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

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

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?


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...


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).
> >
> >
> >