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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
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.
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
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"
... 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.
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?
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?
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
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
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
when you bought a dvd.
.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.
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
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."