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.
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.
It's nice to see laws that are encouraging innovation in the tech industry.
Oh. Wait...
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"...
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
Actually, it was. It showed a fundamental understanding of the law and how it pertained to the ruling she made. She got it right. It sucks, and hard, but she got it 100% right.
The judge's ruling is bound by the current law. It doesn't matter if she thinks it's stupid or accurate, she's bound by it and gave the ruling that she was bound to.
Sent from your iPad.
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.
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.
If the film industry doesn't want to deal with viewers' pesky "fair use" rights, then really they should not distribute their films on any media and then they could have the fine grained control they want. After a few months of being in the red they will come back to their senses and realize that maybe their customers are important to their well-being after all.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
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
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.
I fully agree to your reasoning. But I think that the only real consequence is: Do not buy any movie, music, software that is distributed on DRM "protected" media.
This behavior, btw, may over time maybe also change the offer.
I don't even know why people bother with the DMCA. It's US-only
For the time being. Come back to me in 1-5 years. I guarantee other countries will have their own DMCA. Canada is next. Mark my words. You seriously underestimate the global influence the RIAA/MPAA have. Just look at Sweden. They were able to pressure the local authorities to raid TPB and bring them to court and pass wiretapping laws which allow authorities to pursue file sharers. Insane!
The MPAA/RIAA will only lose influence when the American dollar finally takes a dump.
At least, you can still possess it, for now.
Heh, ya. Just like my guns...
Life is not for the lazy.
You appear to be confusing the cost to produce the disk, and the cost to produce it's contents, and what you're in fact being asked to pay for.
Unless the DVD you buy is completely blank, it cost more then 5 cents to produce.
Sadly, it would take mass numbers of consumers boycotting the most popular movies in order for this to have any effect. Most people do not actually care about this issue -- they do not care about their right to make a backup copy because they do not make backup copies, and they do not see this as having broader implications. The MPAA knows this, and that is why they continue to bully people who do care.
Palm trees and 8
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.
I want to copy it on to my mediacenter pc so I can play it on any pc in my house. I also can't stand those ads at the beginning of the dvd. I don't need to see their damn warning for the thousandth time either.
I'm not anti-social, I'm anti-idiot.
You can write your own tool to do it, you just can't obtain one or give it to anyone else.
The law doesn't make any provision against obtaining the tool. The DMCA criminalizes the production and distribution of the tool to bypass copyright protections. Practically, it means you can only obtain a tool from people breaking the law.
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.
Or from another country where such programs are not illegal.
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.
If we wanted the laws to be followed to the letter, we would have coded up an Judge system in Lisp by now.
But, we don't want that. We want Judges to make judgments based on both the letter and the spirit of the law. (This applies in sentencing as well as judgments by the way.) We want Judges to be able to spot discrepancies, loopholes and injustices in our current laws and rule against them where it is right to do so.
If you tell me it's legal to rake my lawn, but you then say it's illegal for anyone to give me gardening tools, do you really think that your position is just and logical. It doesn't take a fool to see what is going on here. The law and the legal system are being strained to breaking point, and that's good for neither justice or respect for the rule of law.
Why should anyone respect and uphold a legal system that twists itself into contradictions and connives to deny people the very rights its says they are entitled to? How can anyone go into a courtroom, expecting justice, when they know that the court has no interest in that. When they know the court only cares about an ironclad, rigid and dogmatic interpretation of any rag of a law our legislature see fit to pass; Or worse, only cares about a political interpretation of the law and their rulings within society at large?
In such an environment, why should anyone petition the courts for justice instead of making their own? Our contemporary cinema hails a masked vigilante who goes about beating criminals in the dead of night. What does that say about our respect for the legal system? Judges need to stop being automatons that parse legalease, and start doing their jobs, i.e. delivering justice.
May the Maths Be with you!
Actually, it was. It showed a fundamental understanding of the law and how it pertained to the ruling she made. She got it right. It sucks, and hard, but she got it 100% right.
There has to be a different answer than this. There must be a part of the government whose job it is to make sure law is rational. That seems like the sort of thing for the judicial to do. If she is not at fault then the entire judicial system is. This is not a rational law, and a system which does not correct irrational laws is broken.
As to her culpability: Did she state in her opinion that the law is irrational and should be changed but cannot be because the system is broken? Did she identify any possible path for the irrational law to be changed? If not, she is complicit in the broken system and should be judged just as harshly as the system itself. When the gatekeepers of justice fail to seek justice in favor of blind obedience to the letter of an unjust law, they are failing in their sworn duty to the nation.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Except the part where nobody's forcing you to read slashdot. Go away. Do your job.
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)?
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...
If you outlaw copyright-protected-media backup software, only outlaws will have copyright-protected-media backup software.
Loading...
Writing a program is not manufacturing.
Not to support the DMCA crap, but yes. I haven't checked Merrian-Webster on the subject, but under any competent interpretation, yes it is...
He's getting rather old, but he's a good mouse.
of DVD players is illegal? I mean they are specifically designed to circumvent DVD encryption.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I think the more proper analogy, if you buy into the RIAA's philosophy, would be renting a car. If the rental car dies, you'll get another one because you are paying for the use of the car, not the actual car. Now, if the RIAA wants to sell us the media, we should be able to make a copy of it in case of failure. If we are licensing the use of it, they should replace it. They shouldn't be able to have it both ways.