DVD Copyright Case Mulled over by Judge 270
howhardcanitbetocrea writes "news.com is reporting that the judge in a closely watched lawsuit challenging the legality of DVD-copying software said she was 'substantially persuaded' by past court rulings that favored copyright holders, but closed a hearing Thursday without issuing a ruling in the case." This is a case that could very well determine the future of the DMCA, and the article does a good job of summarizing the arguments from both sides.
The Judge should be persuaded by (Score:5, Informative)
DVD X Copy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is nice (Score:5, Informative)
"I am substantially persuaded by them," she told both sides.
referring to previous decisions in favour of copyright holders in similar cases.
Don't use DVD X Copy... Use one of these instead: (Score:5, Informative)
DVD2One [dvd2one.com] is incredible fast, and gives the option of 'Movie Only' stripping menus and extras, or 'Entire Disc'. It can process an entire 8GB DVD in about 25 minutes on my 1.4 GHz T-bird.
DVD 95 Copy [dvd95copy.net] will preseve entire disc stucture (resampling video and giving option of discarding unwanted audio) Takes about 2-3 hours to process.
Pinnacle Instant Copy [pinnaclesys.com] will also preserve entire disc. Takes about 4 hours to process disc.
Hope this helps,
.:diatonic:.
Re:Possible inconsistent interpretation of the law (Score:5, Informative)
one please explain to me how the VCR is any different?
Encryption and the DMCA. If DVD's weren't encrypted this wouldn't even be an issue.
Re:DVD X Copy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:This is nice (Score:4, Informative)
She was referring to Universal v 2600 which favored the copyright holders, and US v Elcomsoft which favored fair use.
Re:Backups as fair use? (Score:5, Informative)
A can opener or a book is a physical item. When you buy a can opener, you're buying one can opener. You actually posses that item. This is not so with DVDs, according to the MPAA and their cronies: instead, you are buying the right to watch the movie contained in that DVD. Therefore it's reasonable to claim that this right persists regardless of what happens to the physical medium the movie is contained on.
The movie is an abstract concept (i.e. "intellectual property"); the can opener is a physical item. The two are inherently different.
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:5, Informative)
Originally, the copyright industry wanted a law that restricted acts of circumvention (with no distinction about what kind of circumvention it was). Defenders of fair use complained, stating that excerpts could not be made for commentary if it were impossible to copy portions of a work.
The legislature decided that protection schemes that prevented copying of material would violate the fair use doctrine and would not be specially protected by law. Instead, copyright holders would be granted legal recourse in case of a breached access protection scheme.
This is convoluted, of course, since you can't copy something if you can't access it. But legislators never seemed to get that far in their reasoning.
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:5, Informative)
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:4, Informative)
Re:stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Major Omission !! This DVD9-DVD5 tool is free. (Score:5, Informative)
It's fast like DVD2ONE...
Guide to DVDshrink [doom9.org]
Re:hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Sure, but let's take some piece of software that circumvents DVD encryption. While the contents are protected by copyright, circumventing the protection is illegal. After they go public domain (REMEMBER: even though the copyright period is being perpetually extended, according to the current law they do run out), circumventing the protection is legal.
Now, the DMCA makes this software illegal. Period. Therefore, it effectively makes circumventing encryption on no-longer-copyrighted works illegal.
[TMB]
US Code (Score:2, Informative)