RE: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and the AHRA

[Marcia Wilbur <aicra(at)well.com>]

The DMCA...

perhaps, we could focus on the AHRA (Audio Home Recording Act) in this
particular issue.

Non commercial music...right?

ALso, did you see this?

http://www.riaa.com/news/newsletter/060303.asp

THe only reason I can fathom there being an issue here DMCA wise is
subscription? but really non commercial music is covered by the AHRA...

-marcia


On 17 Jun 2003, Phil Gengler wrote:

> 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).
> >
> >
> >
>
>