MPAA slams EFF on RealDVD

The movie industry has finally responded to accusations that it filed suit to stop sales of RealDVD software as a means of maintaining control over technology companies.

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a group that advocates for the rights of Internet users, last week called the lawsuit filed by the major movie studios against RealNetworks, the maker of the DVD-ripping software, an attempt at "controlling innovation."

On Monday, the Motion Picture Association of America responded in an open letter to the EFF titled: "Hollywood isn't Living in the Past, EFF Shouldn't Either." In the letter provided to CNET News, the MPAA calls EFF's claims "disingenuous and wrongheaded." The MPAA says RealDVD, which enables users to copy the contents on a DVD and save the digital file on a hard drive, is a pirate tool.

"Forgive us if we take offense when the EFF and other activist organizations that continually take the side of those who profit from widespread copyright infringement attack our industry," wrote Jim Williams, the MPAA's chief technology officer. "It's a desperate throw-back to the Napster days of old when (EFF would) pull out this tired and weathered playbook. It's not 2001 anymore. We've moved on. So should you."

The studios accused RealNetworks in their copyright suit of violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and breaching its contract with the DVD Copy Control Association, the group that oversees the licenses that manufacturers need to build DVD players. Two weeks ago, Hollywood told U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel that RealDVD could cost the film industry billions and she agreed to force the software off the market until at least November 17.

Not only does the MPAA strongly deny being against innovation, but Williams wrote that Hollywood now works closely with the tech sector to deliver digital content to consumers.

"Movie makers and the technology community are working together to deliver to consumers a variety of legal choices," Williams wrote. "To the surprise of some skeptical Internet watchers, Hulu, the NewsCorp and NBC Universal backed video streaming site, has been both a popular and critical success. And, beyond what you can get through cable and satellite on-demand services, thousands of movies are now available for instant rental, download or ad-supported streaming via sites such as Apple's iTunes, Amazon, and NetFlix.

"The days of Hollywood being from Mars and Silicon Valley being from Venus are simply over," Williams wrote.

The EFF said in its initial letter that Hollywood's legal attack on RealDVD doesn't make any sense when the Internet is packed with similar (and better) DVD-copying software. But a film-industry source notes that RealDVD is very different. RealNetworks is a mainstream company and has the money to promote the software. This could lead consumers to believing that copying movies is always legal.

EFF and RealNetworks say copying is legal if the consumer owns the movies. The MPAA says it is absolutely illegal to copy rented films--and that's what the studios hope to prevent.

The other difference is that RealNetworks is a publicly traded U.S. company. Many other providers of ripping software are small and reside overseas and are beyond the reach of this country's system of justice, the source said.

Williams' letter in its entirety:

Recently, the Electronic Frontier Foundation published an article entitled, "Why Hollywood Hates RealDVD," whose basic claim is that Hollywood is anti-technology and innovation. It is disingenuous and wrongheaded to equate Hollywood's efforts to prevent piracy with being against innovation. The market is full of high-tech, legal examples of Hollywood and the technology industry partnering to bring movies and television to consumers in new innovative ways.

When companies go beyond the bounds of the lawful marketplace and profit from pilfering copyrighted content, the result is damage to those who make movies, high-tech companies that are part of the legitimate ecosystem of movie distribution, and ultimately to consumers. The major film studios have made every effort to focus on a strategy that takes advantage of the new avenues offered by the Internet and innovative consumer electronics. They've done this because they know that in an age of immediacy and ubiquity of content, they have to do everything possible to provide consumers with as much choice and convenience as possible. The studios have worked hard to enable legitimate business models that are more compelling to movie fans than shady, virus-laden tools that distribute pirated films.

The results? Consumers now have a multitude of ways to enjoy great video content. To the surprise of some skeptical Internet watchers, Hulu, the NewsCorp and NBC Universal backed video streaming site, has been both a popular and critical success. And, beyond what you can get through cable and satellite on-demand services, thousands of movies are now available for instant rental, download or ad-supported streaming via sites such as Apple's iTunes, Amazon, and NetFlix. In fact, there are more than 275 legal Web sites worldwide that provide high quality, digital content to consumers.

And those are just some of the more high-profile, well-known collaborations that the studios have made in the Internet arena. Every day, in efforts to provide consumers with even more and better ways to enjoy content, the film studios are working hand and hand with some of the biggest names in technology and also some of the smallest start-ups that haven't even publicly launched yet.

The days of Hollywood being from Mars and Silicon Valley being from Venus are simply over. So forgive us if we take offense when the EFF and other activist organizations that continually take the side of those who profit from widespread copyright infringement attack our industry as one that stifles innovation. It's a desperate throw-back to the Napster days of old when they pull out this tired and weathered playbook. It's not 2001 anymore. We've moved on. So should you. Isn't it also just a little insincere to cast the studios as "anti-innovation" simply because they have filed a lawsuit against a technology company for introducing a product to market that effectively creates a profit mechanism for themselves built on the back of our members' copyrighted content?

Movie makers and the technology community are working together to deliver to consumers a variety of legal choices for enjoying movies in innovative and flexible ways. Whether it's from downloading and streaming films legally, renting them online for one-time viewing or buying a DVD with a bonus digital copy, important progress is being made that allows consumers to enjoy movies legally in new and exciting ways. Our goal is to continue to increase these offerings as new legal technologies become available. It is important to note, however, that these innovations are only possible because the studios are able to protect their content--content protection is essential to the industry's ability to provide this vast array of options.

The industry is moving fast on these initiatives because we realize that media consumption is changing rapidly, and we must stay ahead of these significant shifts. To do so means that the movie industry has to be successful at every step of the distribution chain--from movie theaters to DVDs to downloads.

And, this success generates the profits that fund the creation of movies that consumers want (and that cost $100 million to make and market, on average). Which, in turn, go to real jobs, real tax revenues, and real economic growth in uncertain economic times. Yet, without the protection of intellectual property, the economic calculus would quickly begin to work against the film companies and technology firms working to provide content to consumers.

It is disappointing that in 2008, the studios are still fending off the tired old "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" stories. While others wish to hold on to the nostalgia of that fading era, the motion picture and technology industries are collaborating to bring consumers both the content and the products they want in a legal and therefore sustainable manner.

[ddesy]

The MPAA, once again, refuses to admit that DRM type technologies are what's really in the past and that they are anti-consumer. If I want to have my movie library stored on my computer, why should I have to buy my movies again in yet another form?

The MPAA is just reinforcing the view that they really are anti-technology. Their claims to the contrary are hollow.

[kzin]

The tired old saw from the RIAA and MPAA: copying/ripping is only for piracy. They want us all to forget about "fair use", and the rights of the consumer to use/store/archive the media for which they already own copies. Good on the EFF for pursuing this. Good on RealNetworks for trying to release a tool that enables the consumer. Shame on the MPAA for trying to undermine the rights of the consumer.

Someone should charge the RIAA and MPAA with racketeering...

[Argyll]

Isn't that the MPAA pot calling the EFF kettle black?

[Argyll]

Isn't that the MPAA pot calling the EFF kettle black?

[bourgtai]

RealNetworks could very easily abate roughly half of the MPAA's concerns by tagging ripped movies with an ID unique to the machine where the DVDs were originally copied. This would prevent digital copies of a DVD from being distributed through the Internet, ensuring that only the computer that made the copy would be able to access it.

Let's all hold our breaths until Real implements that, shall we?

[mattumanu]

"It is disappointing that in 2008, the studios are still fending off the tired old "Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley" stories."

It's not Hollywood vs. Silicon Valley, it's Hollywood vs. Customers. I want to legally rip my DVD collection and put it on my PMP (personal media player). RealNetwork's new software would have allowed me to at least have my DVD collection on my computer LEGALLY. As of right now, the only choice I have is to go to one of the "legitimate" online businesses and purchase all of my content again. This is not difficult to understand, Hollywood. You people are hindering me from fully using my rightfully purchased DVD collection which, under the law, I have A RIGHT to do.

Don't you see Hollywood? I want to have a nice physical media copy with nicely rendered box art IN MY HAND, but I also (would) like to have a copy of each and everyone one of them on my PMP so that I can watch them anywhere. As of right now, YOU, the MPAA have bifurcated this issue into a false dichotomy: I either have to ditch the nice physical media to go with my PMP, or I have to ditch the portable version in order to have the physical media. AND what's more, YOU, the MPAA use equally faulty premesis to justify denying me my rights by saying: People like to copy their media into portable formats; portable formats can be pirated; therefore, all people are pirates. I am deeply sorry, but this is not how the law is reasoned. If it were, no one would be allowed to own automobiles (because people die in traffic accidents), or guns (because of accidental shootings and intentional murders), buy alcohol (because that leads to drunken and dangerous behavior), or practice religion (because some zealots sometimes commit atrocities). Go ahead, apply your logic to any one of these in a court of law and see how far you get.

People own guns; Guns are used to commit murders; Therefore, all people are murderers.

People like to copy their DVDs to portable media formats; Those portable media can be used in piracy; Therefore, people are pirates.

There's absolutely no difference in the logic. And it wont fly in the one case, but you expect it to fly in the other?

Now I submit to YOU, the following: By filing this lawsuit, you have raised awareness of the issue and prompted, once again, perfectly law abiding citizens ot check out the illegal alternatives to what should have been a legal software program. In doing so, you have not only prompted them to break the very laws you say you are trying to uphold, but you have also damaged RealNetwork's ability to make money on their software should they win this lawsuit. This, my friends, is black letter law, and I hope that RealNetworks can extract from the MPAA the maximum amount of damages to compensate for their loss.

I mean, really... Do you think you're losing money now from rampant piracy? What will it be like if someone should extract a couple of billion dollars from the MPAA and the movie companies they are in bed with in a counter suit? Consider that question carefully.

[Seanathome]

Bravo! That is an awesome argument! You should definitely argue those points in court along side of Real Networks. :)

[mattumanu]

Bourgtai said, "RealNetworks could very easily abate roughly half of the MPAA's concerns by tagging ripped movies with an ID unique to the machine where the DVDs were originally copied. This would prevent digital copies of a DVD from being distributed through the Internet, ensuring that only the computer that made the copy would be able to access it.

Let's all hold our breaths until Real implements that, shall we?"

Bourgtai,

Why should they have to implement that kind of thing? Under the law, we don't require anything else to be foolproof. Like I said, just because a product can be used to commit crimes doesn't mean you block the sale of the product.

Why doesn't the MPAA go after computer manufacturers? After all, computers are used in every case of online piracy, correct? Doesn't that make you a pirate? You have access to a computer, or maybe even own one.

Now, before you shoot back, "shut up, you just want to be able to pirate movies from your friends", let me just say, none of my friends have any movies I want. What I want is to be able to put my DVDs on my PMP without getting labled a pirate by the people who hold the copyrights on the media I own.

Just yesterday afternoon I was in walmart and I happened to find a copy of the extended edition of "the Exorcist" in the $5 bin. I picked it up with intention to purchase it, but I decided against it. I just didn't feel like giving money to a company that calls me a pirate, even though I know they (Warner Bros.) already made their money on that DVD by selling it to walmart in the first place. Even though my reasoning is faulty about this, I still felt insulted.

[ddesy]

Although Wal-Mart may have already bought the DVD from Warner Brothers, that doesn't mean that the decision to not buy the movie doesn't have any effect on them. If people don't buy items, they don't get restocked. In the long run, this leads to the company that makes the item not selling more of them. The only problem is that for a real effect to be felt, the number of people who don't buy the items needs to be large.

[unknown unknown]

Anyone who wants to pirate movies is going to go get something like the free version DVDFab, which leaves you with a DRM free copy of any DVD or Blu-Ray movie. They're not going to spend almost forty bucks on Real's RealDVD which leave the DRM and adds it's own additional layer.

Hollywood is not an innovator, they've had to be pulled kicking and screaming into the internet age. There resistance to giving up fatally flawed DRM schemes is further proof that the MPAA and Hollywood are living in the past. Their so called "vast array of options" is a joke.

If the Hollywood is losing money, it's because the people running the studios are brain dead luddites who couldn't innovates if their lives depended on it. The content industry has a history of trying to sue or legislate disruptive technology out of existence. Every time such a technology appears on the horizon, they trot out the same old song and dance, "we'll lose billions and it will cost people jobs" and of course "it's an enabler of piracy". When they finally embrace it, it ends making them billions. How much are home video sales and rentals worth now? What do call an industry that refuses to learn from it's past?

[sadkins76]

The EFF is calling the MPAA lawsuit BS because the MPAA wants consumers to pay EACH TIME to use the same content, in different ways. If I go out and buy The Hulk on DVD, take it home and then wish to be able to play it on my iPhone, the movie industry wants me to pay AGAIN for that privilege. The DMCA essentially robbed consumers of this protection granted under Fair Use statutes that had been in effect for many years. It is absurd to have to pay to use the exact same content, for which I have already paid for, simply to be able to use it on another device. This lawsuit boils down to GREED, plain and simple. The MPAA members have long lobbied to rob us of Fair Use ever since they discovered another "revenue stream" to exploit; i.e. digital downloads, etc. Until these companies realize that alienating their customers and continually trying to pull more money out of their pockets is bad for business, there will continue to be rampant piracy. The more the companies try to tighten their grip, the more people will continue to get their music, movies, and TV the illegal way.

[Seanathome]

Actually, this lawsuit boils down to profit. The world is a business. There are no countries, there are no races, morals or values. There are only the values, profits, and morals of business. And that's the way it's always been. The MPAA doesn't care about the people... they care about profits.

[wawadave]

i would not be surprised if real and the mpaa are in bed together. and real is set to do an easy rollover play dead in court to set a presidence court ruling to then open the door for even bigger mpaa bulling!

[lacykemp]

Just to clarify- We lock copied DVDs to the hard drive where it is originally saved and do not allow for copies to be shared by adding a layer of DRM.

Lacy from RealNetworks

[inachu]

Apple is stilll doing it wrong. I just last week reinstalled my OS due to spyware infection and now it says I am not allowed to play the video I bought from Itunes as I used up all 5 allotments.
If Apple dies or their datacenter falls into that fault line then all my luck in getting my videos to play will be lost

[unknown unknown]

That's good reason not buy DRMed content, well at least the kind that requires remote authentication to use. It's just asking for problems down the road. Microsoft, Yahoo, and Amazon have threatened to turn off their DRM servers, and only relenting when customers complain about being shut of their music collections and the bad PR the follows such an announcement. Buying DRMed content is like renting it except you never know when you'll be deprived of it's use.

I won't buy a Blu-Ray player because they can revoke keys, mean the player is no good for playing future releases only discs on the market prior to revocation.

[streamOG]

Lacy,

Why type of DRM? I am sure News.com readers would like to know. Just saying that you use DRM alone is enough to raise the topic up a level or two.

[jeromatron]

So how is it that I can use a DVD and watch the film on my AppleTV or my iPhone? Oh, that's illegal? I see. Why? Because you say so... and what's the alternative? Oh... I need to buy/rent the movie in one of the 275 forms *besides* having bought the DVD.

I suppose there's the included with a digital copy available on about 50 titles? What happens when technology improves on smaller devices or I want to output to a screen where the Digital copy's resolution and sound aren't very good? Oh... is that the time to upgrade? Is that the time to buy an "improved" version before it goes back into the Disney vault? I see.

Well, there is handbrake that makes it possible to use my DVD's content the way I would like. It does put the burden of not renting/ripping/keeping on me, but I'm not sure how secure any DRM scheme is going to ever be without giving the impression that you are greedy jerks with a dying business model. Sorry.

[lacykemp]

@streamOG We use our own DRM. Do you want more specific information? I can try to find out more for you if you'd like.

[notgonnatellya]

I can see both sides of this debate. Copying rented movies is potentially a huge problem, and anyone who doesn't think that this would significantly increase the copying of movies from Blockbuster or Netflix is either being disingenuous or is incredibly naive.

At this point, I'd argue that the vast majority of people who are interested in a media server are well aware of the other options available for copying their DVDs. The average renter is not.

Nevertheless, I think it's pretty clear that DMCA tramples all over our fair use rights. I'd be willing to give the MPAA a break on this one if they actually had managed copy implemented for Blu Ray, but AFAIK it's still not available.

[unknown unknown]

"Copying rented movies is potentially a huge problem, and anyone who doesn't think that this would significantly increase the copying of movies from Blockbuster or Netflix is either being disingenuous or is incredibly naive."

I doubt Real's product is going to do much to increase that for a few reasons. First, it costs money when plenty of free ripping software is available. Second, they're locking it to a particular drive when said free solutions leave the copy completely unencumbered. The potential for a raise in rental copying has been around since DeCSS was released in 1999. Even getting the trial version of Alcohol 120% will let you make an ISO of DVD that can played back with the aid of a virtual drive, though it won't decrypt it.

"At this point, I'd argue that the vast majority of people who are interested in a media server are well aware of the other options available for copying their DVDs. The average renter is not."

A search of Google for copy DVDs turns up an article for using DVD Shrink to make copies as the first result and a ink to SlySoft (who makes AnyDVD which will decrypt the disc) as third (not counting sponsored results and two youtube videos demonstrating how to). It's certain not hard to find. Anyone, who takes a minute to use search engine can find out really quick.

[hulse_kevin]

Anyone that's serious about copying rented movies is already quite free to do that.

All this new product is doing is seeking to legitimize the key legtimate use of
DVD ripping tools (namely, the DVD jukebox). All media server products (Linux,
Mac, Windows) already accomodate and facilitate this sort of "piracy". You just
have to do the "legwork" yourself.

For simple DVDs, that's not even a big deal even for the novice consumer.

The MPAA simply wants pervasive pay-per-view and is not yet bold enough
to come out and admit it.

Digital content that can "expire". Forget that.

I want my content to be usable 20 or 30 years from now.

[aka_tripleB]

It's very close to saying that. The MPAA doesn't "sell" DVDs, it doesn't even sell movies. It sells licenses to view the movie. The worst part is, the MPAA doesn't tell you where the terms of the license can be found--before or after you "buy" a license.