MultiMedia Fair Use
Time to read: 11 min
April 21, 2019
Theres a DMCA banHammer coming because industry and people do not believe in “Fair USE”.
The MPAA and RIAA etc want you to believe one thing.
Content Creators want you to believe one thing.
The LAW is something ELSE.
Rather than have a backhash banter on twitter-
Let me comment in Detail on it, here.
Copyright law is published information. So is TradeMark.
However, laws are not static as some assume.
It can be assumed that a “movie production” is Copywrighted and not produced locally by everyone.
It is morally and ethically correct to remove offensive content. However-
Abusing DMCA laws to violate FairUSE is not legal.
I see it all the time. Ive been hit with bogus notices before. I did nothing wrong.
I updated my computer thru fileHippo. My ISP sent me a virus that infected my entire LAN.
Im am owed 10K by ComCast and Spectrum dba Charter internet.
They misdirected ME (my browser) as a DNS service provider- sending ME to the wrong place.
They want to blame the website- ultimately they misdirected my browser. Its not my fault. FileHippo is a "known clean" DL area.
I got hit with a DMCA notice for that.
How is updating my computer- UNFAIR?
It is assumed that you didnt produce the (Copyrighted) content- if you are claiming “Fair USE”.
Trying to impose extravagant workarounds for legal loopholes ALLOWED under the law- is forbidden by law.
(you are trying to circumvent a LEGAL END USERs rights -by trying to impose another set of laws)
If you produced it- its your work to do with as you please.
The internet archives??
This is supposed to be by LEGAL nature for those who have already purchased (and physically own)
a copy of the HARDWARE(ROM) or software. This counts as an ARCHIVE COPY- albeit a public one.
(In many cases this is abused- people download from here without checks if they bought the wares already)
DRM was supposed to be a “did I buy that”? Copyright check.
STEAM , APPLE MUSIC,etc (DRM) are used to make things LEGALLY COMPLIANT w distribution.
(YOU DID PAY FOR IT- there is a DRM record of said)
Unfortunately said DRM record is DEFECTIVE BY DESIGN.
ANY AND ALL KEYS can be IRREVERSIBLY REVOKED AT ANY TIME. (THIS IS WHAT EACH MKB version on BLU-RAYs effectively does)
You read that right-
EVERYTIME you insert a DISC- it updates your player **without consent**. YOU CANNOT GO BACK. IT IS A "blown eFUSE" and "flash rewrite".
The trick expanded from the XBOX 360- Ill describe this in a bit.
This is usually older games and Music CDs.
While frowned on- copying this (at least for HOME USE) is NOT ILLEGAL.
DISTRIBUTION is ILLEGAL. (You cannot make more than ONE copy.)
There is intentionally no law on the books regarding importation or copying of CDROM data or audio.
There is actually a reverse law ALLOWING it/circumventing lockouts because a computer drive
is NOT a “audio player” nor “recording device”.
Many game developers and RIAA/MPAA, etc retaliated by adding in bad sectors or
screwing with the ability to read the disc correctly without certain software running.
PS2 titles are riddled with issues like these, transparent to the real hardware and end user.
Im talking about movies for the most part.
The mini definition reads:
For PERSONAL, non COMMERCIAL and NONPublic distribution thereof (at home/office).
It does not read DISEMENATION, copying(beyond one “archive” copy), or torrenting.
Laws have changed-
The law now reads:
USER CAN "CIRCUMVENT BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY" ANY and ALL forms of DRM lockouts INCLUDING PATCHING OF (DVD/BDROM) DRIVE FIRMWARE.
MPAA and RIAA want you to “comply with thier rules” on watching movies on Linux
(The reason is that they dont want to support software on these platforms)
HOWEVER- THis is not legally enforced- just the opposite.
Linux playback is allowed by law. Cracking the DISC is ALLOWED by law. (this is the recent change)
BDROM (movies) have 3 keys-(3DES encryption is used):
ONE of 3 keys is in hardware sold to you at the computer store- ONE is in the player software (windows/mac)- this is missing on Linux - ONE is on disc (normally in an unreadable sector of the disc)
If you can get to the Title key(on disc) the movie is watchable.
This is a big deal.
Computer law intentionally allowed archival copy since early 90s.
Industry doesnt like this- tries to modify hardware to stop you.
The law says- this is now illegal.
The law doesnt stop manufacturers from producing locked drives, however.
This was part of the “region free” fiasco years ago.
1- you would buy the disc (lets say in a Japanese store) of an American title
2- your player reads as an American system and rejects the Japanese disc
Changes are limited.
Reigion free drives let you play the movie.
Region locked ones require a limited change (efuse) to be made (popped) first.
You cannot keep going back and forth. You have five switches. PERIOD.
3- You buy a movie in an American store- or on base but want to watch it too.
The old premise was to buy two players.
Then Region FREE (sans check) drives (and patches) came around.
The law just let you use those drive patches to watch all of your DVDs on.
This is a HOT TOPIC.
As Ive said:
INDUSTRY wants one thing- yet the LAW says something else.
You will notice if you look hard enough tha most discs read:
DO NOT MAKE ILLEGAL COPIES OF THIS DISC
some read(due to legal retaliation):
DO NOT MAKE (ANY) COPIES OF THIS DISC
The latter is incorrect legally.
YOU may make ONE COPY.
AT HOME or the office(preferably at home-you boss will kill you).
The former is CORRECT.
You are not making an ILLEGAL COPY - because ONE “archive” COPY is ALLOWED by law.
In most cases you have to modify the console (or drive) to enable this functionality.
However, in reality-
ANY COPY not produced at the stomping factory is deemed ILLEGAL by SONY and MICROSOFT(nintendo?).
Your unit becomes BANNED ONLINE once you boot a copy and connect to the servers.
The 360 uses check bits (code) inside of an embedded “movie logo” partition on most games.
If data (or timing or reads of which) doesnt match M$FT specs- the game will not boot.
The game will not boot whatsoever- without these check bit movie partitions on “copies”.
Further- you must have the correct check bit partition.
Sony took this up a notch with Blu-Ray -using the “Java engine” in the player.
Technically booting a game backup is a “user agreement violation”-
While they cant legally stop you from booting a backup- These companies forbid you from playing online with one.
Its not illegal, nor wrong. These companies just impose “draconian laws” on you.
Quite Frankly - Ill keep my backups, Thank You.
I did pay for that, often several times. Why should I pay for it again? Then when I do- you remove the game, content, or DRM key?
-Thats stealing from the consumer.
NOW WHO’S STEALING from WHOM?
Your companies call this stealing when its legal- just as long as it suits YOUR needs.
But when the law supports the consumers, you wont fess up to it.
I dont want my $$, microsoft. I want what I paid for. (give us the book)
In case of VALVE/STEAM:
The OLD version, please. Not this "NEW SHIT".
The media in question as of late- was something the media got a hold of.
No reference was made to the photographer or his staff on a supposed copyrighted image.
While not legally obligated- the paper (USA TODAY)
-may be ethically (or morally obligated) to remove said media.
IT IS PLGARISM, however, and serious consequences can develop.
The right thing to do is-
Give credit to others for thier work -or- remove thier content.
Members of the Media are supposed to filter out and know what plagarism is. They work hard (or supposed to work hard) to prevent such adverse actions.
Complaining that YOUR "copyrighted image" leaked to the media
you complain once it becomes property of a paper company (news organization)
your complaints will fall on deaf ears.
1st Ammendment rights (from the Editor and news agency) steps in at this point.
Your media becomes a part of “Journalistic Priviledge”.
Some Media organizations abide by this better than others, it seems.
(sleeze in this dept. isnt good…)
images (including here)
Images not taken by me will have sources listed.
I will not take credit for your work. That is wrong.
If you really insist-
I can find other images to use.
Id rather (reasonably) pay for permission(its easier).
Thumbnails are for demonstratum purpose.
They assist in undestanding of the material.
They are legally used for viewing purposes, not distribution -and are permitted by law.
Site Rippers and spider bots have been known to steal content.
(One can only auto-ban so much of this.)
The tweet read earlier:
"you cant just take things from the internet and.."
It is morally unethical and immoral to steal (MEDIA) content of the entire internet wo consent. (you can do -whatever you want- we hope the law catches up to you)
The definition of PUBLIC DOMAIN (the internet- a published website- or any other ONLINE CONTENT) by itself-
(although in respect to copyright) allows such PERSONAL USE.
To view the image, you download (cache) a PERSONAL COPY. (If you save it elsewhere- thats your business)
as per illegal distribution (serving the content) Copyright law allows it under SOME guidelines:
PERSONAL USE ILLUSTRATIVE USE (to illustrate a point of view) To help define a subject matter (educational context)
OTHER USES ARE ILLEGAL. NOT THESE.
The premise of yesteryear is thus ( I suggest people take this to heart):
If its on the internet- its fair game.
This is not to say TAKE personal CREDIT for someone else work.
(That is plagarism. QUOTE ALL SOURCES.)
If you think someone STOLE something-
the question should be-
HOW DID YOU ACQUIRE SUCH?
DO NOT presume such a situation is a “Copyright violation”.
-or deserves a DMCA takedown notice.
One may be warranted, however, for plagarism. Complain to the webhost or ISP.
(Web Host can be found out usually by using ‘whois’ or looking at the ‘whois database’.)
Ive done my homework.
I see others points of view.
Disagreeing is non-unamerican.
I just dont like betty banter because someone has a different view -or misunderstands the (changing) law.
I cant describe this to you in a “300 letters or less” tweet.
For THAT- Im sorry.
I am no lawyer- this is laymans interpretation based upon published laws.
Please consult(your probably flawed) legal council of any detailed questions on this matter.