MPAA: RealNetworks could strip DVD copy limits

Updated at 12:56 p.m. PDT to clarify MPAA's arguments.

The film industry in court Tuesday tried to show a federal judge that the software known as RealDVD entrusts its creator, RealNetworks, with the job of protecting digital film copies from piracy.

U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel resumed hearing testimony in the legal dispute between the largest movie studios and Real. The Motion Picture Association of America claimed in a lawsuit filed last fall that the company's RealDVD software, which enables people to copy DVDs and store them to a hard drive, violates copyright law. Patel halted sales of RealDVD last fall.

Robert Schumann, an expert on securing DVDs who was called to testify by the MPAA, told Patel that RealDVD introduces a set of copy protection schemes for the copies made by RealDVD. The software's copy controls can be altered or removed all together from Real's servers in the form of a software update. Schumann told Patel that those limits could easily be removed all together by buy removing just one line of code.

There is no reason for Real to do such a thing. Schumann was responding to questions from Rohit Singla, an MPAA attorney, who asked Schumann about hypothetical situations apparently to illustrate that Real had, without authorization, assumed the responsibility of protecting the film industry's content and that posed certain risks to Hollywood.

First, Schumann testified that an unlimited number of film copies can be made from a single DVD using RealDVD.

Schumann demonstrated that film copies could be made and moved to a thumb drive. Schumann told the judge, however, that RealDVD's copy protections would limit any copy of the film to play on a maximum of five devices licensed presumably by a RealDVD owner. RealNetworks has long argued that the encryption technology it uses to protect digital copies made by RealDVD is superior to what's found on DVDs.

Singla asked Schumann how easy would it be for Real to change the limit on the number of computers licensed to play a film. Could Real, for example, issue a software update that could raise the limit from five to 50 computers or to remove the limits completely? Schumann said the changes would be simple.

Singla then asked what it would take for Real to enable copies to play on millions of different devices or any device. Schumann said the change would require "essentially removing one line of code." Such a scenario, regardless of how unlikely, could result in the distribution of an unlimited number of unauthorized film copies.

Real attorneys tried to stop the line of questioning and raised an objection, arguing that discussing what RealDVD could do was irrelevant and asked the judge to stick to with RealDVD's current capabilities. But Patel wanted to hear the testimony and overruled the objection.

The MPAA continues to drum the idea that RealDVD is a piracy threat. Throughout the dispute, Patel has been most animated when discussing copyright issues and unauthorized copies. When she ruled to keep a temporary restraining order in place in October, she worried that RealDVD could lead to mass copying saying "it's impossible to bring back copies once they're out in the market."

The question of whether RealDVD is a security threat to the film industry remains at issue, though it's generally recognized that there is a glut of software available online that enables anyone to make unauthorized copies of DVDs. The question that appears to have the most relevance to the case is whether RealDVD circumvents the encryption technology found on DVDs. A circumvention would violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

Schumann was the first person to testify in Tuesday's hearing and has not yet had a chance to respond. The first witness expected to testify for Real, sometimes later in the afternoon, will be the company's outspoken CEO, Rob Glaser.

Note: I'll be filing updates throughout the hearing.

[sodapop2k9]

Weird kind of logic I am not following. So what if it is easy. Its easy for the MPAA to ignore actual piracy, does threat make them guilty also? Not to mention that the process of limiting play back devices is the same for ALL DRM solutions.

And if we are talking about piracy of new or current movies, from what I have seen its the legit copies the studios make that are flooding the internet. Not so poor consumer who paid $20 and wants to play a back upcopy off his computer.

[Renegade Knight]

It's not about what you can do, it's about what they are doing. The MPAA members could donate all old media to the public domain making a lot of this moot as well.

[rollcage]

And it's already easy to get past the copy protection on DVDs and make however many copies you want. I don't see what the point is of the MPAA's argument on this one. Not to mention that RealNetworks would actually have to remove the copy limit.

[MadLyb]

This argument is so flawed.

Apple could do the same thing with iTunes DRM...in fact, they just did that for music. Is the MPAA suing Apple? Nope.

[Renegade Knight]

The Studio's can do it directly and have the same result. It's a moot point.

[malynj]

The same about the one line in RealDVD is true in the one line on DVDs, just provide the one line of DeCSS to all royalty free (as opposed through the DVD alliance licensing) and everyone can read a protected DVD on any DVD reading device (licensed or unlicensed), which means you could also copy the tracks out from a protected DVD to a burned DVD. So arguing its just one line, or that the one line is managed by company-x instead of company-y doesn't hold up. One would only need to compel RealDVD to contract to not set a number that is onerous to the studios (which 5 isn't onerous), and the concern is resolved. DMCA need not apply.

[shootfirst]

Ya it is a pretty bs argument all around, same with the case. The MPAA is just trying to scare the public into following their archaic rules. DRM and everything else they are thinking of doesn't work. There are multiple utilities to bypass DRM. MPAA should realize the best interest in media is getting it to the masses.

[gerrrg]

Pssst...software is already out there to circumvent all DVD protections.

[kkohnen]

So, Mr. Jones, if you wanted to, *COULD* you go out and buy a gun and murder someone?

"Well, yes, I suppose I could..."

Well folks, that clinches it for me - Mr. Jones is a *POTENTIAL* murderer and must be stopped!

[ralfthedog]

I have an idea. The MPAA can go to Mexico and kiss a pig, then the rest of us can go back to purchasing movies (No offense to Mexicans, Pig Flu Started in Mexico but it is not your fault. It could have just as easily started in North Dakota).

Does Mexico have an equivalent of the MPAA?

[BtmnHatesRbn]

Well, "any DVD" can be copied if it means that's much to a pirate. I mean, it's like they need to "clone" a "DVD" or anything. It's not that "elaborate" in the power or "bytes" to do this. Leo Laporte talks about it all the time on TWiT! I mean, we already bought the movie, so what if I want to watch it where I want, EULA be damned! Oh, and I know I'll get into trouble for this one, but MPAA stands for Movie People Are ********.

[ipggi]

I think you guys are missing the point; the argument is not about the technical ability so much as the legal requirements. RealDVD sell this program to replace the DVD DRM with no permission or contract with the movie studios. So the MPAA are arguing that without that permission there is nothing legally binding and in theory Real are in total control of these duplicated movies. Control which legally they have no right to possess.

That is a very different situation to Apple ITunes. Every artist, song and label that is on iTunes is signed on with a legally binding contract. While Apple in theory, technically could disable all the DRM songs that exist out there. They are bound by these contracts not to do that, unlike Real.