Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 1015208" data-attributes="member: 2013">Not exactly.Remember the Eldredge v. Ashcroft case... where it was explicitly stated by the SCOTUS that "Fair Use" was the main counterbalance to copyright extension.The concept of "Fair Use" was originally borne out of the First Amendment - the right to Freedom of Speech.  The logic was, of course, that a small amount of copyright infringement must of necessity take place in order for me to explain, review, or meaningfully discuss a copyrighted work.However, the DMCA significantly changed what the average American could do with what they bought.Prior to the DMCA, you were allowed to make backup copies of your CDs, software, and anything else under "Fair Use."  If that meant circumventing some sort of copy-protection or encryption scheme, that was also fine... because you were exercising your right of Fair Use.However, with the advent of the DMCA, my right to "Fair Use" is eroded further... because an attempt to circumvent copy protection on a CD that *I* have purchased so that *I* can make an archive copy for my own personal use (which has long been held to fall under Fair Use) has been criminalized.Again, let me repeat that.  In 1998, I could buy a copy-protected CD, circumvent the copy protection, and use my CD burner to make a copy for my own private use.  This was all legal.In 2003, doing the above is illegal thanks to the DMCA.  That means that my right to do what I want with my stuff has in very fact been changed.  The underlying premise for why I could do it in 1998 was "Fair Use" - which has NOT been repealed.  However, the DMCA allows companies to effectively block that application of fair use by using copy protection.  It may be an unintended consequence, but I doubt it.  A Senator, Zoe somethingorother introduced an amendment to the DMCA which amends it to say that circumventing copy protection, when done for the explicit purpose of exercising Fair Use rights, shall not be considered a violation of the DMCA and that publishing such a circumvention system shall not be considered illegal if no other circumvention system is made available to any legitimate owner of a CD/software/etc. by the person who does the copy protecting.  The RIAA and MPAA are fighting tooth and nail against this amendment.  If all it does is restore "fair use," why are the *AAs against it?  Answer: Because they do not believe in "Fair Use."I should also note that one of the reasons RPGNow PDF buyers want non-password-protected PDFs is that in the US, it's illegal to remove the password protection... thanks to the DMCA.Heck, it's illegal to even talk about how to do so according to the DMCA (though they lost the Elcomsoft/Sklyarov case) - even if you're trying to complain, "you say your software is secure and it's not - here's why."  That can land you in jail.  Apparently "false/misleading advertising" ("this is secure") is far more desirable than calling someone on that advertising ("no it's not because...").  Ridiculous.  I don't know about you, but I feel that's a big crimp on my Freedom of Speech.Thus, the DMCA unbalances copyright by removing de jure (obviously not de facto, but we are examining legalities, not practicalities here) the "Fair Use" counterweight to copyright laws.  Further, it is in fact a direct assault on my First Amendment constitutional rights (as Fair Use is a subset of Freedom of Speech, which is guaranteed in the First Amendment).This has turned political, though, and I expect this thread will not last much longer.--The Sigil</blockquote>

Verification