tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post4213506129424800386..comments2024-03-22T08:01:16.236-04:00Comments on Rebecca Tushnet's 43(B)log: DMCA hearings: remixUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-56872558371598611552015-06-14T22:37:10.585-04:002015-06-14T22:37:10.585-04:00Lawyers did a lot of not knowing why here. It'...Lawyers did a lot of not knowing why here. It's a little surprising that the AACS people didn't know the tech, but not as surprising as it should be. But here, they did concede that screencap won't work on Blu-Ray. Most people shouldn't have to know why! They should just be able to make art when they want to.RThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850241338827117087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-32221750009658409662015-06-14T22:25:28.313-04:002015-06-14T22:25:28.313-04:00Ok. That's about what I expected. Making sur...Ok. That's about what I expected. Making sure that people are *very explicit* about what constitutes a "commercial use" or a "commercial copy" (format-shifting karaoke software is my personal hobby horse: you aren't making copies *to sell the copies*, so the fact that you will *use the copies in a commercial endeavour* ought not to be controlling, IMO) is the sharper version of my hobbyhorse.<br /><br />I just now got through the whole posting; I'm not completely uneducated about procedure (about which I assume your blog name is a pun), but even I had trouble following some of it...<br /><br />One technical point: it's not at all uncommon for DVD/BD playback not to be screencappable: screencap software, even stuff like Camtasia, reads out of the video buffer, either in the OS or the video card. <br /><br />Live video playback from disc somewhere between often and always does not live in that buffer; it's "keyed" into the outgoing video stream by the card, which does the decoding in hardware so as not to violate the DMCA itself.<br /><br />So it didn't surprise me that no one could do it, only that no one knew why.<br /><br />Baylinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02272104405451110054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-28464500469653766022015-06-14T21:58:50.306-04:002015-06-14T21:58:50.306-04:00The exemption we sought was indifferent to whether...The exemption we sought was indifferent to whether YT gets a cut, but if the uploader gets a cut they might not fall within the noncommercial exception--the current exemption is clear that a person can get paid for making a remix for a nonprofit/political group and still fall within the exemption, but other scenarios where the remixer ends up with money are less clear.RThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00850241338827117087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5764290.post-88994545536582597092015-06-14T21:53:11.187-04:002015-06-14T21:53:11.187-04:00I'm going to go back and reread this all now, ...I'm going to go back and reread this all now, but I wanted not to forget an important question that has come up in related situations: was the issue addressed that a *creator* of a remix may have no commercial intent, but may (eg) upload that work for distribution via (say) YouTube (we all know it's YouTube, right :-)), and *YouTube* may attach advertising to it?<br /><br />This has two implications, one if the uploader gets a cut, and a different one if they don't.Baylinkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02272104405451110054noreply@blogger.com