Slashdot Mirror
MPAA Sues Company For Selling Pre-Loaded iPods
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."
While i Feel sympathetic for the Company under fire, this is only good news for consumers, when my mother read this she thought it was shocking and is appauled at the DMCA, having not known what it meant before
Stories in the press like this only hurt the Big bad Companys, by raising awareness
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.
This is essentially the same way they sued mp3.com into the ground, and yet another example of why the DMCA is such a fucking horrible law. There's no damage being done here except to the iron grip the MPAA exerts over movie distribution.
They have no problem with the idea of selling movies on hard disc, it's just that they don't want competition.
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
no i think this is exactly what we need to get this stupid law overturned. this is clearly an infringement on the user's fair use right. no one is "stealing" any content, merely shifting the content from one format to another. the mpaa gets its money, the user gets the content, a third party is making money for the service of shifting it.
This shouldn't be a surprise after what happened to CleanFlicks
I can't think of a more stupid strategy for any business.
"though its difficult to craft without undermining copyright entirely (unless you require destruction of the original before transfer.)" BULLPUCKY. "It shall be legal for the LEGAL OWNER of the original distributed copy of a DVD, CD, or other media, including legally purchased or aquired electronic media downloaded from the interent or other distribution meduim, to make AS MANY COPIES, IN AS MANY DIFFERENT FORMATS as the owner wishes, to support their personal use. Ownership of any of these copies is dependent upon ownership of the original distribution copy: IF the DVD, CD or other original distributed copy is sold of given away, ALL copies made from that original or generational copies thereof, regardless of format and storage medium, must accompany the original distribution copy, or be destroyed immediately upon transfer of the original." Very simple, crafted in plain English, and does not in any way undermine copyright. It is stupid and unreasonable to require possession of only a single copy, which is what destruction of the original would result in. First of all, BACKUP is a primary consideration. Regardless of what the self serving lying bastards first said about CDs and DVDs, they are NOT "virtually indestructible". They have a limited lifetime, even if NRFB, and any child can damage one with very little effort. Second of all, it is stupid and unreasonable to suggest that I can have a CD OR a copy on my MP3 player, but not both, or a DVD OR a copy on my portable multimedia device, but not both. As long as I must own the original to own the copies, and all copies are used merely to support my personal enjoyment, there is no harm to an artist's legitimate copyright. Period.
The purpose of copyright is not about "making money distributing copies".
If that was all it was, it would be no more legit than a pyramid scheme.
The meaningful purpose of copyright and patent law is to encourage useful innovation in science and art.
Yes, the DMCA and other copyright extensions are contrary to that purpose.
If I do this format shifting copy myself its 'fair use' but if I think its a pain and would rather pay a service to go through the effort for me then it isn't fair use anymore and is a clear copyright violation?
No, I think that is complete BS. It doesn't make any sense. Maybe they can force seperating the buying of the product and the shifting of the format but if we allow an individual to do $x, we should definately allow them to pay someone else to do $x for them.
This is video, not audio
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Sorry, it doesn't matter whether you're "guilty" or "indicted" when you have to cough up thousands of dollars just to get started with a lawyer - and the MPAA and RIAA takes you to civil, not criminal court. No one needs to prosecute you for ripping a DVD when the MPAA can spend its lawyers' idle time writing up civil complaints against parties who have little ability to defend themselves and often have not even have the foggiest idea how the legal system works. A defendant may not even be the correct party, but if he doesn't have means to make an appropriate motion to have the suit amended or dismissed, the result is a default judgement.
I don't see the EFF or ACLU or other legal organizations hopping aggressively into these lawsuits or doing anything beyond filing amicus briefs. Anyway, it's difficult (as in impossible) to get part or all of a piece of legislation overturned, or a law reinterpreted, when every case is either settled or dropped.
I can't characterize this behavior as SLAPP, because strictly speaking it isn't (SLAPP refers to legal maneuvering to dissuade public discussion), but it's one of those cases where it would be nice if there were a government organization, or powerful private interest, whose business it was to intercede in favor of individuals in these cases of imbalanced litigation on controversial rights issues.
ER, the problem is that this isn't within that exception, since its not about the device, but the use to make a recording (which itself doesn't stop it from being protected), but:
(1) its not an audio or digital music recording, but movies,
(2) the use to make the recording is not "by a consumer of such a device or medium",
(3) the use is not "noncommercial".
Anyone of those three would be enough to make the provision you quote inapplicable.
Putting aside for a moment that "format shifting" hasn't really been tested yet in court, the end-user is not the one doing the copying here. It's hard to argue "fair use" when someone is making money by making a copy... that's the whole point of copyright.
I don't agree with that interpretation of copyright. Copyright exists to encourage creative development by guaranteeing the creator a reasonable period of time where they can have the exclusive ability to produce (and sell) a specific kind of content. (it grants the creator a "limited monopoly" on their creation) The company that is doing the format shifting is not benefiting from having a copy of the work, and the consumer has already paid the creator for his work. The only possible lost revenue is if the riaa was offering the same service or if it was impacting the sales of their product. They are not offering the service, and it is arguably increasing the benefits from their limited monopoly.
What stumps me here is "why?" Why are they doing this? It costs them money and ill-will (which at this point I think they have so much negative karma that a little more really doesn't matter anymore) and I don't see what's in it for them. The iPod is designed to make it difficult to copy content off from it, so the odds of someone swapping tracks on their ipod with a friend is fairly remote. There must be either a paranoid dellusional in authority there or there is a classified pie chart somewhere that say that this will nick off 2% of their proffits due to some complex market dependency.
The RIAA is not doing this because it's illegal. They could care less what's legal and what's not from morality's sake. They have a reason they don't want customers to do it, and they are using the DMCA as a tool to try to make the world behave the way they want them to. Having a law that could cover it just makes this job easier. This is what makes general laws like DMCA so dangerous. The people sponsoring them say it's necessary to make a very broad law so that it covers the largest percentage of offenders they are after, and try to make us believe that the law will be "properly interpreted" such that no innocents (people that "were not meant to be included") will not be harmed. But history shows that in 100% of those cases, there are abuses and they generally go unchecked because after all, they've made it legal. Copyright, seizure laws, and a really fun one, "enemy combatant". They all force us to surrender our rights and fredoms in the name of protecting our rights and our fredoms. What a scam.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
the current business model for the Recording and Movie Industries is to sell you as many copies of the same content as possible. Sell you one copy on CD. One copy for your portable music player. One copy for your DVD. One copy for your PSP. One copy for your iPod. One copy for your BlueRay player. One copy etc this, one copy etc that.
This is the only way they can make money. If you only pay for one copy anymore, then you have effectively cut deeply into their expected revenue. People aren't going to the theater's because it is a one time experience. Why not just pick the DVD up and watch at your own convenience than sitting in a sweaty, smelly seat with over priced popcorn? Why pay for an iPod offering if you can just rip it from the DVD?
Sure you are stealing, you've cost them over $200 in lost revenue per piece of content. That's why they are lobbying so hard for DRM. That's why none of it is compatible with everything else. Otherwise, you're still only paying for that one copy.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Dell has an agreement with Microsoft in order to distribute Windows, and this vendor doesn't have an agreement with $copyright_owner to distribute the movies?
So, theoretically, if I charge you $20 to come over and install for you the Windows CD which you've already bought, I'm breaking the law? Because that's exactly what you're saying. I'm making money by copying content from one media to another.
I live in Texas, just a few hours from the Mexican border. I've often wondered what legal recourse the MPAA would have if I opened up a mail-order DVD ripping shop, but circumvented the encryption in Mexico. I figure I could do all the administrative work here, including loading the customer's encrypted DVD to a hard drive. Then drive down to a Mexican border town once a week and, while I sit in a bar sipping Tequila, or passed out in a cheap motel, my laptop furiously (and legally (?)) decrypts DVDs.
When I return home, hungover, the next day, I send out my customers' backups along with their original DVDs.
Have I broken any American laws?
Under the DMCA, ripping a DVD is illegal.
Making a backup copy of a DVD is illegal.
Format shifting a DVD is illegal.
Possessing a tool which can do any of the above is illegal.
Distributing a tool which can do any of the above is illegal.
If the DMCA had been around in 1980, the VCR would have been shut down by the MPAA long before it ever hit store shelves.
The DMCA is a bad piece of legislation. Congress passed it because the movie industry asked them too.
Congress needs to start thinking for themselves and not passing every single BS piece of legislation that special interest groups ask them to pass.
We just got rid of a whole lot of congressmen, and brought in quite a few new ones, but unfortunately, I see no indications that the new lot will be any better than the old.
If you had super powers, would you use them for good, or for awesome?
This service is no different to a computer shop offering a service where you give them your computer and your copy of windows (or whatever other commercial software) and the computer shop (for a fee) installs and sets up the software for you so you dont have to.
No shit, Sherlock -- that's exactly what I'm complaining about!
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
It certainly didn't sound like it. I mean, there was no real sarcasm evident in your post. No reference to legality versus rationality. It sounded like you were seriously arguing that a sane argument would be legally sound.
I agree that the situation is pretty ridiculous. What I don't agree with is the approach that most slashdotters appear to take - trying to argue that all this copying is perfectly OK under existing laws, because they want it to be. What people should be doing is trying to change the stupid laws. If people think what they are doing is legal, but it is not, it will come back to bite them on the ass. Even worse, it just perpetuates the bad laws.
Law is what it is, it's not what you want it to be. The media companies can make the laws what they want them to be, because they spend a lot of effort and money making it that way. Meanwhile, people sit back believing they are fine because of mythical interpretations of the law.
It really is quite strange. People on the one hand complain about draconian copyright laws, but then turn around and claim that they have all these rights - which implies that the laws aren't draconian. So, which is it? Are we being screwed by copyright law, or does it guarantee us all these rights?
... and then they built the supercollider.
If it was "rather clearly" a case of copyright infringement, then every single computer shop and manufacturer on the planet is going to jail for installing Windows XP onto their clients computers.
It's been a long time.