Circuit City Ripping DVDs for Users 467
Grooves writes "Circuit City is offering a DVD transfer service that's sure to enrage the MPAA. For $10 for 1 DVD or $30 for 5, Circuit City will violate the DMCA and
rip commercial DVDs for users to put on their mobile players. From the article: 'This should be a viable market. Software and services are losing out to draconian digital rights management philosophies and anti-consumer technologies aimed at increasing revenues stemming from double-dipping--what I call the industry's penchant for charging twice for the same thing.' They note that fair use
backups of DVDs have not been tested in court because all of the attention is focused on the circumvention software itself." Update: 08/04 22:40 GMT by Z : Acererak writes "Red Herring reports that Circuit City isn't offering any DVD-to-DVD copying scheme. The Slashdotted sign was an isolated screwup."
They charge that much for running "DVD Decrypter"? (Score:5, Informative)
S
Re:They charge that much for running... (Score:2, Informative)
So now it takes 2 minutes of googling to find it, rather than 30 seconds...
Re:violate the DMCA? In what way? (Score:4, Informative)
In what way would this violate the DMCA?
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
17 U.S.C. 1201(a)(1)(A).
Legally, a corporation is a 'person,' and movies on DVD are almost all protected by copyright.
Re:violate the DMCA? In what way? (Score:5, Informative)
They're defeating encryption without permission. Same as if you or I use deCSS to do the same thing. It's illegal whether or not we commit infringement. Dumb Law, needs to go.
Re:Reversal of Fortune (Score:4, Informative)
Circuit City has cash for the fight (Score:5, Informative)
Re:violate the DMCA? In what way? (Score:3, Informative)
CSS encryption isn't remotely effective at controlling access to films.
Spurious argument, legally. It's already been tried and defeated. See, e.g., Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes, 111 F. Supp. 2d 346 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).
Re:They charge that much for running "DVD Decrypte (Score:5, Informative)
Wow, you are more than 1 year behind the times with this post. DVD Decrypter has been dead since early 2005 when Macrovision gave a cease and desist letter to the creator of DVD Decrypter. The reason? DVD Decrypter can be used to remove Macrovision, which is a violation of the DCMA. The creator was forced to stop developing DVD Decrypter and give all source code to Macrovision. I don't know if he was forced to pay a fine to them or not, but he was threatened with legal action and facing the prospect of jail time and/or fines, he accepted their "offer" and gave them the code and removed the software from his website. In fact, the formerly official website now goes straight to Macromedia.
I have read that certain video forums are regularly monitored by Macromedia to see if the developer ever posts anything that in any way can be said to talk about decrypting DVDs or removing Macrovision and if they ever find him saying anything on those topics, they are going to take him to court and try to get him convicted for breaking the DCMA. Given the legal rulings on the subject to date, this is a very realistic possibility. I think he does still participate to a limited extent in video forums, but only on topics that have nothing to do with decrypting DVDs.
Re:They charge that much for running... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:They charge that much for running "DVD Decrypte (Score:3, Informative)
Circuit City Policy (Score:5, Informative)
Can copy-protected CDs be encoded?
Encoding copy-protected discs is a violation of the record company's copyright protection. Get Digital will not encode any copyrighted discs. Instead Get Digital will notify you of any discs with copyright protection. These discs will be set aside and returned to you with the rest of your collection--without charge.
Can a DVD-Audio or SACD disc be encoded?
Both SACD and DVD-Audio discs feature the same copy protection that regular DVDs do. Any SACD, DVD-Audio or standard DVDs will be set aside and returned to you with the rest of your collection without charge.
Sounds to me like they already know about the DMCA, and that this would violate it. I am now more than a little dubious that this is actually being done with corporate's knowledge.
Re:They charge that much for running "DVD Decrypte (Score:2, Informative)
What Macromedia could have done is report him to the FBI for a violation of a federal statute (the DMCA is both a civil and a criminal statute), and then the federal government may bring a case to convict the person of a criminal violation. Or they may decide not to, especially since there probably wasn't a great case against him. In this case, unless he was selling the software, he could not have been successfully prosecuted criminally because the DMCA requires that the DMCA violation be willful (this probably was) and for commercial advantage or private financial gain. Since he probably did not get any private financial gain or a commercial advantage, he never faced jail time or fines, just money damages (and even then, probably only compensatory damages and attorneys' fees) and injunctions.
Tragic
Re:They charge that much for running "DVD Decrypte (Score:3, Informative)
Yes [wikipedia.org]. DVDs contain a single bit indicating to the player whether to enable analog copy-protection on the video output (in the same manner VHS tapes are protected, in both cases to prevent people from dubbing DVDs onto tapes). DVD Decrypter simply set the bit to off, which was technically a form of circumventing the copy-protection.
Re:countdown (Score:4, Informative)
A lot of commercial uses are permitted under the "Fair Use" doctrine. Excerpts used for a commercial review site for example. Show me where commercial use is specifically omitted from Fair Use.
Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered "fair," such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 2. the nature of the copyrighted work; 3. amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. The distinction between "fair use" and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission. The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that courts have regarded as fair use: "quotation of excerpts in a review or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or clarification of the author's observations; use in a parody of some of the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article, with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson; reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported." Copyright protects the particular way an author has expressed himself; it does not extend to any ideas, systems, or factual information conveyed in the work. The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission. When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of "fair use" would clearly apply to the situation. The Copyright Office can neither determine if a certain use may be considered "fair" nor advise on possible copyright violations. If there is any doubt, it is advisable to consult an attorney. FL-102, Revised July 2006
copyright.gov's formatting is nicer... [copyright.gov]
Re:countdown (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bzzzt... but thanks for playing (Score:3, Informative)
IANAL, and you most obviously are NAL. However I have in fact read almost the entirety of US Code Title 17 copyright law and I have in fact studied many Supreme Court and Federal District court rulings on copyright law and Fair Use. You clearly do not understand the legal doctrine of Fair Use. Just about the only point you didn't get wrong was that "You, as purchaser of a text, do not get copyright to it" - and even while being technically correct on that point you still managed to conceptually get it wrong. Someone who buys or otherwise legitimately obtains a copyrighted work (a TV broadcast for example) obtains no copyright in that work. However he needs no copyright in order to make noninfringing copies, including copying the ENTIRE work, such as using a VCR to create a copy of an entire copyrighted TV show.
I don't know where you heard of "the Kinko's rule", but it's nonsense.
What he wrote was basically correct, and anyone who has has done an general review of the most important US copyright law cases would immediately recognize that particular issue and recognize the details he lists from the case. Specifically, it came directly from United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Basic Books Inc v Kinko's Graphics Corp 1991.
If you would like to learn how copyright actually does work, and learn what Fair Use actually means and how Fair Use actually works, then Basic Books Inc. v. Kinko's Graphics Corp definitely goes on the short list of most informative cases to read. The judge's ruling includes an excellent discussion of the issues in explaining how he reached his decision. The judge explains that Kincko's could not "borrow" someone else's Fair Use rights and engage in copying and retail sales of those copies based on the customer's Fair Use right to himself make such copies. The judge explicitly said that his ruling of infringment would not apply had the teacher or the students gone into Kinko's and rented usage of the copy machines and done the copying themselves.
Oh, by the way... There was a second point that you kinda almost sorta got right while getting it wrong... "your intent to 'profit' from it is entirely irrelevant as well". Saying profit is "entirely irrelevant" is a wild overstatement, but you are basically right that profit is irrelevant in that profit motive does not prevent copying from being Fair use. The US Supreme Court explicitly ruled in Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc 1994 that Fair Use does in fact include copying with intent to profit by direct sale. Copying to create a product for mass market sale can indeed be fair use. Campbell v Acuff-Rose Music Inc is another excellent case to read if you wish to understand copyright law and Fair Use.
Fair Use is not an exemption granted or defined by copyright law. Fair Use was established by the Supreme Court (often on Constitutional grounds) in a series of cases reaching back nearly two hundred years. In fact it is Fair Use which restricts copyright law. Obviously not all copying is Fair use, but when Fair Use does arise it sweeps away copyright law and all copyright restrictions.
-
Re:good to see.. (Score:2, Informative)