[This is a guest post by Jason Mittell, Associate Professor of Film & Media Culture and American Studies at Middlebury College. Jason blogs at Just TV.]
This week saw the release of a seemingly minor bit of legal policy that has a major impact on academic uses of technology, expanding the scope of legal ways to extract video clips from DVDs for purposes of criticism and commentary. (An earlier post by Kathleen Fitzpatrick provided additional information on this ruling with regards to jailbreaking phones and accessing eBooks.) This ruling on DVD circumvention has a potentially transformative impact on faculty and students across a range of disciplines, and can hopefully help spur innovative scholarship and pedagogy. In this post, I’ll detail the policy shift and consider some of the ways it can be applied in teaching and research; in a follow-up post in a few weeks, I’ll offer a more technical guide on how to exercise your newly-legal right to rip clips from DVDs.
On Monday July 26, 2010, the U.S. Library of Congress released the policy paper, “Rulemaking on Exemptions from Prohibition on Circumvention of Technological Measures that Control Access to Copyrighted Works.” This awkwardly titled document is the much-delayed 2009 ruling on exemptions to a particularly nefarious provision in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)—the anti-circumvention policy of the DMCA stipulates that it is illegal to bypass code that locks down a piece of software, hardware or other digital object, even if the resulting use of the copyrighted media is legal. This measure had a huge impact on scholars in a range of disciplines, who found it illegal to extract clips from DVDs to use in class, a lecture, or a digital publication.
Some film and media faculty have been fighting against this law for years, and this recent ruling represents the efforts of many scholars and activists to shift the balance away from the strict locked-down defaults of DVDs and other digital media. [Note: I participated in this fight as a very minor player, signing onto briefs and working with the Society of Cinema & Media Studies to promote fair use.] In 2006, the Library of Congress issued a narrowly-worded exemption in its triennial rulemaking for exceptions to the DMCA that allowed film & media studies faculty to rip clips from DVDs held in a departmental library for use in the classroom. I fell under this exemption and immediately began taking advantage of my newly-legal ability to make clips from my departmental collection and use them in my classes—given the areas of film, television, and other visual media that I teach, I frequently use up to a dozen short clips in a single meeting, and the ability to pre-compile them onto a single DVD or slideshow transformed my teaching.
However, many uses did not fit into the narrow categories designated by the 2006 ruling, excluding faculty in the wide range of disciplines who use DVDs, academic uses other than in classrooms (such as conference presentations and digital publications), student use for presentations or digital assignments, and DVDs housed outside of a departmental library. Additionally, the ruling suggested that only faculty could do the ripping, making it difficult for technologists or student support staff to help faculty with less technological savvy. This week’s ruling expands the terrain to include all of these uses and sources—to exercise my fair use rights, let me quote the exemption in full:
Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System [CSS] when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances:
(i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students;
(ii) Documentary filmmaking;
(iii) Noncommercial videos.
[Note: the term "motion picture" does not solely mean feature films—for the Library of Congress, it refers to "audiovisual works consisting of a series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any." Hence, the term includes television, animation, and pretty much any moving image to be found on DVD.]
Rather than stipulating the specific user or source of the DVD, this new exemption focuses on the uses: noncommercial, educational, documentary, criticism, and commentary. It’s important to note that the longer explanation from the Library of Congress specifies that circumventing CSS on a DVD is only justified when non-circumventing methods, such as videotaping the screen while playing the DVD or using screen-capture tools through a computer, are unacceptable due to inadequate audio or visual quality. But nevertheless, this ruling greatly expands who can use ripping software to clip DVDs for academic and transformative use, including a range of derivative works like remix videos and documentaries.
What does this mean for faculty? Now, no matter your discipline, you (or your technological partners) can do what I’ve been doing for the past three years: assemble a personal (or departmental) library of clips to access for class lectures. Now we can expand the use of those clips to embed in conference presentations, public lectures, digital publications, companion websites or DVDs to include with print publications, or other innovative uses that had otherwise been stifled by legal restrictions. For me, having a hard drive full of video clips on hand enables a mode of improvisation not available with DVDs—if discussion shifts to talking about an example of a film or television show that I’ve ripped a clip for another course, I can instantly play it in class even without planning in advance by bringing the DVD. Think of the conference presentations you’ve seen where a presenter fumbles over cuing and swapping DVDs—with a little bit of planning, clips can be directly embedded into a slideshow to avoid awkwardly wasting time.
The ruling also allows “college and university film and media students”—and it’s up to you to decide whether your students fall under that rubric if they’re using film and media in a class, regardless of the official discipline—to rip DVD clips for academic purposes, such as in-class presentations or digital assignments. I regularly have students use video in their assignments, whether it’s pulling clips to present in class or creating remix videos to present their critical ideas in moving image form. Now I can show them the more straightforward way to rip clips without asking them to break the law for credit.
Copyright activists have referred to fair use as a muscle that will atrophy if not exercised. The newest exemption ruling has provided a new exercise regimen for academics and other media users to employ, expanding the possibilities for fair use of video a wide range of contexts. Alas, unless we keep exercising this right, it will atrophy, as the Library of Congress will review its exemptions again in 2012 to rule whether the current balance is sufficient, or fair use should be further restrained or expanded. Scholars, users and organizations will continue to push for broader exemptions—such as including K-12 education as an allowed site of fair use, or including downloaded or streamed media from sources like iTunes and Hulu as circumventable works—but media corporations will continue to push for more restrictions and permission-driven controls. Only by touting how fair use matters in our teaching and scholarship can we continue to be assured the right to rip. So how will you exercise your right under the new exemption?
Additional Reading:
- Organization for Transformative Works on the ruling’s meaning for remix video artists
- Center for Social Media on the ruling and their collection of Best Practices for Fair Use
- Society for Cinema & Media Studies statements on Best Practices for Fair Use in Film & Media Publishing and Teaching
- ReadWriteWeb on the essential cultural role of fair use
[Image by Flickr user NightRPStar / Creative Commons licensed]
Library of Congress, it refers to ‘audiovisual works consisting of a
series of related images which, when shown in succession, impart an
impression of motion, together with accompanying sounds, if any.’
Hence, the term includes television, animation, and pretty much any
moving image to be found on DVD.




9 Responses to Letting Us Rip: Our New Right to Fair Use of DVDs
arxion - July 27, 2010 at 9:29 pm
As a footnote it should probably be noted that this victory in defending Fair Use was won in large part through the efforts of the Electronic Frontiers Foundation: http://www.eff.orgThe article’s title is also a little misleading since Fair Use isn’t a NEW right under the exemptions, but a REAFFIRMED and RESTORED right.From my own professionally related efforts in advocating for free speech and civil liberty in the digital arena it is my view that this is much bigger news than just the headline.Criminalizing the exercise of freedom of speech found in Fair Use is the cornerstone of the most extremist anti-constitutional provisions the (corporate welfare state) DMCA legislation. Allowing that the circumvention of Destructive Restriction Mechanisms should remain legally protected under Fair Use would also mean that the constitutional freedom to possess and distribute the hardware and software tools for circumventing Destructive Restriction Mechanisms (aka DRM) must also remain legally protected.As a career advocate for Free, Liberating Open Source Software like the GNU Linux Operating System (the same software which IT corporations relentlessly try to vilify and criminalize even as they capitalize on the benefits of its global adoption as the backbone of the internet), I see this exemption is an important chink in the armor of those who would label everyone a criminal and undermine all of our civil liberties in pursuit of their greed.
george_h_williams - July 27, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Editor’s comment: While this is clearly a subject that generates strong feelings in many of us, let’s try to stick to the topic of discussion as prompted by the question asked at the end of the post: “How will you exercise your right under the new exemption?“I know that I’ll be using HandBrake to rip video off of DVDs so that I can grab relevant clips to be used in class. I might carry those video clips to class on the large thumb drive I carry on my key ring, or I might burn them to DVD.
performance_expert2 - July 28, 2010 at 2:30 am
Yeah. Now we can study and not just consume. There has prior been a brick between the tsunami of Marky Mark (this is an actor) from NY / Hollywood and the ability to exam the same in the classroom, what is occurring in film and the effect upon and perception of students. The wall is down. Support the EFF.One of the next walls to be addressed is private ownership of codecs. Likely most do not know that technically / legally someone (a corporation) owns the codecs that run the video on a camera that you buy. This is a bizarre legal dilemma for independent film makers. Theoretically they are required to pay codec licensing on the “footage” that they shoot with a camera they bought. For example, .wav, .mpeg, .mp3, .avi are all formats and codecs with owners.Currently, the only persons doing anything about this is Xiph.org Xiph is doing great work designing high quality open-source codecs. In making new and open source codecs, there is the opportunity to exceed the current quality of the privately owned codes. For example, the .ogg audio format sounds better than either .mp3 or .wav. FYI the .wav format/audio is what is used for audio cd’s like you would play in the car. Additionally, with open source software and operating system (i.e. Linux) currently the one catch is that the end-user individual basically has to illegally download codec packages to be able to play media because these codecs are not avilable for sale even if someone wants to or is willing to pay for them, however they are included within the Apple and Microsoft systems. Linux is a powerful and great computing platform, for example Google search engine and Amazon.com run on Linux, however the open source licensing confronts controlled ownership of codecs. Respect and support to Xiph.org for doing great and substantial work. Ogg audio codec is already gaining wide acceptance, for one reason because it sounds great. Good luck, Xiph, with developing the Vorbis video codec.
performance_expert2 - July 28, 2010 at 2:33 am
To clarify, Google search engine and Amazon.com run on Linux servers. Linux is the operating system used to run these sites.
jabberwocky12 - July 28, 2010 at 7:32 am
While this ruling is great, it does require some clarification so that people can exercise their right without abusing the law. Some questions:1. What is a “short portion”? Is 10 mins a short portion? 20 mins? Or does it depend on what percentage it is of the whole? 10 mins of a 10 min film is surely not the same as 10 mins of a 6-hour series.2. The ruling has “short portions” in the plural, which means I can put more than 1 “short portion” into a work. If I have a 40 min film, and 10 mins is considered a “short portion,” may I break it up into 4 x 10 min “short portions” and post them all into the LMS on a single page? Maybe separate them across sections in the course area and provide links to them? Or upload them all into Youtube, and then simply place the links into the LMS?
zagros - July 28, 2010 at 8:19 am
jabberwocky12,I am not a lawyer so this is not legal advice. However, if I were on a jury, I would find it difficult to consider point 2 to be anything other than copyright infrigement. First of all, while you might be able to do “short portions” (in the plural) I would think that would mean being able to take say, 30 seconds here and 30 seconds elsewhere of a 2 hour movie. It would not mean essentially taking the film in total and dividing it up into short portions so as to be able to view the entirety of it and it certainly would not mean that you could publish it to Youtube for the whole world to see!As to your first point, there has already been a fair bit of discussion in the courts on what a “short portion” is within the context of fair use. A single scene that essentially defines a work might not be considered “fair use” even if it appears to be a “short portion” of it. It is definitely not defined in terms of percentage of length of work or even the time spent on screen. If it were, then the ruling would have been explicit on this point but it is not. I am certain that 10 minutes of a 10 minute film is not fair use. However, 10 minutes of an eight hour series (taken as a series of frames whereby every 50th frame is extracted and then pooled into a 10 minute “film clip”) also might not be fair use if the eight hour movie consists entirely of one continual shot of the Empire State Building at night (see the movie Empire by Andy Warhol shot in 1964 for an example, which, as it is solely a 485 minute extravaganza showing nothing but the upper floors of the Empire State Building as viewed from the Time-Life Building from a little after 8 PM at night until about 2:45 AM–it balloons from less than 7 hours of film to more than 8 hours of film because it was shot in 24 fps but is shown as 16 fps, is the most “boring” film ever produced but also is one of only 500 films listed in the Library of Congress’s National Film Registry (reserved for American films that are “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.”
seneman - July 28, 2010 at 9:06 am
Can we now also upload these ripped DVD clips into a LMS like Moodle, Blackboard, etc.?
jmittell - July 28, 2010 at 2:14 pm
Thanks for all of the comments!@arxion: Indeed, EFF was instrumental in arguing for these exemptions, along with the Center for Social Media, Organization for Transformative Works, and many other individuals. Alas, we’ll have to gather forces again in just two years for another round of exemption hearings.@jabberwocky12: “short portion” is deliberately vague, as zagros explains. I think the spirit of the ruling was that excerpts can be used, like quotations in an essay or presentation, but entire works cannot. The line varies by case, and only really matters in a potential lawsuit, but if the intent is to use short excerpts, then I believe you’re covered.@seneman: Yes, there is no restriction in the DMCA about where the work of criticism or commentary can be published & shared (as long as it’s non-commercial). However, you should look at the SCMS guides linked above for an overview of the TEACH Act and class websites for embedding video – that is separate from the circumvention that this ruling tackles.
11159995 - July 29, 2010 at 6:17 pm
Let me remind everyone of this provision of the law that provides additional protection to anyone working within a non-profit educational environment:Sec. 504 (c)(2) In a case where the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that infringement was committed willfully, the court in its discretion may increase the award of statutory damages to a sum of not more than $150,000. In a case where the infringer sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that such infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe that his or her acts constituted an infringement of copyright, the court in its discretion may reduce the award of statutory damages to a sum of not less than $200. The court shall remit statutory damages in any case where an infringer believed and had reasonable grounds for believing that his or her use of the copyrighted work was a fair use under section 107, if the infringer was: (i) an employee or agent of a nonprofit educational institution, library, or archives acting within the scope of his or her employment who, or such institution, library, or archives itself, which infringed by reproducing the work in copies or phonorecords; or (ii) a public broadcasting entity which or a person who, as a regular part of the nonprofit activities of a public broadcasting entity (as defined in subsection (g) of section 118) infringed by performing a published nondramatic literary work or by reproducing a transmission program embodying a performance of such a work.— Sandy Thatcher