MPAA says Real's patent attempt saps RealDVD argument
The film industry fired another legal broadside at RealNetworks and RealDVD.
Real's Facet DVD player
(Credit: Greg Sandoval/CNET Networks)The Motion Picture Association of America has accused Real of misleading the court about the company's attempts to circumvent ARccOS and RipGuard and about whether the technologies are true copy-protection measures.
Real wrote in patent applications filed with the Patent and Trademark Office in 2007 and 2008 that the two software were indeed copy protections, despite arguing the opposite in court, the MPAA alleged in a document filed with the court on Wednesday. The patent applications were published by the patent office two weeks ago.
The MPAA has taken Real to court to try to stop the company from selling RealDVD, a software that enables users to copy DVDs to a hard drive, as well as Facet, a DVD player that can also create digital copies of DVDs and store them as well. U.S. District Judge Marilyn Patel is due soon to decide whether to continue banning sales of RealDVD until a full trial decides whether the technology violates copyright law.
A Real spokesperson was not immediately available for comment Thursday morning.
An important point of contention in the case is whether RealDVD circumvents copy protections placed on DVDs. If Patel decides it does, then Real is violating the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which outlaws the circumvention of anti-piracy measures.
Real maintains it has a license with the DVD Copy Control Association, the group that oversees DVD security, to use the copy protections the studios place on DVDs, so there's no circumvention. As for ARccos and RipGuard, technologies that are not included under the DVD-CCA licensing, Real has argued throughout the court fight that these aren't security measures.
"Real and its witnesses have told the court that ARccOS and RipGuard are not copy protection technologies and that Real's engineers did not know how ARccOS and RipGuard worked," wrote MPAA lawyers in documents filed with U.S. District Court in San Francisco. "Yet Real simultaneously has told the PTO that RipGuard' and ArccOS are 'copy protection mechanisms' and then described specific techniques used by ARccOS and RipGuard."
The MPAA attorneys also said "Real has told the court, through witnesses and proposed findings, that ARccOS and RipGuard can only delay but cannot prevent a 'linear copy' of DVDs. But Real is insisting to the (patent office) that ARccOS and RipGuard can 'cause an archiving process to fail' or 'never complete'--exactly contrary to its representations to this court."
The studios asked Patel to consider the three patent applications before making her decision. While it's late to be entering evidence, the MPAA alleges that it has the right to do it because Real did not turn over the patent applications in discovery.
"Judicial notice is warranted here because the applications have been in Real's possession and control but unavailable to the studios," the MPAA said in its court filing, "(And) because the applications so directly contradict Real's contentions before this court."
The language in the patent applications does appear to contradict what Real's lawyers and witnesses have said in court.
Nonetheless, the motion filed by the MPAA may be overkill. Real's story about ARccos and RipGuard was already the weakest part of its case. Real has alleged that the two software types were ineffective in securing DVD content, yet the MPAA produced documents that show Real's attempt to crack them failed. The company then tried to hire an outside firm, which the MPAA alleges is a group of Ukrainian hackers, and they couldn't do it either.
The MPAA said that Real's patent applications are U.S.Patent Application Publication No. US 2009/0148125 A1 (Watson, Bielman, and Barrett); U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/095,249 (Chasen, Buzzard, et al.); and U.S. Provisional App. No. 61/012,500 (Barrett, Hamilton, et al.).
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. 
Since the DMCA was enacted, I have heard nothing but complaints about the law. The only ones who seem to want it are those in the movie industry. Is this a law that got pushed through by one powerful organization? It seems to me this law needs to be repealed. We had copyright laws for years, they were already clear, and the traditional copyright laws are supported world-wide (by and large). Other than the "circumvention" piece, what other "value" does the DMCA offer to copyright holders?
That's an excellent point. If Real can lock down movies in Facet, then what's the harm? Facet is a great idea and I saw Glaser demonstrate the box in court. I immediately thought about all the shelf room I could save if I stored my DVDs on a box like Facet and then sold the discs.
You ask what the harm in Facet is then go on to post about the harm it could cause. You copying your DVD's then selling the discs is exactly what the MPAA is suing to try and prevent. That's basically the same as the "rent and rip" and would likely fall outside of what is otherwise known as "fair use." When it comes to fair use and CD's, the minute you no longer own the original discs, you would not be entitled to use of the copy you made. If you keep a copy of a disc you sold, that would equate to you being in possession of a copy of work that you did not have the right to copy (copyright, get it).
It's not as simply as you lay out. Case in point. DVR's. We have a fair use right to time shift our viewing. It started with VCRs but the principal is the same for DVD, Digital Content, etc.
If what you rent is time shifted and you do'nt retain the shifted copy, you are good to go. Maybe. It's not as clear as I'd like to think either.
I disagree (cool handle though). Rent and rip is very specific. It describes renting a video, copying and then returning it. I bought every one of my DVDs. Just as I once used to copy my CDs I should be enabled to copy my films for my own use. The rule should apply...no forget that. Forget the DMCA and the rules. Hollywood should want me to get as much satisfaction as possible from my purchase.
If Facet enables me to easily store, access and view my films, they should be supporting this in my opinion. For its own sake, the studios have got to make people feel like they're getting value from their movie purchases. Facet could be one way to do that.
@funkyboot said it's "basically the same." he didn't say it was "exactly" the same.
what @sandonet described is clearly illegal, even without DMCA, regardless of what the rest of you want to do, w/ or w/o DMCA regs.
I really support Real's attempt at breaking the MPAA cartel's stranglehold on FAIR USE but your arguments here only cloud the issues.
Can anyone describe the legal considerations of ARccos and RipGuard as an encryption method?
What does this method do? I've read the redacted court filings and this is the weakest part of Real's case. Their case seems to be ad hoc arguments considered at the last minute. Fair Use argument was thrown out by the judge prior to beginnings of the hearings since they were filed the day before. Where can we find a more in depth analysis of the legal strategies?
Personally, I think that we SHOULD have a right to 'rent and rip' considering that we are paying almost the WHOLE PRICE of a DVD when we are renting now and the MPAA has already GOTTEN THEIR MONEY for the copy of the DVD that we are ripping and returning.
Same thing for CD"s: we already have NUMEROUS methods to get songs for free, so it doesn't make it any more 'illegal' (or illegal at all!) to offer them online at 'higher qualities' for people to download. Until they get rid of FM radio and AM radio, the RIAA can STUFF THEIR ARGUMENTS.
Your last comment about how it shouldn't be illegal to steal copies online because they are on the radio --- that falls in the category of "how clueless are you?"
That's the real problem, all the CEO's, executives, and other so called businessmen are really little more than bankers incapable of independent thought. In fact they're a fantastic shinning example of the incompetence that's caused this whole financial meltdown.
The bottom line is that people continuously seek to maximize what they can grab and minimize what they have to pay. Businesses try to profit as much as they can, but that is self-limiting in a competitive market. When people steal, they make it a non-market, and businesses (which ultimately people own) are forced to increasingly stringent measures to cope.
If you were competent you'd know 'consumers' in general are more than willing to pay. But when you refuse to provide the product in the form the consumers are demanding it.... That's when the napsters pop up. No one is going to be PAYING for a product like this to iligally copy a DVD. Think about it, if your capable.
while(ReadFile(hDVD,buffer,2048,&NumBytes,NULL) && NumBytes!=0)
{ WriteFile(hDest,buffer,NumBytes,&NumBytes,NULL); }
- by aka_tripleB June 26, 2009 7:43 AM PDT
- Someone should walk into court and yell, ".ISO". I'm sure the MPAA is avoiding the subject, but I can't see why REAL hasn't brought it up. I'd like to see how the judge reacts when someone explains what an .ISO is.
- Reply to this comment
-
(20 Comments)