[Slight OT] TDPL in Russia

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Sat, 28 Aug 2010 06:21:02 -0400, Jonathan M Davis  
<jmdavisprog at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday 27 August 2010 22:47:54 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisprog at gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:mailman.535.1282972511.13841.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>
>> > On Friday 27 August 2010 21:58:30 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> >> "Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> >> news:op.vh3740cneav7ka at localhost.localdomain...
>> >>
>> >> > Fair use protects copying for reasonable usage (such as backing  up
>> >> > your
>> >> > software, or transferring it to another medium for your own   
>> benefit).
>> >>
>> >> Not in the US.
>> >
>> > It was certainly my understanding that backing up software was covered
>> > under
>> > free use.
>>
>> (IANAL)
>>
>> "Fair use" only exists in US law in the same sense that "Plessy v.
>> Ferguson" ("Separate but equal") exists. Plessy v. Ferguson is still in
>> the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by "Brown v. Board of
>> Education" (for good reason, of course). Similarly, "Fair use" still
>> exists in the books, but it's effectively rendered dead by the DMCA (for
>> shitty reason, of course). Only real difference I see is that "Plessy v.
>> Ferguson" and "Brown v. Board of Education" are case law and "fair
>> use"/DMCA aren't, but I don't think that makes any real difference (sure
>> as shit doesn't make any *practical* difference).
>>
>> Yea, DCMA only overturns fair use when "copy protection" is used, but
>> that's trivial enough: all you really need to do is to slap a "consider
>> this copyrighted" bit into it (and there's probably even super-low-tech
>> ways to do it that would be compatible with, say, a book or CD Audio)  
>> and
>> declare "this is DRM", and there you go - no more pesky "fair use" to  
>> get
>> in the way of corporate greed.
>
> Well, since both fair use and the DMCA are law, and they contradict each  
> other,
> I believe it would take a court ruling to say which won out, and even  
> then it
> could easily depend on the exact circumstances of the case. Some  
> situations
> might be deemed legal under fair use while others might be deemed  
> illegal due to
> the DMCA.
>
> Personally, what I'd really love to have happen is have a case go to  
> court where
> someone did something under fair use which was illegal under the DMCA  
> and have
> at least some portion of the DMCA overruled by the Supreme Court due to  
> it
> violating fair use. But I can't imagine the odds of that happening are  
> very
> high. After all, the DMCA has been around for a while now, and it hasn't
> happened. Also, odds are that it would happen in a suit by a big  
> corporation
> against an individual, and the individual wouldn't be able to afford to  
> take the
> case that far, so it wouldn't actually get to the Supreme Court to be  
> ruled on.
> In any case, I can dream, I suppose. The DMCA is one of the worst laws  
> ever
> passed, but there's not much that we can do about it.

DMCA will eventually be repealed.  It goes against existing laws and  
fair-use.  There are efforts currently being made to alter or repeal it  
(see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act).

FWIW, the lack of funds for someone with a real chance of getting the DMCA  
to be tested by the supreme court is not an issue, EFF will pick up the  
bill in a heartbeat :)

-Steve