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.
Quite fair, since the movie companies are too lazy to sell the movies in handheld-friendly files. Rip away!
... 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.
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.
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...
.. 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
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.
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
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.
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?
Rapid Nirvana
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.
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. --
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."