Does RealDVD sidestep copy protections?
With testimony expected to resume Tuesday in the RealDVD case, it's unclear whether U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel will lift a restraining order against the sale of the DVD-copying technology. Still, the "Napster judge" has signaled some of her concerns about the software.
RealDVD enables users to duplicate a DVD and store the copy on a computer hard drive. RealNetworks, the company behind RealDVD, during a preliminary hearing in Patel's court on Friday, asked the judge to allow it to once again begin selling the software. The Motion Picture Association of America objects to the selling of it, and in a lawsuit filed in September, the MPAA accused Real of violating copyright law and breach of contract.
The case could go a long way in deciding whether consumers have the right to make copies of their DVDs and could also lead to a total overhaul of Hollywood's DVD business model.
During Friday's opening statements, Leo Cunningham, one of Real's attorneys, told the judge that the major studios were not worried about piracy. He said RealDVD protected movies better than their own encryption and told the judge that there is a glut of software available on the Web that enables people to make unauthorized copies. The real reason Hollywood wanted to block the sale of RealDVD, Cunningham claimed, was to eliminate a potential competitor. The studios have launched a competing service, he said.
"Yes, but the difference is (the studios) have the copyright," said Patel, who had listened quietly to the opening statements from MPAA attorneys.
What Cunningham was referring to was the bundling of digital film copies with DVDs that some of the studios have begun offering--for an extra charge. In his response to Patel, Cunningham argued that while "fair use is not a defense" for the circumvention of encryption, consumers find making backup copies of their DVDs attractive.
"It's even more attractive to consumers to get everything for free," Patel said, in a seemingly sarcastic remark. Apparently, Patel wasn't buying Real's assertion that consumer demand justified the creation of RealDVD.
In the RealDVD proceedings, Patel has consistently raised concerns about the software's potential to become a pirate tool. When she placed the restraining order on the sale of RealDVD in October, she said there are "serious questions" about whether the software violates copyright law and "it's impossible to bring back copies once they're out in the market."
At the intersection of technology and copyright law, Patel has etched her mark. She is the judge who decided that Napster failed to meet the requirements to be considered an Internet service provider and was therefore not covered by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
Without protection under the DMCA's safe harbor provision, Napster was held responsible for illegal downloading its users committed and this doomed the company.
Since then Patel has been known to many as the Napster judge.
Does RealDVD crack encryption
The RealDVD case appears to hang on a central question: whether RealDVD circumvents copy protections. If it does, then that is a violation of the DMCA. A sidestepping of copy protections would also violate the terms of the license Real has with the DVD Copy Control Association, the group responsible for protecting DVDs and Blu-ray discs.
Real says it complies fully with the Content Scramble System (CSS), the encryption technology used to prevent copying of DVDs, and the contract it has with the studios doesn't prohibit anything in RealDVD.
"Real's excuses for the circumvention are just that, excuses," Bart Williams, one of the MPAA's attorneys, told Patel. Nothing in the license enables Real "to build a DVD copier as opposed to a DVD player."
The MPAA says the DVD-CCA license is designed specifically to provide protection against unauthorized consumer copies. It allows a licensee to make a player, nothing more.
Marsha King, a retired vice president at Warner Bros., testified Friday that the whole purpose of the DVD-CCA licensing was to prevent consumer copying. "That was the premise," she said. "The studios were adamant that no copy be placed on the (computer) hard drive. This was after all a perfect copy...The only thing we authorized was playback of the movies...no copies were to be made...it was a mantra."
MPAA lawyers told the judge that RealDVD is actually based on code Real obtained from a Ukrainian hacker group.
Reporters and other members were not privy to testimony and other evidence produced by the MPAA after Patel closed the courtroom Friday to anyone not bound by a nondisclosure agreement. Lawyers for the DVD-CCA told the judge that they wanted the courtroom sealed to protect trade secrets that included keys and algorithms associated with its encryption code.
CNET argued that the "trade secrets" were readily available on the Web, but the judge ruled that there were indeed trade secrets. On Tuesday, the DVD-CCA is once again expected to ask that the courtroom be cleared.
Also on Tuesday, RealNetworks CEO Rob Glaser is expected to testify, according to the company's representatives. Real has offered a "non-spirited objection" to the closing of the courtroom.
Greg Sandoval covers media and digital entertainment for CNET News. He is a former reporter for The Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. E-mail Greg, or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/sandoCNET. 



Courts decide the fee.
When Hollywood stops trying to force me to buy a movie twice in order to get a digital copy, then we wouldn't need tools like this. There's plenty of software that let's you rip, burn/copy DVDs. I don't see why I have to buy a movie with a digital copy on it that costs $10 more just so I can watch it on my iPod? I can download a whole set of free tools that lets me rip and convert movies to any format at all popular sizes. There's no sense in buying a DVD + Digital Copy for $25 when the DVD is $15 and you can make the digital copy yourself, and without the DRM.
Real at least is trying to make it a bit difficult to swap movies ripped with their software. But then again, we have a whole judicial system that is completely clueless about technology.
If they win, it will be yet another phyrric victory for the entertainment cartels. How many times can they shoot themselves in foot? They know DRM has never worked, and very likely never will because it uses encryption in a way that makes security mathematically impossible. Not even DRM in proprietary hardware video game consoles has been immune.
If the definition of insanity "is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result", then I think the people who persist with DRM are completely off their nut insane.
As I said before encryption does not prevent copying. You can copy encrypted data all you want.
It even does blu-ray :)
I think the real, broader issues are 1) the manufacturer of a product trying to dictate the legal uses of a product after it has been purchased by its new owner, and 2) the stifling of innovation caused by limiting the functionality of devices on which people use those purchases via contracts between companies. Why is it in our legal system, upholding the DMCA trumps these two points? You would think those two issues would be just as relevant to consumer protection and competition laws as the DMCA is to copyright law.
I want the content industry to have reasonable protections against copyright infringement, but this selective licensing of devices and software that will only allow their approved uses is completely invalid. They should be forced to license, and have legal action be around beta max like approach instead of this "does this circumvent copy protection principles". If it fails the REAL test, that is what key revocation is for.
Truth be told, I am not too concerned about this case because of DVD. That copy protection has been broken wide open, its never being closed, and I am not going to give a second thought about using "illegal" tools to facilitate uses that would be legal in a non-DMCA copyright framework.
I am more interested in the outcome of this trial for the impact it will have on my use of my pricey blu-rays. The cat and mouse battle is still being fought on that front, and these SD "Digital Copies" just don't hold up on my 1680 x 1050 laptop display. If it were only legal to make software that gave me the trans-coding flexibility to take advantage of my portable equipment.
Jokes aside, I agree it sucks not being able to easily get a replacement disc.
This is why we see stupid things being encrypted, like the interface to ink cartridges, which have no rational reason to be encrypted other than stopping competition.. They just want control over you and change you how they want.. The DMCA is the problem..
Even Apple is in on this game with their slimy use of authentication chips for accessories, so on newest ipod, you can't even have your choice of headphones..
(http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/03/16/manufacturer-confirm.html)
What is next, your toaster refusing to turn on unless you put in approved bread...
Because REALDVD contains DRM software.
I have been looking into copying my dvd's to an external hard drive for backup and also use while traveling. I saw Real DVD on the market and then just before getting the trail release they were shut down for this lawsuit. If they loose I will look into pirating software for my own use. I was holding off because of the legal issues. And Real says it would be legal to make the backups with their software. But if they loose this battle I will find something else to rip the movies to the hard drive.
On a different note. I know law enforcement and other people in the legal profession. They all agree that Real should win this case. As long as you are not making copies for selling then you are in your right to make your own backups.
I wonder how they were able to get this particular judge. Maybe it is luck or maybe they paid someone off.
Too bad there aren't people protesting outside the courthouse where this decision is being made.
Far be it for me to suggest Judge Patel has a monetary bias -- but I'm sure she has a bias toward bias of consumer rights. Case in point (one of many for me) a while back, I bought a "Matrix" boxset, all three movies plus one DVD of special features and the "Animatrix" addition. For $55 at a major retailer. That's AUstralian dollars, given the exchange rate, a bargain. Only, as I buy lots of DVDs, a while since I got around to that set.
And lo, the third movie had a disk separated on one edge to layers. I hadn't noticed it until 20 minutes in when the skipping and freezing started. Sigh. But (a) it was past the replacement for damage limit and (b) they couldn't even if they wanted to as "it was a special release and now out of stock permanently."
Funny thing about that set: it looked totally unlike earlier releases I'd seen. Totally different artwork on the disks themselves, the packaging was, ummm, curiously Asian looking. At any rate, I paid more for one replacement disk than was justified. So it goes. I'd be willing to bet, however, that the set was a pirate edition. Not the first time I have seen illcit copies for sale in Australia in major retailers. And that's the problem with offshoring -- the copyright owners call up their friendly Chinese replicator, 'give us 100K units!" Sure. And Mr. Jinbao tells his production manager, "run off 200K!" Heh.
As for old VHS to DVD, no problem (mostly). I had 20 year old bought tape movies, but not long after moving to Far North Queensland, I knew they would not last. Heat and humidity. So I bought a combo unit. No problem with off-air recorded tapes. Early bought movies slid through without problems, never mind the quality, it's the content. And I'd bought it!
Later commercial tapes had a sproing in the vertical interval which wrecked tape-to-tape transfers. But local electronics supply to the rescue: a "video stabiliser". Only a few late-model movies refused to copy to DVD. The last one I put in, play released a cloud of brown oxide.
So I reckon if Miz Patel had ever been out of pocket like most consumers, she might have a different outlook. And if she was aware that Sony paid $5M to both Warner and Columbia to get blu-ray adopted, she might be less disposed toward the money-powers.
Funny thing is, there is professional (so to speak) piracy ongoing -- Montreal and Vancouver have street markets with late-model movies -- the quality isn't great but the price is -- they're done by individuals going into first-run cinemas with a camcorder ...
Personally, I've never sold a copy, nor know anyone who has.
Oh, yeah, one other thing: I was a fan of the old TV series "Dark Skies" which Sony pledged to bring out on DVD, as it still had a fan base. Only, the creator, Bryce Zabel, told them they would have a problem with the authentic period music he'd used on one-time license, and offered to work with them to find more afforable material. They turned him down and ended up saying they could not afford to produce the DVD set.
Several months ago, I found a "U.S. DVD site" with "high-resolution film transfers" and "Dark Skies" was amongst the selection. I ordered it, not expecting much and it arrived in a parcel from Hong Kong. Indeed, some of the early episodes were baaaaad transfers from retro VHS but it was all watchable for one who enjoys the content more than the quality. Their loss, my gain.
- by Altotus May 23, 2009 9:27 PM PDT
- I did at one time believe that it was possible to obtain a fair and partial hearing in th e legal system but that was so false and now that I know the truth that it is incredible what blind ignorant belief can insinuate itself in the minds of the people. Perhaps this is why the politicians do not truly fear the electorate as well as other reasons I wont go into here. Perhaps it is time to look at the basic issues and understand the existence of copyright was a balance of the rights of the people vs money the existence of fair use is not just a lip service its fundamental as the copyright is not true ownership. May be it time to beard the lion in his den and take back our fair use and items in copyright are intended to be returned to the public domain as this is where all work must return or else the concept of copyright flawed and morally wrong. 10 year rights only? How about it? Maybe 5 years? Are we ready to push back? Oh yea.
- Reply to this comment
-
(23 Comments)