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.'"
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.
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?
More robust media would actually mean that the media in question should come with it's own backup, in a burnable format so that a consumer could make a duplicate of the DVD/BlueRay/CD/etc *when* that physical media gets scratched or damaged in such a way as to make it non-playable on the intended media reader.
If consumers want to rent a movie or music there are options available. If they want to purchase a movie with a lifetime license to view said movie then they deserve either a) lifetime warranty on the physical media or b) a means to backup and duplicate the media to ensure continued viability of their purchase.
Anything less should be a violation of consumers rights and a violation of the law.
Yes it is a burden the media companies may not like. OTOH they do profit from the sale of the media on these portable yet fragile formats and therefore assume the risk themselves out of business interest.
A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
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?
Or perhaps record labels and software companies should be forced by law to send replacement CDs/DVDs for free if you mail them a scratched disc with a self-addressed envelope. Of course, this has its cons though, such as a very good replica fooling the company that the disc is original, and they would send an original one back.
More robust media would actually mean that the media in question should come with it's own backup, in a burnable format so that a consumer could make a duplicate of the DVD/BlueRay/CD/etc *when* that physical media gets scratched or damaged in such a way as to make it non-playable on the intended media reader.
Drop the DRM and the media already comes with a copy that can be copied for backup purposes: the original copy.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it seems like you're saying that someone should invent a kind of media that comes with its own second copy, which consumers can access when, and only when, the original media becomes unreadable. So when my first copy becomes unreadable, I can get access to my second copy. What about when my second copy becomes unreadable? Do I get a third? Is it infinitely recursive so that an infinite number of copies are stored on this medium?
And what's the point of trying to make it more complicated? The only thing that denies people the right to make unlimited copies of media which they own for any purpose they like is copyright. Copyright was designed to prevent publishers from profiting from exploiting authors, and therefore has exemptions that allow people to make backups of the media they own. Movie studios don't have any particular right to deny you your right to back up your movies.