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.'"

9 of 231 comments (clear)

  1. Why risk it. by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  2. DCMA by Enderandrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  3. Re:right vs wrong and legal vs illegal by Lord_Frederick · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The issue is that different people will give different answers for both 1 and 2.

  4. Story Repackaged by Thundermace · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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..

  5. Re:You can be sued for anything by overshoot · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You can be sued for anything, the question is can you be successfully sued

    "Success" depends on objectives. As J. K. Rowling found out, "profit" doesn't follow from "winning." On the other hand, if the objective is to drain your opponent's bank account, then "success" is almost certain.

    --
    Lacking <sarcasm> tags, /. substitutes moderation as "Troll."
  6. Location, location, location by phorm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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?

  7. Re:right vs wrong and legal vs illegal by VeNoM0619 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Survey says! I'm sorry, looks like "wrong" is not up there and that's your third strike. Now over to the Morrison team.

    This is why I don't believe in having "for the people by the people". In modern days, it should be, "by the people"... we have the technology... we can build it.

    Imagine a system where every law gets voted yes or no by anyone who wants to vote on it. No attachments of crap underneath. If it is too complex, even have a 3rd option "too complex/ambiguous" to force a rewrite of the law. Tie it into a continuously voted law (where every 6 months, voting begins again). That way, those who voted against (example) nuclear power, and learned how safe it became can now vote for nuclear power.

    --
    Disclaimer: I am not god.
    We may not be created equal
    But we can be treated equal.
  8. Re:Yes by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm fairly certain the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been tested in court, specifically in relation to backing up DVDs. Remember 321 Studios?

    Well, that was a combination of running out of money and losing a lower court ruling.

    At present, there isn't definitive case law to identify if this is legal or not. Unfortunately, the pecker heads at the MPAA have deep enough pockets to buy whatever ruling they want until someone pushes this far enough through the courts. The whole point of TFA is that this is a gray area that hasn't been finally determined by the courts.

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  9. Re:Yes by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Interesting

    You don't own it.... you own a license to view what's on the disk. See how they get you there.

    I retain right of first sale on DVDs, CDs, and books.

    I own the disk, and while I'm limited in what I can do with its contents .... this "license to view what's one the disk" argument is fallacious. Don't buy into the unproven claims of the *AAs. This is more than just what they claim they've licensed you to do.

    Cheers

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.