With apologies to Manfred, I have to clarify a couple of things here :-) Note that IANAL, but I have read the law and I have been following these issues closely for years.
On Wednesday 25 October 2006 07:01, Steven H. McCown wrote: > On Tuesday, October 24, 2006 7:49 AM Jesse Stay wrote: > Fair use only > says that once you have copyrighted material, that ***you*** are allowed to > make a backup copy and to quote from it. Actually, Fair Use doesn't say that, either. Fair use says that some otherwise infringing usage may be legal and gives a list of criteria for a court to consider. (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html). It's not clear that backups or format shifting qualifies. US Copyright law does make explicit provision for backup copies of software, but that doesn't apply to music or movies (Title 17 USC, section 117, paragraph (a)(2)). Though it certainly seems like format shifting *should* be legal, the law doesn't say it is, and AFAIK there's no clear legal precedent other than recording of broacdast programming. And that precedent relies on the fact that the copyright holder authorized sending the material to your home over the airwaves, so it's not clear that the precedent is really applicable. > It does not provide for general > purpose download sites to exist. Breaking encryption is also prohibited > unless certain conditions are met. "Breaking encryption" is not prohibited. Circumventing copy protection technologies is. Basically, you're allowed to circumvent copy protection technologies for any purpose that would otherwise be legal (Title 17 USC section 1201 paragraph (c)). However, it's illegal to create, import or distribute circumvention tools, so it's not clear how you can legally acquire the means to exercise your legal right to circumvent for Fair Use (assuming you can determine what Fair Use is). > We obey the law, while, if we so choose, working to change it. I certainly agree it needs to be changed. The Digital Consumer's Bill of Rights is just what we need (digitalconsumer.org/bill.html). In the meantime, I feel no moral obligation to obey the part of the law that prohibits me from downloading libdvdcss so I can watch DVDs on my computer. I also bought a t-shirt with the decss code printed on it, back when encryption still fell under the ITAR rules, making the t-shirt an illegal munition under the law, right next to machine guns and RPGs. Sometimes the law is *wrong*. > The new Boy Scout patch may serve Hollywood, but it also serves to educate > in an effort to teach Scouts about the current law. No, it does not. It serves to teach Scouts about a small portion of the current law, and from what I read of it, distorts even that. And, frankly, *any* discussion of copyright law that covers only the regulations and not the rationale behind them is lacking to the point of being misleading. > Don't confuse your opinion of what the law should be with what the law is... And be sure that you know what the law is, too -- most people who debate this topic don't! Though fully understanding the case law would be difficult, the core of the black-letter law isn't that big, or that hard to understand. Read it at http://www.copyright.gov/title17/ Shawn. _______________________________________________ Ldsoss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ldsoss.org/mailman/listinfo/ldsoss
