Thier greed stops at nothing. Even though you've purchased a right to use music titles they'll want to charge you again over it somehow. Online music is already licensed for a limited period only - meaning you pay the standard price to listen to a song but will get your access denied after a period of time if you won't keep feeding RIAA more money.
They've found a superb way to force you, the consumers, into paying payment after payment by lobbying and greasing your congressmen into making laws which give MPAA/RIAA basically a carte blanche on licensing enforcement.
That's exactly right. The MPAA have control over DVD formats which means they can ban the sale of new DVD players at any time they see fit, meaning you can watch your old DVDs only as long as the player lasts, and if the MPAA decide, you can't buy a new one.
No chance of them cutting off sales now, of course, but in a few years when they want to boost sales of the next new format, DVD players become unavailable, your library of DVD disks unusable, and you get to buy them again on Blu-Ray or whatever format succeeds DVD.
Recording copywright material has never been a right in the US.
Depends how you define a right.
If you take the position that anything is a right if not forbidden by law, then it has been a right since the formation of the US.
Copyright law in the US has always had "fair use" provisions, which allow you to copy copyrighted material for legitimate purposes, which weren't clearly defined for a long time.
But the Supreme Court ruled in 1984 that copying a TV programme for viewing at a later time was legal, US courts have also ruled that making backup copies of music etc is legal, and making a copy on a different format is legal (the case concerned making a cassette copy of an album to play in portable music equipment)
So the law in the US is pretty clear that making a copy for personal use is legal.
nashwan... who says I am against people owning equipment? They should be able to own any they want. Using it ilegally is another thing.
I know that's your stance, I was just suprised you weren't arguing for it in this thread.
If the content of a program is owned by someone and it can be proven that you have no right to make copies of it then I guess the owners are being wronged if you record it. I don't think that they can make that law tho.
That's what they are trying to do with the broadcast flag.
They want to make it a requirement that all equipment capable of recording broadcasts must comply with the broadcast flag, which means it can only record if the broadcaster allows it.
That would mean it's illegal to sell equipment that doesn't meet those requirements.
That would mean that books would have to disintegrate after all the pages had been turned for example.
Copyright has traditionally extended up to sale, and once you've bought a copyrighted work, you can resell it whenever you like. (Books, for example)
The modern trend in copyright is to try to retain copyright even after sale, so that you can't sell the item on after you've bought and used it.
Ebook and music downloads are usually tied to the particular pc they were bought on, and can't be resold afterwards.
If the companies put in some sort of flag that made it impossible to record then new recorders would be sold that got rid of the flag. Without a law to back it up the technology is worthless.
Which is why they are trying to get the law passed.
They tried to do it by the back door, getting the FCC to impose the broadcast flag, and deny FCC approval to any recording equipment that didn't include it (supposed to come in July 2005, overturned by the courts a month ago.)
When the courts ruled the FCC didn't have that power, the MPAA started working on getting the broadcast flag written into law instead.
Like I said earlier or maybe you just didnt read. Anything like that comes out it will get cracked in a month or less.
It's harder to crack hardware. The MPAA and FCC want it built in to every piece of hardware capable of receiving a digital TV broadcast.
either you own a copy of it when you buy the right to watch it in your home or you don't. If you buy a DVD you have the right to view it anytime you want or even sell it if you want... All very fair.
Actually that's not the MPAA's position.
They implemented copy protection on DVDs, only licenced players can decode the copy protection, which means you only have a right to watch the DVD you bought on an MPAA approved player.
Is it ok to make a copy of an HBO series say and then give it to your friends after you are done watching it? I don't know... the courts will decide.
Probably not to give it away, but it is legal to record it and watch it yourself.
Legal, but not possible in the future if the MPAA and FCC get their way.
That's the reason I wondered at your lack of committment to this topic.
It's legal to record a tv programme for your own use, illegal to copy and distribute it.
They are trying to ban the sale of hardware that would allow you to do something perfectly legal (record tv programmes), because it would also allow criminals to do something illegal (distribute tv programmes they have recorded)
There is nothing that they can do that will effect me in any form or fashion.
I haven`t really ever considered going into the illegal music or video copying business.
Have you ever recorded a TV programme to watch at a later date? eg with a video recorder or tivo?
If so, what they are trying to do will affect you.
You might want to tivo the film on Saturday night because you are going out, and plan to watch it on Sunday.
The MPAA don't want you to record the film on Saturday night because they make money from DVD sales as well as selling it to broadcasters, so they set the broadcast record flag to no, and you can't record it.
sholtzie... explain it to me. Are you saying that broadcast programs are not copywrighted?
They are copyrighted. Copyright doesn't mean you can't copy it, though.
(sorry for not replying earlier, lazs, I lost my internet connection for 24 hours)
