Slashdot Mirror


Ripping DVDs to Handhelds = Fair Use?

An anonymous reader sent us a "CNET column highlights DVD to Pocket PC, a US$25 software package that allows users to rip DVDs for viewing on Windows handhelds. The story details the hoops that Amsterdam-based Makayama is jumping through to comply with "fair use" as [narrowly] defined by U.S. law.

228 comments

  1. Quite fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Quite fair, since the movie companies are too lazy to sell the movies in handheld-friendly files. Rip away!

    1. Re:Quite fair by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      Quite fair, since the movie companies are too lazy to sell the movies in handheld-friendly files.

      A 2-mm-thin, 12-cm-diameter, optical disc isn't handheld-friendly?

      Handheld DVD players with integrated LCD screens have been available for a couple of years now. You can even get some models for under $200 at present. It's not a PocketPC, but no, it doesn't have to be.

      I can't play DVDs in my VCR, either, but does that give me free and clear permission to dub all my DVDs to VHS tape?

    2. Re:Quite fair by DrSkwid · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Can you explain to me the problem with copying my DVD movie to VHS so *I* can watch it in a room with a VCR but no DVD player?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    3. Re:Quite fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it does. Making a personal backup is FAIR FUCKING USE.

    4. Re:Quite fair by gfxguy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually you already do have free and clear permission to copy all your legal DVDs to VHS, you have had this right for quite some time.

      The problem is that DVDs are often encoded with Macrovision. So while you do have the right, the content providers aren't required to make it easy.

      It is NOT illegal to own a region free, macrovision filtered, DVD player. I have one myself, and the VHS dubs are generally superior to buying a prerecorded tape (if you use good tape and SP recording instead of cheaping out with longer recording times).

      The argument is and always has been between buying media and buying content. If you have simply purchased media that has something recorded on it already, you can do whatever you want with it. So the industry claims you are not purchasing media, but are purchasing the right to view the content, you just happen to be purchasing that on in given media format.

      If you've purchased the right to use the content, you should be able to use that content wherever you want - rooms without DVD players, the VHS system in your car, etc.... this certainly applies to handhelds and other computing devices.

      The sticky situation comes in because the DMCA includes those pesky provisions that make it illegal to circumvent copy protection, even when you can prove you are doing for legitimate purposes. It's basically large content providers banding together to find a way to circumvent fair use provisions of copyright law.

      Thank Bill Clinton and Fritz Hollings (D-Disney), and all the other politicians who helped make this possible.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    5. Re:Quite fair by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Well, I don't know about where you live, but overhere (the Netherlands) I pay a levy on videotapes exactly for the reason that yes, I am allowed to make a copy of a DVD to videotape for my own personal use.

      (That assumes that I can get around macrovision without breaking the law, but then, not all DVDs are protected that way either)

    6. Re:Quite fair by SphericalCrusher · · Score: 1

      Haha. Well, if someone can actually get a good enough picture on their PDA, with a refresh rate that actually allows for clean viewing, then more power to them. I tried porting Office Space to my PDA once though... and well, it didn't work like I hoped.

      --
      "Instant gratification takes too long." - Carrie Fisher
  2. I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... for a while. Until somebody solves the issue of my DVD drive draining my battery I don't have much choice. I own all the DVDs I watch, I always saw it as simply migrating the media. Maybe I'm going straight to prison.

    1. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Will everyone stop being so melodramatic? Unless you're selling the stuff it's not a criminal matter. It's a civil one. They're not going to send you to prison! Sheesh!

    2. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Are you ripping the Oz series??

    3. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by MartinG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      copyright infringement is a civil matter, but circumventing a technical protection measure is a criminal matter in the US. CSS is a technical protection measure. This is basic DMCA stuff.

      --
      -- MartinG To mail me: echo kewyjlcxyzvjfxbqwh | tr bcefhjklqvwxyz .@adgimnoprstu
    4. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by ichimunki · · Score: 3, Informative

      The problem isn't people doing it for themselves. Without violating the 4th amendment it would be impossible to know who was ripping DVDs and who wasn't. Besides, copyright law allows you to make all the copies you want in the privacy of your own home (some lawyer can correct me, but that's my reading of Title 17).

      The problem is making and selling tools that allow people to do this. These tools may violate the DMCA and stuff. Look at the mess surrounding DeCSS. Here we have the maker of the tool being acquitted in Norway, but aren't the U.S. lawsuits against groups like 2600 still ongoing?

      And as for criminal vs. civil, who cares? Your life will probably be easier if it's a criminal offense. Civil trials have a lower standard of proof and could be very expensive in terms of damage awards. At least if you go to prison you get free room and board for the duration. ;)

      --
      I do not have a signature
    5. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by etrnl · · Score: 4, Informative

      I doubt you would actually be sued for a fair-use case. The people who are making software that allows them to circumvent copy protection are being cracked down on, but I've yet to see anyone who has actually been using their software being implicated yet.

      Take DVD X-Copy for example. Court ruled that they had to stop producing it, but did not go after who bought it.

      The fact is, any case that is brought that is actually fair use, the MPAA will lose. It's only by going against the people upstream that they can really win.

      --etrnl--

    6. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 4, Informative

      17 USC 506 covers criminal liability for copyright infringement. 17 USC 1204 covers criminal liability for circumvention.

      They are both civil and criminal matters, and you could go to prison.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    7. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      That's a truly bizarre reading of Title 17. Where are you getting that from?

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    8. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by ichimunki · · Score: 0, Redundant

      If I can tape my records, or record from TV broadcasts, certainly PDA-izing my DVDs is an allowed Fair Use as well. In any case, how will they know I'm doing this unless they violate my 4th Amendment rights? The only real way to prevent it is what they have done: gone after the tools.

      --
      I do not have a signature
    9. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      For a long time I was told I was a geek. Now I am an outlaw and a rebel. Thanks to DCMA, maybe girls will want me now. :)

      Rip away!!

    10. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Well, 1) taping your records is allowed under a statutory exemption (17 USC 1008) so there's no reason -- so long as you're literally talking about audio tape here -- to bother with a fair use analysis, and 2) recording from TV broadcasts is NOT NECESSARILY fair use. It depends.

      Similarly, ripping DVDs may or may not be a fair use depending on the circumstances involved. And then there are circumvention issues apart from infringement issues.

      You said: copyright law allows you to make all the copies you want in the privacy of your own home and given that fair use doesn't say that (it only allows copying or other infringements when fair), I'd still like to know what does.

      This is important since one can't go after tools used to infringe where the basis of their use was a fair use, and in fact tools that have possible substantial noninfringing uses such as fair uses can't be gone after at all with regards to infringement.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    11. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by ichimunki · · Score: 1

      Yes. I retract that one statement. I thought I had done that already. I don't know how I got it in my head that the law was focused on distribution as a key element in infringement. The very first things it lists is making copies as part of list. Wishful thinking, I suppose.

      Do you have some evidence to support the idea that taping TV shows is not necessarily fair use? On what would it depend? I thought time-shifting (via format-shifting-- since obviously you are taking a broadcast signal and converting it to an anolog recording, or now a digital recording with Tivo) was an established fair use. Does it make any sense at all to you that we would be allowed to audiotape our LPs, but not transcode DVDs for PDA or laptop use? Does it make sense that I can tape a movie off TV and watch is many times as I want, but I can't take the movie from a DVD and put it on my portable to watch on the bus, train, or airplane?

      --
      I do not have a signature
    12. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by axis-techno-geek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      True, but the US law, ends at the US border, the MPAA just hates that.

      --
      This is not the sig line you are looking for... -- Old Jedi Sig Line Trick
    13. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought I had done that already.

      Which I actually hadn't in the text that made it to the final post. Apologies.

    14. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, you're thinking of 17 USC 106, but that list is not in any kind of order of importance. There's nothing sacrosanct about the reproduction right as compared to the distribution right, or any of the others. There's not a 'core' copyright with a bunch of lesser copyrights surrounding it.

      As for fair use, check out the language of 17 USC 107: In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include....

      Thus, there aren't any categorical fair uses. There is only a test that has to be applied each and every time there is an alleged fair use. Previous testing might prove informative, but isn't determinative.

      What it depends on then, are the various factors involved. If something about the factual situation changed substantially, it could skew the way the fair use analysis works, turning fair uses into infringements, and vice versa.

      The best you can hope for with regards to time shifting is to say that in Sony time shifting was found fair, and that your situation is identical in all material respects, so the outcome should be same. And given the precedential value of that decision, it probably would be. But that doesn't mean that timeshifting is NECESSARILY fair, just that it is, so far, typically found to be fair.

      Does it make any sense at all to you that we would be allowed to audiotape our LPs, but not transcode DVDs for PDA or laptop use?

      No, but remember that audiotaping LPs is already specifically allowed even when it ISN'T a fair use. No court will bother conducting a fair use analysis of the situation since it doesn't have to do so. The AHRA takes care of this situation perfectly fine already.

      Besides, if I had my druthers, I'd reform copyright law in a rather spectacular fashion. I'd probably make it legal for natural persons to do whatever they liked non-commercially for starters. But if wishes were horses, beggars would ride.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    15. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by MSG · · Score: 1

      Hopefully, your overuse of commas, will end here.

    16. Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Well, they keep telling us that it is the same as "stealing" which is clearly a criminal matter.

  3. one more nail in the coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    This is going to destroy the movie industry. Before you know it people are going to want to watch the same movie multiple times and only pay once. Think about the poor starving actors sweltering on the city streets this summer while you're sitting around sipping iced tea and watching your pirated movies at the beach this summer you smug fucks.

    1. Re:one more nail in the coffin by 3terrabyte · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Actually, if they keep making DVD titles with unskippable previews, then I will make DIVX of every DVD I buy. Or just rent and then rip.

      I'm sick of being forced through commercials of DVD's i already paid for. EVERY time I want to watch it. And I hate the commercials about the soundtrack that show parts of the movie. I DONT want spoilers before I even get a chance to see the movie.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    2. Re:one more nail in the coffin by michaelepley · · Score: 1

      And don't you forget about the poor starving scenery and prop painters sweltering on the city streets!

      What will these highly trained painters going to do when the movie industry is destroyed? Go back to painting houses, fences, or other art? Heaven forbid!

    3. Re:one more nail in the coffin by Total_Wimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I especially love watching a DVD that's a couple of years old and it has ads for some product that isn't even available anymore. Like a limited release Disney title or a theater release of a long-gone flick. Now you're stuck watching the ad AND YOU CAN'T EVEN BUY THE PRODUCT.

      I think they should stop worrying about gay marriage and start ammending the constitution with some basic consumer protections. Now that's something you'll get a 75% vote for.

      TW

    4. Re:one more nail in the coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean, like the do not call list! More like 95% ...

    5. Re:one more nail in the coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's something you'll get a 75% vote for. The people arn't the ones that decide how an amendment is added, the United States is a Republic, and it takes 75% of the House and 75% of the Senate to pass. After going through a very lengthly process by going through each state's respective legislature. The people don't decide on the amendment, the representatives that the people vote for do, and since most people don't vote anyway, it's a moot point.

    6. Re:one more nail in the coffin by a24061 · · Score: 1

      Libraries will destroy the book industry!

    7. Re:one more nail in the coffin by ElNeo · · Score: 1

      You have ads for other products on the DVDs you buy in the US? I do not think there are that on the EU versions of the DVD's. At least I have never seen it. If you have multi-zone players (most dvd-players sold here are), then maybe you could just import the EU-version? Just a thought...

    8. Re:one more nail in the coffin by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I've only ever encountered rentals like that. I don't own a large collection of DVDs, but of the ones I do own, many Disney ones included, you can skip past the previews (just hit the menu button on the Disney DVDs).

      For the others, although inappropriate and annoying, 64x speed gets you through them pretty quickly, and it generally stops on the menu.

      I'm wondering, I know that Blockbuster, for example, will sell previously rented DVDs, but are they different then than the "retail" ones, or have more companies decided to not piss off their customers by locking them into watching previews and commercials?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:one more nail in the coffin by cei · · Score: 1

      Actually, if they keep making DVD titles with unskippable previews, then I will make DIVX of every DVD I buy.

      Can you name one recent release that does this?

      Or just rent and then rip.

      I don't see how the first justifies the second. There's a difference between owning and copying someone else's...

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    10. Re:one more nail in the coffin by Total_Wimp · · Score: 1

      See the reply above referring to the Do Not Call list. The Do Not Spam was moments behind it because reps saw which side their bread was really buttered on.

      It's like this:

      -Businesses get money into re-election funds which indirectly leads to votes.
      -The populous actually does the voting.
      -If you were currying favor for re-election, which would you rather have on your side?

      I think the DNC and DNS acts are models for future law. They're simple, direct, and they protect people from over-zealous business practices that make our lives hell.

      But it's time for more. Why not have constitutional amendments that puts ownership in clear focus?

      Why not something like: "Any product sold to an end consumer (including any business that is the end-consumer of a product) will not be burdened by stipulation on use that are more restrictive than current intellectual property law and no licenses shall be enforceable on the consumer level if they have limitations that are more restrictive than current intellectual property law." The GPL is protected (it gives you rights above copyright and is not more restrictive) but most EULAs are void. Great!

      And how about this one: "Any end consumer of a product (including any business that is the end-consumer of a product) that is purchased or licensed shall have the right to modify the product in any way that does not contradict current intellectual property law, including, but not limited to, removing any physical or logical restrictions on legal use." Bingo, DMCA no longer applies to "fair use".

      I could go on. Basically it's time to remove this rat's nest of restrictions by stipulating that businesses _can't_ restrict your use of something they sell or license to you. Of course we don't want to burden regular business contracts in the process, but business need to stop thinking of us consumers as having business contracts and start realizing, once again, that we _purchase_ products that we _own_.

      TW

    11. Re:one more nail in the coffin by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      Lost in Translation.

      I don't see how the first justifies the second. There's a difference between owning and copying someone else's...

      True. I just know that there are people out there that already do this. I am not one of them. I actually only buy DVD's of movies I *really* like, and that I *want* to watch over and over.

      Even if I was to rip all my DVD's to computer (for all the obvious benefits) I would still want the original high quality DVD. However, if the original high quality DVD has 5 minutes of unskipable crap I have to see EVERY time, then watching it from my computer is the only way to go, and suddenly the benefit of owning the original DVD is lost. At least to me. I'm just being honest here.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    12. Re:one more nail in the coffin by cei · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I'll have to check out the Lost in Translation disc. Universal put it out, and I'm not as familiar with their practices. I know Disney got a lot of flack over the unskipable trailers on the Tarzan disc, and they haven't made that mistake in the last 2 years, as far as I know. Likewise, I don't recall it being an issue on any of the Fox titles I own. Each studio has their own standards for authoring. (Paramount won't let you chapter skip past the end credits on a lot of their titles, for instance.) It is probably a matter of complaining to the right people. The authoring house works to the specs they're given, but you'd probably be hard pressed to find the one guy who has a valid reason why the specs are the way they are. (Then again, I have friends in various authoring houses, so maybe tracking them down won't be as impossible a task...)

      --
      This sig intentionally left justified.
    13. Re:one more nail in the coffin by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't think such restrictions would be a problem except for the fact that organisations like the RIAA and MPAA ensure that there is monopolistic behavior with regards to such restrictions. What I mean is that there is little alternative to accepting those restrictions, and that seems to be against the basic idea of a free market, and actually soemthing that law is supposed to limit. There are 2 basic problems here actually: - Lack of choice - Consumer ignorance

    14. Re:one more nail in the coffin by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you haven't gone to the movies lately or checked in to see how the entertainment industry is doing lately!

  4. The Zaurus by Gothmolly · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Maybe nobody noticed because its not a high profile, PHB-friendly, uber-marketted PDA, but the Linux based Sharp Zaurus could do this for a while as well. Of course this is fair use.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:The Zaurus by znaps · · Score: 1

      Pity the battery doesn't last long enough on one charge to show any of the LOTR trilogy...

      Seriously though, what's the difference between this and recording a movie from cable onto VHS to show on a TV in a different room?

    2. Re:The Zaurus by IANAAC · · Score: 1
      Yeah, the battery is my only complaint for the Zaurus.

      Ripping to a smaller format that plays decently on the Zaurus also takes FOREVER (last movie I ripped - Chicago - took almost 10 hours on an athlon 2400+.)

    3. Re:The Zaurus by dr_dank · · Score: 1

      Slightly OT - What programs do you use for divx on the Zaurus and are they stable?

      --
      Where does the school board find them and why do they keep sending them to ME?
    4. Re:The Zaurus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      tkcVideo works for me. Takes a bit of fiddling to get the setting right when making the Divxs though.

    5. Re:The Zaurus by pocopoco · · Score: 1

      Well re my SL760 there are several compiles of mplayer out there, one of which has a driver for the ATI chip to get some acceleration. There are also GUIs for mplayer and then other graphic players. The opie media player comes to mind and Dr. Z is the commercial competitor to tkcVideo. The only ones of those that have ever crashed on me were opie and a java frontend for mplayer.

      Btw, if choosing between Dr. Z and tkcVideo I highly recommend the former. tkcVideo when I tried it couldn't even go full screen without some crappy black border and was much slower and prone to losing sync compared to Dr. Z. I actually use mplayer now anyway, though. ^^

  5. Fair Use? by physicsboy500 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you legally own the DVD why would this not be fair use? It's your DVD so you can keep a backup copy of the information and that would be the copy.

    --
    The original generic sig.
    1. Re:Fair Use? by chilled · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Whilst I agree with you, I have a sneaking suspicion that the MPAA doesn't. It's still illegal to rip your own CD's to MP3 format in the UK, even though I consider it "fair use". Unfortunately, fair use doesn't mean what Joe Punter (you and I) think it means. It means whatever the copyright holder or pigopolists want it to mean.
      I think there's a direct comparison with ripping MP3's for personal use to be drawn here. If it is fair use to do this in the US, why isn't it for DVD's?

      --
      Brought to you via Pidgeon TCP
    2. Re:Fair Use? by jwriney · · Score: 4, Funny

      You must be new here. Please report for mandatory DMCA reprogramming doubleplusspeedwise.

      --riney

    3. Re:Fair Use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't need to legally own it. It's enough that you legally possess it. The DMCA prevents trafficking in circumvention technologies. Ripping a copy of something you legally possess is not trafficking.

    4. Re:Fair Use? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      It's still illegal to rip your own CD's to MP3 format in the UK,

      I think this is legitimate under the concept of "making copies of segments of a work for private study". I seem to recall that the appropriate government department said that this did include listening to music for pleasure.

      Unfortunately, fair use ... means whatever the copyright holder or pigopolists want it to mean.

      Actually, it's what the courts want it to mean. However, the copyrigyt holder has no obligation to allow you to use it in any specific manner that may be "fair use".

      I think there's a direct comparison with ripping MP3's for personal use to be drawn here. If it is fair use to do this in the US, why isn't it for DVD's?

      It is legal to do it with DVDs. It's just not legal to break encryption to do it. Granted, this makes it technically illegal to copy most DVDs, but you are permitted to do it if you have a non-encrypted disc.

    5. Re:Fair Use? by ajs318 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It is NOT illegal to rip your own CDs to MP3 in the UK, because it comes under the heading of a "necessary step" in making use of the recording. If you own a CD player, and you have only a cassette player in your car, then transcribing the CD onto cassette is a necessary step in listening to the CD in your car. {Remember that, before the invention of racism, terrorism or paedophilia, a person used to be considered innocent until proven guilty. You can be acquitted on the words of two out of twelve people. I don't believe that there are enough people in the country who have never copied something onto a cassette to listen in a car, for you actually to be able to get more than ten of them on the same jury.} Unfortunately, I've lost the reference {there goes some easy karma}, but the way the law was written meant that it could have been interpreted to mean that the law gave explicit permission for that. The copy would only become infringing if it were used other than in accordance with the necessitating situation, e.g. if you listened to it on a machine that was already capable of playing CDs.

      By extension, it would be similarly legal to transfer movies to a PDA. It is merely a "necessary step" in the watching of this film on that device.

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    6. Re:Fair Use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > It's still illegal to rip your own CDs to MP3 format in the UK

      So does that mean putting my CDs on my iPod is illegal? Where am I supposed to get the MP3s from?

    7. Re:Fair Use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Aquiring the technology to do so, though, if you don't personally have the knowledge and time is another matter.

    8. Re:Fair Use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is merely a "necessary step" in the watching of this film on that device.

      Unfortunately, this is held to be different in law from the slightly shorter statement:

      "It is merely a "necessary step" in the watching of the film".
    9. Re:Fair Use? by Eraser_ · · Score: 1

      You mean the necessary step of testing the MP3's for proper sound, lack of pops and clicks, etc, before copying them onto a limited use cassette? (Analog media degrades)

      What about the necessary step of verifing your backups? Isn't it always good to every so often check that your backups still work as planned? (Bad sectors, "poofing" files, etc) If the analog media degraded, as cassettes do, I would hate to be stuck without my proper backups.

      Remember, the consumer will always win. Big Brother can stop publishing their {music|movies|books}, close shop and leave if they don't like it. No one is entitled to business, with a few key exceptions. (Water, power, phone monopolies)

    10. Re:Fair Use? by ajs318 · · Score: 1

      When you bought the DVD or CD, you acquired the right to experience the recording thereupon. The exact means by which this may be accomplished is a matter of your personal choice which it is not the proper place of the law to dictate. {Though if you stab someone and steal their hi-fi to listen to a CD, you probably have committed offences beyond the scope of copyright law, which only says that a copy is not infringing if making it is a necessary step}. The point is, you have the right to watch or listen to a disc that you own on any equipment you choose.

      Without the "necessary step" clause it would be illegal to copy a computer programme into RAM in order to execute it. It would also be illegal to operate a PAL TV set, which uses a delay line to make a copy of the previous scan line's colour signal. {Admittedly the copy only lasts for 64 microseconds, but there are no applicable statutes of limitation.}

      It also is not an offence to make a recording of a TV programme for time-shifting. A good lawyer could argue that media-shifting should be similarly permitted. And, as I hinted above, how many people on the jury would have travelled to court that morning in a car, while listening to a tape made from a CD or LP?

      --
      Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
    11. Re:Fair Use? by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      The thing with DVDs is that you're supposed to play them on a "registered" DVD player, which is a piece of [soft|hard]ware that has paid the MPAA tax, to get a valid CSS decryption license. I don't think (hope) that would really hold in court, but that is the idea for now.

      In this regard, all the rest is illegal.

  6. different how? by irokie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    not trolling, but why is the law here different to the law that allows peopel to rip to their iPod or other personal device?

    --
    and if you see me strut, remind me of what left this outlaw torn...
    1. Re:different how? by DarkMagician07 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Because ripping a CD doesn't require that you break any encryption. Because DVD's use CSS for encrypting the data that is on them, you cannot legally break that copy protection under the DMCA. CD's don't have that luxury as there is nothing encrypted on the disc.

    2. Re:different how? by saderax · · Score: 1

      I did not follow the whole CSS/DeCSS and I am not sure about the method of encryption used, but hear me out. At some point, if the data has been purchased or rented (thx blockbuster) to me, does it not become nothing more than a complex data format?

    3. Re:different how? by Florian+Weimer · · Score: 1

      Because ripping a CD doesn't require that you break any encryption.

      If you make a digital copy, you bypass the Serial Copy Management System. It's far less elaborate than the DVD restrictions, but it's still there, and some devices do enforce the flags.

    4. Re:different how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course you are breaking an encryption scheme when you decode audio from a CD. It's the good ol' double xor encryption scheme.

    5. Re:different how? by angle_slam · · Score: 1

      SCMS doesn't control access to the CD. It only prevents second generation copies. OTOH, CSS does prevent access to the contents of the DVD.

    6. Re:different how? by Auckerman · · Score: 1

      "copy protection"

      You misspelled "playback prevention". There is NOTHING about CSS that prevents copying. Make a disk image of the DVD and you have made a copy. Zeros and Ones, that's all it is.

      --

      Burn Hollywood Burn
    7. Re:different how? by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      CSS isn't copy protection, it's playback protection.

      If you make a disk image of a DVD you own and play the image with a licensed player, you haven't done anything unlawful.

      Players built using DeCSS, obviously, are not licensed.

    8. Re:different how? by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, you're buying or renting the right to view creative content, you're not buying simply a bunch of bits on some media.

      This is why it's legal to copy for your personal use - because you've already bought the right to view the content.

      The problem is that the content providers are under no obligation to make it easy for you to copy the content, and if they encrypt it, then you are limited to the DMCA stipulations that you cannot circumvent copy protection.

      Stupid? Yes. Does DMCA prevent fair use? Yes. But it's still the law, and the MPAA and other content providers will use whatever they can to make your life more difficult, despite the fact that content industries generally THRIVE when content is more easily accessible - just look at the effect of cassette tapes and subsequently CDs had on the audio market, and VCRs had on the movie market - new revenue streams they never even dreamed of, despite all of their crying about how it will ruin them.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    9. Re:different how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The law does not use the wording "copy protection". It forbids any circumention of controls to *access* the data. Obviously, access is required to either play or copy, so both uses are illegal under the DMCA.

    10. Re:different how? by saderax · · Score: 1

      < please note my disclosed ignorance of the CSS/DeCSS encryption algorithm as stated in my parent post >
      My point was to be directed more towards the format of encryption. For example i can encrypt something by XOR'ing with 0000. This is a very weak encryption, but by the DMCA any software that writes data using this "encryption" is protected right? Or is it not?

      I can see public-key encryption or a defined encryption algorithm such as DES being protected but if it is merely an obfuscation technique, like bit-permutations, is this a complex data format or an encryption technique? At what point does reading the provided data for fair use become circumventing weak security measures.

    11. Re:different how? by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      XOR'ing with 0's is not an encryption method because no decryption is required. In other words, since no one would actually have to circumvent copy protection to access the content, you'd never make the claim stand.

      You also can't claim something is too weak, because what's reasonable today may be too weak next year. The fact is, the DMCA doesn't specify, AFAIK, an amount of encryption, it only specifies that it's illegal to circumvent copy protection.

      In fact, in the case of DVD's, you could potentially copy them without decrypting by making a bit by bit copy to another DVD. Theoretically, that DVD is identical to the first, and so when played in a player with the licensed technology, it would play normally. So, in theory, CSS isn't even a copy protection mechanism, it's merely a nuisance to playback technology.

      And that's the worst part about DVDs, not only do they make it difficult to use (less flexible, requires licensed hardware or software to play back, etc.), but YOU are the one who has to pay for it. It's really a slap in the face.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  7. I dont understand the problem by Ethon · · Score: 1

    If I have a valid DVD sitting in my hand, why shouldn't I be able to use it for whatever I want to,whenever I want to, in any form I want to?

    1. Re:I dont understand the problem by fatwreckfan · · Score: 1

      Because the DMCA says it's illegal for you to break the DVD encryption to copy it.

    2. Re:I dont understand the problem by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simple... The legal right to do things like show that film in a cinema, sell soundtrack CDs and sell t-shirts with the characters on them are all (potentially) worth a lot of money.

      If those rights were given to anyone who bought the dvd, then the film company wouldn't be able to sell those rights to rerun cinemas, record labels or t-shirt manufacturers.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    3. Re:I dont understand the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Where does it say that? There is so much misinformation out there. The DMCA says you can't TRAFFIC in circumvention technologies. I haven't seen anywhere in the law where it says you can't rip something you own.

    4. Re:I dont understand the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creation of a tool, even if you don't distribute, is illegal. So doing it for yourself is illegal, giving instructions is illegal, etc etc

    5. Re:I dont understand the problem by EvanED · · Score: 1

      17 USC 1201: "No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title. The prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall take effect at the end of the 2-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this chapter."

    6. Re:I dont understand the problem by DonGar · · Score: 1

      I find the work 'effectively' very interesting. It probably has a well defined legal meaning that it counter to what I want, but.....

      Since CSS is so easily broken (and broken so often), wouldn't that mean that's it's ineffective? And thus not illegal to bypass?

      --
      plus-good, double-plus-good
    7. Re:I dont understand the problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how I read this. You have a fair use right to do it for yourself. You don't have a fair use right to traffic the tool.

    8. Re:I dont understand the problem by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You didn't read far enough down:

      "Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."

      The law makes it illegal to circumvent technological measures, except I still have my *right* to fair use. So it is my *right* to decode and copy my DVD to my computer and this law does not eliminate that *right*. It may make it illegal for me to obtain the resources to do that, but certainly not the *right* to do it.

  8. There *are* handheld versions available of movies. by Channard · · Score: 4, Funny

    .. they're called books. Though I'm still trying to wrap my head around the idea of someone having written a novelisation of Kenneth Brannagh's adaption of Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.

  9. Batteries by DoorFrame · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Blah, my batteries won't last long enough to watch full video / sound for two hours. It's neat, but we still need some battery tech before this becomes worthwhile. I don't want to have to switch batteries just to watch the Big Lebowski.

    1. Re:Batteries by sremick · · Score: 1

      What PDA do you have? I have a Palm Tungsten T3 and I get about 4 hours, which is considered small, but certainly enough to watch a movie. If I needed more, I could always get the Palm Power-To-Go sled, which is the equivalent to +2.5 charges.

    2. Re:Batteries by heywire81 · · Score: 1

      Battery life would be a problem if you wanted to watch more than a movie per charge maybe, but I easily get 4 hours from my e755 Toshiba PDA... Thats playing from a CF card with the standard battery... I'm sure if I used a microdrive instead that I'd need an extended battery, but it is available. Also, what about these standalone portable players popping up? Are they going to only play downloaded content, and not content that I already own in another format (DVD) ?

    3. Re:Batteries by egomaniac · · Score: 2, Informative

      I have a Clie UX50, which actually has pretty crappy battery life compared to most PDAs. I can still watch a full 2hr movie on it, and in fact have been ripping DVDs to it for months.

      --
      ZFS: because love is never having to say fsck
  10. Does anyone have Mel Gibson's... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...The Passion of Playing Bejeweled All Day Instead of Trying to Watch a Movie on a Screen Too Small.

  11. What's the difference between this and music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the difference between ripping your DVD to your laptop/palmtop and ripping your music CD to your computer/music player?

    1. Re:What's the difference between this and music? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the issue is not so much about ripping as it is about "decrypting" protected DVDs.

      so the question is, does fair use apply to decryption? clearly, if you RTFA, it doesnt, since Makayama removed the decryption function from the software in order to be able to market it in the US following the DVD X court ruling.

    2. Re:What's the difference between this and music? by FuzzyShrimp · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's the difference between 100 people looking at a ripped DVD and 100 people reading the same paper book over and over... Wait a minute! That's what happens at a Government run Library. Poor authors. They get to sell only one copy of the book and hundreds get to read it. What's fair about that?

    3. Re:What's the difference between this and music? by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

      I havent been to a public library in years, but some people told me they do lend movies.

      Their selection apparently is not as good as the local video rental store though.

      Dunno if US public libraries do that too, though.

    4. Re:What's the difference between this and music? by gothzilla · · Score: 1

      Most local libraries do lend movies. The selection is not the same as blockbuster or other stores. Libraries carry lots of titles that you'll never find in video rental stores, like documentaries, independant movies, and so on. I've seen casettes, cd's, and movies for lend in libraries.

    5. Re:What's the difference between this and music? by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, the publishing industry has been trying to get rid of public libraries for the past few years for just the reason you cite.

      They're trying, but historical inertia is thwarting them so far. That's why they went nuts tying in all sorts of penalties for copying books to e-media. And why you can't buy an cheap ebook reader with a good b&W hi-def screen. They lost on libraries, and they'll be damned if they lose control of the handheld ebook market. Damn, the losses alone on textbooks!

      Anyone know of any open source projects to build a cheap, good, capacious ebook reader?

    6. Re:What's the difference between this and music? by mark-t · · Score: 1
      Well, in all fairness, libraries pay more to a publisher for books than the book's actual cover price to offset this somewhat. Typically, the library will pay 3 to 4 times what the regular retail price on the book is.

      At least, that's how the library where my mother worked did things.

    7. Re:What's the difference between this and music? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The other problem is that public libraries are government entities. And the *Library* of Congress controls copyright assignment.

      Should you sufficiently tweak the library system, the libraries can tweak back. And if you don't own that copyright, well tough nuts. Just remember who controls the little rubber stamp.

    8. Re:What's the difference between this and music? by GirTheRobot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      IANAL...but...under US Code Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 108, nonprofits and libraries are allowed to make copies of a copyrighted work if the copies can only be used within premises.

      Libraries don't make a profit from providing access to copyrighted works, this company making the software is.

      "Copyright" is a legal priveledge temporarily granted to authors to promote "useful arts and sciences." As a part of copyright law, and partly in exchange for the priveledge of the author's temporary monopoly, nonprofits and libraries are allowed to give the public free access to creative works.

      In short...everything is fair about it.

    9. Re:What's the difference between this and music? by FuzzyShrimp · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the post. I knew that copies of original workss can be made even if copyrighted. That's just the point, so why can't we, as private citizens, make copies of DVDs for our own use by DeCSSing them - or not - for whatever purpose or machines or OS we want to use - desktop, pocketPC, laptop, Linux, or whatever?

  12. Legal consideration by andy666 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It will be interesting to see what the effect of the Bankoff-Greengard case will be here. I think the judge in that case would say this is not fair use.

  13. Uh oh by Anglos · · Score: 1

    Don't tell me they'd be worried about someone starting a p2p network. I could understand maybe swapping movies, but that's the extent of that, and it's unlikely.

  14. I can see the benifits. by Biotech9 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I do this before a series of long flights which i occasionally must make.
    I mount the full DVDs of a few films with Toast (on OSX), or i rip them if I have a lot of free time.
    Battery life is well extended, I get no hastle of changing discs, I don't have to bring the discs on a journey, and I can skip the opening blurb about not watching the film on an oil rig.

    It would be nice if people could actually use the damn products they HAVE PAID FOR in a free manner. If I buy a film, or an album on vinyl, i should be allowed to make copies for myself, or rip it and watch it on a PDA, or do whatever.

    1. Re:I can see the benifits. by budhaboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I do it for all of my movies... most especially those that my two year old son watches. Why? 1) I can edit out the constant ads for yet more videos he doesn't need 2) As I've got an internal LAN and share the movies throughout the house I don't have to go looking for a DVD whereever he may be inclined to watch it. 3) I don't have to fight with him about not touching the DVD until after he's washed the peanut butter off his hands 4) I can copy several to my laptop when we roadtrip.

  15. Jebus by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    You know....something about this story blurb just made me think. Look at how far we've come. We can now take an EXTREMELY high quality (picture, not content) movie, and place it onto a color computer that can fit in our pocket. Holy Crap. That's all it makes me say. I'm just curious as to what quality these DVD rips are. Perhaps there could be a handheld movie player that you can put divx on?

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:Jebus by Zocalo · · Score: 1

      Like this, you mean? There are other similar products too, but the Archos range were the first ones I saw.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    2. Re:Jebus by geoffspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, conidering the size, resolution, and color depth of most PDA screens, not to mention the available storage on them, I'd think high quality rips would be pretty pointless.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    3. Re:Jebus by lusid1 · · Score: 1

      We have come a long way. My IPaq has roughly the same specs as some of my older desktop PCs.

      And there is a good divx player for pocketPC, called PocketMVP.

  16. Excelent use of the PDA by Cr3d3nd0 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    When I initially puchased my Ipaq, I planned on using it for Organizing my contacts appointments etc (bs I wanted a fancy GBA and I know it) I have found though that the primary uses I have for my Ipaq is for wathing episodes of some of my favorite shows (when ripped properly a movie tends to look pretty decent, at least enough to be able to enjoy an episode or two of my favorite shows at lunch) and suprisingly enough reading. The screen is just the right brightness that I harldy ever read a physical book anymore. The vast majority of books are available somewhere out there in ebook form, and there's nothing like the ability to read at night without a fancy booklight while the wife is asleep. To be honest the only game I've spent any signifigant time playing is Nethack, whose free PPC version is quite enjoyable. Oh and it keeps my bookwork and appoints too... yeah thats it.

    --
    This is not a sig
    1. Re:Excelent use of the PDA by novakane007 · · Score: 1

      How do you have the space to do this type of stuff? The RAM chips are only 512MB... Do you use a 4GB microdrive?

      --

      WURD!!
    2. Re:Excelent use of the PDA by ElNeo · · Score: 1

      I do not agree at all! Technically it is possible, and it has been for many years now (except from the battery issue). But have you tried to watch a film in the size of your creditcard? It sucks. Then it is the human-machine issue - how can you watch it comfortably? I you put it on a desk, your neck will hurt in ten minutes. Your arm will hurt if you try to hold it comfortably for you eyes. And when are you seriously planning to use it?
      When did you last look at your credit card and think: "If only this had been a ultra-small T.V...".
      When watching a screen it requires a lot of visual attention. This makes it very hard to combine it with other activites like driving, biking, snowboarding or walking.

    3. Re:Excelent use of the PDA by Cr3d3nd0 · · Score: 1

      Actually speaking from experience I can tell you that the Ipaq screen is excelent for viewing movies. There is a usenet group specifically oriented to ripping movies for the handheld and they are fitting whole movies with nice sound and exactly the right res for the PPC in about 128 meg. With my 512 card I can easily fit a few episodes of a TV show, without commercials, on it (heck I have the whole first season of Family Guy on it right now.) Cartoons of course look the best but a movie is still watchable on it. No it's not a suround sound dynamic visual spectacle, but with most TV shows and sitcoms your only watching it for something to do at lunch or the like. No it's not like an MP3 player where you watch something while doing something else, but it's great for those long flights or boring meetings ^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H lunches. Basically an episode of your favorite TV show beats twiddling your thumbs any day

      --
      This is not a sig
    4. Re:Excelent use of the PDA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i've been watching movies and anime on my zodiac using mmplayer with no real issues. nice big screen for a pda. and this is a palmos5 device, not ppc.

      a 512mb card can easily fit several movies.

      getting a good balance while encoding can be tricky, sacrificing some clarity for better playback or smaller filesize. although a fulllength movie down under 200mb in size still looks fine.

      it is very enjoyable though. a great way to kill time on the bus or while waiting for something at work. or an extended visit to the restroom.

    5. Re:Excelent use of the PDA by v_1_r_u_5 · · Score: 1

      What program do you use to watch movies on your iPaq? Also, what movie types do you watch, and how large are the movies in megabytes? What is the resolution?

  17. Fair use defined by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    Wouldn't something like "I own this copy, I can do whatever I want with it, including making confetti out of it. I may not distribute it." pretty much solve any and all copyright issues? (Other than the RIAA wanting you to pay per play, of course) Since when has copyright equalled something akin to MS's EULA where you can only load it once, on a single piece of hardware, to only be used on that one piece of hardware?

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    1. Re:Fair use defined by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      It would be a very bad idea to define fair use clearly. All we have right now is a test that can be used to find whether or not something is fair use, and the tests have changed over the ages.

      Remember -- fair use as a doctrine dates back well into the 19th century. If it had been clearly defined back then, it would likely not have been extensible to cover the sorts of situations we're in now, e.g. timeshifting, mp3 ripping, etc.

      Besides which, fair use is designed to apply to any situation that's fair based on the specific circumstances involved. There's no general type or form of copying that is uniformly fair. A case-by-case analysis is always required. Defining what uses are and aren't fair is impossible.

      Finally, if you couldn't distribute a copy, you'd have no ability to loan it to a friend, rent it, or sell it used, all of which are important and covered by the first sale doctrine. Besides, no one cares so much about the copy -- they care about the work as a whole, which is embodied in the copies. You need to rethink what it is you want, and have it be something other than fair use.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    2. Re:Fair use defined by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      Defining it as what it's not, which is what I did, and, btw, restricts it only to the broadest category of copyright (i.e., what you cannot do) is better than the "changing tests over time" issue that slowly wears away our fair use rights. See the DMCA for a classic case in point.

      As for loaning your copy to a friend, nothing prevents that either in my proposal. You didn't create a copy for distribution, nor did you distribute, you passed along. Distribute means more than passing along, at least as far as copyright goes last time I checked. (obligatory IANAL)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    3. Re:Fair use defined by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      I don't see an equitable doctrine being worn down, but I do think that it needs freedom to meet the needs of the times its in.

      Obviously a parallel set of exemptions is available for Congress to pass which might exceed fair use. It's important to remember that fair use is a judicial doctrine though.

      And yes, passing along is distribution. To give a copy to a friend would be a violation of 17 USC 106's distribution right, if not for 17 USC 109 and the first sale doctrine which carve out an exemption to it. To have created a copy would've invoked the reproduction right, not the distribution right.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:Fair use defined by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      I read USC 17 106, and it specifically states that the owner has exclusive rights to "create copies" and to " to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending".

      To me, I see no restriction on what can be done with the physical copy once received as part of a distribution. There is no restriction on ownership of said copy. USC 17 109 explicitly states this, although to me this appears redundant. Distribution is not equal to transfer of ownership, although transfer of ownership can be part of a distribution. Publication is considered distribution. However, public display is not considered distribution (USC 17 101)

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    5. Re:Fair use defined by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Well, if the copyright holder has per 106 the exclusive right to distribute copies to the public either merely through transfer of posession or of transfer of ownership, then that means that others can't do that.

      The language of 106 doesn't make a distinction between copies that have or haven't experienced first sale. For similar reasons, we had to have the Bobbs-Merril case in the early 20th century to resolve that first sale existed anyway, and this was immediately followed up by provisions in the 1909 Act which were akin to the 1976 Act's section 109.

      The more recent exceptions in 109 should make fairly clear that Congress at least doesn't think that 106 inherently is limited only to first sale. Check out 109(b)(1)(A); that provision would be impossible if the main gist of 109 were redundant with 106.

      Which isn't to say that 106 and Congress' power isn't limited by first sale, just that this is what's on the books.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
  18. Same old argument, once again by sremick · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Same story, different day. It basically boils down to: what am I actually buying when I buy a CD/DVD/software/etc?

    If I'm buying PHYSICAL PROPERTY, I can do whatever I want with it, including resell it once I'm done with it (something the software companies like to say we can't do). I should also be able to play the music/movie for anyone I wish, and let anyone I wish use the software.

    If I'm buying a LICENSE, then I should be able to use my one LICENSE however I wish, independent of the media. If I'm getting a license to listen to the song, I should be able to transfer that song to another device so I can listen to it there too. I've paid the license... I'm allowed to listen. Same applies to movies.

    Companies are trying to have it both ways, and refuse to pick which one it really is.

    Note that one of the big issues the RIAA had was that digital media could be copied EXACTLY. They didn't have a problem with CD->tape apparently because the copy was degraded. Well guess what? When I make an MP3/OGG file, that's lossy compression... therefore the copy is also "degraded". Same goes if you mega-compress a DVD to fit on a 320x480 screen and a tiny 512MB SD card (I'm a Palm T3 owner).

    I can understand that if I pay $5 for the VHS version, I might not be entitled to a license for the $30 SuperBit DVD version as well... but if I buy the DVD I sure as hell can make a VHS copy if I want to watch it at a friend's house who doesn't have a DVD player, or if I need to distill it down to fit on my PDA so I can watch it on the plane. Bite me, MPAA.

    1. Re:Same old argument, once again by 3terrabyte · · Score: 2, Insightful
      but if I buy the DVD I sure as hell can make a VHS copy if I want to watch it at a friend's house who doesn't have a DVD player

      If that's true, then why the MacroVision?

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    2. Re:Same old argument, once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      While I agree with most of what you say, you're missing something:

      Note that one of the big issues the RIAA had was that digital media could be copied EXACTLY. They didn't have a problem with CD->tape apparently because the copy was degraded. Well guess what? When I make an MP3/OGG file, that's lossy compression... therefore the copy is also "degraded". Same goes if you mega-compress a DVD to fit on a 320x480 screen and a tiny 512MB SD card (I'm a Palm T3 owner).

      The point is you can copy your "degraded copies" without any further degradation. If you copy an analog tape, the second generation copy will be of lower quality than the first generation copy. There is no such degradation in copying digital data like MP3/OGG; the second generation copy is just as good as the first generation copy.

    3. Re:Same old argument, once again by uradu · · Score: 4, Funny

      > Companies are trying to have it both ways, and refuse to pick which one it really is.

      Yeah, they'd like to specify very narrowly how your license is used. You can listen to:
      - this song only
      - on this CD only
      - in your Barbie CD player only
      - while wearing your bunny jammies only
      - and only in your bedroom

      If you want to listen to it in you pinstripe suit, in your car, on the way to work, you BETTER be buying another license, you dirty rotten scumbag of a thief!!!

    4. Re:Same old argument, once again by sremick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I consider MacroVision to be contrary to copyright fair-use just like a lot of the other crap the MPAA pulls. It's not an issue for me, though... I use my TV as an S-video -> composite convertor (it has line-out) vs connecting my DVD player directly to my VCR, and it happens to do away with MacroVision in the process. :) No special box needed.

      If I really bothered with tapes much I might consider getting a VCR with S-Video in and then a MacroVision mod for my DVD player. Actually I was thinking about that last part anyways as the same mod makes it region-free.

    5. Re:Same old argument, once again by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 3, Informative
      I consider MacroVision to be contrary to copyright fair-use just like a lot of the other crap the MPAA pulls.
      Macrovision is illegal in Germany, because it prevents people from exercizing their fair-use rights.
    6. Re:Same old argument, once again by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, while the first encode degrades the audio, the RIAA's beef is that each copy of that encoded file can be duplicated exactly. CD->tape->tape is generally going to be crap. CD->MP3->copy MP3 to another device usually means that the audio has only gone through one degradation.

    7. Re:Same old argument, once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm buying PHYSICAL PROPERTY, I can do whatever I want with it, including resell it once I'm done with it (something the software companies like to say we can't do).

      I remember Borland used to have this "like a book" license with their software. You were still buying a license, of course, but they'd let you transer it to other people so long as you gave them the entire product and didn't keep a copy for yourself.

      Note that one of the big issues the RIAA had was that digital media could be copied EXACTLY. They didn't have a problem with CD->tape apparently because the copy was degraded.

      Actually, they did have a problem with that. Then the courts said "quit whining, people will still buy their own copy because they want good quality." Now the RIAA gets to say "look, look! That's not true here! Can we sue them now?" If they had their way, we'd all be paying by the minute anyway.

    8. Re:Same old argument, once again by chl · · Score: 1
      If I'm buying a LICENSE, then I should be able to use my one LICENSE however I wish, independent of the media.

      If you mean "should" as in "no one should starve becaus he is poor," you may be right. In the real world, however, the license could just as well read "license to put data into your one approved player, and do whatever said one approved player allows you to do."

      chl

    9. Re:Same old argument, once again by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1
      I consider MacroVision to be contrary to copyright fair-use

      No you don't. Your apathy towards MacroVision is only because it's so easy to circumvent! :)

      Also, you should check out DVDr Help to find out if your DVD is on their list. It contains a comprehensive user-supported list of just about every DVD player out there, and what mods are needed to make the DVD region free. Most of the time, it only requires a sequence of buttons on the remote. Gotta love those engineers!

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    10. Re:Same old argument, once again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How did you know about the bunny jammies?! And the Barbie stuff? I mean, even my WIFE thinks I got 'em for her... (nervously looks over shoulder at window) Um... how much is this going to cost to keep you quiet?

  19. Decent Program by j_kenpo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Ive used this program, and its decent. I have issues every now and then when ripping with it not recognizing the titles or it wont open the DVD, so Id have to either start playing the DVD to get it to work, or rip with an external program and use the programs conversion features. I own these DVD's and use this for when I travel to watch movies on my IPaq and in the hotel room that overcharges for movies, I think its fair use.

    1. Re:Decent Program by Ateryx · · Score: 1
      I have issues every now and then when ripping with it not recognizing the titles or it wont open the DVD

      In my rather limited experience w/ ripping DVDs I've found 90% of the error I experience with the DVD image happened during the transfer of the image to another media player (computer to computer, computer to handheld). Usually the rip is good if you give it time and don't run all your spyware while you're ripping, its just something about transferring 4.2 gigs over 10-20 minutes to another device that seems to be the crux for me at least.

      --
      "The truth suffers from too much analysis"
  20. Of course it is fair use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Of course it is fair use. You are allowed to view media you purchase on the player you choice. You pay to view the content, the method of viewing it (so long as it is for private use not public/commercial) is up to you. The problem arises when people start posting these DVD rips to P2P networks and sharing them. Then it is theft.

    1. Re:Of course it is fair use by Catbeller · · Score: 1

      The problem arises when people start posting these DVD rips to P2P networks and sharing them. Then it is theft.

      Nooooooooo, no, NO. Then it is copyright infringment, what used to be a civil offense. Not a crime. Not theft.

      NOT theft. NOT stealing. You've taken nothing from anyone. You've made a copy. Not pilfering, stealing, lifting, grabbing, legging it over the fence, absconding, or knackering. A making of a copy. You're distributing it for free. Not a criminal offense. Merely a copyright violation.

      The MPAA's clients do NOT own the movie. They own the physical tapes. The do have the right to determine who makes commercially distributed copies of same. The "movie" is an series of images and sounds. The movie is not owned, no matter what they repeat endlessly.

      Originally the right to copy expired after a decent interval. It no longer expires. There was a deal, you see, when copyright law was established; the creator gets the right to control copies IN EXCHANGE FOR the right to eventually expire, and release the work into the public domain. The deal is now unilaterally trashed. Works are now "property", and nothing goes into public domain.

      Since the deal is dead, I don't feel like listening to their blathering about "rights". They've taken away all mankind's rights. Screw theirs.

    2. Re:Of course it is fair use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The movie is not owned, no matter what they repeat endlessly."

      First of all, YHBT the last sentence of the OP was so obviously a troll I think even taco could have picked up on it.

      Second, I must disagree. The movie is owned. It is not a collection of thoughts, images, and sounds. It is the process that has gone into it to make it a coherent story that is owned. When you steal the movie the company is not getting reimbursed for a number of things including wear and tear on editing equipment, salaries for employees, advertising cost, and numerous other expenses they incurred to create and sell the view so they could make a profit. The problem seems to arise when people like you don't see a movie as property.

    3. Re:Of course it is fair use by mitheral · · Score: 1

      Very good summary. I'm usually a lot less restrained when someone uses theft instead of copyright infringement; my first impulse is to slap them silly but that doesn't transfer to electrons very well.

  21. There is fair use in the US by tkrotchko · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Unfortunately because of the DMCA, you can't exercise fair-use rights if the content is protected by any sort of copy protection.

    Its the way the big media monopolies essentially got around fair-use with DMCA.

    --
    You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
    1. Re:There is fair use in the US by 3terrabyte · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Exactly.

      And with the broadcast bit being slapped on to HDTV, there will come a day very soon where PVR/VCR for TV's will become obsolete.

      Then, the mighty media companies can finally shoot for the big dream: Pay-per-play.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

    2. Re:There is fair use in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Am I allowed to do a bit for bit stream copy, in tact, onto my HD, like VirtualCD? Seems like I'm not circumventing any sort of copy protection, I'm simply migrating the bits. Then use "VirtualDVD" to access the bits.

    3. Re:There is fair use in the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck explaining that to "bubba" in federal "pound you in the ass" prison.

  22. The Big Hurdle by Dark+Paladin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's not the technology, of course - it's folks like the MPAA and RIAA. And who can blame them? If I buy a DVD, I'm doing it to get a copy of the movie and the other value-added parts.

    If I compress that video down to 250 MB, how much easier is that for me to spread around the Internet using Bittorrent or Kazaa or whatever?

    Now, I can't claim any naivity here, and I'm not going to. I download movies over the Internet, in the form of fan subbed animes that haven't made it to the states. Let's me know if I'm going to spend $20 on a DVD only to discover I don't like it. Sure, it takes about a full 24 hours to get around 1-2 hours of video (shrink down to 45-90 minutes when you're done with credits that appear at the beginning and end of every anime episode).

    But what if that file shrinks to 128 MB? "Great!" goes the MPAA. "Now they're spreading it even faster!"

    Personally, I wouldn't mind a Video iPod, though I'm not sure how often I'd use it. Maybe for plane flights or travel with the kids - would make life easier then using my wife's iBook and handing it to the kids in the back seat so they can watch Blue's Clues. 4 year olds just don't know how to treat a laptop gently. A 4 GB video iPod could hold quite a few movies, and with my daughter old enough to manipulate Link around a screen without him running into the walls all the time, and savvy enough with the mouse to run the DVD movies on the laptop herself, she could use a video iPod with no troubles.

    But again, back to the issue: shrinking a 90 minute 4 GB DVD movie into a 125 MB file for a 12-15 cm wide screen without making the MPAA go nuts.

    Fair use? I'd say "yeah". After all, if I can compress a legally bought CD to an MP3, there should be no reason why I can't do the same with a video.

    So that leaves us with the "how". Perhaps it will be something like the iTunes music store, only with movies: You enter the DVD into your computer, and there's a file right there.

    Yes, MPAA - you supply the files, or files(s) for those of us who want subtitles. At 125 each, you could easily include 2 versions for anime fans, and 1 version for the majority of the "english only" movies.

    You authorize your computer to play the file and up to 3 others. "Oh, no - DRM! Agh!" I know, but hey, we can compromise a little here, right? Just like iTunes: up to 3 computers can play the file, and unlimited handhelds. If you just want to drag-n-drop the file into your portable video iPod or whatever without "licensing" it over the Internet, that just means you can't watch it on your machine.

    Unlimited handheld use should be the rule, so if I've got 5 iPods (one for each member of the family, though the last one doesn't spawn from my wife's womb until July, but I'm getting ready), everybody can have a copy of the movie.

    Sure, there's the chance that the movie file will be transmitted over the Internet anyway, but if you come up with the codec to view the files (by "you" I mean "MPAA"), then you can charge a small free (say, $1 per video iPod or whatever) as part of the patent cost. Either way, for every iPod sold, you get a buck, so who cares if the files are flying around like crazy? People will either have to license the file (which they can't do past 3 computers, or they have to buy a DVD), or buy a "video iPod" which still makes you the buck.

    That's how the MPAA protects its property, and lets us do what they want. If they really want to be cool, they'll release a utility to let us retro-shrink our current DVD movies as well to the same kind of file.

    I'm sure there will be some who will scream "ALL DRM EBIL - KILL HIM", and others going "ALL INTERNET USERS ARE EVIL - SLAY HIM FOR BEING A HERITIC", but I think this is a compromise that might work.

    Of course, this is just my opinion. I could be wrong.

    1. Re:The Big Hurdle by BenBenBen · · Score: 2, Funny
      video iPod
      PowerPod
      /me runs off to trademark office...
      --
      The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
    2. Re:The Big Hurdle by jimbosworldorg · · Score: 1
      Just like iTunes: up to 3 computers can play the file, and unlimited handhelds.
      So the third time I upgrade my PC, I lose all of the rights to my media? Screw that.

      We're running into a hardcore privacy issue here - the only faintly acceptable method of implementing DRM in terms of Fair Use would be for the license to follow an individual, not a computer - but that would do an even more horrendous job of tracking literally everything that single user did, regardless of machine.

      I don't like either answer worth a damn. I don't see any good reason to give my money to somebody who's going to screw me over for a new license if I upgrade my machines, and I don't see any good reason to support someone's efforts to track my every single purchase and product usage either. The RI-MP-etc-AA are going to have to come up with a better answer - and yes, possibly even one that entails (Gasp!) actually trusting the people who pay them money for their products to be honest.

      --

      Coming soon to Slashdot: meta-meta-moderation!

    3. Re:The Big Hurdle by 42forty-two42 · · Score: 1
      Sure, it takes about a full 24 hours to get around 1-2 hours of video (shrink down to 45-90 minutes when you're done with credits that appear at the beginning and end of every anime episode).

      Dude. Use bittorrent. Then you'll get it in maybe 1-2 hours for recent releases.
    4. Re:The Big Hurdle by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      /me runs off to trademark office...

      Office is already trademarked by Microsoft. :)

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    5. Re:The Big Hurdle by mitheral · · Score: 1

      You authorize your computer to play the file and up to 3 others. "Oh, no - DRM! Agh!" I know, but hey, we can compromise a little here, right? Just like iTunes: up to 3 computers can play the file, and unlimited handhelds. If you just want to drag-n-drop the file into your portable video iPod or whatever without "licensing" it over the Internet, that just means you can't watch it on your machine.

      Comprimising with the RIAA/MPAA is like comprmising with a book burner. Sooner or later (usually sooner) they will be back asking to burn more books.

    6. Re:The Big Hurdle by hummassa · · Score: 1

      Place: Down here (Brasil)
      What: Enterprise and Joan of Aracadia episodes (45min each)
      When: as soon as they hit SN (300-500 seeds)
      How much does it take: 48 hours in average

      HTH,

      --
      It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  23. Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi by Ateryx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you ever tried to read a long website on a handheld? Books on handhelds are not a good idea.

    --
    "The truth suffers from too much analysis"
  24. Legal issues asides,, by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Why would anyone want to watch a full length movie on a small 2x3 inch screen is beyond me.?

    For those who, want to watch it during flights, read a book or something, Or try talking to your fellow passengers, you may make a friend or two.

    Have we been so hooked on popcorn entertainment, that we need it 24x7 , in our lives ?

    --
    for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
    1. Re:Legal issues asides,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      re:Or try talking to your fellow passengers.....

      I've had enough single serving friends.....

      Last time my friend Robert Palson got shot in the head! And I blew up a bunch of buildings....

    2. Re:Legal issues asides,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Or try talking to your fellow passengers, you may make a friend or two.

      damn, are that freak who wouldn't quit yapping at me the last time flew to Kansas?

    3. Re:Legal issues asides,, by mitheral · · Score: 1

      Most of the people I see on the bus I do not want to become my friend.

    4. Re:Legal issues asides,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that is how you construct your sentenses , then NO wonder.

  25. 21 comments into the story .. and not one asking by Bake · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... why on earth a Dutch company has to jump through hoops with a product they sell because said product is on a legally gray area in one country.

  26. Doesn't matter what you rip it to. by DroopyStonx · · Score: 2, Informative

    As long as I purchased it, ripping a DVD, whether to handheld or other device, is fair use.

    I'll do what *I* want with *MY* property, and that includes making backups.

    --
    We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
    1. Re:Doesn't matter what you rip it to. by Vexler · · Score: 1

      As long as it does not violate the EULA. It is true that you purchased it, but "fair use" in this case does not include burning copies and selling them to your one thousand closest friends. When you think about it, this is the same concept behind Linux: You are allowed to make unlimited copies, install it on unlimited numbers of computers, and even look at the source code because WE GIVE YOU PERMISSION, not because you happen to hold a copy in your hands (never mind how the copy got there).

    2. Re:Doesn't matter what you rip it to. by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 1

      You dumb stupid mother fucker young kid you. There aint no EULA labels on DVDs or source code for that matter.

      Go learn what Copyright is, you dumb shit

      (with Flame2k activated)

      --
  27. PocketMVP & MythTV by JeffVolc · · Score: 2, Informative

    I regularly convert shows from MythTV to Divx for watching on my Dell Axim with PocketMVP. I can fit an hour long show (40 mins after commercial cut) into 70M. I can put 3 shows on a 256M CF card.

    Whenever I travel I always take at least 3 or 4 shows with me as well as a number of ebooks from Baan or BlackMask.com.

    It takes about 15 minutes to convert a show for the handheld.

  28. Wait a minute ... by Dlugar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So if the movie companies did sell low-resolution copies of their movies (fully DRM'd, of course) for handhelds, for say $4 a movie, then it would somehow no longer be fair use to copy our DVDs to our handhelds? It would be illegal to do so (under the DMCA) and we should have to fork out an additional $4, on top of whatever we paid for the DVD, in order to watch it on a Palm or Zaurus?!

    That's bullsh**.

    Dlugar

    --
    Computer Go: Writing Software to Play the Ancient Game of Go
    1. Re:Wait a minute ... by Frymaster · · Score: 2, Insightful
      So if the movie companies did sell low-resolution copies of their movies (fully DRM'd, of course) for handhelds, for say $4 a movie, then it would somehow no longer be fair use to copy our DVDs to our handhelds?

      so... because i can buy that cd on casette i can't make a tape of it for home use?

    2. Re:Wait a minute ... by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      so... because i can buy that cd on casette i can't make a tape of it for home use?

      Two points...

      1: But I can't buy John Denver's greatest hits volume 2 on 8 track anymore. But I can e-bay an 8-track recorder and make my own damn copy.

      2: Can you buy that CD on cassette? Name a store near you that sells new cassettes. Tower Records was the only store I knew of, but they went out of business. I'm not saying it's not possible, i'd actually like to who who sells them.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
  29. Free Movies for Linux PDAs by wehe · · Score: 3, Informative

    Here are some links to free movies for PDAs, especially Linux PDAs, like the SHARP Zaurus Linux PDAs. There are also tips and tricks how to resize and convert movies to fit to PDAs.

  30. Legal issues asides-alternative noise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    "For those who, want to watch it during flights, read a book or something, Or try talking to your fellow passengers, you may make a friend or two."

    So you was the motormouth sitting next to me.

  31. Click a few buttons...reap all that benefit by lacrymology.com · · Score: 2, Funny

    You insensitive clods! I am a stuntman and have children to feed!
    -m

    --

    #
    # Modus Ponens
    #
  32. Good point. by Channard · · Score: 2, Funny
    Have you ever tried to read a long website on a handheld? Books on handhelds are not a good idea.

    Also, there are some movies that wouldn't translate too well.. I'm not sure if it would work with visual films such as The Matrix Revolutions. 'Big Deus Ex machina head comes out of f**king nowhere' doesn't quite work in text form.

    Back on topic slightly, it strikes me that one of the cons of having portable movies like this would be taking a film that's banned in one area to another area - who knows what UK customs would make of that uncut version of House by the Cemtetary being brought into the UK. Would they confiscate your PDA or just get you to delete it?

  33. Certainly not. by niminimi · · Score: 1

    Ripping DVDs to handhelds might be an instance of fair use, but I wouldn't equate them.

  34. Give the customer what they want by synergy3000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The movie industry is another industry that needs to pull its head out of its ass like the music industry. Give the consumer what they fucking want. I understand their desire to want to protect their copyrights, patents, trade secrets and what not. But too many companies are forgetting that without a consumer they don't have squat. Too many consumers as well have to play the droll roll of mindless consumption addict without really thinking. Would it be so hard for the movie makers to put a compressed Quicktime or WiMP file on the DVD so that one can move the movie to their Laptop, PDA or whatever? People would love that and the movie industry would spur the hardware side. No matter how much DRM and encryption they use there will be illegal trade of those movies. By giving people what they want you give them less of an incentive to download the thing.

  35. Absolutely ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    DVDs & CDs are Obsolete

    Too big and cumbersome...

    Copying to a pen drive or a handheld palm unit would be
    the next step in the evolution of storage media...

    Of course, you could just READ THE BOOK!

    Dead trees still have there uses . . . ;-)

  36. Ripping One on One by cOdEgUru · · Score: 4, Informative

    Dont know how many here knows what happens behind the scenes when you rip any Disc (and if I am talking out of my ass, please correct me).

    Every CSS encrypted disc contains the key, which when the DVD Player encounters encrypted content, looks for and finds to decrypt the content at runtime.

    Now when we rip the DVD to make a copy (for piracy or for fair use), the tool uses the key to decrypt the media and dumps the decrypted media to our hard drive, but not the key. Then we go ahead and burn it to any standard DVD+/-R Disc. Understand that any standard DVD-R/DVD+R disc you buy from the store is similar to the DVD that came with the original movie, except for one - the part where the encrypted key will reside cannot be burned on to. Which means, if you were to try and make a One to One copy of the movie disc, you will be able to write the encrypted media on to the new Disc, but the DVD writer would not be able to write the key on to the new Disc, since that part is not writeable (dont know why, but thats how it is).

    So essentially, we are not making a one to one copy of the movie. We decrypt the media and write the decrypted media on to the second disc and throws away the CSS key. Now our DVD Player finds decrypted media and has no need for a key, so merrily goes along and plays the content.

    I am all for Fair Use, and I hate RIAA more than I hate MPAA (because of the prices). But when we rip a DVD for Fair use and claim that its a One to One copy, thats not necessarily true (or hold up in court) since they can always argue that the Key is not copied over as well as the media is decrypted as well. IANAL, but wouldnt that hold merit in the legal system?

    1. Re:Ripping One on One by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i don't care what the legal situation is, that's their fault for not letting us write the key.. what did they expect to happen ('oh that's ok, we just won't make copies, we'll buy another one')?

    2. Re:Ripping One on One by mitheral · · Score: 1

      Not really. You are not required to copy a compy CD if you want to make a mix and You don't need to copy an entire book when you transfer it to Microfiche.

    3. Re:Ripping One on One by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      Well, in fact it is not a one to one copy, its more a direct transcription. I really doubt it matters for copyright related matters tho, both will be regarded a copy.

    4. Re:Ripping One on One by chgros · · Score: 1

      but the DVD writer would not be able to write the key on to the new Disc, since that part is not writeable (dont know why, but thats how it is)
      Let me guess: to prevent you from making 1-to-1 copies of DVDs?

  37. Re:21 comments into the story .. and not one askin by pe1rxq · · Score: 1

    Because our current government likes kissing Bush's ass (They previous government liked kissing Clinton's ass btw, it doesn't seem to have changed much). They would gladly send their own citizens on a one way trip accross the ocean when asked to.

    Jeroen

    --
    Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
  38. Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi by Frnknstn · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the contrary, I have been using my Palm M125 as a kind of ebook/mobile webpage viewer ever since I got it. I find if far less tireing on the eyes than my CRT, and it is lighter and smaller than a book.

    --
    If it's in you sig, it's in your post.
  39. Great use for pocket pc, but AVI's are better by Zamfir · · Score: 1

    i've been watching movies on my pocket pc for over a year. this is great for travel, and i can watch a movie or two on 1 battery charge. AVI's are much better than WMVs for this. instructions for encoding are here: http://www.aximsite.com/boards/showthread.php?s=f8 02bcc475d16f49ea57aee37454c9da&threadid=3970&highl ight=avi+encode of course you can take the easy way out and find movies available for download, pre-encoded. the best player (with source) is here: http://home.adelphia.net/~mdukette/downloads.html movies weigh in around 100 MB and hour. with a 512 card, thats a couple movies and couple hundred MB left over for MP3/WMA!

  40. PocketMVP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    One word regarding PocketPC media players:
    PocketMVP

    MUCH better than the shitty Windows Media player, this baby plays OGG, MP3, DivX (approx. 320x240 at 15FPS with 11KHz 16bit audio, or 240x176@24FPS), XVid, etc. and generally kicks ass. Use DivX's "portable devices" (or whatever it's called) preset to guarantee compatibility.

    Oh, please donate if you'd like further development of this app, Marc deserves a few pennies for helping you make your pr0n portable ;)
    (submitted as an AC 'cause I'm not a karma whore)

  41. = vs. is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why did you feel compelled to write Ripping DVDs to Handhelds = Fair Use?? Are you trying to say that Ripping DVDs to Handelds is identically the same as Fair Use? I don't think you are. In fact, I'm sure you know that Fair Use is much more inclusive and not limited to either handhelds, DVDs, or ripping. Maybe you wanted to write Ripping DVDs to Handhelds $\subseteq$ Fair Use?. But then again, Is Ripping DVDs to Handhelds Fair Use? is only one keystroke longer yet so much more accurate. </rant>

  42. Like this? by cmagnani · · Score: 1
    ZVUE with MPEG-4

    While it wasn't a Divx encoding, I just put together a (90 minute) full length computer animated movie, and it looks GOOD!

  43. Encryption in the commission of a crime? by ssclift · · Score: 3, Interesting

    In many states there are fairly heavy penalties for using encryption in the commission of a crime. My question is: if a portable copy is within rights to fair use (as may be eventually decided in the courts), but the "locking" mechanism restricts my fair use rights, has a crime been committed? If so, what are the penalties for encryption having been used in the commission of that crime?

    A colleague suggested that one... it might be an interesting avenue to pursue.

    1. Re:Encryption in the commission of a crime? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      No, you haven't encrypted anything, nor have you committed a crime. Yuo have decrypted a movie from DVD and placed it in an encoded (for compression) format. Now, bu the DMCA, you're not allowed to sell (term used loosly) any way to decrypt the content, but if you write the code yourself for your personal use you're ok. You're still restricted by fair use of the copyrighted material, of course.

      As for "used in the commission of a crime..," that always reminds me of a discussion I had in high school. If you plead not guilty to a crime or - worse - testify that you are innocent of a crime during your criminal trial, and are found guilty, are you then also guity of perjury? Clearly if you are found guilty, and claimed - under oath - that you were not, then you must have committed perjury. Nobody ever seems to get called on that one, though (except Bill Clinton, who lied to cover up something that wasn't illegal, and got caught).

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    2. Re:Encryption in the commission of a crime? by ssclift · · Score: 1

      Ah... I meant in the sense of my rights (to fair use) being violated by the copyright holding company who is imposing a cryptographically enforced restriction. They use cryptography to "lock" (however ineffective that may be) me away from fair use. The "content" company may have, depending on the definition of fair use, committed a crime against me and used encryption technology to do so.

  44. Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I too use my Palm to read books. I'm currently reading vol 3 of Remembrance of Things Past, obtained from Gutenberg Australia. Its amazing how much you can read riding on the subway for 20 minutes a day.

    DD

  45. On SD/CF cards? by ill_mango · · Score: 1

    If you rip a movie onto an SD or CF card, you are going to get a low-quality video on expensive media and take a few hours to do it (according to the article). That sounds to me like it would ONLY be useful for someone who owned the actual DVD anyways.

    If someone wants a crappy version of a DVD, they definately dont want to pay a lot of money for it (although they'd actually be paying for the media card).

    This sounds pretty fair to me, it's not a violation of the DMCA, it's just an useful invention that lets PDA owners take full advantage of their DVDs.

    1. Re:On SD/CF cards? by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      But on that SD/CF card is a file that can be copied to another computer, stored on any other media etc. There is no need to transfer it on that specific card at all. So, the cost of the media is irrelevant.

  46. zaurus r0xit. by torpor · · Score: 5, Interesting

    the zaurus is the under-the-radar linux product of the last 2 years. it freakin' rocks in so many ways, i can't even handle it.

    a complete unix workstation, in your pocket. whatever you can do in linux, you can now do on the sl5500/c860's. its a 64-meg ram workstation with storage (get a nuvo 4gig CF disk, for example), and you've got yourself a computer you won't feel the need to 'upgrade' for at least a few more years. rip dvd's to your CF disk, watch them in landscape mode, set up a private subnet, web server and bittorrent feed over WLAN at your next 2600 meeting, whatever you like.

    pocketized, portable, a complete linux.

    what is it now, 8 different distro's for the zaurus, including pocketworkstation and gentoo, and its still going strong? oh, and hey, don't forget the openembedded distro-builder kit for pda's ...

    zaurus freakin' rocks. cult linux item.

    --
    ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    1. Re:zaurus r0xit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      zaurus freakin' rocks. cult linux item.

      That's an understatement. The built in keyboard is more convenient to use than handwriting recognition will ever be, plus unlike a stylus, you won't worry accidently losing it. The Opera web browser bodyslams Pocket IE and then beats the shit out of it with a lead pipe. Try Opera for ten minutes and you won't go back to the crappy piece of broken shit that is Pocket IE. Plus, of course, there's the hackability of the Zaurus since it runs Linux.

    2. Re:zaurus r0xit. by pocopoco · · Score: 1

      >whatever you can do in linux, you can now do on the sl5500/c860's

      Well I love my Z and all, but they are still pretty slow which makes some tasks grueling. I always pre-rasterize my postscript and pdf files, for example, because the Z is so slow at zooming and panning around larger ones (like class notes, and bus schedules) at least with my setup (qpdf2 on a sl760).

  47. Don't need a commercial app by Threed · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Except to make it easy. Following a few guides on doom9, I was able to cobble together a procedure for creating avis of DVDs that would fit into a CF carc for play on PocketMVP on an iPaq.

    It goes a something like this: dvddecryptor to rip, then dvd2avi + xvid to get a "manageable" file. Then virtualdub, converting to divx, shrinking the size, letterboxing, decimating the frame rate, and converting the audio to mp3. (How much of that software is "illegal"?)

    Yeah, there's more steps to the procedure but its free and it works. That is, until my iPaq crapped out and died. The 3670 had all kinds of problems. I sent it in for repair 5 times and it never did work right. I eventually gave it away. That sucked, because it was great for wardriving and I also had SSH running on it for when I really really needed a portable shell prompt.

    1. Re:Don't need a commercial app by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      actually, you only need 2 pieces of software:

      DVD Decryptor
      Auto Gordian Knot

      AutoGK will automatically do all the other stuff after you decrypt the DVD. A few clicks is all it takes. No more wasting 5 hours encoding only to find out you miscalculated the bitrate.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  48. Nof if you have to decrypt by nurb432 · · Score: 2, Informative

    At least here in the US, regardess of the right of fair use, if you have to decrypt during your ripping, then you violate the law..

    Thanks to our clueless congress, fair use is easily circumvented by the companies.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  49. Ripping guide with free tools by RobFrontier · · Score: 1

    http://www.pocketmatrix.com/guides/dvd2divx/ This is where I got my start ripping to DIVX for PPC. I love taking my Axim with me on flights, and watching what I want instead of the airline crap. The site may be a little out of date, but it's a good atarting place.

  50. Freudian Slip by wallywam1 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Cmdr Taco isn't asking if it's fair use to rip DVDs to handhelds. He's assigning fair use to it: #include int main() { char fairUse[] = "Ripping DVDs to Handhelds" return 0; }

    1. Re:Freudian Slip by wallywam1 · · Score: 1
      D'oh! The code's all whack!

      That's what I get for not previewing...

  51. Of Course!!! by batura · · Score: 1

    Of course its fair use.... it just happens violate DMCA though... =)

    1. Re:Of Course!!! by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting

      But what's interesting is that the text of the DMCA _specifically_ makes an exclusion for fair use, so if this is fair use, then by the very wording of the DMCA, it doesn't violate the DMCA.

  52. How do they define "copying" by pjt33 · · Score: 1

    You have to decrypt the DVD to watch it in an ordinary DVD player, and that creates a temporary copy in the memory of the DVD player. Does that count as copying under US law? (It does under UK law). If so, you can't even watch a DVD legally.

  53. Re:21 comments into the story .. and not one askin by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
    I would assume it's because the article states that the company who produce the software wish to sell it in the US and have been following the DVD X case very carefully.

    Add that to the fact that they have to abide by US law, just as any company who imports goods or services into the US does, and I believe you will realise why they have to "jump through hoops".

    --

    Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
  54. 2 questions by sootman · · Score: 1

    I've almost done this. DVDibbler (free, OS X) to take Toy Story from DVD to DivX'd AVI, then through Windows Media Encoder (free (except your soul) from MS) on Windows to make a ~150 MB AVI for PocketPC. But, the only PocketPC I have access to is a friend's 200 MHz iPaq that won't play it back--won't go full-screen (320x240, sideways) and won't play sound. (I encoded the movie twice, with both available PocketPC settings in WME.)

    So, my two questions: 1) How much CPU do you need (speed & model) to play back a movie and 2) do any of these units have enough battery to play a whole (~90-min) movie? Has anyone really done this successfully--played back a movie, full-screen and sideways, and made it through the whole thing without a power cord? If so, what unit? What specs? How encoded?

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    1. Re:2 questions by kyoko21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To help answer your question, I have done this before, though I did this with Caddy Shack :-)

      What I had done was to use flaskmpeg to convert my DVD to divx. Of course you will have to DeCSS your VOB files first. The divx file that I had at the end was a divx 3.11 file that was around 450MB. I had shrunk the movie down to I think 640x480 and the audio I had used was just the divx audio, I think 44khz stereo at 128kbps. Originally when I had ripped the DVD I did not do this with the intention to rip into PocketPC or Windows Media. I only did the remaining because we had got in some new Dell PocketPC (Axim) and it had came with some 128MB Compact Flash cards so I figured I'd try to do something nifty with them.

      I used the WM8 encoder, and through trial and error, I was able to compress the 1 hr 38 min movie down to a Windows Media 8 file of 96MB which fit perfectly on my compact flash. I had used a combination of paramters on that wm8encode application. I had the file compressed into 320x240 for the video resolution at 12fps. The audio I had encoded at 48kbps 44khz mono.

      The Axim was able to play this file at full screen on its landscape. However, when you rotate the Axim screen, and I have seen this on the other PocketPC as well, the screen forms this really strange glare.

      The Axim that I had was using the 400Mhz dragonball chip from intel and i believe that is what is shipped in a lot of the pocketpcs out there. The result video looked pretty good, and even at 12fps, it is actually pretty decent. Since the entire movie is only 96MB, and the audio is audible at 48kbps 44khz mono, it's not too shabby.

      But I think even this file might be too much for your 200Mhz PocketPc... though give it a shot.

      hope this helps ya :-)

  55. Authorized Decryption by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    I guess i should have been more clear.

    In your example, using a autorized player, the decryption needed to watch the DVD is allowed.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  56. you bought 'content PLUS PACKAGING' by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

    when you bought a dvd.

    meaning, your license is on 2 dimensions. you are allowed to view it (any number of times, actually) BUT you are only allowed to view it if it was played back on a properly licensed (vendor) decoder AND you play back the original disc on said decoder.

    its a 2dimension thing.

    we are not really used to that. cd's never had that. we were always allowed to downcopy (like from cd to cassette) and lately, even direct rip cd to uncompressed .wav 44.1/16 files. playback was never limited to actually using the single copy of the media that you bought. you bought the right to legally view/hear the content - there was nothing specific about 'licensed vendors' and such.

    of course the RIAA wants to change the rules now and limit your rights. but on video dvd, you NEVER HAD RIGHTS TO BEGIN WITH. I'm wondering about that - perhaps its because the audio cd (regular old redbook audio cd) came out way before there was consumer ability to digitally copy the content. it was never believed that people would be able to buy recorders for $20 and media for $0.20 and do a bit for bit copy in under 5 minutes. so they didn't NEED to source-lock the playback. but in the dvd birth era, cd recorders are common and dvd recorders weren't too far off in the future. so I think they knew that shortly they'd have to contend with their content being copied off the source-media. that's why all the encryption and stuff was part of dvd but not audio cd.

    it does suck. 'content playback' is content playback, in my book (and most other reasonable consumers). but the content VENDORS are the ones who are now realizing that technology is going to drastically change their business model - and they are not going willingly into that good night. not without a fight.

    so until 'the fight' is over, expect a lot of grief and inconvenience while the two sides try to figure out where natural stability lies (where to draw the line between what the producers want and the consumers are willing to pay for and deal with).

    --

    --
    "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    1. Re:you bought 'content PLUS PACKAGING' by ratboy666 · · Score: 1

      Situation in Canada (I don't know much about US, so don't ask).

      I have *never* entered into a license with a DVD hardware vendor.

      I have *never* entered into a license arrangement with a DVD content vendor.

      I hve a DVD player and have purchased DVDs.

      The *only* law that applies is standard copyright. Which means that I can use the DVD in accordance with copyright provisions. That may include temporary transcription, if needed to view the content (rights in your jurisdication may vary). And it does... in Canada.

      I can argue that DVDs are computer programs, so (Canadian Copyright):

      "computer program" means a set of instructions or statements, expressed, fixed, embodied or stored in any manner, that is to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a specific result;

      1997, c. 24, s. 18.

      Computer Programs

      30.6 It is not an infringement of copyright in a computer program for a person who owns a copy of the computer program that is authorized by the owner of the copyright to

      (a) make a single reproduction of the copy by adapting, modifying or converting the computer program or translating it into another computer language if the person proves that the reproduced copy is

      (i) essential for the compatibility of the computer program with a particular computer,

      (ii) solely for the person's own use, and

      (iii) destroyed immediately after the person ceases to be the owner of the copy; or

      (b) make a single reproduction for backup purposes of the copy or of a reproduced copy referred to in paragraph (a) if the person proves that the reproduction for backup purposes is destroyed immediately when the person ceases to be the owner of the copy of the computer program.

      So, there we have it -- if it is argued that DVDs fall under "Sound Recordings" (which encompasses a bit more), the wheels REALLY fall off. Since the DVD contains a digital sequence that when interpreted will produce a picture, it can be viewed as a computer program. Indeed the MPEG stream is an instruction stream for the hardware MPEG decoder.

      So, it is legal to modify and copy the DVD for purpose of viewing it on your handheld.

      We can make two copies: backup and transcribed/modified and have the original. The problem is that I can't rip it to hard disk *and* make a down-sampled version. PITA. [but this assumes the DVD falls into the computer program class -- it may fall into the sound recording class, which would be much better].

      Of course, see your lawyer, etc. etc.

      Ratboy

      --
      Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
    2. Re:you bought 'content PLUS PACKAGING' by zakezuke · · Score: 1

      we are not really used to that. cd's never had that. we were always allowed to downcopy (like from cd to cassette) and lately, even direct rip cd to uncompressed .wav 44.1/16 files. playback was never limited to actually using the single copy of the media that you bought. you bought the right to legally view/hear the content - there was nothing specific about 'licensed vendors' and such.

      The term rip it self was created because you couldn't copy the CD's tracks digitaly on a PC. A copy protection bit exists on all store bought CDs i've encountered that prevent you from a direct copy, as in copy track #1 to HD. I own one toshiba 2x drive that was pre-copybit that allowed me on the amiga to copy cd0:track 1 hd0:music.wav.

      Now I'm not saying it was never possible to copy the data, nor copy the entire CD. But due to the protected bit, you can't just treat the CD as if it was a data disk and copy tracks as if they were files. In fact, I don't know how one would actually disable this copy protection bit, as none of the burning software I have allow you to alter that. I thought it would be a spiffy system for bands to establish which track they want for radio play, and which they want exclusivly for CD play. And it would be great if anyone knew about this feature.

      --
      There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
    3. Re:you bought 'content PLUS PACKAGING' by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Interesting...I bought a consumer product. Paid cash and got a physical object. Looks like a sale, not a contract to me. Sure, it's covered under copyright. I didn't buy bits or encryption - that's not whats advertised - I bought a movie. I'm not interested in the paper or ink when I buy a book, I'm buying the story.

      I've always had those rights. Content providers have found ways to tie up the delivery system - control it from top to bottom they thought - in order to limit access to those rights. Now, we're "finding out" about those new limitations. The providers are giving us your line - "you never had those rights" - like they have the power to dictate copyright law. (okay, aside from the congressmen they own) Bzzzt. Sorry. Thankyouforplaying. They've made an effort with DVD, and you can bet they'll have learned lessons which thy will apply to the HD-(media) rollout.

      Books are a worn-out analogy, nonetheless, here I go. I'd be pretty pissed if my paperback ink became transparent outside of a narrow temperature range, say 60F to 80F. Sure, it would be fine for 95% of my reading, but would I really want a book that couldn't be read at the beach, or at the busstop in the winter? Of course not. If Doubleday tried to pull that, we'd photocopy the book in the office, then take the temperature-independent print on vacation.

      Whether I buy bits or celluloid or pages, the medium is still just a delivery mechanism. The copyright - the product - is about the content, and copyright laws have undergone fairly little in the way of consumer rights in recent history (extensions "for all eternity" not withstanding).

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:you bought 'content PLUS PACKAGING' by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      On my reread, I came up with a better book analogy! Forget temperature ranges, imagine if books were printed with ultraviolet absorbing ink at a particular wavelength. The only way to read a book would be to buy a lamp which flouresced in the range which was absorptive by the ink. Now, lets say that they patented that wavelength and only properly licenced lamp vendors could sell lamps with that wavelength. The US government passes a law (THE UV-DMCA) which fobids the sale of any lamp which can radiate in that area of the UV spectrum.

      Now, here comes the hi temperature, general purpose incandescent lamp company ("All Spectrum Lamps") whose lamps radiate at blackbody temperatures up into the proper UV range. Of course, they can't sell you the lamp, because that would violate the UV-DMCA. But what if they sold you a (higher resistance) lower temperature lamp, and you doubled the voltage? Now you can read the book with your hacked lamp.

      You've followed this far...so answer this:
      Are allowed to read your book with your new lamp now, or would reading the book without an approved lamp be illegal? Seems silly, but that's exactly what's being thrown about here. Although the intended viewing apparatus isn't being used, the content is really what we're interested in.

      It's the UV-DMCA restrictions on commercial production of any UV emitting lamps which is preventing the All Spectrum Lamp company from selling their portable viewing devices. ;-)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:you bought 'content PLUS PACKAGING' by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      But what is "content"? Is it a copyrighted movie? Is it a piece of software? Is it a physical product?

      If it is a movie, then I should be able to watch that copyrighted movie anyway I see fit as long as I don't violate the law. (DCMA aside) That empowers me to make a digital copy and place it on my hard drive and view it from there. However, I'm told that ripping a DVD is illegal.

      Is it a piece of software? If so, then I'm entiteld, by law, to make a copy of that software. CloneCD and other such programs are explicitly legal because (despite copy protection by the manufacturers) it is still perfectly legal to make an archival copy of software. However, we are told that is illegal as well.

      So, since all the Fair Use rules don't apply according to the MPAA, then it is a physical disk we have complete ownership of. However, if that is the case, we should be able to copy that for non-commercial use as well. That too is not the case.

      What is comes down to is that the MPAA wants to enforce copyright laws in violation of US law. They want to repeal Fair Use because it is too easy for Fair Use to become unfair use. I sympathize, but I think that they are not following the letter or the spirit of copyright law while trying to enforce other parts of copyright they do like. They want the best of both worlds at the expense of the consumer. For that, they don't have my sympathy.

  57. Do it for free by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Been ripping movies for free on Linux for ages using transcode and sharing them on limewire.

    Senator Hollins showed me how to do this.

    Long live digital freedom.

  58. Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi by zbuffered · · Score: 1

    I use my handheld to read because my girlfriend gets pissy if I stay up late. So I go to bed but read. I don't need to turn the lights on, it's backlit--everything works out.

    --
    Synergy is your friend
  59. you should work for my boss- by way2trivial · · Score: 1
    I drive a truck. I occasionally (as does anyone who owns a truck) move things for people
    here's a classic-

    my boss- "meet me at the (name of a shop) between 2 and 4:30"
    me-"which-2 or 4:30"
    boss- "I don't know, I'll be there between 2&4:30"

    yea, I keep ENTIRE books on my handheld.. I also read them, and re-read them..

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  60. Re:21 comments into the story .. and not one askin by Sentry21 · · Score: 1

    Because that one country is the largest market in the world for things of that nature.

    --Dan

  61. Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi by Kesh · · Score: 1
    Have you ever tried to read a long website on a handheld? Books on handhelds are not a good idea.

    I read books on my handheld all the time. Nothing quite like having half-a-dozen novels in a package smaller than a paperback. Provided you've got a decent screen & font, it's really not that bad.

  62. Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi by Ateryx · · Score: 1

    I guess my opinion didn't match most other readers.
    To be honest, I hated using the handheld for books, long websites, etc. I would have much rather had a book in my hand than on the handheld (although rather had a handheld than a book). To each his own I spose...

    --
    "The truth suffers from too much analysis"
  63. Whine, whine, whine by mblase · · Score: 1

    I'm sick of being forced through commercials of DVD's i already paid for. EVERY time I want to watch it.

    Well, gee, that's why your DVD remote has a "next chapter" and a "disc menu" button; you PRESS them and you can SKIP the commercials and go straight to the MENU or the MOVIE. And it's an order of magnitude faster than when you have to do it with videotapes.

    The number of DVDs that block you from doing this are actually very small nowadays, due to consumer complaints --Disney began and ended this practice with the DVD release of "Tarzan". Quitcherwhinin'.

    1. Re:Whine, whine, whine by Kesh · · Score: 2, Informative
      Well, gee, that's why your DVD remote has a "next chapter" and a "disc menu" button; you PRESS them and you can SKIP the commercials and go straight to the MENU or the MOVIE.

      The poster was complaining about discs which don't allow you to bypass the opening FBI warning and/or advertisements. It's coded into the disc. RTFP.

    2. Re:Whine, whine, whine by esswedl · · Score: 1

      I have a recent DVD that forces previews on me: Lost in Translation. During the many film previews before the menu (even the notice that says "Press the Menu button to skip previews"), I am unable to skip to Next Chapter, Menu, Previous Chapter, Title, and I can't even use Stop. The Pause function works fine, for some reason. Something's definitely wrong if the disc is telling me to press a button that doesn't work.

    3. Re:Whine, whine, whine by 3terrabyte · · Score: 1

      you PRESS them and you can SKIP the commercials Hey Einstein... I'm talking about the ones you can't skip.

      --

      Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?

  64. Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    au contraire, books on handhelds are a great idea.

    especially for books that have 400+ pages, not really handy to carry around you know.

    .

    I must have read about at least 10 books last summer from the screen of a 3650(besides, you can hold one in your hand while participating in a boring, polite, conversation). you could usually fit one paragraph at a time on the screen of that lil beast.

    with the bigger mmc's one could easily fit few ep's of simpsons on viewable quality on them..

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  65. Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi by homer_ca · · Score: 1

    I've read ebooks on an old school Palm III and a PocketPC. The 160x160 screen on the Palm was terrible with the blocky fonts. The 320x240 screen on the PocketPC looks great. I'd imagine the 320x320 screens on the new Palms are even better.

  66. Zaurus by dangerz · · Score: 1

    I've been watching movies on my zaurus for a while.. is this new?

    --
    The greatest experience we can have is the mysterious.
    - Albert Einstein
  67. If it's fair use? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about FUCK the DMCA and rip it anway.

  68. Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

    I often read slashdot on my Palm, does that count?

  69. I should not reply to myself... by hummassa · · Score: 1

    nor post without previewing.
    Pipe: 256k cable modem.

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  70. Palm OS and Zaurus by RevAaron · · Score: 1

    While WinCE and PocketPC prolly have the best tools available, DVD ripping to PDAs isn't only done on WinCE machines- folks do it on Palm OS and the Zaurus as well. Heck, the Sony Clie PDA line even has its own PVR for recording TV and movies in a format and screen size ready to be watched on a Clie handheld. Cute.

    I've used some programs that automate this process nicely. I've watched Ghost Dog and Kill Bill vol. 1 on my Clie, though that's it so far for me. The files are good quality for their size- a full length movie with good sound, although a low res, even for the 480x320 screen- comes in at 100 MB or so. The file format is a good one- MPEG4 in a QuickTime 6 file.

    I'm not sure if MPEG4+Qt is better than using DivX, which is what the PocketPC folks usually use. But performance is perfect, better than I've seen on a Zaurus C760 or fancy new Dell Axim. The reason for this is likely the MPEG4 decoder chip built into the Clie, which handles the decoding. Completely smooth.

    Somewhat ironically lame is that the Zaurus C7x0 has a similar decoding chip, albeit MPEG2 (IIRC). But nooo, Sharp's own apps don't support it, and they won't share a library. Ahh-- open source at work! Still screwed over. *sigh*

    --

    Working toward a usable PDA environment in the spirit of Newton OS: Dynapad
  71. It is NOT Fair Use by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In February a Federal judge stated that any software and any ripping of DVD's is a violation of the DMCA and is NOT fair use, regardless of the reason why the user is doing it. The case is Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios Inc., et al., No. C-0201955.

  72. Nothing new by slurpburp · · Score: 1

    I have an entire hard drive full of "handheld friendly" movies AND still pictures, and it's nobody's business how I use them!