Slashdot Mirror
321 Studios Plays It Safe Against the DMCA
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."
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.
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.
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.
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 lawsuit history page and more at the Electronic Frontier Foundation website.
Creationists are a lot like zombies. Slow, but powerful and numerous. And they all want to eat our brains.
This technology / method does NOT have ANYTHING to do with fair use!
:)
Yes it does
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
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 dictionary
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
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.
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
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.