lostinlodos
Well-Known Member
Thread Starter
- Joined
- Feb 17, 2007
- Messages
- 589
- Likes
- 1
Be it noted this is only my legal opinion, based on my experience in computing, entertainment, and as a licensed legal practitioner. It represents no one but myself, on only myself.
This first post covers “Title I” “titles” 1-18 completely and “Title II” “titles” 1-4, and it’s related amendments. I will update this over the next few weeks as I have time to continue sifting through this. I would rather do this slowly and be sure not to make mistakes, comparing against caselogs and judgements of past.
Two things of note first:
1) No case has yet been completed within the United States or any of its possessions or autonomous regions that has been decided indisputly for violation of the entirety of the DMCA. Seven cases of note that have been filed in California, Missouri, Illinois, and New York, have all been filed under violations of specific titles and paragraphs of the DMCA; all still awaiting trial or under appeal.
2) The DMCA has allowed exceptions for “subverting” copy restrictions in digital media that had previously been illegal, dating back to the 1989 VCDLoc amendment (the first to cover any digital format copy protection). This has lead to the DMCA being used as a supportive defence in some late copyright violation cases.
Various ins and outs:
Also of note is that the DMCA has conflicting clauses in various parts. With a changing legal tide where defendants are growingly pledging to fight cases filed against them representing themselves has lead to 3637 of the 3893 2007 filed cases or petitions for filing; being dropped.
Prior to the DMCA and even in current CRV related filings; by their own numerous admissions to the fact, the RIAA, MPAA, and most of “big media” have all claimed that they rely on the “expense of fighting such case {sic} as a deterrent to ‘illegal’ activities and to encourage pre-trial settlements” –Sony lawyer.
Fighting a case when self-representing is relatively cheap if not free from charge in most cases, and 46 states have civil statutes similar to Illinois Eminent and Anticipated Net-Worth:Net-Value laws which bar compensation for the plaintiff’s legal fees if the fees are in excess of 25% the plaintiff’s own net worth (not allowed to include joint/family net worth) and is applied to both civil and criminal filings as well as state-legislature hearings. 30 states have laws or statutes that guarantee bankruptcy-filing protections of defendants who loose cases where the violation’s value is in excess of 200% of the person’s total net-worth. Essentially in these cases even if the filing company/group wins the case they have little chance of recovering any monetary “loss” as the inflated value of the “crime” that they claim when filing (avg $300 per CD/DVD home copy made and $5000+ per CDDA/DVD_VTS track made available online) in order to make jurors sympathetic to their losses also place the value over the % cut-off for most plaintiffs.
The DMCA violates every international copyright treaty the US had prior to its enactment. Currently only two countries regularly cooperate with the US regarding DMCA violations, either by US citizens residing in their country, or that country’s citizens who violated the DMCA: Australia and the United Kingdom’s possessions.
Under international law (and DMCA amendments) , the DMCA may only be applied to media originally developed for distribution to American citizens in American possessions or media distributed by an American company that is different in its American format to the original. In lay terms, the posting of a Japanese film online even in America, does not violate the DMCA. Nor does the distribution of a Chinese film that is also distributed by an American company in America. For example, Jet Li’s Hero is distributed by Sony Pictures Classic in the US. The posting of the Chinese or Japanese DVD’s image of the film within the US would not be a violation of the DMCA. This is because the American film contains a different video track that is not on the original or other international versions, an FBI warning and Sony trailers, and logo cells. The same thing applies to American films distributed in foreign companies. Horton hears a who is currently limitedly in theatres in the US. It was also released on R:0 and R:All discs in many Asian and Eastern European countries almost three weeks ago. The distribution of the International version of the film DVD in the US does not violate the DMCA, as the international version is different from the US; it contains localized subtitles.
Rental films, DVDs, HD-DVDs, Bluray Discs, VCDs and other media formats, are not specifically covered or related to DMCA other than being covered by the new copy allowances it offers and the media itself being digital media. Rental films are covered by the First Purchase regulations only.
Libraries selections are not affected by the DMCA. Certain films however are restricted from lending by the Patriot Act, such as critical documentaries that point out the US Government’s illegal activities, and films that encourage violence or are harmful to the public, such as SLC-Punk, Anarchy Rulz and Baise Moi, are barred from being made available to the public (but are available for critical or research purposes in Universities).
This first post covers “Title I” “titles” 1-18 completely and “Title II” “titles” 1-4, and it’s related amendments. I will update this over the next few weeks as I have time to continue sifting through this. I would rather do this slowly and be sure not to make mistakes, comparing against caselogs and judgements of past.
Two things of note first:
1) No case has yet been completed within the United States or any of its possessions or autonomous regions that has been decided indisputly for violation of the entirety of the DMCA. Seven cases of note that have been filed in California, Missouri, Illinois, and New York, have all been filed under violations of specific titles and paragraphs of the DMCA; all still awaiting trial or under appeal.
2) The DMCA has allowed exceptions for “subverting” copy restrictions in digital media that had previously been illegal, dating back to the 1989 VCDLoc amendment (the first to cover any digital format copy protection). This has lead to the DMCA being used as a supportive defence in some late copyright violation cases.
Various ins and outs:
Also of note is that the DMCA has conflicting clauses in various parts. With a changing legal tide where defendants are growingly pledging to fight cases filed against them representing themselves has lead to 3637 of the 3893 2007 filed cases or petitions for filing; being dropped.
Prior to the DMCA and even in current CRV related filings; by their own numerous admissions to the fact, the RIAA, MPAA, and most of “big media” have all claimed that they rely on the “expense of fighting such case {sic} as a deterrent to ‘illegal’ activities and to encourage pre-trial settlements” –Sony lawyer.
Fighting a case when self-representing is relatively cheap if not free from charge in most cases, and 46 states have civil statutes similar to Illinois Eminent and Anticipated Net-Worth:Net-Value laws which bar compensation for the plaintiff’s legal fees if the fees are in excess of 25% the plaintiff’s own net worth (not allowed to include joint/family net worth) and is applied to both civil and criminal filings as well as state-legislature hearings. 30 states have laws or statutes that guarantee bankruptcy-filing protections of defendants who loose cases where the violation’s value is in excess of 200% of the person’s total net-worth. Essentially in these cases even if the filing company/group wins the case they have little chance of recovering any monetary “loss” as the inflated value of the “crime” that they claim when filing (avg $300 per CD/DVD home copy made and $5000+ per CDDA/DVD_VTS track made available online) in order to make jurors sympathetic to their losses also place the value over the % cut-off for most plaintiffs.
The DMCA violates every international copyright treaty the US had prior to its enactment. Currently only two countries regularly cooperate with the US regarding DMCA violations, either by US citizens residing in their country, or that country’s citizens who violated the DMCA: Australia and the United Kingdom’s possessions.
Under international law (and DMCA amendments) , the DMCA may only be applied to media originally developed for distribution to American citizens in American possessions or media distributed by an American company that is different in its American format to the original. In lay terms, the posting of a Japanese film online even in America, does not violate the DMCA. Nor does the distribution of a Chinese film that is also distributed by an American company in America. For example, Jet Li’s Hero is distributed by Sony Pictures Classic in the US. The posting of the Chinese or Japanese DVD’s image of the film within the US would not be a violation of the DMCA. This is because the American film contains a different video track that is not on the original or other international versions, an FBI warning and Sony trailers, and logo cells. The same thing applies to American films distributed in foreign companies. Horton hears a who is currently limitedly in theatres in the US. It was also released on R:0 and R:All discs in many Asian and Eastern European countries almost three weeks ago. The distribution of the International version of the film DVD in the US does not violate the DMCA, as the international version is different from the US; it contains localized subtitles.
Rental films, DVDs, HD-DVDs, Bluray Discs, VCDs and other media formats, are not specifically covered or related to DMCA other than being covered by the new copy allowances it offers and the media itself being digital media. Rental films are covered by the First Purchase regulations only.
Libraries selections are not affected by the DMCA. Certain films however are restricted from lending by the Patriot Act, such as critical documentaries that point out the US Government’s illegal activities, and films that encourage violence or are harmful to the public, such as SLC-Punk, Anarchy Rulz and Baise Moi, are barred from being made available to the public (but are available for critical or research purposes in Universities).