Lawsuits Force 321 Studios Out Of Business

elegie writes "321 Studios has gone out of business. Earlier, they came under fire for producing DVD disc-copying software. Specifically, it was argued by movie studios that the DVD-X Copy software and the DVD Copy Plus software violated the DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) anticircumvention rules. 321 Studios argued that copying a DVD disc for personal use counted as "fair use" in terms of copyright law. The EFF has said that the closing was not surprising because of all the legal injunctions against 321 Studios."

Comments

Open source?

[Anonymous Coward]

How about opening the source for their software?

Re:Open source?

[the_mad_poster]

Since when is the general public, which houses the majority of public opinion, capable of critically evaluating anything more complicated than a diluted press release?

There is a reason that news is written on such a sophomoric level and the major "news stations" attempt to cram all of their "information" into short, sixty second blurbs between their bickering guests and stunningly imbecilic hosts. People these days have no critical thinking skills at all. They have to be told what to do in the simplest possible terms. If they actually had to make their own daily decisions on any level above that which should be expected of a three year old, most of them would probably die.

Given all of this, how do you figure that the public will be smart enough to say "wait, these open shorts people are just protecting my rights to do with my DVDs as I please! This MBA A group is just an evil congolomerate attempting to stifle my use of my own personal property!" The MPAA will simply come out and brand anyone distributing the tools as dirty, filthy pirates, blame them for rate hikes, and continue rolling in the dough while the mentally retarded herd that is most of the developed world goes about its job of being obliviously fleeced by every major corporation and government on the planet.

That doesn't even take into consideration that these idiots have probably never even heard of 'open source', the 'MPAA', 'CSS', or, most important, their own fair use rights in anything more than the most superficial manner.

no surprise

[rhpot1991]

Noone should be using DVD-X copy anyways, dvdshrink is where it is at. Better quality and better price(free).

So how about releasing the code?

[Marx_Mrvelous]

Any chance they're going to release the code to their products? Would that increase their legal liability at this point?

Re:So how about releasing the code?

[jrockway]

The source code doesn't rip any DVDs. It's just a text file with neat words like "void" and "int32" in it. LAME uses the same principle: Lame Ain't an MP3 Encoder. It's the source code for one. If you'd like to violate the patent yourself, go ahead and compile it. If you want to violate the DMCA go ahead and compile the ripper. Otherwise it's speech just like this post or that song you got off of Kazaa^H^H^H^H^H iTMS :-D

If someone tells you otherwise it's time to a) write your Congresscritter a nice note or b) burn down a building or two. You didn't hear b) from me though :-)

From their FAQ

[Gentoo Fan]

It is not illegal for you to own or use the software. The injunction only applies to 321 Studios.

How long until 321 will be required to hand over their customer list (at least the ones that registered)? If they can force this company out of business, it seems to me the next step is to go after the users. You know, the ones doing the acutal "law breaking".

Dangerous precedant

[Jonny_eh]

I may be just stating the obvious but: This is awful because now the MPAA and RIAA are gonna sue as many of their perceived enemies as possible, hoping to shut them down too. On the bright side, maybe people will use the superior DVD Shrink instead.

Theoretical right to fair use

[anandpur]

"Under the DMCA, you have a theoretical right to fair use. But this ruling shows that if you provide a tool for fair use you can't use it."

From NewScientist

Backups not legal?

[SiliconEntity]

As I understand it, there is no legal right to make backups of movies, in the U.S. There is a right to make backups of computer software, but that provision is explicit and does not apply to other forms of content.

Some have argued that fair use would allow making backups of general content, but since such usage is not educational or for research purposes, and would have commercial impact, it seems like a weak argument to me. In any case, it has never been confirmed in the courts.

They went out of business in the "US" only

[chrisw24]

I heard from a friend that knows someone that knows someone else, that they are moving the business offshore. Not sure if the business will move out of the US, or if the employees will be recieving a paycheck from a company overseas, I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Other solutions

[Zaranne]

I don't understand why the solution that worked for the music world wasn't used here. Back when blank recording cassettes were created and mass marketed, the music industry nearly blew a gasket. The compromise is that TDK/Maxell/Fuji and the rest pay a small portion of their sales to the record companies. Kind of a tithe. While it's still illegal for me to copy my CD's onto cassettes and SELL them to people, I can do it for personal use. Everybody's happy.

Re:This is probably a good thing.

[Unnngh!]

These are all small steps in a longer process of trying to control something that is very difficult to control: The internet. The RIAA has now set a precedent of successful subpoenas on user records of people appearing to violate copyright law. Other regulations like the DMCA don't apply so directly, but in an indirect fashion result in free speech on the net being truncated. Currently there's a lot of stuff going on legally around these issues and it's all very confusing. As is intended.

The PATRIOT act put into law many things for which the legal system had already set precedent in one form or another; there was just no codification of these items into law until a moment of panic ensued and *whoosh* along come laws that certain members of law enforcement have been trying to get through for years. Along comes a limitation on freedom in exchange for the perception of heightened safety.

I see internet-related regulation going in much the same fasion. The obvious answer with this one, however, lies with all of us: don't do illegal shit and no one will have to pass these laws. Stop using P2P to share copyrighted works. We have already gotten ourselves in enough trouble with the DMCA, don't let it go any further.

321 Studios has a bastard brand: 123 Copy DVD

[Seoulstriker]

If you go to the website for the Bastard company, http://www.123copydvd.com/, you will notice that the "company" is offering the exact same program. What 321 Studios has effectively done is known as "asset protection", where they branch off a company into a separate Corporation or Limited-liability corporation (LLC) that is untouchable if the prior company is sued and run out of business. 321 studios is still alive, just in another form. I have purchased their 123 copy DVD software, and it is almost identical to the 321 Studios DVD X Copy software.

If you wish to see how damn clever they are, they do not actually include de-cryption software in the product. They do however link directly to a "3rd Party Plugin" site which features a downloadable plug-in which works exclusively with 123 copy DVD.

Talk about legal maneuvering!

Re:I can't stand it

[maximilln]

You buy something based on the terms of the seller. You agree to the terms when you buy it.

Stalking is illegal. The seller has no right to monitor your use after you leave their shop. The grocery store does not have terms of use on knives. The drugstore does not have terms of use on aspirin. The hardware store does not have terms of use on power-nailers. The sporting goods store does not have terms of use on baseball bats.

A sale with "terms of use" is a rental, not a sale. Auto agencies of "terms of use" on car rentals. Contractor stores have "terms of use" on equipment. Landlords have "terms of use" for property. It may be a rental with an unspecified time limit, but it is still a rental. Violation of a rental agreement is a civil matter which requires the renter to retain legal counsel and compile a case.

What is the difference between "licensing" and "renting", other than a legal manipulation by which the renter has passed the financial burden of legal counsel and making the case onto the taxpaying public?

With INDUCE Act this will become a common story

[BrianWCarver]

This shows the DMCA can be used by the MPAA/RIAA to put legitimate technology companies out of business. But they're hoping for another tool to do even more of this, and it's called the INDUCE act.

Go to EFF's Action Center and savetheipod.com to take action! Let your Senators know that they should be supporting Rep. Boucher's DMCRA rather than INDUCE.

We can turn the tide here if we take action!