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".

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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

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

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.

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.

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: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.

Not as bad as you think...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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!

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.

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

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.

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?