Next battle for control of digital content: RealDVD

The question of whether consumers will be given a legal means to make copies of DVDs could soon be answered in the San Francisco courtroom of U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel.

On Friday, Patel is set to begin hearing testimony in the RealDVD case. Last year, the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) filed suit to stop the sale of RealNetwork's RealDVD software, which enables users to copy DVDs to their computer hard drive.

At the heart of the MPAA's lawsuit, the lobbying group for the six largest film studios, alleges that RealDVD violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) because it bypasses the copy protection built into DVDs. The DMCA prohibits companies from developing products that circumvent antipiracy protections. Real Networks denies that the encryption technology is ever cracked by RealDVD.

The studios argue that RealDVD technology will enable people to "rent, rip, and return." This is the terms used to describe when someone rents a DVD, copies the content on a hard drive, and returns the movie without ever paying for the unauthorized copy.

Patel's decision in the case could determine whether consumers will be given access to a legal method to copy movie discs. Real says consumers have the right to make personal copies of their DVDs. The MPAA says that consumers don't own the right to crack encryption to make copies.

But not everybody is convinced the film industry's efforts to halt the sale of RealDVD is to stop piracy. Fred von Lohmann, senior attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, notes that there are plenty of software tools available online--none of them legal--that enable people to copy CDs to a hard drive, and the MPAA isn't trying to stop them.

"The real question is if (encryption) hasn't prevented piracy, why is Hollywood still an enthusiast?" von Lohmann asked during a panel discussion on DRM recently. "It has much less to do with stopping piracy. It has much more to do with blocking innovation and preventing technology companies from disrupting business models."

Critics of the MPAA's case against Real allege the film industry is trying to retain absolute control over who builds devices that play movies and who doesn't.

On technology's side?
As for Real, it's unclear whether this is the best company for the pro-technology side to back.

The legal arguments are very similar to a case fought a decade ago between Streambox and Real. But then it was Real that was the being accused of trying to thwart innovation.

RealNetworks filed a lawsuit to block the sale of Streambox products, including the Steambox Ripper, which converted CDs into the popular MP3 format and into Windows Media. RealNetworks alleged in a lawsuit that Streambox had violated the DMCA and copyright infringement laws. Sound familiar?

The difference in those cases, says a Real spokesman, was that Streambox's technology cracked encryption thereby violating the DMCA. In the case of RealDVD, Real maintains that its software doesn't crack any protections. The companies eventually settled out of court with Real receiving monetary compensation.

Patel is expected to hear testimony from each side's witnesses. The only real drama could come when Real's combustible CEO Rob Glazer takes the stand. I'll be filing updates from the courthouse.

[gboess82]

I own a ton of movies that I have legally bought, and I have no intention of backing them up onto my hard drive or copying them onto another DVD. I'm aware that DVDs have a limited shelf life, and maybe I'll be more interested when movies like The Matrix stop working (one of the earliest DVDs I, or many people, bought). I've seen how easy it is to rip and burn a movie, so I'm not worried about being able to copy my older movies.

Maybe the deal with the encryption isn't to stop piracy, it's just to stop everyone from doing it. If you know how to do it, it seems insanely easy. But there are a lot of people that wouldn't know where to start if they wanted to copy a DVD now. What if the software was already installed on a new PC like so much other crapware? That would make it accessable and easy for everybody.

[tektaktyks]

ITS never going to stop! please watch "Steal this film" ,its a good 1 - http://www.stealthisfilm.com/Part2/

[Renegade Knight]

Those same people don't know how to fix hardware DRM issues when they crop up. With BlueRay if your hardwar isn't H-something-blah blah compliant (I have to look this up to keep my anacronyms straight) it won't play. Some schemes merely degrade your HD to Standard Def.

Thus you have folks who can't even get what they paid for.

[ghostradio]

Bought and paid for should have right do with it whatever want , put it online, share whatever.

[Seaspray0]

I'm all for people having rights who purchase a product. But people who don't purchase it are not entitled to any rights to the product. You don't have the right to put it online and share it with them.

[Renegade Knight]

You have the right to do what you want within limits. The limits are fair use. Beyond those limits you are breaking copyright. That means you don't share the digital data in a way where you lose control. (Loaning out a DVD is no big deal, if they takeit you don't have it, no copyright issue).

[Get_Bent]

Rip it to your computer? Yes.
Convert it to watch on your iPod? Sure.
Burn a copy for your kids so they won't mess up the original? Yeah.

Post it online? No. The difference here is that you're now sharing the movie with other people who may not have purchased it. If you give/sell someone your disc (and don't keep any copies), that's okay because you're transferring ownership. Giving copies of a movie to people who didn't buy it qualifies as theft.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Exactly. Why should DRM prevent me from fair use of my DVD collection to stop people how have not paid? It actually looks to me like the only people DRM is having an effect on are the people who are legally entitled to fair use.

Everyone seems to be dancing around the real issue here. If consumers have the right to fair use on any DVD they purchase, then why is it legal to put DRM on the DVDs in the first place? Doesn't that prevent me from exercising my legal fair use rights?

[ralfthedog]

Consumers don't have fair use rights. Consumers don't have any rights. Consumers don't give truckloads of money to the people who make the laws. When we do, we will.

[contentcreator--2008]

You do not have a right to break a contract. You are able to obtain content only subject to particular restrictions on its use. You have to follow those restrictions---you do not have a unilateral right to change a contract. You can accept the contract and follow the terms, or not enter the contract, and not enjoy the subject matter. That is the only way to have a fair and open market in which supply and demand will ultimately determine pricing.

[troyoverton]

@ Get_Bent:

I agree.

What orgs like the MPAA and RIAA don't seem to understand is that this kind of thing only prevents the honest people, and those aren't the ones you're worried about anyway. They'll NEVER win, they'll never stop anything.

The only thing that they'll do is give bored computer enthusiasts a reason to maintain their enthusiasm.

This year's blockbuster film grosses hundreds of millions of dollars (in profit) and yet as a buyer of a DVD copy I can't put it on my ipod legally? BS.

It's nice to think that I can dump a DVD to a media server and allow the kids (or myself) to stream it. No media to destroy (which the kids love to do) and the entire collection is there, on-screen. A guest in my home can look through the collection and see what we have, just like my own personal netflix. With all the movies that we've bought (hundreds of them) and all the CD's (THOUSANDS of them) my family has a considerable investment in entertainment. I feel like:

1. Nobody has the right to tell me HOW I can enjoy the things I purchased; and
2. We were lied to by greedy organizations who *ahem* "encouraged" the public to "upgrade."

Older disc media have claims on the liner notes that tout the indefinite life and flawless playback of new digital media.

Convergence of the digital era's many multimedia technologies is not something anyone is going to stop. We'd be best served to develop a few (not hundreds of) standard formats for media so that devices can be connected and intertwined with relative ease.

I'm holding my breath, by the way...

[viper396]

All those asking why legitimate users have to deal with DRM need only look to people like 'ghostradio' for the answer. Unfortunately, his kind of bad attitude screws it up for everyone.

If all people did was rip movies for their own personal use then none of us would have to deal with DRM. So long as some people are illegitimately sharing movies and music online then we all have to deal with it. Rather then focusing all your anger at the studios who are just trying to protect their assets why don't you focus it towards those individuals who are actively sharing and stealing movie and music?


An analogy to all this would be locks on doors. Why do we have locks on our home and car doors? Most people are honest and would never consider breaking into their neighbors home and stealing their stuff. Yet, because of the small number of people in society that would rip you off, everyone has to deal with locking their doors. Door locks, like DRM, are not 100% effective but they do act as a deterent to crime.

I have backed up almost all my DVDs because I want to watch my movies on demand and do not want to have to search for the physical media in my collection, just like we all use mp3's today to listen to our music on demand. It is so nice to just browse to the movie you want and start playing it.
I also like copying my DVDs to my portable media player so I can watch movies when I travel. The DVD/HD-DVD/BluRay are so so "yesterday" and obsolete when it comes to watching a movie and portability. DVD/HD-DVD/Bluray are only a medium to archive/transport data, but they really are limited in today's mobile and home theater designs. They are heading to the same places as all other forms of storage/archive medium...obsolescence. They will have a cozy space right next to Records, floppies, Beta tapes, VHS tapes, LaserDiscs, and others before them.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Ok, so just how big is your hard drive? I have over 500 movies in my collection, that's an awefull lot of space you're talking about. Personally I'd rather just get up, grab a DVD or Blue-ray, put it in a drive and watch my movie. Continually adding more hard drives to a multimedia comnputer isn't my idea of an answer. Also, when that hard drive goes bad you're going to be pretty unhappy about all the time that's in the trash when you have to rerip all those movies to your new hard drive.
Personally, I'd rather be watching a movie than spending hours and hours ripping them all to a hard dive. Although I see your point about it being handy, just too much time involved for me to bother with.

[streamline35]

Just add a terabyte drive, and you are good for hundreds of movies at minimum.

[viper396]

So exactly how do you think you will obtain those movies before you copy them to your harddrive?

Physical DVD/CD/blu discs are not about to die anytime soon. Optical disc media is still the most effective way of mass distribution. While harddrives are convenient for mass storage and 'on-demand' access to everything they do not make good distribution media (like optical discs). Movie studios are not about to start shipping movies on individual harddrives nor is online downloading an effective substitute for everyone. Many people do not have the bandwidth to download multiple 25~50gb blueray movies and what do you do when there is no internet access?

There is something to be said about owning the pyhsical disc versus bits of data on a volatile harddrive. While DVD's and Blu rays may eventually get replaced by some newer type of disc media the need for some kind of disc for distribution is not about to be obsolete anytime soon.

[MineX3]

I don't recall entering into an agreement with the MPAA stating that I can't watch my legally purchased DVD on any device I choose including mobile. I don't recall entering into an agreement that does not allow me to make a backup of that same legally purchased DVD. Will the MPAA replace, for free, my DVD if something happens to it? I doubt it! We carry insurance for our health and cars, why can't we have insurance for our DVDs?

[contentcreator--2008]

That might make a nice little business. But like any form of insurance, you'd have to pay for it ... the administration of it, the new disks from time to time, etc.

[jmans1212]

I don't see any issue with Real DVD. After I purchase a movie I should be able to copy it to a hard drive not only for backing up but also for use when traveling on a laptop. Also it would be good for people who have a multimedia pc that is tied into their main entertainment tv to have their videos on demand . This is much like ripping a cd to a hard drive to load on a portable player or just listen to the computer.

Also if you look at the design of Real DVD they don't allow multi sharring so no quote licensing issues. Why are they hitting Real DVD so hard when there are other companies that make it a lot easier to share or illegeally copy a rented dvd for viewing at any time after they have returned the rented ded. In the past year or so I have seen more releases on DVD that for extra money can purchase a digitial copy. The hollywood people don't want to loose that extra charge for making people pay for a legeal digitial copy. It comes down to greed.

I say let us use real dvd to enjoy our movies with in digital format. Get this lawsuit over and let me use real dvd.

[Understarsidream]

This really is all about the studios controlling who builds devices that play movies and who doesn't. They aren't nearly so concerned about someone who rips a few dvds as they are someone who threatens their control of who/how/when/where a movie is watched.

[shootfirst]

Here is the thing which baffles me. If we were to build a machine that costed much more than a computer that you could insert all of your physical media and then search via a catalog and have it load the disc into a player we would be in the right. Why because we bought all the expensive hardware to do this.

However we have hard drives definitely large enough and the software capability to not need to waste resources on some overjuiced jukebox that will have physical limitations and cost more than people can afford. Does the MPAA want us dumping all our money onto an expensive solution like the above or do they want us to buy the media. The MPAA are fighting a losing battle that they cannot win as there will always be a technological achievement to thwart protection. They believe that a notice can prevent people from copying, but it won't. If you were to bust every person that copied a DVD you would need a whole section of the government just to do it. It is not feasible and is a waste of resources.

MPAA need to stop bleeding money by paying movie stars so much. I'm sorry, but people getting paid more than I will make in my lifetime for one movie that could utterly fail, and we all know of examples, is absurd. Once they cut expenses like these they can then make movies affordable, which will prevent people from pirating. Streaming video from sites like Netflix will help, but there are methods to copy the movie while watching it there too and not everybody has the bandwidth to utilize this method and Time Warner trying to put expensive prices on bandwidth will make this hard to look at positively.

We are in an age where anything can be converted to digital and then be copied. The industry should adapt and find ways to distribute and make up the cost of digital goods with real physical goods.

Real's only problem here is they are trying to profit off of bypassing the MPAA. If Real were to offer a free solution that was a separate download that functioned on its own, I doubt that MPAA would be all over them, but Real won't give away for free what they can charge for and their greed is their mistake.

[Mergatroid Mania]

Real made a nice peice of software that allows people to copy DVDs. Why shouldn't they charge for it?
How much work do YOU do for free?

[ralfthedog]

I have no problem with actors making tons of money. I have even less of a problem with writers and directors making tons of money. I do have problems with the parasites that control the distribution channels making tons of money, If the parasites were to add value, I would not begrudge them their cash. If the parasites were to add value, they would not be parasites.

[sticks1839]

Technically the distribution channels do add value. They provide the funding to enable the movie to be created. Why don't they deserve a return on their investment? If I'm putting up $100+ million dollars to make a movie, I expect to get paid back that money, plus some. I pay the actors. I pay the writers/directors. I need to get paid, so I can do that. Movies simply wouldn't get made without the studios.

They want to stop this product because it is from a reputable company and offers ease of use. They fear it will go mainstream (a la iTunes), and completely disrupt their business model before they are ready. The movie studios don't want to end up in the same situation as the record labels.

What they need to do is stop trying to prevent the inevitable, and work toward the future solution. Some companies have started doing this by offering a digital copy of the movie (through an iTunes redemption code) along with the DVD/Blu-Ray.

[bjbj1279]

This is just another classic case of Hollywood treating its customer like criminals. They would have you believe if you want to have a copy of your DVD movies on your iPod that you should buy the movie from iTunes. They would also have you believe you should buy a second copy rather than a backup if you don't want to put wear on the original. They're basically being a-holes because a few bad eggs have figured out how to get their stuff for free. They gouge people for years and then suddenly when technology allows people the chance to get their stuff for free they get their lawyers involved and start treating their customers like criminals, and continue the gouging throughout the process. If they are going to act this way, I really don't mind if people steal from them. It would be nice if the whole corporate nature of Hollywood would change anyway. They make millions off our society that seems so desperate to be entertained that they are willing to pay the ridiculous $10 movie theater prices or $15 CDs. For the people that do steal, who can seriously blame them? Most of them are high school and college students that don't have money anyways.

[contentcreator--2008]

A bunch of socialist tripe. Try learning something about business.

[Renegade Knight]

All you have to do is copy the copy protection and you are not breaking the DMCA (nevermind that the DMCA breaks fair use). Since you can play DVD's complete with copy protection this should not be a problem. The case deserves to be laughed out of court.

[Chaosthoery]

Interesting, I see your point..

[aka_tripleB]

Couldn't we just call the MPAA a terrorist group and cause them to be disbanded? They do coerce business to follow their business model or risk being sued. That kind of fits the definition of terroist. Some people could be terrified of being sued.

[bjbj1279]

I wouldn't put it past any Hollywood studio or recording company to be connected to some sort of mob

[ralfthedog]

That is extortion, not terrorism. It is not illegal to extort money from your customers if you pay politicians to do the extorting.

[wood2452]

Simple solution

The studios should distribute media to rental outlets that can not be copied by RealDVD (with RealNetworks's cooperation). Then there would be no Rent,Rip, and Return.

This would allow everyone else fair use of their own bought media/content.

I would also like to see RealDVD enable me to move content to other devices such as cell phone, media players etc -- ultimately this would increase the market -- it makes buying DVDs more attractive.

[kojacked]

Bingo! +1

[chonnom]

Redbox, $1 per night per movie. Rent the movie, go home and copy it, return it, watch it when you want.

[thelemurking]

Is hollywood so hardheaded and retarded that they are completely unaware of FREE programs like DVD Shrink? I know tons of people who DVD Shrink everything they get from NetFlix. Here Real is trying to do something that allows people to make a legit copy of their movie which then can only be watched by them. What's so wrong with that?

The more draconian their measures become, the more people look towards piracy. I completely understand the need for them to protect their investments, but you gotta draw the line some where. If I bought it, let me make a damn copy of it. Stop trying to make me buy the movie TWICE just to get a digital copy for my iPod or whatever. The DVDs with the Digital Copy Included always costs about $10 more. Why do I have to pay twice for that?

[zincmann]

"The studios argue that RealDVD technology will enable people to "rent, rip, and return." This is the terms used to describe when someone rents a DVD, copies the content on a hard drive, and returns the movie without ever paying for the unauthorized copy. "

Wait a second havent i PAID to rent the movie and view it, giving me partial ownership rights to that movie when i paid a partial fee to view it? I havent downloaded the movie and i acquired it legally for viewing and why can I Not make a back up of this movie so I dont have to pay to rent it again if i liked it? If i paid to rent it, i dont see where in my contract with the DVD rental service I cant make a archival copy?

[chonnom]

It doesn't work that way; if it did, it would be ok for you to take a camcorder into the movie theater...

renting = partial ownership rights??? If I pay to rent a car, do I now partially own that car? I don't think so. If it's not in the fine print of the agreement of the DVD rental service, it's stated pretty clearly in the legal statements preceding every movie.

[Chaosthoery]

People abuse everything from technology and themselves, personally I wouldn't worry about it as long as you, as a honest consumer or distributer, can sleep at night.

When they charge us for our dreams, then its time to hang 'em.

[Renegade Knight]

"RealDVD violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) because it bypasses the copy protection built into DVDs"

Since you do this to play a DVD this argument is void.

[paulimusmaximus]

If they win, it would be total crap, since there are plenty of programs that let you rip a cd. It's no different. If you own it, you own it. When VHS was popular, you could hook up two vcrs together and copy a VHS tape. This is no different.

[craig.knapp1]

I thought the Millenium Act allows those who have purchased digital media the right to make a backup copy for personal use, thus protecting the users investment in case of catastrophe. If this is true, then this is a case of those writing the laws failing to understand technology. If it is legal for one who has purchased digital media to make a backup copy, then it follows that it has to be legal to break the encryption, the laws must at least be consistent.

Craig Knapp

[Lerianis3]

Yep, it does. It also makes breaking the DRM on things to put them on your DEVICES OF CHOICE legal, but these studios conveniently forget that at every single turn.

[vancejen]

DVD and CD are different, and MPAA is right.

The key difference is that DVD has a copy protection mechanism and CD does not. The way the RealDVD works is a clear violation of DMCA and CSS license. Since CD has no any copy protection, there is no legal issue of making copies of any kind. Copy CD is totally irrelevant is this case.

The argument of this case is NOT about consumer right but the legality of bypassing DVD's copy protection.

[unifex_]

The way this argument sounds they do not need any copy protection. Just make a law that forbids copying a DVD. It's the same as saying my DVD has the copy protection and you can't break it.

Sure, people would not care for the notice. But all the same people break the protection, it's very easy, you don't have to be smart, just download one of scores of available apps that do that.

I think this whole copyright issue is insane. It used to be that unless you sell or mass distribute a copy, you are not violating anything by simply copying what you need. Fair use, whatever, but this is how it was. It's still the same with books - one can go to a library and make a copy of whatever pages you need. Sure they won't want you to copy an entire book, but mostly from the cost viewpoint. Books are free in libraries anyways.

So it must be the same with movies. Sure, online distribution is illegal, but making a copy at home? fine, let them go door to door to police that. I guess you people who agree with MPAA here will really like to have someone knocking at your door checking whether you've made any copies of your DVDs.

[vancejen]

Most of arguments missed the point. The point is not about legal or illegal copy, or fair use, or consumer right, it's about unauthorized breaking an encryption and violation of CSS license.

All media has copyright and there is a law to protect it. But what makes DVD/BD and alike different from CD, books, and films is that their contents are encrypted with CSS. Only authorized devices can decrypt and playback the content. Any unauthorized means of decryption is a violation of DMCA and CSS lincese. It doesn't matter the strength of the encryption mechanism. The DMCA protects encrypted contecnt, whether it's copyrighted or not. The violation is on unauthorized breaking an encryption of information (media like DVD, communication like email or phone call...)

[Lerianis3]

unifex_ gets it right. Unless you are mass distributing a copy or selling a copy without the permission of the content owner.... you should NOT be breaking any laws and the laws in question infringe on your 'fair use' rights.

[unifex_]

There is another issue. Movies as products have a certain "circle of life" - first they are shown in theaters, then one can rent them, then cable, then DVD sales, then maybe "collector's edition", and finally they are shown on TV.

How many of us have paid more than once for the same movie? And how long this is allowed to last? Now, I believe that it's legal to buy a dvd/hard drive/VHS/... recorder and
then it's legal to use it, i.e. to tape/record a TV show. Or a movie shown on TV. Once this is possible, tell me why would it not be possible to copy a legally bought DVD with the same stuff? If just because it's illegal to break the copy protection of the DVD, then they must be forced to either sell DVDs of old movies with out that protection, or the law has to be amended!

[Lerianis3]

I agree with you. Once something is available on my cable TV subscription.... I feel NO pangs of conscience by going online and downloading the DVD version of the thing in question or a 'higher quality' version. I've already PAID my tithe to these companies, so.... simply put, it should be LEGAL to download 'higher quality' things if you have already paid the price for it in another way, unless there are LOTS of differences between the higher quality thing and the regular thing.

[maneeshpan1]

The RIAA and MPAA cartels can go to hell for all I care.

They want to control the entire experience when, where and how you listen to music or watch movies. The MPAA has already begun controlling the when and where -- you can only watch newly released movies like X-Men Origins: Wolverine or Angels & Demons which is set to be released May 15th in theaters -- with the exception of a few newly released movies made for DVD like the Disney animated film Cinderella III: A Twist in Time to name 1 such movie released straight to DVD by Disney, or a few movies made directly for TV (Disney Channel Original Movies like High School Musical, High School Musical 2, Camp Rock, Motocrossed, Genius, Halloweentown, Halloweentown II: Kalibar's Revenge, T'Was The Night, The Ultimate Christmas Present etc) fit the made for TV category.

The Disney movie High School Musical 3 (that is the sequel to High School Musical 1 & 2) was made directly for theaters. Usually movies released straight in theaters only are made available to buy or rent on DVD or Blu Ray Disc etc after leaving the theater.

There are different viewing window(s) and the MPAA dictates the rules for each viewing window. A movie cannot be made available by a digital cable or satellite television provider on pay per view until after leaving theaters (usually they come out the same time as a DVD but titles on DVD can generally remain available longer than on pay per view) unfortunately, sales of movies digitally as downloads through stores like Apple's iTunes Store are treated as being part of the same viewing window as pay per view and not DVD which can last longer than pay per view (sometimes even permanently unless the movie studio decides to only release it for a limited time) and when a theatrical movie having left the theater and gone through pay per view and had a DVD release is aired by TV cable networks the movie studios pull the content from digital stores.

Since movies on Apple's iTunes Store have the same window unfortunately as pay per view when this movie airs on TV outside of a pay per view channel (goes to a Video On Demand service or a premium movie channel like HBO or Starz or if TV channels like TNT, USA Network etc air a movie that film gets pulled from digital stores like iTunes) hence movies when released to TV networks get pulled by digital stores that sell the films in downloadable form completely. Also since iTunes has started offering downloadable movie rentals they sometimes alter the movies available for rent and purchase. Sometimes some movies when first released via iTunes are rent only -- then an option to buy it is added but the rental option remains for some more time -- after this time elapses the rental option goes away but is still available for purchase via iTunes for some more time after which the movie is completely removed from iTunes.

Once a movie is made available for purchase on iTunes (even after the rental period ends) it should always be available on iTunes or at least until DVD distribution of the movie ends (if distribution of the film via such a physical medium were to end. However, unfortunately when a movie goes to TV the film gets removed often from iTunes completely.

Quite frankly as a consumer I have tried buying/renting some video content from Apple's iTunes Store initially but because of the DRM (although the DRM is not so restrictive compared to other systems any DRM at all is bad) I have stopped all future iTunes Store purchases of DRMed content.

I can now buy music from iTunes in the iTunes Plus format that is DRM free -- now it is the MPAA's turn to quit DRM.

I like having media free of DRM so I can convert it to suit my fair use needs -- backups and converting a DVD for iPod, iPod Touch and/or iPhone or Apple TV -- conversion to AVI, MOV, WMV, Divx whatever the format is possible when using DRM free media and the movie industry should focus less on restricting content to prevent such conversion and more on making newer and better movies that consumers will want to buy/rent.

So good riddance to the movie industry -- I won't give them and the box office my money for them to hire more lawyers and go after consumers insisting on fair use protections. Copyright should be protected but not at the expense of banning fair use. If I can't have fair use then their products are defective -- why buy a movie on DVD if you cannot exercise fair use -- go screw yourselves MPAA!

I will continue to copy my DVDs and not buy anymore of your content -- won't pay to see your new movies in theaters (so no more box office revenues from me), no more rental revenue thru me, or revenue to you from selling me movies.