Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Movies News Your Rights Online

MPAA Prevails Against 321 Studios' DVD X Copy 347

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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Prevails Against 321 Studios' DVD X Copy

Comments Filter:
  • by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <spencr04NO@SPAMhighpoint.edu> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:14PM (#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.
    • Yes, but your DVD-R drive has no hope of creating a double-layered DVD like the kind Hollywood makes, so there's no way to put that image back into your standard DVD player with consumer equipment.
      • I thought Philips was getting ready to release those. In fact, I think I remember reading (on here in fact) that some existing drives would just need a firmware upgrade to write double layered discs.
      • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

        by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:24PM (#8350195)
        Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • by glitch! ( 57276 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @03:09PM (#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 @04:36PM (#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.
    • by FelixCat ( 594769 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:22PM (#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.

      • You do NOT need deCSS to create an image of a dvdrom, obviously. A 1-1 copy will work fine.
        • by Anonymous Coward

          You do NOT need deCSS to create an image of a dvdrom, obviously. A 1-1 copy will work fine.

          Except you can't write the CSS key to a standard DVD-R. The area on the DVD-R where the CSS would go is not writable. You have to have a speacial DVD for Authoring drive and media (both are much more expensive) in order to write the CSS key.

          In other words, you cannot make a 1-1 copy using standard DVD-R media and drives (and expect a DVD player to read it). You also cannot CSS encrypt your own content onto stand

      • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @03:24PM (#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 @02:32PM (#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.
  • more related news (Score:4, Informative)

    by stonebeat.org ( 562495 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:14PM (#8350113) Homepage
  • Sony? (Score:4, Funny)

    by roseblood ( 631824 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:15PM (#8350119)
    Isn't it Sony that made the VCR? Time to sue them, this lawsuit stuff works!
    • Re:Sony? (Score:3, Informative)

      by telekon ( 185072 )
      They tried... there was a lawsuit over VCRs, and there was a lawsuit over audiocassette recorders. But that was back when "Fair Use" still meant something as far as copyright law was concerned.
    • Actually, American companied invented the VCR, but after seeing no market for them we sold all the patents to Japan.
      • Re:Sony? (Score:3, Insightful)

        THe company was called Ampex.

        So, the media conglomerates managed to wedge a pinky into the dike. It's kind of like the cop pulling over one person for a ticket when everyone on the road is doing 85, it only pisses off the one person and has no effect on the other 999.

        The media companies will not relinquish their monopoly on 19th-century distribution methods, despite the fact that you can download practically any music CD, software, movie or TV show with a little effort.

        As long as they keep treating thei
        • Re:Sony? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Afrosheen ( 42464 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @03:11PM (#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.
  • Try this (Score:5, Informative)

    by markclong ( 575822 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:15PM (#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 @02:44PM (#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 @03:03PM (#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.

    • Better as well (Score:2, Informative)

      by dbCooper0 ( 398528 )
      The DVD Xcopy doesn't produce as good a copy as the DVD Shrink + Nero combo. I stumbled upon it when setting up a friend's new burner.

      At nearly the same time, I started reading that by April, the 8.5gb dual layer media and at least two brands of burners will be available.

    • Re:Try this (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wthynot ( 570397 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:51PM (#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 (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ScooterBill ( 599835 ) *
        Ahh yes, DVD shrink + CopyToDVD is the ticket. This way the kids can have their own copy that they can destroy without me having to go out an buy another. (They can kill a DVD pretty quickly).

        Trouble is that both these programs are in that shareware/minimal support camp. You never know if they will just disappear someday. Keep the original install handy.

        M
  • How long (Score:4, Funny)

    by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:15PM (#8350125)
    before DVD Y Copy comes out? :)
  • CNET (Score:5, Informative)

    by hendridm ( 302246 ) * on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:15PM (#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 @02:20PM (#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 (Score:2, Interesting)

      by kfg ( 145172 )
      Bearing in mind, of course, that the CNET article is factually wrong, the video data on a DVD is not encrypted at all, the copy software does not circumvent CSS, retaining it in the copies it makes and said copies employ CSS technology perfectly by preventing playback on non CSS equiped equipment and that the DMCA explicitly has a provision for retaining fair use rights.

      Other than that, yeah, it's black and white.

      KFG
  • by LostCluster ( 625375 ) * on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:16PM (#8350131)
    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 ) *
    Strike one for fair use.
    Um, seems like strike one against fair use.
  • What's next? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by megalogeek ( 519027 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:18PM (#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?

    • by jeorgen ( 84395 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:27PM (#8350212)
      I'm going to go hide under my bed. Will someone please come and get me when the world becomes a little more rational?

      Step one for rationality is to get people out from under their beds :-)

      /jeorgen

    • Re:What's next? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 )
      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?

      No, of course not -- and by the same token, you're quite legally entitled to take photos of any DVD disk you've bought.

      So what's the problem? :-)

      I sometimes use DVD2SVCD to rip DVDs onto CDRs in VCD or SVCD format. This allows me to give my daughter her own copy that she can play on her computer (which doesn't have a DVD drive) a
  • This is bullshit (Score:5, Interesting)

    by grioghar ( 228683 ) <thegrioNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:18PM (#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 ) <slashdotNO@SPAMmonkelectric.com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:22PM (#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.
      • by anubi ( 640541 )
        I'm pissed off as hell the way this business ramrods their business models on me.

        But whining about it won't do any good.

        Face it fellas, they have guts. They don't mind going after and pissing off their own customers. They even call it good business!

        We consumer wimps don't even have the wherewithall to put our wallets back in our pockets and move along.

        They get paid well while we whine. I don't think its their fault at all... they are protecting their interests and business models - its US that are le

      • by mwa ( 26272 )
        If you "bought a license to the content", and they refuse to replace the media so you can excercise your contractual (license) rights, take them to small claims court. Even a small claims judgement is a judgement, so if they want to "license" then let them "license", but make them live up to their side of the contract.

        If we can rack up enough judgements, they'll either have to admit it's a sale or implement proper programs to replace failing media. Either way the consumer wins.

    • What am I supposed to do when I irrepairably scratch my favorite DVD? Go buy another one? That's crap.

      No, that's big big money for the movie industry. And here is the problem: the DVD copy software isn't the kind of piracy-enabler they'd like to make it out to be. The real threat with piracy comes from the people who put it online... which isn't what you do with this software. =b

      BTW, I like the sig. ;)

    • What am I supposed to do when I irrepairably scratch my favorite DVD? Go buy another one? That's crap

      When I spoke with the spokesperson for the NZ equivalent of the RIAA, he told me that making "backups" of disks was illegal and the industry would not allow it.

      His rationale was that if you buy a Porsche and you wreck or lose it, you simply have to go out and by another -- so why should a CD be any different?

      Amazing isn't it? These people don't seem (or choose not to) grasp the difference between the i
  • Quick Question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Mork29 ( 682855 ) <keith.yelnick@LA ... l minus math_god> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:19PM (#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?
    • but couldn't 3-2-1 say.... Open Source X-Copy and then we could all distribute it legally?

      Not anymore. That's what the injunction prevents. They can't do crap with it now. They could have a day before the conclusion of the case.

      Who would the MPAA have to sue then?

      Any entity that distributes it or makes it available. SourceForge, etc.
  • Good thing (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:20PM (#8350158)
    I downloaded it via BitTorrent some time ago.

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

    by NegativeK ( 547688 ) <tekarien AT hotmail DOT com> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:21PM (#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.
  • Fair use? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:22PM (#8350180) Homepage Journal
    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? (Score:3, Insightful)

      Bit by bit copying isn't enough to make solid backups at this point. Many commercially purchased DVDs are over 8 or 9 GBs and available DVD+-R/RW media is maxed at 4.7 GBs. Though companies like Verbatim are promising [digitalpos...uction.com] to release dual-layer disks, they aren't on the market yet. The only way (that I know of) to split a single commercially available disk onto several smaller writable media and still have it be playable is to break the CSS.

      What I'd like to see is someone taking the CSS code and writing a good
      • Even on single-layer DVDs, bit-for-bit copying can't happen on consumer DVD writing drives for CSS protected DVDs. You need an "authoring" drive and "authoring" media in order to be able to write the CSS keys.
      • Re:Fair use? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by roman_mir ( 125474 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:52PM (#8350372) Homepage Journal
        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.
  • by Lordofohio ( 703786 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:24PM (#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 @02:29PM (#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 @02:31PM (#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 @02:34PM (#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 @05:48PM (#8351570) 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.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:39PM (#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 @02:48PM (#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.

  • It was unavoidable (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2004 @02:58PM (#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 @03:01PM (#8350421)
    "The case had tested the limits of 1998's Digital Millenium Copyright Act"

    no limits, it seems.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    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
    • Show me where "legally back[ing] up [your] DVD . . . is described in fair use"? Fair use is defined in 17 USC 107 (try actually reading it [house.gov], before presuming rights which don't exist), which does not discuss backups. The only time a backup copy is mentioned is in 17 USC 117, which is exclusive to computer programs, which the audio-visual / motion picture (see 17 USC 106) portions of a DVD most certainly are not (setting aside the issue of menus and special feature bells and whistles, which may or may not b
  • Repeat after me... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by teetam ( 584150 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @03:06PM (#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 @03:37PM (#8350701) Homepage
      "Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power."
    • by fermion ( 181285 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @05:42PM (#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.

  • Having their cake... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Teppy ( 105859 ) * on Saturday February 21, 2004 @03:10PM (#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} {at} {hotmail.com}> on Saturday February 21, 2004 @03:14PM (#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 superwiz ( 655733 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @03:23PM (#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 @03:35PM (#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).
  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @04:13PM (#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?

  • by shark72 ( 702619 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @05:57PM (#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?

    • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @06:26PM (#8351782) 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 @10:30PM (#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.
  • by Rogerborg ( 306625 ) on Saturday February 21, 2004 @08:12PM (#8352509) Homepage
    We're not pigs.

Comparing information and knowledge is like asking whether the fatness of a pig is more or less green than the designated hitter rule." -- David Guaspari

Working...