I just read
this article, and what a load of despicable crap Mz. Marybeth Peters had to say. Furthermore, for her to insinuate that the EFF is "poisoning the well" of law when it is one of the few strong voices out there actually standing up for consumers is rather disdainful and despicable when the big copyright holders have all the lawyers in the world playing all the dirty tricks in their defense.
I mean talk about going to the supposed letter of the law while completely bypassing the spirit! Although
technically different, DVDs and VHS tapes are
functionally the same. So, there should be no fundamental difference in the law governing fair use with either.
And how do you explain the law providing consumers a legal means of backing up and even sharing (under certain circumstances) DVDs, but then saying that if a company puts a "lock" (DRM) on the content, they are not legally entitled to bypass it in order to use the content in accordance with fair use, essentially making it up to the copyright holder whether the consumer can exercise fair use or not?! It is ludicrous! It basically allows the copyright holder bypass fair use!
This is
convenience! Of course, then we have the DCMA supporting this absurdity.-- A law supporting the bypassing of another law. How incoherent can the law get?
Of course, everyone knows VHS is on its way out and doesn't matter much in the future, so the argument that you can on VHS but not on DVDs doesn't hold much water even for the most delusional of copyright holders.
This is what it's all about, though. It's a war of power, in which the big copyright holders try to take away the small amount of power consumers were given with fair use and other rulings, under the pretense that digital media is inherently different from analog media, which is simply not true from a functional aspect.
Copyright holders deserve rights to their works and certain protections from copying and others unjustly making money from their works. However, the balance is tipped far too much in the favor of copyright holders and they have become greedy and abusive with power.
As pointed out, copyright was created for the good of the public, given the copyright holder certain exclusivity for a limited period of time for compensation and releasing the works to the public afterwards. I don't think it was meant as a tool for huge corporations to intimidate and harass the public with seemingly perpetual and unlimited copyright powers.
Myself, I would completely reexamine copyrights, pull back the period of exclusivity closer to the original and put more limits on companies owning copyrights and give more power to individuals with copyrights (rather than companies). Patents are a similar issue, BTW.
Also, I would bring copyright infringement penalties down to earth, and not place it aside such crimes as murder, terrorism, war or even theft. It should be viewed as an abuse of another's work, and the copyright holder should be compensated for any money made from the illegal sale of another's work.
Make a company or individual pay back any money made plus any further (reasonable) damages. If needed to, slap a reasonable (percentage-based) fine on there. But, prison time? What for? Why would you put someone who has committed merely (what should be) a civil crime, who is not violent nor a threat to anybody in prison? It makes zero sense to me.
And then you have the feds conducting raids for these big companies. What a waste of taxpayer money!!! If a copyright holder has reason to suspect another company or individual is misusing his copyrighted material it shouldn't be very difficult to collect evidence and present it to a court. "Piracy raids" are overkill.
It's just like government, though-- protecting big business and willing to go to another extreme of violence to protect its financial gains. I think that's very disappointing and disturbingly alarming to the condition of our governments.
Top