From: "Michael A Rolenz" <Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 09:57:01 -0700
My guess is that it would be a circumvention device under the DMCA or that the RIAA will certainly argue that it is. What's the resolution of your A/D? A CD is 16 bits. If you are using less than that, then you are not actually copying the CD but degrading the performance as with MP3 compression (see those cases). If you are using more than 16 bits then you are definitely copying the content with the distortions introduced by the D/A, the lack of perfect sample pulses, the reconstruction filter and the Sigma-Delta modulator (if a S-D D/A is used).
The same argument can be made for DVDs if you access the video signal and convert it or whatever. Presumably Judge Kaplan would rule that this is also forbidden speech.
Glendon Gross <email@example.com> Sent by: firstname.lastname@example.org
06/18/2003 10:40 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA
I can't help asking the question, "What about music that is copied using
analogue techniques, so that
it does not represent a binary copy of the original file on the CD?" For
example, I like to record CD's to
my PC through the line audio input in my soundcard, running the sound through
my own favorite set of analogue and
digital effects. (I use a Behringer DSP-9024 to preprocess the input
stream.) Does anyone know what the DMCA would say, if anything, about me
doing this with my original and purchased content?
My perception has been that this falls under "fair use", but I can't help
noticing the irony that no matter what technique
is used to protect the digital content, it fails when I do this. In that
sense, it would seem that the processed (and non-copy protected)
copy would be called an "original work." Yet I see how quickly we get into a
quagmire of ambiguity here. I'm thankful that the PC is not
called a "circumvention device".
> Here's a question:
> Where there or not copy controlled music CDs? And if there were, did anyone
> bypass the encryption? Were those files then passed along? If so, then all
> the music that resulted from those would be a DMCA violation.
> However, it is my belief that because of the AHRA music is legally shared
> otherwise. With regards to music that did not have copy control or cds that
> were not encrypted, then shared "music" is NOT a DMCA violation.
> Perhaps I am mistaken about the music section of the DMCA, but I believe it
> had most to do with subscription services, not music copies... The AHRA on
> the other hand specifically states:
> A personal computer is not a device specifically designed to store and
> record audio.
> Title 17
> Chapter 10
> Subchapter B
> Section 1008
> Original Message:
> From: Richard Hartman email@example.com
> Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:37:43 -0700
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
> The thing is that there _is_ amgiguity in fair use.
> There is, however, _no_ ambiguity in the DMCA. If you
> bypass the TPM to get to the content, you're guilty. Even
> if the act of copying the content is not in itself illegal.
> Fair use is one area. Backups are another.
> -Richard M. Hartman
> 186,000 mi/sec: not just a good idea, it's the LAW!
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Phil Gengler [mailto:email@example.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 5:31 PM
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Subject: RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch supports remote destruction
> > I phrased it like that because the DMCA was a set of massive
> > changes to
> > copyright law, so the DMCA could be considered a subset of copyright
> > law. I wasn't really getting into fair use, which I probably should
> > have mentioned along with that.
> > Although, fair use isn't really a concrete thing either, the way it's
> > laid out in the law is a series of tests for a judge to consider. I'd
> > much rather see fair use actually be codified, so that there's no (or
> > less) ambiguity as to what is a fair use.
> > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:23, Stephen L Johnson wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 19:08, Phil Gengler wrote:
> > > > Violating the DMCA implies you're violating copyright laws, but
> > > > violating copyright laws doesn't mean you're violating the DMCA.
> > >
> > > No. The first part of your statement is not necessarily
> > true. I can be
> > > violating the DCMA by ripping some "Exclusive Bonus
> > Material" on a DVD.
> > > But the purpose of the copying to is to provide an except
> > to emphasis a
> > > point in my online video critique of the DVD. That falls
> > well within the
> > > bounds of fair use.
> > >
> > > > On Tue, 2003-06-17 at 20:04, Richard Hartman wrote:
> > > > > Violating copyright laws and violating the DMCA are
> > _not_ the same thing.
> > > > >
> > > > > Vigilante actions are typically against the law -- law
> > enforcement is in the hands of the police agencies, not the
> > individual (or the corporations).
> > >
> > >
> > >
> mail2web - Check your email from the web at
> http://mail2web.com/ .