PCWorld Forums: What New Dmca Copyright Loopholes Mean To You - PCWorld Forums

Post your comments for What New DMCA Copyright Loopholes Mean to You here

I would have liked to see more content.

For example, Apple has vehemently publically stated that jailbreaking is a violation of Copyright Law.

Now that this law has passed, you will see that Jobs v2.0 will try to execute the OTA updates that have been discussed.

Basically anyone with a jailbroken iphone will have that phone bricked, and the $5/hr Geniuses will turn you away. The $6/hr ATT CSR reps will turn you away.

I see this as a win for the consumer on the ruling, but it's a HUGE LOSS for the fallout for the consumer. ATT/Apple have stated that they can OTA Update and if you are jailbroken, per se, your phone can be bricked.

Legislation has narrow vision. They should have thought it through, which takes about 3 seconds.

The added loophole for the E-book text to speech still seems inadequate. I see no good reason to limit in any way the conversion of an E-book text to speech. A blind person would still have to pay the normal E-book price. I realize a reduction in audio book sales may result in some books not be converted to audio form but, to me, thats not sufficinet justification for authors to force a blind person to buy a possibly more expensive audio book rather then a standard E-book. It seems somewhat of a Luddite response and is morally repugnant to me.

Great - Now i can come out of hiding finally!
Thanks for the update,
Jason Sarofsky

I would have included computer software programs that are no longer supported or included in some later release. Two great programs I purchased are available free on line as demos, but no licensure is available for them: Telling Stories and AudioRoom CD Recorder. Both are wonderful programs I use frequently, with unique features not duplicated elsewhere, still work fine on current Windows versions. I too often run across wistful comments from those who fall in love with the demos and then discover they stop after a few days with no chance for licensure. Actually, on 25 years' hindsight, I would say that unsupported software programs should really be treated like patents rather than copyrights. It's sad to discover some truly brilliant programmer's creation is no longer available from any source for love nor money.

The problem with 'defunct' software is that corporations buy other corporations JUST TO KILL THEIR COMPETITORS. How will that tactic work if the useful and successful products that they're trying to eliminate become 'free'?

Simple solution for readers: Get the 'PC' version, and use a script to send 'page down' or 'click' events to reader software, then do screen captures on the text window. OCR the PERFECTLY uniform text, and you have the original book to feed to a text-to-speech doodad. May require a few regular expression searches to remove page titles/numbers, etc.

OMGTECH, on 26 July 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

I'M ALSO COINING THE TERM "APPLE-FLAP" for the FUD they are spreading

APPLE-FLAP
APPLE-FLAP
APPLE-FLAP

:laugh:

OMGTECH, on 26 July 2010 - 03:50 PM, said:

Please read the article, and if you don't understand it, do some research. This is not legislation. This is an opinion from the Copyright Office on the Digital Millenium Copyright Act, and on a very, very narrow slice of it. In particular, the question is, does jailbreaking violate DMCA. The answer is, no. That's it. That's the opinion. Not legislation. Not a law, as you call it. Not something that could be "thought through" or tailored to create more protections, as you would like.

Should there be legislation? Maybe. Should there be legal action? Maybe.

Was this either of those?

No, and that was clearly explained in the article.

This was a very narrow ruling on a very narrow question, and the ruling was what the ruling was supposed to be--a yes or no answer on a particular question.

The answer was clear and unequivocal, and that was what it was supposed to be.

Now, after this ruling, if Apple bricks phones, those phone owners have clear grounds for a class-action lawsuit.

I have no doubt that Apple will brick phones, that there will be a lawsuit, and that Apple will lose, but that is just my opinion.

I chose to buy a non-Apple phone because I believe I should have control over something I own.

But I also understand that some people choose Apple, and I believe this ruling gives them a great victory, because while it is very narrow, as it should be, it is also a first crack in the wall of the garden.

Thank you.

This post has been edited by AdamPope: 26 July 2010 - 05:12 PM

JasonSarofsky, on 26 July 2010 - 04:23 PM, said:

Actually you might not want to.

Apple/ATT can activate that "efuse" OTA update that will brick your jailbroken iphone, then turn you away for support when they look up your account. It's been discussed, and the carrier has the power to do it. There have been leaks about this for months. This ruling is just one more reason why they WILL do it.

Isn't this the model when someone emailed an ATT exec with a question, and got threatened a lawsuit? Yes, it's the new model! Nice going Apple **sigh**

On the ebook front, this is not a change. You still can not legally circumvent ("hack") the DRM (Digital Rights Management) on Kindle store books to stop them from blocking text-to-speech (TTS) if any other version of the ebook (including one that requires print disability certification) has "read aloud" enabled. This is just a restatement of 37 CFR Part 201 [Docket No. RM 2002-4E], which stated it clearly.

I would have liked to see us have the right to tar and feather Apple for making backup of iTunes, and the ability for users to easily use the songs they bought, used per the license terms.

OMGTECH, on 26 July 2010 - 05:12 PM, said:

Even if they can, will they? Really? To what end? Apple thought Antennae-Gate was a PR mess. It would pale in comparison to them purposefully disabling HUGE numbers of iPhones. I pay AT&T faithfully every month, and purchase apps in the Apple store regularly. Both of these companies would rather brick my iPhone 3G then let my use Cycorder to shoot video, since video recording wasn't supported until the iPhone 3GS? They would rather brick my phone then let me multi-task like the new iOS 4 (which runs like crap on the 3G)? Somehow I just don't see it happening, but if it does it's nice to know that there are worthy competitors like the Galaxy S and Droid X and Evo to turn to if needed. We'll see what happens...

Newsflash, jail breaking was never illegal .... look the the law before reporting would be nice

MikeInRichmondy9k7, on 26 July 2010 - 05:56 PM, said:

Given the Gestapo-like tactics Apple has used against people who don't toe the Apple propaganda line, yes, I expect they will. Not a lot of people out there are going to jailbreak their phones but one of the things they should do if they try to jailbreak them is make sure auto-updating is turned OFF.