backtop


Print 122 comment(s) - last by rcc.. on Oct 7 at 12:32 PM

Movie studios revive the RIAA's "making a copy" equates to "stealing one copy" argument

The RIAA and music labels gained a bit more notoriety when one of its associates, Sony BMG's head of litigation Jennifer Pariser, remarked during a case, "When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." Making "a copy" of a purchased song is just "a nice way of saying 'steals just one copy'."

Now the MPAA, which typically follows closely in the RIAA's footsteps, is suing software maker RealNetworks and making similar remarks.  In a similar mentality, which some say punishes the paying customer,
Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal Studios, Warner Brothers, Columbia Pictures, the Walt Disney Company and Sony have all filed suit against the company, which claims it only wants to provide content owners with a means of backing up their DVDs.

Greg Goeckner, executive vice president and general counsel for the Motion Picture Association of America, says that users shouldn't get to copy their DVDs -- even those they own.  He states, "RealDVD should be called StealDVD.  RealNetworks knows its product violates the law, and undermines the hard-won trust that has been growing between America’s moviemakers and the technology community."

Seattle-based RealNetworks found itself targeted after it released its RealDVD software, available for $30.  RealNetworks is no rogue operator -- rather it’s the software giant behind the RealPlayer software and the Rhapsody music subscription service, the second largest legitimate online music retailer.  Nonetheless, it found itself the target of the MPAA's aggressive campaign, which seeks to block any private DVD reproduction. 

RealNetworks is standing tall against the MPAA and blasted back in a tersely worded statement Tuesday.  The statement read, "We are disappointed that the movie industry is following in the footsteps of the music industry and trying to shut down advances in technology, rather than embracing changes that provide consumers with more value and flexibility for their purchases."

RealDVD conforms to all Hollywood’s rules on DVD protection by encrypting the digital copies.  This is intended to prevent filesharing.  Still, studios claim the program violates the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, an all-reaching act used for everything from web takedowns to filesharing cases.  The studios say that by overriding anti-copying mechanisms on the DVD, RealDVD is breaking the law.  The studios are seeking an injunction to prevent the program's sales.

A frustrated RealNetworks fired back with a countersuit of its own against the studios in a federal court in San Francisco on Tuesday.

This case will like bear major ramifications on the movie industry, and DailyTech will be following it closely.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Fair Use? Maybe?
By dflynchimp on 10/1/2008 9:30:29 AM , Rating: 5
These companies seem to think that when we purchase a copy of their media we're only purchasing a "license to use" but not "license to own". Once I hand over the money at the counter what I do with a DVD/BD is my own business, as long as I don't turn around and try to make a profit off of it (resell is a different story, tyvm eBay). Most of the movies on my harddrive I actually own a hard copy of. I don't seed them in torrent form or put them up in P2P circuits. Just because having the ability to rip a disc onto a harddrive might facilitate pirating doesn't mean that everyone who rips/decodes shares their copies over P2P.




RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By SunAngel on 10/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2008 10:14:19 AM , Rating: 5
I'm not sure I've ever heard of a case where a woman tried to rape another woman. God it'd be hot to listen to the testimony though...


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Gzus666 on 10/1/2008 10:33:53 AM , Rating: 2
I forget the source, but I heard of one guy, a male stripper, getting raped by a group of women. They kinda "rectally violated" if you will. Not sure if that was the story you were hoping for, ha.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Entropy42 on 10/1/2008 11:26:14 AM , Rating: 3
Pretty sure that was an episode of Law and Order.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Gzus666 on 10/1/2008 11:41:12 AM , Rating: 2
I read it in some sort of news. I never watched Law and Order, so I don't think that was it. Plus, they usually loosely base a lot of those shows on real events they see on the news.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 11:47:19 AM , Rating: 2
Haha, I remember the episode, and the real case. The law and order episode is like 4-5 years old though, so it aired before the case in question ;) Both made me laugh pretty hard.. I mean how can you consider something rape, when you have to get it up in order for a woman to perform such an act ;)


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By UppityMatt on 10/1/2008 12:16:42 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know about you...but hell sometimes the wind blows and i can "get it up" as your words say. Its not hard to imagine that even though you don't want it...that region has a mind of its own.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Sunbird on 10/1/2008 12:46:01 PM , Rating: 5
Let's see how much you smile after you have been anally violated...


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By quiksilvr on 10/1/08, Rating: -1
RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By quiksilvr on 10/1/2008 1:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
...too soon?


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By erikejw on 10/2/2008 12:41:45 AM , Rating: 3
MPAA = Music Perjury, Anal Assault

Perjury:the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under oath or affirmation in a court of law

Music Perjury also known as Anal Assault on our paying customers.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By quiksilvr on 10/2/2008 3:47:54 PM , Rating: 3
Hmmm...should've said Clay Aiken...


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By SavagePotato on 10/2/2008 4:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
Freddie Mercury being one of the greatest vocalists and showmen of all time and universally loved...

Clay Aiken, well yeah, Clay Aiken would have gone over much better.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By 325hhee on 10/1/2008 4:04:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I mean how can you consider something rape


It's only rape, if the person that's doing you is ugly, or poor. Here's an example Joe Blow mentions to a gal he wants to do explicit stuff to her, that's sexual harassment, Brad Pitt says the same exact thing, word for word, that's him hitting on her.

It's a double standard, and BS. If Joe Blow forces himself on her, she'd call it rape, if Brad Pitt forces himself on her, it's not, or he'd give her hush money, and she'll deny things it ever happened.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2008 5:46:31 PM , Rating: 3
Sad but true. Hot female teacher sleeps with teenage student. Likely gets restraining order, fired, and community service. 25 year old male goes to party where a 16 year old lies about her age and sleeps with him, he's in prison for a few years and is run out of every community he ever tries to live in.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By feraltoad on 10/1/2008 7:27:19 PM , Rating: 4
I know of one. This girl went on a date with another girl who was cross dressed, posing as a guy. Later in the evening, presumably after lobster, the poser female assaulted the other female with a "homemade sexual device", as the police described. I don't know why they bothered to mention it was "homemade". I guess "Nothing Says Loving Like..."


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Regs on 10/1/2008 12:21:07 PM , Rating: 5
I really wish Artists can cut out the middle men and go straight to the customer.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Gzus666 on 10/1/2008 12:30:40 PM , Rating: 2
I think they could if they really go for it. As things stand with Internet as prevalent as it is, it shouldn't be too much of an issue. Most people buying the music would keep track of new releases from their favorite bands anyway, and internet radio is quite popular, and a good way to hear new bands. The need for a label to back and advertise for you is fading, hopefully they start going that route. They really get screwed by the labels anyway, so it shouldn't be too hard of a sell. On that same note though, I hope they don't go making mp3 standard or anything, cause the quality is poor compared to a CD, even with the higher sample rates.

Here is to hoping.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Regs on 10/1/2008 6:30:57 PM , Rating: 2
Dell, Inc. found a way and saved millions and made millions at the same time. The only problem I see is that Dell had brand name recognition. Does not work the same for newly formed Artists or groups. Though the benefits weigh so heavily in these artists favor in terms of market penetration and distribution costs.

Lets just think of it. Maybe one day, USA will adopt fiber optics as the standard for Internet bandwidth. Not just music we're talking about here, but Movies, games, and other media. Online retailers? The possibility to download CD quality music, arrange it on a track anyway you want, the convenience of the comfort of your own home, to sample the music before you buy...Wow, seems too good to be true. How about streaming free game demos? It's possible with today's technology. Oh but no, lets just sue everybody...

Without getting off on too much of a rant, I think that's the source of today's problems in our economy. Industry is going down the tubes because small business owners are getting devoured by these large corporations (EA, Universal Studios, Starbucks, Unions). We need to start promoting an environment for small businesses, because one day, one of the small businesses will grow into a larger one that will eventually employee thousands of Americans.

Technology is a gem of an opportunity to help our industry grow. Why aren't we producing any? Fossil fuels, 56K modems, gas hogging trucks, out dated road and transportation systems, and electrial power lines that still run above ground waiting for nearest 60mph wind guest to knock them down.

I think people are really starting to realize this, but I hope they can make the connection with the restrictions of current government. Government spending has gone crazy. Since money, goods, and services are finite, the more the government spends the less public owned businesses has the opportunity to use to grow. 500 billion in Iraq, another few billion in military contracts gone bust, a few billion dollars for security measures in the USA that are unconstitutional and pointless....

Ok I said enough. WE NEED A NEW DEAL.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Regs on 10/1/2008 7:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
And one more thing about small businesses. Small businesses bring new ideas and services to our nation. Corporations, as you may notice in today's economy, only do what's best for their own interests (stock owners who want more money for gold coat racks and their 6th house in the Hamptons). A 17 million dollar severance package for a CEO that ran a company for two weeks that went under!!!

I call it the recycle effect. Corporations go bankrupt, then people disperse to work for smaller organizations or even start one of their own with a better idea from the experience of failing. Small businesses then grow into large public owned corporations and then likely bust or get bought out by a more successful competitor. However the recycle effect has come to a screaming halt. There is no more foundation to support small businesses or individual entrepreneurs. Why? Many reasons. Large corporations are too ignorant or greedy to change with the times just to keep status quo. Regulation has to be put in place. We can no longer think with this mentality that only the rich can provide the jobs, because the rich do not share the same interests as the common man. They don't care if you have 3 starving kids. The money distribution in this country has become so constrained, that it was just a blood vessel waiting to pop. They're holding on to the money and they don't think its worth it to invest for new opportunities for people like you. My company (run by the French) is mostly owned by middle eastern oil company's and another French owned cosmetic company. Do you honestly think they care? They'll sell their stocks in a heart beat and invest in some other foreign industry (like toy making in China or Arms dealers for the USSR).

There are so many good ideas out there that are being squashed by burcratic non-sense, the public resilience and fear of change, and a abused and burdened legal system, that it no longer makes me angry, but just down-right sad.

Every time I drive my 10 miles to work, that now takes me over an hour in traffic from a inept and out dated road system (and the fact that all the jobs moved to the coasts of the USA), I'm reminded of how corrupt and greedy our country has become. We let it happen, we turned a blind eye, now it's our time to pay. Pay we shall, until the problem is fixed. I know I sound like Ralf Nader on roids, but this is the reality we now face. We wait for a crysis to finally find time to face the problems.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By kkwst2 on 10/1/2008 9:20:43 PM , Rating: 3
Whoa. Get a blog, dude.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By pm on 10/1/2008 2:05:25 PM , Rating: 2
Michael Moore did this with his new movie "Slacker Uprising".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacker_Uprising


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By foolsgambit11 on 10/1/2008 1:42:13 PM , Rating: 2
There is a problem though, if you buy a movie, rip a copy for yourself, and then sell the hard copy of the movie. When you sell the hard copy, you are also transferring your 'license to own' as you call it. There's also the problem of people who get a 'license to use' (i.e., rent movies) and then rip them.

Most people in America (maybe not most people here) don't rip copies of their movies. They don't because they don't realize how easy it is. There are programs that make it easy, but most of them you'd have to go out of your way to find. But so many people use Real products, when Real pushes other products in their line (like the DVD copier), it introduces a lot of new people to the game. I think that's really what the MPAA is trying to stop.

I don't know exactly what Real does with their product, and the line of what's legit and what isn't is so ill-defined, I won't venture to guess whether Real or the MPAA will win out in this thing.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By TOAOCyrus on 10/1/2008 2:09:27 PM , Rating: 3
I dunno, I would interperate "license to use" as the right for me to view the movie regardless of media. Kinda like MS doesnt care how you install Windows as long as you have a license. On the other hand just owning the physical media and making a copy could be compared to buying a designer hat and making a copy.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By theapparition on 10/1/2008 2:41:20 PM , Rating: 5
I have no problem with movie studio's new insistance that we only purchase "rights", not ownership.......only if they then agree to provide those rights into any format I request, and replace damaged media for free.

Until they offer this (and I won't hold my breath), I will consider the purchase of physical media as ownership.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Solandri on 10/1/2008 3:11:49 PM , Rating: 5
Don't forget free/discounted upgrades. If I already have a license for a movie on DVD and want to get it on Blu-Ray, I shouldn't have to pay the same price as if I had no license at all.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By download7 on 10/1/2008 11:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
And Also dont forget that you/we want to be able to play this licensed movie on any device we have without stupid DRM BS.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Alexstarfire on 10/2/2008 8:53:47 AM , Rating: 2
Here's to the day hell freezes over. Cheers.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By rcc on 10/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Jimbo1234 on 10/1/2008 10:25:53 PM , Rating: 2
A dish has no content. However, I buy a paper dish for parties so my real dishes don't get broken. This is equivelant to buying a blank disc to put your movie (desert) onto in the car so the kids don't trash the original.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By theapparition on 10/3/2008 5:51:32 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe the dumbest reply I've every read. I'm usually not that hard on people, but do you even have a clue?

Maybe this will clear it up.......maybe???

If I buy a dish, and break it.......I don't expect them to replace it.
If I buy a dish "licence".........I absolutely expect them to replace it.

Got it?


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By rcc on 10/7/2008 12:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
Nope, I don't get it. In the example, the OP broke the media. The license was still valid.

See, he broke something......... His problem, he pays. Get it????

I agree that there are other marketing methods that may work better for this industry. But as far as back ups go, it's a matter of convenience, it's easy to do so people expect they should be able to do it. If that were the limit, no one would have a problem. But, someone always has to take advantage, and that ruins it for everyone else.

I'd love to have a back up of my car, or dishwasher.... But even if I'm leasing a car, I'm responsible for damage I do to it.

So, go buy a clue if you need one. And take your petty self righteous attitude with you.

All meant in the nicest possible way, and IMNSHO, of course.


RE: Fair Use? Maybe?
By Denithor on 10/2/2008 3:14:34 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is the key problem, they won't replace damaged media. I have a buddy who makes copies of all his kids' Disney movies because, let's face it, kids are tough on relatively fragile DVDs. One good scratch and you gotta buy another copy of their favorite movie? Gimme a break...


By Chris Peredun on 10/1/2008 9:20:32 AM , Rating: 2
We can argue until we're blue in the face about the morality of the underlying DMCA making the creation of an archive copy illegal, but as it presently stands, it is still illegal.*

I can only hope that the judge and jury in this case have children, and have made backup copies of DVDs badly scratched by mishandling or over-use.

*Which, to put it colloquially, "sucks."




By SunAngel on 10/1/2008 9:44:10 AM , Rating: 2
Not sure if you were aware of this or not, but for a small nominal fee (e.g. disk + shipping charge), you can mail in your scratch/cracked/broken disk and receive a replacement.

There is a no doubt we will get to the digital domain era of video downloads, but it definitely won't be lead by those that hide behind the "the dog ate my homework" excuse.


By ebakke on 10/1/2008 9:50:07 AM , Rating: 5
But the argument then becomes: Why should I have to pay for the same thing twice, when a mechanism to prevent this entire situation already exists and the only reason I can't use that mechanism, is because these guys want more money?


By Lord 666 on 10/1/2008 10:05:11 AM , Rating: 3
What if the DVD is out of print? The way Disney releases movies and then pulls them off the market, would I still be able to get a replacement of Lion King or Snow White through the studio as they are no longer sold.


By JasonMick (blog) on 10/1/2008 11:00:54 AM , Rating: 2
The Disney site does not disclose how/if it deals with out of print titles. I'd say there's a fair chance you'd mail them your dvd and get it returned to you, or worse yet get nothing back (if anyone has done this, feel free to correct me).

Also for those interested the "nominal fee" mentioned by Chris is typically around $6.99 (that the amount Disney charges...). Considering that a new DVD for many titles costs as little as $4-$5 at Best Buy/Target/etc., I think its pretty clear that the movie studios intend for you to buy a new one if you damage your old copy.

Perhaps if the studios eliminated the "nominal fee" or greatly reduced it, they would have a leg to stand on, but in its current form, this is an unquestionably bad policy imo which does nothing to stop piracy, merely hurts customers trying to be honest and pay for their content.


By Mitch101 on 10/1/2008 11:05:08 AM , Rating: 2
I love that Disney Marketing BS. Scare mongering like this is truly lame. If you don't sell it then that makes a pirate copy all that more attractive.

What this does is cause panic for the copy software and spur people rushing to buy the copy software before its no longer available.


By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 11:17:13 AM , Rating: 2
Disney has been doing this for years, and long before the DVD existed. They release a movie, take it off the market a year or two later, and than re-release it every 7-10 years later as a special edition... and then back to the 'Disney Vault'.. I don't even want to guess how many times snow white has been re-released.. not to mention that it has been re-released in theaters 7 times.


By Tanclearas on 10/1/2008 9:12:35 PM , Rating: 4
That is absolutely NOT always true.

I scratched one of my disks of Panzer Dragoon Saga for the Saturn. I contacted Sega, and received a reply along the lines of "Oh well. Go buy another."

It was no longer available for sale, and the game was selling on ebay at that time for well over $100 (they made a very limited number).

As far as I am concerned, if a publisher implements any form of copy protection, they should be legally forced to provide replacement services indefinitely. No, I do not see that as unreasonable. If they implement a mechanism that prevents me from carrying out my own means of protecting my investment, then they should be the ones responsible for replacement. Plain and simple.


By tastyratz on 10/1/2008 9:47:30 AM , Rating: 2
and that's just it, its absolutely true. While we may be allowed to create 1 backup copy of purchased media we are not allowed to break copy protection schemes. That in itself prevents anyone from ever being able to make a legal backup of a dvd or bluray disc (and why its legal to burn a backup copy of a music cd)

HOWEVER
there are exemptions to the dmca:

(best easy to understand source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Co... )

quote:
Audiovisual works included in the educational library of a college or university’s film or media studies department, when circumvention is accomplished for the purpose of making compilations of portions of those works for educational use in the classroom by media studies or film professors. (A new exemption in 2006.)


That means that there is indeed a legal use for their software product. How they market it is where the legal gray line is.


By Proteusza on 10/1/2008 10:03:24 AM , Rating: 4
Thats why the CSS encryption isnt broken at all - the whole DVD is copied byte for byte. Read the ArsTechnica piece on it, its very informative. There was even a similar thing launched a while ago that was declared legal.


By Chris Peredun on 10/1/2008 11:26:15 AM , Rating: 2
Mea culpa - I didn't realise that RealDVD actually did a bit-for-bit copy of the DVD. From the articles linked in this article, I was given the impression that the CSS encryption was broken and then reapplied. Evidently that's not the case.

I shall sit in my assigned space in the corner of the room.

(While legally archiving my DVDs.)


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/1/2008 6:17:42 PM , Rating: 1
This isnt the first piece of software to do this. There are a couple of bit-for-bit DVD copying programs out there but to make them legal they refuse to copy DVD's they find encrypted with CSS. Solution..... use another program to always return a false negative :)


By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 10:25:06 AM , Rating: 5
DMCA states that you can not circumvent the copy protection, from the articles I have read on how RealDVD works, it does not circumvent anything, it copies all of the content including menus, video and css copy protection to your hard drive, and then burns it to DVD. So the CSS encryption still exists and is not circumvented. I know it is a gray line, but don't be surprised to see Real win this one.


By SunAngel on 10/1/2008 10:36:22 AM , Rating: 1
i think what you mean is css is stripped when the dvd is read then reapplied when written. otherwise it is impossible for RealNetworks to bypass css.

i don't see it as a gray line. they remove encryption then reapply it. this is not the same as coming over the top of css. there is no other known way to get pass css than decss and decss breaks css. windows or linux will not allow an encrypted disk to be copy. the only way is to decss the disk. so, there is no gray line, white line, black line, or any line that would allow circumventing css without the expresses consent of the U.S. Congress.


By michal1980 on 10/1/2008 10:46:03 AM , Rating: 2
not if it does a bit for bit copy.


By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 10:58:03 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
i think what you mean is css is stripped when the dvd is read then reapplied when written. otherwise it is impossible for RealNetworks to bypass css.
No, this is not what happens, and this is not the reason Real is getting sued. If you read other articles it plainly states that they are suing Real over the misuse of their CSS license, and not the fact that the CSS was bypassed.
quote:
Specifically, MPAA says that Real agreed to abide by the CSS Specifications, which require licensed products to ensure that a user can’t watch a DVD on computer without a physical DVD being in the drive. Such violations, MPAA says, cause irreparable damages justifying a permanent injunction not only because it interferes with DVD sales but also because it undercuts the studios’ ability to sell content through iTunes, Amazon and DigitalDownload DVDs.
Reals system leave the CSS encryption totally intact, (I mentioned before that you can make a DVD copy which is not true, as this software only makes local copies on your hard drive). The reason that this differs from actually copying a DVD is that the CSS encryption is normally located on lead-in area of the disc, which can not be reproduced properly with normal burning software. But when copying straight to the harddrive, CSS and all its glory can be copied without circumventing or cracking the protection. It is not cracked and re-initialized.

This is why it is a gray area, and until proven otherwise, technically legal.


By wempa on 10/1/2008 12:37:27 PM , Rating: 2
People are confused over how the CSS works. All of the video files (VOB files) are encrypted with CSS. You can copy them anywhere, to a hard drive if you like, but they are still encrypted. Decryption is accomplished by using a key that is created by data in the DVD lead-in area combined with a player key. For PCs, the player key is within the software playing the DVD. DVDs cannot be copied to recordable DVD, because the lead-in section is not-writable on recordable DVDs. So, if the encrypted VOBs were copied and the disc put into a DVD player, it would be missing part of what it needs to decrypt them. There is no way to do a perfect bit for bit copy because of the missing lead-in area. Therefore, the only way to copy a DVD to recordable one is to break the encryption. Now, it sounds like RealDVD is doing something different. If they aren't breaking CSS, then I'm guessing that they copy the VOBs and the data from the lead-in area to the HD. Then later on, they can use the software key to decrypt and play the video files.


By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 1:39:15 PM , Rating: 2
Your post is 100% correct, the confusion lies with the fact that RealDVD does not make a direct copy to a writable DVD, it merely copies the files to your hard drive. So the CSS encrypted VOB files are left untouched and the keys from the lead in are merely copied with it. As you said, there is no way to get around CSS if you plan on making a copy of the DVD, but it is possible to make a copy to the hard drive, which is the method RealDVD employs.


By wempa on 10/2/2008 12:36:33 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for clearing that up. That's what I figured it was doing. I just wanted to clear up the CSS confusion because I see some posts seemed to be implying that you can create an exact copy of a DVD, which is not possible.


By eyebeeemmpawn on 10/1/2008 10:58:43 AM , Rating: 2
sounds pretty black and white to me, if it doesn't break the encryption, it is legal.


By eyebeeemmpawn on 10/1/2008 10:33:16 AM , Rating: 5
How much longer will respect our government when laws are bought and paid for by companies looking to bend our nation to suit their business model?

Oh, the laws say they can legally copy DVDs? Let's just encrypt all dvds and make it illegal to break the encryption.

We need campaign finance reform to end our epidemic of legalized corruption.


By wempa on 10/1/2008 12:38:33 PM , Rating: 2
Amen to that !


By myhipsi on 10/2/2008 8:26:52 AM , Rating: 2
Sh*tty, unjust laws are meant to be broken. Anybody who knows anything about making backups of their media is not going to use this real networks DRM'd garbage anyway. The FREE program DVD Decryptor, plain and simple. Region free and DRM free, the way it was meant to be. Oh and before some holier-than-thou, do-gooder accusses me of stealing, just know that I have a 2 year old who loves to "play" with her DVDs and consequently damage them beyond repair. I have a Dvico Tvix media player, so I rip her DVDs and upload them to the Tvix. Now she can watch her movies, and at the same time I can store the original DVDs for safe keeping. It may be technically illegal, but it's sure as hell moral, fair, and just and I'm not hurting anybody (or anybody's profits) from doing so.


By rcc on 10/2/2008 3:26:36 PM , Rating: 2
Allow me to be today's "holier-than-thou, do-gooder". No, sh*tty unjust laws are not made to be broken. They are, however, made to be changed. If you don't like it and it's that important to you, get off your tail and work at changing it.

Our system is set up so that anyone with the will, and the support of a group of people, can change the way laws are written. The problem is that most people today can't be bothered, they just whine, and sometimes steal, then try to justify it. So, the only ones driving the laws are those trying to make money at something.

Who was it that said that democracy is the only system where you get exactly what you deserve? Or, a republic for that matter. : )


By myhipsi on 10/3/2008 8:57:31 AM , Rating: 2
Honestly, if people had to "get off 'their' tail and work at changing it" as you suggest, then nobody would have the time nor the money to do anything else, like work a job, raise a family, and have a life. I'm sorry but as much as your suggestion sounds good in principle, it's not practical unless we're talking about something serious like human rights abuses, etc.
If enough people break unjust laws, then they cannot be enforced and must eventually be revoked or at the very least ignored. These days with corporate lawyers, and off-the-charts collusion between corporate lobbyists and government, your chances of actually changing the law as an individual with money and lawyers is slim to none and if you try to protest it, You have a better chance of being tasered than changing any law :P

I'm not suggesting anybody "whine" or "steal", I'm saying that if a law is unjust than break it if it's moral and ethical to do so. Stealing is neither of those things, but making a backup copy of a movie you legitimately bought is certainly within the realms of being moral and ethical. And let's face it, nobody's busting down your door for making backups of your movies.

Copyright laws should be used to bust street vendors selling the latest DVD rips for profit, not to bust a company trying to provide a legitimate way for the average joe to make backups of his home movie collection.


By Jimbo1234 on 10/1/2008 10:31:25 PM , Rating: 4
By putting DRM/Encryption on the disc, they are essentially in violation of the fair use clause. So who should be suing whom?


By jonmcc33 on 10/3/2008 7:41:44 AM , Rating: 2
Pretty much. I've purchased every single Disney DVD released since 2002, when my daughter was born. Now none of them play at all. They are so badly scratched or have crap smeared on them. Not to mention that the only thing my daughter didn't destroy out of my HT was the Onkyo receiver. The Sony WEGA TV and Infinity speakers were both destroyed by my daughter.

Sorry MPAA but I don't really care about your "rules". I'm not made of money. I wish I would have backed up all those DVDs.

But really, RealNetworks? Who uses that? There are tons of DVD cracking and ripping software out there.


failure to change with the times
By Screwballl on 10/1/2008 10:12:05 AM , Rating: 4
Rather than let the end user make needed personal copies, they would rather the consumer end up paying for the movie 5-10 times.
1) the DVD to watch on the DVD player in the living room
2) the Blu-ray to watch in their HD system
3) the MP4 to watch on their portable iPod
4) a time limited WMV to watch on their laptop as they travel
5) on PPV at the motel
6) the CD to listen to the soundtrack
7) from itunes for the soundtrack on your ipod

These damn companies are getting greedy and see that they can make money multiple times on the same movie. Rather than go with the times allowing more personal freedoms and go after those sharing and downloading the illegal versions, they are making John Doe, the common man, a criminal because the MPAA/RIAA refuses to change with the times. It is almost 2010 and these companies are acting as if it was still 1970 and they have full control of their media.
As the consumer, we should have free usage of the media as soon as it is paid for within our personal space. As soon as it is shared or downloaded outside of a legal source (not the current standards but the new standards), the law can come after you.




By FITCamaro on 10/1/2008 10:16:18 AM , Rating: 2
When I bought Live Free or Die Hard on DVD it comes with a smaller version for your PSP or iPod. But you have to install some DRMed program to use it. So I just ripped the DVD and made my own portable version.


By MrPickins on 10/1/2008 10:29:52 AM , Rating: 2
This man speaks the truth.


RE: failure to change with the times
By nafhan on 10/1/2008 11:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
The system is too complicated and too expensive.
If a customer could easily and legally buy one copy of a movie for $10-$20 and easily use it anywhere, most people would probably do it (I would). As it stands, this is impossible. So, a lot of people just get on bittorrent and download the movies, which leaves the studio with no money at all. Sure they probably recoup some of that through lawsuits, but that's only a fraction of what they could get if they gave customers what they want.
The music industry is starting to understand this, as can be seen with sites like amazon mp3.


RE: failure to change with the times
By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 12:19:34 PM , Rating: 1
Please do not give the argument that copy protection is the reason people download via torrent. People download because they do not want to pay money, period!


By tential on 10/1/2008 12:42:37 PM , Rating: 3
I agree but now with all this stuff it starts to get confusing. Companies have DRM and rootkits everywhere. Some people who don't even understand DRM and rootkits or why they can't move their music around and listen to it will no doubt get confused. It's almost so bad to the point where I would say that people will rather torrent things because they know they can do anything with it rather than buy it at a store where they are confused as to how they can use it.

I do definitely agree though that 95% of the time people torrent things because they don't want to pay but it looks like it will be for simplicity in the near future at the rate these companies are going.


RE: failure to change with the times
By jimbojimbo on 10/1/2008 1:53:08 PM , Rating: 1
Some people are just sick and tired of buying something and finding that it's absolute shite. If it's damn good I'll buy it. If it's just good I'll rent it.


RE: failure to change with the times
By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 2:08:49 PM , Rating: 5
I am not defending either party here, I was merely pointing out that people do not download via torrent because of the DRM employed, they download because they do not want to pay. The reasons that people do not want to pay is beyond the scope of this argument.


By SavagePotato on 10/2/2008 5:04:28 PM , Rating: 2
I would pirate spore just to avoid the drm, if I wanted to play spore that is. No way do I want that securom mess on my machine.

Or there were of course the starforce games which in some cases actually permanently damaged your cdrom drive.

I have pirated games unapolageticaly, and I have bought many games as well. I actually have probably spent like 10k dollars on games throughout the years.

But I can say with confidence despite the fact that I have indeed pirated games for many reasons, I would indeed pirate a game to avoid ridiculous DRM or out of spite towards an over the top DRM scheme.


RE: failure to change with the times
By Murst on 10/1/2008 2:53:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
People download because they do not want to pay money, period!

I used to download songs using software like Kazaa when I was in college. However, I already owned the CDs... it was just quicker to download the MP3 than it was to find/rip the song from the CD.

So, in short, not everyone who downloads does so because they don't want to pay. I just didn't want to waste time.

At least now we have places like iTunes where you can download the songs very quickly (also faster than ripping from a CD). I just wish it didn't have any DRM, but w/ the way I use the songs, the DRM doesn't really bother me all that much. In fact, I can't really remember the last time I've bought a CD... all my songs have come from iTunes for a few years now. It's also much less hassle than having to drive for 10 min to a music store (yeah, I'm that lazy).


RE: failure to change with the times
By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 3:06:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, in short, not everyone who downloads does so because they don't want to pay. I just didn't want to waste time.
I meant for movies, I sample and download music all the time, if I like it I buy it, as it has a replay value. The same can't be said for movies, chances are if you are downloading it, you are not willing to buy it, for whatever reason that may be.


RE: failure to change with the times
By Murst on 10/1/2008 3:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
I guess that case can be made for movies. I've never even had the desire to download a movie. I've invested a lot of time (and money) into my TV, surround, etc. All the movies we get now are on BR - although I really miss HD-DVD, since when it was still around we could usually buy blu-rays for $20 each, and that was often with a BOGO deal, so they came out to be around $10 each. Now its hard to find a deal for a good BR for under $20.

Anyways, that's getting off the topic. :)


RE: failure to change with the times
By cmdrdredd on 10/1/2008 5:06:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
At least now we have places like iTunes where you can download the songs very quickly (also faster than ripping from a CD). I just wish it didn't have any DRM, but w/ the way I use the songs, the DRM doesn't really bother me all that much. In fact, I can't really remember the last time I've bought a CD... all my songs have come from iTunes for a few years now. It's also much less hassle than having to drive for 10 min to a music store (yeah, I'm that lazy).


Problem...to a trained ear with a good sound system. The music from iTunes, Zune or any other online download service is exactly crap. The CD sounds better and the only way to get that quality in the digital world is to rip it yourself at a higher bitrate than these services offer, or preferably lossless. Or bittorrent where it's 320kbps quality.


By omnicronx on 10/2/2008 8:18:01 AM , Rating: 2
320kbps mp3s are pointless.. The upper echelon of the sound spectrum drops off because of the way mp3s are encoded. Anything over 256kbps VBR is overkill, and basically pointless.

I agree with you about the sound quality though, I've ripped most of my cd's to high quality mp3 just because most music you find online is low quality 128/192 mp3s. 192kbps is bearable, but on a good system 128kbps mp3s sound like they are being played inside a tin can.


By Jimbo1234 on 10/1/2008 10:39:04 PM , Rating: 2
I've downloaded MP3 of stuff I had on old scratched CDs that could not be ripped. CDs I purchased before anyone ever heard of an MP3.

I'm not paying twice for the same damn thing I already purchased and still have in my possession which is unreadable.


By bmheiar on 10/1/2008 12:03:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with you. Once I buy a CD/DVD or whatever. I should & want to be able to do with it however I wish & see fit. To be able to copy/backup and to watch/listen to it on any form of media player I want to & wish too, not matter if it is CD/DVD/Blu-Ray/HD theater system players, iPod/MP3 players, ripped to HDDs of computers/laptops, & etc.

MPAA/RIAA are not willing to change with the times and advancement of technology nor to even look towards the future. They want to stay at the same business model of 30+ years ago, and look backwards, to keep on making money. Because they know if they stay hard as a rock and not budge from their position (by not changing with the times, the advancement of technology, and not looking forwards the future), that they will still make money since people world wide will still buy music and movies. MPAA/RIAA will only change or adapt or finally just die off and go the way of the Dodo, when everyone and I mean everyone world wide stop lining their "pockets, bags, vaults of holding" full of money by not buying music, movies & etc. They will not change otherwise. The consumers have the money and the power over this situation, since we have the choice to buy or not to buy. Thou they do have the money, power, lawyers, lobbyists, judges, government (congress/president) on their side to change the rules and laws in their favor. It is us who gave MPAA/RIAA this power, money & influence over the governing body & control of this situation by spending money on their products music/movies/CDs/DVDs & etc.

I am not saying to pirate or anything. Though in others' "righteous" eyes I have, since I have copied/backed up for my own personal use. But I have never copied anything to sell to someone else for profit. To me that is pirating, aka to copy and then to sell for profit. That is my interpretation of pirating. Everyone interprets things different, since we are all different from each other by having different morals, different beliefs, different opinions and etc.


RE: failure to change with the times
By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 12:30:50 PM , Rating: 2
You are technically licensing the movie, you do not own it.

I also do not mind one bit that the movie industry pushes these rules, as long as they leave the average user alone. But stopping end users from making personal copies does not prevent piracy, it merely forces paying customers to rebuy movies they have already paid for which is completely unacceptable.

If they were merely putting these laws in place so that they can prosecute those that actually pirate movies for profit, and leave us normal users alone even though it is still technically against the law, then I would have no problem. But it is the fact that the movie industry even tries to claim that a users copying a movie that he/she paid for is piracy, in which that copy is used for personal use that I find totally unacceptable.


By PhoenixKnight on 10/1/2008 2:43:04 PM , Rating: 2
Since they can't prevent the pirates from pirating their stuff, they'll just make the average user pay for it over and over to make up for lost revenue from piracy.


At least we will get a legal president out of this
By the goat on 10/1/2008 9:24:09 AM , Rating: 2
Up until now the court rulings have been somewhat ambiguous. This law suit should result in a clear president telling us if we can copy encrypted media for private uses or not.




By dickeywang on 10/1/2008 9:29:26 AM , Rating: 5
Well, I hate to say this but the final result was determined by 9 judges at the end of the 2000 election.


By ebakke on 10/1/2008 9:47:26 AM , Rating: 2
Sad, but true.


By sgw2n5 on 10/1/2008 11:26:09 AM , Rating: 3
By ebakke on 10/1/2008 9:54:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure if you were making fun of his misspelling of 'precedent' or if you didn't catch that mistake. Either way, I agree with both of your statements.


By FITCamaro on 10/1/2008 10:11:56 AM , Rating: 2
The word is precedent.


By pomaikai on 10/1/2008 11:49:48 AM , Rating: 2
I always thought we were innocent until proven guilty? By claiming the RealDVD should be StealDVD is basically saying we are all guilty because we have the ability to pirate. Should we label everyone that buys a gun a thief and a killer? Besides, there are alot of free software easily accessible out there that lets you easily rip DVDs. This is just a waste of there time and money.


By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 12:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
Well with all due respect, if the program was actually circumventing the encryption than it has nothing to do with the user. It is the manufacturer of the product that is doing the illegal act.
quote:
Besides, there are alot of free software easily accessible out there that lets you easily rip DVDs. This is just a waste of there time and money.
And they are all technically illegal as they probably use deCSS to circumvent the CSS encryption.


By Hiawa23 on 10/1/2008 1:40:42 PM , Rating: 2
I understand where the studios are coming from, but thanks to Netflix, & various copy DVD programs, most of us already have been copying movies for years. Interesting to see how this goes.


Kids vs DVD = $$$$
By cgsaben on 10/1/2008 10:54:59 AM , Rating: 2
My wife insists on carrying a large selection of DVDs in our van for our children to watch. This invariably results in a short lifespan for each DVD, like clockwork, she states that she needs to replace the most popular movies every three or so months. I am going to make copies of each dvd and have her keep them in a case in the van. The original will be kept safe at home. So now I am a thief, because I don't want to pay a ton of money on duplicate purchases, NICE.




RE: Kids vs DVD = $$$$
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2008 11:52:56 AM , Rating: 3
Should put a pirate flag on your van.


RE: Kids vs DVD = $$$$
By Bender 123 on 10/1/2008 12:02:42 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds like my house...girls, 4 and 2 year old twins. They think DVDs are pretty rainbow things, so naturally, they pull them out of the case and proceed to dance on them...I gave up long ago and started burning backup copies to put in the keep cases and keep the originals in a DVD folder/book...I wont buy another copy of a movie I already payed for.

The girls all brought tears to my eyes when they wanted to be pirates for Halloween...because thats what, I guess, we all are.


RE: Kids vs DVD = $$$$
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2008 3:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Hmmm....I have my halloween costume. I'm just going to wear an eye patch and say nothing but "Yar....I be a software pirate".


RE: Kids vs DVD = $$$$
By Gzus666 on 10/1/2008 12:32:32 PM , Rating: 3
I would get a cannon first, cause seriously, how cool would a cannon in your van be?


RE: Kids vs DVD = $$$$
By saiga6360 on 10/1/2008 2:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
Would be great to shoot misbehaving kids out of a cannon.


Devils Advocate Time
By kelmon on 10/1/2008 11:20:56 AM , Rating: 2
In amongst all the discussion of this subject I feel that I have to point out that the MPAA has a point: if you legalise this then what prevents people from "buying" a DVD by simply renting a copy of the disc and running it through RealDVD?

This is the difficult part of the discussion. I wholeheartedly support "Fair Use" and can quite agree that preventing DVDs from being ripped to a media server is annoying. The problem is that RealDVD won't distinguish between legitimate purchases that you have made and rental rips. Sure, there is software available today that enables this but the MPAA would certainly close them down as well, if they could. Real Networks is in the unfortunate position of being touchable.




RE: Devils Advocate Time
By cobalt42 on 10/1/2008 1:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
Making DVD copying programs legal does not mean that making copies of DVDs which you do not own is suddenly legal, too. Fair use says you can legally make copies of movies you own.

Maybe this is easier to understand: Making crowbars legal does mean breaking into someone else's car with a crowbar is also now legal. It does, however, let you break into your own car (which is perfectly legal).

You don't outlaw a tool which has non-infringing uses just because someone might use it for something illegal. Copying movies you don't own is **already** illegal, you don't need to outlaw a DVD copying program, too.

That's redundant, unnecessary, and prevents other legal actions from occurring.

(Pedantic disclaimer: Yes, I'm ignoring the difference between civil and criminal violations in this statement, because my point does not require drawing a distinction. I'm also ignoring the "encryption" portion of the DMCA for the same reason.)


RE: Devils Advocate Time
By mindless1 on 10/1/2008 6:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
What prevented people from xeroxing a book, duping a cassette or VHS tape, CD, etc?

It is unreasonable to outlaw something that has legit uses just because a minority might use it for illegal activities. Same applies to driving a car, owning a gun, even a spoon can be a deadly weapon.


RE: Devils Advocate Time
By Jimbo1234 on 10/1/2008 10:50:42 PM , Rating: 2
Those are all (except the CD) analog copies that deteriorate with each successive copy. However, back in the VHS days there was copy protection as well. If you copied a tape, it would flicker bright to dark constantly.

Here's my solution. Make rental movies laden with all the DRM you want. Hell, rent it permanently installed into a DVD player if you want to. Make retail copies with no DRM.

Want to stop piracy? DRM will not do that. Not making any movies will.


RE: Devils Advocate Time
By kelmon on 10/2/2008 10:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
a minority might use it for illegal activities


The thing is, if the process of making a copy is both cheap, quick and easy, what makes you think it would be a minority making copies? I honestly don't want to sound like I am defending DRM but the fact of the matter is that the digital age has made copying media so easy that a lot of people do it rather than purchase it legally. Rental ripping for private use would be rife - you get a "full" copy of the movie at a fraction of the price and your chances of being arrested is practically zero since you won't be sharing the film online. With the exception of the audio tape, "ripping" other forms of media in the examples you provided were either expensive or highly time consuming. Ripping a DVD and burning it is child's play, in comparison.

This is really devil's advocate stuff since I do think it sucks that fair use is be impinged. I'm probably guilty of helping to promote the cause of DRM because I have, in the past, copied tapes and ripped the tracks from a friend's CD. In this respect I have spoilt things for others. Sorry about that.


RE: Devils Advocate Time
By mindless1 on 10/2/2008 5:22:25 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, we can't reasonably outlaw something because someone "could" commit a crime easily and cheaply. Who can't take a $3 knife and try to rob a convenient store?

Let's take speeding in a car for example. I suspect an order of magnitude more people speed in a car than illegally dupe their media for piracy purposes but do we make the means to speed illegal? Do we govern all cars to never be above the max legal speed limit? Which is easier, ripping a DVD or stepping down harder on a gas pedal?

Yet we do fine people for speeding, and so it should be if caught distributing media - about $100, not several thousands.


Penny-Wise, Pound Foolish
By clovell on 10/1/2008 9:34:17 AM , Rating: 5
> "RealDVD should be called StealDVD. RealNetworks knows its product violates the law, and undermines the hard-won trust that has been growing between America’s moviemakers and the technology community."

And somewhere in there, Greg, you must have not realized that you just destroyed what's left of the trust that has been growing between America's moviemakers and the people who actually pay to see movies.

Somebody give this guy a wooden spoon...




RE: Penny-Wise, Pound Foolish
By MrPickins on 10/1/2008 10:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
Accidentally rated down...


RE: Penny-Wise, Pound Foolish
By mindless1 on 10/1/2008 6:29:25 PM , Rating: 2
I loved that line too. What hard-won trust and when was it growing?


RE: Penny-Wise, Pound Foolish
By jtemplin on 10/2/2008 2:09:13 AM , Rating: 2
Bravo. I was going to post this too but you beat me to it =D.

I love how in business and politics its completely acceptable to lie right to someone's face with errant disregard for truth or morality. Its like an ethical vacuum.

Remember days before the death of HD-DVD. They were all, "HD-DVD is still the leading format and soon-to-be winner of the format wars yada yada". Its like the Information Minister of Iraq...
"We are not afraid of the Americans. Allah has condemned them. They are stupid. They are stupid" (dramatic pause) and they are condemned."

Or how about Bill O'Reilly calls his studio the no spin zone. The list goes on.


Hate Them
By UppityMatt on 10/1/08, Rating: 0
RE: Hate Them
By dflynchimp on 10/1/2008 9:32:30 AM , Rating: 2
just hope that the judge isn't recieving a payoff behind the scenes from said companies...I know it's illegal, but seriously, these companies don't give a rats @ss for laws unless it suits their purposes.


RE: Hate Them
By ebakke on 10/1/2008 9:45:08 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
starting
??? Oh man, welcome to the club.


RE: Hate Them
By omnicronx on 10/1/2008 10:40:42 AM , Rating: 2
You are legally allowed to make backups of music that you own, as long as there is no copy protection employed. I have ripped most of my CD's to harddrive so that I have a high quality mp3s, and so that I don't have to put the CD in every time I want to listen to something. Only a small fraction of my CD's actually employed copy protection, so pretty much all of my rips are legal.


RE: Hate Them
By mmntech on 10/1/2008 11:44:01 AM , Rating: 4
Fortunately, it's technically not legal to employ copy-protection on CDs. It violated the Red Book audio standard. That's why you should only buy discs that bare the "Compact Disc: Digital Audio" logo. Audio CDs can't legally bare the logo if they have DRM on them.

I think the real reasoning behind this suit is quite obvious. It's not about piracy anymore but rather who has the right to produce and sell digital copies of movies. Hollywood stands to make a lot of money from downloadable content from places like iTunes. If you can make it yourself, that basically kills that new market. Hollywood wants to sell you multiple copies of the same thing. DRM and the DMCA gives them the control over how that content is used and keeps this business practise afloat. It is used to blur the line between fair use and piracy. It may be legal for me to make a digital copy of a movie I own for personal use under the DMCA, but it's illegal to circumvent the DRM. The law contradicts itself in that manner, and effectively kills fair use by doing so. It works to creates an artificial demand for the digital copies, given that without the DRM, there would be likely be much less demand for them.

I personally think Hollywood should follow recent developments in the music industry. Offer DRM-free movies at a reasonable price, say $10 a movie, and see what sales vs piracy is. I think people would be more inclined to buy digital copies if they could put them on all their media devices hassle free.


So...
By beckster02 on 10/1/2008 4:01:13 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone explain to me why no one is getting sued over the VCR, which allows me to make copies of movies I watch on TV? Heck, in that case I don't even own the movie!

How is that somehow okay, while making a backup copy of a movie I actually purchased is considered "stealing"?

It seems to me that if my VCR is legal, then so should RealNetworks DVD copying software. Are they exactly the same? No, but both still allow me to make and freely distribute copies of movies.




RE: So...
By Jimbo1234 on 10/1/2008 10:55:01 PM , Rating: 2
You still own a VCR? Wow.


RE: So...
By BCanR2D2 on 10/2/2008 6:24:38 AM , Rating: 2
I think you will find that most countries will have what is usually called 'Home Recording Act' which allows people to use the VCR, tape recorder, etc (generally analogue devices) to copy copyrighted material for personal use. You will also generally find that part of the cost of VHS tapes and other analogue media is to help pay for royalties foregone.

Even here in Australia, the copyright law itself never made the differenation between analogue or digital, but you heard every newspaper/magazine state that digital was illegal, but not analogue.

What I guess irks me the most is that these movies houses generally straddle both sides of the equation here. They will be part of one congolmeration of companies that has a movie studio, and also an electronic business. Sony is the easiest to bring to mind, as it owns Columbia/Tristar and then also sells DVD burners, generally packaged with software that can circumvent their own movie houses copyprotection..


Are they going to sue Microsoft?
By dickeywang on 10/1/2008 9:21:41 AM , Rating: 2
Because Windows is the (major) software that those softwares are typically running on. And then maybe their next move will be to sue every PC maker because PCs are the hardware platform of those softwares are running on.




By majorpain on 10/1/2008 9:47:21 AM , Rating: 2
Theres a good point. Why not sue M$? After all its Windows that alows users to copy stuff. And hey, why not sue the stores that sell the DVDs, they are giving you a fresh copy so you can copy it! :D
I guess this is an endless war against peoples rights, you just cant give and then take...


Hard won Trust?!
By Tryek25 on 10/1/2008 9:35:35 AM , Rating: 2
It seems to me they are forgetting how much they are alienating their customers with all these lawsuits, rootkits and lack of ownership over bought and paid for downloaded content.




Its crystal clear
By crystal clear on 10/1/2008 10:56:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Greg Goeckner, executive vice president and general counsel for the Motion Picture Association of America, says that users shouldn't get to copy their DVDs


RealNetworks said RealDVD merely allows consumers to to do with movie or TV show DVDs what they already do with music CDs. RealDVD eliminates the hassle of searching for a missing DVD or dealing with a scratched and unplayable disc, and allows customers to view DVDs while traveling with a computer.

http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Data-Storage/RealNetworks...

For its part, RealNetworks argued RealDVD is perfectly legal because it doesn't allow users to distribute copies of DVDs. It also said the software keeps the content scramble system (CSS) anti-copying technology intact and adds an a new layer of digital rights management that keeps the copied file from being improperly shared.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/30/realnetwor...




By Fenixgoon on 10/1/2008 11:17:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
....and undermines the hard-won trust that has been growing between America’s moviemakers and the technology community."


i didn't know i trusted an organization that wants me to rent/lease my product instead of owning it. yes, i trust that the MPAA/RIAA will do what's in the best interest of both the industry as a whole and the consumer, as they've proven time and through massive amounts of litigation against their own consumers instead of coming up with solutions that actually address the problem (ie, fixing a flawed system)




By this logic
By derwin on 10/2/2008 4:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
Publishing Houses could have a hay-day with Xerox.




What about the PS3..
By nanogeektech on 10/2/2008 12:48:43 PM , Rating: 2
It can copy...any movie you stream to it. So I guess technically speaking you can go to jail for putting movies on your PS3..

The MPAA and RIAA is pretty terrible if they embrace technology maybe they can make more money...by saving some on these half ass lawsuits..




Fair use
By wvh on 10/2/2008 3:43:15 PM , Rating: 2
I copy everything (music and DVDs) to my hard disk. I don't think it will be any time soon that somebody will walk into my house and tell me what (not) to do with what I own; nor will it be any time soon that other people would accept that.

Ofcourse, lots of people are happily ignorant and have no problem giving up their rights...

Still, it won't be easy to make people give up the idea of "ownership" in regard to music or other media material.

The MPAA can join the RIAA in gratifying itself manually.




define copying
By robinthakur on 10/6/2008 12:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
I can't remember the lawsuit but I think it was in the UK and regarding Playstation mod chips back in the day where the lawyers successfully argued that in booting up a game you were in effect copying it to the internal memory of the playstation and therefore breaking the law.

The same could be said for any device that streams or buffers video really, or stores contents of video in RAM or in a swapfile. Therefore you can't purely say that copying the data is stealing it. I think the key is copying the data to be in a redistributable form.

"Circumventing copyright protections" is likewise rocky to prove. Does an analogue copy count as a circumvention of the copy controls? By the logic that no red book standard CD has any copy protection, surely that makes it entirely legal to rip cd's for fair use?

Regarding a comment above to the effect of "If you don't like the law do something to change it." I'm completely in agreement, although for some weird reason, senators seem to listen much better when you buy them an expensive lunch after flying them out to your holiday home in the Bahamas :) Proportional representation my @$$




"So if you want to save the planet, feel free to drive your Hummer. Just avoid the drive thru line at McDonalds." -- Michael Asher














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki