Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

French Courts Ban DRM on DVDs

Posted by Hemos on Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:35 AM
from the le-excellent-move dept.
Government The Courts Media Movies News Technology
blamanj writes "According to a story on Boing-Boing, the French courts have banned DRM copy-protection on DVDs, because it is a consumer right to make a backup or to change formats (in this case, to VHS). Original story (in French) is also available."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived.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.

French Courts Ban DRM on DVDs 25 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Great, fair use copy! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by plsavaria (823160) * on Monday April 25 2005, @10:37AM (#12336960)
    But this judgement goes in the opposite direction of the EMI case, by a Versailles appeal juge. They said EMI could apply the copy protection scheme on audio-CD, given that the costumers knew what they bought. The court asked EMI to give 10 000E to UFC-Que choisir to repair the moral damage, since this system cause some players not to read their audio-CDs. http://www.clubic.com/actualite-19778-la-protectio n-dvd-rendue-illegale-.html/ [clubic.com]

    • Re:Great, fair use copy! (Score:5, Informative)

      by ycochard (547371) on Monday April 25 2005, @10:42AM (#12337043) Homepage
      This case is different, because the DVD was not correctly labelled. There was a small CP (for "Copie Prohibee", which means "copy unauthorized"), which has been decided by the court to be not enough to inform the customer about the protection.
  • Looks like I'll be buying my movies from France here on out. It's not like the MPAA would stop selling DVD's in France...

    Would they?

      • The French hate the US (Score:5, Insightful)

        by mehgul (654410) on Monday April 25 2005, @11:21AM (#12337528)
        Every morning, 60 million Frenchmen wake up and think about how they can annoy the Americans. Every single day of their lives. Even before taking their first glass of wine and heading to the bakery to get their freshly-baked baguette. This is really their single most important duty to fulfill every day.

        Yes, I know it sounds stupid, but you guys here on /. make it sound like we have nothing else to do of our time than to think about the mighty US of America, how to annoy it, how to counter it. Believe it or not, it happens sometimes that we have ideas, rules, laws of our own, that are not just there to be "against" the US.

        And by the way, even though you almost never see them in the US, there is actually a lot of movies produced in France. This ruling is going mostly to piss off the french movie producers. And there is absolutely no need for a "hidden agenda" to explain it.
  • I like the French. They cut through the crap, and they have pretty girls. Like that court ruling that you could pirate stuff, as you'd already paid the "piracy" tax on the blank CDs. Rock on, La France.

  • In a related matter... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2005, @10:38AM (#12336980)
    The French are invaded by the MPAA. Resistance crumbles within the hour.

    -ShadowRanger

  • Freedom DVDs (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2005, @10:39AM (#12336990)
    No wonder people called them Freedom Fries. It seems the French are endowed with the natural freedoms us Americans have become used to losing.

  • I'm so confused! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 25 2005, @10:40AM (#12336999)
    But the french! They hate google! They didn't support our war! They... they... put mayonnaise on their fren- freedom fries! They're freaks! They're cheese-eating surrender monkeys! I don't care if they gave us the statue of liberty or helped us in the war of independence! They... they... [head explodes]

  • English Translation before the slashburning begins (Score:5, Informative)

    by danielcole (811536) on Monday April 25 2005, @10:40AM (#12337014)
    Source (linked to by the boingboing article)
    http://www.allpeers.com/blog/?page_id=11 3

    UFC-Que Choisir (a French consumer protection organization) has been granted a prohibition on DVD copy protection devices by the Paris Court of Appeal, these devices having been judged to be incompatible with private copying rights.

    Arnaud Devillard, 01net., April 22, 2005 at 7:28pm

    What consumer protection groups have not yet succeeded in gaining for CDs, they have just obtained for DVDs. On April 22nd, the Paris Court of Appeal prohibited the use of DVD-based copy protection systems. The reason? The incompatibility of this practice with private copying rights.

    Two companies, Les Films Alain Sarde and Studio Canal, thus suffered a serious setback after having won the case in the Court of First Instance at the end of April 2004.

    UFC-Que Choisir latched onto the case of a consumer who was unable to copy a DVD of Mulholland Drive, a David Lynch film produced by Alain Sarde and Studio Canal, onto a video cassette. This person wanted to watch the film at his mother's, who did not have a DVD player. The strict familial context mandated for the exercise of private copying rights was therefore applicable.

    The tribunal also faulted the DVD producers for lack of consumer information. This was not entirely absent but was judged to be insufficient. The label "CP" for "Copy Protected" was indeed present on the jacket, but in "small characters" and not sufficiently explicit.

    A worrying judgement for the French Video Producers' Association.

    Les Films Alain Sarde and Studio Canal have one month to unblock their DVDs. At the same time, Alain Sarde and Universal Pictures Video France must pay 100 euros in damages to the consumer in question. The same two companies, and Studio Canal, must also pay him 150 euros as well as 1,500 euros to the consumer association.

    On the other hand, the court refused the request for damages and interest by UFC-Que Choisir against Studio Canal. The consumer association admitted to a legal misstep on its part, having chosen the wrong target for its request. The court also refused to release a judiciary communiqué on the decision.

    It goes without saying, however, that UFC-Que Choisir is more than satisfied, as the damages and interest were not the main object of the case. This was rather the acceptance of its argument regarding private copying. This, and the fact that the decision can be applied to other cases "as long as the original DVD was purchased legally," says Gaëlle Patetta of the association's legal department.

    But for the delegate general of the Video Producers' Association, Jean-Yves Mirski, the decision is "worrisome". Not having had the time to analyze the decision in detail, the VPA has not yet decided whether to appeal the decision to a higher court (the Court of Cassation). But this is far from out of the question.

    In any case, according to Jean-Yves Mirski, this judicial turn of events "directly contradicts the European Copyright Directive." The latter permits the use of copy protection systems. This will certainly not make future legal action on this subject any simpler.

  • great (Score:5, Funny)

    by no reason to be here (218628) on Monday April 25 2005, @10:42AM (#12337044) Homepage
    Just when I thought we had finally stopped with the overzealous* French bashing here in the US. There's no way that Bush Co. and his corporate masters will not unleash the anti-French/patriotic jingoism after a ruiling like this.

    just kidding...mostly...

    *I say overzealous because a little French bashing, a la The Onion's "France Surrenders" second headlines in Our Dumb Century is a good thing.

  • Remember "Freedom Fries"? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Swamii (594522) on Monday April 25 2005, @10:46AM (#12337098) Homepage
    Maybe we ought to rename French DVDs as "Freedom DVDs", but this time not as a political statement, but rather because of the true freedom one has in DRM-less content.
  • For me, the MPAA should be able to sell DVDs with any amount of DRM that they desire, as long as they indicate that the DVD is DRMed. I just want the right to be able to break the encryption, or even do simple things like interoperate my devices without being sued.

  • free speech (Score:5, Funny)

    by delirium of disorder (701392) on Monday April 25 2005, @10:50AM (#12337150) Homepage Journal
    If you really believe in free speech you should admit that Corporations and individuals both should have the right to distribute (and sell) any kind of information they want. Anti-DRM leglisation is socialist and wrong. If citizens get too used to the government protecting them, they will have weak bullshit detectors and will become dependent on the nanny state to tell them how to be "free". As long as no person or property is physically harmed, the government should stay the fuck out of the way. Bring the DRM on!!! Let the idiotic masses pay too much for RIAA music and MPAA movies that they can only watch in very restricted ways. Anyone with at least some partially functioning cognative tissue in their heads will just find innovative indipendent artists. A new market for cheep intelligent media that allows fair use (probably distributed via the internet) will emerge.

    • Re:free speech (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MC68000 (825546) <brodskie@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Monday April 25 2005, @10:58AM (#12337256)
      Agreed. The government should not be involved at all. Then a nice balance between producer and consumer rights can be achieved. However, when I say that the government should not be involved, that includes laws like the DMCA. Government should do nothing more than provide the framework for the MPAA to take individual copyright infingers to court, and get its head out of the details of making or breaking DRM technology.

  • Easy for the courts to understand. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BrookHarty (9119) on Monday April 25 2005, @10:55AM (#12337215) Homepage Journal
    I think the case was easy to understand, easier for a Judge to agree.

    This is after a man who was not able to copy a DVD he purchase to a VHS cassette so he can watch it at his mother's place. Which is considered private copying and is a consumer right in France.

    Until it affects you, and you can see the problem, most people dont understand the issue. This was the perfect example of people seeing the outcome of copyprotection on something you bought and no longer have control over how you use it.

    Of course, I have no idea if I can copy a DVD to VHS tape legally for my own personal use in America, with the laws being passed on riders on bills for IRAQ, who knows.

    • Probably (Score:5, Informative)

      by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Monday April 25 2005, @11:33AM (#12337682)
      As always, this isn't legal advice, this is a Slashdot post, if you want real legal advice, get a lawyer in your area. So take it for what it's worth.

      However, my understanding of the DMCA is that it only applies to digital copies and protections. Thus you are still legally allowed to circumvent analogue copy protections, which is what prevents you from copying a DVD to VHS.

      The reason you can't make the copy is Macrovision. It's a "protection" that functions by varying the signal intensity in areas that are off screen. This causes the automatic gain control of the VCR to wig out and you get an unstable signal. Some newer devices actually look for it and will just refuse to accept the signal at all.

      Well you can eaisly get commercial devices that will filter this out with no ill effects. You can then make a copy as normal. As a practical matter, even if these were to become unavailable (they are still around as of today) you could get a semi-pro or pro VCR that will allow you to manually set the gain, which will then copy fine (though the copy will then have Macrovision present on it).

      So at this point it appears to be legal, as well as easy to do. That could change, however.
    • just a few days ago, another court said a CD-audio can be copy-protected, under the only condition that the customer is warned before he boughts.
      Why yes, and these two judgements don't contradict each other at all:
      The tribunal also faulted the DVD producers for lack of consumer information.
      This was not entirely absent but was judged to be insufficient. The label "CP" for "Copy Protected" was indeed present on the jacket, but in "small characters" and not sufficiently explicit.
      Basically, there is no problem with copy-protecting your medias, but the consumer must be clearly and explicitely warned that he/she won't be able to (easily) copy the data from the media.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.