backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 209 comment(s) - last by Sazar.. on Aug 19 at 5:48 PM

Making copies of DVDs you legally own is illegal under the DCMA and tantamount to piracy, a U.S. federal court ruled.  (Source: GameSpy)
Making one copy is stealing one copy, says MPAA

This week a landmark verdict was handed down to RealNetworks with deep implications for fair use and personal property in America.  The ruling wasn't about filesharing, piracy, or malicious computer use.  Rather, it was fight over whether users should be able to make copies of digital content that they legal own.  And in a precedent-setting decision, the media companies beat a small software vendor and fair use advocates and laid down an imposing decision -- copying DVDs that you own is illegal.

The suit filed against RealNetworks centered around the company's RealDVD software, which ripped through protection technology to allow users to make digital copies of their legally-owned content.  RealNetworks had plans to release a DVD drive/software bundle called Facet, which would make the process even quicker and easier.

The company's business model, though, was put to the legal test. The Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) filed suit against the company over alleged violations of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) and breach of contract in a lawsuit filed last fall.  The MPAA's assertion was simple -- consumers do not have the right to copy DVD movies -- ever.

RealNetwork's defense was that the ARccOS and RipGuard protection technologies it circumvented weren't designed as anti-copying technologies, and further that anti-copying technology was built on CSS, something that RealNetworks held patents on and licensed.  It argued that as it owned these rights, it had a right to alter the resulting software  This defense fell apart when it was established that ARccOS and RipGuard are not, in fact, included in the CSS license.

In the end U.S. District Court Judge Marilyn Patel ruled against RealNetworks, ordering it to stop selling software.  Wrote Judge Patel in the decision, "RealDVD makes a permanent copy of copyrighted DVD content and by doing so breaches its (Content Scramble System) License Agreement with the (DVD Copy Control Association, the group that oversees the protection of DVDs for the major Hollywood studios) and circumvents a technological measure that effectively controls access to or copying of the Studios' copyrighted content on DVDs."

The MPAA met the verdict with elation.  MPAA Chairman and CEO Dan Glickman states, "We are very pleased with the court's decision.  This is a victory for the creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows and for the rule of law in our digital economy. Judge Patel's ruling affirms what we have known all along: Real took a license to build a DVD-player and instead made an illegal DVD-copier."

RealNetworks has complied with the ruling and has suspended sales on its website, though it will likely try to appeal the decision.

The case represents a landmark, precedent-setting ruling in terms of fair use.  It sets the precedent that not only declares that media-copying software which circumvents copy-protection technologies is illegal, but also adds legal credence to the MPAA and RIAA's argument that consumers making copies of legally purchased DVDs and CDs is a crime.

While enforcement of such laws on individual citizens is prohibitively expensive for these organizations, it gives them room to lobby law enforcement to take on the fiscal burden and begin investigating and prosecuting citizens for such offenses.  The ruling also raises questions about what exactly amounts to infringement.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
the one right they can't take away
By kattanna on 8/13/2009 1:21:03 PM , Rating: 5
there is one right they can't take away from me..

and that is the right to not buy their crap. and i use that right daily.

no.. i dont pirate anything. if there is trully something worth my time to view or listen to i will buy it, or rent it.

netflix for my viewing pleasure.. thank you very much.




RE: the one right they can't take away
By encryptkeeper on 8/13/2009 1:29:28 PM , Rating: 5
Ugh, what a joke. So unless I misread this article, what is the interpretation? Does this mean it's illegal for me to make a physical copy of a CD or DVD I own, or is it illegal for me to make a digital copy of a CD or DVD that I own? Or, is it both? If it's illegal for me to make a digital copy, then this law effectively kills digital media. Forget the new iPods, forget the new Zunes, this law would kill them.

This is just proof that legislation to define the user's rights for the media they own MUST be drafted, or everyone who owns an iPod is going to jail.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By SiliconJon on 8/13/2009 1:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
It's both. If the content is protected, either by hardware or code or license, then copying it by ANY means not explicitly provided or allowed by the provider is illegal.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Golgatha on 8/13/2009 2:12:56 PM , Rating: 5
Wrong! It's perfectly legal to make copies or manipulate in any way you see fit your own property. It is only illegal to decrypt the DRM due to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act or DMCA. You can thank the MPAA lobbyists and your elected officials for making criminals of us all by voting the bastards that passed this law out of office.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By SiliconJon on 8/13/2009 2:33:28 PM , Rating: 1
So you're saying I'm wrong: it's legal, except it's illegal?


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Golgatha on 8/13/2009 2:40:18 PM , Rating: 4
You mentioned copying by any means is illegal. Copying by means that doesn't involve breaking DRM is legal and protected by fair use doctrine. It's when you have to go circumventing the DRM first before copying the content that gets you into the realm of the illegal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Coble#Other_me...

There's the guy that started this whole mess by introducing the DMCA.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By SiliconJon on 8/13/2009 2:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, what I said was "If the content is protected, either by hardware or code or license, then copying it by ANY means not explicitly provided or allowed by the provider is illegal."

DRM is a protection.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Scabies on 8/13/2009 4:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
"If the content is protected, either by hardware or code or license--

Like the FBI warning? or the copyright at the end of the credits?


By Maiyr on 8/14/2009 10:29:57 AM , Rating: 3
Coolin in my crib cold video dubbin,
FBI Warning, huh, don't mean nothin,
They call that shit a crime,
Yo that shits a joke,
Hit record on my dope remote.....

Or somehting like that :) from Ice T


RE: the one right they can't take away
By DominionSeraph on 8/13/2009 4:49:17 PM , Rating: 3
TITLE 17 > CHAPTER 12 > § 1201

(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter.

(3) As used in this subsection—
(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner;

------------------------------------------------- ---
"Copying" isn't circumvention. You can copy a DVD MPEG without running afoul of the DMCA, but good luck getting it to play without the embedded CSS key.
If you were to, say, use DeCSS to descramble the content to allow you to make a copy of the work that'll play without the key, then you've gone and done something illegal. The copying is still fine -- it's the descrambling that's illegal.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By bhieb on 8/13/2009 4:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
So what you are saying is that even though this case had nothing to do with what a consumer could and could not do, it has been illegal from the start.

The wording indicates that even if Real could make the software (and legally sell it), it is always going to be illegal to use it (providing it is not over turned).


RE: the one right they can't take away
By invidious on 8/13/2009 5:51:37 PM , Rating: 1
Ideally what a consumer can and can not do shouldn't have anything to do with any court case. If you want to know what is illegal that should come from the legistlature, not the judicial system.

But modern judges let the power given to them under the 'system of checks and balances' get to ther heads and they start trying to legistlate from the bench and change the meaning of laws on the fly based on what they believe. But given how the rest of the government is running wild how can we expect them not to try to get in on the fun?


RE: the one right they can't take away
By mcnabney on 8/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: the one right they can't take away
By Moral Hazard on 8/13/2009 7:20:47 PM , Rating: 5
"Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998..."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Co...

You're pointing fingers at the wrong President there. Not that Bush would have vetoed it anyway. Republicans supported it for philosophical reasons, Democrats supported it because the entertainment industry gives them so much money in campaign contributions.


By knutjb on 8/13/2009 7:58:04 PM , Rating: 2
This was only a District Court judge, not appeals, or supreme. The continuation of this suit depends on REAL and anyone else affected by this ruling chipping in. Just because this judge made what appears to be a draconian ruling to many, I don't know the details of her ruling, it might not be the final ruling. It wouldn't be the first time a case has been overturned and the fat lady has yet to sing.

The higher the stakes, the higher the final ruling court.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By teldar on 8/13/2009 11:00:12 PM , Rating: 3
Look at Joe "I'm deep into the pockets of the RIAA and have appointed all their lawyers as top lawyers of the Country" Biden if you want to argue about that.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Jeffk464 on 8/14/2009 1:00:03 AM , Rating: 4
I don't know about you guys but I have been so disgusted with the RIAA that I have completely stopped buying any kind of music. People need to vote with their wallets, its the only thing our politicians and corporations understand.


By ViroMan on 8/14/2009 2:11:18 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People need to vote with their wallets, its the only thing our politicians and corporations understand.


Are you kidding? People are doing that now and the RIAA,MPAA, and <insert well know gaming companies> is claiming its loosing people to piracy, not that people don't want there system slowing, file size increasing, how the F did this unknown service program get installed, DRM laden crap.

People need to start voting with picket signs and lots of mad phone calls. I would even go so for as to point to the need of setting up a web site that publishes the list of phone numbers to call and people can schedule what time slot they will call and who. So that we can have the phones ringing off the hook 24/7.

General consensus of what the population dislikes only gets soo far... but having a large amount of angry unique(as in not the same people over and over) people calling can make an impression. Hell even a ton of people mailing them(I would prefer to mail them a brick :) ) would make there life more interesting and perhaps take note.


By DotNetGuru on 8/17/2009 12:25:31 PM , Rating: 2
Longest nickname ever!!
But why is country capitalized?
New reality show... America's Next Top Lawyer w/ host VP Biden. :)


By gstrickler on 8/14/2009 3:31:52 PM , Rating: 5
This was not Judicial Activism. If Marilyn Patel were an activist, she would likely have found some part of DMCA to be invalid, or that ANY copying of a DVD, including copies that leave CSS intact or copies made from the analog outputs "circumvent" CSS and violate DMCA. She did not make any new interpretation of the law and did not invalidate any part of the law. She just ruled on how the existing laws apply to this specific case. That's not judicial activism.

Patel may be the most technology literate federal judge in the country. Go read her rulings, if you understand law and technology, you'll find that her rulings indicate that she has a strong grasp of intellectual property rights, fair use, and other legal areas that affect the technology industry and consumers. You'll also find that her rulings are generally very carefully written and narrowly focused so that they don't become precedents that are used to reinterpret the law, but rather that they focus and more clearly define the boundries of the law.

In this case, she re-iterated the legitimacy of fair use, and did NOT rule on anything except finding that RealDVD circumvents CSS and therefore violates DMCA, therefore, Real can not distribute it.

This ruling has no effect on CDs or other non-DRM encumbered media, nor does it alter fair use in any way.


By toyotabedzrock on 8/13/2009 10:27:59 PM , Rating: 5
They use the word effectively in that statue, when is the last time css was effective?

Funny how this ruling would make anyone who plays a DVD on Linux a criminal, or anyone who uses VLC on windows there all criminals.

I would put money on the fact that the people running the MPAA all have a fancy Media Center like setup that holds copies of hundreds of DVDs on a hard drive, most of those lawyers they hired probably do as well.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By bhieb on 8/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: the one right they can't take away
By bhieb on 8/13/2009 4:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
Disregard after reading the above. It looks like it has been and will be illegal to do. Even if the software/device is sold legally, using it is the crime.

Anyone know if there has been a case to test this directly, involving an individual (not a corporation marketing the tools, but the act itself).


RE: the one right they can't take away
By SunAngel on 8/13/2009 11:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
There does not need to be a case to test the ruling. The ruling is intentionally broad enough to cover most scenarios for unauthorized copying. I, and many others, understand the INTENT of the judge. You can not and do not own the intellectual property of the creating author or owner of the said work. You merely own the physical medium and the RIGHT to VIEW the movie on an approved device.

Twist the words how you may, but the law has spoken and until things have been reversed or the law becomes outdated, your only option for backups or reduced resolution versions of a video is itunes and such or to illegal make the copy. Point blank.


By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 12:03:16 PM , Rating: 3
It seems to me media degrades, so the point is, backups are made to preserve what one owns. The gurus tells us CD's and DVD's can "lose" their ability to be read in ten years or less.
Nearly all bought software on Cd's USED to come with the recommendation that one immediately make a backup CD and use that to install the software while placing the master in a safe place.
It appears to me you're saying, like a stark raving angry reactionary, that backing up one's property from loss is illegal.
Seems to me that is going overboard.
I can clearly understand though, with the nazi-like law enforcement joe and jane mentalities sweeping across the nation that people will soon start screaming that if your DVD got scratched or wore out, you deserve to be without the ability to play it, or hassle up a couple of your life's hours and pay the vendor for a replacement (if they even provide such a service) or go out and repurchase "because they deserve an idiots money".
Whatever - you obviously "clearly see the judges intent" ?
roflmao


By highlandsun on 8/14/2009 9:03:17 PM , Rating: 2
But judges have a responsibility to uphold the Constitution, and the DMCA is inherently unconstitutional. In particular, any creator's exclusive rights to their creation has an expiration (sure, it's lifetime + 75 years now which is also insane, but that's a separate discussion). That means after a certain amount of time passes, you no longer get to tell me what I can or cannot do with your creation. The flaw here re: the DMCA is that it makes it illegal to circumvent protection, *forever*, regardless of the validity of any copyright on the content. Long after the content owners have disappeared (which can be all too soon, these days http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/07/bi... you have the right to use the material you paid for.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Wightout on 8/13/2009 4:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
You said its perfectly legal to make copies or MANIPULATE it in any way you want.

Are those your words or is that for real?

Wouldn't breaking DRM be considered a form of manipulation?


By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 12:20:54 PM , Rating: 2
Some of us find that one's own property IS ONE'S OWN PROPERTY.
Yes, the powers that be, and their powerful freak accolades certainly do want the right to control you absolutely in your home and possessions, and you'd be a fool to think they aren't trying.
Their basis for totalitarian control always rests upon "safety for society" or "the children", or some other excuse.
They weaassel their way in the front door, then rifle through everything, and if they don't, they will just create laws that claim they have the right to do so if they suspect any of their "it's all ours even after you bought it!" laws are ever breached.
We were down to ridiculous years ago when the big borg brother collective determined toilets that flushed with too much water are in fact illegal and criminal.
It was so bad, MEMBERS of CONGRESS stood up on the floors and repeatedly decried their own stupid laws of ridiculous tyranny.
We have poo-poo police and plenty of gung-ho pro-cophead little internet weasels DYING to make enforcements upon fellow citizens.
That's a good portion of the reason why Paris Hilton and the other young starlets are so popular - my golly a DUI or incarceration in the local LA jail/looney bin, and the public, media, and talking heads could not get enough of it - burn the torches and throw the book at them!!! - them they all whined together in one big fat hypocritical puking liars fest that "people aren't paying attention to politics enough" - never realizing their public torch burning incarceration crusade was 100% politics from the word go - how they wanted law enforcement charges at the highest level and draconain verdicts to send a message to the hated spoiled rich brats that are supposed to be models for citizens and society...
Yeah, like the factory working Mommie with a couple children that got charged for some songs she had on their computer - $80,000.00 for each song was the JURY verdict - it launched it into the MILLIONS.
Now I don't know about you, but whenever I've bought a music CD ther has been about 10 songs and it's less than 10 dollars.
That means the JURY (a jury! an INSANE jury ! lol) had their verdict $79,999.00 to high for each song. ( I recall there were 82 songs I think).
So what we have is widespread rampant INSANITY. Nothing less. It is CUCKOO, period.
--------------
I mean just shake your head, because they're so insane and there's so many of them anymore...


By Samus on 8/13/2009 6:22:38 PM , Rating: 5
No, they are technically right. Cracking CSS is illegal because its circumventing/modifying copyrighted code.

Although the existence of copy protection to begin with on a consumer product is ridiculously dumb. All it serves as is an inconvenience to the end-user, who will inexitably find a way to break the protection, making the very existence of it the cause of illegal activity.

I think we should consider suing the MPAA for entrapement. They give us the right to make one copy for backup purposes of their product, but require us to break copy right protection, violating the EULA/ToS in the process.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By jconan on 8/13/2009 8:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
are you saying that you can copy as long as it doesn't break the drm? (given there is only 1 entry point the door) it'd be analogous to saying you can enter the building as long as you don't unlock the door that basically makes it impossible unless you can pass through solids or mpaa logic.


By Samus on 8/14/2009 9:40:26 AM , Rating: 3
That's not what I'm saying, that's what they are saying!


By BeastieBoy on 8/14/2009 10:20:31 AM , Rating: 2
Making an analogue copy via the video out socket doesn't involve cracking CSS protection.
Likewise, pointing a video-camera at the screen would also work, but the MPAA also get cross about this if you do it at the cinema :)


By PrinceGaz on 8/14/2009 11:19:00 AM , Rating: 2
You can copy a DVD by making a clone of it, which does not involve tampering with the DRM. Therefore you can make your backup copy without breaking the law.

Unfortunately, if you want to convert the information on the DVD to be played on another device you own (such as a PMP), then you will need to break the law. However, the MPAA will no doubt say that a legal way to watch your DVDs on other devices is to buy another (digital) copy of said DVD that is compatible with your device. Money grabbing ba$tard$.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By StevoLincolnite on 8/13/2009 1:57:46 PM , Rating: 3
And what about those who run DVD's on there computer with 3D acceleration support? In essence part of the movie is copied into the Page file/system ram/frame buffer.

Lets just shove everyone on the planet in jail, they use my tax money to fine them, just so they earn even more money from other saps.

If they want more money from discs sales, they could lower the prices so people would be more inclined to buy more discs at once.
Remove the stupid advertising before the movie, I paid to watch the movie, not the extra crap that you CANT FREAKING SKIP! ARRRG! (Seriously, I watched a DVD last night, I swear it had 15-20 minuets worth of crap that I couldn't skip before the movie even started!)

And actually release some half decent movies, Mind you a few good movies have come out recently, but they have all been sequels. (Transformers 2, Harry Potter 6, Ice Age 3 etc')

Blaming it all on Piracy is a load of rubbish, the majority of people pirate because they find the content not worth there dollar, sure you will always have a Pirate here or there, but you would think these company's would have woken up by now!


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Chudilo on 8/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: the one right they can't take away
By SiliconJon on 8/13/2009 2:37:13 PM , Rating: 5
Not true, there are "forbidden action" capabilities in the DVD format, which are chosen by the original author. Another benefit of re-authoring, of which you no longer have the right to do according to this precedent.


By Belard on 8/13/2009 8:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
I hate those JERKS who don't allow US (the customers) skip the ADS!

Guess what, if we've played the disc 2-3+ times, we don't want to see the damn ads! Some don't even allow you to HOLD down the FF button!

I forgot what DVD it was... but I have one that is like that. I think I only played it 1-2 times because it pissed me off.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By oab on 8/14/2009 12:09:34 AM , Rating: 2
You never had the right to re-author a CSS protected DVD, it was always illegal under the DMCA because it cracked the CSS protection used on the disk.

You can still bypass the UOPs on the DVDs through other means that do not violate the DMCA (ie: remote control codes).


RE: the one right they can't take away
By bighairycamel on 8/14/2009 9:52:38 AM , Rating: 2
Did you just say Transformers 2 was a good movie???


By Sazar on 8/19/2009 5:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
If you revise your scale for judging movies and move GOOD to where ABSOLUTE TRASH used to be, you too can call Transformers 2 GOOD and proclaim it to have a plot and once you revise a geographic map, it will all make sense.

I believe some wizards call this, "movie magic"


RE: the one right they can't take away
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:27:16 PM , Rating: 5
That's right. Media companies have no respect for the individual consumer. They hate the consumer and everything the consumer stands for. They don't like you, they just want your money, and every little bit of it that they can get their hands on.

People need to stop looking at the media companies as the benevolent overlords. They are taking your rights away. Fair use is gone. You are a criminal if you rip a movie that you legally purchased to watch on your iPod. You are a criminal if you make a backup of your legally purchased movie so that your kids won't scratch up the precious original. You are a criminal if you rip a DVD to you legally purchased to your network so that you personally may stream it from a server-based library of movies.

Yes, you are a criminal if you perform any of these activities, and according to the studios should be bankrupted with fines and legal fees, and potentially imprisoned.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By ATC on 8/13/2009 10:47:45 PM , Rating: 2
These laws are taking away rights from legitimate, honest and paying customers; the same customers who essentially pay their salaries and legal costs which ironically are being used against them. They do nothing for the true criminals who copy and sell DVDs and CDs. This is music-DRM all over again. Have they not learned a thing?


By SirKronan on 8/14/2009 3:50:26 AM , Rating: 2
You're exactly right. All they are doing is biting their own proverbial butts here.

Cracking down on our ability to make copies of media for single home backup purposes is going to do one or both of the following:

1. Encourage more piracy
2. Encourage more rentals

Both of the above will result in LESS REVENUES for these big corporations. GET A CLUE, IDIOTS.


By Moishe on 8/18/2009 8:36:15 AM , Rating: 2
You're wrong that it kills digital media.

The basic idea is this:
You can copy digital media only through official channels. Basically, they hold the control and you own nothing and have no right to do anything but what they say you can do.

Thus, if they say you can copy the media this time then you're good.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By MozeeToby on 8/13/2009 1:30:32 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
...the right to not buy their crap. and i use that right daily.
In Canada, all blank media includes a special tax that goes directly to the entertainment industry to pay for 'revenue lost due to piracy'. So, in a way, they could take that right away from you.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Davelo on 8/13/2009 3:36:48 PM , Rating: 5
In Soviet Russia, DVDs pirate you!


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Proton on 8/14/2009 6:56:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
In Canada, all blank media includes a special tax that goes directly to the entertainment industry


The only media with the tax are CD disks, and its only for the music industry.
Blank DVD disks do not have this extra tax. This makes blank DVD disks cheaper than blank CD disks, as the tax is around 28 cents for each blank CD.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 12:46:00 PM , Rating: 2
That is an astounding case of pre-crime implementation and is at least as devious as Minority Report.
My condolences to you Canadians.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By log on 8/15/2009 10:22:27 AM , Rating: 2
It happens elsewhere.

I rememeber tapes had this tax because of this purpose. It's like the same happens now with balnk CDs and DVDs.

Altough you could argue why are you paying the tax if you're using it for yourself, the cost is so minimum that you don't mind.

I wouldn't be surprised if you could gather more money by including a small (and I do mean small) tax on blank media and perhaps internet access while making content free to copy (though not for resell).


By Moishe on 8/18/2009 8:39:26 AM , Rating: 2
If I was Canadian, I'd burn a couple of CDs for each pack of blanks I bought just to get my money's worth.


By SiliconJon on 8/13/2009 1:33:50 PM , Rating: 3
Speaking with our money is the best weapon, indeed.

Though what's next? Will a battle ensue from the population in response to the removal of any property rights to the products we feel we are purchasing? Will we sue physical content providers for a breach of our rights in their EULA's/contracts? Or sue that the media they sell us is defective in nature as it can't handle non-pristine handling, such as our kids as their DVD's, without becoming easily scratched to the point of malfunction? If we can progress towards real property rights becoming enforced in a reaction to this case then perhaps it will take us down a path long needed travelled as we may be able to force physical media into something more durable, and legal licenses of products to include property rights of the buyer.

Or maybe not...as I see the population's apathy, and I also so non-apathetics find that the trading of rights for convenience to be a worthy swap.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Hiawa23 on 8/13/2009 3:33:19 PM , Rating: 2
after reading article..................moments later.........goes & destroys Copy DVD 1 2 3 program.

Not.....


RE: the one right they can't take away
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:40:34 PM , Rating: 3
Everyone should go out and buy a copy of AnyDVD.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By bhieb on 8/13/09, Rating: 0
By mcnabney on 8/13/2009 6:51:46 PM , Rating: 2
No, you can legally make a copy, but cannot break encryption to do so. Since all new media has some form of encryption the DMCA has overidden Fair Use. This is one of many reasons why the DMCA is considered to be 'Bad Law' because it provides broad categorizations of infractions and creates legal contradictions. Kind of like sodomy laws that apply to everyone.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By JEEPMON on 8/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: the one right they can't take away
By InsaneScientist on 8/14/2009 12:55:25 AM , Rating: 5
Wow... just wow. I don't even know where to begin.

Why shouldn't we be able to put a copy on our iPod? What if I ride the bus to school and want to be able to watch the movie that I bought and paid for the right to watch? Why shouldn't I be able to watch that on my iPod (or my laptop for that matter).

Let me try to illustrate this an analogy: how happy would you be if you could no longer (legally) have a music library? (For you own personal use.) Period.
No matter what you were doing, be it in the car, on the bus, in the park, at home, anywhere... you had to use the original disk.

Nevermind the fact that it's still only one person who uses your music library, having things in more than one place for the sake of convenience is illegal.

This is the exact same thing.

I want to have one copy, for my own use, on the file server I have at home, that I can access from my computer, or the media center attached to my TV, or transcode and put on my iPod for those bus rides (yes I take the bus sometimes).
In all those cases, it's still just one person (me) using the single copy that I paid for.

Why shouldn't I be able to do that?

Heck, if I could get more use out of a DVD (i.e. being able to do all that), I'd be more likely to buy it, since I'll have more opportunities to enjoy it.

Oh... and I work mostly as an IT consultant, both for companies and individual families, and one of the most common questions that I'm asked from the families is how they can do just that. They want to be able to have a library of movies and sit down in front of the TV and flip through and pick one, not dig through a collection 3-4 layers deep in their cabinets.

So, while it may not be legal (which is what I tell them. And I haven't done it either, by the way, I'd just like to), there is certainly a desire to do that...

Unless you can convince me (and 99% of the population that I talk to) that doing what I outlined with one's movie library is wrong (and therefore should be illegal), I will continue to speak out against stuff like this, for simply that reason.

The problem is that those two things have become distorted in people's perception. Things aren't wrong because they're illegal.
It's supposed to be the other way around: things are illegal because they're wrong.

If something isn't wrong, it shouldn't be illegal.
It's as simple as that.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By JEEPMON on 8/14/09, Rating: -1
By gochichi on 8/14/2009 8:35:28 AM , Rating: 1
Gosh,

OK, on a much smaller scale... since you're such a purist... I am interested in seeing your reaction to the following scenario.

I own the following games for PC:
Bioshock
Gears of War
Call of Duty 4
Fallout 3
Warcraft 3 ... interesting to this example.

In any case, these games require me to have a disk inserted to play them. If I'm using my laptop and move my laptop, it sounds like a grinding noise when the disk is inside (regardless of the laptop, just a bad idea). I can't make copies of the disks... haven't even tried to do it.

But I find the requirement to have the disk to be terribly inconvenient (lazy? right?), and I am absolutely convinced that the disks will promptly get damaged or lost. Now, I paid some good money (not a communist by any means, are you paying attention to this?) to have a great desktop, some great games, and a great laptop (communist... man you are irritating, to think that with all the money I spend on gaming and media... anyone would call me a communist). In any case, if available, I install the no-cd cracks for these games. It's so much more enjoyable to be able to run my copy of the software this way. It's one of my favorite things about STEAM... and I have STEAM, I just haven't gone 100% STEAM.

Some game developers would have to be queer and not-game-like to get upset about this. My disks are out of my way not taking up desk space... that's the only real difference.

I'd like to remind you, that my pain, my inconvenience doesn't actually generate money. My pain does not equal their happiness nor their profit. My buying games keeps them making games... and those NO-CD cracks are fantastic (and still requiring the CDs to be in their is efficient too... since the cracks usually are offered later on when the game is not a big deal any more). I don't hold it against them that they required the disk (when the game was new, I was happy as a clam to have the disk in) and I would hope that they wouldn't hold it against me that now that the game is a part of my collection and time has passed that I installed the no-cd patch.

The reason Warcraft 3 is a good example, is because they actually updated their game to not require the disk through their updates. So now the game has that feature that at first you had to crack to get.

Anyway, I hear what you're saying. Certainly for DVDs it has become altogether too common to copy these things. I also think it's a little weird that people engaging in piracy sometimes don't want to call it that. It's queer to think that you are entitled to amass a huge collection through rentals, and then have the audacity to call it "back ups" and not piracy. At least have the decency to call yourself a pirate, go "Ahoy, matey! ARG!!"

I firmly believe that ethics are not black and white though. The parents making copies of DVDs for their children to use are not having an intent to pirate (if they own the original disk). A lot of times the kids are pretty young, and they actually love watching and rewatching their movies (unlike adults). Like 3 year olds and Finding Nemo... man, they'll watch that thing on a weekly basis.

I think we could all benefit from less piracy actually... I mean, we're entirely drowning in media right now. I hate that I have a music library... I feel like I'm just maintaining this junk for no reason... I feel like we're all forcing ourselves to be DJs in the process. I've literally spent hours ripping my CD collection into iTunes... cool idea, perfectly legal, but shoot... too much media. Now people want to obsess about keeping movie collections too? Man, the only people really loving that have to be the folks at Western Digital or Seagate.

How many times do you have to watch a movie?

Now I'm not such an absolutist. I've rented movies and ripped them into my hard drive and then watched them and then deleted them. It's just a convenience thing. I paid to watch the movie, and I delayed the time to watch it... that's not THE problem. The problem is that if I wanted to obsess about it, I could have made 50 copies of it. I didn't though. I watched that junk and pitched it.

In any case what I'm suggesting is that we watch and listen to way way too much stuff. If it's not interesting enough to pay $1 to watch... do you really need to be watching it?

People that own a copy of something will continue to make use of it (perhaps to their own detriment, with so many movies out there ... you're rewatching the same one over and over?) and that's fine.

Out of self-preservation and better enjoyment of life, I wish I had the gall to clear my iTunes and pitch my CDs while I'm at it. But that's a choice thing. If people want to obsess over their media... that's their choice and companies shouldn't be able to make money off of this obsession. Every DVD can be played 500 times (maybe more?)... some people buy DVDs and don't even get them out of their wrappers... some watch it once, half-way... and others watch them dozens of times. You don't pay more if you watch and rewatch.

And quit victimizing the huge companies involved already. It's truly ridiculous. You know, cause in the end, if you think piracy is easy and convenient... think of how convenient it is to stamp out millions of the same freaking disk. The technology that made them rich is the same technology that is ending the party. We're all entitled to this technology... I don't mean "communism" style entitlement, I mean, a DVD burner costs $30.00 man... it's old technology, and if they're still using it to sell movies, it stands to reason that they would make less money now than when it cost $800 for a DVD burner.

In fact, it's the opposite of CAPITALISM to suppose that making no investments in new CAPITAL (like Blu-ray for example) should keep making you money... and that this "making money" should be a government mandate (hence the whole "illegal" thing).

You get me? You can cry me a river about how wrong and how illegal it is. Even about how lazy we all are. But when you willy-nilly throw COMMUNISM into it... it's weird, it stinks, it's queer.

The market is speaking, and you want to muffle it with regulations... and yet, you want to say that's capitalism. Let's just say that to me, you're no better than the pirate that doesn't admit to being a pirate. You're the communist since you feel it's up to the government to fix this problem.


By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 1:00:10 PM , Rating: 2
HEY PUTZ - what I do with my belongings is MY BUSINESS, not yours, not the government's, not some kookball lawyers, and not some internet smarmhead.
Got it ? Good. See how easy that is.


By daInvincibleGama on 8/16/2009 9:39:11 AM , Rating: 1
flamebait?


By Bateluer on 8/17/2009 10:26:44 AM , Rating: 1
Guys, don't feed the trolls. He's obviously an idiot and wants to get a rise out of people. InsaneScientist and GoChiChi posted very thorough and effective counterpoints, which effectively crushed any relevance that Jeepmon had.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By The3rdNuisance on 8/14/2009 3:28:49 AM , Rating: 4
Plenty of children don't believe in the idea of putting DVD's back into their cases.

I have a few games that I always put the discs back into their cases, and now I keep getting disc read errors.

Oh, may I introduce you to the poorly made DVD player? As perfectly evidenced by the one that used to be in the XBox 360. Or the one in my computer that ate a disc a few weeks ago? While I don't make back ups, I sure wish I did.

Also, I wish to take issue with you're phrasing. 'I want to get this stuff for free' is a perfectly legal REASON. It is however, a bad one. It's the act of getting said stuff for free that is illegal. Oh, and while books will get damaged easier, they'll take alot more damage to become worthless. You put a DVD down too hard and you'll get a scratch, and the DVD is worthless. You put a book through a shredder, and all it takes is some time, and some tape to get it back in good enough condition.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Solandri on 8/14/2009 3:52:34 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, that's a distinction that's being lost on people. People are arguing that DVDs are property, and you should, after you purchase it, have the right to do with it as you wish.

The media companies are arguing that the content on DVDs is licensed, and they retain the right to control redistribution of that property. The courts generally agree.

I don't have a problem with that per se. What I do have a problem with is, if the content is licensed, and I have bought a license, then just because the physical media is destroyed doesn't mean my license is now null and void. I still paid for that license, I still own that license. The studio OWES me a replacement copy so I can continue to utilize that license. AFAIK, Disney is the only company that does this. Send them proof that you bought the DVD and they will send you a replacement for a minor shipping and handling charge. Probably because of all the kids who destroy DVDs.

The other consequence of their reasoning is that if I bought a license to a copy of Terminator on VHS, then the same license should apply to Terminator on DVD, or Blu-Ray. It is the same content after all. I shouldn't have to buy a new DVD or Blu-Ray copy. At the most, I should have to pay a small upgrade fee. The software industry understands this and provides discounted upgrades whenever they release a new version (even though the content has changed somewhat).

But the backwards studios want to have their cake and eat it too. They want their movies and music to be protected as if they were a license, but they want you to have to continually buy new copies as if they were purchases. In other words they want all the advantages (from their perspective) of both a license and purchase, but none of the drawbacks. It makes no logical sense, and is so obviously unfair that any 5 year old could spot it. But laws are made based on what lawyers and lobbyists want, not on what makes sense.


By Fritzr on 8/17/2009 2:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
The model is old. When you buy a book you are not buying the rights to the content, you are only buying the physical copy printed on the pages of the book you purchased. You have limited rights to copy the content under the Fair Use law. You do not have the right to make backup copies of the book. You do not have the right to return a destroyed copy of the book to the publisher for a free or reduced cost replacement.

When it is destroyed you are required to purchase another copy. If you want the content in another form hardback/trade paperback/pocketbook/ebook/audiobook etc., you are required to purchase each separately even though the content is identical.

The current "no copies allowed" that this thread is discussing is embodied in the copyright notice printed in most books now. The publisher explicitly declares that the buyer does NOT have permission to copy, reproduce or in any other manner transfer the contents of the book to another format.

Even though the tech makes it easy and convenient to backup electronic media or to transfer the content to another format, the lack of permission to do so is just a continuation of the restrictions that existed long before electronic media became available.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By Jeffk464 on 8/14/09, Rating: -1
By Alexstarfire on 8/14/2009 1:01:53 AM , Rating: 5
Dude, you are the reason that shit like this gets passed. What you are doing is OBVIOUSLY flat out stealing. Please, STFU and stop being part of the problem.


By Bateluer on 8/17/2009 10:28:25 AM , Rating: 1
You do know that's illegal right? That's not fair use.


By eddieroolz on 8/14/2009 4:28:10 AM , Rating: 1
I haven't bought a retail DVD or CD in...my life. And I plan on continuing this trend.

Never in hell am I giving my money to the MPAA or RIAA or their Canadian offspring, CRIA.


By Danish1 on 8/15/2009 2:46:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there is one right they can't take away from me.. and that is the right to not buy their crap. and i use that right daily.


Unfortunately that's not true.

Don't be surprised when you find buying movies and music for "citizens in need" has found its way to the government budget.


RE: the one right they can't take away
By log on 8/15/2009 9:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agree!


Incorrect
By Murst on 8/13/2009 1:46:22 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think this article is correct.

The court said nothing about the right of an individual to back up their own DVD collection. What it did say is that it is illegal to distribute software to do so if it violates the DMCA ( and the court did specifically state that fair use cannot be used in a defense like this ).

Therefore, it is still perfectly legal for someone to back up their own DVDs. You just cannot expect any help in doing so from third-party software.

In practice, this may be very similar to preventing users from backing up their DVD collection. However, the article is misleading in stating that it is illegal to do so yourself.




RE: Incorrect
By boldingd on 8/13/2009 2:04:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The court said nothing about the right of an individual to back up their own DVD collection. What it did say is that it is illegal to distribute software to do so if it violates the DMCA ( and the court did specifically state that fair use cannot be used in a defense like this ). Therefore, it is still perfectly legal for someone to back up their own DVDs. You just cannot expect any help in doing so from third-party software.


You're not quite correct. It is correct that this case was decided on DMCA rather than Fair Use grounds, and that the decision was in-line with the DMCA. The problem is, the DMCA circumvents Fair Use: it is not legal to circumvent a copy-protection scheme for any reason, fair uses included. So... you can't legally back-up your DVD if you have to circumvent a copy-protection system to do it (which you will).

We are restricted to the set of fair "uses" that don't involve actually accessing the content on the disc (which would require circumventing it's copy-protection). Which is basically none.


RE: Incorrect
By gstrickler on 8/13/2009 2:31:41 PM , Rating: 4
Not quite. The ruling does NOT prevent you from making a copy of your DVDs for backup purposes, nor does it preclude you from using those backup copies on a system that is authorized to decode and playback video encoded using CSS. What it does do are two things:
1. Make clear that under DMCA it illegal to market/sell any tools that enable you do circumvent the copy protection (CSS) on DVDs.
2. Says you can't copy, transcribe, transcode, or decrypt your DVDs onto another type of media (e.g. your hard drive) unless you have a system that is legally authorized to decode and playback CSS encoded material from that media because anything else would be circumventing CSS.

Effectively, that means you can only backup your DVDs to another DVD (since DVD playback is only authorized on DVD & Blu-Ray players and recorders), and only if the CSS is left intact on the backup.

The judge was very narrow and specific in the ruling, suggesting that this is not likely to be the end of the debate over DMCA and fair-use.

Whether or not all portions of DMCA are valid under the U.S. Constitution has yet to be decided. This case possibly lays the foundation for a later challenge of DMCA on constitutional grounds, but that's not clear.


RE: Incorrect
By gstrickler on 8/13/2009 3:15:13 PM , Rating: 2
One thing I left out, there is nothing in the ruling to prevent you from keeping a backup of the CSS ENCRYPTED data on another medium as you have not in any way circumvented CSS, however, playback from that medium might be considered "circumventing" CSS under DMCA. Therefore, keeping an ISO image of your DVD on your HD or other medium for backup purposes should be permissible, however, you'll put yourself at risk if you attempt playback from a non-authorized device, therefore, burning the ISO image to an appropriate DL DVD disk for playback may be necessary.

Of course, all of the above would have to be done under fair use, so you can't share your backups.


RE: Incorrect
By legallink on 8/13/2009 5:15:47 PM , Rating: 2
I would suggest that you all read the decision. I posted an article about this case here: http://www.jeffreyneu.com/20090813219/the-dmca-and...

The court said, you can make backup copies for personal use, and that would be considered fair use. They also said that you can't build a business model off of the essentially, decrypting or circumventing the CSS...which is a bit circular in the effect that if no one can sell software that allows you to make a backup, unless you are DVDJON, you aren't going to make a backup.


RE: Incorrect
By gstrickler on 8/13/2009 6:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
... if no one can sell software that allows you to make a backup, unless you are DVDJON, you aren't going to make a backup.
Not so, you can backup the data without removing or circumventing CSS. Pop a DVD in your DVD-ROM equipped computer, open it up, and you can see, open, read, and copy the CSS encrypted .VOB files from the desktop. You run into a DMCA violation when you attempt to remove or circumvent the CSS encryption. However, removing the encryption is not required to make a backup of the encrypted data.


RE: Incorrect
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 1:23:09 PM , Rating: 2
I could care less what "they say". I pop MY DVD in MY COMPUTER, and do what I want with it. Copy - paste, encode, decode, upcode, downcode, put a purple face on MPIAA or DRM or any of their psycho names, and burn em right off the disc if I feel like it.
Really, they can GO BLOW.
I am a US Citizen and human being, not their stomped upon slave to obey their psychotic demands.


RE: Incorrect
By gstrickler on 8/13/2009 3:17:09 PM , Rating: 4
Imagine that, yet another Jason Mick article with a sensationalized and inaccurate headline. Who would have guessed?


RE: Incorrect
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:36:22 PM , Rating: 3
Not defending Mick, but it is not far off. The ruling means you CANNOT rip movies for any purpose whatsoever. You cannot defeat the copy protection, even for fair uses, such as watching on your iPod, streaming over your network inside your own house, or backing up so your kids don't destroy your discs.

With the MPAA and RIAA, you are guilty until proven innocent.


RE: Incorrect
By gstrickler on 8/13/2009 3:48:38 PM , Rating: 4
But the headline doesn't say "rip", "transcode", etc, it says "Never Have the Right to Copy DVD Movies", which is a complete misinterpretation of the ruling. The ruling specifically states that it does not apply to the analog signal coming from a properly authorized DVD player, meaning you can use the analog output according to fair use.

It also leaves the possibility that a computer with DVI output and a properly licensed DVD playback program could potentially be used to capture a digital version of the movie (played from the computers DVD drive). Whether or not that would be found to "circumvent" CSS under DMCA is uncertain.


RE: Incorrect
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:52:18 PM , Rating: 1
What are you talking about?? That is clearly defeating the copy protection to make a copy of the movie. Any of those actions makes you a criminal.


RE: Incorrect
By gstrickler on 8/13/2009 4:36:32 PM , Rating: 3
That's for a court to decide, which is why I said it's uncertain. In that scenario, you, the consumer have done nothing to "circumvent" the CSS, everything I described was with legally authorized playback systems. There is no law against using a legally authorized playback system to decrypt the data, in fact, doing so is REQUIRED in order for you to watch and listen to the DVD, and you haven't circumvented anything.

Additionally, even digital data from a DVI output is not the same as the data protected by CSS. The data available on DVI would be non-compressed video with no chapter info, menu info, special feature info, audio, sub-titles, multi-language info, angle, zoom, looping info, auto-play/pause flags, etc. It might be an accurate copy of the movie itself, but it's missing a bunch of info contained in the original CSS encrypted data stream.

What I'm saying is that DVD playback software on a computer with a DVI output MIGHT by a valid loophole.


RE: Incorrect
By Murst on 8/13/2009 4:01:15 PM , Rating: 4
The problem w/ the headline is that it says that consumers never have the right to copy... where the ruling said that software that enables copying protected DVDs cannot be distributed. There is a big difference between the two.


RE: Incorrect
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 4:09:11 PM , Rating: 1
How's that now? How are you going to copy a DVD without software that enables that action? If distributing said software cannot happen, then by extension, consumers cannot make copies and therefore have no right to make copies.


RE: Incorrect
By Murst on 8/13/2009 4:26:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If distributing said software cannot happen, then by extension, consumers cannot make copies and therefore have no right to make copies.

Well, considering that I'm a developer, I suppose I could write a program to copy the DVD for me. Yes, it would be a terrible waste of time considering how cheap DVDs are and the time investment required to copy the DVD... but it would not be illegal.

Now... if I wrote this software, I could use it... but if I started distributing it, that's where problems would arise.


RE: Incorrect
By DominionSeraph on 8/13/2009 5:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Now... if I wrote this software, I could use it... but if I started distributing it, that's where problems would arise.


No, you may neither manufacture nor use said software.

§ 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
(a) Violations Regarding Circumvention of Technological Measures.—
(1)
-(A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

...

(2) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that—
-(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
-(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
-(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.


RE: Incorrect
By Murst on 8/14/2009 10:47:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, you may neither manufacture nor use said software.

I never said anything about circumventing copyright protection. You do not need to do that when backing up a DVD - simply back it up w/ the copyright protection in place. As long as I don't sign a contract w/ the MPAA and CSS foundation that I will not do such things ( as RealNetworks did ), I'll be fine.


RE: Incorrect
By DominionSeraph on 8/14/2009 4:34:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I never said anything about circumventing copyright protection. You do not need to do that when backing up a DVD - simply back it up w/ the copyright protection in place.


Then why did you spout off about developing your own software? There are dozens of freeware apps that'll clone DVDs.

quote:
As long as I don't sign a contract w/ the MPAA and CSS foundation that I will not do such things ( as RealNetworks did ), I'll be fine.


Huh? What you're saying and the case in question have nothing to do with each other.
RealNetworks software removed protections from DVDs so that the MPEG stream could be played from a hard drive. This violates the DMCA. Simply copying a DVD to a DVD-R with the CSS key intact does not.
Try to keep up.


RE: Incorrect
By Murst on 8/14/2009 4:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
I suggest you become more familiar w/ the case.

quote:
Then why did you spout off about developing your own software? There are dozens of freeware apps that'll clone DVDs.

I wasn't talking about cloning a DVD. This isn't what RealNetworks did w/ their software.
quote:
RealNetworks software removed protections from DVDs so that the MPEG stream could be played from a hard drive.

No, RealNetworks did not remove these copy protections. When RN copied the DVD, they copied it w/ the CSS encryption in place. They then created software which allowed you to play the CSS encrypted DVD data from the hard drive.

RealNetworks lost this case because they had an agreement (with either the MPAA or CSS foundation - whatever they're called... the agreement was not made public) in that they will not attempt to circumvent CSS encryption. The judge ruled that allowing playback of DVD movies from your harddrive, even if the CSS encryption is in place, circumvents CSS encryption, since there is some clause in the agreement that requires a physical DVD to be in the drive at time of playback.

Keep up.


RE: Incorrect
By DominionSeraph on 8/14/2009 5:58:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
RealNetworks lost this case because they had an agreement (with either the MPAA or CSS foundation - whatever they're called... the agreement was not made public) in that they will not attempt to circumvent CSS encryption. The judge ruled that allowing playback of DVD movies from your harddrive, even if the CSS encryption is in place, circumvents CSS encryption, since there is some clause in the agreement that requires a physical DVD to be in the drive at time of playback.


Breach of contract != violation of DMCA. You're getting chocolate in your peanut butter there.


RE: Incorrect
By Murst on 8/14/2009 6:35:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Breach of contract != violation of DMCA. You're getting chocolate in your peanut butter there.

Where in that ENTIRE paragraph did I mention the DMCA? You're seeing things.

You are mixing up the defense which RealNetworks attempted ( fair use, arguing that it did not violate the DMCA ), with their contractual obligations ( the reason why RealNetworks lost the case ).


RE: Incorrect
By DominionSeraph on 8/16/2009 2:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Where in that ENTIRE paragraph did I mention the DMCA?


You didn't. That's the problem.

This is not merely a breach of contract case. It is also a violation of the DMCA. You mixed the DMCA in with the breach of contract to come up with, "As long as I don't sign a contract, I'm fine." You're not. Contracts have nothing to do with the DMCA.


RE: Incorrect
By Iaiken on 8/13/2009 4:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
All of your examples sound like circumvention to me...


RE: Incorrect
By Murst on 8/13/2009 3:41:23 PM , Rating: 2
I don't really find Mick's articles any more sensationalized than any other author's articles. But if I do find something inaccurate, I will point it out.

Generally, Mick tends to report on issues that are more controversial... those seem to stick in one's memory more so than other topics.


RE: Incorrect
By philosofool on 8/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: Incorrect
By DominionSeraph on 8/13/2009 6:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
None of the language in this ruling says anything about fair use.


It doesn't have to. Fair use comes after access, but DMCA wraps content in an envelope that's illegal to open.

It's like if I put copyrighted works of mine into my safe. You can't break into my house, blow open the safe, and rightfully claim, "It's legal! Fair use!" You may have not violated copyright law, but you've certainly violated a whole bunch of other laws.

Fair use is an exception to a copyright holder's exclusive right to copy. It is not a claim right, thus there's no issue with placing obstacles in the path of the exploitation of the exception. So, copyright holders may place technological obstacles, and when they do, the DMCA reinforces it with a legal obstacle to the traditional workaround. (Breaking DRM.)


RE: Incorrect
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 1:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
You don't have that similie correct. It's like I buy something and put it in my safe. You come along and say, if you open that safe, you're obviously going to be breaking the law.
I open the safe. Frustrated, you scream, do not unseal that seal on the software by tearing it open! You start dialing 911 on your cracked, jailbroken cellphone, screaming a crime is about to be committed.
I tell you to get the hell out of my house.


RE: Incorrect
By DominionSeraph on 8/14/2009 6:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You don't have that similie correct.


No, you're just being sloppy with the parameters. Try reigning things in to a single axis instead of throwing up all over the page.


Windows Media Player illegal?
By danobrega on 8/13/2009 1:25:27 PM , Rating: 2
Does this mean I can't use Windows Media Player RIP feature to copy a CD to my harddrive/media center? Funny as hell.




RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By Spivonious on 8/13/2009 1:32:44 PM , Rating: 5
This verdict is ridiculous. Making a copy for personal use, while not expicitly allowed by current copyright laws, has been completely accepted for at least as long as the MP3 format has existed.

If I own a CD/DVD/MP3/whatever, I should be able to make 1000 copies as long as they are for my own personal use.


RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By mmntech on 8/13/2009 2:44:05 PM , Rating: 5
To the RIAA and MPAA, those 1000 copies equal $14,990 in theft, given that $14.99 is the average price for a CD these days. They quite literally want you to purchase individual copies for each media device you own. This is where DRM factors in as a method of artificially boosting sales by blocking format shifting. The entertainment industry has gone to great lengths to demonize and alienate their own legitimate customers yet it has done nothing to stop piracy. I'm willing to bet I can go to Downtown Toronto right now and find somebody selling GI Joe or Harry Potter 6 on DVD. It's far easier though to attack defenceless consumers and legitimate businesses rather than go after organized crime.

Of course with Obama in office, and all the big Hollywood money backing him, I doubt this broken law (DMCA) will ever be corrected anytime soon.


RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By Davelo on 8/13/09, Rating: -1
RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:54:58 PM , Rating: 4
Uhh, hellllooooo. I do. I need backups so that my children don't destroy the original. I'm setting a library on my home server so that I can stream media to my TV. I want my DVDs in that library. I take trips all the time and want to watch movies on my Zune (yeah I know, boo on me because I didn't get an iPod).


By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 4:00:35 PM , Rating: 3
Uhh, that is, I need backup copies for the uses mentioned above. I don't actually make backup copies, as that would be bad. Right now, I just have to live with the scratches and bad playback on my discs that the children have messed up.


RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By AlexWade on 8/13/2009 4:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
Here is something that is legitimate.

I hate DVD's that make you watch some coming attraction or some stupid promo. It sure would be nice to make a copy of just the movie only to save time. Just pop the DVD in, and enjoy.

Another:

Blu-Ray supports H.264 and VC-1. Both of which are more efficient than MPEG-2. It sure would be nice to convert some of DVD's to H.264 by the wonderful x264 program. Then I can put two movies on one DVD. That will be handy for vacation. Or, better yet, it sure would be nice to take my Simpsons' DVD's, convert the episodes to H.264, and put several on one disc, much more than would be on the original.

Another:

It sure would be nice to be able to convert my DVD's to VC-1 and have my XBox 360 play it back. Fortunately, over-the-air stuff is DRM-free, so I've already done this with a few TV shows. With this, I can put my DVD's in a closet so that I don't have to convert my living room in a DVD library. Just think of all the time that I can save by not having to search for a DVD?

Shall I gone on? There are many many legit reasons to allow ripping DVD's. What is so wrong by allowing me to do any of these things?


RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By mcnabney on 8/13/2009 7:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, converting your DVDs to H.264 or VC-1 would create an inferior copy. I did it a number of times using several different tools before I started ripping my DVDs and there is a clear difference in quality when displayed on a big screeen. Should be just fine for a laptop, Zune, or iPod - but changing from one lossy format to another is always going to degrade the final product. I kept the VOBs.


RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By Hiawa23 on 8/14/2009 9:03:59 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, right.

Who makes copies of DVDs for personal use? I'll bet you buy water bongs for the expressed purpose of smoking tobacco too, right?

there are many Netflix subscribers that use Copy DVD 123, & other copy utlities for their personal purposes only.


By gstrickler on 8/13/2009 6:45:04 PM , Rating: 2
This verdict has absolutely nothing to do with CDs. This was narrowly focused on a DMCA and CSS, it has zero implications on ripping CDs to MP3/AAC/WAV.


RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By MozeeToby on 8/13/2009 1:37:32 PM , Rating: 2
Well, it means that Microsoft can no longer distribute a version of Media Player that has that functionality. It has been established that making personal backup copies is legal fair use, that is not what the Judge actually found fault with. The issue is that Congress (not sure when) passed a law making programs with the functionality to rip DVD's illegal.

The Judge, in this case was unfortunatly right. The law clearly states that the functionality Real wanted to put in their player is illegal. The problem is the law that makes it so. The point is, don't be pissed at the judge, be pissed at the polititians who have been all but purchased by special interest groups.


By Alexstarfire on 8/13/2009 1:56:19 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, I'm 99.99% certain that it's illegal because it circumvents protection and has nothing to do with the actual content of the disc/file. Though since you can't rip a DVD without circumventing the protection it's pretty much one in the same. Considering that this effectively takes away rights we have as a consumer I'm surprised that it's even legal for them to make DVDs this way.

Of course I could care less since I'm going to do whatever the hell I want to with my own shit. If they don't like it they can piss off or stop trying to screw the consumer into repurchasing the same stuff they already own just because once in a blue moon they actually make something that people want to own.


RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By Sulphademus on 8/13/2009 2:07:14 PM , Rating: 5
But the judge could have also found that the DMCA is in conflict with the Constitution or with other preexisting laws.
Hopefully this happens on appeal.

MPAA is going to kill DVD (& BluRay) just like RIAA killed the CD.


By Hyperion1400 on 8/13/2009 3:30:53 PM , Rating: 2
Ehhem... Sony/BMG


RE: Windows Media Player illegal?
By nafhan on 8/13/2009 2:35:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think that would be a little different. It sounds like this verdict had to do more with circumventing CSS and less with copying in general. Music CD's do not contain any copy protection and probably wouldn't fall directly under this ruling. I could be wrong, though; IANAL.


Won't change my usage...
By InvertMe on 8/13/2009 1:29:08 PM , Rating: 5
I rip every movie I buy and put it on my PC. Once ripped, the movie goes in the box and back on the shelf. Never to be opened again.

I don't care what "the law" says that's how I will continue to handle all my new DVDs. I have had entirely too many DVDs get ruined due to friends or family not treating them correctly to risk them anymore.

Also I like the convienence of watching movies from my PC. I wrote a little VB app that catalogs my movies and even shows cover art. I simply click on whatever I want to watch and up it comes. So much easier than fishing through hundreds of movie boxes.

I hope this law gets overturned.




RE: Won't change my usage...
By Spivonious on 8/13/2009 1:35:28 PM , Rating: 5
Exactly. The way I see it, as far as you're not ripping movies you rent (and thus violating the rental agreement), the movie companies are not losing any money.

I have a feeling that this district court decision will be appealed and overturned in the state court.


RE: Won't change my usage...
By nafhan on 8/13/2009 2:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
Plus it sounds like he's not selling copies and/or posting those copies on bittorrent. Therefore, his chances of getting caught are effectively 0...
My feeling is that's pretty much the reasoning behind making backup copies. It's allowing an action that's impossible to enforce anyway.


RE: Won't change my usage...
By cochy on 8/13/2009 3:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Therefore, his chances of getting caught are effectively 0...


Well he confessed to being a criminal here. The FBI will come in and seize Dailytech access logs. They will track him down and put him behind bars!

Hope you were using a proxie or your neighbors wireless when posting here!!


RE: Won't change my usage...
By HotFoot on 8/13/2009 2:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if the ruling itself can be overturned before the law is changed. My understanding of the DMCA is that it's pretty clear that if you circumvent the copyright protection you're breaking the law. It's not the act of making a copy, it's not whether or not it makes SENSE, it's just... the law. I think it's ridiculous, but it's the law.

I personally plan to continue to buy CDs and DVDs simply to add them to my digital collection on my HTPC and Desktop and Personal Laptop so I can consume what I bought the license to how I choose to do so. I don't download and I don't upload - myself and any friend/family I'm with at the time are the only co-consumers. That's what I think makes sense, and maybe I'm damned for doing so, but my hope is that someday the law will reflect what myself and most who've I've talked with about this matter think would be just.


RE: Won't change my usage...
By Iaiken on 8/13/2009 1:44:47 PM , Rating: 5
Maybe they will save you the trouble and make it illegal to lend out DvD's that you own to others. Maybe they will make it so you need to have be a licensed owner of "Forest Gump" in an MPAA database before you can even touch a copy of it.

Trust me, the MPAA would like nothing better...


RE: Won't change my usage...
By TSS on 8/13/2009 2:30:05 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Trust me, the MPAA would like nothing better...


All shows and movies beeing pay-per-view, that meaning each minute costs money like a phone call.

I'll bet they'd like that.

Seriously though, i'm trying to kick the habbit of downloading. I finish games too fast and i can remember movies far too long after having seen them so that takes the fun out of that. I've just bought another MMO to keep me busy. But their really not making it easy for me, tempting me like this.


RE: Won't change my usage...
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:32:31 PM , Rating: 2
You are a criminal. If the studios could track it, they would gladly sue you, fine you, and imprison you to send a message to the proletariat that you are not to fsck with their content, whether you legally purchased it or not.


RE: Won't change my usage...
By InvertMe on 8/14/2009 9:40:30 AM , Rating: 2
People don't go to jail for making copies. They go to jail for distribution of copies.

Just wanted to point that fact out.


Controll
By Fat32 on 8/13/2009 1:27:16 PM , Rating: 5
They should also limit how many people watch one DVD. 1 person per 1 DVD. Otherwise you need to buy additional viewing license.




RE: Controll
By kb9fcc on 8/13/2009 2:29:15 PM , Rating: 5
They would, if they could figure out a way to enforce it, even poorly.

Also, it's going to cost you another license just to remember a movie you've seen. After all you are carrying a copy of it around in your brain. Oh, and that will be per-instance of remembering, with different fees for short term and long term memory storage. And just forget about telling someone else about that movie, that would be an illegal playback to persons other than the one connected directly to the wetware.

The same will apply to music.

HEY! YOU Yes, I'm talking to you, the one humming over there. Cough up the bucks, now! Or we break your legs...


RE: Controll
By Helbore on 8/13/2009 4:25:05 PM , Rating: 5
Hey, do you think this case could be used as a precident to sue someone over remembering a film. After all, your brain is circumventing the DRM by recording the content with your eyes.


RE: Controll
By Donovan on 8/14/2009 9:51:27 AM , Rating: 2
To implement your idea they'll create a special chair which will validate your license before the movie starts. The device will prevent attempts to sit down without a license or to fit two people on one seat.

Of course this will be followed by a ban on all regular chairs which allow movie watching without license verification. The ban will be all the more unpopular when people discover that MPAA chairs come with a rectal security spike to make sure you don't leave during the unskipable trailers.


RE: Controll
By SiliconDoc on 8/14/2009 1:05:35 PM , Rating: 2
Hey that sounds like a good movie !


Legal Clarification
By JamesT on 8/13/2009 1:27:15 PM , Rating: 4
Just to clarify the legal ramifications here, this is precedent, but it is only binding on THIS particular court, meaning any other district court in the country is free to rule in the opposite direction. What matters here is what happens on appeal, and it only becomes binding across the whole country if the US Supreme Court rules on it. Now this ruling could be persuasive to other courts since it is the only one of its kind, it is still not binding and they are free to rule in the opposite direction




RE: Legal Clarification
By encryptkeeper on 8/13/2009 1:30:48 PM , Rating: 2
Just to clarify the legal ramifications here, this is precedent, but it is only binding on THIS particular court, meaning any other district court in the country is free to rule in the opposite direction.

Ah, I C.


RE: Legal Clarification
By headbox on 8/13/2009 1:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
However, most courts use rulings by other courts to make decisions, which is why this precedent is troubling.


RE: Legal Clarification
By Smilin on 8/13/2009 1:42:54 PM , Rating: 5
It doesn't matter what happens at other courts. When the RIAA sues you for humming a song in public this is the court they'll "shop" for.


RE: Legal Clarification
By phattyboombatty on 8/13/2009 3:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
It's actually not precedent even in that particular court.


I'd like for someone to explain to me....
By Motoman on 8/13/2009 3:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
...how it is legal for Big Content to even put DRM on a disk in the first place, knowing that it inhibits/prohibits my law-given right to copy said disk?

It is absolutely, positively true that fair use law gives the consumer the right to make a backup copy of a DVD, CD, cassette tape, whatever. This is capital "T" Truth.

It is also a law that it is illegal to circumvent any DRM in order to make a copy of that medium. This is also Truth, in as much as it's a law clearly on the books.

My question, therefore, is since law #1 exists precisely for the express reason of granting me a law-given right to copy a disk/tape that I have legally purchsed, how is it even possible that law #2 can be even allowed to exist, since it's existence serves to unequivocally prevent me from exercising the right that was granted to me under law #1?

Real is going about this the wrong way. They need to put official proceedings in motion that will show that #2 is an impermissable law, since it's very existence prevents law-abiding citizens from exercising their rights as explicitly provided to them elsewhere.

In the meantime, I encourage everyone to vote with your wallets, and just simply NOT purchase any DVDs or CDs. The media industry is moronic enough to believe that these actions are going to generate revenue for them...make it painfully clear to them that when they choose to abuse the consumer, we can just keep their "revenue" in our pockets...and they can rot in hell.




RE: I'd like for someone to explain to me....
By Motoman on 8/13/2009 3:55:01 PM , Rating: 4
...here's an analogy:

It's illegal to jaywalk. By law you are required to cross the street only on crosswalks. One day you find yourself needing to cross a street...so you head to the crosswalk. To your surprise, the MPAA & RIAA have erected a barrier there, labeled "it is illegal to circumvent this barrier."

...so, you still need to get to the other side of the road. Your options are now to jaywalk, which is illegal, or jump over the MPAA/RIAA barrier...which is also illegal.

...all the while wondering, of course, how it is legal for the MPAA/RIAA to have arranged the barrier in the first place, such that it prevents you from using the law-given right-of-way across the street?


RE: I'd like for someone to explain to me....
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 4:05:43 PM , Rating: 4
Because, while you weren't looking, Congress passed a law that circumventing any barriers put up in front of crosswalks is illegal. So the RIAA/MPAA nazis take their newfound power and erect barriers. If you climb over it or walk around it, you are a criminal. If you jaywalk, you are a criminal.

So go back inside your house, sit on your ass and watch one of your scratched up DVDs that would be illegal to make a backup of.


By Motoman on 8/14/2009 11:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
...you would think that Big Content might sit back and look at exactly what DRM has actually accomplished for them...

Point the first: Number of movies/CDs/software packages that DRM has prevented piracy of: Zero

Point the second: Percentage of legitimate consumers inconvenienced and annoyed by DRM: Probably almost 100%

Point the third: Number of would-be legitimate consumers who refuse to buy such products because of DRM: An unscientific "lots"

Point the fourth: Number of would-be legitimate consumers who turn to the dark side and get pirated copies because it's the better option for them to do so because of the DRM: Another unscientific "lots"

Point the fifth: Amount of money that Big Content has spent on DRM, only to see it have no effect whatsoever on piracy, annoy legitimate consumers, cause their own sales to drop, and push some would-be legitimate consumers to piracy? Billions.

Hey Big Content - pull your heads out of your asses. DRM costs you enormous amounts of money to license and implement. It has not *ever* stopped one single pirate. That means it's effeciveness is precisely zero - you get absolutely no return on your investment. On the contrary, by pissing off your consumer base, they buy less of your product...so not only is your product costing you more to produce, but people are buying less of it. Some of them are turning to piracy because of your DRM...the net effect of DRM is that it INCREASES piracy - it doesn't decrease it. The only thing it decreases is your sales, your profit margins, and your consumer satisfaction ratings.

There is no benefit, whatsoever, from either Big Content's standpoint or from the consumer's standpoint, for having DRM. One group, and one group only, benefits from DRM - the companies that develop DRM technologies...and just precisely why does Big Content find it necessary to prop up an industry that despite billions of dollars of revenue has not EVER produced a successful product? Their products have a 100% failure rate...always have, and always will.


Yea Right
By bubbastrangelove on 8/13/2009 2:46:05 PM , Rating: 2
No way this is going to stop me from making a copying of my legitimately purchased DVD of "Inglorious Bastards" when it comes out and play the backup instead of the original for when the kids pick it up and use if for a frisbee.

Sorry but not this time...




RE: Yea Right
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:37:23 PM , Rating: 1
Then you are a criminal, and should be severely punished according to the studios and MPAA.


RE: Yea Right
By bubbastrangelove on 8/13/2009 4:05:15 PM , Rating: 3
I'm OK with that


RE: Yea Right
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 4:10:31 PM , Rating: 2
Cool, just making sure.


RE: Yea Right
By thekdub on 8/13/2009 5:38:04 PM , Rating: 2
Stop right there, criminal scum! Nobody copies a DVD on the MPAA's watch! I'm confiscating your stolen goods. Now pay your fine or it's off to jail.


Thanks Real.
By Smilin on 8/13/2009 1:25:03 PM , Rating: 1
Couldn't you guys and your bloatfest software just have gone out of business without dragging a bunch of people down with you?

WTF were you thinking trying to develop a DVD ripping machine without proper licenses? What did you think the RIAA was going to do?

Now a legal precedent is set so everyone else gets a dick sandwich. Thanks Real.




RE: Thanks Real.
By cleco on 8/13/2009 1:30:56 PM , Rating: 2
It was MPAA not RIAA


RE: Thanks Real.
By Smilin on 8/13/2009 1:44:03 PM , Rating: 5
Gotcha. Sorry, got my evil empires mixed up.


RE: Thanks Real.
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:45:40 PM , Rating: 1
Who gives a shit? They both hate you. All they want is your money, and will fsck your rights over anyway they can to get more of it.


This post violates the DMCA
By DominionSeraph on 8/13/2009 7:12:25 PM , Rating: 5
4
8565078965 7397829309 8418946942 8613770744 2087351357 9240196520 7366869851
3401047237 4469687974 3992611751 0973777701 0274475280 4905883138 4037549709
9879096539 5522701171 2157025974 6669932402 2683459661 9606034851 7424977358
4685188556 7457025712 5474999648 2194184655 7100841190 8625971694 7970799152
0048667099 7592359606 1320725973 7979936188 6063169144 7358830024 5336972781
8139147979 5551339994 9394882899 8469178361 0018259789 0103160196 1835034344
8956870538 4520853804 5842415654 8248893338 0474758711 2833959896 8522325446
0840897111 9771276941 2079586244 0547161321 0050064598 2017696177 1809478113
6220027234 4827224932 3259547234 6880029277 7649790614 8129840428 3457201463
4896854716 9082354737 8356619721 8622496943 1622716663 9390554302 4156473292
4855248991 2257394665 4862714048 2117138124 3882177176 0298412552 4464744505
5834628144 8833563190 2725319590 4392838737 6407391689 1257924055 0156208897
8716337599 9107887084 9081590975 4801928576 8451988596 3053238234 9055809203
2999603234 4711407760 1984716353 1161713078 5760848622 3637028357 0104961259
5681846785 9653331007 7017991614 6744725492 7283348691 6000647585 9174627812
1269007351 8309241530 1063028932 9566584366 2000800476 7789679843 8209079761
9859493646 3093805863 3672146969 5975027968 7712057249 9666698056 1453382074
1203159337 7030994915 2746918356 5937621022 2006812679 8273445760 9380203044
7912277498 0917955938 3871210005 8876668925 8448700470 7725524970 6044465212
7130404321 1826101035 9118647666 2963858495 0874484973 7347686142 0880529443

Converted to hex, this prime number gives you the gzipped DeCSS source code, which is illegal to distribute.




By DominionSeraph on 8/13/2009 7:49:27 PM , Rating: 3
Law School?
By iregulate on 8/13/2009 3:31:40 PM , Rating: 3
This blog entry doesn't even accurately reflect the holding. If you look at the other tech websites' coverage, you can see that the sensationalist headline is overreaching.




RE: Law School?
By johnsonx on 8/14/2009 2:52:55 AM , Rating: 3
How can you tell if a DailyTech article will be sensationalized, overblown, and largely inaccurate?

If the letters J-A-S-O-N--M-I-C-K appear below the headline.


RE: Law School?
By InvertMe on 8/14/2009 10:45:58 AM , Rating: 1
yeah.. I went out and researched this myself and found that this article is all wrong.

I think it's time for me to find a new tech news site to visit. Daily Tech really isn't cutting it anymore.

To be specific Jason Mick isn't cutting it and his articles are all over this place...

If anyone incharge is paying attention - replace Mick please.


By callmeroy on 8/14/2009 1:27:33 PM , Rating: 3
If I'm misunderstanding this just ignore me...however does this ruling mean I 'technically' am doing something illegal from now on if I copy a DVD I purchased through a legitimate retail outlet onto a server in my own house so I can easily access any movie in my collection in an organized fashion quickly?

If that is the case this one of the dumbest rulings I've read about in a long time, amazing how the judges passes decisions like this.

I'd be among the first to stomp on anyone that laughs at stealing anything -- physical (like from an actual store) or virtually (like pirating movies through the 'net), however I'm not a huge fan of the "label everyone for the actions of the few" club.

Few of course is a relative term, naturally MILLIONS pirate, but a greater number do NOT - is what my point is.

As far as some reponses to prior posts in this thread -- some of you are idiots. To rant and get all worked up over folks having to be communist, selfish or just lazy because they want the right to make backups is a knee jerk response at best, talking out your arse at worse.

There is indeed legitimacy to wanting to create backups, in the case of software particularly I'd say is responsible - especially in the context of a business.

There's noting lazy, selfish or certainly communist about it.

Especially considering some software vendors are a PITA to deal with if you happen to damage, misplace your master disc -- good luck trying to get another copy back.

Finally -- damaging and losing something isn't ALWAYS from neglect or someone being careless -- life happens.

I'm sure of the thousands killed each year in car accidents, not too many of them intended that to happen when they got in their car that day.




By DominionSeraph on 8/14/2009 5:46:43 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
does this ruling mean I 'technically' am doing something illegal from now on if I copy a DVD I purchased through a legitimate retail outlet onto a server in my own house so I can easily access any movie in my collection in an organized fashion quickly?


Well, this ruling was about paragraph (2), while your actions are illegal under (1) subparagraph (A)...

quote:
If that is the case this one of the dumbest rulings I've read about in a long time


Why? It's correct.

I'm not a big fan of the DMCA because it basically turns millions of people doing nothing wrong into criminals; but if enforced with some sense, it's pretty good at protecting copyright holders from a piracy free-for-all. It prevents an aboveground market of devices that strip protections from digital media, opening the copyrighted content to infinite, free, lossless copying.

Really, there is no perfect solution here. Legitimate owners (rightfully) want unrestricted access; but if they have it, they share with their friends. Their friends then have unrestricted access. Having unrestricted access means that they can share with their friends. And so on and so on.
To stop this, you need to restrict access. But legitimate owners will then break the restrictions to get their ease of access, and pirates will break it to get their initial access, and there's no formulaic way to differentiate the two. Thus millions are turned into criminals.


By 41A on 8/19/2009 3:58:47 PM , Rating: 2
I would suggest that until you've had your day in court, and been proven/proved guilty... you are innocent!

Perhaps having a million or so innocents in the docket is what is required to get the attention of your congressmen... senators... president.

Perhaps if an organization similar to the NRA was created to lobby and litigate on your behalf... the problem would go away.

Perhaps if congressman x, senator y, and president z, knew that they were one term wonders... legislation 'for the people, by the people' would become the norm.


Sooo.....................
By Jabroney701020 on 8/13/2009 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 2
Am I then allowed to put the digital content of my DVD on my computer if, say, I want movie watching to be more convenient that way?




RE: Sooo.....................
By BZDTemp on 8/13/2009 3:12:06 PM , Rating: 2
No. Think convenient=illegal.

If you need to circumvent the DRM in order to play the movie at all it may be a different issue - say your OS does not support the DRM and you have no other means of playing the disc then it may perhaps be okay. However storing the movie will not.


RE: Sooo.....................
By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot do a goddam thing with your DVD. You rip it, you are now a criminal.


How far does this stretch?
By smackababy on 8/13/2009 1:46:06 PM , Rating: 2
If, for example, I was to purchase a movie online and also recieve a digital copy. I could copy the digital one onto a DVD and be held in violation of the law if the DVD itself contains anti-consumer... I mean anti-copy measures?




RE: How far does this stretch?
By steven975 on 8/13/2009 3:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
no, the law is you can't break encryption to do it.

Digital Copy DVDs and downloaded movies are different...they don't have any measures to prevent copying like DVD movies do...you still need a license to play them back.


RE: How far does this stretch?
By mcnabney on 8/13/2009 7:03:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, yes they do.


...
By edge929 on 8/13/2009 4:30:39 PM , Rating: 2
To the MPAA and the judges they own: Good luck enforcing this.




RE: ...
By mmatis on 8/13/2009 7:55:25 PM , Rating: 2
They don't have to. "Law Enforcement" will do it for them. And this will obviously be a higher priority than solving minor crimes like robbery, rape, or murder.


RE: ...
By Jalek on 8/13/2009 8:58:27 PM , Rating: 2
Homeland Security went and picked up that kid that dared to mod xboxes.

I'm just glad they have the resources, now that terrorism and the borders are secure so now they can pursue the real criminals.


Unintended Consequences?
By rs1 on 8/13/2009 2:47:27 PM , Rating: 2
So wouldn't this effectively kill online streaming movie services (Netflix, Hulu, etc.)? Unless we are to believe that they stream the video directly from the DVD (seems ridiculously impractical to me), then they must be streaming from ripped copies of their DVD's that are being stored locally on the streaming server. Now, all those local copies are illegal, aren't they?




RE: Unintended Consequences?
By Bateluer on 8/13/2009 3:04:00 PM , Rating: 2
They likely have some form of bulk licensing that allows them to do this.

For the first time ever, I sympathize with Real. Their software sucks, but this verdict is a load of crap. Every DVD I own gets ripped and stored on my server, as they will continue to be.


Question?
By HrilL on 8/13/2009 4:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
So is it the act of making a copy that is illegal or owning a copy? The way I took it was that you can't make a copy but what about getting a copy from someone else in a country where it is legal to make copies?

Like say I download an ISO of a DVD I own to have as a backup. I never ripped the DVD and thus didn't break any security scheme to get my copy.




RE: Question?
By DominionSeraph on 8/13/2009 6:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
Downloading the copy is probably copyright infringement. (Yes, even though you own the DVD, you're not copying your media. [But I don't think the RIAA or MPAA has ever initiated anything for download; only 'making available', which they can prove by downloading the file from you.])
The person who ripped the DVD (as he presumably descrambled it) would have violated the DMCA (for descrambling) and copyright (for uploading the ISO.)

Possession of the copy should be fine, though. (Precedent has been set that illegal copying does not create stolen goods, but I'm not sure if that's the end of it.)


lol
By Silver2k7 on 8/14/2009 7:57:19 AM , Rating: 2
lol

"U.S. Court Rules Consumers Never Have the Right to Copy DVD Movies"

the one who decided this should have to eat their beer with the can.. no no no, you can't take it out of the can sir.. thats against the rules.. now enjoy your eating your can.




RE: lol
By Silver2k7 on 8/14/2009 8:02:35 AM , Rating: 2
Siiir what are you doing, you opened the can ?!?!

Im sorry, bu now we are going to have to sue, you your grandmother, your kids, and your cat.. yess well sue your cat.. im deeply sorry sir.. but you did open the can and poured it into the glass.. we just can't have it that way now, can we?!


RIAA page "The Law"
By MelM on 8/15/2009 8:20:34 PM , Rating: 2
There's an RIAA page that I interpret as saying that my iTunes/iPod digital copying is ok so long as it's for personal use and I don't sell or give away the copies or give away or sell the CDs that I own from which the copies were made. I would say this RIAA info looks pretty reasonable. It allows me to have the great advantage of digital media; all that's required is that I not steal or give away what isn't mine--and that's just fine with me.

http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php?content_sel...




RE: RIAA page "The Law"
By MelM on 8/15/2009 8:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
I interpret the "legitimately own" requirement to mean that I would need to get rid of all copies if I sell or give away the CD. Again, that makes sense to me.


Blown out of context...
By ChristopherO on 8/13/2009 1:42:51 PM , Rating: 3
This ruling doesn't hinder fair-use... The problem is that Real Networks signed a license for CSS keys with the provision "it wouldn't be used for copying". They used it for copying. Real made a stupid decision and is trying to hide behind the banner of fair-use to make it seem like they didn't violate a contract.

Copying DVDs should still be legal, provided the software was reverse-engineered (like the old days where IBM PC BIOS was done without hacking anything). The problem is the darned encryption isn't really possible to "reverse-engineer" without breaking some crazy law. However, if you could, it should be fair game.

We really need a better system. I have no problem if content providers want to protect their stuff. Just don't do it while trampling my rights. Crikey, handle it like Windows Activation... If you have media, activate it, and then it just works on anything you own, regardless of what it is (computer, Blu Ray player, mobile device, etc).

The present system is stupid. It prevents copying. So what? People listen to CDs more than re-watch the same movie. Nothing stops me from lending discs to all my friends, who then watch it once and then give it back.

Another problem is that most people who make copies aren't pirates! I know plenty of parents who duplicate their Disney DVDs so that the kiddies don't trash the originals.

Geeze, just do what the RIAA does. If you find someone illegally sharing media, go after them, but don't prevent the rest of us from using media servers in our houses, or other really cool, high tech uses that are perfectly justified under fair-use.

Thanks Real... Thanks for making a clean-cut issue a legal mess. Good going guys! Sheesh.




Physical Media
By Robear on 8/13/2009 2:11:39 PM , Rating: 3
It's really ironic.

It seems that the media giants are trying desperately to hold on to revenues provided by physical media. To make it illegal to backup your purchased property, this just makes digital distribution more appealing to the consumer.

On one hand they stifle digital distribution in any way possible, then on the other hand they make digital distribution more appealing. There's no thought or consideration given to the consumer. Buy as much as you can for as much as we want to sell it to you. Otherwise you can go without completely. This is ludicrous.

There's no strategy or intelligence behind these efforts; they're simply driven by greed, and it's a shame that so many have had to suffer as a result.




By lamerz4391 on 8/13/2009 3:25:25 PM , Rating: 3
That's right. Media companies have no respect for the individual consumer. They hate the consumer and everything the consumer stands for. They don't like you, they just want your money, and every little bit of it that they can get their hands on.

People need to stop looking at the media companies as the benevolent overlords. They are taking your rights away. Fair use is gone. You are a criminal if you rip a movie that you legally purchased to watch on your iPod. You are a criminal if you make a backup of your legally purchased movie so that your kids won't scratch up the precious original. You are a criminal if you rip a DVD to you legally purchased to your network so that you personally may stream it from a server-based library of movies.

Yes, you are a criminal if you perform any of these activities, and according to the studios should be bankrupted with fines and legal fees, and potentially imprisoned.




RIAA and MPAA litigate themselves out of a job.
By Cerin218 on 8/13/09, Rating: 0
By TheEinstein on 8/13/2009 5:51:53 PM , Rating: 3
Next time use paragraph format please


Precedent setting my rear end
By Nightraptor on 8/13/2009 7:49:39 PM , Rating: 1
Alright whoever wrote this story obviously has no clue about how the judicial system works at the Federal level. Quick Civics Lesson. There are three levels to the federal judiciary - District Courts, Appeals Courts, and the Supreme Court. A District Court has NO power to set BINDING precedent. In fact another judge in the same district ruling on a similar case would still be free to make a completely opposite ruling. That is because a decision by a District Court only has PERSUASIVE authority. If another court finds their reasoning to be sound then they can follow the decision and if not they are free to rule otherwise.

Only the Appeals Courts and Supreme Court have that power to set precedent in a manner which is binding on lower courts and must be followed in the future, however even this is somewhat limited. For instance a Federal Appeals Court only has the authority to issue binding precedent for the Circuit over which they preside. There are 11 such Circuits in the United States not counting the DC and Federal Circuits. A decision from one circuit is binding on the lower courts in that circuit, but is only persuasive authority in other circuits. Only the Supreme Court can set precedent binding on all other lower courts in the United States, but such decisions are not binding on the Supreme Court itself which can overturn prior decisions at will.




By HomerTNachoCheese on 8/17/2009 3:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
And speaking of having no clue, this is the same guy who was illustrating with pictures that the polar ice caps were melting by comparing winter to summer.


Bottom Line
By kkevin6154 on 8/13/2009 9:03:40 PM , Rating: 3
Hey MPAA bastards!!! Bottom line is, if I buy a DVD I own it bitches! If I wanna copy it as a backup, I will. Go FUCK YOURSELF MPAA!!!




By Sooticus on 8/13/2009 9:34:32 PM , Rating: 3
Stopping people from backing up content means there is now a huge market in replacing damaged DVDs. Should we expect to see changes to the physical media to limit their effective lifespan? This would be a perfect idea for the money hungry corporations. This would also completely stuff collectors.
From an environmental perspective this would just add to the piles of unneccesary waste created each year by poor quality manufacturing, but you can bet someone will try it.




By Krashnicki on 8/13/2009 1:24:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While enforcement of such laws on individual citizens is prohibitively expensive for these organizations, it gives them room to lobby law enforcement to take on the fiscal burden and begin investigating and prosecuting citizens for such offenses.


And now these companies can use our tax dollars to prosecute people for a law that many citizens find unjust.




By Ananke on 8/13/2009 1:56:01 PM , Rating: 2
So, the idea is that the Entertainment industry wants to completely prevent any copying of their products. It would make sense, if the distribution media is nondestructive, or otherwise said - producers must provide full lifelong warranty on DVD, CD, BR etc storage media, which contains their products. It should be cross shipment and free of any kind of handling, shipping etc. possible charges.

So, the cost of media back up should be on the producers, if that right is no more allowed or guaranteed to the consumer.




By SiliconAddict on 8/13/2009 2:28:35 PM , Rating: 2
I wish someone would burn down the HQ's of the MPAA and RIAA. 4 alarm type fire.




By vladio on 8/13/2009 2:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
1. `Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe` -- Albert Einstein
2. `Genius may have its limitations, but stupidity not` -- Elbert Hubbard
3. I have nothing more to say about that.. -VJO




RipGuard
By Parhel on 8/13/2009 2:37:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
RealNetwork's defense was that the ARccOS and RipGuard protection technologies it circumvented weren't designed as anti-copying technologies


Did I read that right? You'd be fighting an uphill battle trying to prove that a product called "RipGuard" wasn't designed to prevent copying.




By IcePickFreak on 8/13/2009 5:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
I am the law! Put down your DVD's and prepare to be judged.




That's it...
By dgingeri on 8/14/2009 12:23:52 AM , Rating: 2
no more buying DVD's or CD's for me. I flat out refuse to support these fat cats and their robbing of the middle and working classes. I'll keep playing video games as a substitute for TV and I'll listen to music on the radio, but no more buying. I'm even considering quitting going to movies entirely. I've already substantially reduced my viewing to 2 movies this year, as opposed to 15-20 the year before. the 2 movies I've seen weren't even worth the time I spent seeing them. I wonder if they'll even bring out anything worth watching in this year.

Don't pay for their legal battles against us. join me in boycotting both the movie and music industries until they quit this BS.




Obsolete Technology
By drycrust on 8/14/2009 5:20:29 AM , Rating: 2
DVDs are really an obsolete technology. As I see it, there isn't any reason why sort of flash drive couldn't be used to store a movie or album. Of course, this won't stop anyone from copying it, but it would mean you aren't specifically copying a DVD.




One Day...
By Oralen on 8/14/2009 5:27:27 AM , Rating: 2
The MPAA is going to realize it just shot itself in the foot with that lawsuit.

The people are going to rip and copy the content they have anyway.
And I'm not just talking about DVD here. CD's, Blu-Ray, whatever. They bought it, they own it, and they feel entitled to view it on any other device they have, Ipod, second TV, whatever.

The "illegal" softwares to do it are already available. Some are even free.

At least, with Real, the MPAA had a chance. To dictate some rules: "Ok, you can do it, but only if such and such conditions are met."

Real would have accepted. They would have played ball. They had already tried to please the MPAA by re-encrypting the copy.

It would have opened a new market. A market for getting LEGALLY your content around.

They even could have charged a little for that convenience.

But the MPAA is just too greedy. They actually hope people are going to buy the SAME movies several times, full price, to be able to view it across several devices...

Yeah, dream on...

And all the while, those "illegal" softwares are improving themselves, and are becoming easier to use.

Once upon a time, ripping a DVD was complicated. The MPAA liked that. They thought "only a minority of hacker can do it."

But not anymore...

And soon, even my grandfather will be able to do it, with freewares that do not obey any rules, and do not keep any content protection in place.

Great job, guys... D*ckheads...




Now I am a criminal
By DOOA on 8/14/2009 11:33:06 AM , Rating: 2
Where I work we had a TV and DVD player for entertainment. The DVD's tended to drift away, even with sign out sheets. The overhead of having a person check them in and out was not worth the DVD losses.
I wound up ripping the 100+ DVD's to a hard drive and set up a locked cabinet with the originals behind the TV screen so I could prove we legally own all the content. We stopped losing movies and we never had trouble with people finding what they wanted to watch.
With this judgment I am now a criminal and will likely remove the whole program. Congratulations DRM advocates! You have stopped me buying $100/mo in new DVD's.




If only
By valkator on 8/14/2009 4:15:27 PM , Rating: 2
If only it was in the agreement that once you buy this movie/music album that you owned a license to have that content instead of the content licensed to the storage device. We can all dream though right?