Slashdot Mirror
Judge Rules Against RealDVD
mattOzan writes "Judge Marilyn Hall Patel was unswayed by RealNetworks' defense of their product under the Fair Use Doctrine, as she declared RealDVD illegal and barred its distribution. As she said in her ruling, 'So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.' She also said RealNetworks was aware of the conflict between their agreement and their plans for the software: 'Real did not elect to return (or destroy, with appropriate certification) the CSS General Specifications after it received them, as Real had a right to do under the agreement... This behavior indicates that Real understood it to be bound by the CSS General Specifications as well as the other technical specifications received after execution of the CSS License Agreement.'"
While I hate RealNetworks and all it stands for, and will never forgive them for taking over online media with their crappy bloated players and codecs....I think I hate the movie industry just a little more. Especially Sony Pictures. I think the net effect (as usual) is that this sucks for consumers.
I never understood the business rationale for this product, much less defending an expensive lawsuit. If we've learned anything over the last twenty years of the 'net, it's that "free" is a really hard price to compete with. It was one thing several years ago when ripping software was harder to find or use, but the market for DVD ripping software is now absolutely saturated with user-friendly programs that you can find and download in seconds for nothing. Why exactly did Real think they could compete with that?
If it's legal to store backup copies of your discs, but you can't legally buy a tool to make them, it seems that the only way to exercise your fair use rights is to download backup copies from BitTorrent and similar services.
So it's perfectly legal for customers to make their own backup copies of media, just as long as it's impossible for them to do. God, I love modern IP law!
Well, I guess everyone could go get a programming degree and write their own copying software. Or we could just break the law (since the law at this point has turned almost 100% of the citizens of the world into lawbreakers already, in one form or another).
And before any of you jump in to point out that the DMCA is just a U.S. thing, you had better keep in mind that the DMCA is just the U.S. implementation of the WIPO COpyright Treaty, so these types of court cases are probably in the pipeline for your country soon too!
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
It's an affront to fair use. The courts however, have acted in the obviously correct manner. The DMCA is very clear, and leaves no wiggle room. It was designed very carefully to ensure it would prevent people from using any unauthorized software with DVDs.
Fortunately, this does not yet affect my ability to read DVDs under Linux.
Does a contract provision trump a Federal law?
It's nice to see laws that are encouraging innovation in the tech industry.
Oh. Wait...
Yes, you're allowed to make backup copies of movies you own, but every tool that exists to allow you to exercise your right is illegal.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
Its sort of like a lot of drugs - its not illegal to take 'em, but its illegal to buy, sell, possess, or be under their influence. With DVDs, its legal to make a copy for backup, but its illegal to create a means of making that backup.
Putting the "anal" back into "analyst"...
Just use Handbrake. It's free, adds no DRM, and US law can't touch it because it's hosted outside the US.
I don't even know why people bother with the DMCA. It's US-only. Notice how all the fun cracking and releasing and such happens outside the US.
It only takes one person to rip the movie once. After that, copy protection is pointless.
While I hate RealNetworks and all it stands for, and will never forgive them for taking over online media with their crappy bloated players and codecs....I think I hate the movie industry just a little more. Especially Sony Pictures. I think the net effect (as usual) is that this sucks for consumers.
No, the net effect is that there is no possible way to exercise your right to a single backup of a DVD for your personal use. Despite the 2007 DVD Jukebox ruling, every DVD copying solution seems to be illegal. So what you do not realize when you're purchasing DVDs is that they are not only effectively DRM'd, they ignore your right to fair use.
I'm interested in watching RealNetwork's antitrust claims against the industry. I could think of some very basic arguments to be used in that case. Hell, I think someone should take up the case of fair use violations against them.
When I buy a DVD, I want to be able to create a backup that I use and store the DVD in safe keeping. If they don't want me to do this, distribute your films on a more robust media. This ruling is down right horrible for consumers.
My work here is dung.
So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.
Nice doublespeak there, Marilyn, but a right that you have no way to exercise does not exist.
Now, saying that Real violated the terms of the CSS license, I have no problem with. But extending your ruling to the more general case, I find both absurd and insulting.
Consider yourself in contempt of rational humanity - I sentence you to arguing with an Intelligent Design proponent for 30 days or until you realize the problem with calling something definitionally (rather than factually) true (or il/legal).
Still legal... but what make it different from Real Networks RealDVD? (Beside the fact it costs about 8K USD)
Real did not elect to return (or destroy, with appropriate certification) the CSS General Specifications
maybe they used DVD Jon's version?
This is exactly why I purchased my own copy of AnyDVD HD with a lifetime license (does not expire). Slysoft update's the ripping program at least once every two weeks, so you know many bugs are being worked out with ripping DVDs and BD disks.
I would highly suggest purchasing this program before it becomes illegal to do so. If not by Slysoft, by some other company.
http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvdhd.html
Life is not for the lazy.
FTA: 'So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.'
Yes, the law says you can make and keep a backup copy of your DVD. But since the law also says that making or delivering a tool to do that is illegal, what are consumers expected to do?* Not everyone can afford to hire Superman to come over for the evening to burn backup DVDs with his laser vision. (Not to mention, he gets bored and starts flipping bits for the hell of it.)
*BTW: consumers are expected to buy the same DVDs multiple times as they get scratched up, left on a windowsill to warp by your nephew or chewed up by your dog, That's what consumers are expected to do.
Death looks every man in the face. All any man can do is look back and smile. - Marcus Aurelius
Judges are not held accountable for their own bullshit. We just have to collectively hope they are fair, similar to dictators or kings. If they ruin lives, oh well.
How will I ever back up my dvds!!?!?!?!?!
Oh wait. I don't have any because they are overpriced, I'm not legally allowed to back them up anyways, and I hate the movie industry fat cats that they fund. Maybe if they made them:
1) way cheaper (arn't they like 5 cents to make or something like that, being generous maybe even a whole dollar with the case)
2) non-encrypted
3) non-existant (non-encrypted and distributed online?)
It's not really surprising that real got screwed here. We all know that we arn't actually allowed to make fair use copies. And that's why we all use linux to make fair use copies. (or just cut out the middleman and get it for free since the other option sucks.)
If it's a "DMCA violation to distribute products that enable consumers to override copyright owner preferences against unauthorized copying", then does that mean that repositries that distribute libcss2 are breaking the law?
Another judge payed for by the Industry.
You treat us a criminal - so we seek our own way.. its called freedom .. look it up some time industry you may be shocked to know it helped created your business. It can also end it. Its your choice...
()
More of a buffering really.
Task Mangler
You should know by now that the content of the actual law is not relevant--only how much or how little /. posters like it!
You're obviously correct, by the way. The law may be an ass, but it's not a judge's job to kick that particular ass. If you don't like the law (and this one is supremely stupid), go change your lawmakers.
Of course, it doesn't help that RealDVD is more accessible to consumers, and takes the easy "wizard" approach of doing a single task well. libcss is not a special purpose ripping program, even if it enables that sort of functionality. RealDVD is.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Maybe I'm misunderstanding but how is this a problem for U.S consumers? You can still buy foreign applications to do the job as that is neither trafficing nor manufacturing anything in the U.S. Trafficing would be reselling or similar or is trafficin synonymous with buying now?
...all shovels are illegal.
That's my interpretation, but IANAL. Any thoughts from those how know something about law?
lulz. Nicely done sir.
I would say more, but my typing is buffering.
Sent from your iPad.
Stop buying movies that have anything to do with the MPAA. Stop going to movies at the theatres too...unless it's an independent film. While I'm ranting, stop buying anything musicwise associated with the RIAA. This site can help you find out who to boycott.
Furthermore, reject the purchase of any media (music, movies, games) that utilize DRM. Don't even check-out these materials from your local library--for those lucky enough to have a library that offers music, movies, and software. While you are at it, if you have cable, shut it off othewise you're still giving money to these quasi-criminals.
Don't even go to network television websites (or Hulu, etc.) to watch programs. They are getting ad revenue from advertisers everytime you go. This includes watching movie trailers anywhere that posts adverts. Yahoo! Movies comes to mind.
Stop downloading ringtones from (insert your favorite band here) as if they are associated with the RIAA, they're likely getting royalties.
Bottom line: vote with your damn wallet. I can't stress that enough. VOTE WITH YOUR WALLET. Support indepedent artists. Support independent film. Support your local public radio and television stations. Let's make the dinosaurs of big media the extinct creatures they should be.
However, the reach of the DMCA is vast and it does not allow courts the discretion to make this assessment and render a value judgment untethered from the language of the statute. In the words of Justice Cardozo, âoe[l]aws are not to be sacrificed by courts on the assumption that legislation is the play of whim and fancy.â People ex rel. Alpha Portland Cement Co. v. Knapp, 230 N.Y. 48, 62 (1920).The court is bound by the DMCA provisions at issue, even if it determines the extent to which innovative technologies realize their future potential.
Basically, she's saying that Congress wrote this law, and it's not unconstitutional, so she can't strike it down. If you want to change it, contact your legislator. Don't biatch at her.
VHS?
Nice doublespeak there, Marilyn, but a right that you have no way to exercise does not exist.
But Fair Use isn't a right. Fair Use only exists because Congress codified exceptions in the 1976 Copyright Act to allow people to do certain things without them being a violation of copyright. Congress can revoke such fair use at any time they want since they created such exemptions in the first place.
The law contradicts itself, and judges are not allowed to rewrite the law as they see fit. Only the first part of that is actually a problem. The second half is intentional to prevent judges from "ruining lives" on a whim, since many judges are appointed for indefinite terms of office, and the supreme court judges are appointed for life.
I would be very surprised if the Judge wouldn't have prefered ruling the other way. However, the law is what it is. Condemning the judge for something they cannot control is myopic. Real is free to appeal the ruling to a higher court, where one of the laws can be struck down, but the court this case was decided in does not have that authority.
This case was never going to end in this court room. Too much is at stake for all involved.
Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
Has anyone ever mailed the content owner and asked if they could make a backup copy? If they replied with a yes, could you then legally use libcss2 or whatever to copy the DVD?
Didn't Debian used to have a server somewhere in Europe for distributing encryption stuff that wasn't allowed to be distributed in the USA?
(I don't remember the details, as I don't live in the USA so it didn't affect me.)
My perspective is different. I have no problem buying any glitzy DVDs I want, and then ripping them to my hard drive for quieter hours. But I cannot even think of a current DVD I really want. There are some classic movies I'd like, but it seems they are not on DVD in any language, except from most mysterious sources. I will pay, happily, but not if the 'industry' delivers only jejeune junk.
Boycott.
Every time we buy their product, we give them the power to fuck us in the ass. That's exactly where our money is going. If that is acceptable, then don't complain.
No illusions. This is the only thing that frightens them and it is the only thing that will stop their abuse.
i think already libcss2 is stored in third party repos, though I guess even Ubuntu ships with these repos available just by clicking through an ok/cancel dialog
This is a really strange reversal of the laws that govern Marijuana:
In many countries it's illegal to smoke marijuana, but legal to sell the tools to do so (Head Shops).
In America, it's legal to make copies of your DVDs, but illegal to sell tools to do so..
Kind of makes a mockery of the law, doesn't it?
It seems to me that the judge applied the law correctly as it is written; however, the law is bad. It'd be nice if the law could be struck down in a court case, but that's only going to happen if the law violates the constitution, not simply because the law is stupid. Write your congressman, or run for congress yourself. This is why things like the (stupidly named) Pirate Party need to be supported.
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
The courts seem to be saying that simply because DVD movies are encrypted, the laws banning unauthorized decryption of said content trump one's "fair use" rights to copy the source material.
(That's the only logical conclusion I can draw from their making the distinction to Real Networks that their unwillingness to "return or destroy" the CSS agreement constituted their loss of rights to market this product.)
Ultimately, such an agreement is either legally binding, or it isn't -- and if "fair use" rights trumped it, then it shouldn't be legally binding anymore.
If you go off and develop your own tool to make DVD backups, you *have* to break the encryption to successfully do it - so once again, you're doing something illegal. The fact you didn't obtain it from someone else seems to be irrelevant. This is why we need to repeal the DMCA.....
I could be wrong, but don't judges and/or the courts have the ability to overturn stupid laws. If the law conflicts with your rights to personal use, then that law needs to be shot down.
I know this happens with laws that are unconstitutional. Fair use is AFAIK not a constitutional issue, but couldn't the bad law still be shot down?
Nice doublespeak there, Marilyn, but a right that you have no way to exercise does not exist.
But Fair Use isn't a right. Fair Use only exists because Congress codified exceptions in the 1976 Copyright Act to allow people to do certain things without them being a violation of copyright. Congress can revoke such fair use at any time they want since they created such exemptions in the first place.
I think you've got that a bit backwards, Congress created copyright laws (along with other IP law) and can recind them or define limits (such as Fair Use). Copyright is not a natural right and because information and ideas aren't dependent on property to exist (i.e. they can exist in a person's mind regardless if they are ever recorded elsewhere) the default state is total free use for every creative or intellectual work someone wants to share. The only way this wouldn't be the case is if people don't have the innate right to learn and think about what they have learned. The orginal intent of IP law was to encourage the creation and sharing of these works through means of a limited, artificial monopoly, giving people a both a profit motive and potentially allow the creators to have a primary income source marketing their creation. Given sane lengths and a restrengthed Fair Use protections, it can do so properly. However, in its current form copyright usually enriches parasitic non-creators, often at the expense of both the actual creative talent and the general public.
Yes - in America. That's part of why Fedora doesn't include it but Suse does - Fedora is quite American-centric, while Suse has always been quite German-centric. Just because using libcss2 in the US is illegal to make use of "fair use" rights doesn't mean that it's illegal in the rest of the world ;)
Except the part where nobody's forcing you to read slashdot. Go away. Do your job.
While I hate RealNetworks and all it stands for, and will never forgive them for taking over online media with their crappy bloated players and codecs
How do you figure that Real "took over" online media? Most of the online media that I interact with these does uses Flash. A smaller percentage uses Sliverlight and/or WMP. I honestly can't remember the last time I ran across a site that uses Real exclusively and I don't even have the bloatware loaded on my PC anymore.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
But Fair Use isn't a right.
On the contrary, Fair Use is what little remains of a much more extensive natural right which was violated to create the force-backed monopoly privilege known as copyright. The right remains, of course, but is no longer recognized by the law or upheld by those charged with enforcing the same.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
My computer can copy bits from a CD, making it a device or tool that permits me (a customer) to copy copyrighted stuff. Does that make my computer illegal as well (if I ever hauled it to America)?
Didn't Kaleidescape win this same argument in 2007? See the Slashdot article: http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/07/04/29/1913251.shtml
How is the RealDVD case any different?
DMCA doesn't say anything about copying. It prohibits access. Once you have the plaintext, DMCA doesn't say a single word about what you do with it next, whether it's writing it to other storage, or sending it to a screen.
Why are you focusing on copying? It's just as illegal to play (without authorization) a DVD as copy it. (Do you have authorization? Got it in writing? Got any evidence, at all?)
If you don't want to violate DMCA, download pirated copies and play those. It might not be legal to get 'em, but at least it's legal to use them, and you can't say that about a DVD.
I'd go easy on the judge. The law is designed to make anyone who watches movies into a criminal, whether they buy those movies or not. He upheld the law's purpose, to the detriment of movie industry (who would undoubtably benefit by having movie players, such as Real's product, legally available on the market).
What people need to do about this, is either repeal DMCA, or obey DMCA and keep on pirating until the MPAA companies die, so that no one will be using DRM anymore. And then we can have a for-profit movie industry again. And if there are any players in the existing industry who want a place in the future for-profit one, here's the solution for you: stop using DRM.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
It is a misunderstanding to say that the laws are coming into conflict. As an example, if it was against the law to drive less than 50 mph and above 40 mph on a road, you are guilty of one or both for driving on the road. Law is about one question: which, if any laws, have you violated. For those with which you are guilty, what should be your punishment. This is why the law is about people finding people guilty or not guilty. Innocence is not a part of law. Unfortunately, laws that are astutely obvious get struck down because there is enough outrage.
The DMCA was written specifically to kill fair use without actually striking down fair use. In an admiring-an-evil-genus way, I'm impressed withe DMCA.
Bel, the mostly sane.. "Of course I can't see anything! I'm standing on the shoulders of idiots." -- Me
I think that the lawyers involved were not technically oriented. DVD copying does not involve decoding or violating the DMCA in any way. For example, you can copy a DVD with a simple:
dd if=/dev/sr0 of=mydvd.iso
I think they were referring to the decoding of the content, which occurs on transcoding or playback. The copy itself does not involve any decoding of CSS.
Can You Say Linux? I Knew That You Could.
The judge said it all. We are entitled to Fair Use but any attempt to exercise that right is illegal. There are two ways that this can change: Congress or the Supreme Court. I have little faith in either.
It's said that in a democracy people get the government they deserve. Until we start voting these issues, the lobbyists will own the law.
so...it's legal and acceptable to have copies, you just can't make them...
RealMedia should apply for a DMCA Excemption? (Although other attempts at exceptions for this purpose have failed)
Fair Use only exists because Congress codified exceptions in the 1976 Copyright Act to allow people to do certain things without them being a violation of copyright. Congress can revoke such fair use at any time they want since they created such exemptions in the first place.
No, the courts created the fair use doctrine back in the 19th century. Congress came along and codified their particular version of it, but the judicially created doctrine is based on the Copyright Clause and the First Amendment and would not be so easy to get rid of.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
I find the ruling really missing the point. When you sell the dvd copying software, it allows a user to make a backup copy of their dvd, which they already own. The problem is when THAT copy is given or sold to someone else other then the owner.
I think they should effectively come up with a better way to watermark the copy of the dvds and send a bot to monitor torrents and such, then the watermark (of the original dvd) could then be used to track down the owner, and say if 20,000 copies showed up on the net or on the black market, you could easily know who was responsible.
However, it is easier for every one, including this useless judge, to just point the finger at the person allowing legit copying to not happen. Smoking pot is legal, selling pot is illegal, so the only way to ge your pot is through the gov.
Copying a dvd is legal, selling the dvd copying software is illegal, so does that mean owning the dvd copying software is also illegal or using it...I am interested in seeing how it pans out, and what sort of precedent this case sets!
As this appears to be the intent of the DMCA -- to make it legally impossible to copy "protected" media -- this doesn't show that the ruling is horrible. It shows that it is a correct application of a horrible law.
While fair use in some respects overlaps with Constitutional rights under the First Amendment, and there might be some argument that there is a First Amendment restriction here, I haven't heard that, just complaints that the application here of a later statute (the DMCA) sharply limited exercise of a statutory right that existed before the new law in a way which seems clearly within both the letter and intent of the newer law. Doing so may make the law bad, but it doesn't make the ruling bad; judges aren't supposed to issue rulings based on what laws Congress should and should not have passed (but for Constitutional restrictions on Congress' power), but on the laws they have passed.
If you don't like the DMCA, take it up with Congress.
If you outlaw copyright-protected-media backup software, only outlaws will have copyright-protected-media backup software.
Loading...
Among other things SUSE's parent company is Novell which is US based. Repositories not run by SUSE/Novell may include said library but then it is not SUSE themselves doing it...
As far as I know none of the commercially backed Linux distros include libdvdcss in their standard repositories/CDs (this is different to including a commercial DVD player though as those are unlikely to be libdvdcss based). Many Linux distributions are also distributed in America and including such risky (in terms of attracting expensive lawsuits) technology would be too great for a commercial company that saught to do business in the US. MP3 playback using libmad (as oppossed to the fluendo stuff) or AAC playback using libfaad run into similar distribution issues for vendors.
Contact your people in Washington, and ask them point blank: since you are tasked with writing the laws, how can we have a law which directly conflicts with fair use? You need to either outlaw fair use (which is political suicide), or rewrite the DMCA to allow people to enforce their rights.
I bet they try to outlaw fair use if you bring it to their attention, but seeing the replies posted together somewhere would be extremely enlightening.
Dear MPAA,
You may find this hard to believe, but SOME of us don't redistribute movies ripped from DVD for personal use or use p2p or BitTorrent to get free copies of movies. Thanks to Handbrake and Apple TV, I've bought more DVDs in the last year or so than I would have otherwise. Digital downloads from the like of the iTunes Media Store (should be "Media" instead of "Music") usually don't hold a lot of appeal to me, as I like having physical media as a backup. I also like having my full movie collection available with a few clicks of a remote control. Your actions are contrary to my wants, therefore you risk losing my business.
By pursuing this path of litigation, tech-saavy users like myself with disposable income will find other uses for our money--uses that don't contribute to your bottom line.
!Love,
Your Customers
On a more serious note--we have representation in Congress. I suggest contacting them and expressing concerns. I admit that sometimes it feels futile, but it can't hurt.
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
Under the craptastic EUCD it's probably illegal in Europe too. But at worst it'll be like with the complete w32codec pack (straight out 18th century copyright infringement) and many other things, you must add a special repo and install them yourself.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
of DVD players is illegal? I mean they are specifically designed to circumvent DVD encryption.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
You can ahve a tool to do that, just not crack the encryption to do so.
You could grab the files from the DVD and drag it to your desktop.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Some people like that. Maybe not the gray matter thing, but the rest seem perfectly reasonable.
no,actually the idea is that there is a public repository of non-DRM protected media that you can access to exercise your rights. In Portugal the national library has that responsibility. Of course I have never tried to go there and explain why my case is a justifiable exception to the law.
The DMCA gives big media companies expanded control over material beyond what copyright allows so that they can make more money.
Who wrote dd? Who came up with character and block special files? Who made my CPU, the cable to the DVD drive, the DVD drive. We shouldn't be going after the end user here. We should go after the big fish who made it all possible.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, how the fuck is Real still in business?
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
What if the court had said in another case:
"We understand that the defendant has a right to speech, but as federal law has made the removal of 'speech restraint devices' illegal, the defendant will have to leave the muzzle on.
so...its legal to do a thing, but illegal to make the tools required to do that thing?
what a load of bullshit.
Neo: You can't scare me with this Gestapo crap. I know my rights. I want my phone call.
Agent Smith: Tell me, Mr. Anderson... what good is a phone call... if you're unable to speak?
An Invisible Entity of Vast Power whose existence must be taken on faith alone: Liberal Media
If it's legal to store backup copies of your discs, but you can't legally buy a tool to make them, it seems that the only way to exercise your fair use rights is to download backup copies from BitTorrent and similar services.
Indeed. As far as I understand the law in my own country, there would be less penalty for downloading a movie without paying at all than there would for ripping a copy from a legally purchased DVD. You would be facing a lawsuit rather than criminal charges. It's ridiculous.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Good luck with that.
Remember how you all decided to stop buying crappy American made cars because the Japanese cars were cheaper, reliable and more efficient. Well GM did go bankrupt and they ended up getting your money anyway in the form of a bailout from your tax dollars.
Stop buying from the RIAA and they will just get their money from you a different way. The RIAA/MPIAA are like viruses, you cant stop a virus by prevention when you already have the virus, the virus will simply find another way to survive and multiply (I'm certain there are levels of survival they are willing to accept). You can only stop them by creating an environment which does not allow the virus to survive, this means either changing copyright or changing the legal system.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I thought most US-based distros already don't include DeCSS libraries in their official repos. Most of them will make it pretty easy for you to get the libs ("Want to play DVDs? Click here to find out how you can"), but you have to get them from some third-party repository yourself.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
If it's legal to store backup copies of your discs, but you can't legally buy a tool to make them, it seems that the only way to exercise your fair use rights is to download backup copies from BitTorrent and similar services.
Anyone able to comment on the legality of this? It seems like something they'd have made illegal somehow....
Hi: As a retired judge [Saskatchewan, Canada], I appreciate the problems, however, the ruling made by Whatsherfutz, is patently nonsense. Either a denizen [or is it a citizen] of the USA has the right to make a backup copy of a commercial DVD or not, and, judicial sophistry aside, either that right is effective or not. If not, then it is not a right and any software company that assists the citizen to do what is a right is in the right. If it is a right, then her judgment is B.S. and she is at the least, mistaken, and at the most, an idiot, and, in between, she is a fool. I am tired of such nonsense. Unfortunately, the corporations and people that are trying to deny the rest of us the right to protect our purchases, are venal and evil greedy bastards. They are leaning heavily on the cowardly Canadian government to come into line and enact similar evil legislation. Guess what the venal bastards are likely to do.