Copyright Class #2

Editor's Notes

1. \n
2. \n
3. \n
4. Not my intention to go further with a discussion of the laws as they stand, we covered that last week.\nI’d like to look further now at the issues.\n
5. Not my intention to go further with a discussion of the laws as they stand, we covered that last week.\nI’d like to look further now at the issues.\n
6. If the intent of the statute is encouragement, then we need to look at the creativity it intended to encourage\n
7. By Luke Jarrett (designer)\nIn my very first lecture at UNI, the head of the design department came in and told us all that we have never had, and are very unlikely to ever have a completely original idea. He said that all of our design, all of our art, anything we had created up until this point didn’t come solely from our own head but was appropriated from someone else.\nAt that point, offended and angry, we defended ourselves with as much fervor and four letter words as we could muster. We are creative people! Original ideas are what we thrive on! What is creativity if not originality? You don’t know us! Who are you to comment on how original we are?\nOur lecturer sat calmly and listened to us, nodding and smiling but never offering to defend his position.\nWhen the riot had died down, he told us to take a break. Outside, we continued the debate amongst ourselves. We hardly knew each other but before long we were united by a common goal to show this idiot of a lecturer over the next 3 years how very wrong he is.\n15 minutes later, we went back to class intent on not really listening. For the remainder of the class he rambled on about “inspiration” and tried to convince everyone the best thing they could do to become a good designer was to go to the library and look at the design books there. To most of us, that sounded like a great way to stifle creativity and encourage copyright infringement.\nOver the next semester, a few people took on his advice but most of us, myself included, ignored it choosing instead to spend more time working on our own designs than looking at other peoples.\nIt didn’t take me long to figure out that the students who were endlessly looking at current design work managed to get their assignments done faster and to a much higher standard than the rest of us. Were the two related or were these people just naturally better designers? Reluctantly, I ventured into the library…\nAs I began to spend more of my time looking at other peoples work, I grew more passionate about what I was doing. I was getting excited about design and drooling over expensive typefaces. I could tell the difference between good and bad design. My own standard of work was getting higher and I was no longer agonising for weeks on end over an assessment, trying to come up with ideas and only ever drawing blanks.\nAs much as I hated to admit it, the head of the design department knew what he was talking about. Go figure.\nThe key to idea generation, I discovered, is filling your head with ideas! If you have only ever heard pop music, you will never be able to write a classical piece – you don’t even know what it is! Similarly, if you only ever look at the visually violating packaging in the supermarket or awful layouts in trashy magazines, that’s all you’ll ever be able to design.\nBy immersing yourself in the ideas of the leaders in your field (be it design, music, art or anything of a creative nature) and using them to inspire your own work, you’ll find yourself creating fresh concepts at a high standard. The hardest part is finding the point where you’re using other work for inspiration and not just ripping off ideas. The line between uninspired and copyright infringement is a fine one and can be difficult to find, but it’s there that designers create their best work.\n\n
8. By Luke Jarrett (designer)\nIn my very first lecture at UNI, the head of the design department came in and told us all that we have never had, and are very unlikely to ever have a completely original idea. He said that all of our design, all of our art, anything we had created up until this point didn’t come solely from our own head but was appropriated from someone else.\nAt that point, offended and angry, we defended ourselves with as much fervor and four letter words as we could muster. We are creative people! Original ideas are what we thrive on! What is creativity if not originality? You don’t know us! Who are you to comment on how original we are?\nOur lecturer sat calmly and listened to us, nodding and smiling but never offering to defend his position.\nWhen the riot had died down, he told us to take a break. Outside, we continued the debate amongst ourselves. We hardly knew each other but before long we were united by a common goal to show this idiot of a lecturer over the next 3 years how very wrong he is.\n15 minutes later, we went back to class intent on not really listening. For the remainder of the class he rambled on about “inspiration” and tried to convince everyone the best thing they could do to become a good designer was to go to the library and look at the design books there. To most of us, that sounded like a great way to stifle creativity and encourage copyright infringement.\nOver the next semester, a few people took on his advice but most of us, myself included, ignored it choosing instead to spend more time working on our own designs than looking at other peoples.\nIt didn’t take me long to figure out that the students who were endlessly looking at current design work managed to get their assignments done faster and to a much higher standard than the rest of us. Were the two related or were these people just naturally better designers? Reluctantly, I ventured into the library…\nAs I began to spend more of my time looking at other peoples work, I grew more passionate about what I was doing. I was getting excited about design and drooling over expensive typefaces. I could tell the difference between good and bad design. My own standard of work was getting higher and I was no longer agonising for weeks on end over an assessment, trying to come up with ideas and only ever drawing blanks.\nAs much as I hated to admit it, the head of the design department knew what he was talking about. Go figure.\nThe key to idea generation, I discovered, is filling your head with ideas! If you have only ever heard pop music, you will never be able to write a classical piece – you don’t even know what it is! Similarly, if you only ever look at the visually violating packaging in the supermarket or awful layouts in trashy magazines, that’s all you’ll ever be able to design.\nBy immersing yourself in the ideas of the leaders in your field (be it design, music, art or anything of a creative nature) and using them to inspire your own work, you’ll find yourself creating fresh concepts at a high standard. The hardest part is finding the point where you’re using other work for inspiration and not just ripping off ideas. The line between uninspired and copyright infringement is a fine one and can be difficult to find, but it’s there that designers create their best work.\n\n
9. Discuss - \n
10. Discuss - \n
11. So the converse of the statute is that it meant to encourage creativity by giving the author financial incentive.\n\nWhat is your opinion of how that incentive looks today?\n\nHas the commercialism gone to far?\n\nMillion dollar industries -\nThe thin end of the wedge -\n\nBooks in the Epublishing era\nTV Shows in the dvd era - the writers’ strike\n\nWilliam Styron may have been one of the leading literary lions of recent decades, but his books are not selling much these days. Now his family has a plan to lure digital-age readers with e-book versions of titles like “Sophie’s Choice,” “The Confessions of Nat Turner” and Mr. Styron’s memoir of depression, “Darkness Visible.”\n\n\n\nWilliam Styron in 1983.\nRelated\nThe Letter From Mr. Dohle (pdf)\nBut the question of exactly who owns the electronic rights to such older titles is in dispute, making it a rising source of conflict in one of the publishing industry’s last remaining areas of growth.\nMr. Styron’s family believes it retains the rights, since the books were first published before e-books existed.Random House, Mr. Styron’s longtime publisher, says it owns those rights, and it is determined to secure its place — and continuing profits — in the Kindleera.\n\n\n
12. http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/series/HarryPotter.php\n\nBooks in the Epublishing era\nTV Shows in the dvd era - the writers’ strike\n\nWilliam Styron may have been one of the leading literary lions of recent decades, but his books are not selling much these days. Now his family has a plan to lure digital-age readers with e-book versions of titles like “Sophie’s Choice,” “The Confessions of Nat Turner” and Mr. Styron’s memoir of depression, “Darkness Visible.”\n\n\n\nWilliam Styron in 1983.\nRelated\nThe Letter From Mr. Dohle (pdf)\nBut the question of exactly who owns the electronic rights to such older titles is in dispute, making it a rising source of conflict in one of the publishing industry’s last remaining areas of growth.\nMr. Styron’s family believes it retains the rights, since the books were first published before e-books existed.Random House, Mr. Styron’s longtime publisher, says it owns those rights, and it is determined to secure its place — and continuing profits — in the Kindleera.\n\n\n
13. Define Property\nOwning an Idea\n\n\n\n
14. The general rule is that the author (creator) owns the copyright in literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works,Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) [s 35(2)]. Similarly, the producer (maker) of a film [ss 98(2), 22(4)] or sound recording [ss 97(2), 22(3)] usually owns the copyright. The broadcaster owns the copyright in a broadcast [s 99] and a publisher owns the copyright in a published edition [s 100].\nThere are some important exceptions to the general rule:\nwhere a literary, dramatic, musical or artistic work is made in the course of the author's employment, (in other words the work is part of an employee's job) the employer owns the copyright [s 35(6)].\nWhere the author is a journalist employed by a newspaper or magazine, the journalist owns the rights for the purposes of inclusion in a book or for photocopying, while the employer owns all other rights [s 35(4)];\nwhere photographs taken for a private or domestic purpose, portraits, engravings, sound recordings, and films are commissioned, the person who commissions the work owns the copyright [ss 35(5),97(3),98(3)]. In all other cases of commissioned works however, the author owns copyright;\nmaterial created under the direction or control of the Government, or first published by the Government, is owned by the Government [ss 176-178];\nIt is important to note that the general rule and the exceptions can be changed by agreement or assignment[ss 35(3),97(3),98(3),179]. So, for instance, a person who commissions a private or domestic photograph may sign an agreement that the photographer owns the copyright. Copyright ownership may also be assigned in writing. For this reason it is unwise to assume that the owner will be the creator of the work in question or the creator’s employer. Ownership should be checked in each particular case.\nCopyright law recognises that works may be made by more than one person. These are works of joint authorship and copyright in such works is often jointly owned. For a work to be jointly owned the contributions of each author must not be distinguishable. If various authors contribute separate parts they are not joint authors, but each own the copyright in their contribution.\n\nLabels typically own the copyright in the records their artists make, and also the master copies of those records. An exception is when a label makes a distribution deal with an artist; in this case, the artist, their manager, or another party may own the copyright (and masters), while the record is licensed exclusively to the label for a set period of time.Promotion is a key factor in the success of a record, and is largely the label's responsibility, as is proper distribution of records.\nWhile initial recording deals usually yield a smaller percentage of royalties to the artists, subsequent (or renegotiated) deals can result in much greater profit, or profit potential.\n\n\n
15. The practice of labelling the infringement of exclusive rights in creative works as "piracy" predates statutory copyright law. Prior to the Statute of Anne 1709, the Stationers' Company of London in 1557 received a Royal Charter giving the company a monopoly on publication and tasking it with enforcing the charter. Those who violated the charter were labelled pirates as early as 1603.[1] \n\nAfter the establishment of copyright law with the 1709 Statute of Anne in Britain, the term "piracy" has been used to refer to the unauthorized manufacturing and selling of works in copyright.[2]\n
16. Plagiarism is not a crime per se but is disapproved more on the grounds of moral offence,[7][17] and cases of plagiarism can involve liability for copyright infringement.\n\n
17. Australia\nSee also: Australian copyright law\nIn Australia, the grounds for fair dealing are:\nResearch and study (section 40 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth))\nReview and criticism (s41)\n"Reporting the news" (s42)\nLegal advice (although the federal Crown is deemed to own copyright in federal statutes, and the Crown in each State in state statutes). (s43)\nParody and Satire (with some exceptions) (s41A)\nAustralia has a deeming provision which guarantees that fair dealing applies if you photocopy either "not more than one chapter", or "less than 9.99%" of a book or journal (this was a result of a successful lawsuit brought against a university library for "authorisation" of patrons' copyright infringement).\nRegarding fair dealing under Crown copyright the Australian Copyright Act 1968, ss.176-178. Section 182A (inserted by Act 154 of 1980, s.23) provides that the copyright, including any prerogative right or privilege of the Crown in the nature of copyright, in Acts, Ordinances, regulations etc., and judgments of Federal or State courts and certain other tribunals, is not infringed by the making, by reprographic reproduction, of one copy of the whole or part of that work for a particular purpose (this does not apply where charge for copy exceeds cost).\n\nWikinews has related news:Australian copyright laws to be overhauled in 2006\nRegarding the re-use of copyrighted images or drawings, the Australian Copyright Act does not impose a 10%-limit under its fair dealing provisions for the purpose of research and study. Instead, each and every such use for research or study must be evaluated individually to determine whether it is fair, similar to the notion of fair usein U.S. copyright law. Among the criteria used to determine the fairness of a use are the purpose and character of the dealing, the nature of the work, the possibility of obtaining the work commercially within a reasonable time, the effect of the use on the potential market for the work or on its value, and how much of a work is copied.\nIn 2006, a federal law (Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) No. 158, 2006) enabled parody and satire to qualify as fair dealing under federal copyright law in certain circumstances. [1].\nThe amendments in 2006 also added a number of other very specific and quite limited exceptions to copyright for personal use of AV material, including those popularly known as 'time shifting' (s111) and 'format shifting' (s110AA).\n\nHow does a court know if it’s fair - \n\nThe purpose and character of the use of copyrighted work\nTransformative quality - Is the new work the same as the copyrighted work, or have you transformed the original work, using it in a new and different way?\nCommercial or noncommercial - Will you make money from the new work, or is it intended for nonprofit, educational, or personal purposes? Commercial uses can still be fair uses, but courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.\nThe nature of the copyrighted work\nA particular use is more likely to be considered fair when the copied work is factual rather than creative.\nThe amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole\nHow much of the copyrighted work did you use in the new work? Copying nearly all of the original work, or copying its "heart," may weigh against fair use. But "how much is too much" depends on the purpose of the second use. Parodies, for example, may need to make extensive use of an original work to get the point across.2\nThe effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work\nThis factor applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, that will weigh against fair use. Uses of copyrighted material that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely to be considered fair.\n\n
18. Australia\nSee also: Australian copyright law\nIn Australia, the grounds for fair dealing are:\nResearch and study (section 40 Copyright Act 1968 (Cth))\nReview and criticism (s41)\n"Reporting the news" (s42)\nLegal advice (although the federal Crown is deemed to own copyright in federal statutes, and the Crown in each State in state statutes). (s43)\nParody and Satire (with some exceptions) (s41A)\nAustralia has a deeming provision which guarantees that fair dealing applies if you photocopy either "not more than one chapter", or "less than 9.99%" of a book or journal (this was a result of a successful lawsuit brought against a university library for "authorisation" of patrons' copyright infringement).\nRegarding fair dealing under Crown copyright the Australian Copyright Act 1968, ss.176-178. Section 182A (inserted by Act 154 of 1980, s.23) provides that the copyright, including any prerogative right or privilege of the Crown in the nature of copyright, in Acts, Ordinances, regulations etc., and judgments of Federal or State courts and certain other tribunals, is not infringed by the making, by reprographic reproduction, of one copy of the whole or part of that work for a particular purpose (this does not apply where charge for copy exceeds cost).\n\nWikinews has related news:Australian copyright laws to be overhauled in 2006\nRegarding the re-use of copyrighted images or drawings, the Australian Copyright Act does not impose a 10%-limit under its fair dealing provisions for the purpose of research and study. Instead, each and every such use for research or study must be evaluated individually to determine whether it is fair, similar to the notion of fair usein U.S. copyright law. Among the criteria used to determine the fairness of a use are the purpose and character of the dealing, the nature of the work, the possibility of obtaining the work commercially within a reasonable time, the effect of the use on the potential market for the work or on its value, and how much of a work is copied.\nIn 2006, a federal law (Copyright Amendment Act 2006 (Cth) No. 158, 2006) enabled parody and satire to qualify as fair dealing under federal copyright law in certain circumstances. [1].\nThe amendments in 2006 also added a number of other very specific and quite limited exceptions to copyright for personal use of AV material, including those popularly known as 'time shifting' (s111) and 'format shifting' (s110AA).\n\nHow does a court know if it’s fair - \n\nThe purpose and character of the use of copyrighted work\nTransformative quality - Is the new work the same as the copyrighted work, or have you transformed the original work, using it in a new and different way?\nCommercial or noncommercial - Will you make money from the new work, or is it intended for nonprofit, educational, or personal purposes? Commercial uses can still be fair uses, but courts are more likely to find fair use where the use is for noncommercial purposes.\nThe nature of the copyrighted work\nA particular use is more likely to be considered fair when the copied work is factual rather than creative.\nThe amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole\nHow much of the copyrighted work did you use in the new work? Copying nearly all of the original work, or copying its "heart," may weigh against fair use. But "how much is too much" depends on the purpose of the second use. Parodies, for example, may need to make extensive use of an original work to get the point across.2\nThe effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work\nThis factor applies even if the original is given away for free. If you use the copied work in a way that substitutes for the original in the market, that will weigh against fair use. Uses of copyrighted material that serve a different audience or purpose are more likely to be considered fair.\n\nFair Dealing\nThe fair dealing provisions allow limited use of copyright material for certain purposes without requiring permission from the copyright owner. Fair dealing only applies to certain purposes: research or study, criticism or review, parody or satire, reporting the news and judicial proceedings or professional advice. For more information about reporting the news and judicial proceedings or professional advice, please contact us.\nThe Australian provision of fair dealing should not be confused with the US provision of fair use.\n \nResearch or Study\nUnder fair dealing for research and study, you can copy:\n10% of the total number of pages or words (if the work is not paginated) or 1 chapter of the work, whichever is greatest. You may be able to copy more than 10% or 1 chapter under certain circumstances.\n1 article from a journal issue, magazine or newspaper. You may have 2 or more articles from the same issue if they are for the same research or course of study.\nIf you wish to copy other types of material (artistic works, films, sound recordings, computer programs, software or games, unpublished material) or more than 10% or 1 chapter of textual material, you must consider if your use is "fair and reasonable" under the following conditions:\nwhy you are copying the work\nthe nature of the work\nthe possibility of obtaining a copy within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price\nthe effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the work\nif only part of the work is copied, the amount and substantiality of the part in relation to the whole work.\nThe provision only applies to material being copied for your own research and study. You do not need to be enrolled in a formal course of study, fair dealing for research and study also applies to self-directed study and research.\nYou must acknowledge any material that you use.\n \nCriticism or Review\nYou can use either the whole work (if it is needed) or a part of it for criticism or review. The Australian Copyright Council has advised "criticism and review involves making a judgment of the material concerned, or of the underlying ideas". You are unlikely to be able to use material as an example or to illustrate a point under fair dealing for criticism or review.\nThe provision also applies if the critique or review is being published, presented at a conference or made available online.\nYou must acknowledge any material that you use.\n \nParody or Satire\nYou can also use material for parody and satire under fair dealing. The Act has not defined parody or satire, so it is likely that dictionary definition would apply. For more information, contact us.\n\n
19. \n
20. If you wish to copy other types of material (artistic works, films, sound recordings, computer programs, software or games, unpublished material) or more than 10% or 1 chapter of textual material, you must consider if your use is "fair and reasonable" under the following conditions:\nwhy you are copying the work\nthe nature of the work\nthe possibility of obtaining a copy within a reasonable time at an ordinary commercial price\nthe effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the work\nif only part of the work is copied, the amount and substantiality of the part in relation to the whole work.\nThe provision only applies to material being copied for your own research and study. You do not need to be enrolled in a formal course of study, fair dealing for research and study also applies to self-directed study and research.\n\nYou must acknowledge or cite the material you’re using.\n\n
21. How is it that these songs aren’t being done for copyright violation?\nThey’re all using the same chords.\n\n
22. \n
23. Public domain works are not restricted by copyright and do not require a license or fee to use. Public domain status allows the user unrestricted access and unlimited creativity!\n\nThere are three main categories of public domain works:\n\nWorks that automatically enter the public domain upon creation, because they are not copyrightable:\nTitles, names, short phrases and slogans, familiar symbols, numbers\nIdeas and facts (e.g., the date of the Gettysburg Address)\nProcesses and systems\nGovernment works and documents (in America - in AU and GB they are restricted by Crown Copyright)\n\nWorks that have been assigned to the public domain by their creators\nWorks that have entered the public domain because the copyright on them has expired\n(Note: Use of some works, such as ideas and symbols, may be restricted by other laws, such as patent, trademark, or trade secret.)\n\n\n
24. Public domain works are not restricted by copyright and do not require a license or fee to use. Public domain status allows the user unrestricted access and unlimited creativity!\n\nThere are three main categories of public domain works:\n\nWorks that automatically enter the public domain upon creation, because they are not copyrightable:\nTitles, names, short phrases and slogans, familiar symbols, numbers\nIdeas and facts (e.g., the date of the Gettysburg Address)\nProcesses and systems\nGovernment works and documents (in America - in AU and GB they are restricted by Crown Copyright)\n\nWorks that have been assigned to the public domain by their creators\nWorks that have entered the public domain because the copyright on them has expired\n(Note: Use of some works, such as ideas and symbols, may be restricted by other laws, such as patent, trademark, or trade secret.)\n\n\n
25. Public domain works are not restricted by copyright and do not require a license or fee to use. Public domain status allows the user unrestricted access and unlimited creativity!\n\nThere are three main categories of public domain works:\n\nWorks that automatically enter the public domain upon creation, because they are not copyrightable:\nTitles, names, short phrases and slogans, familiar symbols, numbers\nIdeas and facts (e.g., the date of the Gettysburg Address)\nProcesses and systems\nGovernment works and documents (in America - in AU and GB they are restricted by Crown Copyright)\n\nWorks that have been assigned to the public domain by their creators\nWorks that have entered the public domain because the copyright on them has expired\n(Note: Use of some works, such as ideas and symbols, may be restricted by other laws, such as patent, trademark, or trade secret.)\n\n\n
26. Public domain works are not restricted by copyright and do not require a license or fee to use. Public domain status allows the user unrestricted access and unlimited creativity!\n\nThere are three main categories of public domain works:\n\nWorks that automatically enter the public domain upon creation, because they are not copyrightable:\nTitles, names, short phrases and slogans, familiar symbols, numbers\nIdeas and facts (e.g., the date of the Gettysburg Address)\nProcesses and systems\nGovernment works and documents (in America - in AU and GB they are restricted by Crown Copyright)\n\nWorks that have been assigned to the public domain by their creators\nWorks that have entered the public domain because the copyright on them has expired\n(Note: Use of some works, such as ideas and symbols, may be restricted by other laws, such as patent, trademark, or trade secret.)\n\n\n
27. \n
28. \n
29. \n
30. \n
31. \n
32. The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976,17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."\n\nWhat about ripping your cds to your laptop and selling them?\n\nReselling Used Books\nUsed CDs\n\nHow has this changed in a digital landscape?\n
33. The first-sale doctrine is a limitation on copyright that was recognized by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1908 (see Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus) and subsequently codified in the Copyright Act of 1976,17 U.S.C. § 109. The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy. This doctrine is also referred to as the "right of first sale," "first sale rule," or "exhaustion rule."\n\nWhat about ripping your cds to your laptop and selling them?\n\nReselling Used Books\nUsed CDs\n\nHow has this changed in a digital landscape?\n
34. \n
35. \n
36. \n
37. \n
38. \n
39. \n
40. \n
41. \n
42. \n
43. \n
44. \n
45. They go on to suggest buying a legal version\nHow are they planning on policing this?\nNow that we can watch repeat shows on iview and the like, does anyone still record to watch later?\n
46. They go on to suggest buying a legal version\nHow are they planning on policing this?\nNow that we can watch repeat shows on iview and the like, does anyone still record to watch later?\n
47. \n
48. \n
49. \n
50. \n
51. \n
52. \n
53. \n
54. \n
55. Can you then rip a DVD? DVDs have TPM in the form of Region Coding.\n\nRemember the debacle over Digital Rights Management when iTunes first came out?\nFairPlay - an anachronism - Fair? when you could only play your music in iTunes...\n\nOn February 6, 2007, Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Inc., published an open letter entitled Thoughts on Music on the Apple website calling on the "big four" music companies to sell their music without DRM.[18]According to Jobs, Apple does not want to use DRM but is forced by the four major musical labels with whom Apple negotiates contracts for iTunes. Jobs's main points were:\nDRM has never and will never be perfect. Hackers will always find a method to break DRM.\nDRM restrictions only hurt people using music legally. Illegal users aren't affected by DRM.\nThe restrictions of DRM encourage users to obtain unrestricted music which is usually only possible via illegal methods.\nThe vast majority of music is sold without DRM via CDs which has proven successful.\n\nJobs' letter was met with some praise but many others criticized Apple's hypocritical approach to DRM. While openly criticizing DRM, Apple has been actively threatening or suing anybody trying to open their own DRM or make it interoperable. Critics claim that this is not because Apple is afraid of illegal copies but because it gives them an advantage in their market position as a leader in both electronic music sales (iTunes) and in music players (iPod), reinforcing each other due to the FairPlay DRM\n
56. Can you then rip a DVD? DVDs have TPM in the form of Region Coding.\n\nRemember the debacle over Digital Rights Management when iTunes first came out?\nFairPlay - an anachronism - Fair? when you could only play your music in iTunes...\n\nOn February 6, 2007, Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Inc., published an open letter entitled Thoughts on Music on the Apple website calling on the "big four" music companies to sell their music without DRM.[18]According to Jobs, Apple does not want to use DRM but is forced by the four major musical labels with whom Apple negotiates contracts for iTunes. Jobs's main points were:\nDRM has never and will never be perfect. Hackers will always find a method to break DRM.\nDRM restrictions only hurt people using music legally. Illegal users aren't affected by DRM.\nThe restrictions of DRM encourage users to obtain unrestricted music which is usually only possible via illegal methods.\nThe vast majority of music is sold without DRM via CDs which has proven successful.\n\nJobs' letter was met with some praise but many others criticized Apple's hypocritical approach to DRM. While openly criticizing DRM, Apple has been actively threatening or suing anybody trying to open their own DRM or make it interoperable. Critics claim that this is not because Apple is afraid of illegal copies but because it gives them an advantage in their market position as a leader in both electronic music sales (iTunes) and in music players (iPod), reinforcing each other due to the FairPlay DRM\n
57. \n
58. \n
59. Region Coding DVDs\n\n\nDVD region codes are a digital-rights management technique designed to allow film distributors to control aspects of a release, including content, release date, and price, according to the region. DVD video discs may be encoded with a region code restricting the area of the world in which they can be played.\nThe American DVD Copy Control Association in California requires that DVD-player manufacturers incorporate the regional-playback control (RPC) system – according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, an Australian government agency.[1]\nThere are six different official regions and two informal variations.[citation needed] DVDs may use one code, a combination of codes (Multi-Region), most codes (Region 0) or every code/no codes (Region All). The commercial DVD player specification requires that a player to be sold in a given place not play discs encoded for a different region; however, region-free DVD players are also commercially available.[2] In addition, many DVD players can be modified to be region-free, allowing playback of all discs.[3]\n\n\nPurpose\nThere are many purposes that region coding can achieve, but the primary one is price discrimination, i.e., allowing the manufacturer to demand a higher price depending on what the market will allow. There is great disparity among the regions of the world in how much a person is willing to pay for a DVD. Price discrimination is especially applicable to DVDs, as the marginal cost of selling one DVD is relatively small, allowing the seller a great deal of flexibility in pricing.\nAnother purpose is controlling release dates. One of the traditions of movie marketing that the advent of home video threatened is the practice of releasing a movie (to theaters) later in some countries than in others. Video tapes were essentially regional anyway, since video tape formats had to match those of the encoding system used by television stations in that particular region, such as NTSC and PAL, although from early 1990s PAL machines increasingly offered NTSC playback. DVDs are less restricted in this sense, and region coding allows movie studios to better control the global release dates of DVDs. However, the fact that such classics as "Casablanca", which was released long before DVDs were even invented, are sold with region codes suggests that price discrimination plays a more important role than release dates do.\nThirdly, some titles are owned by different copyright holders in different territories. Region coding allows these copyright holders to protect their interests by preventing consumers from purchasing the same title from a region where the copyright is owned by a different company.\n\nRegion-code enforcement has been discussed as a possible violation of World Trade Organization free trade agreements or competition law.[14] The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has warned that DVD players that enforce region-coding may violate their Trade Practices Act.[15][1][16] Under New Zealand copyright law, DVD region codes and the mechanisms in DVD players to enforce them have no legal protection.[17] The practice has also been criticized by the European Commission[18] which is currently[when?] investigating whether the resulting price discrimination amounts to a violation of EU competition law.[19]\n\n
60. Region Coding DVDs\n\n\nDVD region codes are a digital-rights management technique designed to allow film distributors to control aspects of a release, including content, release date, and price, according to the region. DVD video discs may be encoded with a region code restricting the area of the world in which they can be played.\nThe American DVD Copy Control Association in California requires that DVD-player manufacturers incorporate the regional-playback control (RPC) system – according to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, an Australian government agency.[1]\nThere are six different official regions and two informal variations.[citation needed] DVDs may use one code, a combination of codes (Multi-Region), most codes (Region 0) or every code/no codes (Region All). The commercial DVD player specification requires that a player to be sold in a given place not play discs encoded for a different region; however, region-free DVD players are also commercially available.[2] In addition, many DVD players can be modified to be region-free, allowing playback of all discs.[3]\n\n\nPurpose\nThere are many purposes that region coding can achieve, but the primary one is price discrimination, i.e., allowing the manufacturer to demand a higher price depending on what the market will allow. There is great disparity among the regions of the world in how much a person is willing to pay for a DVD. Price discrimination is especially applicable to DVDs, as the marginal cost of selling one DVD is relatively small, allowing the seller a great deal of flexibility in pricing.\nAnother purpose is controlling release dates. One of the traditions of movie marketing that the advent of home video threatened is the practice of releasing a movie (to theaters) later in some countries than in others. Video tapes were essentially regional anyway, since video tape formats had to match those of the encoding system used by television stations in that particular region, such as NTSC and PAL, although from early 1990s PAL machines increasingly offered NTSC playback. DVDs are less restricted in this sense, and region coding allows movie studios to better control the global release dates of DVDs. However, the fact that such classics as "Casablanca", which was released long before DVDs were even invented, are sold with region codes suggests that price discrimination plays a more important role than release dates do.\nThirdly, some titles are owned by different copyright holders in different territories. Region coding allows these copyright holders to protect their interests by preventing consumers from purchasing the same title from a region where the copyright is owned by a different company.\n\nRegion-code enforcement has been discussed as a possible violation of World Trade Organization free trade agreements or competition law.[14] The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has warned that DVD players that enforce region-coding may violate their Trade Practices Act.[15][1][16] Under New Zealand copyright law, DVD region codes and the mechanisms in DVD players to enforce them have no legal protection.[17] The practice has also been criticized by the European Commission[18] which is currently[when?] investigating whether the resulting price discrimination amounts to a violation of EU competition law.[19]\n\n