Slashdot Log In
321 Studios Plays It Safe Against the DMCA
Posted by
timothy
on Tue Apr 23, 2002 02:53 PM
from the dispensation-nation dept.
from the dispensation-nation dept.
mblase writes: "CNet reports on a request by 321 Studios to have it legally declared that their DVD Copy Plus software doesn't violate the DCMA. DVD Copy Plus works on a Windows PC by copying DVD video to a recordable CD in VCD or similar format. If successful, this could be a major legal weapon against the DCMA in the future. 321 Studios' press release is here."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
From the article:
According to Monday's complaint, the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents major Hollywood studios, has been quoted in newspaper articles as threatening to sue 321 to stop it from distributing DVD Copy Plus, saying it may violate the DMCA.
How can they sue if they heard that they might face litigation? This makes no sense. 321 Studio has not been officially acused of doing anything wrong. Can they really be sued for being bullied?
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
Re:Finally! (Score:2)
Yup.
Judges are all-to-easily swayed by the MPAA/RIAA images of "evil hackers" stealing Disney content from our impressionable youth. Plus, they're more likely to buy into that image when it describes the defendant in a case.
321 stands to short circuit all of that, since they'll be the complaining party. The usual arguments will still be brought up, but they'll be cast with the movie studios will be sitting at the defendant table.
Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)
proactively file this lawsuit not only to receive the courts' assurance that we are in compliance with the law but also to raise the broader question of how Americans' First Amendment rights can be protected in this digital age
Sounds silly, does'nt it? You have to sue in order to make sure you're not doing anything wrong. Note they are not seeking any damages.
Can they really be sued for being bullied?
You can sue for any reason you want. I can sue you because I don't like your name. That would probably be thrown out of court.
But what 321 is doing is very clever; if the court throws the case out, and the MPAA seeks damages under the DMCA, they are protected. "We already filed with the court, and the court decided that we were not doing anything wrong... at least to warrent the attention of the court."
Of course, it shows how screwy our legal system is. I can't call up the police and ask 'hey, I'm thinking of doing this.. is it legal?' They won't tell me. But if I do it, and it's illegal, they will arrest me. Laws are written in such a way that half the time people are breaking them not even knowing. It's nice to see a company exploit a loophole like this on the side of good.
Parent
Re:Finally! (Score:3, Funny)
Remember when you accidentally or deliberately did something bad to a classmate on the playground, and you knew they were going to tattle on you, and you would run to get to the teacher before they did, so you could get the first word in the matter? And how it worked half of the time?
Wow.
Re:Finally! (Score:2, Interesting)
Unfortunately, the courts don't seem to be very friendly to these nowadays, at least not in this arena...
Re:Finally! (Score:2, Interesting)
It's an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, I'd presume. If you are under threat of impending litigation, you can jump the gun and file your own action, seeking a declaration from the court that your conduct is not illegal. (This is also used to challenge the validity of some criminal statutes under the constitution - file your civil suit now, rather than being prosecuted later).
The statute is 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq [cornell.edu].
This does nothing of the sort (Score:2)
While this has nothing to do with this software company, I found this on a google search for 321 Studios and found it amusing, and possibly prophetic "Adam went to London, Munich and Paris in March for a 3 week press tour. When he returned to New York, Jack Douglas had only mixed three songs before starting the Aerosmith project. The 321 studios had went bankrupt and all the studio equipment had been repossessed by their creditors. The building rent was never paid. The studio turned out to be a front for some investment scam. The master tapes were also missing and one of the studio owners had been thrown in jail."
And what about the DMCA (Score:5, Funny)
It's Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Accept DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)
Indeed, winning this court case may be a tool to fight for fair use in a world of DMCA, but in the overall war we will sacrifice a valuable ally in the fight for a world without DMCA.
I would rather a post DMCA era, where freedom is presumed until proven a crime, rather than feel the need to prove my freedom for actions of thought and speech now considered criminal.
Re:Accept DMCA? (Score:2)
Everyone keeps saying that they want fair-use, well these guys are trying to make that a reality even under the DMCA, i could care less if the DMCA can be used to prosecute true for profit piracy schemes. Just dont interfere with fair-use.
Re:Accept DMCA? (Score:3, Insightful)
On the RIAA website it states that they dont mind of if people make a copy of a CD for their car. And in fact they state it is fair use to do this. Ahh, but there is a problem now, with copy protected CD's, i cannot legally make a copy now, because i cannot break the copy protection. And more importantly it is illegal for someone to make a program that will allow this.
This law does nothing but maybe hike up the penalties for the real pirates (large scale manufactures) They are already breaking laws by making cds, then selling them.
Granted 321 studios may declare that this doesnt break the DMCA, but a tool to allow for even playing music cds on the computer could (the copy protected ones). This is only stating that their utility is legal, not utilities that are similar
Re:Accept DMCA? (Score:3, Informative)
Yes it does [eff.org]
Since when does creating a backup copy of licensed material qualify as Fair Use? It doesn't. It never has. It probably never will.
From the above page:
...the fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.
Get your terms straight and maybe people will actually address the issues that you feel strongly about.
Whatever you say, Hiliary. I hope you paid for all those KD Lang CD's
Re:Accept DMCA? (Score:2)
Re:Accept DMCA? (Score:4, Informative)
a use of copyrighted material that does not constitute an infringement of the copyright provided the use is fair and reasonable and does not substantially impair the value of the work or the profits expected from it by its owner
As you are allowed to make backup copies for yourself (this has been deemed legal by the courts) and backup copies for yourself do not hurt the profits of the owner, it IS fair use. Stop trolling, please.
[findlaw.com]
findlaw dictionary
[cornell.edu]
the actual law, which doesn't really define it, as definition has been left up to the court (the findlaw def is current court def) but states that you can't be prosecuted for it especially if its non commerical in nature
Parent
Here's the text in case of Slashdotting... (Score:3, Informative)
Groundbreaking Suit Attacks Constitutionality of Digital Millennium Copyright Act
BERKELEY, CA (April 23, 2002) - 321 Studios today filed a complaint in U.S. District Court against nine major motion picture production companies in an effort to thwart industry threats to stop the sale of the firm's DVD Copy Plus software for making backup copies of DVDs. The complaint, filed in the Northern District of California, challenges the constitutionality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that was passed in 1998 to address the issue of copyright protection for digital content.
Citing 321 Studios' free speech rights under the First Amendment, the complaint asks the court to rule that the sale of DVD Copy Plus does not violate key provisions of the DMCA or unlawfully aid consumers in infringing copyright privileges associated with material stored in the DVD format. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that will permit 321 Studios to continue to sell DVD Copy Plus. No damages are sought.
The complaint names MGM Studios, Tristar Pictures, Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Time Warner Entertainment, Disney Enterprises, Universal City Studios, The Saul Zaentz Company and Pixar Corporation as defendants. It alleges that the movie studios, acting in part under the auspices of the Motion Picture Association of America, have threatened to sue 321 Studios and claim that the sale of DVD Copy Plus is illegal under the DMCA.
"We see this as a groundbreaking case with implications that extend to all kinds of digital content," said Daralyn J. Durie, a partner with Keker & Van Nest, LLP, of San Francisco, which is representing 321 Studios in the case. "We believe that there are substantial constitutional problems with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, not the least of which is barring consumers from exercising their right to make backup copies of DVDs they own. This is one of the first cases asking the court to rule on the crucial question of how this law impacts those rights."
"DVDs are notoriously susceptible to scratches, heat damage, loss and other problems, and our DVD Copy Plus software enables legal owners of DVD movies to protect their DVD investments by making legitimate backup or duplicate copies for their own use. In our mind, this is no different than making an extra personal copy of a music CD, which is perfectly legal," said Robert Moore, President of 321 Studios. "We decided to
proactively file this lawsuit not only to receive the courts' assurance that we are in compliance with the law but also to raise the broader question of how Americans' First Amendment rights can be protected in this digital age."
Information on DVD Copy Plus, a copy of the legal complaint, and a petition enabling consumers to voice their support for 321 Studios' position on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act can be found at http://www.321studios.com. 321 Studios is based in St. Louis, Missouri, with offices in Berkeley, California, and Wilmington, Delaware.
popups (Score:2, Informative)
VIVA LA DMCA! In all sereousness, i believe the software shoud be legal, but the marketing practices are quite deceptive. only after you have paid these people do you find out what the software really is. it is not even software. you get a list of programs you must download, and instructions on how to put it all together to rip a dvd and save it in VCD format. they even imply (without explicitly stating) that you can copy the whole dvd including special features and menus, but i have yet to see a way to do this.
"Is perfectly legal" (Score:5, Interesting)
They have to be circumventing that, therefore they are violating the DMCA. Not terribly hard to understand. (Well, the fact that they are violating a law which is on some levels hard to understand isn't.)
IANAL
Re:"Is perfectly legal" (Score:2)
Re:"Is perfectly legal" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Is perfectly legal" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:"Is perfectly legal" (Score:2, Informative)
Tough fight for 321Studio (Score:3, Insightful)
-Henry
Re:Tough fight for 321Studio (Score:3, Informative)
One thing to consider, for those who just can't get enough of the legal system, is that the 2600 case was in federal court in New York, with the appeal to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The new case is in federal court in San Francisco, and if there is an appeal, it will go to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Rulings from one federal circuit are not binding on either trial or appellate courts in other circuits. The court(s) in the 321 Studios case may or may not be influenced by the rulings in the 2600 case, but they are not bound by them.
Re:Tough fight for 321Studio (Score:3, Informative)
However, when there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, this is when the supreme court is most likely to take an appeal, to set a precedent which is binding in other circuits.
Maybe they don't break the encryption? (Score:2, Interesting)
On the other hand a direct copy could work - without ever decrypting the info on the DVD.
Re:Tough fight for 321Studio (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't make the mistake of thinking that the CCS encytion is there to keep pirates from copying the DVD. You can copy a protected DVD till the cows come home without even worrying about the encryption. The point of it is to sew up the *hardware* side of the business model.
This product would, however, fail to *preserve* the encryption in the backed-up VCD version, since VCDs don't need to pass an authentication to play.
Just a distinction - does the DMCA apply if the encryption in question is intended for a use other than to prevent copying the medium?
GMFTatsujin
Parent
Here's an idea (Score:2)
What we need is for some ballsy company with a few bucks to spare, to actually build a DVD player using the free DeCSS code. A single-disc player that acts exactly like a licensed player -- plays discs to the screen, no copying functions, it could even respect the region encoding.
What will the DVD Cartel say then? In that case they wouldn't be able to claim that anyone was trying to steal content, or destroy intellectual property -- the box would be very clearly designed to play legitimately obtained DVD's. Now that would be very interesting.
Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Informative)
The DVDCCA would point out that the unlicensed player almost certainly violates a long list of patents. Oh, and it would still violate the DMCA, because it would be circumventing encryption that controls access to a copyrighted work. The DMCA is about protecting works from access, not just from copying.
--Patrick
The true irony... (Score:2)
Just listen to the rhythm of the bandwidth rain...
Re:The true irony... (Score:2)
You can do it now legally, it's called fair use. If you have the DeCSS code [which can be found most anywhere] or a closed source imitation [usually with an interface] you can extract the movie data.
Then simply convert to mpeg-1 and viola!.
There is an unlimited amount of tools to do this - but you could also get a DivX
I would suggest getting this [tmpgenc.net] for a Windows platform because it can handle any movie type that you can play in Media Player. There are two versions out there but the 'free' version's site looks to be down so the link above is to the "Plus" homepage.
Now that you have an mpeg-1 movie file simply convert it with GNU's VCDImager [vcdimager.org]. There are versions for both Windows and Linux [Hell, even solaris and MacOSX of course, it's GNU]. I also see there are frontends for most platforms.
Works very well. Let me say though it's easier to download a DivX and break the law because fair use has been removed from the system.
DVD to VCD (Score:5, Interesting)
I've seen some pretty crappy VCDs and some pretty good ones, but none of them look like DVDs to me.
I would expect the studios to explore all angles.
Re:DVD to VCD (Score:2, Informative)
I've seen som VERY well done VCDs (offical ones) some of the startrek ones that are acutally CDi disks can be very good. But you can notice it the res is only 352x288 on a decent sized tele.
Also VCD's are designed to be played using hardare which does softs of smothing using filters. Playing them on a PC looks blocky, you notice a lot of artifates that you wouldn't see playing them via a Hardwre decoder or a real VCD palyer (I have a philps CDi player).
Best way to backup your DVD's is either to extract the video stream, and desired sound track and multiplex them back to a MPEG2 stream. Or use DivX to re-encode the Video stream, which can get good quality near the orginal. (theres always going some lose converting to another format).
Re:DVD to VCD (Score:2)
The Enemy of My Enemy is.... (Score:3, Insightful)
So, do we like them or hate them?
I guess I'll wait for the next slashback to tell me.
VCD is not very good (Score:3, Interesting)
I would like to be able to copy the DVDs I own just to have a backup, and personally I think there is nothing wrong/illegal about it. If I spend $30 on a new fancy DVD, and I accidently break it (which has happened.. some of those cases are really poorly designed), I have no recourse. I paid for the content on that DVD.
Of course, this has been said on this and other websites thousands of times. But the part that gets me is, here we have a technology that allows people to make really poor copies of something they OWN. VHS has been around for years doing the same thing (making poor/lesser quality copies). My VCR can make a better copy of a movie (as long as there is'nt any of that annoying copy-protection built in) then a VCD. With the VCR, it's legal, but with the software for something worse, it's illegal?
I really hope this company wins its case. And I hope lawmakers start to sit down and really examine what these laws are saying and doing.
Re:VCD is not very good (Score:2)
I'm using VCD to archive all my VHS tapes. Digitally cleaning the source has made of a *lot* for quality loss over the years, too. Entropy creeps into a VHS tape every time you play it - they're just too easy to damage. VCD gives me comparable quality without having to worry about whether the reading laser is going to scratch the medium. A good CDR won't start to degrade for a good long time too - by the time I have to replace the CDs, we'll be burning on holographic crystals or something.
VCD is, I think, the unsung underdog of the masses' recording technology. Most DVD players can play them, they don't require weird or expensive equipment to create (no more than a CDR), and there are no encryption or regional issues. You can even play them on a PC with no more than a CD drive. It's a positive boon for the amateur videomaking enthusiast, like the kids on Home Movies.
Viva la VCD!
GMFTatsujin
Re:VCD is not very good (Score:2)
I also have quite a few TV shows that I have missed/forgot to hit record on the VCR in data format (that I got of Kazaa). It has occured to me that I could probably record those shows onto VCD, which would be great considering the cost.
Mind you, these are programs that have been broadcast on television (or cable, which I pay for legally), recorded by somebody else and put into digital format (albeit, usually pretty poor sound/video quality).
Is this legal? Is it legal for me to have a copy of them on my hard drive? Is it legal for me to put them onto media like VCD?
To me, it seems as if it should'nt be. Recording of broadcast televison is legal. Digital recording of broadcast televison is legal (Tivo). Making a tape of a broadcast show and lending it to my freind is legal. So does it become illegal if I personally forgot to program my VCR to record it?
Just a thought.
Re:VCD is not very good (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:VCD is not very good (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention the fact that DVDs can go out of print and companies that produce them can go out of business.
Judging before interestest become vested (Score:5, Interesting)
It would have been interesting
a) Those who subsequently have a problem with it will likely garner much less sympathy from the average person if it was common knowledge that they didn't do anything about the problem when they had the chance and the $$ behind the problem was unknown.
b) The company seeking to sell the potentially illegal software cannot be criticised for taking advantage of the lack of legislation in new areas of technology, which lends credibility to the struggle; ie, they arn't interested in challenging the status quo because they are clockin' 100$ an hour in sales, but rather because they believe that they should have the right to sell said software. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one - they are not interested in changing laws to continue making money, but rather to allow them to try and make money on a claimed innovation. I think Napster always had an uphill PR battle with the 'cynical traditional devout capitalist' crowd, because their interestests were so clearly vested at the time, due to the astonding success of the software by the time their shit was hitting the courts. With the company mentioned in the article, they are not a surefire money maker, which shows that part of the reason they wish to knock down laws is because they believe they _should_ be able to sell the software, not because the employees don't want to take a step down in terms of living standards in the middle of a 'killer app' epidemic.
Re:Judging before interestest become vested (Score:3, Informative)
DVD Copy Plus? Grabbed a copy .. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:DVD Copy Plus? Grabbed a copy .. (Score:4, Informative)
Mod this post up, because I got ripped off and I am admitting it so that other people don't make the same mistake.
Parent
DeCSS (Score:3, Informative)
So what's Plan B? (Score:3, Interesting)
My question is simple ... what happens to the company, if it doesn't get approved?
They are currently sell only one product ... the DVD Copier, and giving away DVD Photo Pro ... is that enough to sell and have the company not go away?
If it's ruled that the DVD Copier software is not legal ... could that fact actually influence it to be legal, since the DMCA would then effectively put (a) company(ies) out of business?
According to their own Press Release [321studios.com] they are going on the offensive ...
Best wishes ... and good luck.
Do'h! (Score:2)
I like that. I'll do the same thing.
"By reading this agreement, you hereby agree that SJ Zero shall not be held responsible for any crimes committed by him or involving him. Breaking this agreement will give Sj Zero the right to poke you with a pointed stick until(but not before) you apologize, crying like a baby."
So much for the great blackout. I decided to forget about that after I realized that there were more posts in the first 24 hours of the blackout than in the week before.
Am I the only one... (Score:2)
Who got confused reading this one, thinking that this company was 989 Studios [989sports.com], developer of playstation sports games?
:^)
Ryan Fenton
Re:it's D M C A (Score:3, Funny)
Now I know why my submissions are always getting rejected! I spell everything correctly and the editors think I'm spelling it wrong!!