Filmmakers Want The Right To Break DRM and Rip Blu-Rays (torrentfreak.com) 107
An anonymous reader shares a report: Breaking DRM or ripping Blu-Rays discs is a crime In the United States. While there are fair use exemptions, these don't apply to the public at large. Interestingly, filmmakers themselves are now urging the Copyright Office to lift some of the current restrictions, so that they can make the films they want. [...] Technically speaking it's not hard to rip a DVD or Blu-Ray disc nowadays, and the same is true for ripping content from Netflix or YouTube. However, people who do this are breaking the law. The DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions specifically forbid it. There are some exemptions, for educational use for example, and to allow for other types of fair use, but the line between legal and illegal is not always clear. Interestingly, filmmakers are not happy with the current law either. They often want to use small pieces of other videos in their films, but under the current exemptions, this is only permitted for documentaries. The International Documentary Association, Kartemquin Films, Independent Filmmaker Project, University of Film and Video Association and several other organizations hope this will change. In a comment to the Copyright Office, which is currently considering updates to the exemptions, they argue that all filmmakers should be allowed by break DRM and rip Blu-Rays. According to the filmmakers, the documentary genre is vaguely defined. This leads to a lot of confusion whether or not the exemptions apply. They, therefore, suggest to apply it to all filmmakers, instead of criminalizing those who don't identify themselves as documentarians.
Documentary torrents in 3...2...1... (Score:5, Funny)
If this works, then I forsee lots of documentaries on torrent sites.
Stand alone complex (Score:1)
Ripping is stealing (Score:5, Insightful)
Unless we do it. Ripping for archival or personal viewing is crass immoral and evil, but if we need to do it to make a buck it is holy and just
Re: (Score:2)
Ripping for archival or personal viewing is crass immoral and evil, but if we need to do it to make a buck it is holy and just
What about placing a disk on the Blu-Ray player, hitting play, then pointing a camera to a 4K TV and filming the video on there? That doesn't bypass any security measure as one isn't ripping the media nor breaking the DRM. Or does it?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Some devices will refuse to play the resulting video if they detect a watermark and the video doesn't come from a reliable source.
The player is playing a reliable source. The video camera is recording what it sees, and when the filmmaker uses that video in his product, it will be a "reliable source" and play just as well.
Filmmakers are being dishonest about their reasons for this. They don't need a law allowing them to rip a DVD to get video for use in their products, they just ask the copyright holder for approval and then it's ok. And in the short term, if they need to have something playing on a TV in a scene they're filming, the
Re: (Score:2)
In your example, a player that knows to look for Cinavia (or some other hypothetical watermark) would detect the watermark, the lack of key accompanying it, and interfere with playback.
Uhhh, I've got a Blu-ray of some video I want to include in my film. It's a legal Blu-ray, bought from a store and viewable using any Blu-ray player. There is no missing watermark or key. It plays fine.
I point my camera at the scene with the TV playing the Blu-ray video. It records the entire scene. I create a film including this scene. It may or may not be published in Blu-ray, but if it is, there will be a watermark and key for my film, and it, too, will play on any Blu-ray system.
So how does this "wat
Re: (Score:3)
What about placing a disk on the Blu-Ray player, hitting play, then pointing a camera to a 4K TV and filming the video on there?
Not only is that perfectly legal, the copyright industry even specifically cited it as the reason why it wasn't a terrible thing that the anti-circumvention clause prevented legal uses of copyrighted materials.
Re: (Score:3)
This kind of sarcasm is like making fun of how stupid and ignorant the average citizen is.
The average citizen is of average intelligence. I believe I could put that in the form of a proof. Your perception of the average citizen just tells us where you consider yourself compared to your peers.
Ahoy! (Score:1)
I am a film maker too!
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
I saw that one, she stuff her penis in your gaping ass. Gross.
Re: (Score:2)
Blu-Ray isn't encrypted - the key is well known to everyone now.
Huh? Of course it's encrypted. That the key is widely available doesn't change the mathematical fact.
The insidious thing is that, legally speaking, it doesn't have to be encrypted in order for it to be illegal to bypass. All that has to exist is some form of access control. The type (or effectiveness) doesn't matter.
Bona fide documentary film makers (Score:4, Insightful)
Funnily enough the FEC's case in Citizens United was that they weren't a bona fide documentary film maker but that Michael Moore was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (known as BCRA or McCain-Feingold Act) modified the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, 2 U.S.C. Section 441b to prohibit corporations and unions from using their general treasury to fund "electioneering communications" (broadcast advertisements mentioning a candidate in any context) within 30 days before a primary or 60 days before a general election. During the 2004 presidential campaign, a conservative nonprofit 501(c)(4) organization, Citizens United, filed a complaint before the Federal Election Commission (FEC) charging that advertisements for Michael Moore's film Fahrenheit 9/11, a docudrama critical of the Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, produced and marketed by a variety of corporate entities, constituted political advertising and thus could not be aired within the 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. The FEC dismissed the complaint after finding no evidence that broadcast advertisements featuring a candidate within the proscribed time limits had actually been made.[11] The FEC later dismissed a second complaint which argued that the movie itself constituted illegal corporate spending advocating the election or defeat of a candidate, which was illegal under the Taft-Hartley Act of 1947 and the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974. In dismissing that complaint, the FEC found that:
The complainant alleged that the release and distribution of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 constituted an independent expenditure because the film expressly advocated the defeat of President Bush and that by being fully or partially responsible for the film's release, Michael Moore and other entities associated with the film made excessive and/or prohibited contributions to unidentified candidates. The Commission found no reason to believe the respondents violated the Act because the film, associated trailers and website represented bona fide commercial activity, not "contributions" or "expenditures" as defined by the Federal Election Campaign Act.[12]
In response, Citizens United produced a documentary, called Celsius 41.11, highly critical of both FAHRENHEIT 9/11 and 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. The FEC, however, held that showing the movie and advertisements for it would violate the Federal Election Campaign Act, because Citizens United was not a bona fide commercial film maker.[13]
In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007. By early 2008, it sought to run television commercials to promote its political documentary Hillary: The Movie and to air the movie on DirecTV.[14]
Re:Bona fide documentary film makers (Score:4, Insightful)
In the wake of these decisions, Citizens United sought to establish itself as a bona fide commercial film maker before the 2008 elections, producing several documentary films between 2005 and 2007.
It's kind of funny. They behaved inauthentically and deceptively in order to establish that they were acting in good faith, so that they could abuse the law.
Re:Bona fide documentary film makers (Score:4, Informative)
Do you really think the government should be in the business of saying that Michael Moore's films are documentaries and were therefore OK but Citizens United's were campaign spending and hence were not?
They just did a sort of Socratic method series of queries and actions and ended up winning this Supreme Court case which held that First Amendment protections applied to both.
That seems to me far better than having some Democrat appointee ban CU's film and at the same time pretend Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was a documentary and not a tiresome propaganda piece, as Hitchens pointed out memorably here
Unfairenheit 9/11 - The lies of Michael Moore [slate.com]
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
In late 2002, almost a year after the al-Qaida assault on American society, I had an onstage debate with Michael Moore at the Telluride Film Festival. In the course of this exchange, he stated his view that Osama Bin Laden should be considered innocent until proven guilty. This was, he said, the American way. The intervention in Afghanistan, he maintained, had been at least to that extent unjustified. Something-I cannot guess what, since we knew as much then as we do now-has since apparently persuaded Moore that Osama Bin Laden is as guilty as hell. Indeed, Osama is suddenly so guilty and so all-powerful that any other discussion of any other topic is a dangerous "distraction" from the fight against him. I believe that I understand the convenience of this late conversion.
Fahrenheit 9/11 makes the following points about Bin Laden and about Afghanistan, and makes them in this order:
1) The Bin Laden family (if not exactly Osama himself) had a close if convoluted business relationship with the Bush family, through the Carlyle Group.
2) Saudi capital in general is a very large element of foreign investment in the United States.
3) The Unocal company in Texas had been willing to discuss a gas pipeline across Afghanistan with the Taliban, as had other vested interests.
4) The Bush administration sent far too few ground troops to Afghanistan and thus allowed far too many Taliban and al-Qaida members to escape.
5) The Afghan government, in supporting the coalition in Iraq, was purely risible in that its non-army was purely American.
6) The American lives lost in Afghanistan have been wasted. (This I divine from the fact that this supposedly "antiwar" film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq.)
It must be evident to anyone, despite the rapid-fire way in which Moore's direction eases the audience hastily past the contradictions, that these discrepant scatter shots do not cohere at any point. Either the Saudis run U.S. policy (through family ties or overwhelming economic interest), or they do not. As allies and patrons of the Taliban regime, they either opposed Bush's removal of it, or they did not. (They opposed the removal, all right: They wouldn't even let Tony Blair land his own plane on their soil at the time of the operation.) Either we sent too many troops, or were wrong to send any at all-the latter was Moore's view as late as 2002-or we sent too few. If we were going to make sure no Taliban or al-Qaida forces survived or escaped, we would have had to be more ruthless than I suspect that Mr. Moore is really recommending. And these are simply observations on what is "in" the film. If we turn to the fact
Re:Bona fide documentary film makers (Score:4, Informative)
The question is not whether Michael Moore's documentary was politically motivated, ha said repeatedly and explicitly that it was, there were two questions: Was the film advertised via broadcast within the period in which political broadcast advertisements are prohibited, and did those advertisements in and of themselves constitute political advertising? And second: Did the film constitute a corporate monetary contribution in favor of a candidate?
The to the first question was no - the film was not advertised via broadcast during the prohibited period, rendering the second part of that question moot. The answer to the second question was no - the film was commercial activity (the most profitable documentary ever, in fact) and so was not a contribution. There are any number of right-wing examples of this same rule, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, etc. were all flagrantly right-wing but did not qualify as contributions. This contrasts with Citizens United, who existed only for political reasons.
Also, this happened in 2005 so those "dems at the FEC" that you're complaining about were Republican appointees.
Re: (Score:2)
The to the first question was no - the film was not advertised via broadcast during the prohibited period, rendering the second part of that question moot. The answer to the second question was no - the film was commercial activity (the most profitable documentary ever, in fact) and so was not a contribution.
You realise your argument would give the government the power to ban films it didn't like so long as those films are not commercially successful? I'm guessing you're not a fan of the people currently in charge of the White House or Congress.
Don't you see a problem there? At least the CU vs FEC decision means the government doesn't have that power. Which means when people worry about Trump muzzling the media, that's one less reason for them to worry. And frankly given some of the things he said, the worry th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's depressing how many Americans seem intent on wrecking things like the First Amendment for a short term political gain.
As Benjamin Franklin observed "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety". The First Amendment is an essential liberty and trying to stop CU from make Moore-like partisan polemics/attack ad documentaries is a temporary safety.
I don't think people are particularly villainous. I think they're unprincipled and
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you really think the government should be in the business of saying that Michael Moore's films are documentaries and were therefore OK but Citizens United's were campaign spending and hence were not?
Well first, to give a direct and simple answer: Yes, the government should be "in the business" of deciding what legally constitutes a campaign contribution, and what does not.
To explain a bit more, the government should have some role in regulating campaign contributions, in order to prevent bribery and other forms of undue influence. Once you accept that, then before the government can even consider whether a given campaign contribution is legal, it needs to decide what constitutes a "campaign contribut
Re: (Score:1)
Documentaries or films are speech, not a campaign contribution. And the US government is not allowed to regulate speech.
Which is what the SCOTUS decided
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I think if you disagree you've lost touch of your principles quite frankly. E.g. if they banned Moore and allowed CU I think you'd be saying it was a First Amendment violation.
Re: (Score:2)
Documentaries or films are speech, not a campaign contribution.
Well it seems that was part of the dispute: How do you distinguish between a documentary film with a political slant and a campaign commercial pretending to be a documentary?
The answer seems to be: You can't. Not really.
None of that changes that Citizens United doesn't produce bona fide documentaries. They produce campaign advertisements disguised as documentaries. It's sort of like how late-night infomercials sometimes pretend to be talk shows. They're ads.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that changes that Citizens United doesn't produce bona fide documentaries. They produce campaign advertisements disguised as documentaries. It's sort of like how late-night infomercials sometimes pretend to be talk shows. They're ads.
You could say the same thing about Fahrenheit 9/11 and all the other crap Michael Moore has put out.
It's intellectually dishonest to claim that Michael Moore is putting out documentaries and CU is putting out advertising when both are doing pretty much the same thing - they produce advertisements to vote for one side, or at least not vote for the other. Plus of course there's the fact that the First Amendment says
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Back when the McCain Feingold bill was signed into law but President Bush he said there were 's
Be careful for what you wish for. (Score:5, Insightful)
Laws made to restrict people rights, will often come back to hurt others.
A weapon in one persons hand is a tool in an others. When making laws and rules, that restrict using a tool and/or a weapon (being physical or abstract) it needs to be done carefully, with planning and research. Not a gut instinct and pushing a majority vote based on party lines.
Re: (Score:1)
I predict that this request will be resolved as follows: the wealthy will get what they want, and the rest of us will get nothing.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably,
But I think it is because we are in a 2 party system, with one election. During the last election there were very little people voting for a candidate, they were for the most part voting against an other.
We need a system where there are repercussions for our voice being heard or not.
Not just vote for the other guy, making them think we like what he is saying.
Re: (Score:2)
We need a system where there are repercussions for our voice being heard or not.
You make the common mistake of thinking because your preferred candidate lost that your voice was not heard. Your preferred candidate was obviously the better choice, so if he did not win then there is obviously something wrong with the process. It could not possibly be that enough other people disagreed with you so that their preference won.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the fundamental problem with the two party system is that it usually results in two completely unacceptable candidates.
If there's nobody who can represent you in the offing, then your voice isn't heard.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the fundamental problem with the two party system is that it usually results in two completely unacceptable candidates.
I recall a plethora of names on the ballot.
If there's nobody who can represent you in the offing, then your voice isn't heard.
"Your voice" is the voice expressing which candidate you want elected. Whether they do what you want them to do is something else, and is still showing the problem that you think they should do what you want and if they don't they aren't hearing your voice. There are other people involved in the political process, and they have the right to have their voices heard, too. If there are more of them with their opinion than you and those who agree with you, it isn't "m
Re: (Score:2)
"Your voice" is the voice expressing which candidate you want elected.
My point is that when you don't want any of the candidates to be elected, you have no voice.
Re: (Score:2)
My point is that when you don't want any of the candidates to be elected, you have no voice.
If I understand your point, you want every election for a public office to have a "no" option, and if enough people vote "no" then nobody is elected and the office sits vacant until the next election?
I'm not sure how this is an improvement on the current write-in situation, where you can write-in your selection, and if enough people write the same name he wins. That would seem to be your voice. Yes, that requires some planning ahead of time, but so does running any candidate for office.
Re: (Score:2)
If I understand your point, you want every election for a public office to have a "no" option, and if enough people vote "no" then nobody is elected and the office sits vacant until the next election?
That's not my point. My point is simply that a two-party system is deeply flawed, in that you must choose between option A and option B even when neither option is acceptable.
Take the last election, for instance. I had no voice not because my preferred candidate didn't win, but because there was no viable candidate that I was OK with. That's the two-party system in action.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not my point. My point is simply that a two-party system is deeply flawed, in that you must choose between option A and option B even when neither option is acceptable.
No, the flaw you are describing is based on not having a "no" option, because even though there are two main parties, there are a lot of other parties. Even with ten parties on a ballot, if there are no candidates you like you much choose one of them -- or not vote, which you can do under the alleged "two party" system. There is no "must choose between", because "not voting" is always an option.
I had no voice not because my preferred candidate didn't win,
First you say you have no voice because there is nobody you want to vote for, now it is you have no voice because
Re: (Score:2)
even though there are two main parties, there are a lot of other parties
Yes, they exist. No, they have almost no chance of ever winning (no matter how qualified their candidates). This because of institutional rules that the two main parties maintain for this reason.
First you say you have no voice because there is nobody you want to vote for, now it is you have no voice because the one you voted for didn't win.
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said that it wasn't because the one I voted for didn't win.
there were many more than just two parties on the ballot.
True, they are there. But they may as well not be, as I said before. Their technical presence is required to maintain the illusion of choice, but it's just an illusion.
That leaves us back at having a "no" option and leaving the office vacant if enough people vote "no".
No, it leads us back to changing the system to make thir
Re: (Score:2)
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said that it wasn't because the one I voted for didn't win.
No, I understood. You voted for someone who didn't win. But you claim you had no voice because there was nobody you could vote for. But you voted for someone who didn't win. Confusing.
True, they are there. But they may as well not be, as I said before.
Whether they are likely to get enough votes to win or not is irrelevant. Being able to vote for them is how you express your voice. That's true for a true two-party system, or for a 100 party system.
No, it leads us back to changing the system to make third (and fourth, and fifth, etc.) parties actually viable.
If enough people stop thinking their voice isn't being heard when they vote for a non-major party candidate and thus don't vote f
I don't think anyone ever supported the DMCA (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Laws made to restrict people rights, will often come back to hurt others. A weapon in one persons hand is a tool in an others. When making laws and rules, that restrict using a tool and/or a weapon (being physical or abstract) it needs to be done carefully, with planning and research. Not a gut instinct and pushing a majority vote based on party lines.
It's true that laws should be made with planning and research. But the absence of any perfect solution is also not a valid reason to avoid making any regulation at all. And I find the true reasons behind many people's positions are more ideological than factual. Like for example to what degree society should ban or restrain something to protect a few individuals that are unable or unwilling to use it responsibly or would use it with ill will against others and how far we should go to preempt it.
I mean you c
Re: (Score:2)
Did you say ALL filmmakers? (Score:2)
... They, therefore, suggest to apply it to all filmmakers, instead of criminalizing those who don't identify themselves as documentarians. ...
Cue abrupt chorus of voices, all saying, "I'm a filmmaker! I'm a filmmaker!"
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a filmmaker, and so is my wife!
Honest Trailers (Score:2)
Do the people that produce the Honest Trailers or Cinema Sins clips on YouTube really have permission, as well as unencrypted sources to avoid the effects of the law?
It is pretty much a given that when they started, they used the rips directly, but today they're large enough to interview the real actors, be nominated for an Emmy award or have their harrasment scandals of their own. If they want to retain the power of saying offensive things, they need to be able to take the movies they want without needin
All filmmakers? (Score:2)
Great! So anyone with a smartphone that can capture video is a filmmaker, did I get that right? Because, well, he can make a film?
Oh, he needs to have made one? Fine... *grabs cellphone, punches buttons*
Can I now circumvent the DMCA with impunity?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. I'll have that certificate printed in no time.
Re: (Score:2)
No problem. I'll have that certificate printed in no time.
Da! Russia print all certificate you want. Nice with bow and wax seal, even.
We advertise service on Facebook. Please like!
Don't apply to the public, what? (Score:2)
Breaking DRM or ripping Blu-Rays discs is a crime In the United States. While there are fair use exemptions, these don't apply to the public at large.
wha wha wha? Since when? A quick search turns up dozens of free and commercial DVD rippers. There's a few blu-ray ones too, plus the open source libraries. I can't remember of the last time I saw a court case where someone was sued for using libdvdcss in a fair use manner. This is clearly spelled-out in US copyright law.
Re: (Score:3)
Breaking DRM is technically a crime but it's something that is hard to impossible to prosecute. Suppose you buy a dozen DVDs and rip them, but keep the rips only for your own personal use. You're technically breaking the law, but there's no way for the authorities to know and thus no chance you'll be prosecuted. If, however, you grab clips from these ripped films and include those clips in your own movie, you now have provided proof of your ripping activities. If you offer your film for sale and there's a r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A good start is the Wikipedia article on fair use. [wikipedia.org] It specifically enumerates court cases that have decided that fair use must be checked before issuing a DMCA notice. It quotes the relevant judgements and sections of law. Now, we know corporations often don't do that, and that money wins. But the summary's blanket claim that fair use doesn't apply to the "public at large" is fearmongering. Every day someone jailbreaks their phone, or rips a DVD to. Every day dozens of companies sell one or more DVD r
Why can they not ... (Score:3)
seek permission from the copyright owner of the film that they want to use. This might involve payment of a fee of some kind. What is good enough for the rest of us should be good enough for them.
I can see that the real losers will be the small/independent film maker who have their stuff ripped off by the big boys, who will find some mechanism to prevent the small guy from doing this with their output.
Re: (Score:2)
That is just something poor people say to feel better.
No, it's an aspirational statement about what we need to be working to achieve. It's not a delusional one misrepresenting "the way things are".
Re: (Score:2)
seek permission from the copyright owner of the film that they want to use.
Because the issue they're addressing isn't the rights to use the clips, it's the ability to legally break the DRM.
Remember, it's illegal to break the DRM even when your use of the material is otherwise 100% legal and/or authorized. That's why the anti-circumvention clause is bad joke.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the issue they're addressing isn't the rights to use the clips, it's the ability to legally break the DRM.
But if they go to the copyright owner and seek agreement to use then they will, presumably, be given a DRM free copy.
Re: (Score:2)
The law disagrees. It specifically says that it doesn't matter how weak the access controls are, it's still illegal to bypass them.
YouTube?? (Score:2)
Exactly what is being circumvented grabbing rather than streaming a Youtube video? Access to Youtube is not constrained by a contract (unlike FletNix), and there's no encryption.
Re: (Score:1)
Advertisements are being circumvented. The only thing that matters.
Scenario A: Watching the same video on Youtube 100 times.
Scenaro B: Downloading a video from Youtube to watch 10 times.
In Scenario A, Youtube gets 100 commercial views (+- depending on the video).
In Scenario B, Youtube gets up to one commercial view. Even if you are subjecting yourself to the commercial 10 times, Youtube is only paid for one.
Overhead costs, inefficiencies, network availability, and other real factors are not allowed in the
Re: (Score:2)
Reeks of millennial (Score:1)
'Real' film makers will actually go through the steps to secure rights or get permission from the original creator or rights holder. This has millennial whining about not being permitted to co-opt other people's work at will written all over it. And yes, to me, in case they are younger, the children of millennials are just more millennials. Weak sauce!
Isn't every person a potential filmmaker? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know about that. In my view, a "filmmaker" is someone who makes video, period. It doesn't speak to whether or not they ever publish the video, or are talented, or are recognized.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like any definition of "filmmaker" would unfairly exclude some people.
That's the whole point.
Re: (Score:3)
Many filmmakers get started making small short films. If they have not yet published a film, are they not a filmmaker? Seems like any definition of "filmmaker" would unfairly exclude some people.
Of course, and that's exactly what they want: "Law for Thee but Not for Me!"
Seeing as the general political demographics for film makers tend to skew heavily Left, this mindset is not surprising, especially when it is about who gets to create and distribute content that can influence/inform/persuade people politically and ideologically. The Left does not tolerate diversity of opinion when it comes to political, social, or ideological topics, one need only look to recent events at the Berkeley campus in Cali
Re: (Score:2)
As an interesting side note;
...one need only look to recent events at the Berkeley campus in California to see it in violent action.
It's only taken roughly 40 years for riots at Berkeley to completely switch from being pro free speech to being anti free speech.
Strange days, indeed.
Strat
Hey, I have an idea! (Score:4, Insightful)
Since the anti-circumvention clause does nothing but make a mockery of the law on every level, let's just get rid of it entirely.
apparently Filmmaker != Copyright Holder (Score:4, Insightful)
DMCA defines circumvention [cornell.edu] as breaking the DRM without the authority of the copyright holder. The copyright holder can always grant permission for anyone and everyone to crack DRM on their own works. If I were to make a Blu-Ray disc containing my video, then I could give everyone in the world the right to crack the DRM on my disc. This is not an exemption; it's something right in the definition of circumvention.
It could even be argued that if I had granted that right, and you manufactured, imported, offered-to-the-public or trafficked in the tool primarily intended to play my disc despite the DRM, that might be legal as well. (This is less certain than the above paragraph, though.)
(And all this ignores any trade secrets which may be required to make or play Blu-Rays. I'm just talking about DMCA.)
If these filmmakers think they don't already have this right, then I have to conclude that they don't hold the copyright on their own movies, and someone else (the studio) is denying them permission to watch their own movies. Well, that sucks. So, filmmakers, maybe you should think about just what value (if any) studios provide to your filmmaking, such that you are letting them have the whole fucking thing. Everyone should hold them accountable for their decision to start the relationship in bad faith.
And of course, if using the media you bought is too hard to use, I'm sure someone else already did the hard work and has made the file available. So you might want to think twice about purchasing anything DRMed in the first place. You should feel dirty whenever you pay them.
Re: (Score:2)
And if it's not possible to find the copyright holder? A lot of companies have gone defunct over the years for one reason or another.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The copyright holder can always grant permission for anyone and everyone to crack DRM on their own works.
And what if you want to use the work in a way that is completely legal, but which the copyright holder doesn't want to give you permission for?
Permission of the copyright holder is not necessary for all kinds of uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't we all filmmakers now? (Score:2)
The obvious answer.
I used to rip my kid's DVDs (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Making a copy of the video for the use you describe is perfectly legal.
Breaking the DVD encryption to do it is a violation of the anti-circumvention law.
That's a wonderful example of how ludicrous the law has become.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
DAWWWW so adorbs... (Score:2)
Greetings, class of 2018 filmmakers! (Score:1)
We are all filmmakers now, right? Just stick to the story and don't ruin for everyone, Doug.
OP's Assertion Is Incorrect (Score:2)
Making archival copies falls square under the Fair Use rules that have been in place for many, many decades.
Re: (Score:2)
In this way, the anti-decryption provisions of the DMCA directly contradict other, existing laws.
There were some rulings, years ago, that the right to archive overrides the proscription from decrypting, but then... you still have to decrypt.
Nearly all of DMCA is trash, and needs to go. The "Safe Harbor" provisions are about the only good provision in that whole set of laws.