Copyright and the interesting state of copy protection laws

The MPAA, RIAA and all the other solemn protectors of art, artists and freedom in America want to make sure that movies, television shows and music cannot be copied or redistributed in any form. The idea is to put DRM (Digital Rights Management) mechanisms in your media players so that you cannot copy any show off the air. Long long ago in 1976 when Sony introduced the Betamax video tape recorder (a precursor of the VCR), major studios such as Universal and Disney took it to court to prevent the sale of any VCR in the United States since people could copy television shows. Thankfully, a sane judgement was received and in the landmark 1979 judgement, the Court ruled that it was perfectly fair use to copy a show for private use. If the studios had won in 1979, the precedent would probably have ensured that there would be no VCRs then, and no TiVos today.

DVDs have a weird form of DRM on them which tries to ensure that a DVD bought in the US can only be played on players in the US and so on for each of the 10 'DVD regions' in the world. (DVD players are hackable though, and enterprising hackers can rip any DVD.. DRM be damned). When Jon Johansen, a young geek in Norway wanted to play DVDs on his linux machine, he could find no player to do that, so he wrote a brilliant (and elegently small) piece of code which would simlpy remove the CSS (Content Scrambling Scheme) from the DVD and allow him to play it. Of course, the studios sued him on criminal charges. (Jon was acquited, but the studios managed to get him tried again, and he was acquited once more) Now of course, it is a trivial matter to play/rip the DVDs you buy. Which brings up the question - why should you not be able to play the DVD you buy in any way you want? Why is it illegal to break the encryption or copy protection on a DVD since you already own it? The Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA), 2000 makes it illegal to break any copy protection scheme, even if you own the media. (As an analogy, imagine buying a car and being put in jail for trying to reverse engineer the car's on-board computer so that you can install your own electronics on it!). It's insane, but that's the state of laws since it allows the media creators (do not confuse it with the artists) who can keep profiting.

Disney is one of the studios which wants copyright to be valid forever. Copyright used to be valid throughout the lifetime of the artist, plus 50 years, or 75 years in case of a corporate ownership. When Mickey Mouse was about to come into the public domain, Disney got the government to approve the Sonny Bono Copyright Act, (also known as the Mickey Mouse act) which extends copyright to 95 years. Now it wants copyright to last forever. (If this were always the case, someone would be paying Shakespeare's family, if there was one, to use any of his stories!)

Senator Orrin Hatch from Utah (yes, the same person who once wanted technology to be developed which would destroy the computers of anyone who tried to download music illegally) is pushing an act called the INDUCE act which would make illegal, 'any device that could "induce" or encourage buyers to make illegal copies of songs, movies or computer programs'. The obvious target is peer-to-peer networks which have been the bane of studios for a long time. But think of the implications! Technology which could have many useful applications would become illegal just because it is possible to copy songs or programs too! Companies which want to develop innovative technology would need the approval of these studios to make sure that they are not infringing any of these laws. Talk about styming innovation!

[P.S. New pics again :-)]