two decades, however, many have forgotten who is supposed to occupy that space. We need to remember that this is not “Big Content v Big Tech” and ensure that users take center stage. > When weighing the very livelihoods of hardworking film-crew members against the complaints of a few whiny nerds who could otherwise get cushy jobs elsewhere, which would you -- as a lawmaker or judge -- side with? Excuse me? Everyone from Farmers, to Truck drivers, to mechanics, are ALL negatively affected. Not just "whiny nerds". [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/john-deere-really-doesnt-want-you-own-tractor https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/john-deere-really-does... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/one-weird-law-interferes-security-research-remix-culture-and-even-car-repair https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/one-weird-law-interfer...
swiley 6y ago
Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear: Normal people won't notice how bad it is until a bunch of stuff is messed up.

by MikeUt 6y ago

bitwize 6y ago

Regressing us back to before VCRs entered the market is the entire point. Jack Valenti went to his grave still believing that the Supreme Court made the wrong decision in the Betamax case. He's not alone, many if not most of the top players in the industry feel that way. A personal story: my girlfriend's parents lived and worked for the MPAA in Washington, D.C. as part of their legal team. Throughout the 80s and 90s, they banned VCRs altogether in the house because in their opinion, despite the Betamax ruling, recording a show was still copyright infringement, and VCRs were illegal piracy devices. Strictly speaking, they're right: the Betamax decision did not allow all recording of personal copies, nor did it make "time-shifting" fair use. All it said was that in this one specific instance: time-shifting in order to gain access to a program you otherwise would have no access to at all, allowances may be made under the fair-use doctrine and thus the VCR has a non-infringing use and is only mostly an illegal piracy device. Fun fact: this is why the DMCA also requires all VCRs sold in the USA to come with Macrovision. Another story: Recently, Tom Cruise was recorded berating the crew on the set of Mission: Impossible 6 in a swear-filled rant because he caught two crew members standing closer than social-distancing orders permitted. Cruise was afraid that if word got out that they were lax on social distancing, the government would shut the production down and shut other film productions down, putting cast and crew members out of work and rendering (some of) them unable to feed their families. He displayed startling and commendable (especially given his Scientology training) awareness and empathy for people on the set who weren't millionaire celebrities and might be living paycheck to paycheck as a gaffer, make-up artist, caterer, or something -- even as he shrieked at his own people. To people in the movie business, piracy is like that. It threatens to shut down the entire industry and put hundreds of thousands of good honest people out of work. There is no greater evil than a movie pirate, who steals food from the mouths of hardworking film crew members and their children, in order to avoid paying the fifteen bucks or whatever it is now to see a movie during its theatrical run, or waiting a bit to pay an even smaller amount to see it on DVD or streaming. Therefore, you can't give a pirate an inch of quarter, lest they consign the entire glorious film industry to the dustbin of history. This isn't just cigar-chomping studio executives crafting a good lie to lobby to legislators and government officials so they protect their vast fortunes. This is what they actually believe. This is how they actually think. So to them, Section 1201 is not an awful law. It is part of the great American tradition of protecting the little guy and allowing them to prosper in the land of the free -- and it is absolutely necessary. When weighing the very livelihoods of hardworking film-crew members against the complaints of a few whiny nerds who could otherwise get cushy jobs elsewhere, which would you -- as a lawmaker or judge -- side with?

gzer0 6y ago
Your entire arguement is backed by a single anecdote of Tom Cruise. On top of that, your entire premise is the following statement: "Regressing us back to before VCRs entered the market is the entire point." First of all, let me point out, this statement alone is beyond absurd and I will not be giving it any legitimacy whatsoever. Let me put it bluntly, you're wrong, and here's why: Users don’t experience Section 1201 as a copyright protection. They experience it as the reason they can’t fix their tractor [1], repair their car [2], or even buy cheaper printer ink [2]. And attempts to get exemptions to this law for these purposes—which, again, are unrelated to copyright infringement and create absurd conditions for users trying to use things they own—are always met with resistance. Professor Jessica Litman, of University of Michigan Law School, laid out the problem of 1201 clearly: The business that make products with embedded software have used the anti-circumvention provisions to discourage the marketing of compatible after-market parts or hobble independent repair and maintenance businesses. Customers who would prefer to repair their broken products rather than discard and replace them face legal obstacles they should not. It’s unreasonable to tell the owner of a tractor that if her tractor needs repairs, she ought to petition the Librarian of Congress for permission to make those repairs. 1201 covers pretty much anything that has a computer in it. In 1998, that meant a DVD; in 2020, it means the Internet of Things, from TVs to refrigerators to e-books to tractors. Which is why farmers trying to repair, modify or test those things—farmers, independent mechanics, security researchers, people making ebooks accessible to those with print disabilities, and so on—either have to abandon their work, risk being in violation of the law (including criminal liability), or ask the Library of Congress for an exemption to the law every three years. Put simply, the existing scheme doesn’t discourage piracy. Instead, it prevents people from truly owning their own devices; and, as Litman put it, “prevents licensed users from making licensed uses.” The intent of the DMCA 22 years ago was to discourage copyright infringement but create space for innovation and expression, for individuals as well as Hollywood and service providers. Over the course of the last two decades, however, many have forgotten who is supposed to occupy that space. We need to remember that this is not “Big Content v Big Tech” and ensure that users take center stage. > When weighing the very livelihoods of hardworking film-crew members against the complaints of a few whiny nerds who could otherwise get cushy jobs elsewhere, which would you -- as a lawmaker or judge -- side with? Excuse me? Everyone from Farmers, to Truck drivers, to mechanics, are ALL negatively affected. Not just "whiny nerds". [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/john-deere-really-doesnt-want-you-own-tractor https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2016/12/john-deere-really-does... [2] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/one-weird-law-interferes-security-research-remix-culture-and-even-car-repair https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/10/one-weird-law-interfer...

swiley 6y ago

Yeah, I guess I wasn't clear: Normal people won't notice how bad it is until a bunch of stuff is messed up.