Judge Rules Against RealDVD 407
mattOzan writes "Judge Marilyn Hall Patel was unswayed by RealNetworks' defense of their product under the Fair Use Doctrine, as she declared RealDVD illegal and barred its distribution. As she said in her ruling, 'So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.' She also said RealNetworks was aware of the conflict between their agreement and their plans for the software: 'Real did not elect to return (or destroy, with appropriate certification) the CSS General Specifications after it received them, as Real had a right to do under the agreement... This behavior indicates that Real understood it to be bound by the CSS General Specifications as well as the other technical specifications received after execution of the CSS License Agreement.'"
Double edged sword on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:5, Informative)
While I hate RealNetworks and all it stands for, and will never forgive them for taking over online media with their crappy bloated players and codecs....I think I hate the movie industry just a little more. Especially Sony Pictures. I think the net effect (as usual) is that this sucks for consumers.
No, the net effect is that there is no possible way to exercise your right to a single backup of a DVD for your personal use. Despite the 2007 DVD Jukebox ruling [slashdot.org], every DVD copying solution [slashdot.org] seems to be illegal. So what you do not realize when you're purchasing DVDs is that they are not only effectively DRM'd, they ignore your right to fair use.
I'm interested in watching RealNetwork's antitrust claims against the industry [slashdot.org]. I could think of some very basic arguments to be used in that case. Hell, I think someone should take up the case of fair use violations against them.
When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to create a backup that I use and store the DVD in safe keeping. If they don't want me to do this, distribute your films on a more robust media. This ruling is down right horrible for consumers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to create a backup that I use and store the DVD in safe keeping. If they don't want me to do this, distribute your films on a more robust media.
If the film industry doesn't want to deal with viewers' pesky "fair use" rights, then really they should not distribute their films on any media and then they could have the fine grained control they want. After a few months of being in the red they will come back to their senses and realize that maybe their customers are important to their well-being after all.
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:5, Informative)
You can write your own tool to do it, you just can't obtain one or give it to anyone else.
Note carefully that I didn't say that makes any sense, but the letter of the law does allow each individual to create and use such a tool, purely for their own personal use.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can write your own tool to do it, you just can't obtain one or give it to anyone else.
The law doesn't make any provision against obtaining the tool. The DMCA criminalizes the production and distribution of the tool to bypass copyright protections. Practically, it means you can only obtain a tool from people breaking the law.
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Or from another country where such programs are not illegal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Alternatively, they would charge the person in the US even though they live elsewhere and then, on any visit to the US, the person would be arrested and tossed in jail.
FTFY. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Then I guess this gallery [cmu.edu] should be useful for a lot of people.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. Remember the DMCA prohibits both the distribution OR production of such tools. Now as a matter of practicality if you make your own nobody could possibly know about it, but still, it's technically illegal for you to produce such a tool, even for your own use.
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:5, Funny)
This comment is worded exactly as intended. Any application of fantabulous "Fixed that for you" jokes will be "modded up and hilarious".
Fixed that for you.
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:5, Informative)
You can write your own tool to do it, you just can't obtain one or give it to anyone else.
As others have pointed out, this is incorrect. I thought I'd include the actual letter of the law here:
Writing one yourself would be considered "manufacturing".
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:4, Insightful)
Writing a program is not manufacturing.
Not to support the DMCA crap, but yes. I haven't checked Merrian-Webster on the subject, but under any competent interpretation, yes it is...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Writing a program is not manufacturing.
Wow! Your flawless logic has convinced me! Now you just have to use that exact same argument to convince all the judges and lawyers who would say you're a complete fucking tool.
Dmitry Sklyarov was arrested for "manufacturing" software that could read ROT-13 encrypted PDFs. The software was distributed by someone else, but he got nailed for manufacturing. They only dropped the charges when he agreed to testify "against" his employer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Manufacturing pretty much means "the process of making something" whether by hand or machine. Writing a program would certainly seem to fit that definition.
Seems like the law contradicts itself if there is supposedly a Fair Use element to the law, yet no way to legally exercise said element.
Congress or SCotUS will need to straighten this out. I sadly have little confidence in either institution to do so honestly/properly.
-Matt
Write your own tool to do it? Umm, don't see how? (Score:2)
The courts seem to be saying that simply because DVD movies are encrypted, the laws banning unauthorized decryption of said content trump one's "fair use" rights to copy the source material.
(That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from their making the distinction to Real Networks that their unwillingness to "return or destroy" the CSS agreement constituted their loss of rights to market this product.)
Ultimately, such an agreement is either legally binding, or it isn't -- and if "fair use" rights trum
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to create a backup that I use and store the DVD in safe keeping. If they don't want me to do this, distribute your films on a more robust media. This ruling is down right horrible for consumers.
I fully agree to your reasoning. But I think that the only real consequence is: Do not buy any movie, music, software that is distributed on DRM "protected" media.
This behavior, btw, may over time maybe also change the offer.
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's why, if I want to buy an old movie, I'll buy a laserdisc. No DRM whatsoever.
Too bad they stopped producing LDs in ~2000.
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:5, Insightful)
When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to create a backup that I use and store the DVD in safe keeping. If they don't want me to do this, distribute your films on a more robust media. This ruling is down right horrible for consumers.
I want to copy it on to my mediacenter pc so I can play it on any pc in my house. I also can't stand those ads at the beginning of the dvd. I don't need to see their damn warning for the thousandth time either.
As opposed to an activist judge? (Score:5, Insightful)
However, the reach of the DMCA is vast and it does not allow courts the discretion to make this assessment and render a value judgment untethered from the language of the statute. In the words of Justice Cardozo, âoe[l]aws are not to be sacrificed by courts on the assumption that legislation is the play of whim and fancy.â People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 62 (1920).The court is bound by the DMCA provisions at issue, even if it determines the extent to which innovative technologies realize their future potential.
Basically, she's saying that Congress wrote this law, and it's not unconstitutional, so she can't strike it down. If you want to change it, contact your legislator. Don't biatch at her.
Re: (Score:2)
It reminds me of those crazy old timey marijuana/narco laws (History Channel w/ their Hooked program).. along the lines of it being ok to grow and to sell, but was illegal to possess. Makes you feel like you have a right still, but effectively quashing any attempt to take advantage of the right.
Double speak ftw!
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:5, Interesting)
More robust media would actually mean that the media in question should come with it's own backup, in a burnable format so that a consumer could make a duplicate of the DVD/BlueRay/CD/etc *when* that physical media gets scratched or damaged in such a way as to make it non-playable on the intended media reader.
If consumers want to rent a movie or music there are options available. If they want to purchase a movie with a lifetime license to view said movie then they deserve either a) lifetime warranty on the physical media or b) a means to backup and duplicate the media to ensure continued viability of their purchase.
Anything less should be a violation of consumers rights and a violation of the law.
Yes it is a burden the media companies may not like. OTOH they do profit from the sale of the media on these portable yet fragile formats and therefore assume the risk themselves out of business interest.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No, Clearly a Horrible Anti-Fair Use Ruling (Score:4, Interesting)
More robust media would actually mean that the media in question should come with it's own backup, in a burnable format so that a consumer could make a duplicate of the DVD/BlueRay/CD/etc *when* that physical media gets scratched or damaged in such a way as to make it non-playable on the intended media reader.
Drop the DRM and the media already comes with a copy that can be copied for backup purposes: the original copy.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you're saying that someone should invent a kind of media that comes with its own second copy, which consumers can access when, and only when, the original media becomes unreadable. So when my first copy becomes unreadable, I can get access to my second copy. What about when my second copy becomes unreadable? Do I get a third? Is it infinitely recursive so that an infinite number of copies are stored on this medium?
And what's the point of trying to make it more complicated? The only thing that denies people the right to make unlimited copies of media which they own for any purpose they like is copyright. Copyright was designed to prevent publishers from profiting from exploiting authors, and therefore has exemptions that allow people to make backups of the media they own. Movie studios don't have any particular right to deny you your right to back up your movies.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No, no, no... lifetime warranty probably wouldn't be legal.
Instead, it should be under warranty for as long as the work it's a copy of is under copyright... ...which just happens to be longer than a lifetime these days.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Double edged sword on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
It's sad really- DRM and things like this make me think twice (or more) before going to the movie theater or buying a DVD. I don't want to support companies like Sony anymore. If I go on a business trip- I want to be able to watch movies I PAID for on my laptop, without having to use the costly (battery-wise) DVD drive or carry bulky DVDs. I also now want to watch movies on my netbook- which doesn't have a DVD drive at all. In any case- I am talking about DVDs that I PAID for!
This really has nothing to do with piracy- it is pure greed on the part of a handful of media companies. They aren't content with you paying once or twice to watch a movie (in theater and on DVD). The want you to pay 3 or more times for the SAME movie, just to get it in different formats you should be able to do yourself- DVD, Blu-Ray, Digital, Online.
Want another example of their greed in action- check out the recent news about how they are applying the screws to Red Box. At least I have to give Sony credit for negotiating with them, while the others refuse. I'm sure Red Box got screwed somehow in the deal anyway, but at least they can still rent out Sony's releases.
Re:Double edged sword on this one (Score:5, Insightful)
This really has nothing to do with piracy- it is pure greed on the part of a handful of media companies. They aren't content with you paying once or twice to watch a movie (in theater and on DVD). The want you to pay 3 or more times for the SAME movie
It's more than that - the anti-circumvention provision of the DMCA are expressly designed to eliminate fair use (as we see here) and "work around" the copyright expiration clause of the US Constitution.
Think about it - barring any more copyright extension, all of your DVDs will become public domain in 100 years or so... so you would be free to copy them, except that you're prohibited from owning or creating anything that actually could copy them.
BitTorrent, the legal way of getting backup copies (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:BitTorrent, the legal way of getting backup cop (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course, it doesn't help that RealDVD is more accessible to consumers, and takes the easy "wizard" approach of doing a single task well. libcss is not a special purpose ripping program, even if it enables that sort of functionality. RealDVD is.
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't Debian used to have a server somewhere in Europe for distributing encryption stuff that wasn't allowed to be distributed in the USA?
(I don't remember the details, as I don't live in the USA so it didn't affect me.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yes - in America. That's part of why Fedora doesn't include it but Suse does - Fedora is quite American-centric, while Suse has always been quite German-centric. Just because using libcss2 in the US is illegal to make use of "fair use" rights doesn't mean that it's illegal in the rest of the world ;)
Thanks DMCA and WIPO! (Score:5, Insightful)
So it's perfectly legal for customers to make their own backup copies of media, just as long as it's impossible for them to do. God, I love modern IP law!
Well, I guess everyone could go get a programming degree and write their own copying software. Or we could just break the law (since the law at this point has turned almost 100% of the citizens of the world into lawbreakers already, in one form or another).
And before any of you jump in to point out that the DMCA is just a U.S. thing, you had better keep in mind that the DMCA is just the U.S. implementation of the WIPO COpyright Treaty [wikipedia.org], so these types of court cases are probably in the pipeline for your country soon too!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Who says that any law has to be fair or just?
All laws are the result of compromise among the concerned parties favoring the party that has the most influence - whether it's money (big corps) or a very vocal group (religious conservatives).
Re: (Score:2)
That is not quite what the judge is saying. "it may well be legal" != "it is legal"
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Well, I guess everyone could go get a programming degree and write their own copying software.
It's much simpler than that. Just don't buy the pesky things in the first place.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What the U.S. needs to do is amend the law so that you don't have the stupidity of having fair use rights, but not being able to (legally) exercise them the moment someone applies some copy protection.
Fat chance of that when our only two political parties both support a heavy-handed stance on IP law. One party (Democrats) is beholden to Hollywood, and so they support tough IP laws. The other party (Republicans) and beholden to big business so THEY support tough IP laws too. Basically, consumers and normal
Repeal the DMCA! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's an affront to fair use. The courts however, have acted in the obviously correct manner. The DMCA is very clear, and leaves no wiggle room. It was designed very carefully to ensure it would prevent people from using any unauthorized software with DVDs.
Fortunately, this does not yet affect my ability to read DVDs under Linux.
Re:Repeal the DMCA! (Score:5, Insightful)
As I understand it, no, it's not so obvious. It seems to me that what we have are two laws that are coming into direct conflict with each other. One says that you can do something, and one says you can't. The issue at hand, the thing that these court cases are supposed to be settling, is which one has priority.
Unfortunately, it sounds to me like the courts are siding with the MPAA, that protection of content is more important than fair use. It's a shame, really. I'm not sure that the judge understands that this is about more than just Real trying to sell a product, it's about upholding fair use laws that protect the "little guy" from an oppressive industry.
Once fair use laws are precedented out of existence, what's next? Will copyright law (which, let's not kid ourselves, is what the DMCA is just a front for) override our right to make a parody of something? Our right to tell our buddies who won the football game last night? How long until the industry decides that the whole pesky free speech and freedom of expression things are encroaching upon their profits and must be overturned as well?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, the courts don't have any discretion in deciding which law has priority; it is well settled that when two laws conflict, the later one controls.
Re: (Score:2)
As I understand it, no, it's not so obvious. It seems to me that what we have are two laws that are coming into direct conflict with each other. One says that you can do something, and one says you can't. The issue at hand, the thing that these court cases are supposed to be settling, is which one has priority.
No two laws are coming into conflict with each other. For anyone who isn't a moron it's quite clear that the latter law, the DMCA in this case, takes precedence over an older law, in this case the 1976 Copyright Act. This has always been the case.
Re:Repeal the DMCA! (Score:4, Informative)
Fair use does exist as a "right" according to the copyright act of 1976. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Rights exist independently of law. The right to property for instance. I would also argue that there is a right to do math. The DMCA violates both of those rights.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, DMCA has problems, but I highly doubt that a: congresscritters will repeal it or b: you want section 230 to be gone, so throwing DMCA out the door isn't going to help that as much as it would solve some problems.
so let's think this through: the proper answer is, lets fix this thing up and get rid of the ridiculous anti-circumvention portions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is up to the courts to interpret the laws made by congress. And part of that interpretion includes the ability, nay, duty to strike down laws when two or more of them are in conflict. Either declare that the DMCA supersedes and (in US legal terminology) moots various property laws, first sale doctrines and earlier data laws, or strike down the DMCA.
Since when (Score:2)
Does a contract provision trump a Federal law?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the ones writing the contracts were allowed to contribute to the campaigns of the justices who later rule on them.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/01/us/01judges.html [nytimes.com]
Innovation (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh. Wait...
Absolutely brilliant ruling Judge. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Absolutely brilliant ruling Judge. (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, it was. It showed a fundamental understanding of the law and how it pertained to the ruling she made. She got it right. It sucks, and hard, but she got it 100% right.
The judge's ruling is bound by the current law. It doesn't matter if she thinks it's stupid or accurate, she's bound by it and gave the ruling that she was bound to.
Re:Absolutely brilliant ruling Judge. (Score:5, Insightful)
If we wanted the laws to be followed to the letter, we would have coded up an Judge system in Lisp by now.
But, we don't want that. We want Judges to make judgments based on both the letter and the spirit of the law. (This applies in sentencing as well as judgments by the way.) We want Judges to be able to spot discrepancies, loopholes and injustices in our current laws and rule against them where it is right to do so.
If you tell me it's legal to rake my lawn, but you then say it's illegal for anyone to give me gardening tools, do you really think that your position is just and logical. It doesn't take a fool to see what is going on here. The law and the legal system are being strained to breaking point, and that's good for neither justice or respect for the rule of law.
Why should anyone respect and uphold a legal system that twists itself into contradictions and connives to deny people the very rights its says they are entitled to? How can anyone go into a courtroom, expecting justice, when they know that the court has no interest in that. When they know the court only cares about an ironclad, rigid and dogmatic interpretation of any rag of a law our legislature see fit to pass; Or worse, only cares about a political interpretation of the law and their rulings within society at large?
In such an environment, why should anyone petition the courts for justice instead of making their own? Our contemporary cinema hails a masked vigilante who goes about beating criminals in the dead of night. What does that say about our respect for the legal system? Judges need to stop being automatons that parse legalease, and start doing their jobs, i.e. delivering justice.
Re: (Score:3)
Your post is completely foolish.
You do not want judges who will overrule the law based on their own individual sense of justice--whatever that may be.
You want judges who predictably follow the law--so that the rest of us CAN ORDER OUR LIVES SO THAT WE WILL STAY OUT OF COURT!!!!!
If we can't predict what judges will do, we can't avoid litigation risk.
Litigation risk is a COST. An unnecessary, socially unproductive, cost that should be minimized as much as possible.
You may want unpredictability in the courtro
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Absolutely brilliant ruling Judge. (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, it was. It showed a fundamental understanding of the law and how it pertained to the ruling she made. She got it right. It sucks, and hard, but she got it 100% right.
There has to be a different answer than this. There must be a part of the government whose job it is to make sure law is rational. That seems like the sort of thing for the judicial to do. If she is not at fault then the entire judicial system is. This is not a rational law, and a system which does not correct irrational laws is broken.
As to her culpability: Did she state in her opinion that the law is irrational and should be changed but cannot be because the system is broken? Did she identify any possible path for the irrational law to be changed? If not, she is complicit in the broken system and should be judged just as harshly as the system itself. When the gatekeepers of justice fail to seek justice in favor of blind obedience to the letter of an unjust law, they are failing in their sworn duty to the nation.
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Handbrake, damnit. (Score:5, Informative)
Just use Handbrake. It's free, adds no DRM, and US law can't touch it because it's hosted outside the US.
I don't even know why people bother with the DMCA. It's US-only. Notice how all the fun cracking and releasing and such happens outside the US.
It only takes one person to rip the movie once. After that, copy protection is pointless.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Just use Handbrake. It's free, adds no DRM, and US law can't touch it because it's hosted outside the US
Actually, Handbrake is distributed without any DMCA-violating software. I don't know where it's hosted, but I don't think there's any legal impediment to distributing it in the U.S.
In order to read encrypted DVDs, Handbrake delegates to VNC, which users must download and install separately.
(I wonder if such an arrangement would really fly if it were tested by somebody like Real or Apple. It's probably too user-unfriendly and unsafe -- requiring your users to download a third-party piece of software which
Re:Handbrake, damnit. (Score:4, Informative)
No. Handbrake will use libdvdcss, if it is available [handbrake.fr], on any platform but Windows. VLC is mentioned because libdvdcss comes with VLC 0.9x.
IOW, while Handbrake itself doesn't violate the DMCA, it can be used to violate the DMCA by adding a library that actively violates the DMCA.
Also, for GP: DMCA is most certainly not US only. Other countries have laws similar to the DMCA on the books.
Re:Handbrake, damnit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't even know why people bother with the DMCA. It's US-only
For the time being. Come back to me in 1-5 years. I guarantee other countries will have their own DMCA. Canada is next. Mark my words. You seriously underestimate the global influence the RIAA/MPAA have. Just look at Sweden. They were able to pressure the local authorities to raid TPB and bring them to court and pass wiretapping laws which allow authorities to pursue file sharers. Insane!
The MPAA/RIAA will only lose influence when the American dollar finally takes a dump.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That happened. Last year, the US economy will not recover for a few years and probably never 100%.
You are also vastly overestimating how much influence an American organisation has over the rest of the world. When it comes down to it protectionism will trump any international treaties. Despite how subversive the RIAA/MPIAA is other content industry organisations are moving away from them at the risk of becoming irrelev
decss (Score:3, Funny)
Real did not elect to return (or destroy, with appropriate certification) the CSS General Specifications
maybe they used DVD Jon's version?
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it is already illegal, and has been so since the DMCA. FTFA: "a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.' "
At least, you can still possess it, for now.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly enough, your direct link to AnyDVD is illegal in Germany. Will we see STOP signs? Or will Gemany close /.?
Welcome to Idiocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the law says you can make and keep a backup copy of your DVD. But since the law also says that making or delivering a tool to do that is illegal, what are consumers expected to do?* Not everyone can afford to hire Superman to come over for the evening to burn backup DVDs with his laser vision. (Not to mention, he gets bored and starts flipping bits for the hell of it.)
*BTW: consumers are expected to buy the same DVDs multiple times as they get scratched up, left on a windowsill to warp by your nephew or chewed up by your dog, That's what consumers are expected to do.
Re:Welcome to Idiocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
And that's because they're consumers and not citizens. Citizens take an interest in what goes on in their society beyond the sound bite du jour, and the DMCA and absurd copyright extension laws would never have survived in the face of an active citizenry.
The problem is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Judges are not held accountable for their own bullshit. We just have to collectively hope they are fair, similar to dictators or kings. If they ruin lives, oh well.
What? As I understand it, a judge's purpose is to decide whether or not an individual (corporate or otherwise) has broken a law, not to legislate from the bench. Your statement makes no sense. This judge stated that her decision was based on the *laws* put in place by the legislature. Take your bitterness to your *elected* local Congressman, not the judge who has to muck around in the horseshit they spew and figure out what to do with it.
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I agree that the judge made only decision possible under current law.
However, I'd like to point out that fair use is statutory law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html [cornell.edu]
It's true that it has/leaves more room for interpretation by the courts than some statutes, but it's still based on statute.
Re:The problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Judges are not held accountable for their own bullshit. We just have to collectively hope they are fair, similar to dictators or kings. If they ruin lives, oh well.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong. The purpose of judges is to uphold the law. This is true even citizens think the law sucks. Personally I think it sucks that the law prevents me from walking into Wal-Mart and grabbing all the money I can from the cash registers, but even if the judge agrees with me, I'm going to be prosecuted.
Whether you agree with the it or not, the DMCA is extremely clear that RealDVD is illegal. There is no ambiguity in this case. As a result, the judge really had no choice but to enforce this ruling.
Yes, the DMCA is retarded. Yes, the ruling implies that we have the right to make backups of our DVDs but not the means to make those backups, which makes no fucking sense. But decisions like that are not the domain of judges, nor should they be, unless the law is unconstitutional, which the DMCA, despite its many flaws, is not. Judges exist to enforce the laws that Congress passes. If you think the laws suck, your legislators are the ones you should be griping about. The judge made the right call here.
Re: (Score:2)
The REAL problem is... (Score:2)
I would be very surprised if the Judge wouldn't have prefered ruling the other way. However, the law is what it is. Condemning the judge for something they cannot contr
I wouldn't say this delays the distro of RealDVD (Score:4, Funny)
More of a buffering really.
You are free to shovel on your property, but... (Score:2)
...all shovels are illegal.
That's my interpretation, but IANAL. Any thoughts from those how know something about law?
Re: (Score:2)
In this case, (the shovel analogy) shoveling is legal, and ownership of a shovel is also legal. Even making a shovel is legal. What is illegal is the distribution of shovels, free or not, to other people. You are also not permitted to use your shovel to shovel someone else's pile of dirt. You may only shovel dirt that you own already.
Since most people are not in the possession of a forge to create a shovel blade, this usually means that only the people who can make shovels are the only ones who can actu
Simple Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop buying movies that have anything to do with the MPAA. Stop going to movies at the theatres too...unless it's an independent film. While I'm ranting, stop buying anything musicwise associated with the RIAA. This site [boycott-riaa.com] can help you find out who to boycott.
Furthermore, reject the purchase of any media (music, movies, games) that utilize DRM. Don't even check-out these materials from your local library--for those lucky enough to have a library that offers music, movies, and software. While you are at it, if
The opposite of a Bong (Score:3, Interesting)
In many countries it's illegal to smoke marijuana, but legal to sell the tools to do so (Head Shops).
In America, it's legal to make copies of your DVDs, but illegal to sell tools to do so..
Kind of makes a mockery of the law, doesn't it?
Good ruling, bad law (Score:2)
It seems to me that the judge applied the law correctly as it is written; however, the law is bad. It'd be nice if the law could be struck down in a court case, but that's only going to happen if the law violates the constitution, not simply because the law is stupid. Write your congressman, or run for congress yourself. This is why things like the (stupidly named) Pirate Party need to be supported.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
After a ruling like this, congress should be proactive and fix the law. But they won't. Why? 'cause they could give two shits about making things right. They're busy trying to make themselves look good. So they're going to be 100% focused on "fixing" health care.
"A device or tool" - so any computer, then? (Score:3, Insightful)
My computer can copy bits from a CD, making it a device or tool that permits me (a customer) to copy copyrighted stuff. Does that make my computer illegal as well (if I ever hauled it to America)?
Obviously this is not surprising... (Score:3, Interesting)
The judge said it all. We are entitled to Fair Use but any attempt to exercise that right is illegal. There are two ways that this can change: Congress or the Supreme Court. I have little faith in either.
It's a democracy (Score:5, Insightful)
makes perfect sense (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF (Score:3, Interesting)
I find the ruling really missing the point. When you sell the dvd copying software, it allows a user to make a backup copy of their dvd, which they already own. The problem is when THAT copy is given or sold to someone else other then the owner.
I think they should effectively come up with a better way to watermark the copy of the dvds and send a bot to monitor torrents and such, then the watermark (of the original dvd) could then be used to track down the owner, and say if 20,000 copies showed up on the net or on the black market, you could easily know who was responsible.
However, it is easier for every one, including this useless judge, to just point the finger at the person allowing legit copying to not happen. Smoking pot is legal, selling pot is illegal, so the only way to ge your pot is through the gov.
Copying a dvd is legal, selling the dvd copying software is illegal, so does that mean owning the dvd copying software is also illegal or using it...I am interested in seeing how it pans out, and what sort of precedent this case sets!
Outlaws (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You appear to be confusing the cost to produce the disk, and the cost to produce it's contents, and what you're in fact being asked to pay for.
Unless the DVD you buy is completely blank, it cost more then 5 cents to produce.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have kids do you?
When/If you do you'll get to know the joy of children handling their Dora, Diego, Strawberry Shortcake, Wiggles, Weebles, Big Red Dog, Elmo, Baby/Young Einstein, the list goes on - DVDs with peanut butter encrusted fingers. These titles aren't cheap and even if you get them used at garage sales for $1 a piece, replacing them could be $20 - $30 or your child getting pissed randomly because their favorite episode is no longer available (no it's not the end of the world but they act
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice doublespeak there, Marilyn, but a right that you have no way to exercise does not exist.
But Fair Use isn't a right. Fair Use only exists because Congress codified exceptions in the 1976 Copyright Act to allow people to do certain things without them being a violation of copyright. Congress can revoke such fair use at any time they want since they created such exemptions in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
If we've learned anything over the last twenty years of the 'net, it's that "free" is a really hard price to compete with.
The answer is to NOT compete with "free", to accept that like many times in the past, technology has obsoleted products and businesses and business practices. Cory Doctorow has no problem getting on the NYT best seller list despite the fact that you can download his books for free from his web site, and check them out for free at the library. In fact, the "free as in beer" aspect is what
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Uh, no, that is not correct.
CSS-protected DVDs have a title key which until the proper key is presented to the drive prevents you from copying protected sectors from the disc. So your dd command will fail when it gets to protected (aka scrambled) sectors.
Once you get the title key set correctly, the drive will then let you read all the sectors. The rest of the CSS protection involves encryption of those protected sectors. You could, in theory, put off that decryption operation until you went to play the
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You're right; you can only do this on DVDs after the title key has been presented.
However, if I start to play the DVD and quit, I can then copy it. The copying software itself obviously is not decrypting/circumventing anything, so why is it covered under DMCA?