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?

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.

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!

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.

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: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

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).