[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] Would this consistute circumvention.

Actually, there are provisions in the copyright code for use of works in 
schools, I think that they may apply.....Did you try turning off the 
autoload feature of the CDROM...that way the cd can't autolaunch and you 
can't be accused of circumventing their cheezy player. OHMYGOD!  turning 
off autolaunch is now circumventing too! Maybe the "effective" word comes 
to mind here...

BTW- This is actuallya nifty example of the "fair use" exception. Is the 
RIAA going to actually claim that their copyright takes precedence of the 
education of children....I'll bet they think it but won't publically say 
it unless pressed.

"John Zulauf" <johnzu@ia.nsc.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
11/09/01 09:37 AM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        Subject:        [dvd-discuss] Would this consistute circumvention.

In helping a friend I'm preparing to accompany their daughter on some
contemporary music (for a high school talent show).  In order to do this
I needed a copy of the song to practice to.  Nothing sinister or illegal
here yet.  However, when I inserted the Ricky Martin CD into my
computer, I was astonished (a) by a cheesy and ugly player that
autolaunched and (b) that the audio tracks didn't show up in the
"Explorer" window.  Their was a README about "CD Plus" crap, but no way
to see (or copy) the actual tracks. 

So... I started up DART CD-recorder, and *it* showed me the tracks that
Window wouldn't and I could copy the one song I needed for my fair use.

Now... did I circumvent?  There wasn't any of the "requires information"
in the normal course of operation crap, but neither do the new
induced-pop CD protection schemes.

Question:  does this mean the new macrovision CD protection schemes
aren't DMCA protected? (they do not require keys or whatever) or did I
just circumvent.  Further, given that (after reading, studying and
debating the DMCA for over a year I don't know whether my actions where
legal, does this demonstrate the fundamental vaugeness of the statute
and whether a "reasonable person" (and not a legal expert) could be
reasonalby expected to know what actions the statute renders illegal.


PS.  You know, if they just added "for purpose of copyright
infringement" to the "primary designed to circumvent" language the DMCA
would be alot less dangerous.