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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Media Movies News Hardware

MPAA Sues DVD Chip Manufacturers 624

Posted by michael from the customers'-best-interests-in-mind dept.
WhatAmIDoingHere writes "The Motion Picture Association of America has sued two chip manufacturing companies for selling integrated circuits to manufacturers that produce non-approved DVD players."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MPAA Sues DVD Chip Manufacturers More

MPAA Sues DVD Chip Manufacturers

Comments Filter:

  • Lawyers Profit! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:01PM (#10058729) Homepage Journal
    FTA: Sigma and MediaTek make chips to decode the Content Scramble System, or CSS, which is the copy-protection system used for DVDs. Their licenses require that they sell only to other CSS-licensed companies.

    Let me get this straight. The content scramble system can be disabled with chips sold to companies with licenses to distribute systems with copy-protection? I smell another SCO-styled lawsuit. When will people learn? These chips could be valuable in the development of technology to prevent copy theft, and even then, since these chips are only being sold to licensed distributors, I see that the MPAA, or whoever is in charge of these licenses, could have simply yanked the licenses instead of wasting precious court time and money... that is, unless, the MPAA knew damn well they didn't have a case for revoking these licenses, so they figured they had better make an example of these companies by suing them for lost revenue. It's almost parallel to a police department charging another department for sending drugs or illegal firearms to a third party for analysis. It's totally trumped up! IANAL, but I think with these kinds of cases going around the block, I would like to be one! Lawyers are the only ones who profit from these hyped up dramas!
    • We could dress up as Americans and throw tea in the harbor... or sand in their gas tanks... or grenades in their toilets... or...

      No, I don't think I'm out of control. I think the industry is out of control, and the government's going right along with it (both major parties).

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:17PM (#10058930)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by balls199 ( 648142 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:39PM (#10059229) Homepage
        Actually, regional DVD's aren't about price fixing as much as it has to do with selling rights. With most U.S. independent films, the producer sells the right to distribute his film in the U.S. at a loss to a distributer like Sony, but keeps the rights to sell the movie internationally. The producer doesn't make any money from U.S. sales, but makes at least enough to pay for the film on foriegn distribution. Regional DVD's were most likely developed to keep the distributer from competing with the producer. Thus, if you buy a region free DVD player, you're stealing from the producer, not the big bad distributer everyone is complaining about. For more information check out the book "From Reel to Deal" by Don S-S Simens.

        • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

          by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @03:02PM (#10059549)
          Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)

            by DavidBrown ( 177261 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @04:04PM (#10060295) Journal
            Well of course it's a monopoly. Copyright is a legal monopoly. Maybe someday we'll ditch the free market for information and the prices of DVD's will be fixed by government committee. But until then, yes, the producer of a work has a monopoly on its distribution, and can sell pieces of that monopoly (regional distribution agreements) for whatever the market will bear.

            If this is still a problem for you, you should remind yourself that it's only a show and you should really just relax. If you don't like what they are selling it for, then vote with your pocketbook and don't buy it. This isn't food, it's entertainment, and the government shouldn't get involved in what entertainment costs.

            Cavaet: Copyright extentions still suck and are completely inappropriate, and, in my opinion, are nothing more than corporate theft from the public domain. But, while a copyright of reasonable length is still in effect, the owner of the copyright should have complete control of the work.

            • copyright of reasonable length (Score:5, Insightful)

              by dpilot ( 134227 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @05:27PM (#10061157) Homepage Journal
              OK. Show me the 'copyright expiration field' in the DVD/CSS format.

              Actually, I don't KNOW that it's not there, because I've never looked at the specs. But I'm absolutely sure it's not, because otherwise we'd have seen 'clock hacks' to bypass "protection" long ago. The lack of a 'copyright expiration field' might be taken as an indication of intent to keep extending copyrights forever. (I suspect it's really negligence, but I'll bet the MPAA never gets sued over their negliegnce, only chipmakers.)

              I don't disagree with you. This is indicative of another problem the US is refusing to face. Back in 1992, Clinton tried to make health care reform a national focus. AS A NATION, we turned our backs on the whole issue, and it has come back to bite us badly. IMHO, health care costs are in large responsible for migration of jobs overseas. Not that I necessarily cared for Clinton's plan, BUT WE REFUSED TO EVEN DEBATE THE MATTER! Our bad!

              The entire field of intellectual property NOW needs the same kind of national debate. We are in the process of screwing over our national competitive posture by pretending to stay with existing ways.

        • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:3, Informative)

          by antiMStroll ( 664213 )
          How do you get from

          "With most U.S. independent films, the producer sells the right to distribute his film in the U.S. at a loss to a distributer like Sony...

          to

          "Thus, if you buy a region free DVD player, you're stealing from the producer, not the big bad distributer ...."?

          Seems to me enforcing a system where the independent film maker sells American distribution rights at a loss it's Sony who's doing the stealing.

        • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Armchair Dissident ( 557503 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @03:24PM (#10059805)
          If the thinking behind the DVD region encoding is simply to prevent a producer selling DVD's in competition to a distributor, then I can only think that the distributors can't write contracts. If I were a distributor, and I wanted exclusive rights to distribute a film, I'd damn well say so in any contract, and I'd specify damages if that clause was broken. Then if the producer attempted to make another deal with another distributor in the same region, I'd sue.

          I'd suggest that distributors are, in fact, very good at writing contracts. One only needs to look at book deals to see this. I find it hard to believe that a film distributor is completely incapable of writing an exclusive distribution agreement into a contract and enforcing it, whereas the book publishing industry has no such problem.

          Thus if I buy a region-free DVD player (as I have) I fail to see how I have "stolen" anything from anybody. I certainly haven't stolen from the producer so long as I buy a copy of the film I watch; if the producer has a good contract, he still gets his royalty cheque. If the producer does not have a good contract, then the only person "stealing" anything from anybody is the big bad distributor.

        • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:5, Informative)

          by malfunct ( 120790 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @04:06PM (#10060326) Homepage
          Regional dvd's were developed so the movie industry could release the dvd in the US before they release the movie to theaters abroad. It also supports regional pricing so that they can better match the price to the demand in the area and not have to compete with themselves in other areas. Finally as you point out they can more easily divide distribution rights.

          That said it still pisses me off in general.

        • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:5, Interesting)

          by dirty ( 13560 ) <dirtymatt@gmail.3.1415926com minus pi> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @04:43PM (#10060759)
          Then they are entering into a bad business agreement. Explain how it's exactly wrong to import a DVD from Europe. I can drink imported beer, smoke imported cigarettes, wear imported clothes. Why not watch imported movies?

        • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:4, Funny)

          by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @05:50PM (#10061342) Homepage
          Actually, regional DVD's aren't about price fixing as much as it has to do with selling rights.

          Exactly -- just as with book publishing, where if the publisher only has, say "North American rights", he uses region encoding on the book so that even if a copy makes its way overseas, nobody can read it.

          Oh, wait...

        • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Laebshade ( 643478 ) <laebshade@gmail.com> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @06:05PM (#10061461)
          if you buy a region free DVD player, you're stealing from the producer
          I'm sorry. Stop right there. I'm stealing by using a device that allows me to use something I bought?

      • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:4, Informative)

        by Landaras ( 159892 ) <neilNO@SPAMwehneman.com> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:55PM (#10059440) Homepage
        It's all about price fixing in the end. And it's legal. Don't you just love it?

        To quote Larry Lessig [lessig.org]...

        Note to citizens: We're permitted to change the law.

        - Neil Wehneman

        • Re:Lawyers Profit! (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Kaa ( 21510 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @03:49PM (#10060121) Homepage
          Note to citizens: We're permitted to change the law.

          With all due respect to Larry Lessig...

          Note to large organized groups of citizens which have the capability to buy or strongarm enough congresscritters: you are permitted to change the law.

          Note to the rest: you are still screwed.

  • It's OK (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mz6 ( 741941 ) * on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:02PM (#10058739) Journal
    It's still pretty easy to make DVD player region-free. I mean, it's not illegal to modify your own hardware now is it? Is this where they are going now?

    • Re:It's OK (Score:5, Insightful)

      by nightsweat ( 604367 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:04PM (#10058765)
      I thought it was illegal (in the U.S. at least) if you bypass a copy protection technology. Or does the DMCA only apply if you redistribute the info?

      • Re:It's OK (Score:5, Informative)

        by RLW ( 662014 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:17PM (#10058941)
        No distribution required. Just having something that by passes the encryption is enough. My understanding of the law is this, If you break an encryption scheme which is used to protect copyrighted material then you've broken the DMCA.

        • Re:It's OK (Score:5, Informative)

          by Smallpond ( 221300 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:35PM (#10059187) Homepage Journal
          Bull...

          (b) ADDITIONAL VIOLATIONS. (1) No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that (etc.)

          and

          (c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED. (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

          Nothing about possessing or using technology that bypasses encryption. Its legal to have, use and modify, just not distribute. Kind of like the GPL.

          • Re:It's OK (Score:4, Informative)

            by Alsee ( 515537 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @10:36PM (#10063752) Homepage
            Who modded this troll up?

            He blatantly skipped (a) [cornell.edu] which makes circumventing criminal. Courts have ruled the DVD-CCA system is an "effective access control system", and short of having the DMCA overturned, circumventing their system is clearly illegal.

            His refference to "(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED" is pointless because violating the DMCA is not copyright infringment. There is no fair use defence to violating the DMCA. Saying a non-existant defence is "not affected" is just plain offensive.

            -

        • Re:It's OK (Score:4, Funny)

          by whyde ( 123448 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @03:51PM (#10060137)
          Two consenting same-sex adults enter a windowless room (no A/C) with a Linux box, smartcard programmer, DVD burner, XBOX mod chip, copy of DeCSS, a DSL connection, a black Sharpie marker, and a copy of LOTR:ROTK.

          They exit the room four hours later, flushed and smiling.

          How many different crimes have been committed?

    • Re:It's OK (Score:5, Informative)

      by Izago909 ( 637084 ) * <tauisgod@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:06PM (#10058791)
      I mean, it's not illegal to modify your own hardware now is it?

      It depends on where [theregister.co.uk] you live. [theregister.co.uk]

    • I think this would make and interesting case (Score:5, Interesting)

      by cmiller173 ( 641510 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:23PM (#10059042)
      What if you modify the hardware in such a way that it does not facilitate copying but does get around other "access controls". The last I checked even the DMCA does not guarantee the movie studios the right to create these little geographic monopolies called "regions". The problem is that most of the hacks to make a DVD player region free also disables macrovision as well. If someone were to hack the firmware of a player to enable region free access but left the macrovision copy protection in place(as long as were at it lets also disable the crap that keeps you from skipping past the FBI warning, etc) I think a good argument could be made that you in fact have not violated the DMCA.
      • The Macrovision is usually disabled because it fucks up the picture not only on VCRs (who copies DVDs to tape, really?!) but also on high end CRT projectors that some home cinema enthusiasts use.

        So, you can't watch your films on your $4,000+ projector because of the crippleware.

    • My business terms... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by KjetilK ( 186133 )

      It's still pretty easy to make DVD player region-free. I mean, it's not illegal to modify your own hardware now is it?

      Well, it is legal where I live (Norway), but many others can be thrown in jail for this. Nevertheless, I'm not doing it: Even if I can make myself a region-free DVD player, if they don't respect me as a customer enough to sell me one without that crap, they're not getting my money. Those are my terms. I know that it may imply that I can't play some DVDs that refuse to play on region-fr

  • Additonal functionality disallowed? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DamienMcKenna ( 181101 ) <{moc.annek-cm} {ta} {neimad}> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:02PM (#10058740)
    So it is no longer legal to add additional functionality to a device you are creating? There goes my idea of building a more secure website than my managers asked for, can't have that.

    Damien

  • Just annoyances anyway... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by garcia ( 6573 ) * on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:03PM (#10058758)
    it said proved the two were selling microchips to companies, whose DVD players lack what the MPAA called "appropriate security features.

    Give me a break. All of their "security" features have been easily broken by widely known software/hardware out there. In fact the only thing that "security features" do is make the general public annoyed.

    Take for example the TV/VCR combo I use in my bedroom. I have no need for a huge TV in there as I have two larger TVs elsewhere in the house. I hooked up an old DVD player to it. The TV thinks that I am trying to copy DVD's and enables Macrovision. There is no way to disable the Macrovision (at least from what I can find on the net) for that DVD player.

    Thus I am stuck w/removing the macrovision using available software and reburning so I can enjoy the DVDs I have purchased.
    • These protection features are "just annoyances" in the same way that padlocks are "just annoyances". If someone wants to open something locked with a padlock, it's really *not that hard* for him to do so, either by picking or with some bolt cutters. If a company is licensed to sell someone's technology, provided they put a padlock on the box containing that technology, they had better put the padlock on there, regardless of the prevalence of boltcutters.

      It's not news that security features only keep hone

    • Re:Just annoyances anyway... (Score:4, Informative)

      by neurojab ( 15737 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:14PM (#10058901)
      >The TV thinks that I am trying to copy DVD's and enables Macrovision.

      I'm sure you're aware of this, but to clarify: The DVD is marked with a macrovision flag that tells the DVD player to produce an incorrect NTSC signal intended to mess with the automatic gain of a VCR. The DVD player obligingly corrupts the signal. Many TVs have problems with a macrovision-corrupted signal, especially TV/VCR combos.

      I have this problem as well, but I get around it by only buying DVD players in which the macrovision "feature" can be disabled. I don't do this to copy DVDs, I do it so I can watch them.

    • You could just buy a modulator from anywhere that sells DVD players, connect the dvd to the modulator, and connect the modulator to the TV. Our modulator even switches automatically from Antenna to DVD when the player turns on. Poof, no macrovision!
    • Among other choices... Provision+ DVD Decoder [lik-sang.com] I have it on good authority that it works like a champ, although I personally would never own anything like this that would allow me to circumvent a content protection system. :-)

      On-on!

  • Insane. Absolutely Insane. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scifience ( 674659 ) * <webmaster@scifience.net> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:05PM (#10058769) Homepage
    Are you saying that now we can, for example, sue Ford because they produced the car that was purchased by a drunken driver who killed someone?

    A book publisher can sue Xerox because one of their copy machines was purchased for the purpose of making illegal copies of books?

    A camera maker? Companies that make pens?

    • Re:Insane. Absolutely Insane. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by M. Piedlourd ( 68092 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:10PM (#10058851)
      How about suing tobacco companies for producing cigarettes that people choose to smoke, or gun manufacturers for making weapons that are used to commit crimes? Pretty crazy world, isn't it?
      • Cigarettes will fuck me up, no matter what I do. so selling cigarettes is like selling cyonide sweets, not normal sweets that may make you fat if you eat too many.

        Guns were designed to kill things, so I suppose they shouldn't really sue the manufactures for making guns, they should sue the government for letting them.

        Media-players should be designed to play media, not prevent you from playing media.

      • yeah, we're getting offtopic, but...

        With tobacco, the interesting part is the "choice" involved. Personally, I don't have a problem with the fact that cigarettes are harmful to one's health, but rather the addictive power of nicotine. That's a legitimate avenue to pursue, in my opinion, as opposed to the ridiculous restrictions on advertising and other means by which government is trying to eliminate smoking.
    • Are you saying that now we can, for example, sue Ford because they produced the car that was purchased by a drunken driver who killed someone?

      They are suing them for violating a contract. Do you have a contract with Ford forbidding them from selling cars to drunks? I doubt it. But the MPAA apparently has a contract limiting who the chip manufacturers can sell their chips to, and the MPAA claims the chip manufacturers are violating that contract.

      • Shouldn't the DVD-CCA, rather than the MPAA be the be the organization responsible for enforcing the rules behind the CSS system? Granted, the two organizations are very similar, but the MPAA should be calling its friends rather than be the entity in the headline.
    • Huh?

      The MPAA owns CSS. They license it to these companies, and say "You can use our CSS stuff, but only sell it to people on this list". Sell outside the list, break the agreement, get sued. That's what's happening.

      This is more like Apple suing Real because Real is using Apple's DRM without Apple's permission, though that's not the same either, but it's closer.

      They've been selling these chips forever, and the MPAA has been happily collecting it's royalties for CSS. What I wonder is, why now?

      That is,

  • Of course (Score:4, Insightful)

    by StevenHenderson ( 806391 ) <[stevehenderson] [at] [gmail.com]> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:05PM (#10058770)
    that produce non-approved DVD players

    Of course...because approved piracy/ region modding is okay, but heaven forbid it be done without approval? ...or something?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:06PM (#10058785)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Absurdity and Orwellianism (Score:5, Insightful)

    by FunWithHeadlines ( 644929 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:06PM (#10058786) Homepage
    The headline of the article screams "Piracy" and there is this quote:

    "The MPAA said the suits against Sigma Designs Inc. and MediaTek Inc. followed testing that it said proved the two were selling microchips to companies, whose DVD players lack what the MPAA called "appropriate security features."

    What rubbish! If you want to be a "pirate" (and let's call it something else, please), you can copy a DVD any time you want. Just do a bit-by-bit copy, and voila! A copied DVD. These manufacturers do not enable theft in any way.

    And what's with all this Orwellian "piracy" anyway? Those manufacturers don't conform to the precise specs the industry wants, so off with their heads? How about what the consumer wants? Oh, right, we don't count.

    • Re:Absurdity and Orwellianism (Score:5, Informative)

      by Scanline ( 28688 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:17PM (#10058932)
      What rubbish! If you want to be a "pirate" (and let's call it something else, please), you can copy a DVD any time you want. Just do a bit-by-bit copy, and voila! A copied DVD. These manufacturers do not enable theft in any way.

      I you're talking about copying to a DVD-R, a bit-by-bit copy would produce an unplayable DVD. The CSS key is pre-recorded and thus the copy can't be decrypted.

    • Piracy Isn't Just a Naval Term (Score:5, Informative)

      by Speare ( 84249 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:22PM (#10059023) Homepage Journal

      [stock rant]

      The press rightly continues to use the word 'piracy' for illicit copying and distribution of original materials. Some think it's a new phenomenon, and hard to square with the traditional image of the Jolly Roger and swashbuckling robbers-at-sea. The use of the word 'piracy' as signifying an unauthorized copy of a manuscript is hundreds of years old, long before modern Copyright doctrine was developed. From http://www.ninch.org/forum/price.report.html [ninch.org]:

      • There was very little trust in the print medium when it was first developed--it was seen as unstable and subject to piracy and fraudulent copying. Authenticity was hard to guarantee: indeed, the term "piracy" was first used by John Fell, Bishop of Oxford, to describe certain pernicious practices of early printers and booksellers. A "pirate" was someone who participated in the "unauthorized reprinting of a title recognized to belong to someone else." "Stationers" eventually emerged as the trusted practitioners who were placed in charge of various aspects of publishing--practices we would now recognize as printing, publishing, editing, and bookselling. Stationers worked out the conventional practices of making books, and thus made printing a viable economic enterprise with the elaborate complexity of producing a book eventually invisible to all but the practitioners in the trade.

      That's Dr. John Fell (1625-86), who was given the title of Bishop of Oxford in 1675.

      [/stock rant]

      Now, the word "theft" is the word I object. One cannot steal an idea, one cannot steal the text of a book, one cannot steal the image of a mouse. Even if it is copied and the copy is somehow proven to impact the sales payable to the original creator, it is not theft. The original creator is not denied the chance to continue to sell their creation. It is a crime to infringe the creator's rights of monopoly, but it is not "theft." Rightly, the courts have also recently been pointing out to the MPAA that their aggressive rhetoric is squarely outside the definitions of law.

      • One cannot steal an idea, one cannot steal the text of a book, one cannot steal the image of a mouse. Even if it is copied and the copy is somehow proven to impact the sales payable to the original creator, it is not theft.

        I can't agree with that statement. The pirate receives something (a string of bits, an idea, a computer file, whatever) and gives nothing in exchange. The pirate has acquired something that, by all rights, he should have paid for.

        In copying the latest music from the 'net, you have a

        • Re:Piracy Isn't Just a Naval Term (Score:4, Funny)

          by Kaa ( 21510 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @04:03PM (#10060283) Homepage
          I can't agree with that statement. The pirate receives something (a string of bits, an idea, a computer file, whatever) and gives nothing in exchange. The pirate has acquired something that, by all rights, he should have paid for.

          Umm... you are reading Slashot, aren't you? You've just acquired some stings of bits, some ideas, and some computer files and have given nothing in exchange.

          THIEF!!!

  • Everybody always remember (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:06PM (#10058792)
    Guns: Sacred and necessary

    Devices which inadvertently allow consumers to exercise fair use rights: Dangerous and damaging

    • Re:Everybody always remember (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @05:51PM (#10061353) Journal
      Guns: Sacred and necessary.

      I know you were being facetious. But yes they are.

      "God created men. Sam Colt made them equal."

      Disarming the law-abiding doesn't solve the crime problem.

      Even if you lived in a fantasy universe where you could de-gun everybody including the crooks, there are arrows, swords, spears, clubs, sling, rocks, ...

      And if you managed to disarm everybody and everything, would you have stopped crime and violence? Absolutely not. You'd just have put everybody at the mercy of the strongest bullies. Kiss civilization goodby - it's back to feudialism, or worse.

      What guns do is make it possible for anyone, strong or weak, young or old, male or female, black, white, yellow, or brown, to be about equally deadly - with minimal expense and a few hours of training.

      The net result is a massive and sustained reduction in violence. The good guys were never a problem. The bad guys mostly learn to stop attacking the good guys (and stick to stealing their stuff when they're not there to watch). The few who insist on attacking an armed population repeatedly are soon wounded and taken "out of service".

      And on the political level, the government with an armed population is much less able to oppress it.

      A vote for citizen disarmament is a vote for violent crime, tyranny, genocide, and the rule of psychpathic strongmen - at both the wholesale and retail level.

  • Where's this proof? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Launch ( 66938 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:07PM (#10058804)
    "The MPAA, recognizing the damage the advent of digital file-sharing did to the music industry, has waged an aggressive campaign against movie piracy."

    I still haven't seen a single piece of documentation that can dirrectly link a damage to the music industry as a result (even in part) by file-sharing.

  • Isn't this a licensing issue (Score:4, Informative)

    by zymurgy_cat ( 627260 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:07PM (#10058808) Homepage
    If you RTFM, the manufacturers were sued because their licenses prohibited them from selling their chips to non-CSS licensed buyers.

    I'm not saying I'm a big fan of the MPAA, but this sounds like a tempest in a teapot. It's not like these companies somehow came up with some workaround and the MPAA was jumping all over them.

    Fanatics who don't want to RTFM are welcomed to mod me down.

    • If you RTFM, the manufacturers were sued because their licenses prohibited them from selling their chips to non-CSS licensed buyers.

      Might the MPAA's own actions be in violation of anti-trust laws [cornell.edu]?

      Every contract, combination in the form of trust or otherwise, or conspiracy, in restraint of trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations, is declared to be illegal.

  • Chips? *Cough* VLC and MPC *Cough* (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Bonker ( 243350 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:07PM (#10058809)
    There are still people worrying with playback control on DVD players?

    Media Player Classic

    http://sourceforge.net/projects/guliverkli/ [sourceforge.net]

    VLC

    http://www.videolan.org/ [videolan.org]

    Pick yer platform

  • Sold to DVD Makers (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SirLanse ( 625210 ) <swwg69.yahoo@com> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:08PM (#10058818)
    Who are these DVD makers and what models are they talking about. Pirating minds want to know.

    • Re:Sold to DVD Makers (Score:5, Informative)

      by djohnsto ( 133220 ) <dan.e.johnston@gm[ ].com ['ail' in gap]> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:35PM (#10059185) Homepage
      Zenith DVB318 and Momitsu V880. They both upscale DVD's to HD resolution and output the unencrypted result over analog component cables. The DVD consortium (and the content industry in general), state that everything must be either encrypted with HDCP (when using digital outputs like DVI or HDMI), or messed up with Macrovision. The only exception is for component outputs (where the Macrovision algorithm doesn't work), so they contractually limit the legal output resolution over component to 480p for DVD's.

      People who were early adopters of HDTV's (i.e. they ONLY have component inputs for HD, no DVI or HDMI) are pretty pissed about the whole situation.

      • Re:Sold to DVD Makers (Score:5, Interesting)

        by karlandtanya ( 601084 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @04:05PM (#10060310)
        I just read the specs on a Momitsu V880. This is what all DVD players should be! (Except for the cheapass remote). Why do we settle for deliberately crippled hardware when there is something so much more functional. Probably doesn't cost any more to make, either--just different software/permissions.

  • I have to agree (Score:5, Insightful)

    by slashjames ( 789070 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:08PM (#10058820)
    I read the article, and I have to agree this is probably a valid lawsuit. This is purely contract law, not copyrights or patents. The contract the manufacturers signed said they would not produce or sell devices that could be used for copying DVDs. The manufacturers didn't hold up their end of the deal. Yeah, it stinks, but that's the way it is.

  • You mean we _haven't_ learned anything (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rharder ( 218037 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:09PM (#10058834) Homepage
    The MPAA, recognizing the damage the advent of digital file-sharing did to the music industry, has waged an aggressive campaign against movie piracy.

    In other words, "We didn't learn from the backlash against the recording industry, so we'll do it again. Only harder."

  • Bad journalism... yet again. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Attitude Adjuster ( 683211 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:15PM (#10058915)
    More examples of supposed journalists repeating as fact things that have not (AFAIK) been proven...

    The CSS license pact has aided the success of DVDs because it has provided protection against illegal copying to copyright owners of movies, television shows and other content sold on DVD.

    And DVDs would have been less successful if CSS didn't exist? There is proof of that?

    The MPAA, recognizing the damage the advent of digital file-sharing did to the music industry, has waged an aggressive campaign against movie piracy.

    Haven't we seen studies claiming that the record industry has not been damaged, e.g. that sales are only lower than the RIAA's flawed and over-optimistic projections? Even studies claiming that file sharing might have a positive impact on record sales?

    It seems to me that many journalists these days don't actually investigate or research anything, they just take industry or political press releases and report the spin as fact. Or am I too cynical?

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:16PM (#10058918)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I love how one month they're (the MPAA) claiming the highest profits they've ever had.

      And the next month, "Piracy is ruining the industry!"

      I just can't understand how these people think.

  • The Real Reason (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PineHall ( 206441 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:20PM (#10058989)
    This is all about control. The movie industry wants complete control over the distribution of movies. DVD regions is about controling the distribution of movies. Yes control allows them to maximize profits. They might be able to make even more money with a more open and free distribution, but that is not guaranteed. So to guarantee healthy profits they demand complete control. It is safe and mostly risk free.

  • Bizzaroman World (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:22PM (#10059009)
    We know litigation is the last gasp of industries with outdated models, why else would you actively want to sue the people you are in business with or YOUR CUSTOMERS?

    The meteor has crashed, the dinosaur is dying.

    Speaking with a family friend who is getting involved in indie film production, the big studios are banking more and more on the one profitable hit out of the ten movies produced and on DVD sales and rentals than ever. Neither of us go to the movies very often any more to see anything produced by a big studio (the last movie I saw was Eternal Sunshine... and before that? Lord of the Rings 3?). I'd just as soon keep my money and see student films or whatnot over repackaged fluff. It all makes it to HBO within a year anyway.

    This is one reason I think the studios are balking at going digital, for while it appears to slash their distribution costs, it also enables theatre owners to use the equivelent of an iTunes Music Store for their first-run movies.

    Sorry dinosaur, comet has hit. Why sue chip manufacturers? The only image your damaging is your own, makes fuck-all difference to any with either 1) a modicum of nerdibility or 2) anyone with a hobby that is of lower abstract cost than watching fabricated reality (meaning people flock to most benefit for least effort; if the MPAA continues alienative customers, customers will choose other form of entertainment and forget Hollywood ever existed).

    It's Darwiniaan (sp?): adapt or die. Lawsuits are not indications of adaptation.

  • Legal precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erroneus ( 253617 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:23PM (#10059043) Homepage
    There has GOT to be some legal precedent set somewhere that says "You cannot be sued for making or selling something that is legal when someone else does something illegal, unlawful or otherwise infinging on the rights of others using it."

    I should not be liable for murder selling a knife used to kill someone. I should not be liable for murder for selling a car that someone used to kill someone. I should not be liable for copyright infringement for selling a photocopier to someone who uses it to copy books. And I certainly shouldn't be liable for infringement for selling legally licensed chips to someone who misuses them... and neither should these chip makers.

    Surely there is legal precedent to such a simple argument.
    • As others have pointed out, the case seems to hinge on a contract that the manufacturers signed. I'd like to point out that your reasoning, while correct, is completely ignored in today's litigious America.

      I should not be liable for murder selling a knife used to kill someone.

      So you haven't seen the lawsuits against the gun industry for selling a perfectly legal product, in a very highly regulated industry and yet they're being sued by victims of crime who decided to go after the deep pockets instead o

  • My First 50 dates (Score:4, Funny)

    by lateralus_1024 ( 583730 ) <mattbaha@gmailLISP.com minus language> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:34PM (#10059165)
    Can I sue them for My First 50 Dates?

  • More bizarro-world (Score:3, Funny)

    by shoppa ( 464619 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:34PM (#10059173)
    The MPAA represents companies that want to sell movies on DVD. Obviously more DVD players will mean more DVD's sold. So they sue companies that sell DVD players?

    I'm sure they've got some harebrained legal theory, but the MPAA is hurting its member companies just to hold up legal fictions.

  • Fucking MPAA (Score:4, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:37PM (#10059205) Journal
    Why don't these companies just say they don't make DVD chips/players. The RIAA sells CDs that violate the CD specification and it gets away with it because it doesnt sell 'CDs'. Anyway the MPAAs methods should be illigal, region coding is totally over the line and you are fully within your right to disable/bypass it for fair-use (ie buying DVDs abroad)

  • Bundling is coming soon (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gelfling ( 6534 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:42PM (#10059254) Homepage Journal
    Pretty soon you will have to buy DVD players from the motion picture companies, and, lord willing each one will have a different standard and cost several hundred dollars each. Phase 2 will be that you have to buy your television set from motion picture companies as well and these too will all be different and incompatible from one another.

    It will be a Federal crime, to hack either DVD players or TV's to do anything other than what you pay the motion picture companies to permit you to do. On/off switches will be made illegal.

  • A more accurate headline (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @02:44PM (#10059278)
    MPAA Sues DVD Chip Manufacturers For Making Things People Want To Buy
  • Thanks to Intellectual Property, the feudal system lives!

    Hunt thou not in the King's Forest, knave! Double not thy clicks, nor singly if for commerce they be. Scribe ye not the holy GIF format, nor the code of Linux employ within thine enterprise, lest ye suffer sorely in combat with the royal tort attorneys!

  • So, no more TBCs? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ralph Spoilsport ( 673134 ) on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @03:26PM (#10059820) Journal
    A Time Base Corrector strips all that crap out, and gives you a raw video signal, which is very necessary if you're editing in a professional video suite.

    However, if you put a DVD into the line, and run it through a TBC, you ca nthen re-record it onto a digital target, and make as many copies as you want. Sure: there's some loss, and a good TBC costs several hundred bucks, but IT WORKS.

    The MPAA is so full of shit. Grrrr.

    RS

  • Maybe it's time (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Tuesday August 24, 2004 @03:51PM (#10060140)
    to vote with your wallets? I'm suggesting, not buying DVDs of MPAA products. If the industry thinks it's losing money because of chips that are too feature-rich, wait til they lose money due to lack of sales period.

Slashdot Top Deals

BLISS is ignorance.

Close