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."
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.
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.
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
I downloaded it via BitTorrent some time ago.
Fuck the **AA.
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.
The answer is both Yes and No. Yes, you can use say DeCSS to create an unencrypted DVD image on your harddrive. However, without something like DeCSS you can't simply create this image of the DVD.
The second slight problem is that most DVD movies are in DVD-9 format, which is twice as large as the standard DVD-R (4.7 GB). Hence, unless you have a DVD-9 burner, you can't make a 1:1 copy onto a DVD-R.
The interesting this is that once you have an "region free" decrypted version on your hard-drive the copy protection is gone. Hence, there is no legal restrictions for any program to manipulate the image from that point on.
So you can buy programs like Pinnacle's InstantCopy which takes an unprotected DVD image off your hard-drive, and automatically resizes (reencodes) the video to make it fit on a DVD-R.
Really the easiest way to keep your software out of legal problems is to not deal with CSS protected discs, and let some other software program do the work of removing the CSS protection.
DVD X-Copy did everything for you, all at the same time, hence was a single solution to the DVD backup problem. This made them a target.
A quick google shows an article from the end of December detailing the plans for dual layer drives that are due to come out soon. And this is why I don't have a DVD burner yet
Step one for rationality is to get people out from under their beds :-)
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.
No, you can't. Besides the double-layer issues others have mentioned, it's CSS(the encyption used) that gets in the way. Every encrypted DVD has 2 important pieces of information on it: the encrypted data related to the movie itself, and the CSS key on the disc. Now, while we can copy the encrypted data and the key, we have a problem when it comes to burning it. One of the quirks in both the DVD+ and DVD- standards is that drives can not burn CSS keys(this is prevented by both the drive itself, and the fact that the sectors where the key goes on the blank discs are unburnable), and it's because of this that we have a problem. Without the ability to burn the CSS key, the copy we make will be useless, since we won't have the key to decrypt the data with. We can decrypt the data before hand(this is what DVD X Copy does), and then burn the data unencrypted, but at that point, it's not a 1:1 copy anymore.
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.
It's baseball idiom. You are naturally both correct.
Now kiss and make up.
And in the words of the immortal yogi bera, "You can observe a lot by watching."
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.
"The case had tested the limits of 1998's Digital Millenium Copyright Act"
no limits, it seems.
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
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.
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.
I just want to point out to everyone that the MPAA only got an injunction; they did not win a lawsuit. I'm putting this under your comment because it is high up and rated similarly. The various news outlets seem to be spinning this story as MPAA lackeys, making it sound like 123Studios lost the fight. They have only lost the preliminary round. I cannot wait for the day when this gets through litigation and at the end the MPAA has to pay back 123Studios for all of their lost revenue. You cannot outlaw software which faciliates fair use, even if some misuse it. MPAA beware!!