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.

Comments

The Zaurus

[Gothmolly]

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.

Fair Use?

[physicsboy500]

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.

different how?

[irokie]

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

Re:different how?

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

Re:different how?

[gfxguy]

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.

Re:different how?

[gfxguy]

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.

I can see the benifits.

[Biotech9]

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.

Of course it is fair use

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Jebus

[geoffspear]

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.

Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop...

[Anonymous Coward]

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!

Re:What's the difference between this and music?

[WormholeFiend]

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.

There is fair use in the US

[tkrotchko]

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.

Re:There *are* handheld versions available of movi

[Ateryx]

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

Re:Same old argument, once again

[3terrabyte]

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?

21 comments into the story .. and not one asking

[Bake]

... 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.

Re:one more nail in the coffin

[3terrabyte]

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.

Re:What's the difference between this and music?

[FuzzyShrimp]

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?

Wait a minute ...

[Dlugar]

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

Re:Wait a minute ...

[Frymaster]

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?

Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop...

[MartinG]

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.

Re:one more nail in the coffin

[Total_Wimp]

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

Don't need a commercial app

[Threed]

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.

Re:Same old argument, once again

[Jeff DeMaagd]

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.

you bought 'content PLUS PACKAGING'

[TheGratefulNet]

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).

Re:you bought 'content PLUS PACKAGING'

[Overzeetop]

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).

Re:Quite fair

[DrSkwid]

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?

Re:I've been ripping movies to my laptop...

[axis-techno-geek]

True, but the US law, ends at the US border, the MPAA just hates that.