You know that game, "telephone" where a bunch of kids stand in a line and the first kid whispers a message to the second kid who then passes it on to the third kid and so on until finally the last kid gets the message, except when the last kid compares the message he heard with the sentence the first kid started with they aren't anywhere near the same meaning? I'm probably the closest thing to a copyright guru that this board has (I've actually read most of title 17, including the DMCA) and, no offense intended, but it sounds like you've been getting your copyright info via "telephone."Originally Posted by nater
Here's the deal - the DMCA makes it a felony to circumvent a digital copy-prevention mechanism (like say the pathetically weak encryption on a DVD) - note that it is the circumvention, not the copying that has been criminalized here. Fair use is a specific term that refers to a defense against prosecution for copyright infringement. Note that fair use only applies to making copies. Thus the DMCA is an end-run around the fair use defense because circumventing a copy-prevention system is not copyright infringement so fair use is not a valid defense against prosecution. Neat little trick our friends in the copyright cartel came up with. It has yet to be challenged in court (the cartel is rightly afraid that they will lose that suit, so they haven't pushed it yet).
The copyright cartel is scared stiff about the "analog hole" which refers to the fact that no digital copy-prevention mechanism can prevent you from video-taping your tv or plugging the line-out from your SACD player into your computer to make an "unlocked" recording. But, the idea that going through an analog stage somehow enables the fair use defense is just not applicable, and certainly not in the law anywhere.
However, fair use is likely to be a defense against any prosecution for copyright infringement in this case. Here is what the the law says about determining if fair use is a valid defense:
- the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
- the nature of the copyrighted work;
- the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
In this situation:
- the purpose and character of the use of the copy is non-commercial, non-profit consumer-rights education.
- the nature of the work is not really an issue either way here
- the amount posted would only be the portion relevant to the window-binding and not the entire CD
- posting the information will have zero effect on the value of and market for the CD since the primary use of the disc is "internal" to isuzu and its dealers and not generally sold to the public
Remember though, fair use is a defense, as used in court. Any butthead with a typewriter and a stamp can send you a "cease and desist" letter, and any butthead with the bucks for a filing fee can sue you in court too. Intimidation through barratry, although illegal, is also a favorite tool of corporations who want to shut someone up. Would Isuzu do that? I dunno, I'm not even a lawyer much less a corporate multinational attorney.