1.The DMCA prohibits circumventing a technological protection measure that controls access to a copyrighted work.
Let's say you have video podcast. You want to take a clip from DVD. Most DVDs are encrypted, and even if you are making a fair use[link] ( ie you are making use of a short clip of the movie for commentary or criticism), the act of breaking the encryption is separate from any fair use[link] argument.
Is there any way around this restriction?
Glad you asked, because the answer is YES, there is an EXCEPTION! It's call the Analog Hole - and it appears to be the only completely legal way to get around the circumvention provision.
*** To take advantage of the Analog Hole, always remember this rule of thumb:
You need to be capturing the content( ie video or audio) AFTER it's been decrypted.
So while using software to break a DVD's encryption code could violate this provision, there are other ways to legally make use of the content you would like to obtain, so long as you use the Analog Hole. Examples of likely acceptable ways that you could make use of the Analog Hole to capture content legally might include
If you use a licensed program to simply play a DVD on your computer screen, and THEN intercept the signal by doing a simple screen capture.
If you play encrypted audio through your sound system and feed the signal into a device for recording.
The simple, lo-fi way - Simply use a video camera record screen displaying the video you want to use, or use a sound recorder to record audio that is playing through your speakers.
REMEMBER: Even if you use the Analog Hole, your use of content should still be either 1. a fair use[link] 2. content you have a license to use[link], 3. public domain[link], and 4. otherwise legal.
">i prohibits circumventing a technological protection measure that controls access to a copyrighted work... the act of breaking the encryption is separate from any fair use argument."
I'd like to know just 'who' invented these encryption codings? Did the music industry invent them? The movie industry?
Isn't the actual encryption technology a product of the government, as in Military R&D?
If so, then those are my tax-dollars that paid to develop said encryption technology, thus, I own it. Hence, this business of not being able to access encrypted material, per the DMCA, in order to exercise my 'Fair Use' rights is a wholly unpersuasive argument?
Illegal to traffic in(ie distribute, perhaps even linking to) in a device that allows you to circumvent copy protections.
This provision is targeted at keeping you from making copies
http://chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=698
Abstract: Jonathan McIntosh’s celebrated remix, Buffy vs. Edward has been a classic example of a fair use for years. Nevertheless, at the end of 2012, it was blocked from YouTube due to a copyright claim from Lionsgate Films. Despite McIntosh’s best efforts to make the parties aware of the facts, and of the video’s clearly fair use of the material in question, the video remains down.
This appalling saga is one of those stories where the facts are so ludicrously ironic that you feel it must be fiction. A type specimen for a fair use remix video gets taken off YouTube because a rightsholder says it’s infringing. But, as the saying goes, you can’t make this stuff up.
What had changed? Why was the video, which had been viewed hundreds of thousands of times, and presumably had been monitored by YouTube’s internal copyright software, ContentID, suddenly a problem?
http://chillingeffects.org/weather.cgi?WeatherID=694
“If you haven’t done anything wrong, you don’t have anything to worry about. This will only affect the bad guys.”
Analogously, it’s apparently all right to give governments the power to censor speech, because they will only censor the speech you don’t like. But what is that speech, and who gets to decide? But even setting aside the problems with deliberately creating echo chambers or filter bubbles of thought, there’s also the fact that it isn’t “bad” speech that critics of censorship are worried about, it’s bad censors.
Whenever I’m told, as above, that I’ve nothing to worry about, I like to respond immediately by quoting Cardinal Richelieu.
“If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
If a government has a reason to censor your speech, it will, regardless of how pure or societally desirable you think it is.
“Criminalizing ideas doesn't make them go away any more than sticking your head in the sand makes unpleasant things disappear.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States%E2%80%9D
https://www.eff.org/issues/dmca
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/10/youtube-upgrades-its-automated-copyright-enforcement-system
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#cite_note-25
http://www.ivir.nl/publications/hugenholtz/opinion-EIPR.html
Why the Copyright Directive is Unimportant, and Possibly Invalid.
The European Court’s decision raises the intriguing prospect of one or more disgruntled Member States challenging the validity of the Copyright Directive. Wouldn’t that be the perfect way of getting rid of this monstrosity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act
see Notable court cases
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook,_Inc._v._Power_Ventures,_Inc.
The court's ruling addressed a motion to dismiss the copyright, DMCA, trademark, and UCL claims.
No, you don't own it: Court upholds EULAs, threatens digital resale
Those onerous EULAs that govern software? They're valid, and they can keep you
copyright owner (1) specifies that the user is granted a license; (2) significantly restricts the user’s ability to transfer the software; and (3) imposes notable use restrictions."
"You agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content. You are not granted any synchronization, public performance, promotional use, commercial sale, resale, reproduction or distribution rights for the Digital Content." Used music stores? Out of business in the digital age (a result we've worried about for some time).
Software is likewise at risk. Most is governed by some form of End User License Agreement (EULA); Electronic Arts's version goes out its way to note, "This Software is licensed to you, not sold"
So, to recap: EULAs are binding, they can control just about everything you might dream up, and only Congress can change the situation.