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.'"
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."
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.
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.
As I understand it, no, it's not so obvious. It seems to me that what we have are two laws that are coming into direct conflict with each other. One says that you can do something, and one says you can't. The issue at hand, the thing that these court cases are supposed to be settling, is which one has priority.
No, the courts don't have any discretion in deciding which law has priority; it is well settled that when two laws conflict, the later one controls.
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 ;)
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?
Fair use does exist as a "right" according to the copyright act of 1976.
I agree that the judge made only decision possible under current law.
However, I'd like to point out that fair use is statutory law:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html
It's true that it has/leaves more room for interpretation by the courts than some statutes, but it's still based on statute.
Uh, no, that is not correct.
CSS-protected DVDs have a title key which until the proper key is presented to the drive prevents you from copying protected sectors from the disc. So your dd command will fail when it gets to protected (aka scrambled) sectors.
Once you get the title key set correctly, the drive will then let you read all the sectors. The rest of the CSS protection involves encryption of those protected sectors. You could, in theory, put off that decryption operation until you went to play the material and just copy the encrypted sectors.
So you can copy without decryption but not unlocking access. Both are part of CSS protection and are therefore covered by DMCA. And the only way you get to find out how it works - legally - is through signing an agreement with the DVD Copy Control Authority, part of the DVD Forum. The big deal seems to be that Real violated their agreement with DVD CCA.