Slashdot Mirror
Can You Be Sued For Helping Clients Rip DVDs?
DRMer writes "CE Pro has a series of stories that tries to untangle the legalities of DVD ripping in light of the recent RealDVD announcement from RealNetworks. In one of the stories, EFF Attorney Fred von Lohmann discusses the potential liability of those who resell or install DVD-ripping machines (the courts have yet to rule). Another article provides a rather amusing look at how manufacturers justify the legality of their products. Here's one example: 'We are just like Microsoft Vista that does not have a CSS [Content Scramble System] license.'"
It's called aiding and abetting and it's a crime.
You can be sued for anything, the question is can you be successfully sued
Cruise TT
You can be sued for anything. It doesn't mean you'll lose.
But in this case, you just might.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
I hand the client on my own time a un-labelled Cd with instructions to get anyDVD and the other software they need along with a basic guide. I tell them, you did not get this from me and will deny I have ever seen it or know about it.
I inform them that the MPAA thinks they are crooks and actually hates them and that is why you have to do this silly cloak and dagger crap to rip a DVD for their new expensive Media server system for the home so they can actually have 21st century entertainment.
they typically understand after the mess is explained to them. My sticker is they want to hire someone to do all the ripping for them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It is not interesting if you can be sued (as mentioned by others, you always can be).
There are two questions that should be answerd:
1) is it right or wrong?
2) is it legal or illegal?
If 1 and 2 give different answers than the law should be updated.
Lawsuits often don't answer any of the questions (which is actually a very bad thing).
Of course answering question 1 is the tough one.
Maybe we should sue Craftsman for making hammers and chainsaws, since those might be used as murder weapons. Or perhaps Raid for making bug spray, since it could conceivably be used to poison someone. Or architects for designing tall buildings since a suicidal person might jump off of them. How about manufacturers of ropes or chains, since those might be used to hang somebody?
Why do we collectively accept this madness when it's copyright that we don't accept otherwise? There are legitimate reasons to rip a DVD, and there are also uses of a DVD ripper that violate copyright. A hammer can help to build a house to shelter a family, or it can be used by a criminal to bludgeon someone to death. In principle, I see no fundamental difference here.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I though assisting one in bypassing DRM to copy media was very direct and clear in the DCMA, which is why people are wary of including libdvdcss in Linux distros, even if it is used for playback and not copying.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Selling products that archive DVDs
The MPAA is likely to argue that (1) selling anything that makes copies of movies if you have reason to know that the customer is going to use it to infringe is, itself, an act of contributory infringement and (2) while the "archiving" may not violate the DMCA's [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] prohibition on unauthorized decryption, any device that includes any unlicensed "decrypter" or "player" is a circumvention device prohibited by the DMCA.
I think the gist of the story is broken down into those two questions and based on the response from von Lohmann, I would say is the profit worth the risk. I wont argue anything that allows you to backup the legally purchased DVD's you own (or is it lease...might have to re-read the license)is and should be 100% legal, however, if I am just an installer putting these devices in play, I would think long and hard when the customer who begins his "dvd-reselling" business points the finger back at you..
They keep telling us we're buying a license to listen/view the content they are selling to us.
But then they try to lock it down to the actual media.
If I pay for the content, let me rip it so I can use it on my own hardware, the way I see fit (MPAA/RIAA calm down, that doesn't include giving away nor selling copies to others). Also, why do I have to pay full price to get a replacement CD/DVD, my content license has already been paid.
1. Take note of the posted speed limit. On many major highways it is generally 55 or 65 MPH, but this varies from region to region. Better to check first.
2. Press down on the accelerator of your vehicle until your speedometer indicates that you are traveling at a speed higher than the posted speed limit.
3. Maintain a rate of travel above this speed by keeping the accelerator depressed and by not hitting your break pedal.
Now I guess I can be sued if you ever get a speeding ticket.
Next thing they will come up with is that you can be sued for watching the stuff,because you have probably recorded the DRM crippled,encrypted stream into one of those cyborg devices you have lying around[proof?Who needs proof?He's next in line] and you will probably spread the story,thus acting as spoiler.You should be in jail now,because you read this comment.
You can be sued for anything. After that, you're going to lose a boatload of money to the landsharks even if you end up "winning" in court.
Lacking <sarcasm> tags,
I suggest you check exactly how many barratry cases have been prosecuted in the US in the last decade. Even Jack Tompson hasn't been charged with that yet. Although one lawyer did have to cough up for his opponent's legal fees recently.
And in both cases, a lot of this seems to depend on where you live.
In North America, Canada seems safer, but there's also a push to hit us with new laws that would be even more draconian than those in the US.
Personally, if person X wants to pay person Y $1.50 to copy his (bought and paid for) "Little Mermaid" DVD so that the kids don't ruin the original, why shouldn't he be able to?
There is an inherent stupidity to much of what goes on in the new frontier of digital media. Tivos don't allow 30 second skipping to mollify the networks, but I can install MythTV and skip as much or as little as I want. Ipods are built to be crippled with DRM and the inability to move files from one player to the other, but anyone can go out and legally purchase an MP3 player from a different manufacturer that allows you to move files onto it or off of it without restriction. Anyone with minimal savvy can use the publicly-available DeCSS code to rip as many DVDs as they want onto their home media server and have been able to do that for years, but now the Copyright Patrol has its panties in a bunch over boxes that are dedicated to this function. The discourse is fundamentally stupid.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
So does that mean that I installed dvdshrink on my friends computer for him, that I can be sued for having given him the tools to do this?
If not, then why is it that if he could easily have created a tool to allow him to rip a dvd on his own (as I have) then it is not illegal, but if he uses one I created installed on HIS machien, then it is illegal???
They could get a CSS licence from somebody else other than the DVD-CCA. The DVD-CCA has no special authority to license the use of a CSS descrambler than any content producer.
Since CSS isn't a trade secret anymore (it is PD knowledge now) nobody is prohibited from implementing it on trade secret grounds.
Since CSS was never patented, nobody is prohibited from implementing it on patent grounds.
Since each CSS implementation is an independent work rather than derived, nobody is prohibited from implementing it on copyright grounds.
I'll give them a licence for free. Here you go. I hereby license you all, each and every one.
It looks like it requires a phone call though. My sources: http://lifehacker.com/software/itunes/redownload-your-lost-itunes-music-176323.php http://thecontent.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/itunes-lets-people-re-download-all-your-music-once/
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
Tivos don't allow 30 second skipping ...
Actually, you just have to enable it. See http://bigmarv.net/how/tivo30secondskip.html. They don't enable it by default or advertise the feature in order to mollify the networks, but it's still there.
The rest of your post I basically agree with, but I thought I should pass that tip along.
This issue interests me regarding MythTV setups. There's already a feature to backup DVDs (rip option when you load a dvd), but I was pondering adding an option to "time-shift" rentals. In other words say you get some movies out of order from Netflix, you could simply have it automatically backup the dvd and hold it for a maximum of x days (then delete it after being viewed or when the time is up).
Currently you can do this manually, but adding a feature that does this explicitly would run afoul of some companies (though many would argue there's no real harm done). But will adding (ease of use) features to a product that violates the DMCA also put you in further liability? What if instead of a rental time shifting feature you just add a system to streamline ripping to xvid or h264 (with presets for movies, tv shows, animation, etc)?
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
You can be sued for anything. The question is whether or not you can afford to try to prevail.
What the fuck? I understand trying to cover your asses and all, but who in their right mind would produce such a crippled piece of hardware? And who would buy it?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The direct tv drvs have 30 second skip on them
RE: why do I have to pay full price to get a replacement CD/DVD, my content license has already been paid.
'cause they can.
They paid for a law to protect profits from their outdated business model.
Unless you can find a congress critter who doesn't take bribes, we are stuck with laws that kill progress and the public domain.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
By plain reading of the law, you may not assist anyone, in any way in circumventing DRM...
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
A and B are pretty clear, regardless of C. You might argue that the primary purpose is convenience, but since it could also be argued that convenience explicitly requires circumvention that may be shaky ground. I haven't heard of a test case in this, as nobody has been willing to put their corporate butt on the line yet.
Now, this doesn't mean that making the copy is illegal, as the DMCA does _not_ take away any rights generally considered to be fair use.
Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this titl
So you are free to make any copies for personal use which would have been allowed prior to the DMCA, regardless of DRM. The catch is that nobody can help you without running afoul of the law - which means you have to break the encryption yourself and code the decrypter yourself. It's like locking you in a steel cage and telling you that you can leave any time you want, you just have to get out all by yourself.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You have to keep in mind the very radical terms of DMCA. That law is unlike anything else that people have experience with, and you can't just apply common sense to it, or think about the issues in terms of what copyright is for. Anyone who talks about issues like "copyright infringement" in this context, is not in the right frame of mind. Copyright infringement is a totally unrelated concept to DMCA.
The key part of DMCA is that no one is allowed to access the content without authorization from the copyright holder. Do you have authorization? (Can you prove you do?)
We generally ass/u/me that we have authorization to play our DVDs, provided that we are using equipment for which the manufacturer got a DVDCSS license. But look at your DVD and the booklet and the case: the conditions under which you are authorized to play it, are not actually stated anywhere.
If you play a DVD and then for whatever reason, and in service of whatever agenda, the copyright holder decides to sue you for violating DMCA, then they just need to answer one question: Do you authorize what the defendant did?
If the copyright holder says Yes, then the judge should say, "I find in favor of the defendant."
If the copyright holder says No, then the judge should say, "I find in favor of the plaintiff."
The same goes for a manufacturer. If a copyright holder decides that people are not authorized to play their DVDs on your equipment, then the primary purpose of your equipment is to play DVDs without authorization.
There is no code of conduct you can follow, or rules spelled out, or anything you can do to make sure what you're doing is legal. There aren't even vague rules of thumb, parallel to the Fair Use criteria like you have in copyright-infringement related discussions. Every DVD user, every DVD player manufacturer, and every DVD-related toolmaker (which accesses the content of CSS-scrambled DVDs) is at their arbitrary mercy. All they have to do, is say you are not authorized, and then unless you have some sort of evidence that they did authorize you (do you (does anyone?) have this evidence, for any of the DVDs that you own?), then you have clearly violated DMCA.
This holds even if you get a DVDCSS license, and strictly adhere to its terms. But, if you do that, then they have no incentive to come after you (and they would undermine all the reasons that anyone bothers to get DVDCSS licenses), so you will get away with it. That's the safest way to go.
If this all seems unfair to you, then I advocate you vote against everyone in the 2008 elections who doesn't say they will sponsor or vote for legislation that repeals DMCA. Remember: a president, a third of the senate, and the whole house. This law could be gone in a few months, if only people would vote on it. Yes, some will say it's naive to think people would vote on actual issues, but we do have the ability, should we ever choose to exercise it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
yes, you can get in trouble, because you are aiding in the infringement of copywright material. If you instruct a customer that there is software that could possibly be purchased to assist in the act, then no. But if you facilitate instructions to de-css and rip dvd files, then yes, you will get owned.
the courts have yet to rule
You mean, they have sucked to date?
Over the years, I've bought vast quantities of such licenses - LP's, cassette tapes, CD's . . . most of which have fallen to the ravages of time (You try preserving the integrity of your LP's when you live in the desert Southwest - sand and dust are everywhere. We won't even talk about the lifespan of an 8-track or cassette tape left baking in an automobile all summer). SO . . . by the RIAA's logic, I do indeed have a right to download Jailbreak by Thin Lizzy - I bought the LP and despite the failure of the media to survive, my rights under that license do survive.
are you dumb? tbqh I think so.
DVDs have copy protection, and circumventing copy protection is what's at issue here, not making the copy.
See where this is going? Making a personal copy is legal but circumventing copy protection isn't...
That's the sort of laws they've been buying over the last few years.
No sig today...
"How to speed" is pretty damn obvious. Perhaps "how to bump a lock and commit a burglary" would be a better analogy.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
Spares you the difficulty of actually thinking of something intelligent to post. Kudos!
http://www.kaleidescape.com/company/pr/PR-20070329-DVDCCA.php
Basically, if you're in compliance with the CCA requirements, there isn't anything they can do about it.
The CCA is now trying to change the license to prevent copying, but every storage system on the planet is going to file complaints and litigation if that happens.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Sigh....
I'm sad none of you seem to have heard about the supreme court's decision on the matter. It established your privilege to make and keep duplicates of your media.
SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
(b) Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S. 55 , does not support respondents' novel theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement
Now, was that so hard?? More to the point, when the server shows up, your reply to the complaint is right there. No merit to the case at all.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
So, i can produce guns and sell them around, but i can't produce something to transform my files into another type. what if i made my own wedding video in a DVD and i want to store it in a HD, i can't rip it?
...that you haven't circumvented any access controls if you don't violate the copyright of the work in question... If you break the DRM on a DVD for somebody for their own personal use, and that person doesn't redistribute the work in any way, theoretically you may be OK. Of course, you'd be trusting your customer not to post the files you rip for them on the internet, and let's be honest... A few customers in, at least one is going to do exactly that.
I wouldn't want to be the test case for that argument, but it seems like there's a non-zero chance for success.
There's also that pesky term 'effectively' in there. In the case of DVDs, there's a lot of wiggle room with that term, since the copy protection on DVDs doesn't protect against exact copies of the disc in any way whatsoever, much less an effective way. Sure, most people don't have the equipment to make an exact copy, but that's beside the point...