MPAA Countersues 321 Studios

Squash writes "321 Studios, makers of DVD X-Copy, is being Counter-sued by the MPAA. You may remember them filing suit to allow thier software to be produced and sold. Interesting point: the MPAA wants to claim all profits from sales of the software, which is now being bundled with some DVD burners."

Comments

Did anyone else think

[CableModemSniper]

that the MPAA was suing three-hundred and twenty one different studios?

Re:Did anyone else think

[PunchMonkey]

that the MPAA was suing three-hundred and twenty one different studios?

No... technically there were only 136 studios, but some of them were using 4x dvd burners. The post should read "MPAA Countersues the equivalent of 321 studios".

Re:Did anyone else think

[Henry V .009]

Good points except for the last. A few numbers from 000 to 999 jump out at human minds for whatever reason. (And most people would have different lists.) 123 is the most easy to pick out because we all saw that sequence so often and so early while learning to count. 321 is the opposite, and therefore stands out. 666 will stand out to people of certain religious persuasions, and so on. All in all, the chances of getting a--let's call it--"humanly significant" number is not unity.

Therefore estimating the number of "humanly significant" numbers is the problem. It's useful, as we've seen, because it will allow us to tell random statistics from human picked out numbers: for example, 321 Studios vs. 321 studios.

Off the top of my head, here are the numbers that might really stand out to me: 000,111,...,666,...999,123,321,314(seen pi too often),271(e), and probably the first few primes (002,003,005,007).

That's about 20 numbers off the top of my head. Even if we imagine 50 numbers as the upper limit for "humanly significant" numbers between 000 and 999, then that is still only a 3-5% chance of getting one of those numbers in a single trial. That, of course, doesn't mean much on its own, but in combination with other known probabilities (they multiply!), it can be used to make judgements.

Re:Did anyone else think

[jpetts]

that the MPAA was suing three-hundred and twenty one different studios?

Yes. What's more, the first question that sprang into my mind was "is that really 321 studios, or just 148 very fast ones?"

HUH??

[giel]

Isn't the US the country where you can legally purchase a gun but where killing people is illigal? I mean that's actually somehow (not totally) the same. You have got a tool, you use a tool...
You confuse me...

Re:HUH??

[salesgeek]

Guns, like software have many uses, most of which do not involve crime. Here are several examples:

1) Firing ropelines - a high-power rifle can be used to accurately fire a rope from one ship to another enabling underway replenshment... on land can be used to start a rope bridge...

2)Law enforcement. Stop or I'll whack you with this club just doesn't quite work any more...

3) Entertainment/recreation - target shooting is a sport enjoyed by many.

4) Try boating a mako shark before you shoot it. You'll likely get a pegleg as a prize.

$G

i cant copy my own dvds?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Motion Picture Association of America is countersuing Missouri software firm 321 Studios, alleging that the company's DVD-copying software violates anti-copying laws.

so i cant copy dvds i have authored myself? especially since this is being bundled with burners

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[MrLint]

well I dont know how true this is *now* but back when dvd burners first came out ot the mass market I read that either the software or the hardware was incapable of doing the kind of content locking that the bigboys (MPAA) can put on thier content. Thus basically you make your own content, you cant (even tacitly) keep it from being pirated. I found this repugnant, the mpaa will spend tothe ends of the earth to destroy fair use, but (for whatever reason) what you do isnt important.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[ecampbel]

Of course you can copy DVD's you've authored yourself. The only thing you can't already do is copy DVD's that are CSS scrambeled. Sheesh.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[pVoid]

Let's not kid ourselves... we all know 99% of the people will use this to copy DVDs. I will.

If as a defense, we're naively turning the blind eye to this fact, then we will be like deer caught in headlights when they charge us with copy protection stuff...

Banning this software is just like stripping out the weeds in your lawn, and leaving the roots in the ground.

The battle really should be about first amendment rights, and basically it being unconstitutional to have a law like the Sony Bono act. Also there should be some sort of reaction to hollywood: decades of complacency have led to actors like Mel Gibson making 20 million off a single movie... That's just *not* right.

So long as we stay in this pasture of yellow grass, we aren't making any headway. It's no use acting coy and pretending that we're not doing something that isn't currently illegal... It is illegal. It's more important to tell the law makers that the law doesn't represent the best interest of the majority of the public.

Or something...

My point is we don't have an advantageous point here, and really, all we can do is fend off offensives by corporate giants, one after another.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[Qrlx]

The getting past CSS part is questionable, but there are plenty of legitimate for something like that.

But do I have a right to make a backup copy of the DVD I just bought, with CSS intact? For when my two-year old tries to eat the original?

The MPAA's answer is "no." They know these things wear out, and lets face it it hurts their sales if I only have to buy it once.

Legally, I can photocopy every page of a book that I own. I might want to do that to put it into a binder and make notes in the margins for a class. The MPAA thinks you don't have the right to do that with their content.

They want to control what you do with the stuff after you've bought it. I can see why they would try to make that hard (witness - they have CSS in the first place) and something that the Average Joe isn't going to do.

The MPAA and RIAA are using the Bad Cop / Bad Cop routine on us, knowing that if enough of us knuckle under the rest of us will grudgingly give in to the concept that the fair use rights you have for digital portrayals of information are significantly restricted in ways that "analog" technologies tied to physical media are not.

Many people here on SlashDot take the stand that they support copyright laws and going after the "pirates". But I think that's anachronistic. Isn't one of technologies main functions to eliminiate scarcity? Whereas the paradigm of the guilds that run Hollywood is a selfish inclusiveness against ousiders.

My hope is that the huge media companies will be hurt by Napster and Tivo and that TV and the Big Six (or however many there are) media conglomerates will lose their stranglehold on culture.

If that happens, technology will have made the world a better place :)

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[bahwi]

No. You can't copy your own DVDs. Your name has to have four letter in it! No more, no less! And it must end with "AA". Now go back to your room and try it again!

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[Melantha_Bacchae]

MrLint wrote:

> I found this repugnant, the mpaa will spend tothe
> ends of the earth to destroy fair use, but (for
> whatever reason) what you do isnt important.

Oh, it isn't that it is not important to them, it's that you are not a member of the MPAA. Worse, you are in competition with MPAA members if you are producing content (as a non-member) and "wasting people's time with it when their time and money would be better spent on a MPAA member product".

Competition in distribution of their content (so called "piracy") and competition in content creation are their public enemies number one and two. Conveniently they can use copyright law to deal with competition in distribution of their content.

The other kind they have to deal with on the sly, because if they were ever too vocal about competing content creators, the government may see fit to bust their little anti-competitive cartel. That doesn't mean they (and their music industry counterparts) wouldn't love to rid the world of indie studios and musicians. At the moment, subtle little things like keeping CSS to themselves is all they can do.

Of course this is all evil, but what does one expect from a bunch of greedy sharks?

"They bind our hearts: 'Let's sell them again and again!'
Our plan understands the sea; we can wait for her coming."
From the song "Infanto no Musume" in the Japanese version of Mothra (1961).

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[PotatoHead]

You are dead on about people wanting change, but not being willing to actually do anything to make it happen.

You know, you can get LOTR used, or steep discount new on DVD and loan it to friends.

Make your own damn Latte.

Sort of stuck with the gas station, but there is always www.gasbuddy.com for the lowest price.

Don't pay HBO, get the Soparanos used or steep discount on DVD as well.

I do this often. For me, it happened when the family got active. We decided to cut our entertainment budget in favor of school sports, outdoor activities and other things.

The first year is hard because you can't get anything new. After that it is a lot easier.

So we are a little behind. You know what? It really does not matter as much as people would think. The hard part is that making choices is harder than just going with the flow --until you actually start making them.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[Melantha_Bacchae]

pVoid wrote:

> Let's not kid ourselves... we all know 99% of the
> people will use this to copy DVDs. I will.

So copy DVDs. You can make as many copies of a DVD you produced yourself (home movies, iMovie film festival entry, 3D demo reel, etc.) as you want, as you own the copyright to it. You can make a backup copy of most things, that is supposed to be legal under fair use laws and court rulings.

The only illegal use is mass production of somebody else's DVDs (without permission) and distributing them yourself (usually with some money changing hands). But then the name of the program is "DVD X-Copy", not "Home DVD Piracy Ring Startup Pack". ;)

We've already gotten one court case to show that if there are legitimate reasons for a product, and no wilful intent to make a tool for breaking the law, the product should be legal under the DMCA (IANAL). The more cases from different angles, the better chance we have to shoot the DMCA down in flames (in a court proceeding kind of way). The DMCA is a bad law that is discouraging foreign scientists from coming over to our conferences, makes permanent markers illegal, and allows for the harassment of coupon clubs. It is evil and must be stopped (in a court proceeding kind of way)!

"Really, gentlemen, if that's the case, let's see the power of attorney given to you by Mothra."
Torahata "Mothra vs. Godzilla"

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[Arcturax]

You are dead on here at the end. It isn't a problem of kill all corporations. Corporations are a good thing in some ways. So this isn't so much a problem with the system (though it could use some tweaking) but a *SOCIAL* problem. What we need is social change and to try to root out some of the greed in corporations. We need to find a way for corporations to exist but that the little guys get taken care of.

What we have lost is a sense of honor and selflessness in corporate culture. It has become about money and nothing more, and that is why we have this situation we have today. A corporation founded only on making money is likely to be a bad one. A corporation which is started to work toward a dream or a goal (other than simply making money) is likely to be a good company that people like. Take Jobs and Wozniak for example, they had a dream of a computer in every home. But eventually a company ends up in the hands of the greedy, or those who start it end up that way. What we need is to build into our social norms a way to recognize this and replace such individuals with those who again are aiming as much at a goal or dream as they are at simply squeezing every last dime out of consumers. More progress will be made that way at less human cost.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[jshare]

Please link to your project page from your http://viewstl.sourceforge.net page.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[Mitreya]

decades of complacency have led to actors like Mel Gibson making 20 million off a single movie... That's just *not* right.

You were making good points up until now. Keep Mel Gibson and his salary out of this. His salary nothing to do with issue of fair use copying or even the copyright extension! I think most of people here are jealous or something...

This sounds like Robin Hood -- take from the rich, give to the poor. US is operating under capitalism and this is a logical and fair result.

Fair use loss is bad. Unchecked copyright extension is bad. Actors making a lot from the movies is ok, since this is a salary dictated by the market. That is how much he IS WORTH. Now, things like jacked up movie prices (9 bucks!) and high rental fees might be bad. but not the high salary that results for some good actors!

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[Mitreya]

We've already gotten one court case to show that if there are legitimate reasons for a product, and no wilful intent to make a tool for breaking the law, the product should be legal under the DMCA (IANAL).

You just don't get it, do you? The fact that a slashdot reader is so clueless, goes to show that public is a long way from being informed. Have you READ that article??

THE PRODUCT IS NOT FSCKING LEGAL BY JURY'S DECISION!. The product of ElcomSoft was CLEARLY illegal to the jury. The issue at hand was whether ElcomSoft intended to violate the law and they were not guilty BECAUSE they DID NOT INTEND to break the DMCA with that product.

Let me repeat it again: ElcomSoft was not guilty of breaking DMCA, BUT THEIR PRODUCT IS CLEARLY ILLEGAL

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[geekoid]

" Let's not kid ourselves... we all know 99% of the people will use this to copy DVDs. I will."

Well thats the point of the DVD-Copy software, isn't it?

I will presume that you mean to say 99% of the people will use ths to make illegal copies of DVDs, and I will address that.

you fall into a fallacy, you think just because you will comit copyright infringment, then "everybody" does it.
That is wrong, I will not use it in that manners, I can't think of any of my friends who would.
Personally I would use it to copy all my childrens DVD's so they can use them with out destroying them.
Thanks to this article, I may buy a copy of this sofware this weekend. I know I've spent more then that on replacements.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[GMontag451]

I'm not sure you have the right to backup books. My impression was that only applied to software, which DVDs may or may not be. Movies and albums you have the right to time-shift, space-shift, and media-shift, but not to backup.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[shepd]

>Up here in Canada, I was informed that I can only photocopy up to roughly 10% of a book

I believe you are talking about CANCOPY. This is normally applied to books borrowed for your educational use, and to photocopied handouts given to students.

Otherwise, my local library explained to me that with a map book I needed to copy, published by the government, but copyrighted, and no longer published, I would have to choose up to 25% of the book I wanted to copy.

Making a copy of a book you own for personal use would be difficult unless you own your own copier, since Kinko's, etc. will kick you out for trying to copy a whole book (I suggest you copy 100 pages at each shop -- I did this because I had a book stolen from me that was no longer available). I doubt it's illegal, though.

Someone needs to repeal copyright law on all government documents, though.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[saihung]

Oh yeah? Well *I* waited until day two (please hold your applause), drive a car made by a no-longer-existent British manufacturer that gets 35mpg, only drink Safeway(tm) Brand Columbian-Esque Koffi Substitute, and don't get cable so I can only watch fuzzy reruns of "Andromeda" when I get home. So you do you like that!....oh.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[MadFarmAnimalz]

Your two-year-old can eat DVDs?

With dVDs and CDs being non-biodegradeable, I think we need to employ your children on a far larger scale.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[Trekologer]

Isn't one of technologies main functions to eliminiate scarcity? Whereas the paradigm of the guilds that run Hollywood is a selfish inclusiveness against ousiders.

Technology has all but eliminated scarcity for autiovisual media. The reproduction costs for a CD or DVD have become so low that significantly less than 10% of your purchase price actually goes to the actual disc. Hollywood's current business model is based upon creating an artifical scarcity where one does not exist so they now need to rely on the government passing laws like the DMCA to make sure that they don't become as obsolite as that old Commodore 64 sitting in your basement.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[greenrd]

For God's sake. Can't you read??

Elcomsoft's product did violate the DMCA, according to the jury. But they didn't knowingly break the law, so they were let off on condition they didn't do it again.

Do you understand now??

The number of people who don't reading the fricking articles amazes me.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[greenrd]

Umm....

How can you disconnect the vast revenues made by the copyright cartel from inflated salaries?

How can you at the very same time allege that laws are distorting the movie market and then go on to claim that "good actors" are getting "free market prices"? You're deluding yourself.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[Ben Hutchings]

But do I have a right to make a backup copy of the DVD I just bought, with CSS intact? For when my two-year old tries to eat the original?

Technically, you can't. In order to decode CSS, a licensed player needs to read the appropriate disc key off the disc. The keys are stored separately from the main content of the disc. Either normal DVD-Rs do not have a writable disc key area or normal DVD recorders do not allow you to write to it; I forget which, but the result is that you cannot usefully copy a DVD at home without getting around CSS. Which, of course, is the point. DVD X-Copy apparently gets around this by loading licensed player software and using it as a CSS decoder.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[greenrd]

Yes but it was sold in the US. Do you think a company with offices in the US could expect to sell dope from Amsterdam to US customers over the Internet? I don't think so! It'd get charged with selling illegal drugs.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[Blkdeath]

Legally, I can photocopy every page of a book that I own. I might want to do that to put it into a binder and make notes in the margins for a class. The MPAA thinks you don't have the right to do that with their content.

Might want to check on that; as far as just how much you can photocopy and for what purpose. A copy centre in a local college was recently shut down because they were 'turning their backs' while students photo-copied entire textbooks, both for personal use and for resale purposes.

The college has a copyright pamplet that mentioned 10% at a time, and for a specific purpose (ie; photocopy chapter 8 for a project, make your notes, etc..)

Of course, IANAL, but I do believe there's more to the picture than "making a backup/spare copy" of that book you just bought.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[meatpopcicle]

Considering they believe that copying a DVD after it has been decoded by CSS is a violation of the DMCA what would you expect?

They are surely approaching the evilness of the RIAA in these matters of copyright.

The Crackers will always do this and they will always be around fighting for what they believe in (whatever that is). The problem are these organizations want to punish society as a whole.

Unfortunatly the MPAA and RIAA are very powerful organizations that can sue most companies into bankruptcy. It doesn't matter that you are right, it just matters that you have more money. What ever happened to a fair trial?

An interesting idea is what will happen when society as a whole decides that this practice is morally acceptable (ie: copying software/digital media)? Will the laws change? Doesn't society dictate how the world works and what laws are created?

The only reason the corporations get what they want is they give donations (ie: bribes) to the political officials/judges during their election campaigns. Who fights for the rights of society...

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[HiThere]

Corporations are useful for many purposes. Unfortunately, they are inherrently dangerous. They will always promote centralized controls (and not just internally). They inevitably tend toward monopoly. And they justify these evils as good.

So... We can't get rid of coporations without having something reasonable to put in their place. (Actually, we can't do it anyway, but if we were the system designers...)

So what would you propose to do the job that a corporation does (i.e., taking on large projects that no small group can afford [or risk])? Remember that you don't want to introduce worse evils in the process of getting rid of the current evils.

A better solution is probably to revoke all special laws favoring corporations, and revoke that silly court decision that decided that corporations were people. (How was that ever allowed to stand?) That would help considerably. Then a corporation wouldn't be much worse than a large company. But large companies also tend to promote centralization. This might be solved by limiting the number of levels of hierarchy within organizations. (I.e., having lots of contractors doing all the pieces of work, and parcelling things out to sub-contractors. This is already done to some extent, but I'm talking about a much more radical change.) It strikes me that the best way to do this is to have a graduated employee tax, so that the more employees you hired, the higher your tax rate. Have it be $n per year per employee. (I.e., if you have 2 employees, then it's $4/year. If you have 3 it's $9, etc.) This would greatly increase the number of independant contractors, and the positions available for entrepreneurs.

Also, simultaneously get rid of the graduated income tax. Replace it with a simple y = mx + b formula. Let y be the amount of tax owed, m be the tax rate, x be your income, and b be and adjustable (constant) factor to ensure that the tax is negative for anyone below the poverty line. (Note that with this scale, there's no point at which you actually loose by earning more money.) Social policy really shouldn't be a part of the tax package, so it's quite possible to just eliminage b. But it's more esthetically pleasing to include it.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[HiThere]

I wish that the MPAA, the RIAA, their members, and their supporters would all die a gruesome death. O, yes, and that includes the legislators that they've purchased.

More realistically, I no longer patronize them. On the occasions that I do (I'll probably decide to watch Two Towers), I will donate to the EFF twice as much as I will spend on their product BEFORE buying the product.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[grmoc]

One of the problems with that viewpoint is that the ability of congress to pass unconstitutional laws far outstrips the ability of the court to declare them unconstitutional.

The other problem with the Sony Bono (etc) is that it changed the duration of copyright -retroactively-.

It doesn't matter if congress sets the limit of copyrightto N, N+1, N+2 ever year, but if such changes apply retroactively, then we -do- have effectively infinite copyright.

Unfortunately imho, it seems we are in for another peak of passage for unconstitutional laws.

Re:i cant copy my own dvds?

[grmoc]

Unfortunately, you ae correct.
They (laws) are "typically," but not -always- placed in the public domain. Many building-codes (which are laws) are copyrighted by entities outside of government.

Doesn't it make you feel warm&fuzzy to know that there are laws you cannot read outside of the county courthouse because you are not -allowed- to make a copy of the law that you can examine for yourself?

Copy vs. backup.

[Trusty Penfold]

IMO, they made a mistake with the name. DVD-X-Copy is, obviously, intended to make illegal copies. DVD-X-Backup, on the other hand, would obviously be intended to make legal, fair-use, backups.

Darwin works for companies & products as well ... 321 deserve to lose.

Re:Copy vs. backup.

[diaphanous]

IMO, they made a mistake with the name. DVD-X-Copy is, obviously, intended to make illegal copies. DVD-X-Backup, on the other hand, would obviously be intended to make legal, fair-use, backups.

If we took this line of reasoning seriously then every computer program that has data-copying functions needs to be changed. The C library function "strcpy" would need to be be switched to "strbkup", all our unix shell scripts would need to be scanned to replace "cp" with "bkup". No longer can our kernels use "copy-on-write" pages; new processes will do "backup-on-write".

"Copy" is a perfectly neutral term.We can't let the MPAA dictate our language.

~Phillip

Re:Copy vs. backup.

[dh003i]

Please, that is such bullshit. Copy does not necessarily imply "another instance of something to be used". It doesn't imply anything other than what it says: a copy. It does not imply or indicate whether that copy is to be used or kept merely as a safe-guard. Backup means a copy for the purposes of a safe-guard. However, copy does not imply another instance of something to be used.

Stop twisting the language to suite your own -- and the MPAA/RIAA's -- ends.

Re:Copy vs. backup.

[diaphanous]

Right. "copy" describes the operation, "backup" describes the intent of an operation

But, you can't backup something without copying it, and you can't discuss or explain "backing up" without also talking about "copying". The MPAA would like to make "copy" a dirty word and equate it with criminal activity when we already have a perfectly good meaning for the word.

"Copy" is a perfectly neutral word, and copying is a perfectly neutral action. You can infringe on a copyright by redistributing a copy of a work without the copyright owners permission, but this possibility doesn't imply that all copying is copyright infringement.

~Phillip

Two problems in America

[Anonymous Coward]

If Slashdot was elected president in 2000, we wouldn't have the two problems we have today: A MPAA and more lawyers than doctors.

Re:Two problems in America

[RebelTycoon]

Would we all get to take part by moderating and meta-moderating?

and who is this slashdot you speak of?

lord, not again

[Alien54]

another Lawsuit for loss of potential profits instead of figuring out what is wrong with their production, marketing, distribution system.

parasites

Re:lord, not again

[inode_buddha]

It must be the "potential loss of buying opportunities" for their customers which has the MPAA worried. Sort of like the DMA...

Could This Be Good In A Way?

[aerojad]

If the MPAA is going after the company because it wants profits, and not because it wants to prevent the software from being available on a potential mass-market, could this mean the MPAA may be accepting the potential for movies to be burned to DVD-R? Maybe they'll let up if they can get a chunk of the profit? Probably not, but one can dream...

Anything like this for Linux?

[Longinus]

I'm not a big video editing guy, but I'd like to be able to copy my DVDs. Is there any Linux program that will what DVD X-Copy does?

Re:Anything like this for Linux?

[RandySC]

Visit VCDHelp.com where they have a Linux forum.

Dual Layer DVDs

[captainclever]

The article says the software asks you for a second blank DVD as most films come on dual layered discs, holding twice as much content as your average blank dvd. anyone know if its possible to buy blank dual layer dvds and a combatible burner?

Re:Dual Layer DVDs

[Fulcrum of Evil]

anyone know if its possible to buy blank dual layer dvds and a combatible burner?

No, it is not possible and it will not be possible. Dual layer discs are pressed as 2 discs and glued together.

Re:Dual Layer DVDs

[ecampbel]

It's impossible to burn your own dual layered disks since such disks are, in essence, two thin single layered disk glued together. They can only be created at the factory.

There's no way a burner could "burn" the second layer of a disk without disturbing the top layer.

They are profiting off of others free programs!

[Anonymous Coward]

All they have done is bundle applications that are free and from what I can tell the only programing that they have done themselfs is adding a front end.

The stolen software is as follows:
Smart Ripper
DVDx
VCD Easy/CD-Maker
PowerCDR

Re:They are profiting off of others free programs!

[pc486]

What's wrong with trying to make a profit from free programs? It's like screaming bloody murder over the fact that RedHat profits from selling free software. If the licenses of Smart Ripper, DVDx and others say that selling them is not allowed then so be it. Otherwise go ahead as packing software with an easy to use GUI is a service, and a valuable service as many DVD drive companies think it is worth paying money for.

Re:They are profiting off of others free programs!

[amorangi]

I've found the free DVD Decrypter [www.dvddecrypter.com]to be very good at stripping out all the illegal Regional Coding and all the other bumpf when making copies. This has been most useful in making copies to play on my unhacked stand-alone DVD player.
If the MPAA think they can prevent me viewing a DVD I legally bought they are seriously mistaken, and frankly they can sit and rotate.

Curious

[cluge]

Fair use has a lot of reasons to be in existance. The least of which was media degradation.

In the bad old days, merely playing any recorded material degraded the quality of it. A record, tape or VHS tape would eventually wear out. Thus making "copies" from a master was a necessity if you wanted to listen/view it over a long period of time. With todays digital media that is no longer the case, or much less so. Look for the "MPAA" supporters to try and use this fact to ban ALL fair use. Think revisionist history here (an mpaa lawyers will be!), fair use was needed because of the failure of that times recording technology. It (fair use) has no other reason to be in existance they will argue. It's outmoded and needs to be gotten rid of they will say. Reverse engineering, fair use, personal use will all be attacked (and are being attacked).

I find it ironic that a record company that can't even pay it's own employees/sub contractor (the artists) correctly is worried about a piece of DVD copying software. I guess if your accounting is THAT BAD then any percieved potential loss must be made up for. Thus the industry that can't even keep track of it's own sales accurately swings into action with a cadre of lawyers. Eventually musicians will seel directly to the people, and they will cut out the middle man. Eventually people will listen to music because they want to, not because they are told to. I can't wait for that day.

Re:Curious

[Jace of Fuse!]

With todays digital media that is no longer the case

I used to think this until I had movies and games that failed to play because of a single minor scratch. A scratch that came from removing it from the case of all things.

Of course, they LIKE this. They LOVE it even. They rub their hands together at the mere thought of doctoring the laws so that we're criminals unless we pay them a week's wages everytime we even REMEMBER a line from a movie or a song.

The original DivX format. The new self-destructive disks. DRM. Thought pollution. They really will never stop until they've won, until we stop buying their crap, or until we raid their business offices and shoot every single fucking executive coming up with this shit.

Re:Curious

[ndogg]

Yeah, because the MPAA and RIAA know that CDs/DVDs never get scratched, dirty, or broken. They're all invincible!

Re:Curious

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Well, CD readers are pretty mature and the format can actually play pretty decently considering how badly people treat the discs. It is definitely possible to irreparably damage them, sometimes it takes a good deal of scratching and fingerprinting.

Somehow, DVDs aren't so forgiving yet. In this case, scratches hurt more but fingerprints and other oils really throw players for a loop. I often use a clean-wipe on discs I am renting before I even try to play them.

As for the DVD-X-Copy or whatever, I was surprised they even managed to sell some copies due to cartel interference. All I knew was that I wasn't going to buy one because of the obnoxious banner ads they had.

Re:Curious

[ymgve]

Just a minor nitpick - Self-destructive disks does not hinder fair use in any way. They're only meant to be used for rentals, so you don't have to bring the disk back to the store. The net effect of returning disks vs. using self-destructive media is the same - after a set period of time you're left without the movie you rented. There is several other arguments against self-destructive disks (Pollution, costing rental stores more money), but degrading fair use is not one of them.

(Besides, you can still make a bit-to-bit copy of the disk before it destructs.)

Re:Curious

[Jace of Fuse!]

I'll grant you that very good point, and I do sort of agree with you, but ask yourself one question and I think you will no longer be so clear cut on the issue.

How long after the introduction of self-destructive media before that's the only media for sell?

I know what you're going to say... "They wouldn't dare..."

Would they not?

FINALLY - FAIR USE WILL BE TESTED!

[exhilaration]

*IF* they choose fight the MPAA, we will FINALLY find out whether the DMCA has stripped us of our fair use rights. I think this is far more meaningful than the ElcomSoft trial.

As we've all read a thousand times, this is no different than the movie studio's rabid reaction to the introduction of VCR's - a product that can duplicate video media and *might* be used for piracy.

This is the fight we've been waiting for: Fair Use vs. the DMCA. Only one will be left standing.

(So I'm being a little dramatic, sue me, I realize that the DMCA has a crapload of other stuff that will remain even if parts of it are struck down.)

What are the grounds for suing...??

[Mitreya]

is what completely escapes me. The software captures the stream after it has been decoded by a valid player. There is no encryption that is being broken...? It is almost like suing someone for using a video camera to record a rented movie on TV

Since when does DMCA make it illegal to make copies in general? I believe it only applies to breaking copyright protection...? I am hoping this will be tossed quickly or am I missing something?

Re:What are the grounds for suing...??

[stratjakt]

>> It is almost like suing someone for using a video camera to record a rented movie on TV it *is* illegal.

But do you sue the maker of the video camera?

Correct me if I am wrong, BUT

[teamhasnoi]

Doesn't the fact that the menus and special features are being copied mean that the DCSS is being broken, and thus the DMCA? Or is it only the movie that is encrypted?

I need to know since I'm going to get a 8x DVD burner, but call it 50,000 .00016x burners and open up a Third World Everquest Pirate Cafe!

Moderators: I'm just kidding about the first part. Thanks.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Mitreya]

Anyone with any skills at all can copy DVD disks without this software.

Ehm, you're missing the point. Anyone with slashdot (ting) skills can copy the software if they are willing to go through some hassle. But slashdot readers are a tech-minority everywhere but here on slashdot. All these things are relevant because this software allows the "average user" to legally (for $50) make a DVD copy. Hopefully 321 Stidos will win.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Mitreya]

I meant copy the DVD, not the software :)

Not as bad as you think...

[Anonymous Coward]

MPAA actually only sued 57 studios, but a few of them were unusually big.

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Mitreya]

Which is their whole problem. Stuff like this enables casual piracy. If its a hassle at all, most people will just rent from blockbuster, or buy it.

How difficult is it to copy a video-tape? Pretty easy... casual I would say. Do you still use blockbuster? Do you still even... gasp... BUY video-tapes? sure. so the argument is not that simple. (plus a blank DVD costs like a couple of bucks or so, I think)

Not that piracy is the only use for this software. Lots of people like to backup what they buy (yea right)

I have read a lot of opinions to the contrary... DVDs are *notoriously* fragile. as in they can die from a scratch.
Not to mention that I would appreciate being able to make a CD-R copy to 1) store the file on my hard drive (easier access) 2) use the CD-R to take my movie over to my dad's house where he only has a CD drive on his computer.

I confess

[scumdamn]

I did think that.
It was only while reading through the actual article that I understood it as the name of a company. How freaky!

Re:I confess

[MacAndrew]

Gee, I just thought the writer/editor was an idiot or typo-ist ... but yeah, I skipped that clause, too. We just have different prejudices.

Another dumb tech-era company name. Good thing they go out of business so fast. :) (Although I do kind of like Yahoo!.)

Can the MPAA get their money back?

[feepcreature]

If the laws that you've bought and paid for don't actually work like they're supposed to, does that mean you can get your money back?

--
"say no to feeping creaturism"

Re:Can the MPAA get their money back?

[satanami69]

Even more important is if I can use there laws without having to pay for them?

This is great advertising

[borg]

You know, someone just asked me if there was software that would let you copy DVDs. They wanted to...(wait for it...) use a copy for the DVD player in their Honda odyssey so they could keep the orignals at home and undamaged (kids, minivans and optical discs don't play well together).

I told them there was no such software.

Now I know differently. Thanks, MPAA, I guess you do add value, after all!

why piracy must be eliminated

[Anonymous Coward]

Piracy is Communism. Private property is Capitalism. You don't want to live in a Communist state, do you?

You know what happens in communist countries? The government controls everything you do. If you try and start your own business and invent new products, the government knocks down your door and takes your computers. If you make any profits, you have to hand them over to a third party, and they label you an enemy of the state.

In communist countries, powerful entities take money from the working class and use it to line their pockets and buy influence. The government is so interwoven with corruption, almost every law passed exists simply to keep to the bureaucratic machinery running, rather than encouraging efficient innovation (which can be dangerously disruptive).

You wouldn't want to live in country like that, would you??

Re:why piracy must be eliminated

[Psion]

While I wouldn't go so far as to equate piracy with communism (piracy is simply piracy -- it's wrong in the first place and doesn't need to be associated with a political system to besmirch it), I think you're wrong from the start to think of fair use copying as piracy. When I buy a CD or DVD, I want a perfect digital copy for my own use. There is nothing immoral or wrong with that and it only becomes illegal when I decide to sell my perfect copies to others. But you see, this is where you make your mistake...you equate the use of a tool that could be used in an illegal activity with the actual illegal activity itself. This is like saying that since automobiles can be used to run over innocent pedestrians on the sidewalk, people who purchase automobiles are killers and need to be prosecuted for the safety of all. It is an obvious logical fallacy.

Now if you want to go and prosecute everyone who sells their perfect digital copies, by all means, you have my support. But deprive me of the tools I need to do what I want with the media I purchase with my own hard-earned cash and I will call you a lackey of MPAA special interests and do everything in my power to strike back and overturn you and your "position".

That, my AC friend, has nothing to do with communism.

And how do you make that minority more tech savvy?

[kfg]

Easy, deny them this software. Trust me, since it isn't actually that hard the "average user" will learn how to dd a disk if they want copies and have a computer.

The MPAA doesn't get what we all know and say over and over again. Casual copying is for the most part legal. Illegal casual copying for the most part *increases* sales. If you can output it you can copy it. And here's the biggy:

People want to be able to copy.

They will stick to a format that allows it, or they will learn how to do it in the new format.

Hey MPAA guys, why don't you just find a business plan that coordinates with reality? Then we can all go back to work, ok? And remember, the customer is always right, because the customer controls the flow of money from *their* pocket to *yours.*

KFG

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Keep it up..

[xchino]

This is good for us. They need to keep on slapping the DMCA in everyone's face. That way the general public will realize what a completely ridiculous law it truly is. You don't see these DMCA cases on the 6 o'clock news and that needs to change.

Review of DVDXCopy

[AllynM]

review of DVDXCopy is here.

its an interesting read. they are actually enforcing fair use to some extent. it doesnt allow copying a copy (as long as its attempted with DVDXCopy), and inserts disclaimer warning screens at the start of each backup. sure teh die-hard hacker is going to copy it by a different means anyhow, but this program is tailored to joe-user that just wants a backup of his dvd and could care less about a warning screen at the start of his movie. it seems they made the program as restrictive as possible, covering the necessary fair use bases without overly-annoying the end user in the process.

This may even make the MPAA look bad should 321s lawyers bring up these facts in court.

Re:Review of DVDXCopy

[telstar]

"it doesnt allow copying a copy"

• Anybody that's seen
• Multiplicity knows that it's not smart to make a copy of a copy.
  
  "I like pizza!"

Re:Review of DVDXCopy

[telstar]

"anyone whos seen Multiplicity knows that its not smart to watch michael keaton movies."

• Oh, come on ... I know you've got your own cop^H^H^H, er, I mean ... purchased from the store ... version of
• Jack Frost.

Re:This sucks

[AzrealAO]

If you're making them yourself, they're not CSS encoded, and you can simply copy the files off the original DVD-R you made, and make a new one. You don't need any extra software to do that.

Re:And how do you make that minority more tech sav

[pla]

Trust me, since it isn't actually that hard the "average user" will learn how to dd a disk if they want copies and have a computer.

Actually, it takes *very* slightly more work than "dd". For Windows users, either DVD Dec or SmartRipper, in "file" mode, will suffice. ;-)

I want my cut of the proffits!

[hillct]

I proviide my content on DVD. I searched the MPAA website and I don't see where I need to apply to get my cut of the proffiits collected for every sale of DVD-copying software that MIGHT be used to copy my DVD content.

If the MPAA is allowed to collect these funds, then under this theory, anyone who ever records original content on a DVD for distribution, should be allowed membership to the MPAA. If enough of us join the MPAA, we could elect board members more in tune with reality. This would be far more difficult within the RIAA, since -while anyone can join the organization- only those who recieve payments (based on radio airplay of their music) can actually vote to elect board members. They have a vary incestuous system as compared to the MPAA, but with regard to the MPAA, everyone should produce a short film, perhaps a flash animation, and distribute it on DVD, selling it on their own website or whatever, then join the MPAA. If we generate enough new membership, we should be able to install board members as we se fit. :)

--CTH

Re:I want my cut of the proffits!

[HalfFlat]

And I thought they already were asses ...

Re:And how do you make that minority more tech sav

[Mitreya]

Trust me, since it isn't actually that hard the "average user" will learn how to dd a disk if they want copies and have a computer.

I think the reality is different. The "average user" will NOT learn anything. They only know things that have been around for over 5 years and are used by everybody as to force them to use it as well. This is does not even imply that I feel superior to the "average user". In fact I tried to rip a DVD and gave up after an some effort. Sure I bet I could do it, but I haven't so far...

People want to be able to copy but they will NOT learn new things to do it... Quite a few people still don't know how to operate a VCR or a microwave, damn it...

Related news: ReplayTV users & the EFF

[Robotech_Master]

I would submit this as its own story, but it'd probably just get rejected, so I might as well interject it here while it's timely. According to this EFF press release, the film studios that the ReplayTV users have been suing for clarification of their fair use rights tried to get the EFF disqualified from providing the ReplayTV users' lawyers--claiming that the EFF's stance on copyright made them a competitor to Hollywood! Fortunately, this attempt has been rebuffed, twice.

Yep, and it works both ways

[MacAndrew]

"Copy" is a perfectly neutral term.We can't let the MPAA dictate our language.

Likewise naming backup wouldn't provide a shred of protection. It's what it does, not its name, that governs legality. (Lawyers aren't quite that stupid.)

So I can call it a kid's novelty, but if it's actually a joint, I haven't changed anything. :)

Look out VCDHelp.com!

[NewtonsLaw]

Hell, some people (no names :-) have been ripping DVDs to DVDR and CDR disks for ages using freely available shareware.

There are even some bloody excellent websites like VCDHelp.com and Doom9.net which explain the whole process in simple to follow steps and provide discussion forms for those who have questions or problems.

What's the MPAA going to do now? Force these sites to charge a subscription and demand that all the revenues be handed over to them?

Hey, maybe the MPAA *have* found a new business model -- let people help others make backup copies of your wares and then sue them for huge sums.

Probably sounds pretty damned good from a movie exec's perspective -- let others do all the work then just raid their wallets at your leisure.

One word: plastic polish

[MacAndrew]

Just a minitangent: Plastic polishes such as Novus 1-2-3 can take out superficial scratches and contamination pretty reliably.

I wish whoever broadcasts Enterprise here would get some. Theie (evidently digital) broadcasts go blocky all the time, like 4-5 times per episode. I can practically see the tech's fingerprints.

Too late

[MacAndrew]

Fair use is not God-given, it's just a regular law added to the copyright statutes (before that a judicial construction). The DMCA, despite its protestations to the contrary, appears to screen out part of fair use. There is a core fair use that is First Amendment and can't be overridden, but I don't think the amendment goes to making backup copies.

So I assume a judge would say, yeah, the DMCA is badly written (there's a first) but it is clear what it proscribes and they'll just have to rewrite it rather than have me guess at the correct wording.

YMMV.

Re:Too late

[MacAndrew]

"Precedes codification"? I'm not sure what that means. Codification is just the assembly of multiple laws in readable form. So instead of a law plus five amendments, you just set down the law as amended. Much more readable, no legal significance (unless botched).

Fair use was construed in the statute not the constitution by judges. Congress is free to override that construction, but instead it wrote it into the law. Another example is the entrapment defense, which does not appear in criminal law but Congress lets stand.

Your latter 2 sentences are policy arguments that may be good but don't control.

Re:Too late

[cpt kangarooski]

Well, Fair Use remains a body of common law, stemming from the Constitution. Congress cannot change it or reduce it, though they can add to it and have at present pretty well restated the judicial doctrine. This is what they did when they codified the then (and now) current doctrine in 17 U.S.C. 107.

Before the doctrine was pure case law, stemming all the way back to Folsom in 1841. Congress never touched it, and the language of the copyright statutes was completely against it. While this could have been construed in the statute, that seems pretty damn difficult. The Constitution is a much more ready source for the doctrine. And if it is, then Congress can no more override it than anything else.

"The House and Senate Reports explain that 107 does no more than give "statutory recognition" to the fair use doctrine...." Sony v. Universal, 464 U.S. 417, 476 (1984).

"The purpose of copyright protection, in the words of the Constitution, is to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." ... There are situations, nevertheless, in which strict enforcement of this monopoly would inhibit the very [progress] that copyright is intended to promote." Id. at 477.

"The fundamental justification for [fair use] lies in the constitutional purpose in granting copyright protection in the first instance, to with, "To Promote the Progress of Science and the Useful Arts." Rosemont v. Random House, 366 F.2d 303, 307 (2d Cir. 1966).

Re:Too late

[MacAndrew]

Well, Fair Use remains a body of common law, stemming from the Constitution. Congress cannot change it or reduce it

I know what you're thinking of, but this ain't it. Fair use first came from courts figuring out what Congress meant in its copyright laws, not interpreting the Constitution. Primary power over copyright is assigned to Congress by the Copyright Clause in Article I. Congress came in later and said, OK, we'll adopt what the courts have said.

Constitutionally, there is a free speech interest element in fair use, but it is narrower. This limit hasn't really tested yet because fair use is broader. In some ways fair use is more generous than need be, in others maybe it doesn't go far enough. The point is that fair use and free speech aren't the same thing, especially since the point of copyright is to allow monopoly over certain kinds of speech.

Whether and how the courts may review Congress's exercise of the copyright power is currently before the Supreme Court in Eldred; that case doesn't really go to fair use, but does look at what the heck that "promote" clause is all about. In other words, the Supreme Court is generally not enthusiastic to second-guess the elected legislature as to what "promote" means. But we'll see how Eldred comes out.

Fair use is controversial right now for obviosu reasons (DMCA). Here is an interesting discussion featuring /.

Re:As a guy who doesn't like guns I'd just like .

[shelby289]

What the hell does this have to do with the DMCA, XdvdCopy, or anything eles that has to do with technology?

Hey! That was the other **AA!

[MacAndrew]

Yes, I know, some say "they all look alike," but let's be open-minded. ;-)

EUCD in the news

[basic70]

The beer-free morning newspaper Metro in Sweden had an article (pdf, on page 16) yesterday about Denmark introducing EUCD, the EU version of DMCA.

It was described as a law that makes it illegal to make mp3s of your own CDs. Since it is an EU directive, I doubt any of the member countries have much choice but to add some law of this kind.

It stands for disk duplicator

[kfg]

It is a standard (although deprecated) *nix tool that comes with virtually every Linux distro, similar to DOSes xcopy, except that since *nix treats all data as a stream it makes a bit for bit duplicate of the source. In the case of a DVD this means that the resulting disk is an *exact* duplicate of the original. It violates no trademark or patent law ( these only apply if you *distribute* the disk or a playback device, and as you say, violation in regards to the disk itself only effects your right to call it a DVD(tm)).

This isn't a cracking tool. *It leaves the CSS intact.* It's a *duplication* tool. The copy cannot be played on any device that could not play the source disk. It complies in every respect with the standard. Thus it's a perfectly valid copy tool that does not even violate the DMCA, since no attempt has even been made to circuvent the copy protection.

The very idea that someone might simply copy the copy protection appears to have been an idea totally foreign to the mindset of the media types who believe that anyone who copies anything for any reason is a "pirate" raping and pillage them and their families.

All *I* want is a backup disk as legally provided for in fair use law. An *exact* duplicate gives this backup disk while violating *no* law. As I said, not even the DMCA.

KFG

KFG

Re:HUH?? TROLL Alert

[RebelTycoon]

Hurry quick... I just saw a troll run underneath the bridge... Quick shot it with a gun...

I'm so confused...

Correct!

[Boss, Pointy Haired]

This was kinda what I was thinking with my "Honour System" post the other day.

I think it will shortly get to the stage where music and video producers accept that unauthorised digital distribution / copying of their material CANNOT be stopped.

The industry could then move to an "Honour System" of payment, whereby a viewer could make payment for digital content _however_ they received it.

Multimedia file formats should contain meta-data information about an Internet location from where payment for the material can be made should one so wish to do so.

On DVD Renting

[Lord Bitman]

I have read through slashdot that when you buy a DVD, you arent really buying the Digital Media, but license to view that Digital Media. This brings up the question of that basic right to re-sell something which you have purchased, or so I'm told.

Anyway, the idea comes from that ROM-trading system mentioned a month or two ago. The idea behind that was: people have actual media, and in order to trade it, they send people the files, during which time their media can't be used- just like trading with someone who lives by you, only without the lives by you part.
So I figure if what I own when buying a DVD isnt media, but a license, why not rent out that license instead?
So here's the proposal: Buy a DVD, put it on a shelf, keep track of how long you spend Not watching the movie.
Then rent out the license for the time you arent using it.

If a DVD is a license, not media, you don't have to worry about where the physical media is in order to use the license. If I buy a DVD, go on a trip out of state, and download a rip of the DVD to watch while I'm gone, it's just as legal as making a copy of a movie on VHS and taking that with you on a trip- everything's fine as long as no one is watching that other copy at the same time. Rights are intangable, so your Rights stay with you wherever you go. Rights also dont need to stay in touch with the rest of the world's time. If I'm licensed to see 30 minutes of a slug beating a mormon to death with a petrified woodpecker, I can watch 10 minutes now, 10 minutes later, and save that extra 10 minutes for a friend of mine whom I wish to torment.
DVD's, though, have no time limit. You could put one in your drive now and keep the thing spinning until the drive wears out or the disc disintegrates beyond readability. Fortunatly though, if either of those happen, you're still allowed to watch the movie: a DVD is a license, not a media.

So, there's no time limit, Rights stay with you wherever you go, and rights dont have to follow time in a straight line.
Plenty of people have DVDs which have been sitting on their shelves unwatched for months. That could have been 720 showings of the movie, all of which remain unseen. What happens to those showings? Well, you're licensed to have viewed them whether you did or not, why not sell them?
License Rental can enable thousands of otherwise ilegal viewings to become legit, all at an affordable price. And there's really no drawbacks.

Before commenting on anything I just said, please note that I am aware that I am not familiar with the subject matter I am typing about. I really couldnt give a shit whether anything I said was true or not. The post was meant only to get people thinking. Whether those thoughts are intelligent or not is up to the person doing the thinking. I dont care if they are, the real point is for someone to look at this and go "That's completely wrong. ... ... however, if instead..." and bring about a total intellectual anarchy and new age of perversion.
You may have noticed the actual topic of this post ended abruptly. I wish to assure you that this was because I stopped typing on the subject.

Re:On DVD Renting

[Lumpy]

I have read through slashdot that when you buy a DVD, you arent really buying the Digital Media, but license to view that Digital Media.

if that is true... why do all the AD's on tv say "Own it Today"?

Sounds like false advertising to me... Who want's to sue?

Re:Are you kidding me?

[Erik Hollensbe]

Have you ever heard of macrovision?

Here is another interview and how you can help

[MartijnH]

Here is another interview of the CEO of 321 studioos and how they would like you to participate in their companies cause.

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news2.php3?ID=5389

Riaa's great business plan

[nurb432]

* Get people hooked on music.

* Raise prices to where people stop buying, and start pirating.

* Blame someone else about loss in sales.

* Insult and sue your remaining users. Make their life miserable when they want to use your product.

* Sue people that make your product accessable..

* Wonder why everyone hates you, and you go out of business..

In other news...

[The Gline]

I understand taxi companies nationwide are using Ford, GM, Honda, Nissan and all the other major car companies for "stealing their profits." After all, why should a person take a cab when he can just as easily buy his own car? It's horrible, the amount of sheer flagrant THEFT going on out there!

Re:As a guy who doesn't like guns I'd just like .

[e2d2]

Actually killing people is illegal, it's called man slaughter. Even if you don't intentionally kill someone it's still a crime.

MPAA staff share collective hive mind - UTA

[Sean Clifford]

"There is no question in our mind that 321 Studios' products violate the DMCA," says Marta Grutka, MPAA spokesperson.

The efficiency of the collective hive mind allows the MPAA and its sister organization the RIAA to pursue an unprecedented number of cases against companies and individuals by using a single Unified Tort Architecture applicable to all cases. UTA, inspired by the success of nVidia's Unified Driver Architecture, remains tightly controlled by the MPAA and its sole licensee - the RIAA.

Re:OT: Gas and cars.

[PotatoHead]

I hear you loud and clear. I think about the cost of cars often. I have a family of 6! (My god, what *was* I thinking?)

We have one car. I have cut the cost by not buying new cars. Just the depreciation alone pays for my cars. It is fuel efficient and is a manual so I can get the most for the buck.

The kids use the bus often. I get them passes so it makes sense there. I will use it on occasion when I don't need to drive while at work.

My wife and I share the other car for work and such so that works pretty well.

For me, I would love to be using a bike --they are still as fun as they were when I was a kid. However, my work requirements keep me off the busses for now.

Portland is a city trying to push these values pretty hard. They have bike only lanes in many places, a lot of mass transit (though the cost on that is pretty high from a tax point of view), and many options for skating and such in the downtown area.

For me, the car is something I need, but won't spend any more on than I have to.

So you are right about cost. I just don't have the options I would like to have.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

the d in slashdot isnt capitalized

[cdf12345]

ass.

Testing...

[dagg]

Please ignore...

--sex sex sex