[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA
- To: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA
- From: "aicra(at)well.com" <aicra(at)well.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 13:34:20 -0400
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)eon.law.harvard.edu
I use a tv card, my hi8, ffmpeg and xawtv to convert my video to digital.
I don't see any probs there...
I wrote an ffmpeg man if you want it, I can dig it up.
From: Glendon Gross email@example.com
Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 11:21:21 -0700
Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and AHRA
The Behringer 9024 is 24-bit, so no degrading of the signal takes place
on the way to the P.C. But the analogue soundcard samples at
44.1 Khz. (While this is typically thought of as CD-quality, the sound
has been preprocessed by whatever settings I have on the 9024.)
Lately I have been converting the files to 128k Ogg Vorbis format in
order to avoid the implications of .MP3 files, after which I delete the
.WAV files to save space. Nevertheless, I'm concerned by the direction
the courts have taken in almost uniformly ruling against the consumer
and in favor of large corporations. I'm starting to worry if the RIAA
might eventually try to target users of .ogg files, since the sound
quality is superior to .MP3 at
a given bitrate. (There is more information on ogg vorbis files at
http://xiph.org. The freedom of the Ogg Vorbis format from copyright
software patent concerns is probably a separate issue from the question
of which copying behavior is sanctioned as "fair use.")
I've been wanting to buy a video spigot in order to convert the pictures
from my analogue camcorder to DVD's. Yet part of my reluctance in
this step has been due to copyright concerns and the potential for
misunderstanding. I can definitely see both sides of the issue, but I
feel that the
pendulum has swung too far in favor of the copyright owners.
Michael A Rolenz wrote:
> 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
> 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 <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Sent by: To:
06/18/2003 10:40 AM Subject: Re:
Please respond to dvd-discuss [dvd-discuss] Sen. Hatch and
> I can't help asking the question, "What about music that is copied
> 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
> 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
> doing this with my original and purchased content?
> My perception has been that this falls under "fair use", but I can't
> noticing the irony that no matter what technique
> is used to protect the digital content, it fails when I do this. In
> 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".
> Glendon Gross
> "email@example.com" wrote:
> > Here's a question:
> > Where there or not copy controlled music CDs? And if there were, did
> > 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
> > 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
> > record audio.
> > Title 17
> > Chapter 10
> > Subchapter B
> > Section 1008
> > -marcia
> > Original Message:
> > -----------------
> > From: Richard Hartman firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 08:37:43 -0700
> > To: email@example.com
> > 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
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > 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
> > > law. I wasn't really getting into fair use, which I probably
> > > have mentioned along with that.
> > >
> > > Although, fair use isn't really a concrete thing either, the way
> > > laid out in the law is a series of tests for a judge to consider.
> > > much rather see fair use actually be codified, so that there's no
> > > 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,
> > > > > violating copyright laws doesn't mean you're violating the
> > > >
> > > > 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/ .
mail2web - Check your email from the web at