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.
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.
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.
What? As I understand it, a judge's purpose is to decide whether or not an individual (corporate or otherwise) has broken a law, not to legislate from the bench. Your statement makes no sense. This judge stated that her decision was based on the *laws* put in place by the legislature. Take your bitterness to your *elected* local Congressman, not the judge who has to muck around in the horseshit they spew and figure out what to do with it.
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.
You can't really fault the judge for this. It's bad law, but explicit legislation trumps common law. Fair use is common law, created by the judiciary. The DMCA is legislative, passed by Congress and signed by the President. Common law is law of the gaps; the DMCA closed most of the gap, and the judge has no choice but to abide by it. If the case ever makes it to the Supreme Court, they have some leeway in striking or reinterpreting parts of the law, but a low level judge has to follow precedent and adhere closely to the letter of the law.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
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.
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.
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.
This is wrong, wrong, wrong. The purpose of judges is to uphold the law. This is true even citizens think the law sucks. Personally I think it sucks that the law prevents me from walking into Wal-Mart and grabbing all the money I can from the cash registers, but even if the judge agrees with me, I'm going to be prosecuted.
Whether you agree with the it or not, the DMCA is extremely clear that RealDVD is illegal. There is no ambiguity in this case. As a result, the judge really had no choice but to enforce this ruling.
Yes, the DMCA is retarded. Yes, the ruling implies that we have the right to make backups of our DVDs but not the means to make those backups, which makes no fucking sense. But decisions like that are not the domain of judges, nor should they be, unless the law is unconstitutional, which the DMCA, despite its many flaws, is not. Judges exist to enforce the laws that Congress passes. If you think the laws suck, your legislators are the ones you should be griping about. The judge made the right call here.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Or from another country where such programs are not illegal.
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
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.
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.
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.