Bill Gates: "People should just buy a CD and rip it. You are legal then"

TalkBack 1 of 68:

Next »

• Thread View
• Flat View

Very good reason why

Copyright law as written has many exceptions to when you can and can't copy. These exceptions are not binary and require that the end reason for the copy be taken into consideration.

For example "ripping" your CD (making a digital recording under the definition under the law) is both legal and protected due to section 1008;

No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

If the end use is noncommercial then you can make the recording.

This is further complicated due to the fact that the record labels wish to use DRM not just to enforce their rights under copyright, but also to prevent the user from doing things specifically they are allowed to do because copyright law limits the copyright holders authority eg; resell a song;

? 109. Limitations on exclusive rights: Effect of transfer of particular copy or phonorecord40

(a) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(3), the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord

Finally copyright holders are trying to add additional rights that they do not have under copyright, and enforce it with DRM, eg; Dictate to the consumer which devices and number of devices a song will play on... copyright holders do not have this right.

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

The ones pushing DRM are pushing a Lie that copyright holders enjoy, legally, 100% control of their works- which is not true. They claim the only way they would have the incentive to create these works is if traditional exemptions/limitations and consumer rights be suspended including the right to own the copy you purchased.

Another Lie these same proponents of DRM are pushing is that you do not an never did own your copy;

? 202. Ownership of copyright as distinct from ownership of material object

Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied. Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.

The final Lie they are pushing is that their is a state right to control playback/enjoyment of utilizing your copyrighted work;

301. Preemption with respect to other laws2

(a) On and after January 1, 1978, all legal or equitable rights that are equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106 in works of authorship that are fixed in a tangible medium of expression and come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, whether created before or after that date and whether published or unpublished, are governed exclusively by this title. Thereafter, no person is entitled to any such right or equivalent right in any such work under the common law or statutes of any State.

(b) Nothing in this title annuls or limits any rights or remedies under the common law or statutes of any State with respect to ?

(1) subject matter that does not come within the subject matter of copyright as specified by sections 102 and 103, including works of authorship not fixed in any tangible medium of expression; or

(2) any cause of action arising from undertakings commenced before January 1, 1978;

(3) activities violating legal or equitable rights that are not equivalent to any of the exclusive rights within the general scope of copyright as specified by section 106; or

(4) State and local landmarks, historic preservation, zoning, or building codes, relating to architectural works protected under section 102(a)(8).

What they claim is that their contract should not be preempted because playback/private utilization is a right given to the creator from the state. In this case the forge a contract with you where you do not own the copy you paid for , but you do own the media it is embedded on (If it breaks or becomes damaged they don't have to repair it), and in exchange for the revocable consideration of being able to utilize (play, read, load & run) the work you agree to give up all your rights. The problem is there is no state or equitable right that gives these copyright holders the right to control utilization (play, read, load & run) and the consumer would not pay money for any work if there was.

In addition to the above in order for DRM to work it must prevent the owners computer, copier, recorder, player, or other device from playing back unless authorized or recording. This means the owner can not have control over the device's they own- think about that for a second....

That is why DRM is unworkable. DRM is broken not just at a technological level but on an ideological level and to be quit frank most current DRM schemes should be made illegal/unenforceable and would be except that anytime someone with deep enough pockets to afford a lawsuit that goes all the way to the Supreme Court breaks DRM and gets sued, the copyright holders quietly settle the case.

Posted by: Edward Meyers   Posted on: 12/16/06 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Memory Analysis Best Practices Within Eclipse Quest Software Poor Java performance costs your business money and customers. However ... Download Now
• Improve Performance in SAP Application Environments Quest Software With the exploding growth of data, the typical DBA must spend a ... Download Now
• Driving Business Agility through SOA Connectivity & Integration Whitepaper from IBM IBM In this whitepaper, you will learn how to work smarter so you can solve ... Download Now