US Court of Appeals Vacates FCC Plug and Play Order

[STC]

[edit] Looks like your link has been edited

Be sure to pass along my appreciation to the janitor for cleaning up my mess!

Is there a way to post a link to the rules on the main page, or at least sticky it somewhere? IMO, it's not fair to expect new users to abide by rules that they can't find in the first place.

Looking at the logs it appears your link was edited at the same time I posted my reply after clicking your original link.

[holidayboy]

Be sure to pass along my appreciation to the janitor for cleaning up my mess!

Our bad Richard, we should have redirected the link that you posted when the old t&c thread was moved

[smotao]

Sorry about violating the CoC. I was not aware of it.

It has always been my understanding that the courts in the past have basically said that you can move files to other devices, for personal use only.

I am not trying to violate any laws, I only want to view my recorded files, a single time, on a portable device, at the time and location of my choosing.

I will look elsewhere for my answer.

[richard1980]

You are mistaken in your understanding of what the courts have done. No court has ever ruled that making a copy of a copyrighted work for "personal use" is not considered copyright infringement. The only relevant ruling was in the Betamax case, where the US Supreme Court ruled that recording free over-the-air broadcast TV signals is considered "fair use" and is therefore not considered copyright infringement.

You won't find any solution for removing the DRM anywhere. As I previously stated, that solution does not exist, no doubt because the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes it illegal to make or sell devices or services that circumvent copy control measures. Additionally, if someone did make a device or service that was primarily marketed/used to circumvent the copy control measures, they wouldn't just be guilty of a DMCA violation. They'd also be liable for contributory copyright infringement.

With all that said, viewing your recorded files on a portable device is not illegal. It's the way you were wanting to do it that is illegal. My suggestion to you would be to find a way to accomplish your goal without breaking any laws or causing someone else to break any laws. It certainly isn't illegal to stream (instead of copy) the WTV file to your mobile device.

[barnabas1969]

"Fair use" says that it's OK to make a "backup" of a copyrighted work, as long as you OWN the original copy. DMCA says that it's illegal to circumvent the copy-protection. The two laws have some overlap, and some people claim that "backing up" a copy-protected work should be legal, even if it's copy-protected.

No case law exists that makes this clear. People who "back up" a copy-protected work are doing so at their own risk.

That said, I think it is highly unlikely for a person to be imprisoned or fined for backing up or copying works that they actually own, even if they are copy-protected, unless they sell or give them to someone else.

My wife personally knows a guy (she works with him) who was arrested by the FBI for selling copies of copy-righted (and copy-protected) DVD's. His house was raided (at 5am) and every DVD and computer he had was confiscated (he had STACKS of copied movies ready to ship). His court case is still pending, but I expect him to go to jail for a while (and probably will pay a fine). Other than that, I've never heard of anyone who got in trouble for copying DVD's or Bluray's that they actually own for their own personal use. If you SELL them, expect to get caught. Don't be stupid.

[kingwr]

The new prohibition that the DMCA added was not new penalties for "fair use" copying of a work, but penalties for trafficking in DRM breaking software, even if you aren't personally copying any protected works.

[barnabas1969]

According to Wikipedia (obviously not a definitive answer, but...):

[The DMCA] criminalizes production and dissemination of technology, devices, or services intended to circumvent measures (commonly known as digital rights management or DRM) that control access to copyrighted works. It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.

[richard1980]

"Fair use" says that it's OK to make a "backup" of a copyrighted work, as long as you OWN the original copy.

Where does it say that?

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Until such time as a court makes a fair-use determination, any claim that a specific activity is considered fair use is completely false. No court has ever made the ruling that making a backup copy is considered fair use.

The new prohibition that the DMCA added was not new penalties for "fair use" copying of a work, but penalties for trafficking in DRM breaking software, even if you aren't personally copying any protected works.

That is correct. The DMCA doesn't prohibit the act of circumventing copy control measures (whether fair use or not). It only prohibits making the tool to do so (not limited to just software).

It also criminalizes the act of circumventing an access control, whether or not there is actual infringement of copyright itself.

That is also correct. The act of circumventing an access control is criminalized by the DMCA. Note the difference between access control and copy control.

[barnabas1969]

OK, so breaking the encryption on a DVD or Bluray breaks the access control. In order to copy those media, you must first break the encryption. So, by copying the media, you are breaking the access control. This is illegal, even if you believe that you are doing so under the "fair use" doctrine.

But... it's VERY, VERY, VERY unlikely that anyone will be prosecuted for doing this unless they are also DISTRIBUTING the copies.

[richard1980]

Again, note the difference between an access control and a copy control. DVDs and Blu-rays do not contain access control (aside from the shrink-wrap on the outside of the case). An access control would be just that...something to control your access to the content (such as a password that you have to type in before you can access the DVD or Blu-ray). The DMCA criminalizes both the act of circumventing access control measures and the act of making or selling a tool that circumvents the access control measures. So for example, if you made a tool that could break into Netflix' streaming library, that would be a DMCA violation because you have made a tool that circumvents their access control measures (the username and password). Additionally, anybody that utilizes that tool would also be guilty of a DMCA violation.

A copy control would be something that limits your ability to make unauthorized copies of something. The DMCA does not prohibit the act of circumventing any copy control measures (in fact, the DMCA clearly recognizes that circumventing the copy control measures may be required in order to make a legal copy of a copyrighted work). The DMCA only prohibits making or selling a tool that does so. So if I make the tool, I'm guilty of a DMCA violation. But if you use the tool that I made, you aren't guilty of a DMCA violation (although you would still be guilty of copyright infringement, but that is not a criminal offense...it's a civil offense ).

This didn't cross my mind before, but PlayReady DRM is not technically a copy control measure. It doesn't prevent you from copying anything. However, PlayReady certainly does limit your ability to access the content by requiring you to access it on the authoring PC. So technically, that would be an access control, not a copy control. Therefore, circumventing PlayReady DRM (or making a tool that does) would be a DMCA violation, even if a court ever decided that copying the content was considered fair use (the DMCA does not recognize that circumventing access control measures may be required...it only recognizes that circumventing copy control measures may be required).

I agree that it is unlikely that anybody would ever be sued for making a "backup" copy of a legally obtained copy of a copyrighted work. However, that doesn't make it legal. It's still illegal until a court is given the opportunity to make a ruling.