Which subsection? I am interested and will read it.1201(k) talks about manufacturers of VCRs and broadcasters. As for manufacturers, it describes what kind of copy-protection that they must respect. As for broadcasters, it describes under what circumstances they can't apply copy protection.The discussion associated with the act makes it clear that Zuffa would be within their rights to apply copy-protection to their PPV broadcast, but if they choose not to, then time-shifting for personal noncommercial use would be legal as in the Sony Betamax case (which only applied to free television).
lol @ momita.
MODS PLEASE EXPLAIN
-jk
"but if they choose not to, then time-shifting for personal
noncommercial use would be legal as in the Sony Betamax
case"
Where does this conclusion come from? when has the court
interpreted PPV recording to be fair use? 106(1) is being
violated.
-jk
dp
tp
That's what I was saying. It may be difficult technically to record some PPV broadcasts, but legal, and even legal to copy it and show it to some friends in your house later.
Just because Zuffa can send out a protected signal and
chooses not to, I don't think that that automatically means that
we are allowed to copy the program, rather it means tat we
have the capability to copy it.
Stores can put security tags on their clothing. Even if they
don't we're not allowed to steal.
-jk
Where does this conclusion come from? when has the court interpreted PPV recording to be fair use? 106(1) is being violated.It is explicit in the discussion surrounding the adoption of the Act. Previously, time-shifting of free-TV had been extended fair-use protection by the Supreme Court in the Sony Betamax case. The DMCA extends this implicitly to PPV as well.I had a good link for this but it was deleted with no hope of retrieval, apparently, and I can't find it again. Well, I'm sure I could, but my time is finite.Here's another way of looking at it: content providers now have the option of choosing whether or not time-shifting a PPV event will be allowed (with copy-protection). If a PPV event is not copy-protected, then it's archival is being explicitly permitted by the content provider.
Just because Zuffa can send out a protected signal and chooses not to, I don't think that that automatically means that we are allowed to copy the program, rather it means tat we have the capability to copy it.Right, not automatically. It was the context of the adoption of the Act (including the recognition of widespread common practice) which provides that assurance.
NWS,
"If a PPV event is not copy-protected, then it's archival is
being explicitly permitted by the content provider. "
Who decided this? Is this opinion? What is your source?
I value your opinion and research skills. Thanks for your time
on this thread. I would still appreciate an explaination why
the original thread was removed.
-jk
"Right, not automatically. It was the context of the adoption of
the Act (including the recognition of widespread common
practice) which provides that assurance."
Is there legislative history suggesting this? Widespread
common practice is not always legal behavior.
-jk
you guys better bash a fighter or 2 before this thread gets deleted for being another good discussion............
Is there legislative history suggesting this?This is from the HRRC (Home Recording Rights Coalition, a home recording advocacy group):In the strictly analog world, the "encoding rules" developed for the DVRA did find expression in Section 1201(k) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 (DMCA). Section 1201(k) applies only to certain analog VCRs (primarily VHS format) and imposes a duty to respond to widely used "Macrovision" anti-copy encoding. The "encoding rules," as to when defined technology can be applied so as to prevent consumer copying, are derived directly from the 1993 formulation that has been the basis for all cooperative work since: * [Copy-protection] can be applied to packaged home video, pay-per-view, and video-on-demand programs. * [Copy-protection] can be applied to consumer copies of pay-cable channels (but not so as to prevent the first generation consumer copy). * [Copy-protection] may not be applied so as to interfere with home recording of other subscription program services, including basic cable, or of any programming originating as a free terrestrial broadcast.As you can see, this legislates the Betamax decision and extends it (in a limited way) to PPV.Widespread common practice is not always legal behavior.True, but Congress did take into account existing common practice and expectations.
Beginning in 1993, the HRRC joined in negotiations with representatives of the motion picture industry with the goal of drafting a balanced "Digital Video Recording Act" (DVRA) that would address content owner concerns over new formats and interfaces -- but would also recognize and preserve the reasonable and customary practices of consumers. In this process, it was recognized that users of consumer electronics would be subject to the development of technologies providing for "security" against both unauthorized program access as well as home copying. In exchange, motion picture studios would be bound by "encoding rules" that would preserve consumers' reasonable and customary practices.
NWS,
You quote from a Home Recording Advocacy Group. Not an
unbiased party.
"The "encoding rules," as to when defined technology can be
applied so as to prevent consumer copying, are derived
directly from the 1993 formulation that has been the basis for
all cooperative work since:"
Measures meant to prevent illiegal behavior are just that.
Nowhere is it suggested that if these measures are not taken,
then the otherwise illiegal behavior becomes legal.
"* [Copy-protection] can be applied to packaged home video,
pay-per-view, and video-on-demand programs. "
So this means that Zuffa can try to copyprotect it's broadcast.
(not doing so does not mean that copying is legal, just
easier).
"* [Copy-protection] can be applied to consumer copies of
pay-cable channels (but not so as to prevent the first
generation consumer copy)."
The bolded part applies to consumer copies of pay-cable
channels (not PPV which was a different bullet point).
"* [Copy-protection] may not be applied so as to interfere with
home recording of other subscription program services,
including basic cable, or of any programming originating as a
free terrestrial broadcast."
Right, free broadcasts are fair game.
-jk
"In exchange, motion picture studios would be bound by
"encoding rules" that would preserve consumers' reasonable
and customary practices. "
This does not mean the taping PPV is legal if no protection is
given to the signal.
-jk
You quote from a Home Recording Advocacy Group. Not an unbiased party.True, but they are one of the parties which has been involved in drafting just these kinds of bills.Measures meant to prevent illiegal behavior are just that. Nowhere is it suggested that if these measures are not taken, then the otherwise illiegal behavior becomes legal.So this means that Zuffa can try to copyprotect it's broadcast. (not doing so does not mean that copying is legal, just easier).From what I gathered earlier:* It has never been held to be illegal, so it is simply not yet illegal. That could change, though. The burden is on the person trying to prove illegality.* If a content provider has the option of copy-protecting, but does not choose to do so, then that is implicit authorization, if the copying is reasonable and customary.I'll try to have more later. This is clearly a rapidly evolving area of the law.
This does not mean the taping PPV is legal if no protection is given to the signal.It is legal unless it has been held to be illegal, which I don't think you've done.
sorry guys but IMO King Kong Bundy