Wall-E is a copyright criminal
Jesse Willis went to see the new Disney/Pixar movie Wall-E and discovered that the lovable little robot is actually a dire criminal -- because he undertakes a variety of copying activities (bypassing DRM, file-sharing) that will be illegal under Canada's DMCA. Click through to read the unredacted version (warning -- minor spoiler if you do):
1. WALL-E records audio from his favorite movie, XXXXXXXXXXX, putting in onto his own digital recorder (bypassing the macrovision DRM on the tape). A COPYRIGHT CRIME UNDER C-61Link2. WALL-E archives the audio, he doesn’t merely time-shift it. He listens repeatedly! A COPYRIGHT CRIME UNDER C-61
3. WALL-E shares his DRM-broken music with his friend, another robot named XXXXX. A COPYRIGHT CRIME UNDER C-61
the latest
latest episodes
Don't be an idiot.
Buy and Large bought up the eff'n rights to these properties a LONG time ago. Anyone that knows anything about copyright law understands the B&L Protection Act of 2486 specifically allowed file sharing between their own bots as well as good standing corporate citizens.
Remove the B&L sticker and void the warantee, yes, you'd be entirely correct.
Seriously. I would have expected Cory to understand this.
Clif, the Canadian DMCA forbids removing DRM from works that are in the public domain, too -- it's the DRM that's protected, not the copyrights.
RTFA, please, especially if you're going to call me an idiot.
The "D" in "DRM" stands for "digital"; the Macrovision signal on an analogue videotape is not digital.
Let switch Cory to Decaf, see if he noticed the difference.
While I think the above post was devoid of the intended humor, you need not bite.
Lol - Cory, I think your failure of humour can be excused given current events? ;)
Glad to see you up with some posts, though. It's felt like a heavy day on BB.
There is a discussion of this issue -- as well as Disney's (completely bogus) response -- on the DisneyLies.com blog:
http://www.disneylies.com/blog/2008/07/02-walle-and-copyright-infringement/
"Let switch Cory to Decaf, see if he noticed the difference."
Nah...it was just far more subtle humor than my post! Hats off to Cory for playing along!
Wow, I was just about to rant against #2 for not getting #1's joke when I noticed who it was and everyone else's response. So I'll just say, nice post.
BTW, it should be noted that point #3 should be illegal. We're not fighting to be able to copy and share other people's work, we're fighting to be able to use content we've acquired legally any way we like.
A second person should be required to legally acquire their own copy of the material.
Hey #10, remind me to never make you a mix tape. I don't want to get reported.
Have you seen the privacy statement of the Buy n Large Corporation? I imagine their copyright / IP policy is similarly scary.
Buy n Large Website.
(I submitted the link to BB but I haven't had much luck with that lately.)
I think its safe to say that that movie is at least 700 years old and thus in the PUBLIC DOMAIN. Of course this is a Disney movie... they love taking from the public domain and not giving anything back.
#3 posted by Sean Eric FAgan:
The "D" in "DRM" stands for "digital"; the Macrovision signal on an analogue videotape is not digital.
Ah, but the law actually protects, not "DRM", but "Technological measures" which (paraphrasing) in their normal course of operation, prevent copying.
Many VHS tapes contain a hidden "flag" signal that tells other devices not to record them. So, yes, copying a VHS tape protected in this way would be forbidden. You'd have to get a VCR or video capture device (such as those made by Haupage) that don't respect the flag -- which would be illegal to sell under C-61.
What if the tape that Wall-E was working from was recorded off the air for personal use?
WALL-E isn't using a videotape, he's watching the movie on an iPod which is somehow hooked up to a VCR. We can only speculate as to whether the video contains DRM. Perhaps this will be made clear in the sequel?
When I read the title I thought you were talking about how he looks just like Johnny 5 from Short Circuit.
ochanomizu, you may want to watch the film again.
1. He is using a tape. He even gives it to EVE to look at and she pulls some of the tape out.
2. He uses the ipod as a video screen to watch the tape.
3. He then (in a nice little nod to Brazil) uses a large magnifying lens to view the film.
Try blue. It's the new red!
http://www.buynlarge.com/ is brilliant :^)
I'm guessing someone's knee jerked so hard in replying it smacked him in the forehead and he's out cold.
By the way - good movie? It seems like it could be but I'm always wary of any product when the hype machine goes into overdrive to promote it.
Directive: Rip. Mix. Burn.
#21: "good movie?"
Let's see:
Astonishing, beautiful graphics.
Great characters. Nothing sappy or obnoxious or stereotyped.
And the story . . . I've been describing it as what might result if one of Robert Sheckley's SF novels and "The Velveteen Rabbit" had a love child. A weird mix of awful-warning satire and cheerful robot love story that works.
It plays out in a fantastically grim and dystopian setting. You know how in Disney cartoons the lead character usually has a funny animal sidekick? Well, Wall-E has a pet roach because that's the only kind of animal left. And humanity . . . I won't say what has become of us, and I hope no one else gives it away, but it is both hilarious and horrible.
Stay for the first third of the credits. They roll over a series of stills that are a coda to the story.
Wall-E is a direct ripoff of "Short Circuit" anyway (@17), so why not get Eric Allard (who built #5) or Sony (TriStar's currrent owners) to raise a ruckus about it?
Stefan @12;
For one of my IT Law classes we had to do a line-by-line critique of the privacy policy of a well-known online retailer.
I think going through this one would have been far more fun.
(And, in fact, I suspect it was drafted by a lawyer with a sense of humour - yes, we do exist! - as it diligently tweaks so many privacy and data protection points of concern.)
Akbar56: yeah, I realised I was wrong just after I posted it. Whoops. Of course, I should have remembered him winding the tape back in.
The sad thing is I actually created this account just to post that brain-fart of a comment.
#25: You need to follow the link; Buy n Large is entirely fictitous.
At least, I hope so. God help us if it isn't.