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."
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?
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?
How come courts can't recognize the simple fact that CSS _does not_ prevent bit-for-bit copies to be made? (In factories, it does prevent home burning since dvd recorders can't write the section where the key is stored).
CSS real purpose is to enforce region encoding.
it's in my head
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.
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.
With this court victory, how long before they go after even the free tools? I say very soon. Grab DVD Shrink while you can. BTW, I love DVD Shrink. The latest version will burn on its own if you have Nero installed, so you don't even have to switch apps. The drag-and-drop reauthoring lets you cut out DVD extras so you can often fit just the movie on a 4.7GB DVD*R without recompression (but it has adjustable recompression built in, too). However, I don't believe the author is adding any new features--just bugfixes. (Wait, aren't "features" and "bugs" interchangeable words? Maybe there's hope yet! ;-) )
But you do understand that to the judge this was a no-brainer? I mean the judge is supposed to uphold the law, and he did. Now, if the law is wrong then it should be changed or removed but this can only be argued in the Supreme Court in the USA, right? (I am not a USian.) So this will have to go all the way to that court and the judge in that court will have to agree that the law is unconstitutional.
Until then, MPAA will have no problem stopping this kind of software from being legal.
You can't handle the truth.
"The case had tested the limits of 1998's Digital Millenium Copyright Act"
no limits, it seems.
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
Here in Dallas, Mark Cuban (owner of the Mavericks) is trying to shift the paradigm just a little with a new concept. He owns the Landmark chain of theaters here along with a production company. He's hoping to create some good original films in the future, and sell you a copy of that movie in DVD form as you exit the theater.
Imagine if you went and saw any movie and you could buy a pristine DVD copy the same day! The theater would be raking in the dough, popcorn and soda prices would fall, and everyone would be happy. The current dumbass Hollywood model of distribution just seeks to milk every single film for all it's worth, while ignoring the rising likelihood of piracy in the interim between the film's theatric debut and the dvd sale.
Currently Hollywood does this: make film. Release film in theaters in the US. Release film in other countries (staggered, not synchronized). Sell lots of film related crap through Taco Bell and other friendly corporate entities. Hype some more. Right about the time nobody cares, release the DVD.
Mark Cuban's way: make film. Release film in all theaters (granted it's only a local domestic chain but the model is the same). Release DVD the same day, in the theater where you just watched the movie. Watch profits roll in.
He's also considering broadcasting the movie via ppv hdtv since he owns an HDTV network here. He figures if you'll pay to see it at home, what's the difference between that and the theater. And if you really want a dvd copy of it, come get it. No waiting.
I think it's a brilliant, all-encompassing concept. If Hollywood would quit rehashing crappy old movies and milking properties for every damn nickle, piracy wouldn't be the problem it's perceived to be today.
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
eh, that's not how the industry execs see it. you are not buying a plastic circle, or a license, but only what they are willing to sell you: namely the *specific* plastic item in your hand that you forked cash over for. When you buy a book you are not buying paper, or a license to read it, but a single instance combination of both. If your book gets eaten by your cat, or simply rots of its own accord, you cannot go back to the store and get a new free copy.*
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.
*(You could try and claim a "manufacturing defect" angle for backups, but then you are dealing with a different case entirely. if the content providers decide to replace obviously defective merchandise you will have problems pursuing legal self-backup mechanisms).
I agree with your arguments but you have to take their points of view more seriously in order to make an impact.
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.
And, she said, the fact that DVD decryption keys were widely available online in programs like DeCSS did not make Hollywood's attempts to block copying useless.
"This is equivalent to a claim that, since it is easy to find skeleton keys on the black market, a dead bolt is not an effective lock to a door," she wrote.
She doesn't want to get it. She completely fails to address the underlying issue of being able to have a good backup of something that you purchased. In her mind, DeCSS is a skeleton key, and CSS is a deadbolt, and yet a skeleton key can unlock a deadbolt? Bad analogy judge, bad.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.