Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Prevails Against 321 Studios' DVD X Copy
Quok writes "Yahoo has the scoop. The article is short on details, but it seems the MPAA have succeeded in getting an injunction issued against 321 Studios, the makers of the popular DVD X Copy software, which allows consumers to make backup copies of DVD movies. Strike one for fair use."
Can't we just take an image of a DVD like any other media format? Piracy will live on without overpriced software to facilitate it.
more related news items
Consensus is good, but informed dictatorship is better
Isn't it Sony that made the VCR? Time to sue them, this lawsuit stuff works!
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.
DVD Shrink. Rip your movies to the hard drive, and then burn them with Nero or some other DVD burnin software. DVD Shrink is free and works great. It is Windows however.
before DVD Y Copy comes out? :)
Free XBox, PS2
News.com.com has a little more commentary and some background for those who aren't in the know. Thanks to the DMCA, seems like an open and shut case to me. The judge seems to think they are violating both the letter and the spirit of the law:
I do think 321 makes some cool software. It will be sad to see them lose this one...
Effectively, this is the test case for the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, and this injunction indicates that the court is presently leaning in favor of keeping it. The right to make a backup copy is not being questioned, but that'll be a useless right if there's no legal way to do so.
Not good... not good at all.
Is the Metropolitan Museum of Art going to win a case against Kodak, Fuji, Canon and others for making devices that allow people to make backup copies their vacation memories? This is getting insane.
I'm going to go hide under my bed. Will someone please come and get me when the world becomes a little more rational?
What am I supposed to do when I irrepairably scratch my favorite DVD? Go buy another one? That's crap. The primary function of this software is what? JUST to circumvent the antipiracy scheme, or is it to give someone the ability to backup that which they've already paid for.
The fucks at the MPAA going to give me a new copy of Hackers on DVD if I accidently damage my old one? They obviously don't want me copying it for my safe keeping.
Assholes.
Can you ping me now? Gooood! | Manhappenin.Net - Things to do
This court enjoins plaintiff 321 Studios from manufacturing, distributing, or otherwise trafficking" in the software
Now, IAMNAL, can retailers continue to destribute the software most likely? I know they wouldn't, but couldn't 3-2-1 say.... Open Source X-Copy and then we could all distribute it legally? Who would the MPAA have to sue then?
I downloaded it via BitTorrent some time ago.
Fuck the **AA.
I think the whole stinking DMCA should be thrown out, but since the courts seem to want to keep it, I think that sort of plan is the only way to reconcile it with prior copyright law.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
Why should you?
They produced and distributed the movie, they get to dictate the terms under which it can be watched.
If Microsoft products bother you so much, then why don't you start a company and buy the rights to produce a legal DVD player. Just like the DVD-player software companies working on Windows versions did. No-one's stopping you, you know.
Strike one for fair use.
Not really. I'm thinking stike two, or maybe strike fifty, or strike [insert big number here.] There's the DMCA, the Napster lawsuit, 2600's issues with the MPAA over DeCSS, UnTrusted Computing, and on, and on, and on. This most certainly isn't the first, and there's no way it'll be the last.
This statement is false.
When dual layer burners come out.
I was also trying to submit the same article.... I did some research, so a federal judge decided for the MPAA and against the 321 Studios DVD Copying software. MPAA argued that DMCA prohibits anyone to go around an encryption scheme (effective or not) the CSS. It looks like the 321 Studios is selling software that can copy DVDs onto other DVDs and also onto your harddrives in some file format. However, the software is also capable of selecting which features, languages etc. will be copied so it looks like the software actually does CSS decryption in order to go this extra steps. Maybe in this case DMCA does apply. If this is the truth, the software will have to be changed to only allow bit by bit copying in order to allow fair use and at the same time to comply with the DMCA.
BTW. on the 321studios.com Flash is required for navigation, I personally see it as the grounds for shutting that company down, not only prohibitting their software
You can't handle the truth.
I thought one of the main concessions that the RIAA "allows" is that people can make copies of CD's that they have legally bought, both for backup purposes and to have a copy in the car, home, office, etc.
Is this different? Does the MPAA have a different view on copying than the RIAA, and if so under which corporate empire's rule do we live? We are obviously not under the rule of the people anymore.
I doubt the injunction will stop the inevitable availability of this software on just about any file-sharing service you care to name. What it might stop though is legitimate companies developing software like this so that you, I and anyone else can exercise our right to make working backups of the software, movies or anything else that we've purchased.
After all why would anyone want to spend time, effort and money developing software that allows people to do sensible, legal things with their property if the MPAA, RIAA or anyone else with a big enough cheque book is going to shut them down before they get going? Chalk up another victory for big corporations in their seemingly unstoppable war against the rights of the law abiding majority in their pursuit of the lawless minority.
That being said, the cat is out of the bag and the movie industry will have to wait until the next generation of copy protection when DVI connectors become more common.
harmonious design
If I can legally make a backup copy but I can't legally obtain the means to do so, well that's just the same as it not being legal for me to make a backup copy, isn't it?
The point has been made before-- if we're only buying a license to view/hear the content on a disc as the RIAA/MPAA maintain, then we should definitely be owed replacements (if not free, then for the cost of the media only) when something bad happens to a disc we possess and renders it unusable.
That is a class-action lawsuit I'd like to see... where a bunch of people with ruined CDs/DVDs sue to force the producers to provide minimal-cost replacement media-- and not just for the members of the class, but for everyone, in perpetuity.
What does your o/s have to do with this topic? We don't care that your friend is a idiot and can't keep his sh*t running.
They really should appeal. Sure it will cost a goodly sum in lawyers' fees, but the 9th Circuit (if you get the right judges) is quite liberal in terms of personal rights.
his sh*t running.
Please refrain from using such language, children could be reading this forum.
who doesn't know that yahoo is www.yahoo.com?
raise your hands now
From the article:
"Most Hollywood DVDs are protected with a technology called Content Scrambling System, or CSS, which encrypts the content on the discs so that they can only be read by devices with authorized "keys" to unlock the data. A studio-affiliated trade group licenses those keys to DVD player manufacturers."
Why doesn't 321 try to license the CSS from the trade group? If they are not allowed to license it then sue for unfair trade practices.
To me it appears that since 321 is not paying for the CSS license the MPAA has grounds. However, if the MPAA/trade group refuses to license (per copy - yes that means no "free" software) then there are grounds for unfair trade/monopoly suits.
When you buy a car, you own the car, period. You can do with it as you wish.
When you buy a CD or DVD, you're not buying the music, you're buying a plastic circle and a license to view/hear the contents of that circle. If your plastic circle eats it and becomes unusable for some reason, you still possess a license to the content, and as such should be able to get replacement media for the cost of producing the media.
Problem is, the movie/record companies don't want to have to replace your media, but they don't want you to have the right to make backup copies of it, either. And they own more congressmen than you.
~Philly
The ruling seems unavoidable to me, not only because of the more stringent copyright laws, but more importantly because of how the DVD format was designed.
This case was succesful becauses DVDs have built in encryption. By supporting an encrypted or digital-rights laden format (such as most paid for mp3s), we are telling the people who make them that it's OK to move towards a future where we do not own anything, we are merely renting it.
If you don't like the lawsuit, stop buying and supporting DVDs and write to tell the studios why not.
At nearly the same time, I started reading that by April, the 8.5gb dual layer media and at least two brands of burners will be available.
db
Cig:
ôô
Anyway, even if they have to stop making the software, it will live on forever in p2p sharing perpetuity.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
:wq!
The DMCA explicitly allows for some of the "fair use" provisions that we used to take for granted. Rather than arguing that the software was not intended for fair use, the MPAA simply argued that the copy protections-- the ones that went AGAINST the provisions in the DMCA-- couldn't be legally circumvented. So, they lobby for something that "allows" fair use, then use bizarre logic to keep that fair use from being legal. Am I missing something here? Shouldn't "copyright protections" that violate fair use of legally-purchased media be illegal? They're selling us cake and eating it too.
And I don't feel bad about it. They already charge too much for renting new releaes, in my opinion. If people have the ability to copy, they will. I have the ability, and I do.
BTW, I use a pirated copy of DVD X Copy. I am a bad boy...
Yes, well, if you live in the EU you're in for more of the same, only worse. See the previous Slashdot post on that topic. "DMCA on steroids" I believe it was called.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
The judge had to rule this way.
By selling an encrypted format, the MPAA has carte blanche on how they want the DVDs to be used. If they didn't have encryption, the judge could have more leeway (such is the case with cds) to enable a more logical fair use of the media. As long as we support encrypted formats, we're doomed to merely borrow the content.
to stop reading Slashdot! Years of experience have taught me that /. wastes enormous amounts of people's time, especially through trolling! ;-)
"The case had tested the limits of 1998's Digital Millenium Copyright Act"
no limits, it seems.
When I read this article I became really concerned about fair use. So here's what I'm doing. Email everyone that has a public address listed on the mpaa.org site. Ask them:
p aa.orgh op@attglobal.neta uthier@mpaa.org
If I want to *legally* backup my DVD which is described in fair use how would the MPAA suggest I do this? If it's illegal to get around CSS and it's legal to backup please tell me. It's a rhetorical question really but I'd be curious to know if they come up with some type of response.
BTW this is the first time I've ever posted AC for obvious reasons. Here are the emails I found on MPAA.org
complaint@mpaa.org
dcinema@mpaa.org
hotline@m
mdore@le-public-systeme.fr
mpamiamiworks
mpario@attglobal.net
Pascale_W
webhost@mpaa.org
I've been tempted to buy a DVD burner to backup some movies for a while.. I just don't know if there's an easy way to do it under Linux ?
Even if it involves making a few command line scripts it'd be pretty easy I guess..
Anyone could point me to something useful ?
I have ripped my entire library of about 70 DVDs into DivX with it. With a script you can just insert the DVD and walk away.
It all began as an effort to be able to watch entire seasons of Simpsons, Futurama or Black Adder in one go without having to change discs and/or deal with cumbersome menus and copyright announcements that you can't fast-forward (FOX is particularly bad in this aspect).
Now I've got a fanless VIA EPIA mini-ITX box connected to my TV with the media on a 250 GB portable hard drive. Interestingly, a cordless trackball mouse is actually a better remote than your ordinary remote control when you get used to it.
The owls are not what they seem
To force your pet peeves and petty issues on everyone else, you constantly lobby to pass new laws that will arrest those whom you don't like. Consequently, the government has become bigger and bigger and no longer looks out for you.
There was a time when the individual was bigger than the state, now he is just a slave.
People, wake up and realize that the two points of opinion are not the left and the right. The struggle is between individual rights and the statists (which includes Democrats/liberal and republican/conservatives). And the statists have won in a big way.
The greatness of a nation hinges on the freedom of its people. Welcome to the beginning of the end of the Great American Experiment!
All your favorite sites in one place!
Just make sure you have access to Slashdot under you bed! Or maybe you should hide in the bathroom instead, might be a little more sanitary!
Making one's own backups doesn't become useless, it becomes something to fight for. The question is how much are people who understand the technology and the social issues at hand willing to fight so that the public can legally make backup copies of information they have legally acquired? Will knowledgable people just talk on Slashdot and never organize others to help take the issue to the public?
Digital Citizen
When you buy a *thing* you can do with it what you want. For instance, if I buy a painting, I can publicly exhibit it all I want, I can draw a moustache on it, I can lend it to a friend.
When you buy a license, you get a set of rights. So, if I buy a gym membership, I'm allowed to work out during gym hours, use a locker, swim in the pool. I'm not allowed to loan my membership card to a friend to use. If I misplace my membership card, that doesn't cancel my membership.
It seems the MPAA wants it both ways: They want to be allowed to make all sorts of restrictions as if they were selling licenses, but want to pretend it's just a physical object they're selling when it comes to media damage, theft, and format changes.
I say they play by the same rules as everyone else. Make it one or the other.
Obviously the court accepts the dmca, a court does not have the authority to change laws (creative interpretations are one way to go about slightly changing it, but more than a very minor change is obviously out of the question)
I'm a single geek. Do you really think my bathroom is more sanitary than any place on earth?
--James
DVD2one? You can use a simple DeCSS program like DVD Backup, then DVD2one to compress and then just burn using your favorite authoring software. Sure DVDXcopy is easier for the masses but backing up your DVD's can still be done.
Given the number of DeCSS/Compression programs out there, I don't think the MPAA is going to be able to get rid of every tool to rip, compress and burn DVDs.
-- Is it a right to remain ignorant? -- Calvin
Just curious,
I've never tried burning DVDs but is it possible to do 1:1 copy of single layer DVD which would include the extras and the sort without recompression?
Candle burns its brightest in the dark
On the one hand I am disappointed, as this is clearly a swipe at fair dealing rights.
On the other hand, if it means I will get less spam advertising software that can copy any DVD {when I already have something similar as part of my Linux distribution, by the way} then I cannot help feeling a little prickle of delight.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Soviet Union had a Constituion that looked like a document fair to all the citizens of the country. But the Soviet Government constantly used lied (usually poorly disguised lies) to do whatever it felt was neccessary to stay in power. It still used its well-oiled propaganda machine to try to convince the dumbest 80% of the population that it was the most fair society in the wolrd.
Sure US has a freedom of speech. Unless you want to discuss something that is not politically correct, or you happen to be a computer programmer communicating in a way that you find most expressive, or you happen to be a mathematician discussing mathematics (think cryptography), or a chemist discussing high-energy reactions (think explosives).
It used to be that it was OK to tremple everyone rights legally as long as it was done to bring about safety. More and more it is done to bring about practical short-term solutions (read profit).
But at least there is no slippery slope.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
But would building a replica of the car from scratch legal? Have you never heard of restoration or outright building from scratch old cars? Many of the restored ones are more new than old! So, I believe that you can backup your car my friend.
Photos.
I already have my copy
Right on the front page (after updates to two similar products are mentioned btw!) they have the following interesting comment:
My bold, and that pretty much sums up how i feel about this aswell. I trust the views of Doom9 (he's a person and a site) as someone who knows a lot more about all this than me and has proved right on the money in the past. The sentence after the bold... well, that just pisses me off - i don't know what to say. I can make cr*p quality backups?! Is that a joke? (rhetorical).This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism as it is a merge of state and corporate power."
I suppose stealing is the more honorable action then?
Stupid Fuck.
If it means ripping off people who sue 12-year old girls for fun, then the answer is yes. Ever heard of Robin Hood?
Probably not, cocksmoker.
a court does not have the authority to change laws
But the court does have the authority to rule a law unconstitutional and proclaim it invalid.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
This is totally wrong... where did you get this?
The video on copy protected DVDs (CSS) IS encrypted.
The 321 product decrypts the dvd.
That is totally wrong.
video files on CSS protected DVDs are indeed encrypted, and key to decrypt them is itself encrypted (multiple times with multiple keys, each time stored in a separate entry in a table), and then stored on the dvd. A vendor uses his key (which will unlock one instance of the title key out of that table I mentioned) so his player can unlock the code to the title.
decss, DVD-Xcopy, and the like, all decrypt the dvd, they effectively REMOVE the copy protection on the CD.
If DVD players could burn the key tracks, we would see straightforward DVD copying, just like how you copy a CD. Show me this software, please.
Any source code available for DVDShrink? I imagine there's source available for MEncoder, though I've never looked...
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
CNN is owned by AOL-Time-Warner - needless to say they are going to care more about the studio's interest than the public's interest.
A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
In the Sony Betamax case, the Supreme Court ruled that as long as there is a legitimate use for a technology, it cannot be banned because someone may use it for illegitimate uses.
I don't know much about how X Copy works but if it does a straight copy without actually bypassing CSS, how does the software violate DMCA?
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Photocopiers are legal.
[TMB]
If that were the case, the studios wouldn't be able to put restrictions on how you use your one copy of that plastic circle. But right smack dab in the beginning there's a warning that you're not allowed to use it for public performances. That's a license, not a single copy purchase.
What the studios want is to have their cake and eat it too. They want to restrict your use of the info on the plastic disk as if it were a license, but if the physical media fails they want you to have to buy a new one at full price.
If the book later becomes available as a searchable PDF you have no automatic rights to that either: it's a separate product entirely. You also don't get free rights to the movie version of the book. Just like buying a ticket to a film doesn't grant you a "license" to come back tomorrow and see it again; you got what you came for, now get out.
If a book becomes available as a searchable PDF, that's a product that provides capability and value over the original book (it's searchable), and thus requires a new purchase. Same reason you weren't entitled to automatic upgrades for your music collection from cassettes to CDs - the digital format provided additional value over the old analog format.
When you go to a theatre, you're purchasing rights to a one-time viewing. When you buy a DVD, you're purchasing rights to infinite viewings. If something happens to inpede your right to infinite viewings, it's the studio's responsibility to restore that right - that's what you paid them for. This is why they've been trying to market products that give you rights to limited viewings (Divx, those DVDs that turn black after a few days). They're trying to shirk the responsibility to keep up their end of the bargain.
Believe me, if this stands, all music in whatever format that replaces CDs will have encryption as well. CDs just happened to be first on the scene and so the data was stored in raw, uncompressed, unencrypted format (actually, it's uncompressed because it gave the RIAA an excuse for not putting more than an hour of music on a single CD, but that's another issue).
Remember, 321 Studios are the ones that sold "DVD Copy Plus" which was shareware/freeware they sold WITHOUT permission of the authors. They basically threw together a bunch of free applications with cheesy instructions and pretended it was a product. Then, they allowed everyone to use SPAM to market it. Great company. Yes, "DVD X Copy" is an original work, but nobody should forgive them for their previous scams. They only care that they won't be able to make millions from would-be suckers and casual pirates. (Everytime I go to Fry's I see a spindle of DVD+R/-R and DVD X Copy get sold.) There are plenty of FREE solutions. Burn, 321 Studios, BURN.
No, my rights end where they injure others. My rights to watch a DVD on a Linux box do not injure the movie industry, therefore those rights are inalienable. Those who say otherwise are the greatest threat to the freedom of our country and our world. We must stand firm.
As Ray Bradbury put it in Fahrenheit 451:
120 character sigs suck. Make it 250.
No wonder I couldn't find a link to Frank Stevenson's CSS cryptoanalysis -- I spelled his name wrong. A copy of his his paper is hosted at DeCSS Central.
EOM
You are not thinking about media and format shifting. When I buy a CD it goes in the drive once. My music is stored on a HD. Why should I shuffle around pieces of plastic. Why would movies be any different?
Open source is definitely not a reasonable term.
For free is not a reasonable term. Any company can afford to pay a $15000 license on something it's going to place it's product on.
What makes you think that having the democrats or republicans in charge makes one bit of difference?
Citizen rights have been taken away by both parties, and the war on terror would have been used to take away individual rights regardless of which party held power at the time. Remember, Fritz Hollings is a democrat. And any civil war would be short-lived..they have the nukes, and would not hesitate to nuke their own cities, if they thought they could lose their power. I'll gauruntee you, there are plans sitting in some dusty file cabinet right now, with all the details on how the bombings would be carried out. And those plans would have been easy to draw up, since the problem of collateral damage doesn't exist in such a scenario. They'd rather rule over a radioactive wasteland, than not rule, even in a paradise.
I see a movie, walk out of the theater wanting the DVD but by the time the DVD comes out, I don't care to buy it. Gladiator and The Patriot come to mind on that one.
I would have walked into a store and bought Matchstick Men and Kill Bill that same day. I'm still going to buy those two but I have yet to purchase Gladiator or The Patriot.
I think Hollywood's reasoning is that you'll keep going back to the theater to see it. They know their books. Maybe enough people are seeing movies multiple times to warrent it.
If you could pay $15-$20 to buy a movie or $8 bucks to see it in a theater what would you do? If the movie was getting good reviews I'd probably just buy it and skip the theater. If it was getting bad reviews I'd probably pass on both. If you have a few people who want to see it, you buy/rent a copy save money on the movie and just hang out and buy pizza with the money you saved which is still cheaper than buying crap at the theater.
You can blame the MPAA but the theater chains have a lot to gain by forcing you to pay them to see a movie unless you want to wait several months to buy or rent it.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
if the "decrypting" prart is rule illegal, then most likely the MPAA will try to chase every software company that create such software.
soon or later, this will effect open source programs. Also, will that effect people who make software that can view DVD? Because if the content is "encrypted", the software developer have to know how to "decrypt" it to get the content to play. Am I making any sense?
And?
Talk about counter-intuitive user interfaces!
DVDShrink is far better but it can't write dvds on its own, but this doesn't really matter as most dvd burners come bundled with writing software (B's for example). Just use DVDShrink to make an unencrypted all-region copy to you HD and then burn as normal!
This post left intentionally blank.
And that is the problem: I would like to see this loosely defined right to make back-ups turned into something stronger: an obligation for manufacturers to make sure that none of their DRM schemes and other crap violates our fair-use rights.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
"The theater would be raking in the dough, popcorn and soda prices would fall, and everyone would be happy."
Not sure why they would bother to lower their prices. The whole industry is all about maintaining top profit margin.
Queens of the Stone Age - they rule
That would mean that the studios would have to be willing to continually do this for all DVDs that they released. Do you Actually think that if your 3 year old destoryed the Barney DVD the 15th time this month that they would still be willing to replace it?
Anything that does not allow you to make backup copys of videos and software that you have purchased is wrong. And any law that makes normal people making backups into criminals needs to be abolished.
A few years ago, my house caught fire and burned down taking everything with it. Fortunately, I had off site backups of my software or I would be spending several thousand dollars replacing all of it. Then it was legal to do such a thing but today I'm a criminal for making backups.
How would your mail-in replacement work for me in that situation? Am I supposed to send them in the melted plastic and say "send me a replacement"? Or how about I'll send them some ash and say "see, this is my receipt. My house burned down, send me replacements."
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
http://www.dvddecrypter.com/ Can remove CSS and Macrovision while ripping the DVD image to the HDD
They really should appeal. Sure it will cost a goodly sum in lawyers' fees, but the 9th Circuit (if you get the right judges) is quite liberal in terms of personal rights.
Nonsense. There is probably no less favorable forum in the United States for the defendant in a copyright-like action.
The 9th Circuit decided the Napster case.
The 9th Circuit decided the Sony Betamax case in favor of the movie studios before being reversed by the Supreme Court.
The 9th Circuit even decided that Vanna White's right to publicity was invaded by a commercial depicting a robot in a gown turning letters.
If there is a bright shiny sweet spot for owners of IP rights, and a dark nadir for balancing of the public's rights, it is the 9th Circuit.
Getting the RIAA and the MPAA confused?
Fucktard cocksmoker twat
Seriously... I haven't seen it put better than that.
I think it's plainly obvious by reading the comments that the vast majority of Slashdotters would only ever use DVD X Copy for backing up a DVD that they already own. They would not use it for, say, renting a DVD from Netflix and making a copy for themselves, as many of my friends do regularly. Then again, almost everybody I know who uses Kazaa uses it to download and share copyrighted material without the holder's permission, so perhaps I'm hanging with the wrong crowd.
Making backups of your media is a good idea, in case they're damaged or stolen. But not even factoring in the cost of the DVD burner or the blank media, the basic version of DVD X Copy retails for $69.99. That's the cost of three DVDs.
I must own over a hundred DVDs, and not once have I had a DVD go bad or otherwise become unusable. I would have to have had three instances of this happening in order for a purchase of DVD X Copy to have been worth the investment.
If I regularly loaned DVDs to friends and three ended up not coming back, the software would have been a good investment, but it would have been more efficient to be more careful in whom I loan my DVDs to.
It seems to me that the most logical way to get your value's worth out of DVD X Copy is to use it for piracy. Just as most people use Kazaa illegally and most people who buy equipment for getting free cable or satelite signals also do so to avoid paying, rather than for "test purposes" or "for educational use only" as the ads proclaim, my bet is that most people who use DVD X Copy do so illegally.
Does anybody dispute this?
Sitting in my day care, the art is decopainted.
This isn't really suprising, because yes, the program pretty un-arguably breaks the DMCA
The real question is if the DMCA's clause will be found unconstitutional... so if this judge didn't feel like undoing laws, it'll have to wait for appeal
Of course they will go after *any* tool, be it free or not.
Problem will be catching the 'free' ones, when they are hosted overseas...
Sux to be a consumer these days..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
If that case were to be brought, and won by the public... then the license will change to where you only get a 'time to view' license.. then after a year when it dies you are forced to get a new copy.
I've seen a few cds at the stores lately that disavow ANY guarantee that the disk will work for you... " its your problem if it doesn't work "
Gotta be a law against that somewhere to protect us.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The other laws are just regular laws, not like the constitution. The government can write and erase them. As long as they do not do anything against the constitution, such laws are always valid and a judge always sticks to the letter of the law, when the law fits the case neatly. Morals have nothing to do with it.
If the law said people which commited copyright infringement should have their fingers cut off, a judge would pronounce that sentence on violators. And I don't think there would be anything in the constitution against that either.
How did you replace your house? Was it backed up? Perhaps you used your household insurance as a back-up. Couldn't you just replace your software with the same means in the event of a fire?
Strike one for fair use.
/pendantic
Okay, to me that phrase means that "fair use" has struck a blow, or won.
"for" implies support
A better turn of phrase would be "Strike one against fair use."
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
"...the popular DVD X Copy software, which allows consumers to make backup copies of DVD movies. Strike one for fair use."
Actually, it allows consumers to copy DVDs. If it only allowed backup copies, there wouldn't have been a lawsuit.
It's nice to stand on a soapbox of innocence, but I don't thikn anyone here is naive enough to truly believe that only a tiny majority of DVD X Copy made copies of their DVDs and passed the copies or originals on to friends or ebay.
It's not striking one for fair use when the courts come down against an honor-system solution that isn't being honored.
Ideally, the courts would have added that movie studios must proffer an exchange program for damaged or destroyed media, so backups aren't necessary. Even better would be if we bought the rights to a movie in whatever format, instead of just buying ownership of a piece of plastic, but that's a whole other discussion.
Kevin Fox
There ws mention of prematgurely failing DVD's quiet a while back on here... But that should have been brought to the table because it is a obvious manufacturing problem that the "Studio" claimed wasn't related to the manufacturing process... That is a perfect example of why we need REAL fair use protection.... That or us consumers need to pour tonnes of money into lobbying the government to protect our rights...
Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt
nt
|>oug
I realize this has been brought up before, but if it's illegal to crack copy protection even for fair use purposes then isn't the copyright effectively perpetual? I would think it would be rather hard to say you can crack copy protection on works that have entered the public domain, but not those that are still protected by a copyright.
Susan Clinton was appointed by Clinton... yet another activist liberal judge.
Boo hoo. Someone was able to package a couple of free tools provide a nice interface and easy to use directions and you sat on your ass twiddling your L33T Perl code.
The hell with you. They saw a market and they used it. That was free enterprise and making money is about you cry baby.
Before crying and bitching why don't you buy a copy of that software and let us know if they did or didn't declare the use of freeware and open source tools hmm? Frickin commie...
With this court victory, how long before they go after even the free tools? I say very soon.
Hmm, usually they start with the free tools, because most free tool developers don't have the resources or marketing power to defend themselves and/or organize a strategy. Also, free tools are more easily portrayed as "illegitimate" than proprietary offerings sold by a company for profit.
"...which allows consumers to make backup copies of DVD movies"
So that's what they call making a copy of a dvd you rented from Blockbuster these days.
We're not pigs.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
...and it works well.
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
It's not hard to attack the DMCA on Constitutional grounds. The copyright clause contains the phrase "for a limited time," or something very much like it. The DMCA's language does not make allowance for the fact that it restricts access to copyrighted works forever. It's essentially an in-perpetuity copyright grant, which is unequivocally unconstitutional.
Any judge that disagrees has already been bought and paid for by the entertainment industry; there simply is no room for argument when the violation is so blindingly obvious.
Dahlmann tightly grips the knife, which he may have no idea how to use, and steps out into the plain.
Making analog copies is no problem. These copies "wear" each time they are copied, so a judge will believe that this will stop people from copying them time over time. :)
However, digital copies do not wear, and can be copied perfectly (sale-quality) by even the d**b*st m*r*n on a massive scale, requiring nothing but some blank media. This is what scares the big record/moviecompany folks. Simple solution to this digital copying problem: spread an original noone wants to see/copy
Better solution: Convince the judge that there is absolutely no difference in (human) visual quality between some analog copying device and a digital copying device, and thus try to make him stop the spreading of scart-cables, or whatever one uses as the critical link to copy a tape to a tape. That must be an eye opener...
Other solution, more qualified to serve as help in the current situation: (Enforce the) add(ing of) a visible (or watermarked) logo to the digital recording, so the copy will never be like the original for 100% - This will take away the argument that it is a tool created for pirating stuff and give more credit to the personal use thing.
Slashdot: stuff for news, nerds that matter, matter for news, stuff that nerd
Article I, Sec. 8: ...
The Congress shall have the power
[paragraph 8]
To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;
It doesn't say anything about making backups... however, there are plenty of legal scholars who think the copyright extensions that hollywood et al. have successfully lobbied for are dubious practices given the explicit intention of securing limited monopolies for copyright holders.
Although it would never happen in the current political climate, I could see an argument that prohibiting the development of circumvention technologies unfairly (and illegaly?) handicaps those who would release formerly copyrighted materials into the public domain after the "limited time" has elapsed.
To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion.
but the manufacturers are under no obligation to make sure that you actually can make that copy.
The problem is how stupidly easy it is to crack CSS. We CAN make the copy, but the DMCA is saying we can't because it is "encrypted".
No, replacement with proof of purchase is NOT the industry's answer.
I read an interview with Jack Valenti a year or so ago, and he was asked the backup question.
His answer: Buy a new disc.
His analogy was that Ford doesn't give you a new car when your old one wears out, or Verizon doesn't give you a new cell phone if you lose yours, or you don't get a new dinner plate if you drop one and break it.
As far as Valenti was concerned, what you had paid for was a single physical disc, and if/when that disc because unusable, you have to buy a new one.
...when you can get a fast single layer one for cheap right now. Then when dual layer comes out just sell it.
LOOP1: MOV CX,2 LOOP LOOP1
Ah an amendment. Makes sense. Although the definition of cruel and unusual punishment is somewhat open to discussion, I suppose legal precedent would take care of that.
This seems a very good point and I wonder why hasn't anybody tried to take it to court yet.
I have never used any DVD X Copy product, nor shall I. I use DVD Shrink. DVD X Copy programs cost big bucks, you have to activate them (which amounts to having to ask 321's permission to use the product you've just paid for), they put a "This is a backup copy..." notice on your copy, and they prevent you from making a backup of a backup. DVD Shrink, on the other hand, is FREE, easy-to-use, and gives you none of the hassle of DVD X Copy. You can't beat DVD Shrink. It can be downloaded from (among other places) the freeware section of www.snapfiles.com
I've had a copy of 321 Studios' DVD X Copy for the past year. It has a terrific set of safeguards to prevent movie piracy over the Internet, such as restricting you to make only *one* copy of any disc, embedding a digital identifier into the code to trace the origin of a pirated file, and being able to remotely turn off an account if an infringement is found to occur.
Jack Valenti, chairman and chief executive of the MPAA, hailed the ruling as "another step forward for the protection of copyrighted works and the livelihoods of the hundreds of thousands of people who work in the movie industry."
Valenti is wrong. Here is where the MPAA is shooting itself in the foot: Now, the only way to back up DVDs is to do so illegally. In the coming years, hundreds of thousands of people will turn to utilities like DVD Decrypter and other variants of the DeCSS program as the only alternative open to them.
321 Studios President Robert Moore said after the ruling that the company would distribute a DVD-copying product without a ripper, the software that allows consumers to break the copy-protection code on a DVD. He noted that rippers are available readily on the Internet
People are not going to give up their fair use right to up personal media just because the studios say that movies are the only medium that fair use doesn't cover. Now, instead of having a legal tool on the market that includes useful restrictions to prevent piracy, the studios have forced us into a world where only illegal programs with *no* such piracy safeguards will be the rule.
Anybody have the suicide hotline number?
Looks like the MPAA got mod access..
Here's a crude Perl script to convert a dual-layer DVD (DVD9) to a single-layer DVD (DVD5). Very crude, but you can look at this and get an idea for your own improvements and methods. I use transcode and the results from requantifying the video with tcrequant has been very good indeed!
;
#!/usr/bin/perl
use strict;
use warnings;
my ($title, $dvd, $workdir) = @ARGV;
if (not defined $title) {
die "USAGE: 9to5 \n";
}
if (not defined $dvd) {
die "USAGE: 9to5 \n";
}
if (not defined $workdir) {
die "USAGE: 9to5 \n";
}
# STEP 1: Rip from DVD9 disc (or directory) to MPEG2 video & AC3 audio files
print "STEP 1: RIP\n";
print "Ripping MPEG2 video...";
system("tccat -i $dvd -T t -L | tcextract -t vob -x mpeg2 > $title.m2v");
print "done.\n";
print "Ripping AC3 audio...";
system("tccat -i $dvd -T t -L | tcextract -t vob -x ac3 -a 0 > $title.ac3");
print "done.\n";
# STEP 2: Requantify MPEG2 video to fit on a DVD5 disc (4.7GB) (IF NECESSARY!)
# video size / (4300 - audio size) = requant factor
print "STEP 2: REQUANTIFY\n";
my ($videosize, $audiosize) = (0,0);
print "videosize = $videosize, audiosize = $audiosize\n";
if (-e "$title.m2v") {
$videosize = (stat("$title.m2v"))[7];
print "Video size = $videosize, ";
}
else {
die "ACK! $title.m2v video file does not exist!";
}
if (-e "$title.ac3") {
$audiosize = (stat("$title.ac3"))[7];
print "Audio size = $audiosize, ";
}
else {
die "ACK! $title.ac3 audio file does not exist!";
}
my $requant = $videosize / (4300000000 - $audiosize);
if ($requant
print "Burning DVD...";
system("growisofs -Z $dvd -V $title -dvd-video -udf $workdir");
print "done.\n";
print "\nEnjoy!\n";
i would be cheering along with you guys if i thought we were actually backing up our movies that we bought. maybe you dorks actually copy every DVD you own - storing it off-site for "disaster recovery" of your precious movie. not me. i copy rental movies for me and my friends. i'll be sad when the party's over, but lets face it, it's not right! why don't you guys fess up too?
TODO: come up with a clever sig
I guess not enough people are using this:
http://www.protectfairuse.org/
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
Beacuse what we do is legal, what you are doing is illegal.
by "we", you mean "you." and by "you" you actually mean "liar." fess up bitch!
TODO: come up with a clever sig
So then it is ok for the company to violate the GPL?
I can't find the source any where on their flash filled site, they have edited the code, and it sounds like they gave no credit to the original authors.
I'm not sure if anyone else here mention this, but here goes.
321 Studios lost because the judge said that they do not have authority to access the keys. I beg to differ! If you have a dvd player/burner you are licensed. You have a key set that you got with your player/burner. There is a misconception going on here that if you use any software it is illegal because the part that is illegal is access to the keys to decrypt the content.....You bought the fuckin hardware with fuckin keys. You have licensed keys god damn it!
Jeeze people a license is only as restrictive as you allow it to be.... 321s xcopy was the bottom of the piracy pool anyway, if you think those in rel groups hump the one click button.... you are sadly mistaken.
"If you buy a DVD you have a copy. If you want a backup copy you buy another one."
What a simple, fair and logical solution! So I never want to hear anybody ever again say that Jack Valenti is an enemy to fair use rights. He clearly has only your best interests in mind.
Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
References
DVD Association (DVDA)
www.dvda.org
Sorry if you don't get it, watch the movie "Orgazmo"
Ah. Good point. The insurance company pays you money to replace your house. What you need to remember here is that copyright is an absolute right over the ownership of a creative work. Let us suppose that certain software or DVDs in his house are out of production. It is now completely outside the law to obtain these works by any means. If they are no longer for sale, you cannot aquire them by any legal means. And since you've been forbidden to make backup copies, you can't prepare for the worst.
Copyright is insidious, and non-obvious in a lot of situations. But keep your wits about you.