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."
It's not Digital Copyright Millennium Act (although it may feel like it).
It's Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
***Quis custodiet ipsos custodes***
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 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
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.
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.
.. 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:
It would have been interesting
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.
"Old man yells at systemd"
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