Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MPAA Sues Company For Selling Pre-Loaded iPods

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the services-aren't-allowed-anymore dept.

ColinPL writes, "The MPAA has launched yet another 'defensive attack,' this time on a small business that is pre-loading movie DVDs onto iPods and reselling them. The original DVDs of the movies that are loaded are also given to the customer. The MPAA is claiming that the service Load 'N Go Video offers is completely illegal because ripping a DVD is against the DMCA. The MPAA is also suing the company for copyright violation."

6 of 393 comments (clear)

  1. Re:'Nothing to see here' by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 5, Informative
    Putting aside for a moment that "format shifting" hasn't really been tested yet in court,


    It doesn't need to be. The Legislature has already spoken. See Title 17 Section 1008 of the U.S. Code:

    No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.

    (Emphasis mine). It says "no action". The use of a digital audio recorder by a consumer for non-commercial purposes is pretected. Note that the definition of "digital audio recorder" seem to include MP3 players or iPods. The grey area in this case is that it's not the consumer who's doing the transfer, it's the company selling the equipment.
    --
    My blog
  2. Re:"experimental threading One Two Three Four" by Asztal_ · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since I haven't found an explanation elsewhere...

    One and four either shows the parent and its replies or the collapsed parent and a message stating "4 hidden comments" or whatever.
    Two toggles the collapsed state of the comment you click and any of its children that don't meet your threshold or something.
    Three basically just toggles the collapsed state of the comment you click, but doesn't modify its children, except from when you're going from four to three, in which case it collapses ones that don't meet the threshold.

    The difference between one and four is that in One, upon expanding a comment, if one of the children was collapsed before, it will stay collapsed, while number Four expands all the children too.

    I vote for One or Two... :)

  3. Re:'Nothing to see here' by Chris+Burke · · Score: 5, Informative

    It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.

    No, copyright is about making money distributing copies. The one doing the copying is not making a copy of their own DVD, they are making a copy of the customer's DVD for the customer.

    Making a backup copy of a copyrighted work is completely legal and is explicitly spelled out in copyright law. If you don't own or don't know how to run a CD burner, is paying someone to make the backup copy for you illegal?

    There's a reason the MPAA is invoking the DMCA, and that's because the DMCA is what makes breaking encryption illegal even if the actions performed thereafter are legal under copyright law. Were it not for the DMCA, the MPAA would not have a case here at all.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  4. Re:How does this happen? Easy follow the money... by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, Howard Coble and Orrin Hatch co-introduced this measure into their respective houses of Congress after the relevant treaty was signed by the Clinton Administration's representative at WIPO.

    Sponsors of the original bills introduced into each house:

    Senate:
    Sen Kohl, Herb [WI]
    Sen Leahy, Patrick J. [VT]
    Sen Thompson, Fred [TN]

    House:
    Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14]
    Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]
    Rep Hyde, Henry J. [IL-6]
    Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-26]
    Rep McCollum, Bill [FL-8]
    Rep Bono, Sonny [CA-44]

    These folks in the House co-sponsored it after it was amended from its original form, though it still included the anti-circumvention provision:
    Rep Paxon, Bill [NY-27]
    Rep Pickering, Charles W. (Chip) [MS-3]
    Rep Bono, Mary [CA-44]

  5. Agency law. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    It is not the consumer doing it... but it is the consumer's "agent" acting under instructions from the consumer. If they were preloading and bundling BEFORE sale, that would be illegal. But they are doing it AFTER the sale, but before delivery and only upon the instruction of the consumer to do so.

    Basic agency law -- if you instruct someone to do something, they are your agent and it is as if you were doing it yourself. There are only a limited and specific few things that you can't do by using an agent like this.

  6. Re:and we see again by DragonWriter · · Score: 3, Informative
    Your computer shop down the street is allowed to sell a copy of Windows pre-installed on a machine, if they include the original CD, right?


    Not because of copyright law that is broadly applicable beyond computer programs, but because (1) the license for Windows specifically grants that right, and (2) there is a special provision of copyright law allowing making a copy or adaptation of a computer programs necessary to run the program in the ordinary way.

    Neither of these is applicable to DVDs.