Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

MPAA Prevails Against 321 Studios' DVD X Copy

Posted by CowboyNeal on Sat Feb 21, 2004 01:13 PM
from the backup-possibilities-looking-less-legal dept.
Quok writes "Yahoo has the scoop. The article is short on details, but it seems the MPAA have succeeded in getting an injunction issued against 321 Studios, the makers of the popular DVD X Copy software, which allows consumers to make backup copies of DVD movies. Strike one for fair use."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • by 77Punker (673758) <spencr04 AT highpoint DOT edu> on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:14PM (#8350109)
    Can't we just take an image of a DVD like any other media format? Piracy will live on without overpriced software to facilitate it.
    • Re:What does it matter by LostCluster (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:19PM
      • Re:What does it matter by John Courtland (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:22PM
      • by Psx29 (538840) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:24PM (#8350195)
        A quick google shows an article [com.com] from the end of December detailing the plans for dual layer drives that are due to come out soon. And this is why I don't have a DVD burner yet
      • by glitch! (57276) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:09PM (#8350476)
        Yes, but your DVD-R drive has no hope of creating a double-layered DVD like the kind Hollywood makes

        That's true, but DVD Shrink [dvdshrink.info] does an excellent job of compressing the content down so it will fit on an ordinary DVD-R. Or so I have heard :-)
      • by pla (258480) on Saturday February 21 2004, @03:36PM (#8351092) Journal
        Yes, but your DVD-R drive has no hope of creating a double-layered DVD like the kind Hollywood makes

        Not true. Pioneer has already shown a live demo where a mere A06 with hacked firmware can write dual-layer. Whether or not they will release such firmware for older drives seems another matter entirely, but the as the more important issue, dual-layer writeables do exist.


        Additionally, although most discs do use dual layer, the movie itself often comes to under 4.7GiB. So, removing the useless French and Spanish audio, and making a movie-only copy, you can frequently get a 100% main-movie copy.

        Now, if you care about extras (I do not, personally, nor do I care about "director's commentary" audio where you have mindless chatter for fifteen minutes which tapers off to "Uh, yeah, I remember this scene" once every five minutes or so until the end), such a "copy" might not satisfy you. Myself, I buy DVDs the main feature, not for trailers, ads, idiotic babbling, or anything of that nature.
      • Re:What does it matter by Vaakku (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @05:48PM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • by FelixCat (594769) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:22PM (#8350182)
      Can't we just take an image of a DVD like any other media format?

      The answer is both Yes and No. Yes, you can use say DeCSS to create an unencrypted DVD image on your harddrive. However, without something like DeCSS you can't simply create this image of the DVD.

      The second slight problem is that most DVD movies are in DVD-9 format, which is twice as large as the standard DVD-R (4.7 GB). Hence, unless you have a DVD-9 burner, you can't make a 1:1 copy onto a DVD-R.

      The interesting this is that once you have an "region free" decrypted version on your hard-drive the copy protection is gone. Hence, there is no legal restrictions for any program to manipulate the image from that point on.

      So you can buy programs like Pinnacle's InstantCopy which takes an unprotected DVD image off your hard-drive, and automatically resizes (reencodes) the video to make it fit on a DVD-R.

      Really the easiest way to keep your software out of legal problems is to not deal with CSS protected discs, and let some other software program do the work of removing the CSS protection.

      DVD X-Copy did everything for you, all at the same time, hence was a single solution to the DVD backup problem. This made them a target.

      • Re:What does it matter by OeLeWaPpErKe (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:06PM
      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:24PM (#8350602)
        I just want to point out to everyone that the MPAA only got an injunction; they did not win a lawsuit. I'm putting this under your comment because it is high up and rated similarly. The various news outlets seem to be spinning this story as MPAA lackeys, making it sound like 123Studios lost the fight. They have only lost the preliminary round. I cannot wait for the day when this gets through litigation and at the end the MPAA has to pay back 123Studios for all of their lost revenue. You cannot outlaw software which faciliates fair use, even if some misuse it. MPAA beware!!
    • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:32PM (#8350237)
      No, you can't. Besides the double-layer issues others have mentioned, it's CSS(the encyption used) that gets in the way. Every encrypted DVD has 2 important pieces of information on it: the encrypted data related to the movie itself, and the CSS key on the disc. Now, while we can copy the encrypted data and the key, we have a problem when it comes to burning it. One of the quirks in both the DVD+ and DVD- standards is that drives can not burn CSS keys(this is prevented by both the drive itself, and the fact that the sectors where the key goes on the blank discs are unburnable), and it's because of this that we have a problem. Without the ability to burn the CSS key, the copy we make will be useless, since we won't have the key to decrypt the data with. We can decrypt the data before hand(this is what DVD X Copy does), and then burn the data unencrypted, but at that point, it's not a 1:1 copy anymore.
      • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Saturday February 21 2004, @07:14PM (#8352524)
        Never, and that's the point; the MPAA doesn't want you to be able to burn CSS, and has 1million + 1 failsafes in place to keep it that way(member patents, trade secrets, etc). The only semi-consumer drives that can burn CSS are those that follow the DVD-A standard(DVD-Authoring), and those aren't even in a price-range where we can begin talking about reasonable.
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:What does it matter by koshimetsu (Score:1) Sunday February 29 2004, @10:07PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • more related news (Score:4, Informative)

    by stonebeat.org (562495) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:14PM (#8350113) Homepage
    • Re:more related news by The Wicked Priest (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:11PM
      • by SpaceLifeForm (228190) on Saturday February 21 2004, @03:53PM (#8351208)
        Well, if you checked one of those links [com.com] you'd find this funny stuff from the judge:

        And, she said, the fact that DVD decryption keys were widely available online in programs like DeCSS did not make Hollywood's attempts to block copying useless.

        "This is equivalent to a claim that, since it is easy to find skeleton keys on the black market, a dead bolt is not an effective lock to a door," she wrote.

        She doesn't want to get it. She completely fails to address the underlying issue of being able to have a good backup of something that you purchased. In her mind, DeCSS is a skeleton key, and CSS is a deadbolt, and yet a skeleton key can unlock a deadbolt? Bad analogy judge, bad.

    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Sony? (Score:4, Funny)

    by roseblood (631824) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:15PM (#8350119)
    Isn't it Sony that made the VCR? Time to sue them, this lawsuit stuff works!
    • Re:Sony? by Nimloth (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:17PM
      • Re:Sony? by Mick Ohrberg (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:37PM
    • Re:Sony? by telekon (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:17PM
    • Re:Sony? by Digital Dharma (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:17PM
      • Re:Sony? by ConceptJunkie (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:25PM
        • Re:Sony? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Afrosheen (42464) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:11PM (#8350488)
          Here in Dallas, Mark Cuban (owner of the Mavericks) is trying to shift the paradigm just a little with a new concept. He owns the Landmark chain of theaters here along with a production company. He's hoping to create some good original films in the future, and sell you a copy of that movie in DVD form as you exit the theater.

          Imagine if you went and saw any movie and you could buy a pristine DVD copy the same day! The theater would be raking in the dough, popcorn and soda prices would fall, and everyone would be happy. The current dumbass Hollywood model of distribution just seeks to milk every single film for all it's worth, while ignoring the rising likelihood of piracy in the interim between the film's theatric debut and the dvd sale.

          Currently Hollywood does this: make film. Release film in theaters in the US. Release film in other countries (staggered, not synchronized). Sell lots of film related crap through Taco Bell and other friendly corporate entities. Hype some more. Right about the time nobody cares, release the DVD.

          Mark Cuban's way: make film. Release film in all theaters (granted it's only a local domestic chain but the model is the same). Release DVD the same day, in the theater where you just watched the movie. Watch profits roll in.

          He's also considering broadcasting the movie via ppv hdtv since he owns an HDTV network here. He figures if you'll pay to see it at home, what's the difference between that and the theater. And if you really want a dvd copy of it, come get it. No waiting.

          I think it's a brilliant, all-encompassing concept. If Hollywood would quit rehashing crappy old movies and milking properties for every damn nickle, piracy wouldn't be the problem it's perceived to be today.
          • Re:Sony? by October_30th (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:33PM
            • Re:Sony? by Eccles (Score:1) Tuesday February 24 2004, @11:43AM
          • Re:Sony? by mattso (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:09PM
            • Re:Sony? by Afrosheen (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:30PM
          • Happens quite a bit by KalvinB (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:50PM
          • Re:Sony? - theather concession prices by Gorphrim (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @04:26PM
          • Re:Sony? by mixmasterjake (Score:1) Sunday February 22 2004, @01:24AM
            • Re:Sony? by Afrosheen (Score:2) Sunday February 22 2004, @03:53AM
        • Re:Sony? by localhost00 (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @04:43PM
          • Re:Sony? by d34thm0nk3y (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @07:42PM
          • Re:Sony? by ConceptJunkie (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @10:08PM
    • The problem is digital versus analog by thrill12 (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @07:51PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Try this (Score:5, Informative)

    by markclong (575822) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:15PM (#8350121)
    DVD Shrink [dvdshrink.org]. Rip your movies to the hard drive, and then burn them with Nero or some other DVD burnin software. DVD Shrink is free and works great. It is Windows however.
    • Re:Try this (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jameth (664111) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:44PM (#8350326)
      For Linux just try:

      mencoder dvd://1 -ovc lavc -lavcopts [whatever bitrate you want] -oac lame -lameopts presets=standard -o [whatever you want to name it]

      If I were at home with access to a Linux box, I'd probably even be able to give the bitrate settings (can't recall the keywords off the top of my head). I think around 800kbps is a good bitrate, that's what I encode my home-videos at for storage. And always do 2-pass encoding.
      • Mencoder rocks (Score:5, Interesting)

        by October_30th (531777) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:03PM (#8350441) Homepage Journal
        Mencoder rocks.

        I have ripped my entire library of about 70 DVDs into DivX with it. With a script you can just insert the DVD and walk away.

        It all began as an effort to be able to watch entire seasons of Simpsons, Futurama or Black Adder in one go without having to change discs and/or deal with cumbersome menus and copyright announcements that you can't fast-forward (FOX is particularly bad in this aspect).

        Now I've got a fanless VIA EPIA mini-ITX box connected to my TV with the media on a 250 GB portable hard drive. Interestingly, a cordless trackball mouse is actually a better remote than your ordinary remote control when you get used to it.

      • Re:Try this by analog_line (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @05:28PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Better as well by dbCooper0 (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:48PM
    • Re:Try this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wthynot (570397) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:51PM (#8350368) Journal
      With this court victory, how long before they go after even the free tools? I say very soon. Grab DVD Shrink while you can. BTW, I love DVD Shrink. The latest version will burn on its own if you have Nero installed, so you don't even have to switch apps. The drag-and-drop reauthoring lets you cut out DVD extras so you can often fit just the movie on a 4.7GB DVD*R without recompression (but it has adjustable recompression built in, too). However, I don't believe the author is adding any new features--just bugfixes. (Wait, aren't "features" and "bugs" interchangeable words? Maybe there's hope yet! ;-) )
      • Re:Try this by ScooterBill (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:03PM
        • Re:Try this by pla (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:42PM
        • Re:Try this by gitreel (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @04:37PM
      • Re:Try this by mrbass (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:39PM
      • Free IS next by nurb432 (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @05:14PM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Source code? by sacrilicious (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:05PM
    • Re:Try this by frission (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:15PM
      • Re:Try this by BagOBones (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @06:25PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • How long (Score:4, Funny)

    by savagedome (742194) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:15PM (#8350125)
    before DVD Y Copy comes out? :)
    • Re:How long by seanpoot (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:28PM
    • Re:How long by The Evil Couch (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:13PM
    • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • CNET (Score:5, Informative)

    by hendridm (302246) * on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:15PM (#8350127) Homepage

    News.com.com [com.com] has a little more commentary and some background for those who aren't in the know. Thanks to the DMCA, seems like an open and shut case to me. The judge seems to think they are violating both the letter and the spirit of the law:

    321 has argued that since consumers who buy a DVD have the right to access their own movie, it would not be illegal to help them access it by using 321's software.

    Illston disagreed, saying CSS was plainly a way to protect copyright holders' rights, as envisioned in copyright law.

    I do think 321 makes some cool software. It will be sad to see them lose this one...

    • Re:CNET (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Troed (102527) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:20PM (#8350165) Homepage Journal
      How come courts can't recognize the simple fact that CSS _does not_ prevent bit-for-bit copies to be made? (In factories, it does prevent home burning since dvd recorders can't write the section where the key is stored).

      CSS real purpose is to enforce region encoding.
      • Re:CNET by damiam (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:03PM
    • Re:CNET by kfg (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:26PM
      • Re:CNET by Troed (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:34PM
        • Re:CNET by Troed (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:36PM
        • Re:CNET by kfg (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:51PM
          • Factually wrong. by mindstrm (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:52PM
          • Err, no? by mindstrm (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:55PM
            • Re:Err, no? by kfg (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @08:13PM
          • Re:CNET (Score:5, Informative)

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2004, @03:28PM (#8351046)
            The contents of a DVD are both locked and encrypted. You can do a simple check for this yourself. I used the bundled software with Creative's PC-DVD DVD/MPEG2 playback card. Other hardware/software and or software only players should work also. Put a DVD in your drive and play it using your DVD software. While the DVD is playing put it in pause. The DVD and drive have now been authenticated and you can now open your DVD drive in Windows Explorer and copy the VOB/IFO/BUP files from the DVD's VIDEO_TS directory to anywhere you wish. Copy any of the VOB files off the DVD and then try to read them with any DVD/MPEG2 playback software. You'll find any DVD/MPEG2 playback software you chose won't be able to understand the VOB files because while the VOB files have been copied off the DVD they are still encrypted.

            CSS is a two step process. The first step is authentication of the media to the player. Without this step the DVD drive won't allow one to look at the protected file(s). The second step is decryption of the encrypted files.

            For more information and a good overview of CSS see the DVD Demystified FAQ [dvddemystified.com] section 1.11 -- "what are the copy protection issues" especially part 3 [dvddemystified.com], section 4.5 -- "why can't I play movies copied to my hard drive?" [dvddemystified.com], section 4.8 -- "what is DeCSS?" [dvddemystified.com], or take a look at Frank Stephenson's cryptanalysis of CSS (couldn't find a link.)

            I do agree with you however that CSS isn't really a copy protection method. There are too many other ways one may copy a DVD wihtout having to deal with CSS -- if one throws enough money at the problem.
          • Re:CNET by Troed (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:45PM
            • Re:CNET by kfg (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @07:26PM
              • Re:CNET by Troed (Score:1) Monday February 23 2004, @07:21AM
              • Re:CNET by kfg (Score:1) Sunday February 22 2004, @12:52AM
                • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
              • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
          • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:CNET by hawkbug (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @04:21PM
        • Re:CNET by hawkbug (Score:2) Monday February 23 2004, @12:53AM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
      • Re:CNET by kfg (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:25PM
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:CNET by Zork the Almighty (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:24PM
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:16PM (#8350131) Homepage
    Effectively, this is the test case for the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, and this injunction indicates that the court is presently leaning in favor of keeping it. The right to make a backup copy is not being questioned, but that'll be a useless right if there's no legal way to do so.

    Not good... not good at all.
  • strike (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Eric Smith (4379) * <eric@DALIbrouhaha.com minus painter> on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:17PM (#8350140) Homepage Journal
    Strike one for fair use.
    Um, seems like strike one against fair use.
    • Re:strike by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:32PM
      • Re:strike by Eric Smith (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:13PM
        • ROFLMAO by iceperson (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @06:00PM
        • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:strike (Score:5, Funny)

      by lambent (234167) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:37PM (#8350283)
      It's baseball idiom. You are naturally both correct.

      Now kiss and make up.

      And in the words of the immortal yogi bera, "You can observe a lot by watching."
  • What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by megalogeek (519027) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:18PM (#8350148)
    Is the Metropolitan Museum of Art going to win a case against Kodak, Fuji, Canon and others for making devices that allow people to make backup copies their vacation memories? This is getting insane.

    I'm going to go hide under my bed. Will someone please come and get me when the world becomes a little more rational?

  • This is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grioghar (228683) <thegrio@g[ ]l.com ['mai' in gap]> on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:18PM (#8350150) Homepage
    What am I supposed to do when I irrepairably scratch my favorite DVD? Go buy another one? That's crap. The primary function of this software is what? JUST to circumvent the antipiracy scheme, or is it to give someone the ability to backup that which they've already paid for.

    The fucks at the MPAA going to give me a new copy of Hackers on DVD if I accidently damage my old one? They obviously don't want me copying it for my safe keeping.

    Assholes.
    • Re:This is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Monkelectric (546685) <slashdot@@@monkelectric...com> on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:22PM (#8350183)
      I've got a better one then that -- my "American Beauty" DVD died of DVD Ro [manifest-tech.com]. Think Warner Brothers is going to replace it? :) I refuse to buy new one out of principle.
    • Re:This is bullshit by October_30th (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:23PM
    • Re:This is bullshit by FooAtWFU (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:12PM
    • Re:This is bullshit by NewtonsLaw (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @07:02PM
    • Re:This is bullshit by boobsea (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:29PM
      • Well by metalhed77 (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:28PM
      • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:This is bullshit by kfg (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:33PM
    • by phillymjs (234426) <`slashdot' `at' `stango.org'> on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:40PM (#8350301) Homepage Journal
      When you buy a car, you own the car, period. You can do with it as you wish.

      When you buy a CD or DVD, you're not buying the music, you're buying a plastic circle and a license to view/hear the contents of that circle. If your plastic circle eats it and becomes unusable for some reason, you still possess a license to the content, and as such should be able to get replacement media for the cost of producing the media.

      Problem is, the movie/record companies don't want to have to replace your media, but they don't want you to have the right to make backup copies of it, either. And they own more congressmen than you.

      ~Philly
      • Re:Your analogy is crap. by JeffTL (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:22PM
      • by nehril (115874) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:23PM (#8350592)
        When you buy a CD or DVD, you're not buying the music, you're buying a plastic circle and a license to view/hear the contents of that circle. If your plastic circle eats it and becomes unusable for some reason, you still possess a license to the content

        eh, that's not how the industry execs see it. you are not buying a plastic circle, or a license, but only what they are willing to sell you: namely the *specific* plastic item in your hand that you forked cash over for. When you buy a book you are not buying paper, or a license to read it, but a single instance combination of both. If your book gets eaten by your cat, or simply rots of its own accord, you cannot go back to the store and get a new free copy.*

        If the book later becomes available as a searchable PDF you have no automatic rights to that either: it's a separate product entirely. You also don't get free rights to the movie version of the book. Just like buying a ticket to a film doesn't grant you a "license" to come back tomorrow and see it again; you got what you came for, now get out.

        *(You could try and claim a "manufacturing defect" angle for backups, but then you are dealing with a different case entirely. if the content providers decide to replace obviously defective merchandise you will have problems pursuing legal self-backup mechanisms).

        I agree with your arguments but you have to take their points of view more seriously in order to make an impact.
      • by red floyd (220712) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:53PM (#8350829)
        When you buy a CD or DVD, you're not buying the music, you're buying a plastic circle and a license to view/hear the contents of that circle.

        Really. Funny, I don't see ads that say: '[LATEST DISNEY MOVIE]: License it today!!!!"

        They say "[LATEST DISNEY MOVIE]: Buy it today!!!!" (emphasis mine).

        Now, IANAL, but this seems like false advertising to me.
      • by Alsee (515537) on Saturday February 21 2004, @07:25PM (#8352599) Homepage
        When you buy a CD or DVD, you're not buying the music, you're buying a plastic circle and a license to view/hear the contents of that circle.

        Common disinformation. You are buying a plastic circle circle that happens to have a copy of a movie on it. You own that disk and you own that copy. Yes, according to US copyright law you OWN that copy of that movie.

        There is no such thing as a licence to view/hear/use something. Does not exist.

        According to US copyright law a copyright holder has six exclusive rights, [cornell.edu] but they really only amount to 3 different rights. (1) The right to make new copies (and derivative copies). (2) The right to distribute copies (including digital audio transmission), and (3) The right of public performance (or display). Those rights are restricted by all sorts of limitations. Those rigth have all sorts of holes poked into them by exceptions.

        Those are the ONLY rights a copyright holder has, and those are the ONLY rights he can licence to someone. A licence does not exist unless he is licencing you one or more of those rights. When you buy a retail DVD it does not come with a licence to create more copies, it does not come with a licence to distribute more copies, and it does not come with a licence for public performance. Therefore buying a DVD does not involve any licence at all. You bought that copy. You own that copy, you can do anything you like with it except for the limited exclusive monopoly listed above.

        The copyright holder is not selling you a licence to anything, he does not have to replace damaged media. Heck, even if he did sell you a licence he doesn't even have to give you an original copy, much less have to give you replacements.I can sell you a licence to make and distribute and publicly perform a movie I made without giving you a copy of that movie. If you can get a copy of it from someone else, then fine, you can make more copies from that copy, but if you don't-have/can't-get a copy then tough luck you have a licence you can't use.

        On the other hand one of the limitations on the exclusive rights given to copyright holders is that they don't extend to private personal use (or at least they were never intended to), which means that when you buy a DVD you have every right to make a backup in case it gets damaged.

        -
      • 3 replies beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:This is bullshit by jorlando (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:07PM
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Quick Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mork29 (682855) <keith,yelnick&us,army,mil> on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:19PM (#8350151) Journal
    This court enjoins plaintiff 321 Studios from manufacturing, distributing, or otherwise trafficking" in the software

    Now, IAMNAL, can retailers continue to destribute the software most likely? I know they wouldn't, but couldn't 3-2-1 say.... Open Source X-Copy and then we could all distribute it legally? Who would the MPAA have to sue then?
  • Good thing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:20PM (#8350158)
    I downloaded it via BitTorrent some time ago.

    Fuck the **AA.
  • The first? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by NegativeK (547688) <[moc.liamtoh] [ta] [neiraket]> on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:21PM (#8350174) Homepage
    Strike one for fair use.

    Not really. I'm thinking stike two, or maybe strike fifty, or strike [insert big number here.] There's the DMCA, the Napster lawsuit, 2600's issues with the MPAA over DeCSS, UnTrusted Computing, and on, and on, and on. This most certainly isn't the first, and there's no way it'll be the last.
    • Re:The first? by Rakarra (Score:2) Sunday February 22 2004, @09:38PM
      • Re:The first? by NegativeK (Score:1) Monday February 23 2004, @12:28AM
        • Re:The first? by Rakarra (Score:2) Monday February 23 2004, @03:41PM
  • Fair use? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by roman_mir (125474) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:22PM (#8350180) Homepage
    I was also trying to submit the same article.... I did some research, so a federal judge decided for the MPAA and against the 321 Studios DVD Copying software. MPAA argued that DMCA prohibits anyone to go around an encryption scheme (effective or not) the CSS. It looks like the 321 Studios is selling software that can copy DVDs onto other DVDs and also onto your harddrives in some file format. However, the software is also capable of selecting which features, languages etc. will be copied so it looks like the software actually does CSS decryption in order to go this extra steps. Maybe in this case DMCA does apply. If this is the truth, the software will have to be changed to only allow bit by bit copying in order to allow fair use and at the same time to comply with the DMCA.

    BTW. on the 321studios.com Flash is required for navigation, I personally see it as the grounds for shutting that company down, not only prohibitting their software
    • Re:Fair use? by digitalvengeance (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:29PM
      • Re:Fair use? by Jeff DeMaagd (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @01:50PM
        • Re:Fair use? by tenton (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:23PM
      • Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by roman_mir (125474) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:52PM (#8350372) Homepage
        But you do understand that to the judge this was a no-brainer? I mean the judge is supposed to uphold the law, and he did. Now, if the law is wrong then it should be changed or removed but this can only be argued in the Supreme Court in the USA, right? (I am not a USian.) So this will have to go all the way to that court and the judge in that court will have to agree that the law is unconstitutional.

        Until then, MPAA will have no problem stopping this kind of software from being legal.
        • Re:Fair use? by Bios_Hakr (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @02:38PM
          • Re:Fair use? by DarkEdgeX (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @05:14PM
          • Re:Fair use? by psykocrime (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @06:00PM
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by Lordofohio (703786) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:24PM (#8350190)
    I thought one of the main concessions that the RIAA "allows" is that people can make copies of CD's that they have legally bought, both for backup purposes and to have a copy in the car, home, office, etc.

    Is this different? Does the MPAA have a different view on copying than the RIAA, and if so under which corporate empire's rule do we live? We are obviously not under the rule of the people anymore.
  • The Real Danger? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tamor (604545) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:29PM (#8350224)

    I doubt the injunction will stop the inevitable availability of this software on just about any file-sharing service you care to name. What it might stop though is legitimate companies developing software like this so that you, I and anyone else can exercise our right to make working backups of the software, movies or anything else that we've purchased.

    After all why would anyone want to spend time, effort and money developing software that allows people to do sensible, legal things with their property if the MPAA, RIAA or anyone else with a big enough cheque book is going to shut them down before they get going? Chalk up another victory for big corporations in their seemingly unstoppable war against the rights of the law abiding majority in their pursuit of the lawless minority.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:31PM (#8350234)
    If I can legally make a backup copy but I can't legally obtain the means to do so, well that's just the same as it not being legal for me to make a backup copy, isn't it?

    The point has been made before-- if we're only buying a license to view/hear the content on a disc as the RIAA/MPAA maintain, then we should definitely be owed replacements (if not free, then for the cost of the media only) when something bad happens to a disc we possess and renders it unusable.

    That is a class-action lawsuit I'd like to see... where a bunch of people with ruined CDs/DVDs sue to force the producers to provide minimal-cost replacement media-- and not just for the members of the class, but for everyone, in perpetuity.
  • Appeal? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by and by (598383) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:34PM (#8350254)
    They really should appeal. Sure it will cost a goodly sum in lawyers' fees, but the 9th Circuit (if you get the right judges) is quite liberal in terms of personal rights.
    • by werdna (39029) on Saturday February 21 2004, @04:48PM (#8351570) Homepage Journal
      They really should appeal. Sure it will cost a goodly sum in lawyers' fees, but the 9th Circuit (if you get the right judges) is quite liberal in terms of personal rights.

      Nonsense. There is probably no less favorable forum in the United States for the defendant in a copyright-like action.

      The 9th Circuit decided the Napster case.

      The 9th Circuit decided the Sony Betamax case in favor of the movie studios before being reversed by the Supreme Court.

      The 9th Circuit even decided that Vanna White's right to publicity was invaded by a commercial depicting a robot in a gown turning letters.

      If there is a bright shiny sweet spot for owners of IP rights, and a dark nadir for balancing of the public's rights, it is the 9th Circuit.
    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:39PM (#8350297)
    From the article:

    "Most Hollywood DVDs are protected with a technology called Content Scrambling System, or CSS, which encrypts the content on the discs so that they can only be read by devices with authorized "keys" to unlock the data. A studio-affiliated trade group licenses those keys to DVD player manufacturers."

    Why doesn't 321 try to license the CSS from the trade group? If they are not allowed to license it then sue for unfair trade practices.

    To me it appears that since 321 is not paying for the CSS license the MPAA has grounds. However, if the MPAA/trade group refuses to license (per copy - yes that means no "free" software) then there are grounds for unfair trade/monopoly suits.
  • by PalmerEldritch42 (754411) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:48PM (#8350348)
    Looks like Macrovision is getting in on the action and suing them also. Here is 321 Studio's response [emedialive.com]. I guess everyone wants a bite at the apple. I hope 321 Studios gets a good team of lawyers.

    Anyway, even if they have to stop making the software, it will live on forever in p2p sharing perpetuity.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:57PM (#8350399)
    And I don't feel bad about it. They already charge too much for renting new releaes, in my opinion. If people have the ability to copy, they will. I have the ability, and I do.

    BTW, I use a pirated copy of DVD X Copy. I am a bad boy...
  • It was unavoidable (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:58PM (#8350411)
    The judge had to rule this way.
    By selling an encrypted format, the MPAA has carte blanche on how they want the DVDs to be used. If they didn't have encryption, the judge could have more leeway (such is the case with cds) to enable a more logical fair use of the media. As long as we support encrypted formats, we're doomed to merely borrow the content.
  • limits (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gubbe (705219) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:01PM (#8350421)
    "The case had tested the limits of 1998's Digital Millenium Copyright Act"

    no limits, it seems.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:01PM (#8350425)
    When I read this article I became really concerned about fair use. So here's what I'm doing. Email everyone that has a public address listed on the mpaa.org site. Ask them:
    If I want to *legally* backup my DVD which is described in fair use how would the MPAA suggest I do this? If it's illegal to get around CSS and it's legal to backup please tell me. It's a rhetorical question really but I'd be curious to know if they come up with some type of response.
    BTW this is the first time I've ever posted AC for obvious reasons. Here are the emails I found on MPAA.org

    complaint@mpaa.org
    dcinema@mpaa.org
    hotline@mp aa.org
    mdore@le-public-systeme.fr
    mpamiamiworksh op@attglobal.net
    mpario@attglobal.net
    Pascale_Wa uthier@mpaa.org
    webhost@mpaa.org
  • by Aliencow (653119) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:01PM (#8350426) Homepage Journal
    I've been tempted to buy a DVD burner to backup some movies for a while.. I just don't know if there's an easy way to do it under Linux ?
    Even if it involves making a few command line scripts it'd be pretty easy I guess..
    Anyone could point me to something useful ?
  • Repeat after me... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by teetam (584150) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:06PM (#8350450) Homepage
    You, the individual, do not own this country. You can sing "land of the free" all you want, but it remains in name only.

    To force your pet peeves and petty issues on everyone else, you constantly lobby to pass new laws that will arrest those whom you don't like. Consequently, the government has become bigger and bigger and no longer looks out for you.

    There was a time when the individual was bigger than the state, now he is just a slave.

    People, wake up and realize that the two points of opinion are not the left and the right. The struggle is between individual rights and the statists (which includes Democrats/liberal and republican/conservatives). And the statists have won in a big way.

    The greatness of a nation hinges on the freedom of its people. Welcome to the beginning of the end of the Great American Experiment!

    • by Epeeist (2682) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:37PM (#8350701) Homepage
      "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power."
      • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
    • Re:Repeat after me... by Anonymous Coward (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @03:16PM
    • by fermion (181285) on Saturday February 21 2004, @04:42PM (#8351521) Homepage Journal
      I don't see this as the beginning of the end. I see this as just another step in the process of the country, and really the world. At a top level we have seen the greed, the redistribution of wealth, the insensitivity of the decadent elite to those who have nothing, many time before.

      The individual has power, but it can only be express as a group effort, and will only be expressed if there are brave people. We pay for the privilege to watch movie, but also much watch commercials. We give away the public airspace, yet can ask for little in return. We feel that is it such a privilege to shop at some stores that we allow ourselves to be humiliated by a search on exiting the store. We pay our farmers billions out of the public coffers to grow food, and then pay for the food again at the market, but cannot ask the processors the food to keep the shit out of it. In some ways these are the same as paying for the privilege to sit in the back of the bus or for the privilege to eat the salt the we could produce for nothing.

      All we are seeing now is a state of affairs in which the people are cowardly. The cowardice is generated by the government, who has systematically redefined bravery as the number of people a person can kill or intimidate, rather than what the person can produce through a revolution of thought or status. For example, our founding fathers were brave because they, as mere colonials hicks, challenged the British elite and claimed equal status, and equal stuff. Today, revisionist historians want us to honor them merely as great warriors.

      The choice is the same as always. We can take the stuff they give us, in the form they want to give it to us, or we can refrain and say our self respect is worth more than 3 beans. Most of us are not slaves. A slave has a choice to work or to die. Most of us, for the time being, have other choices. Certainly in the realm of entertainment, there is always the choice to refrain, or, if one is desperate enough, to take.

    • 2 replies beneath your current threshold.
  • Having their cake... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Teppy (105859) * on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:10PM (#8350484) Homepage
    When you buy a *thing* you can do with it what you want. For instance, if I buy a painting, I can publicly exhibit it all I want, I can draw a moustache on it, I can lend it to a friend.

    When you buy a license, you get a set of rights. So, if I buy a gym membership, I'm allowed to work out during gym hours, use a locker, swim in the pool. I'm not allowed to loan my membership card to a friend to use. If I misplace my membership card, that doesn't cancel my membership.

    It seems the MPAA wants it both ways: They want to be allowed to make all sorts of restrictions as if they were selling licenses, but want to pretend it's just a physical object they're selling when it comes to media damage, theft, and format changes.

    I say they play by the same rules as everyone else. Make it one or the other.
  • What about... (Score:4, Informative)

    by n()_cHIEFz (203036) <nochiefs@h[ ]ail.com ['otm' in gap]> on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:14PM (#8350513) Homepage
    DVD2one? You can use a simple DeCSS program like DVD Backup, then DVD2one to compress and then just burn using your favorite authoring software. Sure DVDXcopy is easier for the masses but backing up your DVD's can still be done.

    Given the number of DeCSS/Compression programs out there, I don't think the MPAA is going to be able to get rid of every tool to rip, compress and burn DVDs.
  • by va3atc (715659) * on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:17PM (#8350535) Homepage Journal
    Just curious,

    I've never tried burning DVDs but is it possible to do 1:1 copy of single layer DVD which would include the extras and the sort without recompression?
  • by ajs318 (655362) <sd_resp2@earthsI ... inus threevowels> on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:17PM (#8350537)
    On the one hand I am disappointed, as this is clearly a swipe at fair dealing rights.

    On the other hand, if it means I will get less spam advertising software that can copy any DVD {when I already have something similar as part of my Linux distribution, by the way} then I cannot help feeling a little prickle of delight.
  • by superwiz (655733) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:23PM (#8350584) Journal

    Soviet Union had a Constituion that looked like a document fair to all the citizens of the country. But the Soviet Government constantly used lied (usually poorly disguised lies) to do whatever it felt was neccessary to stay in power. It still used its well-oiled propaganda machine to try to convince the dumbest 80% of the population that it was the most fair society in the wolrd.

    Sure US has a freedom of speech. Unless you want to discuss something that is not politically correct, or you happen to be a computer programmer communicating in a way that you find most expressive, or you happen to be a mathematician discussing mathematics (think cryptography), or a chemist discussing high-energy reactions (think explosives).

    It used to be that it was OK to tremple everyone rights legally as long as it was done to bring about safety. More and more it is done to bring about practical short-term solutions (read profit).

    But at least there is no slippery slope.

  • Who cares? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by real_smiff (611054) on Saturday February 21 2004, @02:35PM (#8350681)
    I use only freeware (mostly open source software) to make dvd backups - i suggest you all head on over to Doom9 [doom9.net] and learn how to do the same. I don't make money from my backups either.

    Right on the front page (after updates to two similar products are mentioned btw!) they have the following interesting comment:

    Last but not least, 321 Studios have lost in court in the first instance. A San Francisco judge granted the MPAA an injunction against 321 Studios, barring them from selling their DVDXCopy products. While
    I have not been a fan of 321 ever since they started selling freeware software and a guide as DVD backup solution (note that the DVDXCopy products have actually been developed by 321), this is definitely not a good development. Judge Illston went on record saying that people were free to make copies in other, nondigital ways that would give them access to the same content, even if not in the same, pristine form. Miss Illston, if you have a minute I invite you to come over and I'll show you how your statement is completely false and shows a lack of understanding for what the movie industry is actually doing. I also invite you to have a look at Macrovision's offering in analogue copy protection. Under the DMCA which you're defending, analogue copying is also prohibited because it is illegal to manufacture a device that does not react to the Macrovision signal corruption (that's right.. Macrovision Quality Protection my lower rear end!).
    My bold, and that pretty much sums up how i feel about this aswell. I trust the views of Doom9 (he's a person and a site) as someone who knows a lot more about all this than me and has proved right on the money in the past. The sentence after the bold... well, that just pisses me off - i don't know what to say. I can make cr*p quality backups?! Is that a joke? (rhetorical).
    • Re:Who cares? by jwlidtnet (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @06:58PM
  • by UnknowingFool (672806) on Saturday February 21 2004, @03:13PM (#8350949)
    I have never used DVD X Copy but it would seem to me that this injunction would harm users who wanted to burn copies of their home-made movies. With DVD based camcorders slowly replacing tape camcorders, this would hinder usage of such technologies.

    In the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court ruled that as long as there is a legitimate use for a technology, it cannot be banned because someone may use it for illegitimate uses.

    I don't know much about how X Copy works but if it does a straight copy without actually bypassing CSS, how does the software violate DMCA?

  • 321 Deserves To Hurt (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21 2004, @03:28PM (#8351055)
    Remember, 321 Studios are the ones that sold "DVD Copy Plus" which was shareware/freeware they sold WITHOUT permission of the authors. They basically threw together a bunch of free applications with cheesy instructions and pretended it was a product. Then, they allowed everyone to use SPAM to market it. Great company. Yes, "DVD X Copy" is an original work, but nobody should forgive them for their previous scams. They only care that they won't be able to make millions from would-be suckers and casual pirates. (Everytime I go to Fry's I see a spindle of DVD+R/-R and DVD X Copy get sold.) There are plenty of FREE solutions. Burn, 321 Studios, BURN.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • by shark72 (702619) on Saturday February 21 2004, @04:57PM (#8351627)

    I think it's plainly obvious by reading the comments that the vast majority of Slashdotters would only ever use DVD X Copy for backing up a DVD that they already own. They would not use it for, say, renting a DVD from Netflix and making a copy for themselves, as many of my friends do regularly. Then again, almost everybody I know who uses Kazaa uses it to download and share copyrighted material without the holder's permission, so perhaps I'm hanging with the wrong crowd.

    Making backups of your media is a good idea, in case they're damaged or stolen. But not even factoring in the cost of the DVD burner or the blank media, the basic version of DVD X Copy retails for $69.99. That's the cost of three DVDs.

    I must own over a hundred DVDs, and not once have I had a DVD go bad or otherwise become unusable. I would have to have had three instances of this happening in order for a purchase of DVD X Copy to have been worth the investment.

    If I regularly loaned DVDs to friends and three ended up not coming back, the software would have been a good investment, but it would have been more efficient to be more careful in whom I loan my DVDs to.

    It seems to me that the most logical way to get your value's worth out of DVD X Copy is to use it for piracy. Just as most people use Kazaa illegally and most people who buy equipment for getting free cable or satelite signals also do so to avoid paying, rather than for "test purposes" or "for educational use only" as the ads proclaim, my bet is that most people who use DVD X Copy do so illegally.

    Does anybody dispute this?

    • Re:Was DVD X Copy a good value? by sik puppy (Score:2) Saturday February 21 2004, @05:07PM
    • by King_TJ (85913) on Saturday February 21 2004, @05:26PM (#8351782) Homepage Journal
      Yes, I dispute your claim. Your math may be correct, but you're discounting many other valid reasons why someone might want to invest $70 or so to copy their DVD collection.

      Primarily, some folks like to take their movies with them - increasing the chances of scratching/damaging the discs. If you have a portable DVD player in your car/van, or even a notebook computer that can play DVDs, you'd probably not really want to tote around your originals and risk them getting lost/stolen/damaged every time.
    • by Grimster (127581) on Saturday February 21 2004, @09:30PM (#8353271) Homepage
      I have a kid, he fucks up DVD's and CD's regularly, I make sure he never gets his grubby fingers on an original. $1 dvd-r vs $19.99 original, not a hard call for me to make. He's 3, I don't even expect him to take great care of a CD yet, however for a 3 year old he's damn good at not ruining them. Even if he were 16 and had his own car I'd have him put burns in his car, because little bastards where he'd work or go to school would and probably will steal cd's out of his car (when that time comes) and I'd much rather have a $1 blank stolen as opposed to 10 or 12 purchased CD's.

      I own over 300 dvds of various sorts, and hell I don't even know how many CD's 500-1000 I guess. I ripped all my CD's to mp3 LONG ago and I burn cd's to use in my car and stereo, and most of my CD's have been played exactly once, when they were ripped. Same for my DVD's, I buy 'em, rip 'em, and put 'em up, if my kid scratches one, drops one, whatever, I just load the image off my harddrive and burn a new one.

      I also built a computer just to hold the images of all the DVD's I've ripped (I haven't ripped ALL my dvd's yet, just the popular ones). It has 4x160 harddrives in a raid stripe, and a 4x DVD-/+RW. Every cd I own and a good bit of the DVD's are on there and ready to reburn when necessary. I can also play the images straight from the computer in my home theatre.

      DO I think DVD-X copy is mainly used for piracy? Sure probably is. Does that mean EVERYONE uses it for such? Fuck no. However I personally don't use DVDXCopy, I use DVD Shrink + CopyToDVD but that's just preference in software, still does the same thing.

      So yes I do DISPUTE your claim. And this has nothing to do with cost, it has to do with convenience, and keeping what I bought safe so I can use it for years to come.
    • Re:Was DVD X Copy a good value? by OgGreeb (Score:1) Saturday February 21 2004, @10:53PM
    • Re:Was DVD X Copy a good value? by jeko (Score:2) Sunday February 22 2004, @02:36AM
    • Re:Was DVD X Copy a good value? by geminidomino (Score:1) Sunday February 22 2004, @02:54AM
  • by KFury (19522) * on Saturday February 21 2004, @05:43PM (#8351897) Homepage
    "...the popular DVD X Copy software, which allows consumers to make backup copies of DVD movies. Strike one for fair use."

    Actually, it allows consumers to copy DVDs. If it only allowed backup copies, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit.

    It's nice to stand on a soapbox of innocence, but I don't thikn anyone here is naive enough to truly believe that only a tiny majority of DVD X Copy made copies of their DVDs and passed the copies or originals on to friends or ebay.

    It's not striking one for fair use when the courts come down against an honor-system solution that isn't being honored.

    Ideally, the courts would have added that movie studios must proffer an exchange program for damaged or destroyed media, so backups aren't necessary. Even better would be if we bought the rights to a movie in whatever format, instead of just buying ownership of a piece of plastic, but that's a whole other discussion.
    • Re:Biased language in post by geekoid (Score:3) Saturday February 21 2004, @06:48PM
      • by KFury (19522) * on Saturday February 21 2004, @08:12PM (#8352848) Homepage
        "If the majority of people don't obey a law, should that law even exist?"

        If people could revoke a law by majority violation, would we pay taxes? Have copyright? The American Disabilities Act?

        "I would also like to point out that there are two sides to this honor system, and if one side isn't playing fair, why should we."

        The 'other side' offers a product, and they can choose what form and under what license to offer that product. If you don't like it, don't buy that product. By your comment I gather that you think it's okay to make copies of DVDs for your friends, or do you mean something else by 'not playing fair'?

        "The people who make money infringe on copyrights are houses that produce DVDs by the thousands."

        Yeah, but the people who lose money are the people who would otherwise sell their product.

        I'm no fan of major labels, the RIAA, or the MPAA, but if and when smaller labels make their comeback through online distribution, they'll be the ones who are hurt by flagrant copying, and no matter how piusly we can say 'we won't copy the little label's music or movies, just the big-label basters who rape their artists' I don't believe that the day we remove copyright law is the day we stop needing it.
        • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Hmm (Score:2, Interesting)

    by BuckaBooBob (635108) on Saturday February 21 2004, @06:00PM (#8352004)
    There ws mention of prematgurely failing DVD's quiet a while back on here... But that should have been brought to the table because it is a obvious manufacturing problem that the "Studio" claimed wasn't related to the manufacturing process... That is a perfect example of why we need REAL fair use protection.... That or us consumers need to pour tonnes of money into lobbying the government to protect our rights...
  • by Rogerborg (306625) on Saturday February 21 2004, @07:12PM (#8352509) Homepage
    We're not pigs.
  • by aaronsorkin (589236) on Saturday February 21 2004, @10:52PM (#8353623)
    I've had a copy of 321 Studios' DVD X Copy for the past year. It has a terrific set of safeguards to prevent movie piracy over the Internet, such as restricting you to make only *one* copy of any disc, embedding a digital identifier into the code to trace the origin of a pirated file, and being able to remotely turn off an account if an infringement is found to occur.

    Jack Valenti, chairman and chief executive of the MPAA, hailed the ruling as "another step forward for the protection of copyrighted works and the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the movie industry."

    Valenti is wrong. Here is where the MPAA is shooting itself in the foot: Now, the only way to back up DVDs is to do so illegally. In the coming years, hundreds of thousands of people will turn to utilities like DVD Decrypter and other variants of the DeCSS program as the only alternative open to them.

    321 Studios President Robert Moore said after the ruling that the company would distribute a DVD-copying product without a ripper, the software that allows consumers to break the copy-protection code on a DVD. He noted that rippers are available readily on the Internet

    People are not going to give up their fair use right to up personal media just because the studios say that movies are the only medium that fair use doesn't cover. Now, instead of having a legal tool on the market that includes useful restrictions to prevent piracy, the studios have forced us into a world where only illegal programs with *no* such piracy safeguards will be the rule.

    Anybody have the suicide hotline number?
  • by BobSutan (467781) on Sunday February 22 2004, @03:31AM (#8354613)
    I guess not enough people are using this:

    http://www.protectfairuse.org/
  • by scan2006 (313789) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:32PM (#8350238)
    What does your o/s have to do with this topic? We don't care that your friend is a idiot and can't keep his sh*t running.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • Re:On CNN.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ScrewMaster (602015) on Saturday February 21 2004, @01:58PM (#8350408)
    Yes, well, if you live in the EU you're in for more of the same, only worse. See the previous Slashdot post on that topic. "DMCA on steroids" I believe it was called.
  • Re:On CNN.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by calidoscope (312571) on Saturday February 21 2004, @03:11PM (#8350936)
    Just Seen this thing on CNN, They are Hailing it as a Major Victory against pirates...

    CNN is owned by AOL-Time-Warner - needless to say they are going to care more about the studio's interest than the public's interest.

  • Re:Damn RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mkldev (219128) on Saturday February 21 2004, @03:28PM (#8351056) Homepage
    And we have the right to tell them to go screw themselves if they don't want to make it available under reasonable terms. The problem is that people did that and suddenly they respond with "Nobody's buying movies! Everybody must be stealing them!"

    No, my rights end where they injure others. My rights to watch a DVD on a Linux box do not injure the movie industry, therefore those rights are inalienable. Those who say otherwise are the greatest threat to the freedom of our country and our world. We must stand firm.

    As Ray Bradbury put it in Fahrenheit 451:

    I saw the way things were going, a long time back. I said nothing. I'm one of the innocents who could have spoken up and out when no one would listen to the 'guilty,' but I did not speak and thus became guilty myself. And when finally they set the structure to burn the books, using the firemen, I grunted a few times and subsided, for there were no others grunting or yelling with me, by then.
    • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.
  • 21 replies beneath your current threshold.