Forum - View topicNEWS: U.S. Copyright Office Rules on Infringement Exemptions
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
marie-antoinette
 Posts: 4136 Location: Ottawa, Canada |
|
|||||
|
Hasn't the biggest issue about AMVs always been the music though, not the actual footage? As someone pointed out, AMVs generally use songs in their entirety, which definitely puts them beyond the fair use allowance.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Polycell
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||||
|
True, but without a DMCA exception the video would require several illegal acts to obtain(there's no fair use exception built into the legislation, so the "criticism or comment" bit is still extremely important).
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
la_contessa
Posts: 200 Location: Pennsylvania |
|
|||||
|
With all due respect, this summary is inaccurate. The new rules decline to add circumventing DVD access controls for the purpose of space-shifting as an exemption to the general prohibition in the DMCA against circumventing access controls. The Supreme Court in Sony gave a specific definition for time-shifting, which it determined was a fair use. Space-shifting does not fit that definition; it a different thing entirely (see page 61 of the linked rule for the distinction). Now, it may be that if presented with a case, the Supreme Court would also say that space-shifting is fair use (I think this one is less obvious than time-shifting was, so I am not presuming to guess how the court will rule), but to date, no court has ruled on space-shifting. This rule therefore does not "conflict" with Sony.
I am NOT saying that I agree or disagree with, or like or dislike, the rule--although, if the ANN summary were correct, I would be livid, because the Copyright Office does not get to overturn the Supreme Court. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Polycell
Posts: 4623 |
|
|||||
|
The DMCA doesn't consider fair use - if you break DRM without a copyright office-granted exemption, you break the law.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
la_contessa
Posts: 200 Location: Pennsylvania |
|
|||||
Are you talking to me? I was just clarifying that it was space-shifting which failed to earn an exemption, not time-shifting. The Librarian of Congress can only create exemptions for classes of works for which "noninfringing uses" are likely to be adversely affected (see 17 USC § 1201(a)(1)(D)). In order to determine if a use is "noninfringing," he has to consider defenses to infringement, such as fair use. Since the DMCA expressly preserves fair use for infringement (but not circumvention) considerations, fair use is very much a major issue in exemption proceedings. So while you are definitely correct that there is no fair use defense to circumvention, a fair use defense to infringement may allow the Librarian to create an exemption to liability for circumvention--which has the same effect in a roundabout way. (I have some issues with the DMCA . . . this is one of them) Last edited by la_contessa on Fri Nov 02, 2012 11:50 pm; edited 2 times in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
marie-antoinette
Posts: 4136 Location: Ottawa, Canada |
|
|||||
True, at some point the footage was ripped, though I'll admit all the AMVs I ever made were generally used with footage taken from other AMVs and not doing anything of the actual ripping myself. |
||||||
|
||||||
jr240483
 Posts: 4381 Location: New York City,New York,USA |
|
|||||
|
i just hope that this ruling will mean i can finally post my AMVs on youtube and veoh once again without having those bastards from the DCMA take them down.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
ConanSan
Posts: 1818 |
|
|||||
|
I'd like to see them try to get evidence of people ripping DVDs.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Mr. sickVisionz
 Posts: 2173 |
|
|||||
|
Many replies mention ripping DVDs being a crux but this is word for word taken from the ruling itself:
Many are saying that you can't rip DVD for the purposes listed but the ruling is actually the polar opposite. You can't rip DVDs just to store them for personal use, but you can rip them for the uses described above, which would fit with AMVs and Sakuga videos. I just wonder how long it will take sites like YouTube to fall in line with the new rulings? It seems unlikely, but it sure would be nice if banned accounts could get unbanned or if removed videos could make a return. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||
|
Well I rip DVDs for storage, and do the same for Bluray, and the Copyright Office can bite me. This is arbitrary nonsense.
|
||||||
|
||||||
Blanchimont
 Posts: 3456 Location: Finland |
|
|||||
The last time the dvd player was used was in summer, when my brother and his kid came to visit, and he wanted to play a Disney film on it. For myself, I can't even remember... Either I rip for storage first(protections/region locks, bye bye  ), or squeeze it on to the shelf, untouched(as I've already watched the show/played the vn, and have subs/rips of it stored).
Or not bought it in the first place. (There are plenty of other things you can do to support something) Of course, as a Finnish resident, the ruling doesn't really concern me. But my response would be the same even if it did. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
DifferentD
Posts: 32 |
|
|||||
I feel exactly the same way... |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Tetsuryu
Posts: 22 |
|
|||||
Aren't they already stored on the original medium though? |
||||||
|
||||||
walw6pK4Alo
 Posts: 9322 |
|
|||||
A medium that's easily suspectible to breaking, scratching, and many other manners that lead to inoperability. You can back up a digital file indefinitely. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Tetsuryu
Posts: 22 |
|
|||||
Well it's not the medium's fault if the user is ham-handed. 
|
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group