DVD Copyright Case Mulled over by Judge 270
howhardcanitbetocrea writes "news.com is reporting that the judge in a closely watched lawsuit challenging the legality of DVD-copying software said she was 'substantially persuaded' by past court rulings that favored copyright holders, but closed a hearing Thursday without issuing a ruling in the case." This is a case that could very well determine the future of the DMCA, and the article does a good job of summarizing the arguments from both sides.
The Judge should be persuaded by (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The Judge should be persuaded by (Score:5, Insightful)
The law has changed since then.
With any luck however, the judge will understand the insanity of limiting fair use.
An item such as a DVD copier has a multitude of non-piracy (aar me hearties) uses.
Re:The Judge should be persuaded by (Score:2, Insightful)
circumventing protection != circumvnent copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
.:diatonic:.
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the arguments of the case has been that it does not matter whether copyright is violated or not, as circumventing copy protection is illegal irrespective of the copyright.
But, as I understand the DMCA, there is a link though between copyright and copy protection, as the act only prohibits copy protection when it is applied to a copyrighted work. That is, it is legal to circumvent the copy protection when the content is not under copyright. But, some comments by the lawyers quoted in the article suggest that this is not true, and circumventing ANY copy protection system is illegal? Is that really the case?
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:5, Informative)
Originally, the copyright industry wanted a law that restricted acts of circumvention (with no distinction about what kind of circumvention it was). Defenders of fair use complained, stating that excerpts could not be made for commentary if it were impossible to copy portions of a work.
The legislature decided that protection schemes that prevented copying of material would violate the fair use doctrine and would not be specially protected by law. Instead, copyright holders would be granted legal recourse in case of a breached access protection scheme.
This is convoluted, of course, since you can't copy something if you can't access it. But legislators never seemed to get that far in their reasoning.
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:2)
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=e
1. Having an intended or expected effect.
yep, how that decss is out there the css is no longer an effective access mechanism. back to school
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:5, Insightful)
It is equally true that "If we can access something, we can copy it". No one ever seems to make that logic leap, either. Especially as applies to DVD's - If we have to decrypt them to watch them, we can also copy them. Or those copy protected audio CD's - if we can hear them, we can copy them.
~Will.
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:4, Interesting)
Which in the case of DVDs is absolutely incorrect. CSS is a block encryption method, which means that if you copy a dvd block for block and maintain the position of a given byte on the disc, you never have to decrypt the data. There is nothing physically intrinsic to the original media that is required for decryption.
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Unconstitutional? (Score:4, Interesting)
Why isn't this thing used more often? Seems to me this clearly makes the war on drugs unconstitutional. In what bizarre world is control of your own biochemistry not a fundamental right? How is altering ones mind with drugs any different from altering it with religion, study, or experience? In Madison's day, when *everyone* treated themselves with alcohol, laudanum, and hemp extracts, no one could imagine the absurd situation we find ourselves in today. This is exactly what the 9th amendment was written for.
Offtopic I know. I don't really expect the government to be logical.
Re:circumventing protection != circumvnent copyrig (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The Judge should be persuaded by (Score:3, Interesting)
Exactly... Isn't that why they call it a precedent?
Re:The Judge should be persuaded by (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it possible to backup a DVD in another way? Will the DVD companies replace a broken disc (and of not, why not? The cost of a disc is peanuts). Is the benefit to society of people being able to backup a DVD than the harm caused to the movie industry by people making illegal copies?
DVD X Copy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DVD X Copy (Score:4, Insightful)
Movie length does not dictate size (Score:5, Interesting)
Look at movies done with Apple's iDVD (constant bitrate encoding) where 60 minutes can take an entire DVD-R.
.:diatonic:.
Re:Movie length does not dictate size (Score:5, Insightful)
Boy, that's pretty whacked-out reasoning. Have you ever considered the possibility that movies are encoded at "excessively" high bit rates so that the LOOK GOOD? It doesn't take a trained eye to see the difference between a well-encoded DVD and a poorly-encoded one. The difference jumps right out at you.
Studios want their product to look as good as possible, so they squeeze every last bit onto that disc that they can.
Re:Movie length does not dictate size (Score:2)
Re:DVD X Copy (Score:2)
I have yet to found an easy way to compress it. I would actually prefer to keep the quality high though, so maybe I'll just get a larger HD.
I can't seem to get any other DVD to play as a vob file very well.
Don't use DVD X Copy... Use one of these instead: (Score:5, Informative)
DVD2One [dvd2one.com] is incredible fast, and gives the option of 'Movie Only' stripping menus and extras, or 'Entire Disc'. It can process an entire 8GB DVD in about 25 minutes on my 1.4 GHz T-bird.
DVD 95 Copy [dvd95copy.net] will preseve entire disc stucture (resampling video and giving option of discarding unwanted audio) Takes about 2-3 hours to process.
Pinnacle Instant Copy [pinnaclesys.com] will also preserve entire disc. Takes about 4 hours to process disc.
Hope this helps,
.:diatonic:.
Major Omission !! This DVD9-DVD5 tool is free. (Score:5, Informative)
It's fast like DVD2ONE...
Guide to DVDshrink [doom9.org]
Re:Major Omission !! This DVD9-DVD5 tool is free. (Score:2)
I'll second this. DVDShrink is an amazingly wonderful program. It's fast, easy and (so far for me) stable.
Re:DVD X Copy (Score:5, Informative)
Re:DVD X Copy (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, 321 Studios got it's start by selling freeware bundled together for $50 and even still sells it to this day. It includes Smartripper and I believe dvdx which is GPL dvdx [sourceforge.net]. DVDToolBox (freeware) can split main movie only two two dvd-rs and also strip out audio and extras, etc. Many in the dvd backup community don't look favorably upon 321 Studios although many wish them luck in court.
What most people do is go to out and buy a dvd burner. Get on google and type in 'dvd copy' that is where it goes down hill. Almost 100 or more hits plus ads are all ripoff dvd software.
I'm keeping a list of ripoff software on my site [mrbass.org] hoping that others don't fall into the trap but it's inevitable.
BTW, in the above article what I'm trying to say is that this DVD Backup Software is irrelevant and not the cause of revenue being lost. All existing laws are already in place. Stop foreign countries, even people on street corners in big cities in USA from profiting off other's intellectual property. Prosecute those who upload movies to newsgroups, irc, p2p, etc.
The average Joe backing up his movie is NOT where the main concern should be. If Hollywood wins this battle is that going to stop the illegal selling or uploading / downloading of movies? Heck no, it'll just punish the average person from legally making a personal DVD backup.
Re:DVD X Copy (Score:2)
You're right about the average Joe who bought a DVD burner not being interested in irc, p2p etc. However he isn't interested in backing up his own DVDs either - he want's to backup Blockbuster's DVDs.
Re:DVD X Copy (Score:2)
If Blockbuster wants to get CSS-encrypted movies, that's fine. But why does that mean that the movies I purchase also need to be CSS-ecrypted? Blockbuster already gets custom versions of some movies from the studios, so adding this should not be that hard.
Let the hybrid robot with the rat brain decide (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let the hybrid robot with the rat brain decide (Score:3, Funny)
In view of this the DMCA plan to force the rats to listen to Michael Jackson singing Ben repeatedly until they die of depression (The researchers will of course be required to pay royalties for each playing).
Re:Let the hybrid robot with the rat brain decide (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Let the hybrid robot with the rat brain decide (Score:2)
This is nice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is nice (Score:5, Informative)
"I am substantially persuaded by them," she told both sides.
referring to previous decisions in favour of copyright holders in similar cases.
Re:This is nice (Score:4, Informative)
She was referring to Universal v 2600 which favored the copyright holders, and US v Elcomsoft which favored fair use.
Re:This is nice (Score:5, Insightful)
hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Funny)
Re:hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
A judge with a clue?
A very intresting clue. One I certainly hadn't thought of. It essentially makes copyright permanent. Even after expiration of copyright, the holders of original masters end up with exclusive rights. As each new technology comes out, super-dvd, super-hot-dvd, dvd-22nd century, they create new product, and sell it. All encrypted, nobody has the right to circumvent to copy. Not quite what the founders had in mind. Only those with 'old technology' ie, vhs, etc, would have something to 'copy' and that couldn't match anything once original works were digitally remastered a first time. I think those MPAA member film vaults just increased in value. Whichever whay the judge goes, it shows there are some on the bench with some long range insight.
Re:hmm (Score:2)
I may be wrong here, the quotes in the article certainly suggest otherwise. But I think a law that prohibits breaking ANY access control mechanism is completely ridiculous. It could be interpreted as making it illegal to remove the screws holding the cover on
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Why, you're absolutely right. The DMCA only protects copy protection which is in use to protect copyrighted materials, which means that if the DVD consortium still uses CSS to encrypt discs in 500 years, then it will STILL be illegal to watch Die Hard in Linux.
Re:hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Re:hmm (Score:2)
Sallen: It essentially makes copyright permanent. Even after expiration of copyright, the holders of original masters end up with exclusive rights.
To play devil's advocate:
1) It is only illegal in the USA to circumvent the encryption. If an unencrypted copy is produced in another juristiction and then imported to the USA, the legality is purely bas
Re:hmm (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting thought, but let me counter conjecture. Suppose that work A is encrypted with method X, and that work A's copyright expires. Your claim is that the DMCA no longer holds and that it should be safe to work on methods to circumvent A's copy protection.
However, let's now consider a realistic scenario that could occur. Suppose that before A returns to the public domain there
Possible inconsistent interpretation of the law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps it's just me, but the last few years has been painful to watch, perhaps my politically apathetic body needs to get into action...
Ahh hell, I live in Florida, the Mouse rules here with an white gloved iron fist!
Re:Possible inconsistent interpretation of the law (Score:5, Informative)
one please explain to me how the VCR is any different?
Encryption and the DMCA. If DVD's weren't encrypted this wouldn't even be an issue.
Re:Possible inconsistent interpretation of the law (Score:2)
No, that's not the justification.
Remember back when the DMCA was being written. The content cartels were justifying it by saying that the content was digital, and thus existing copyright laws didn't apply to and/or didn't adequately protect it. Because it was digital, it was All Different and needed an entirely new set of laws.
Unfortunately for us, techies at the time agreed with them. "Hey," they thought, "copyright laws for the digital millennium, where things are All Different! Cool!" Of course, they
stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you can't excersize a right, you don't really have it."
Re:stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
So does a simple block copy. DeCSS is not necessary for making backup copies. DeCSS is necessary for making unlicensed players, tho. CSS is a licensing tool, not an anti-piracy tool. Maybe they should show the judge that you can easily make copies of DVDs without DeCSS. Think she'd get the point?
Re:stupid (Score:4, Informative)
Nothing that is.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Backups as fair use? (Score:2)
More relevant to the copyright law: when you buy a book, do you copy/scan every page in the book, on the off chance that your dog will eat the book
Re:Backups as fair use? (Score:2)
Do you have any 5 year old dvd's or cd's that are still in good shape? I don't, but I have books that have withstood a great deal of abuse over the last 30 years and are still good.
Re:Backups as fair use? (Score:5, Informative)
A can opener or a book is a physical item. When you buy a can opener, you're buying one can opener. You actually posses that item. This is not so with DVDs, according to the MPAA and their cronies: instead, you are buying the right to watch the movie contained in that DVD. Therefore it's reasonable to claim that this right persists regardless of what happens to the physical medium the movie is contained on.
The movie is an abstract concept (i.e. "intellectual property"); the can opener is a physical item. The two are inherently different.
Re:Backups as fair use? (Score:5, Interesting)
If they really sold you the physical media, and you were free to do anything you liked with it there would be no problem. (Of course, subject to existing laws, like you are not allowed to hit someone over the head with it and kill them, you are not allowed to violate copyright and sell copies of it, etc etc etc)
But, software publishers especially, (but even book publishers) try to apply additional restrictions, to the point that you don't actually own the physical media anymore, you are instead "licenced" to make use of the product for some period of time. In this scenario, the phyical media is actually irrelevant, it makes no difference at all whether it came from a CD "bought" at the local store or downloaded from the internet. If the CD gets scratched or you accidentally erase your harddrive, it does not affect your licence to use the content. That is, if you can obtain the content from some other source, you are free to use it. Thus, forcing people to pay the full cost of an additional licence just to get a copy of something they already had a licence to use anyway is double-dipping (especially when it is a download with a marginal cost of zero). An analogy would be, if you lost your driver's licence, instead of just charging some nominal fee for the replacement of the card, charging the full cost of a new driver's licence (or even making you do the test again).
Now, I don't necessarily agree with this model at all, but just stating how (some people think) it works.
I believe it is quite legal to copy or scan every page of a book, as long as you do not distribute the copy. I might be wrong though. It doesn't matter much because that is completely unenforcable anyway. But I think DVD's are different in this respect.
Re:Backups as fair use? (Score:2)
replacement is just a nominal fee of reproducing the card.
Re:Backups as fair use? (Score:3, Interesting)
Different animals. When you buy a 'device' you are buying the DEVICE. When you buy a DVD (Or CD or VHS Tape or Phillips Cassette or Vinyl record) you are buying a License to play the media and experience whatever is on it. The media itself is secondary to the License.
Since the price of the Media is pennies, I would say YES. If you (an
when will they understand (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:when will they understand (Score:2)
Well, I wouldn't go that far. I can't help but suspect that the line between the two is blurred on purpose - after all, no one can argue that copyright protection is bad thing, right?
Re:when will they understand (Score:2)
Nowdays, digital copyright protection affects practically everybody (since practically everyone has access to a digital computer of some form), while benefitting practically nobody (the 0.0001% of society that are RIAA executives, and to a lesser extent, authors).
Now, prot
Re:when will they understand (Score:2)
You know, kinda like P2P networks aren't really responsible for people abusing them ;)
Re:when will they understand (Score:4, Interesting)
The DMCA is legal protection of copy protection
Brings up an interesting point. What is the intent of the DMCA? If the intent is to stop the copying of copyrighted works, why go through trouble of making an additional law? If the DMCA is enforced, there can be no legal copying of any protected work. No fair use etc... Why not just ditch fair use and say that any copying of a copyrighted work is illegal?
Can't be! (Score:4, Funny)
"A copyright holder has no right to prevent someone from engaging in fair use," Durie said, noting that the studios' position would prevent students from excerpting film clips for school projects or parents making backups of their work. "That, I would suggest, can't be right. That can't be what the drafters of the DMCA intended."
Yeah. There's no way that's what they intended...what's that? The MPAA wrote what?? Ahhhhh!!!
Please GPL it (Score:5, Insightful)
Copyright never expires now (Score:5, Interesting)
Illston asked Zacharia to explain the conundrum of locking up copyrighted works behind encryption and then making the breaking of that encryption illegal, even after the copyrights on those works expire. The judge wondered if it would effectively extend copyrights to keep such works out of the public domain. Zacharia said it would not, because the copyright had expired. "But it's encrypted. If it doesn't stop being encrypted, it's still encrypted," Illston said, adding that such protected works still couldn't be legally copied.
I had never thought of this before. Think about it: If any work now has solely been release to the public in an encrypted form, then if anyone has copied/clipped/fair-use used the item, then the corporation can always go after the individual; therefore, copyright is completely irrelavent since encryption is enforced forever. Maybe I'm the only one who just caught this, but it seems no one has explicitly stated it this way.
Re:Copyright never expires now (Score:3, Insightful)
Not really. If I could make a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD and sell it, I would have violated the copyright, but not the decryption ban. Therefore copyright is still relevant. Or am I missing something? Besides, not all media can convenie
Re:Copyright never expires now (Score:2)
The DVD player is not intended to bypass copyright, simply play the contents of the disk on your TV screen.
Re:Copyright never expires now (Score:2)
True, but according to the RIAA, intent isn't what matters, it's ability. The software in this case is not intended to enable piracy, either.
Re:Copyright never expires now (Score:2)
It's not a "decrypting ban", it is a ban on circumvention devices. DVD writers will not let you make a bit-for-bit copy of a copy-protected DVD unless you circumvent the device.
On a different note, doesn't my DVD player necessarily decrypt the data when it displays the picture on the screen? Are all DVD players therefore illegal? Or am I missing something else, too?
Y
Re:Copyright never expires now (Score:2, Funny)
Sorry. I just patented that business model.
Re:Copyright never expires now (Score:2)
This argument was one of many which I foresaw and noted in my anti-SSSCA letter of a few years ago. The language of that proposal was "copyrighted or protected works", which essentially killed the whole concept of lapsing copyright.
yah right! (Score:5, Interesting)
The same for the MPAA! I bought a DVD and it developed a crack not through my own fault of abuse. I sent it back to the 'house' that produced it and never received a response.
Oh my question: When we buy a CD or a DVD what exactly are we buying ? (rights to view/listen ? a piece of plastic ? rights to put on another medium ?)
My answer: The right to spend money so these greedy assholes can get million dollar salaries, never answer questions, and buy lawyers!
It's still the corporations' home turf (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll have to wait and see. Until the ripple effects of the DMCA start to annoy more people (not just techies), the bulk of the rulings will go towards the corporate masters.
Intelligent Attorney (Score:5, Funny)
The studios seem to have some real bright cookies representing them. Isn't 321 Studios selling circumvention devices. You know, something used to get around the encryption. This may be a bit nit-picky, but i thought you were supposed to have a firm grasp of the English language before going to law school.
Re:Intelligent Attorney (Score:5, Funny)
And after going to law school you are supposed to be able to twist the English language any way you want.
This judge clearly gets it. (Score:5, Interesting)
"That, I would suggest, can't be right. That can't be what the drafters of the DMCA intended."
Well, I agree, that can't be right. The question was about students taking excerpts from movies. Well, obviously it can't be right to ban that. But I think it probably was what the drafters of the DMCA wanted. It's nice rhetoric to claim that the drafters of the DMCA didn't mean to impinge on fair use, but they probably did.
simon
Re:This judge clearly gets it. (Score:2)
Seeing as the MPAA wrote the legislation to begin with, I'd say you're probably right.
This is great... (Score:2, Insightful)
"They just can't traffic in anticircumvention devices," Russell Frackman, a partner with Los Angeles-based Mitchell Silberberg & Knupp who's representing the studios, told the judge.
What exactly is an ANTIcircumvention device? I'm so glad to see that the judge was swayed by such persuasive reasoning as this...
Re:This is great... (Score:2)
An armour condom. No wait, that would be an anti-circumcision device. Nevermind.
the way I look at it (Score:5, Interesting)
What about VCR presedents? (Score:5, Insightful)
You have been lured to the SIDESHOW! (Score:5, Funny)
Avoid the Sideshow. Vote. Forget this arguement. The people who passed the DMCA need to go. Do something other than letting your butt get bigger reading postings and eating hohos. Write a letter.
If you don't like it like I do, take action. Don't wait for someone to save your rights like the EFF. Help them, by donating money, time, and help yourself by writing and calling.
For God's sake please don't complain unless you are willing to do something. I hope that everyone here who cliams to have some passion about this issue is willing to do something. If that is so we'll have no trouble making our opinions known.
PS: Sorry, about the butt...errr...crack earilier in my post.
-- James Dornan
The problem with outlawing a DVD copier (Score:5, Interesting)
Kjella
Too late! (Score:2)
That's the whole point (Score:4, Insightful)
They want to make innovators afraid to go into business, eliminating other players in the media business. They want to own and control all media from production to viewing, and this is just a step in that direction.
Re:Too late! (Score:2)
Not quite. It's been ruled that the software used to create these networks has significant uses that are non-infringing, and that the software maker cannot reasonably held liable for infringement of copyright perpetuated by software users.
Having said that, I agree with what (I think) your point is--to wit, that DVD copying should be legitimate, legal, and fair in many instances.
Shouldn't they write better copy-protection then? (Score:2)
Alternative for the software manufacturers:
Perhaps if the DVD copying software uses the libdvdcss stuff, then it should instead of including it in the package, have a script that will download it from some unnamed country in eastern europe, much like how some Li
Question on CSS and Patents (Score:3, Interesting)
First, is CSS patented? I mean, it's gotta either be patented or be in the public domain, right? Is there another choice I'm missing?
Anyway, assuming it is patented, then the patent is up in 20 years, right? So, once the patent is up, who can legally argue that you broke the decryption?
Just some thoughts.
Missed point: Excerpts = full copy (Score:2)
Ummm... OK. The implication is that he (and thus anyone else) does have the right to make excerpts, right? Which part of the DVD in question is unencrypted to facilitate this? The part that the studios want to have excerpted, or the part that the individual wants to excerpt?
Re:Looking Ahead... (Score:2, Funny)
Worst analogy ever
Re:Looking Ahead... (Score:2)
You just don't get it (Score:2)
Of course the electron is not thinking and weighing the options and deciding. And you (not the electron) could very well want that electron in a different orbit, and you could make it do that by applying enough force and energy, but this still has no effect on the fact that the electron "wants" to be in the lowest orbit.
Same thing with information. It should be obvious that without government
No, *you* just don't get it... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:No, *you* just don't get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:copyright holders??? (Score:2)
If you are talking about an individual that wrote a program that copies DVDs then, according to the DMCA (a law that I despise), he is a criminal. That's like saying that Xerox has a right to sell a product that is designed to remove the binding from a book and copy it 'en masse. I
Re:'Mulled' over the decision (Score:2)
-547, Flamebait
Doesn't matter (Score:2)
Even if it is 100% non-infringing use, it still violates the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA.
Luckily, the judge seems to be realizing that that clause doesn't quite fall in line with all other copyright law and precedence.
Re:Substantial noninfringing use (Score:2)
Long term: Someday, presumably (yes, I'm making a big assumption), all the crap Hollywood puts out on DVD now will be in the public domain, at which point if it is still illegal to break CSS, then it will essentially be illegal to access public domain materials! (Actually, this could potentially happen now as well.)
Short term: You're assuming that somebody is recording DVD-2-DVD -- however, it may be that I do not
Re:Judge sees the conflict with fair use (Score:4, Interesting)
The question is, can this sort of opening in the DMCA be exploited to make the act self-destruct?