Carl and I just can’t stop flogging the dead horse of ClearPlay (and a little bit on the Amish). In case you’re new to this running dialogue and care to catch up, see:

Bleep & Cut Your DVD
ClearPlay DVD Filtering
More ClearPlay Discussion
Final Thoughts on ClearPlay
One More Time on ClearPlay
The Absolute Last Word on ClearPlay… until next time…
The Absolute Last Comment on ClearPlay? You tell me.

Carl writes:

No, no, no. I never said your reasoning was sound. I said that no matter how sound your reasoning seems to be, it does not hold water because it cannot be supported by law. You say ClearPlay is doing something unethical and that it should be illegal. On what legal ground do you base such a charge?

Intellectual property and copyright law, which according to FindLaw, states:

Copyrights give the author certain exclusive rights, such as the right to make copies, modify or create derivative works (such as translations or dramatizations), and allow public displays or performances. Anyone wishing to do any of those things during the duration of the copyright must receive permission of the author, subject to certain limited exemptions.

The question the courts must decide is whether the electronic skipping or muting of a DVD player’s output constitutes modification. At this point, the technology is new and the law has not caught up to it yet, so it’s technically legal, sort of like how Napster file trading was legal until it wasn’t and designer cocaine (Ecstasy or MDMA) was legal in the mid-80’s because the law didn’t recognize the chemical code of MDMA.

So until “constitutional precedent” has been established, it is not up to you or anyone else to accuse ClearPlay of doing anything wrong.

I don’t understand this sentence at all. Until something has been declared illegal, it’s not up to anyone to point out that it should be illegal? Then how did we end up with all these laws?

You said something that puzzles me. According to the Rule of Russ, it’s all right to use DVD duplicating technology to copy someone else’s art, (presumably without permission), but it’s not okay to use content filtering technology to filter it, even though Hollywood is opposed to both technologies. I wonder what Spielberg, Scorsese or Kubrick would have to say about that.

They’d hate it, but the courts have already ruled on personal home copying. First, though, we have to define exactly what we mean by “DVD copying”.

The case of Sony vs. Universal Studios back in 1984 set the precedent that a person can make backup copies of media. Back then it was VHS tapes, but it applies to audio cassettes, CD-R’s, and DVD’s — for example, I can make a duplicate of my Windows XP CD.

Where the issue gets stickier is with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, which Find Law argues:

The passage of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) reflected this change by replacing the focus of analysis onto the act of circumvention of anti-piracy measures, rather than by judging the legitimacy of the uses of such “illegally” obtained copyrighted material. Thus, in a pre-DMCA era, a fair use defense absolved Sony Corporation of America from any contributory infringement for the sale of video recording devices. Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, Inc. 464 U.S. 417 (1984). However, in the current regime, the circumvention of antipiracy technology itself is an illegal act and can often trump the consumer’s legal right to fair use of legally-owned material, such as making personal copies of their movies.

In a sense, both of us are right. Copying a DVD is perfectly OK, but if that DVD has anti-copy code on it, then my perfect copy of the DVD, while legal, is unwatchable. But copying a DVD and breaking its code (which is the DVD copying I think you’re referring to) so that the copy is watchable, is illegal.

So in other words, if I copy the DVD as is, it’s cool, but if I apply a technology that alters the code of the DVD, it is not. Kind of like how ClearPlay alters the original code of a DVD during playback. Now, another question may be, “does the alteration of original code, clearly illegal when applied to copying, apply to private home viewing?” That’s a slippery question, one you and I have been hashing to death. Soon enough, the courts will decide for us.

Now about the Amish. The Amish way of life is based on the literal interpretation of Scripture that deals with being no part of the world. One of the Bible verses they use to support their life of isolation is Romans 12:2. There, it says, “Be not conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind that ye may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.” Although Jesus instructed his followers to be “no part of the world in a certain sense, he never Intended for them to be isolationists. On the contrary, he told his followers to “go and make disciples of people of all the nations…” Jesus also told them that they “will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria and to the most distant part of the earth.” The Amish fail to understand what the Scripture mean about being no part of the world.

I’m so glad God spoke to you directly to clear up this misunderstanding. 😉 The Amish interpret a verse that tells them to be isolationist. The Charismatics interpret a verse that tells them handling poisonous snakes leads to piety. The Seventh-Day Adventists interpret a verse that tells them Saturday, not Sunday, is the Sabbath. Many Christians interpret Leviticus and Ephesians telling them that homosexuality is an evil abomination (and yet still manage to eat lobster and associate with menstruating women.) The Mormons have a whole sequel full of verses they interpret despite Biblical verses warning of false sequels.

I myself am A Positive Christian Atheist, which means I believe in the self-evident truths of Jesus’ teaching (love thy neighbor, do unto others, feed the hungry, heal the sick, clothe the poor, you know, liberal stuff) but I don’t sweat the theological small stuff. I do think one of the most significant problems in the world today stems from one religious group claiming their interpretations are “truth” and others’ interpretations are “wrong”.

The Amish don’t “misinterpret” Scripture; they interpret it differently than you do.

You say the Amish are an example of religious consistency and that they “believe in eschewing modern conveniences because of their religion.” Wrong! The Amish use modern non-electric milking machines on their cows. They transport that milk in modern refrigerated milk tanks. They use bottled gas to operate their water heaters, modern stoves and refrigerators. Gas-pressured lanterns and lamps are used to light their barns, homes and shops. Those things are of the secular world and the Amish do play in that world to a certain degree.

You’re right, I should have been clearer. Make that “eschewing some modern conveniences like electricity”.

I do have some good news for you. If the courts rule in favor of ClearPlay, you will not have to violate your ethics and buy a ClearPlay player for your mom. Because of all the controversy, RCA discontinued that model, and WalMart no longer sells it. So there’s your victory. Enjoy.

D’oh! Carl, I’m not trying to win anything, I’m just expressing an opinion. I’m not a director nor do I want to see ClearPlay’ed DVDs. Any decision the court makes has no bearing on me whatsoever. I’m interested in the philosophical concepts of copyright law as it applies to art, that’s all.

I have to admire your tenacity, Carl. Most people lose interest or get mad at me after the third e-mail. I started on e-mail list-servs back in 1996 and having long back-and-forth volleys like this were par for the course. It’s helped me to form my opinions and it’s even changed my mind on a few subjects. But I think now we’re stuck in a loop on the ClearPlay issue.

So, what do you wanna tackle next? Religion’s a fun one for me (I distrust them all equally). How about politics (Republicans are like Christians to me; I’d like them both better if they would be true to their ideals)? Any opinions on music (rock music reached its artistic apex in 1974)?