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.'"
You can be sued for anything, the question is can you be successfully sued
Cruise TT
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
With the current US system, you lose practically automatically as you're out a reasonably large amount of money in legal fees. Sure, you can counter-sue for your costs, but that could very well be several years down the road.
This is why the RIAA's sue-them-all-and-sort-it-out-later campaign has enjoyed such success. the cost of the settlement is significantly less than the cost of fighting it in court, regardless of the validity of their claims.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
how is it illegal to take something you purchased, and rightfully own, and convert it to a format that better suits your purposes. if i want to rip all my DVDs and CDs onto my hard drive, that is my prerogative. as long as i'm not distributing them illegally, it falls completely within fair use.
just like, if i have a child who is blind, and i want to take all the books i've bought her and record myself reading them aloud so that she may listen to the books when i'm not around, that is not a crime--not yet, at least.
I would say that in this case, #1 is subjective, #2 is not. The law is written down, if a judge has ruled that the law is legal then it's legal. For instance, the SCOTUS has said that when it comes to copyright, "limited" means whatever congress says it means, despite all logic and reason.
A movie studio would disagree with me on whether there is harm; I would say "no", he would say "yes" (althogh the MPAA said through its spokesthing that "the VCR is to the movies industry as Jack the Ripper was to women"; obviously Mr. Valenti was a shortsighted fool for saying that).
Legal != "right" and illegal != "wrong". Adultery causes great harm; nothing in my life ever came close to hurting me as much as my ex-wife's adultery. You will never convince me it isn't wrong. Yet adultery is perfectly legal, and the only bearing it has on a divorce is it is grounds for divorce. yet if I have a joint in my pocket it harms no one, yet having a joint in my pocket is illegal.
Free Martian Whores!
No?
Unfair laws make criminals of everyone.
Om, nomnomnom...