DMCA - A copyright law that restricts quoting people

[Yoshimo]

Doesn't it seem a little odd? The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) has a copyright law that states that you can not quote anyone without first getting permission. May be useful for writers, like Stephenie Meyer(sp?), but the law states that anything anyone writes is considered copywritten in their name.

Also, you might want to contact me if you want to quote this post, or I will have liable grounds to sue. Of course, I'm not a dick so anyone may have permission to quote me.

[sheganican]

[]

[Yoshimo]

Hmm. A bit more research yeilded this:

[quote"Wikipedia on the DMCA]DMCA Title V added sections 1301 through 1332 to add a sui generis protection for boat hull designs. Boat hull designs were not considered covered under copyright law because they are useful articles whose form cannot be cleanly separated from their function.[/quote]
Apparently this alos effects boats...

Alos, I broke a copywrite in telling you this. Go figure. >_>

[Flycatcher]

Okay, no.

Simple plagiarism is not reasonable grounds to sue, even if it is technically legally possible. Any half-wit judge would rule against fining money.

[T3chno]

I'm pretty sure something you've said today has been said by someone before you. Did you give credit?

[otters~1]

Hi.

...writers, like Stephenie Meyer...

Not a writer.

[jean-luc]

the law states that anything anyone writes is considered copywritten in their name.

Copyright has been implicit since some of the first examples of such law crafted in the 18th century. Long prior to the DMCA, everything created that is eligible for copyright is copyrighted, automatically. All of the posts you write to this forum are, by the fact that you wrote them, your exclusive copyright (although note that you have implicitly, and likely explicitly if these forums use a standard ToS, granted these forums unlimited permission to duplicate and disseminate them). The DMCA did not change this.

The primary intent of the DMCA was to codify in to copyright law the protection of Digital Rights Management, or DRM, software. The DMCA makes it a criminal act to circumvent DRM (excepting certain cases that the Supreme Court has explicitly decided are permissible). This is very concerning, because DRM often places technical restrictions on media that prevent legally permissible use. The prime example of this is the Fair Use Doctrine. The DMCA does not directly impinge upon fair use, but it's results very clearly do result in the violation of fair use doctrine. DRM also often restricts on legal uses such as copying between media for use on alternative devices, for example, moving music from a CD to your portable music player (whether or not this is legal is actually somewhat iffy. The industry would like to say it isn't, but the common people think that's outrageous. It hasn't been tested in court yet).

Fail Use Doctrine gives you the right to reproduce and disseminate copyrighted material for certain reasons. Among these reasons are:
- Editorial comment (discussing the work itself)
- Criticism
- Parody
Even in these cases, fair use typically only gives you a right to reproduce a small portion of the work, not the entire work. Fair use is always somewhat gray, and when challenged in court is left to the judgement of the judge. Note that you never have fair use rights if you fail to properly cite the work's original creator or copyright holder.

How this applies to forums is legally unprecedented right now. Quoting a post is, in many cases, editorial use. This is not always the case, however. The quoting of posts in a medium like this has never been challenged in court, and thus there is no established precedent.

[squibbles]

Hi.

...writers, like Stephenie Meyer...

Not a writer.

BAHAHAHAHA!
QFE. <3

(sue me)

[SlappyMcGee]

...

Fail Use Doctrine gives you the right to reproduce and disseminate...

Ahaha. Fail.

[otters]

Hi.

...writers, like Stephenie Meyer...

Not a writer.

She's contrived a number of published books, and we have to assume she's written them.

A writer.

[Tunco]

Doesn't it seem a little odd? The DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) has a copyright law that states that you can not quote anyone without first getting permission. May be useful for writers, like Stephenie Meyer(sp?), but the law states that anything anyone writes is considered copywritten in their name.

Also, you might want to contact me if you want to quote this post, or I will have liable grounds to sue. Of course, I'm not a dick so anyone may have permission to quote me.

That's so logical, and stupid also. :/

And weird.

[Yoshimo]

Yeah... I'm not that good at legal stuff. Also, I was trying to think of who wrote 'Flowers for Algernonn' but I couldn't remember so I just used Stephanie Meyer. I hate her work though.

[Zilla]

Personally, I think the DMCA is a load of garbage. I understand the need to codify copyright law and I understand the importance of protecting one's works. However, let's be honest here. Who benefits more from the DMCA, giant companies or the little guy?

Take the iPhone Jailbreaking case, for example. For those of you who don't know, the iPhone and iPod touch use the App Store to distribute applications for purchase and download. Every single application has to go through an approval process by Apple before it can be placed into the App Store. However, Apple's approval process is, for lack of a better expression, complete BS. Among other things, they deny apps for duplicating any single Mobile OS X feature, for having any sort of "objectionable content" (ranging anywhere from profanity to adult content), or for catching the person assigned to approving the app in a bad mood (probably). This has led to some really weird rejections, such as Nine Inch Nails-themed apps and apps with podcasting built in.

Since Apple took so long to even get around to implementing legit app support (their excuse were some lame AJAX web apps) and since the approval process is so ridiculous and arbitrary, the community came up with a way to get around Apple's restrictions: the jailbreak. This procedure installs an alternative app catalog which requires no approval process and places no limits on content or functionality. But hey, hackers will be hackers, so no big deal, right?

Wrong. Jobs and co. aren't too thrilled with the jailbreaking scene, so they're pushing to get it outlawed under, you guessed it, the DMCA. According to the lawyers, jailbreaking can lead to "copyright infringement, potential damage to the device and other potential harmful physical effects, adverse effects on the functioning of the device, and breach of contract." They, of course, fail to mention that jailbreaking can also get in the way of their tidy 30% profit on all app sales. And yes, some people have been pirating apps, but it's not likely to be a widespread practice.

The DMCA has just become the enforcer for all these companies, and it's really not clear enough in how it operates, considering how much debate occurs over its interpretation. It should be protecting the artists I listen to, not keeping me from copying their works from a CD to my iPod.

[pinballwizard96]

If this be the case, then I can think of more than a few who would be happy to sue me.
Also, does the law cover A -> D conversion onto portable devices?

[jean-luc]

If this be the case, then I can think of more than a few who would be happy to sue me.
Also, does the law cover A -> D conversion onto portable devices?

Currently no part of copyright law (at least none that has ever been brought to my attention) explicitly discusses converting media between formats or copying between devices so long as they are for the exclusive use of the licensed individuals. Thus this is an issue that's widely open to interpretation.

We all consider it amongst our rights to copy media between devices (this includes when we must convert between formats) for our own use. This may be VHS tapes to DVDs, music on hard disk to music on portable device, or copying a disc to an image on our hard disks so we can avoid carrying around the disc all the time. To consumers, this is a basic right we have to the use of our media.

To the industry, not so much. The RIAA has argued on several occasions that copying media between devices constitutes illegal duplication and possibly distribution. The MPAA has mentioned that they think they should receive additional licensing fees when a film is copied to a portable device. So far, neither organization (or any other intellectual property trade group) has taken anyone to court over such offense, so the court has not established an opinion on this.

Existing copyright law can really be read either way, depending on your personal opinion.