Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks
Nice, but you know the dissenting opinion doesnt' mean shit.. it's just an opinion
|
so far the court have side with that scope limitation so i have to respect the distinction even though i may not agree with.
Quote:
|
You are still making no sense, rather you are just talking semantics. DRM is a physical restriction placed on a file.
|
your missing a part INDEPENDENT OF COPYRIGHT LAW.
this is an important part
think about it this way if i DRM a public domain content i am placing restrictions on the content even though i have no copyright protections. As a public domain content i am free to release it anyway i want, i can't claim a copyright to that work, yet i can still apply DRM to said content.
Obviously in that example someone could get a NON DRM copy of the work but for the instance i have create i have restricted access.
Quote:
|
If fair use is what you say it is, then you have all the rights you claim, including time-shifting, and from what I have read, the potential to format shift (which is still being argued.) Also, how can you claim that I can override Fair Use?
|
simply put if you are claiming the protections of exclusive right of the copyright act you must respect the exclusions to those rights (fair use etc)
IF on the other hand you are blocking access independent of those exclusive rights (see the above public domain example) then you have no responsiblity to honor the exclusions.
I may not like it but that the way the law works, so i respect it.
Quote:
|
I thought in your mind it is an undeniable right that is more powerful than copyright law itself??
|
both fair use and your exclusive rights are part OF THE SAME LAW, in order of priority FAIR USE part trumps the EXCLUSIVE rights part because the ACT creates an absolute exclusion of those exclusive rights.
FAIR USE like the EXCLUSIVE RIGHTS of the act are bound by the limits of that act, impliment a restrictions outside the scope of that act (outside the scope of the exclusive rights granted by the act) and FAIR USE does not apply.
Quote:
|
Just by using DRM I can tell people that they have no fair use right to my content? So if someone circumvents my DRM would they then have created an infringement?
|
nope because again both the DRM and the circumvention are outside the scope of the copyright act. You might be able to sue them if there is a law that makes such an act illegal (contract law) but you would be bound by damages of that section of statutes. If you want to use the protection of copyright law you must respect fair use even if the act of circumvention is extended into the domain of copyright law (DMCA). That why studios won in 321 case and lost when targeting open source DVD player for using the same illegal code.
Quote:
|
A member must agree to my TOS before entering my site. It is part of the contract when signing up. You agree to adhere to these Terms and Conditions.
|
and that is contract law, not copyright law
nothing stops you from suing them for damages under contract law. But you would have a much harder time in an online transaction because having to prove that they knowingly agreed to all the terms you are suing them for.
Quote:
|
Just because I don't put a physical limitation on the file doesn't change the fact that I am retaining my rights. You cannot say that DRM is a clear definition of saying here are your limitations, but the contractual arrangement of TOS and T&C is not. That is a complete contradiction.
|
no it is not (check out the public domain) your rights under the act are limited by fair use. When you go beyond the scope of the act you can restrict their rights further (i don't like it but that the way the law works now) the second you fall back on the protections of the act you have to live with the responsiblities as well (exclusion of your exclusive rights)