Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


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

321 Studios Plays It Safe Against the DMCA 241

Posted by timothy from the dispensation-nation dept.
mblase writes: "CNet reports on a request by 321 Studios to have it legally declared that their DVD Copy Plus software doesn't violate the DCMA. DVD Copy Plus works on a Windows PC by copying DVD video to a recordable CD in VCD or similar format. If successful, this could be a major legal weapon against the DCMA in the future. 321 Studios' press release is here."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

321 Studios Plays It Safe Against the DMCA More

321 Studios Plays It Safe Against the DMCA

Comments Filter:

  • Finally! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by blankmange ( 571591 )
    A company with a product to challenge the DMCA -- thank you, 321 Studios. And how long did we have to wait for some company with the guts to stand up and say "It should not be illegal for a consumer to make a copy of something they own." Will have to wait and see the outcome on this one.
    • I'm glad that they are taking a stand, but how can they sue if they haven't done anything?

      From the article:
      According to Monday's complaint, the Motion Picture Association of America, which represents major Hollywood studios, has been quoted in newspaper articles as threatening to sue 321 to stop it from distributing DVD Copy Plus, saying it may violate the DMCA.

      How can they sue if they heard that they might face litigation? This makes no sense. 321 Studio has not been officially acused of doing anything wrong. Can they really be sued for being bullied?

      • I'm glad that they are taking a stand, but how can they sue if they haven't done anything?

        It's an ironic play on DMCA--sue ahead of time, because it's inevitable.

      • They are taking pro-active measures to protect themselves from being sued in the future. It quite simple really...
        • They are taking pro-active measures to protect themselves from being sued in the future.

          Yup.

          Judges are all-to-easily swayed by the MPAA/RIAA images of "evil hackers" stealing Disney content from our impressionable youth. Plus, they're more likely to buy into that image when it describes the defendant in a case.

          321 stands to short circuit all of that, since they'll be the complaining party. The usual arguments will still be brought up, but they'll be cast with the movie studios will be sitting at the defendant table.

      • Re:Finally! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by interstellar_donkey ( 200782 ) <pathighgateNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:38PM (#3397311) Homepage Journal
        We decided to
        proactively file this lawsuit not only to receive the courts' assurance that we are in compliance with the law but also to raise the broader question of how Americans' First Amendment rights can be protected in this digital age

        Sounds silly, does'nt it? You have to sue in order to make sure you're not doing anything wrong. Note they are not seeking any damages.

        Can they really be sued for being bullied?

        You can sue for any reason you want. I can sue you because I don't like your name. That would probably be thrown out of court.

        But what 321 is doing is very clever; if the court throws the case out, and the MPAA seeks damages under the DMCA, they are protected. "We already filed with the court, and the court decided that we were not doing anything wrong... at least to warrent the attention of the court."

        Of course, it shows how screwy our legal system is. I can't call up the police and ask 'hey, I'm thinking of doing this.. is it legal?' They won't tell me. But if I do it, and it's illegal, they will arrest me. Laws are written in such a way that half the time people are breaking them not even knowing. It's nice to see a company exploit a loophole like this on the side of good.

        • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Interesting)

          by spottedkangaroo ( 451692 )
          Of course, it shows how screwy our legal system is. I can't call up the police and ask 'hey, I'm thinking of doing this.. is it legal?' They won't tell me. But if I do it, and it's illegal, they will arrest me.

          That's not quite true. In kalamazoo MI, I have several times now, called the county prosecuter and/or the public safty office and asked, "Is it unlawful to: ....?"

          Every time I've done this, they either help me or tell me who I need to talk to next.

        • You can sue for anything you like, but if you sue me for not liking my name, I can counter sue for damages under Rule 11 [cornell.edu] of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

          The rule says that you won't bring a frivilous lawsuit against me or I get money or sanctions against you. Quite handy, really.

        • Re:Finally! (Score:3, Funny)

          by GigsVT ( 208848 )
          You really do learn everything you need to know in kindergarten.

          Remember when you accidentally or deliberately did something bad to a classmate on the playground, and you knew they were going to tattle on you, and you would run to get to the teacher before they did, so you could get the first word in the matter? And how it worked half of the time?

          Wow. :)

      • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Mattcelt ( 454751 )
        I believe it's called "summary judgement". It's the same thing Felten tried to get, and one of the music trading companies (Aimster, I think). It's not so much a suit against someone but more like a preemptive strike to prevent others from filing suit against 321 in the future.

        Unfortunately, the courts don't seem to be very friendly to these nowadays, at least not in this arena...

        • Re:Finally! (Score:2, Interesting)

          by lamont116 ( 522100 )
          I believe it's called "summary judgement". It's the same thing Felten tried to get, and one of the music trading companies (Aimster, I think). It's not so much a suit against someone but more like a preemptive strike to prevent others from filing suit against 321 in the future.

          It's an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, I'd presume. If you are under threat of impending litigation, you can jump the gun and file your own action, seeking a declaration from the court that your conduct is not illegal. (This is also used to challenge the validity of some criminal statutes under the constitution - file your civil suit now, rather than being prosecuted later).

          The statute is 28 U.S.C. 2201 et seq [cornell.edu].

      • It's called filing suit for a declaratory judgment. It allows someone who has been threatened with litigation, or who reasonably believes that they will be sued, to strike first.

        If I am interpreting the press release correctly and they win they will be granted a judgment that will prevent the the nine studios from suing them under the DMCA or for "contributory infringement."

        The downside is that if they lose the studios will be awarded attorney's fees and probably an injunction against 321 selling their program.
    • I agree here, you should be able to make a backup of your DVD's without the DMCA breathing down your back . It should be 'fair use'.

      They should be going after people that share there backups with others, not people that make backups. I like to call it Media/Film Warez, priates and priating sounds so lame ;).

      Its not like DVD's are hard to scratch or anything ...
    • This product does not allow you to make an archival copy of the dvd's you own, as is your legal right. You can only make a crappy vcd copy with poor image quality. If your first disc is ruined, you will NOT be happy using this as a backup. It isn't a copy of the data on the disc, it is a compressed copy of the images output to your monitor. I'm surprised the movie/music industry would have any problem with this. This is basically the same as (like I used to do back in the day) making an audio tape of something by putting a crappy tape recorder up against a speaker and hitting record. In fact you could record the sound from your dvd's just like that, and dig out your parents' home movie camera to film your tv as the dvd plays. There you go! Great quality backup to have around in case your clumsy roommate steps on the dvd and breaks it. No need to worry about the DMCA now.

      While this has nothing to do with this software company, I found this on a google search for 321 Studios and found it amusing, and possibly prophetic "Adam went to London, Munich and Paris in March for a 3 week press tour. When he returned to New York, Jack Douglas had only mixed three songs before starting the Aerosmith project. The 321 studios had went bankrupt and all the studio equipment had been repossessed by their creditors. The building rent was never paid. The studio turned out to be a front for some investment scam. The master tapes were also missing and one of the studio owners had been thrown in jail."
      • VCD's are pretty lame in comparison to DVD's, it is true. the quality compares with the quality of a recording made on VHS in extended play mode, where you put 6 hours on a 2 hour tape. In the US, DVD is 720x480, 29.97fps while a VCD is 352x240, but there is also SVCD, which is 480x480, and there is nothing to stop you from copying in DVD format onto a CD-R, i've done this with music videos for my kids. The real test is going to be when enlightened companies, such as Apex, start engineering the ability into the DVD players to accept different Codecs; with the use of DivX, or MS-Mpeg4, you can fit a full 2 hour recording at 720x480 onto a CD-R with no appreciable loss of quality.

  • And what about the DMCA (Score:5, Funny)

    by mocm ( 141920 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @03:57PM (#3397041)
    It's not Digital Copyright Millennium Act (although it may feel like it).
    It's Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
  • If only MS - or better still a European or Japanese competitor - would develop a killer app using copying technology then all this DCMA silliness would end - or at least move on.
    If someone could sell something at a substantial profit in Europe but not sell it in the US I am sure that commercial interests in the US would do that thing they are always so good at - getting the law changed in their favour.

  • Accept DMCA? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by debrain ( 29228 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @03:59PM (#3397065) Journal
    In a way, the success of this plea would endanger the fight against DMCA et al., by providing enough fair use to make the law as a whole acceptable to this company, other companies, and perhaps even many consumers. If this agreement is unilaterally struck down, then there is another entity out there who wills the end of the DMCA content control.

    Indeed, winning this court case may be a tool to fight for fair use in a world of DMCA, but in the overall war we will sacrifice a valuable ally in the fight for a world without DMCA.

    I would rather a post DMCA era, where freedom is presumed until proven a crime, rather than feel the need to prove my freedom for actions of thought and speech now considered criminal.
    • i really dont see how a case that provides legal precedent which states that the DMCA can not prevent fair-use would be a bad thing. It would certainly help the case of Elcom among others.

      Everyone keeps saying that they want fair-use, well these guys are trying to make that a reality even under the DMCA, i could care less if the DMCA can be used to prosecute true for profit piracy schemes. Just dont interfere with fair-use.

      • Re:Accept DMCA? (Score:3, Insightful)

        by fishebulb ( 257214 )
        the problem is that it does interfere, the law makes little distinction between fair use and piracy.

        On the RIAA website it states that they dont mind of if people make a copy of a CD for their car. And in fact they state it is fair use to do this. Ahh, but there is a problem now, with copy protected CD's, i cannot legally make a copy now, because i cannot break the copy protection. And more importantly it is illegal for someone to make a program that will allow this.

        This law does nothing but maybe hike up the penalties for the real pirates (large scale manufactures) They are already breaking laws by making cds, then selling them.

        Granted 321 studios may declare that this doesnt break the DMCA, but a tool to allow for even playing music cds on the computer could (the copy protected ones). This is only stating that their utility is legal, not utilities that are similar
        • Even with just bringing out a tool to copy DVDs to CDs they run the risk of prosecution though!
        • On the RIAA website it states that they dont mind of if people make a copy of a CD for their car. And in fact they state it is fair use to do this. Ahh, but there is a problem now, with copy protected CD's, i cannot legally make a copy now, because i cannot break the copy protection.

          Heh. This is actually not quite correct. The DMCA originally proposed that breaking of *any* kind of encryption would be illegal. Defenders of fair use complained that outlawing the defeat of copy protection would violate the fair use doctrine (which it would). The pro-DMCA parties gave in to this demand and dropped the copy protection stuff. Instead, so we don't violate fair use, it's only illegal to defeat *access* protection! Our legislators bought this hook, line, and sinker. Too bad it's not illegal to write legislation while under the influence....

    • Re:Accept DMCA? (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Arrrgh! This technology / method does NOT have ANYTHING to do with fair use! Since when does creating a backup copy of licensed material qualify as Fair Use? It doesn't. It never has. It probably never will. Get your terms straight and maybe people will actually address the issues that you feel strongly about.

      • Re:Accept DMCA? (Score:3, Informative)

        by VFVTHUNTER ( 66253 )
        This technology / method does NOT have ANYTHING to do with fair use!

        Yes it does [eff.org]

        Since when does creating a backup copy of licensed material qualify as Fair Use? It doesn't. It never has. It probably never will.

        From the above page:
        ...the fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege's personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.

        Get your terms straight and maybe people will actually address the issues that you feel strongly about.

        Whatever you say, Hiliary. I hope you paid for all those KD Lang CD's :)
      • Well, it qualifies under at least two, and likely three of the four criteria for Fair Use, and since licenses depend on copyright, it sounds like Fair Use is applicable.

      • Re:Accept DMCA? (Score:4, Informative)

        by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @05:06PM (#3397542) Journal
        Legal definition of fair use
        a use of copyrighted material that does not constitute an infringement of the copyright provided the use is fair and reasonable and does not substantially impair the value of the work or the profits expected from it by its owner


        As you are allowed to make backup copies for yourself (this has been deemed legal by the courts) and backup copies for yourself do not hurt the profits of the owner, it IS fair use. Stop trolling, please.
        [findlaw.com]
        findlaw dictionary
        [cornell.edu]
        the actual law, which doesn't really define it, as definition has been left up to the court (the findlaw def is current court def) but states that you can't be prosecuted for it especially if its non commerical in nature

      • Since when does creating a backup copy of licensed material qualify as Fair Use?

        License can't overturn the law, and law declares it a fair use.

  • Here's the text in case of Slashdotting... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:01PM (#3397072)
    321 Studios Files Complaint against Nine Major Movie Production Companies Seeking Right To Sell DVD Copying Software
    Groundbreaking Suit Attacks Constitutionality of Digital Millennium Copyright Act

    BERKELEY, CA (April 23, 2002) - 321 Studios today filed a complaint in U.S. District Court against nine major motion picture production companies in an effort to thwart industry threats to stop the sale of the firm's DVD Copy Plus software for making backup copies of DVDs. The complaint, filed in the Northern District of California, challenges the constitutionality of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) that was passed in 1998 to address the issue of copyright protection for digital content.

    Citing 321 Studios' free speech rights under the First Amendment, the complaint asks the court to rule that the sale of DVD Copy Plus does not violate key provisions of the DMCA or unlawfully aid consumers in infringing copyright privileges associated with material stored in the DVD format. The suit seeks a declaratory judgment that will permit 321 Studios to continue to sell DVD Copy Plus. No damages are sought.

    The complaint names MGM Studios, Tristar Pictures, Columbia Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, Time Warner Entertainment, Disney Enterprises, Universal City Studios, The Saul Zaentz Company and Pixar Corporation as defendants. It alleges that the movie studios, acting in part under the auspices of the Motion Picture Association of America, have threatened to sue 321 Studios and claim that the sale of DVD Copy Plus is illegal under the DMCA.

    "We see this as a groundbreaking case with implications that extend to all kinds of digital content," said Daralyn J. Durie, a partner with Keker & Van Nest, LLP, of San Francisco, which is representing 321 Studios in the case. "We believe that there are substantial constitutional problems with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, not the least of which is barring consumers from exercising their right to make backup copies of DVDs they own. This is one of the first cases asking the court to rule on the crucial question of how this law impacts those rights."

    "DVDs are notoriously susceptible to scratches, heat damage, loss and other problems, and our DVD Copy Plus software enables legal owners of DVD movies to protect their DVD investments by making legitimate backup or duplicate copies for their own use. In our mind, this is no different than making an extra personal copy of a music CD, which is perfectly legal," said Robert Moore, President of 321 Studios. "We decided to
    proactively file this lawsuit not only to receive the courts' assurance that we are in compliance with the law but also to raise the broader question of how Americans' First Amendment rights can be protected in this digital age."

    Information on DVD Copy Plus, a copy of the legal complaint, and a petition enabling consumers to voice their support for 321 Studios' position on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act can be found at http://www.321studios.com. 321 Studios is based in St. Louis, Missouri, with offices in Berkeley, California, and Wilmington, Delaware.

  • Fair Use People (Score:1, Offtopic)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Taking someone's work and calling it your own is "plagiarism." Benefitting commercially from a copyrighted work is called "copyright infringement." They are two entirely different things.

    How much does she make again? There seems to be a basic disconnect with the simplest elements of intellectual property laws here, and this isn't the first example.

    sigh... 90% of debates seem to be teaching the ABCs of logic, argument and the definitions of words.
  • I appreciate companies taking a stance like this. However, I get a lot of spam for such programs, and not only due to their spamming practices, I think the programs themselves are sleazy because you can do the exact same thing with freeware, see http://www.doom9.net/ for the details and all you need.

  • popups (Score:2, Informative)

    by GutBomb ( 541585 )
    if these people lose to the DMCA then perhaps we will stop seeing popups for this shit all over the place...

    VIVA LA DMCA! In all sereousness, i believe the software shoud be legal, but the marketing practices are quite deceptive. only after you have paid these people do you find out what the software really is. it is not even software. you get a list of programs you must download, and instructions on how to put it all together to rip a dvd and save it in VCD format. they even imply (without explicitly stating) that you can copy the whole dvd including special features and menus, but i have yet to see a way to do this.
  • Just because they made it, what makes us so sure that they wont be the last also?

    Maybe they wont be,
    but i am sure that their laywers are already making new bullshit to stop the next attempt @ freedom,
    eventually taking it all away

  • "Is perfectly legal" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AndyChrist ( 161262 ) <andy_christ@yah[ ]com ['oo.' in gap]> on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:06PM (#3397116) Homepage
    I think the difference between copying a DVD and an audio CD is there is nothing on a CD which was INTENDED to prevent it's copying, except for those new crippled ones.

    They have to be circumventing that, therefore they are violating the DMCA. Not terribly hard to understand. (Well, the fact that they are violating a law which is on some levels hard to understand isn't.)

    IANAL
    • Read the article. They're not claiming that they're not violating the DMCA. They're challenging the constitutionality of the DMCA. Much different argument, and one they have a chance at (I hope).
      • From the press release:

        "DVDs are notoriously susceptible to scratches, heat damage, loss and other problems, and our DVD Copy Plus software enables legal owners of DVD movies to protect their DVD investments by making legitimate backup or duplicate copies for their own use. In our mind, this is no different than making an extra personal copy of a music CD, which is perfectly legal," said Robert Moore, President of 321 Studios. "

      • They're not claiming that they're not violating the DMCA. They're challenging the constitutionality of the DMCA.

        You're not allowed to challenge the constitutionality of the DMCA unless you intend to violate the DMCA. Look up the term "standing" in a legal dictionary.

    • I canmake a bit for bit copy of a DVD with out decrypting its copyprotection mechenism. then I can pop it into my DVD player and poof..I have a working DVD.

      • Re:"Is perfectly legal" (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        No you can't, unless you are using the prohibitively expensive recordables which are required to be able to write the keys to the disk (these are available so you can create masters for reproduction, and are priced accordingly). Normal recordable DVDs can only contain unscrambled content or they won't play in any player.

    • Re:"Is perfectly legal" (Score:2, Informative)

      by Da w00t ( 1789 )
      Incorrect. There has always been a "Copy-Permit" bit on each track of a CD -- take a look at cdparanoia when it prints out the list of tracks. you'll see a "Copy" field, and "No" under every track for every (or just about every) cd you've ever purchased.
    • I think the difference between copying a DVD and an audio CD is there is nothing on a CD which was INTENDED to prevent it's copying, except for those new crippled ones.

      There isn't anything on EITHER format that can stop you from copying the media. This is where the MPAA has lied to the courts! They alleged that DVD copying was impossible before DeCSS. Just because you are copying something doesn't mean that you have to decrypt as well.

  • Tough fight for 321Studio (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DragonPup ( 302885 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:07PM (#3397118)
    Breaking DVD encryption is already a DMCA violation in the 2600 case if I recall. And if the product breaks the DVD encryption, it violates the DMCA by a set precadent. Keep in mind, I have no problem backing up DVDs for personal use that is allowed under Fair Use(and I hate warez kiddies), but 321 has it's work cut out for them :-(

    -Henry
    • Breaking DVD encryption is already a DMCA violation in the 2600 case if I recall. And if the product breaks the DVD encryption, it violates the DMCA by a set precadent. Keep in mind, I have no problem backing up DVDs for personal use that is allowed under Fair Use(and I hate warez kiddies), but 321 has it's work cut out for them :-(

      One thing to consider, for those who just can't get enough of the legal system, is that the 2600 case was in federal court in New York, with the appeal to the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The new case is in federal court in San Francisco, and if there is an appeal, it will go to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

      Rulings from one federal circuit are not binding on either trial or appellate courts in other circuits. The court(s) in the 321 Studios case may or may not be influenced by the rulings in the 2600 case, but they are not bound by them.

      • Rulings from one federal circuit are not binding on either trial or appellate courts in other circuits. The court(s) in the 321 Studios case may or may not be influenced by the rulings in the 2600 case, but they are not bound by them.

        However, when there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, this is when the supreme court is most likely to take an appeal, to set a precedent which is binding in other circuits.

        • However, when there are conflicting rulings in different circuits, this is when the supreme court is most likely to take an appeal, to set a precedent which is binding in other circuits.

          This is likely a good thing, though. It would answer the question of whether the DMCA is legal once and for all, and if past rulings are any indicator, the courts are likely to rule against the DMCA on this issue.
      • Alright-- IF the 9th circuit court of appeals eventually affirms a right of "fair use", and if the Supreme Court believes the such a ruling would contradict the 2nd circuit doctrines (Universal v 2600), they might grant cert. Who knows? Perhaps the Supremes will strike down the DMCA. But all this is hypothetical.
        After all, 321Studio still has to argue its case.
    • If you have a DVD drive in your computer you might have software or a hardware card that carries a licensed decoder. Actually you probably do unless you built your system yourself. Their software could rely on that.

      On the other hand a direct copy could work - without ever decrypting the info on the DVD.

    • Re:Tough fight for 321Studio (Score:5, Interesting)

      by GMFTatsujin ( 239569 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:34PM (#3397290) Homepage
      It doesn't break the encryption per se - it probably relies on the encryption being there in the first place just to get the player to play the DVD. The CCS encryption exists on a DVD to thwart non-licensed players from working, not to prevent copying. You can make a DVD player, but it won't work on a protected DVD unless you get the license to use the decryption key.

      Don't make the mistake of thinking that the CCS encytion is there to keep pirates from copying the DVD. You can copy a protected DVD till the cows come home without even worrying about the encryption. The point of it is to sew up the *hardware* side of the business model.

      This product would, however, fail to *preserve* the encryption in the backed-up VCD version, since VCDs don't need to pass an authentication to play.

      Just a distinction - does the DMCA apply if the encryption in question is intended for a use other than to prevent copying the medium?

      GMFTatsujin
      • Don't make the mistake of thinking that the CCS encytion is there to keep pirates from copying the DVD. You can copy a protected DVD till the cows come home without even worrying about the encryption. The point of it is to sew up the *hardware* side of the business model.
        The DVD Cartel (DVDCCA) has always maintained that the purpose of CSS encryption is to prevent "piracy" -- it's a very easy bogeyman to draw.

        What we need is for some ballsy company with a few bucks to spare, to actually build a DVD player using the free DeCSS code. A single-disc player that acts exactly like a licensed player -- plays discs to the screen, no copying functions, it could even respect the region encoding.

        What will the DVD Cartel say then? In that case they wouldn't be able to claim that anyone was trying to steal content, or destroy intellectual property -- the box would be very clearly designed to play legitimately obtained DVD's. Now that would be very interesting.
        • It'd be even more beautiful if the player preserved (or applied? I still don't know where exactly this comes from) the Macromedia protection -- then the case would REALLY have to focus on the application of the "device intended to remove encryption" clause, since the video stream would still be uncopyable to VHS.

          I mean, I'm not in favor of Macromedia either, but one step at a time...
          GMFTatsujin
          • preserved (or applied? I still don't know where exactly this comes from) the Macromedia protection

            Applied. Macromedia is a separate chip that goes into all VCRs, all licensed DVD players, and apparently all TV video-out cards. Macromedia encoding is patented, so that would be just one more way in which this "beautiful" player would be illegal.

            The Macromedia chip adds bright bursts in the off-screen areas of the video signal, which screw up a VCR's color-calibration circuitry. Those bursts are _not_ present in the raw MPEG2 stream on the DVD.

            Incidentally, Macromedia is only enabled if the movie indicates that it should be. So some DVDs can be protected only in parts, and others can be not protected at all. I have a DVD copy of "Army of Darkness" that is not Macrovision-protected at all.

            --Patrick

        • Re:Here's an idea (Score:3, Informative)

          by Patrick ( 530 )
          actually build a DVD player using the free DeCSS code. ... What will the DVD Cartel say then?

          The DVDCCA would point out that the unlicensed player almost certainly violates a long list of patents. Oh, and it would still violate the DMCA, because it would be circumventing encryption that controls access to a copyrighted work. The DMCA is about protecting works from access, not just from copying.

          --Patrick

      • It doesn't matter what the purpose is, it's illegal under the DMCA. This is crux of the problem with the DMCA and CD Copy Protection. Eventually the copyright will run out, but under the DMCA it is still a criminal offense to break that encryption, even for public domain works. So in effect you have an infinite copyright, which is not in the public's interest, nor was it part of the copyright bargain and balance that Congress intended.
      • DMCA covers not only devices which restrict copying (and the unauthorized execution of other "exclusive rights" of the copyright holder), but also has specific sections covering devices which restrict access.

        So the answer to your question is likely yes (unfortunately).
      • Don't make the mistake of thinking that the CCS encytion is there to keep pirates from copying the DVD. You can copy a protected DVD till the cows come home without even worrying about the encryption. The point of it is to sew up the *hardware* side of the business model.
        Eh? That's not quite true, in my understanding of it. Or at least, *technically* it's possible to do a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD and have everything, encryption and all -- but I don't know any software that will actually let you do that.

        For instance, if you create a disc image of a DVD on your Apple Mac using Roxio Toast, the operation will complete. You will have successfully saved an image of that DVD to your drive. You can open the image and see all the appropriate TS_VIDEO folders etc. But the DVD Player application won't play it.

        Ah, but if you fire up DVDExtractor 0.9 on the Mac, and save the image after running it through DeCSS -- *THEN* it will play.

        So you tell me. Is it just hardware licensing?

  • In response to an earlier post (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    How can one declare creating a backup copy of media that you hold a license to (note: you don't own the material, just the media that it came on), to be an enhancement of 'fair-use' laws? The two are exclusive from each other. I have seen time and again people using the term 'fair-use' when in reality they meant 'use however I want to' For a definition of 'fair-use' look here Copyright Office Document FL102 [copyright.gov] Notice that it does *NOT* say anything about copying a CD / Music / DVD or anything for any purpose other than for "...criticism, comment, news reporting, education, scholarship or research..." And don't try to use the line of "I have to crack this DVD encryption in order to further my research" sure you do *wink*.
  • is that this "legal copy software" will probably be one of the most illegally copied software titles (via Kazaa, etc) in the near future... if it isn't already.

    Just listen to the rhythm of the bandwidth rain...
    • Maybe so but people are more likely to pay for software from a company who is willing to stand up and fight against the DMCA.
    • The problem is they are selling a system, a course to learn how to copy DVD's.

      You can do it now legally, it's called fair use. If you have the DeCSS code [which can be found most anywhere] or a closed source imitation [usually with an interface] you can extract the movie data.

      Then simply convert to mpeg-1 and viola!.

      There is an unlimited amount of tools to do this - but you could also get a DivX ;-) copy and convert that to mpeg-1.

      I would suggest getting this [tmpgenc.net] for a Windows platform because it can handle any movie type that you can play in Media Player. There are two versions out there but the 'free' version's site looks to be down so the link above is to the "Plus" homepage.

      Now that you have an mpeg-1 movie file simply convert it with GNU's VCDImager [vcdimager.org]. There are versions for both Windows and Linux [Hell, even solaris and MacOSX of course, it's GNU]. I also see there are frontends for most platforms.

      Works very well. Let me say though it's easier to download a DivX and break the law because fair use has been removed from the system.

  • Village Idiots? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    It's fun to violate... D M C A It's fun to violate... D M C A

  • DVD to VCD (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AKAJack ( 31058 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:23PM (#3397233)
    I wonder if the studios will use the defence that the software "changes" and degrades the original movie on the DVD and therefore is not a backup or copy of the original, but something that degrades the value of their trademark/copyright by creating a less than pristine copy of the movie and deceives the consumer into thinking they're making an exact backup?

    I've seen some pretty crappy VCDs and some pretty good ones, but none of them look like DVDs to me.

    I would expect the studios to explore all angles.

    • Re:DVD to VCD (Score:2, Informative)

      by Abnormal Coward ( 575651 )
      VCD is no where need as good as DVD (which uses MPEG2 VBR ecoding, which has a max of around 1.5mbits/sec). Also there the pallete issue, MPEG2 is better in this respect.

      I've seen som VERY well done VCDs (offical ones) some of the startrek ones that are acutally CDi disks can be very good. But you can notice it the res is only 352x288 on a decent sized tele.

      Also VCD's are designed to be played using hardare which does softs of smothing using filters. Playing them on a PC looks blocky, you notice a lot of artifates that you wouldn't see playing them via a Hardwre decoder or a real VCD palyer (I have a philps CDi player).

      Best way to backup your DVD's is either to extract the video stream, and desired sound track and multiplex them back to a MPEG2 stream. Or use DivX to re-encode the Video stream, which can get good quality near the orginal. (theres always going some lose converting to another format).
    • You'd be far worse seeing the result on a 5" black and white TV, or listening to it in mono. With DVD's, the studios can't control what you use to view it, so until they way to force you to see it only on an approved viewer, they have no leg to stand on. However, that may not be too far away when we get to a HDTV/digital-only world when analog tv is outlawed in 2006 [fcc.gov].

  • The Enemy of My Enemy is.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by GeekLife.com ( 84577 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:23PM (#3397236) Homepage
    So, 321 Studios is against the DMCA. Hooray, right? Except, they're most likely the exact same companies filling up our inboxes with unsolicited useless spam every day, costing us bandwidth and time.

    So, do we like them or hate them?

    I guess I'll wait for the next slashback to tell me.
    • What the hell? Do you have some basis for this claim, or are you just assuming that this company spams people? That's like saying, "I agree with Bob, but he most likely murders people in their sleep, so I hate him."

      Unless you or someone you know has actually been spammed by this company, you're a fucking moron.

      • I have not gotten spam from them or known anyone who got spam from them. I do, however, know someone who works for people who are part owners of 321 Studios (in the same building they used to be located in).

        And I quote from him, "I know for a fact they do."
    • "So, do we like them or hate them?
      I guess I'll wait for the next slashback to tell me."

      So American.
      I can only like or hate there are no shades of grey.
      Please tell me what to think.

  • VCD is not very good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by interstellar_donkey ( 200782 ) <pathighgateNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:25PM (#3397243) Homepage Journal
    I have a lot of DVDs. I have a good A/V system. After seeing the quality of VCD, I'd never make a copy of a DVD onto that format.

    I would like to be able to copy the DVDs I own just to have a backup, and personally I think there is nothing wrong/illegal about it. If I spend $30 on a new fancy DVD, and I accidently break it (which has happened.. some of those cases are really poorly designed), I have no recourse. I paid for the content on that DVD.

    Of course, this has been said on this and other websites thousands of times. But the part that gets me is, here we have a technology that allows people to make really poor copies of something they OWN. VHS has been around for years doing the same thing (making poor/lesser quality copies). My VCR can make a better copy of a movie (as long as there is'nt any of that annoying copy-protection built in) then a VCD. With the VCR, it's legal, but with the software for something worse, it's illegal?

    I really hope this company wins its case. And I hope lawmakers start to sit down and really examine what these laws are saying and doing.
    • VCD is not stellar by any means, but with a good source input and some fun compression tricks, it suffices as a replacement for VCR tapes. Only the mega-high action scenes will really bring the artefacting out if you've got the right tricks up your sleeve.

      I'm using VCD to archive all my VHS tapes. Digitally cleaning the source has made of a *lot* for quality loss over the years, too. Entropy creeps into a VHS tape every time you play it - they're just too easy to damage. VCD gives me comparable quality without having to worry about whether the reading laser is going to scratch the medium. A good CDR won't start to degrade for a good long time too - by the time I have to replace the CDs, we'll be burning on holographic crystals or something.

      VCD is, I think, the unsung underdog of the masses' recording technology. Most DVD players can play them, they don't require weird or expensive equipment to create (no more than a CDR), and there are no encryption or regional issues. You can even play them on a PC with no more than a CD drive. It's a positive boon for the amateur videomaking enthusiast, like the kids on Home Movies.

      Viva la VCD!
      GMFTatsujin
      • I don't own any pre-recorded VHS tapes, but I do use my VCR to record television programs.

        I also have quite a few TV shows that I have missed/forgot to hit record on the VCR in data format (that I got of Kazaa). It has occured to me that I could probably record those shows onto VCD, which would be great considering the cost.

        Mind you, these are programs that have been broadcast on television (or cable, which I pay for legally), recorded by somebody else and put into digital format (albeit, usually pretty poor sound/video quality).

        Is this legal? Is it legal for me to have a copy of them on my hard drive? Is it legal for me to put them onto media like VCD?

        To me, it seems as if it should'nt be. Recording of broadcast televison is legal. Digital recording of broadcast televison is legal (Tivo). Making a tape of a broadcast show and lending it to my freind is legal. So does it become illegal if I personally forgot to program my VCR to record it?

        Just a thought.
        • I do exactly that with a few select shows. I'm growing my archive of 24 and Space Ghost Coast to Coast every week. Many of the VHS tapes I'm cleaning and archiving are also TV shows I grabbed off the air.

          It's probably illegal. Recording shows for archival purposes is, I think. The major buzzword that keeps popping up in legal documents is "Time shifting" - that is, it's legal to record a show if you plan to watch it later and then get rid of it. Truth is, I don't really know, and I don't care.

          I'm recording shows for my future kids. No, honestly. I want them to see how television was back in my day. I anticipate the continuing cultural shift - things were different in my dad's day, a different from that in my grandad's day - and television serves as a record of that shift, as it is a product of the culture that it shifted into.

          I'm not sure that makes sense.

          Anyway, I think of it as time-shifting on a transgenerational scale. I want them to know where their culture came from, and how I've seen it change over my lifetime. I also want them to get my jokes.

          If the shows I care about get put on DVD, I'll buy them, if only for the improved video quality. As DVDs tend to come with lots of bonus material, I'll take that as additional text to add to my examination of the culture. When I heard Samurai Jack was going on DVD, I jumped for joy; one less thing to worry about grabbing, plus the chance for some insights by Genndy Tarakovski. Boo-yah!

          Having my recording medium cost less than a buck an hour is nice too. But it takes time to capture, encode, and burn, so it all equals out.

          GMFTatsujin

    • Re:VCD is not very good (Score:4, Insightful)

      by sh00z ( 206503 ) <sh00z.yahoo@com> on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:45PM (#3397366) Journal
      Which all makes me wonder why the studios haven't pulled out the ULTIMATE weapon against "DVD Back-Up" software: the lifetime replacement guarantee. If your DVD ever becomes unwatchable due to physical damage, simply bring it in and exchange it for a new one. Then there would be be no reason for people attempting to preserve their property to resort to potentially infringing methods, and Sony et al could sue firms like 321 into oblivion.
      • That will never happen. You're right, it would strike a hudge blow to the the DVD backup software, but the DVD manufactuers want it both ways. They don't want you to make backups, and if it breaks, they want you to pay full price to replace it. Hey, whoever said these companies were interested in fairness?

        Not to mention the fact that DVDs can go out of print and companies that produce them can go out of business.
  • If Felton couldn't get a declaratory judgement on the DMCA with that "smoking gun" letter, from the DVD-CCA, these guys certainly aren't going to succeed in getting one either. Case dismissed for lack of 'case or controversy'. They must know this.

  • Judging before interestest become vested (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SirSlud ( 67381 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:29PM (#3397270) Homepage
    Interesting and actually probably a very good approach - get the legal clearance before the reactions of the current top players are based soley on the 'here and now' stakes.

    It would have been interesting .. if the recording industry (obviously) didn't predict the popularity of file sharing, would they have 'ignored' Napster had Napster approached them (hell, maybe they did) before they started allowing downloads, with the Sonys, et al. dismissing Napster as an insignificant piece of software and essentially binding them to said assumption? I wonder if it would be more useful to fight these laws before the money begins flowing in, for two reasons:

    a) Those who subsequently have a problem with it will likely garner much less sympathy from the average person if it was common knowledge that they didn't do anything about the problem when they had the chance and the $$ behind the problem was unknown.

    b) The company seeking to sell the potentially illegal software cannot be criticised for taking advantage of the lack of legislation in new areas of technology, which lends credibility to the struggle; ie, they arn't interested in challenging the status quo because they are clockin' 100$ an hour in sales, but rather because they believe that they should have the right to sell said software. It's a subtle distinction, but an important one - they are not interested in changing laws to continue making money, but rather to allow them to try and make money on a claimed innovation. I think Napster always had an uphill PR battle with the 'cynical traditional devout capitalist' crowd, because their interestests were so clearly vested at the time, due to the astonding success of the software by the time their shit was hitting the courts. With the company mentioned in the article, they are not a surefire money maker, which shows that part of the reason they wish to knock down laws is because they believe they _should_ be able to sell the software, not because the employees don't want to take a step down in terms of living standards in the middle of a 'killer app' epidemic.
    • Ir sounds like a good idea, but I don't think it will work for two reasons. Take this with a grain of salt, because I am still a law student, but it's my two cents. What 321 is doing here is asking for a declartory judgment, because they know that they could be sued by the software on the basis of the 2600 case. This is a direct contrversy which the court can actually adjudicate against. However, if a company like Napster tried to obtain a declaratory judgment back in 1998 when it was just first starting, it wouldn't be able to because there would be no existing claim or contraversy, and the court would not be able to adjudicate. Courts, unfortunately, are inheriently limited under Article three to only adjuicate claims and contraverises. Secondly, merely a lack of legislation does not preclude a trial later on. Once legislation banning the software goes into effect, it automatically creates the cause of action necessary. The amout of previous adjudication does not matter simply because there was no existing violation under the law because it did not exist, and now there is a violation.

  • DVD Copy Plus? Grabbed a copy .. (Score:4, Funny)

    by dimer0 ( 461593 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:42PM (#3397338)
    I just grabbed a copy of DVD Copy Plus off Usenet. Damn fine product!

    • Re:DVD Copy Plus? Grabbed a copy .. (Score:4, Informative)

      by BasharTeg ( 71923 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @07:47PM (#3398471) Homepage
      I know this is just a joke, but seriously the hell it is ! This damned "product" is a frickin retarded application which autoinstalls SmartRipper, DVDx, and VCDEasy, and then gives you stupid little pictures that tell you how to configure them. I figured I'd get a nice all in one solution, and instead I got this horseshit. I could write the same thing in VB in 30 seconds. Or better yet, a batch file that runs the 3 installers, and then launches IE/Netscape to read a .htm file. This is a TOTAL rip off. Do NOT support these morons repackaging free software and then trying to play on everyone's good side by fighting the DMCA.

      Mod this post up, because I got ripped off and I am admitting it so that other people don't make the same mistake.

  • DeCSS (Score:3, Informative)

    by squarefish ( 561836 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:43PM (#3397343)
    The only difference I see between this and current ongoing cases with DeCSS is that they are trying to get permission from the court system before they get sued. There is allot of history available on this topic. For those that are just hearing about this, check out 2600's DVD [2600.org] lawsuit history page and more at the Electronic Frontier Foundation [eff.org] website.

  • So what's Plan B? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ProfMoriarty ( 518631 ) on Tuesday April 23, 2002 @04:50PM (#3397402) Journal
    If the previous court cases involving the DMCA and 2600 DO influence the 9th District (which may or may not happen) ...

    My question is simple ... what happens to the company, if it doesn't get approved?

    They are currently sell only one product ... the DVD Copier, and giving away DVD Photo Pro ... is that enough to sell and have the company not go away?

    If it's ruled that the DVD Copier software is not legal ... could that fact actually influence it to be legal, since the DMCA would then effectively put (a) company(ies) out of business?

    According to their own Press Release [321studios.com] they are going on the offensive ...

    Best wishes ... and good luck.


    • My question is simple ... what happens to the company, if it doesn't get approved?

      They go out of business. Or find a different market.

      They are currently sell only one product ... the DVD Copier, and giving away DVD Photo Pro ... is that enough to sell and have the company not go away?

      If it's ruled that the DVD Copier software is not legal ... could that fact actually influence it to be legal, since the DMCA would then effectively put (a) company(ies) out of business?

      I sure hope not. There's no right to make money at any given activity. The courts don't exist to protect business plans. It's the same issue we've been talking about with respect to the RIAA, the cue cat, and proprietary software.
      • There's no right to make money at any given activity. The courts don't exist to protect business plans. It's the same issue we've been talking about with respect to the RIAA, the cue cat, and proprietary software.

        Actually ... what I was attempting (poorly) to say here, is ...

        If the DMCA is in violation of the First Amendment, it should be stricken down.

        Now apply that logic to the current business ... if the DMCA (overreaches) and causes businesses to fail, should the DMCA get scrutinized for harming and interfering with businesses.

        Now with your arguement, I would have to say ... it depends. Is the business legal? If so, then parts (all) of the DMCA should be ruled unconstitutional. If the business is operating illegally, then too bad for the bad business plan.

    • There is no plan B, plan A is bulletproof.

      1. Sell DVD copier software until you have enough money to afford a protracted legal battle. Probably already done.

      2. Get a lawyer that hates the DMCA to work for cheap during said legal battle. Sue the MPAA.

      3. Have protracted legal battle, and hope you don't get hit with an injunction too soon. Sell millions and millions of copies of DVD copier software after news hits press. (Profit!!?!?)

      It doesn't matter if they win or lose, they still make millions and retire rich. It's highly unlikely that the court will touch their personal assets, even if they are fined, only their company will get fined.

  • Do'h! (Score:2)

    by Sj0 ( 472011 )
    Well, if I can give up my fair-use rights in the Windows EULA, and my right to free speech in the FrontPage EULA, certainly it's not too far fetched for another company to say that they aren't to be held responsible for the laws of the land either.

    I like that. I'll do the same thing.

    "By reading this agreement, you hereby agree that SJ Zero shall not be held responsible for any crimes committed by him or involving him. Breaking this agreement will give Sj Zero the right to poke you with a pointed stick until(but not before) you apologize, crying like a baby."

    So much for the great blackout. I decided to forget about that after I realized that there were more posts in the first 24 hours of the blackout than in the week before. :) I participated this long because I thought it would be fun to shake the system a bit, but it's obvious that no shakeage is happening. It was fun for a few hours, but a week would just be boring. :)

  • Who got confused reading this one, thinking that this company was 989 Studios [989sports.com], developer of playstation sports games?

    :^)

    Ryan Fenton
  • If these are the same people that were filling my mailbox with spam trying to flog "backup DVDs to CDs" software then I'm happy to admit that I forwarded all such spam directly to the MPAA with a strong recommendation that they sue the snot out of them.

    I've got nothing against such software being available (in fact I'd encourage it) -- but when someone fills my mailbox with spam trying to flog the stuff then I get mad.
  • ... after all, three hundred and twenty one (321) Studios can't be wrong!

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Close