Legalities, technicalities and ethics of copy protection of Music and Video

[vincethod]

Hi folks,

 

I've just been reading through some of the posts on DVD-copying software and its suitablilty (in the PC World forum) and the discussion leant toward issues of copy-protection, which started me thinking about the whole issue (it crosses my mind every now and again), and as the thread title suggests, I feel you can break it down into three headings:

 

Legality

There are a couple of things here I'm not quite sure on here:

 

1) Does the DCMA have any effect in the UK? Surely it is US law (although I understand that an EU law is planned (or introduced? which is closely modelled on it). In certain countries (I am aware anecdotally of Iceland in this regard) it is perfectly legal to copy CDs and DVDs as there is a charge levied on the price of blank media, so the DCMA cannot apply in these circumstances (one country's laws cannot take precedence over another's in that second country right?)

 

2) I seem to recall (and I can't remember where I read this) it is legal in the UK to copy music from on format to another to enable playback on other equipment, so for example, I could record an LP or CD to cassette for use in the car (these days it's actually the other way round - LP/tape to CD), I believe this also applies to transfer from DVD-VHS, (even though there are technical limitations to that) - In all cases let us assume I bought the original CD/DVD but do not own the equipment to play it back in the place I choose, I would also classify transfer of my CD collection / iTunes downloads to mp3 for playback on my PC / mp3 player as part of this.

 

Technicality

Obviously, the technology to copy material from LP/CD to cassette/mp3/CD-R has been around for as long as those technologies have, but since the introduction of DVD (with its inbuilt CSS) and VHS (Macrovision) the simple act of copying material from one place to another has been made harder (although by no means unsurmountable).

 

Music publishers seem to be rushing into the fray with Sony's infamous Copy Control system, by which they released "CDs" which did not conform to the Red Book standard (and so do not carry the standard CD logo), but seem to have overlooked / ignored the "analogue hole", even releasing albums that were widely touted as being uncopyable (I'm thinking of X&Y by Coldplay here - although to my mind, filling an album with Coldplay music is copy protection enough) on LP as well (great logic there guys)

 

Each step the publishers make in trying to create stronger copy-protection just gives the enterprising software developers around the world (who can all collaborate thanks to the internet) newer tagrets to aim at, and each step make life for the average joe customer that little bit more awkward, I keep thinking of the old phrase my Dad used to say "any system created by a man, can be defeated by a man" (and he's the least technically literate person you could hope to meet)

 

Ethics

 

I have no problem whatsoever with paying for music or films, don't get me wrong here - I'm not condoning theft - I have a number of friends who are jobbing musicians and they deserve payment for their training, talent and creativity, however I do feel that restrictive copy-protection on an artist's album / film can give out quite the wrong signals, I would much rather be listening to a musician who values the fact I am hearing his music, than one who is interested only in the pounds and pence of his income.

 

Many musicians have gone on record saying they do not want copy-protection on their albums (Chumbawamba spring to mind), many more are happy for fans to trade live concert CDs (Grateful Dead, U2) as it spreads their messages through their music (I don't want to put words into their mouths here) and even film-maker Michael Moore released the full version of Fahrenheit 911 for free download before it hit the DVD shelves, I don't suppose it did DVD sales any harm, and it tells an awful lot about how MM rates getting his message out vs bringing in the dollars.

 

Sorry for this long and rambing post, but I thought I kick off a bit of a discussion on this issue - these are my thoughts, I'd appreciate anyone else's comments.

 

If the whole thing's too OT then I'll apologise now.

 

Vince

[caledfwlch]

I think in the UK we have the right to make a backup of Software we own. I buy PC Games and often I download a "No CD/DVD Patch" im not sure where UK law stands on such things, but certainly software companies don't like them. But from my point of view, I have bought a game, probably paid £30-£40 for it, so it makes far more sense to install a No CD patch and keep my game disc safe in its box, without risking scratching it everytime I want to play.

 

Independant experts have pointed out that organisations such as the RIAA in the US are actually inflating their alledged "damages" from "piracy" by millions.

 

The problem is, from a moral point of view, the RIAA etc all scream "think of the poor artist how will he eat" except its a slightly different story when you consider that out of an Album that costs what £12.99 the artist gets a few pence. Were artists to use things such as Itunes, once the cost of recording their tracks was covered they would make a far far larger amount of money for their artistic genius, AND people would pay for it. One of the bugbears is the price of CD's, especially as a lot of people are vaguely aware that in fact production/transport costs are minimal, but the artist gets a pittance.

 

This is the real reason I believe for the incredibly heavy handed actions being undertaken by companys at the moment. They have seen their own "deaths" Broadband, the Internet, mp3 players, Itunes and its like, even recording stuff at home at high quality with equipment costing far far less, these are all signalling the end of large international record corporations unless they get their act together, treat the artists more fairly AND the consumer.

 

When you hear whats going on in the US its difficult to have pity for the RIAA's interests. At random they will use new laws available in the US to force ISP's to release the details of people the RIAA "suspect" of illegal downloading - note - not the "pirates" who are copying/sharing things in bulk but you and me.

 

Once they have these addresses and names of people the RIAA Contact Centre sends a letter telling them they have been caught, but if they pay up $5000 say, then they will not proceed to court, and court would end badly for you, since we have the evidence.

 

a poor single mother received one of these letters alledging her 10 year old daughter had been downloading, and she is taking a stand, especially after the RIAA's lawyers told her that unless she pays up, they will take her (TEN YEAR OLD DAUGHTER) to the court, and have her convicted of various criminal charges, and hit her with such large fines and damages that she will be credit blacklisted for life. The Mother took exception and with a civil rights lawyer is currently (i think its ongoing) prosecuting the RIAA under the Organised Crime and Racketeering Acts used to destroy the Mafia! And she seems to have a very good case, especially since on the first day in court challenging the RIAA's demands (this is before they decided to go for the organised crime angle) They asked for copies of the RIAA evidence of illegal activity, evidence that has still not emerged, though she was told by someone friendly and very unofficially at the Contact Centre that they almost certainly didnt have any evidence at all, giving her the impetus for the organised crime prosection.

 

That is what the RIAA do to poverty stricken single parents. So its difficult to feel pity. :-|

 

they are using tactics they developed years ago - everyone has seen key cards, hotel doors use them, some employers use them to control IT access, some technically minded and very dodgy people can also use them and the equipment used to write info to them to pirate cable tv. So the cable companys used to accuse websites who sold the equipment (perfectly legally) of committing various offences, police would raid, take all the customer details, and the cable company would then "assume" every single customer only bought the equipment to pirate their service. And the letters would go out demanding around ooh $5000 (sound familiar?) or you would be prosecuted for cable theft. 98% of customers had bought the cards for genuine needs, but paid out in fright, not being able to afford lawyers and a big court case, there were people like university IT professors experimenting with putting card control on doors in their departments and so on, all genuine legal uses.

 

What many don't realise is that the RIAA and its UK equivelent also have their eyes set on charity and second hand music shops. Why should you be able to go to Oxfam and buy a CD for a couple of quid, they say, the Artist gets nothing out of it when second hand goods are sold, or more importantly though unsaid the "company" doesnt get a cut.

well theres a long Ramble!!!! im sure I will have some more thoughts soon

[caledfwlch]

me again!

 

Piracy seems a very disingenious term to use, apart from the lack of men in frilly costumes with swords and muskets, it firstly is unfair to many people in the world who have suffered dreadfully at the hands of real modern day Pirates, a common problem in Asia, with ships including cruise ships regularly being attacked. But also, is a 16 year old geek sitting at home downloading ancient horror movies for free, which may not even be on DVD yet as much of a criminal as the organised crime gangs who manufacture pirated DVD's in bulk and sell them in the UK's markets feeding the massive profits back into their other illicit trades, people smuggling and so on? Apparantly genuine DVD piracy for profit is actually more of a money making machine that Drugs at the moment! and with lesser sentances if caught.

 

Downloading for Free is here to stay, as DRM evolves so do the ways of getting round it. Look at the Mighty Microsoft when they brought in their spanking new Windows Validation Tool for downloading updates to XP - it was broken within about 2 hours, and all it took was pasting a bit of text into your browser

 

The most sensible way of tackling it actualy came from France, the government suggested creating an "internet tax" about 4 or 5 pounds on top of your monthly bill to your internet service provider, this money would all be ploughed back into the media industry, and people would basically be able to download at will, so the government could concentrate its law making on the real for profit pirates. Of course it was wrecked by lobbying from incensed companys....

[LondonPam]

And for those of us that never download anything ? I have to say I would not be at all happy paying an extra £4 or £5 for something I have never done! I've never downloaded a music file, video file or anything like that. The only thing I seem to download are windows updates etc

[caledfwlch]

And for those of us that never download anything ? I have to say I would not be at all happy paying an extra £4 or £5 for something I have never done! I've never downloaded a music file, video file or anything like that. The only thing I seem to download are windows updates etc

 

But after paying the extra 4 or 5 quid you COULD download stuff, without fear of prosecution.

[buzby]

This is nothing new - when compact cassettes were introduced there was a 5 Phennig levy placed on EACH blank tape purchased in Germany - irrespective of length to recompence those artists who were supposedly disadvantaged. It applied to C30's, C60s, C90's and C120s - however if you bought cassettes loaded in bulk as C92s (C90 + 1 extra minute per side), the fee wasn't charged! There were never any satisfactory responses to find out what actually happened to the money collected in Germany, and it was widely believed the admin costs of collection wiped out any financial benefit. Considering I have bought the Beatle's Sgt Pepper nearly six times (Mono LP, Stereo LP, 4 track Reel to Reel tape, 8 track, Cassette & CD, I noticed that EMI had put DRM on the latest batch of CD's which stopped my buying a replacement. When folk vote with their wallets, DRM will be dead in the water.

[meagain]

1) Does the DCMA have any effect in the UK?

 

If yo mean the DMCA, then no - it has no effect whatsoever on criminal law in the UK - civil matters are different, but it's still little effect (any judgement in the US would have to then be enforced via UK courts - it gets so complicated that most plaintiffs don't bother)

 

2) I seem to recall (and I can't remember where I read this) it is legal in the UK to copy music from on format to another to enable playback on other equipment,

 

Something about "enabling measures" to facilitate "peaceful enjoyment". Dropping your CDs to MP3s for use on your player is fine. Using no-CD patches to play games you own is fine. Home taping (contrary to the industry's belief) is perfectly fine for use in your own car. It's when you start passing copies on to third parties that things get nasty. If you have bought a CD, it's your right to be able to listen to its contents. If you have to copy it to tape/MP3/whatever first, then you're entitled to do so.

 

Music publishers seem to be rushing into the fray with Sony's infamous Copy Control system, by which they released "CDs" which did not conform to the Red Book standard (and so do not carry the standard CD logo)

 

Copy-protection on CDs is actually falling - Universal and EMI abandoned Copy Control, Sony (who didn't use Copy Control) dropped MediaMax in favour of XCP - but was forced to abandon that too as people sued over the software's behaviour.

 

DVDs are another matter, but circumventing CSS is easy enough to do, and multiregion DVD players aren't an issue. You can get firmware for most DVD drives for use in PCs that will either kill the region coding, or reset the counter on boot (so that you always have 5 region changes available).

 

Macrovision's AGC breakage (which stops you from copying from DVD, VHS and some TV signals to VHS) is still around. I hear there are means of filtering it out, but some of them can get nasty.

 

"any system created by a man, can be defeated by a man"

 

I believe the usual way of expressing this is "imperfection breeds imperfection".

 

The problem is, from a moral point of view, the RIAA etc all scream "think of the poor artist how will he eat" except its a slightly different story when you consider that out of an Album that costs what £12.99 the artist gets a few pence.

 

Exactly. My thoughts on independent software developers are rather different from those on the big ones. Independent developers should be sharing code, so that other people don't have to waste time writing other programs that duplicate the functions of the originals purely because of one man's selfishness. Someone told me that apparently they were suffering because the takings from his small hobby-horse software house were down as a result of people copying his software. He said "I'll have to put my prices up. How else will I pay the bills?" I told him to shut up and go get a job like the rest of us have to do.

 

One of the bugbears is the price of CD's, especially as a lot of people are vaguely aware that in fact production/transport costs are minimal, but the artist gets a pittance.

 

I've always told people that in the case of some albums, I would happily download them from the dark side, and send the artist the full cover price. No harm, no foul.

 

Once they have these addresses and names of people the RIAA Contact Centre sends a letter telling them they have been caught, but if they pay up $5000 say, then they will not proceed to court, and court would end badly for you, since we have the evidence.

 

The funny thing is that this tactic is illegal, not only in all 50 states, but also in every member state of the EU (blackmail).

 

As far as I am concerned, piracy refers to one thing, and one thing only - large, organised groups making thousands of copies, selling them on the cheap, whether the proceeds go to a night out on the town or towards things such as people smuggling. Casual copying is no more piracy than a bloke operating out of the back of a van is a rival to the Royal Mail. Here's the bit that many people don't get. There is such a thing as illegal downloading, but folk like the RIAA have no business with it. Downloading of most content is legal - offering the material to other people for download is illegal. When downloading can be illegal is when you have inappropriately gained access to a system (e.g. you break into a corporate computer system and download private files), or when the Official Secrets Act becomes involved. If you download content from a file-sharing network, you are accepting content that has been freely offered by others - of course, it's not theirs to offer you, but in a fair and equitable society, that should be their problem, and not yours. The bank steals your money, but that doesn't make their investors into crooks.

 

The most sensible way of tackling it actualy came from France, the government suggested creating an "internet tax" about 4 or 5 pounds on top of your monthly bill to your internet service provider, this money would all be ploughed back into the media industry, and people would basically be able to download at will, so the government could concentrate its law making on the real for profit pirates. Of course it was wrecked by lobbying from incensed companys....

 

It was probably unconstitutional too. Most Western countries have rules about seizure of goods - "goods" can include property rights. The whole copyright issue in the modern age is pointless, and is being abused by the very people it was supposed to prevent from engaging in this very thing. The original purpose of copyright was (over 100 years ago) to prevent unscrupulous publishers from stealing other people's manuscripts, printing unauthorised copies and paying the authors a pittance.