November 29, 2006 4:00 AM PST
Perspective: Ripping DVDs may never be the same again
See all Perspectives
- Related Stories
-
Movie studios sue DVD-to-iPod service
November 17, 2006 -
MPAA sues newsgroup, P2P search sites
February 23, 2006
The studios certainly have financial and legal might behind them. But can they prevail?
In Paramount Pictures v. Load 'N Go Video, the motion picture studios brought legal action against a small company that loaded DVDs onto personal video players for its customers. According to the suit, Load 'N Go Video sold DVDs and iPods to its customers, and loaded the DVDs onto the iPods for customers who purchased both.
The motion picture studios assert that this practice violated the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
The studios say that before releasing their copyright works in DVD format, they employ an encryption-based DVD access control and copy prevention system that provides for protection of copyright content. According to the studios, Load 'N Go Video's practice of copying DVD content and then loading it onto the portable video players of its customers circumvents that copy protection system and thus violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
DVDs, as noted by the studios, are 5-inch-wide optical discs that contain recorded material in digital form. DVD technology, they add, has substantially improved the clarity and quality of viewing of pre-recorded content, and thus presents a heightened risk of unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyright material because the material can be digitally copied and transmitted repeatedly without quality degradation. It is for this reason that the motion picture studios use CSS (content scramble system) to prevent the unauthorized access to and reproduction and distribution of copyright works contained in DVDs.
As acknowledged by the complaint, the customers of Load 'N Go Video purchase DVDs and portable video players, and pay a charge to Load 'N Go Video for loading the DVDs onto the portable video players. The motion picture studios highlight that a license has not been granted to Load 'N Go Video to copy, distribute or exploit their copyright works or to circumvent the CSS.
All well and good in terms of the complaint filed by the motion picture studios, right? Well, perhaps--and perhaps not. While the motion picture studios make technically valid legal points within the four corners of their complaint, there is another legal point of view that likely will be espoused by Load 'N Go Video, assuming the case continues to move forward.
The key point for Load 'N Go Video will be that its customers purchased both the DVDs and the portable video players. Thus, Load 'N Go Video simply has saved the customers the time and hassle of loading the content they paid for on the portable video players they also purchased.
Let's take the studios' argument to its extreme. A buyer could be subject to legal liability for ripping purchased DVDs at home onto a purchased portable video player without either first seeking permission or purchasing the content again for specific use on the portable video player. One wonders whether a court would embrace such an argument.
Load 'N Go Video likely will assert that it has engaged in "fair use" for copyright purposes, and that such fair use trumps the claims of the motion picture studios under the Copyright Act and the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
While Load 'N Go Video under these facts does have a defense to assert, one must keep in mind that the motion picture studios, like the music industry, have been very successful to date in seeking to protect their copyright works. Stay tuned to see how this case plays out.
Biography
See more CNET content tagged:
portable video player, portable video, video player, studio, DMCA
I think Eric has a good point in this article: copyright fair use. I paid money for a DVD, I should be able to copy it around as many times as I want--for my personal use only. The ability to copy digital music/video does make it easier for me to copy it and share it with my friends (which would be illegal); but really, how can the RIAA/MPIAA legally enforce it's copyright without quelling the consumer's right to fair use as provided by copyright law?
This is just another reason why copyright law should be examined and changed, if necessary...however, I don't necessarily think anything is glaringly wrong with copyright law as it stands now. Just a lot of greedy people that want to make our lives difficult. BTW, what's going to happen when my CDs/DVDs wear out? Are they (the RIAA/MPIAA) going to replace them for me free of charge? No, I'll have to buy yet another copy of something which I already own a legitimate right to copy, but may get sued by the RIAA or MPIAA for doing so...is that fair?
There is no fair use clause in UK copyright law and I am a criminal for copying anything whether it be for my personal use or not.
I don't really see how this story is going to impeach your rights in the US though. As far as I can see, Load 'N' Go is being sued because they're SELLING the copies they're making. This is clearly a breach of copyright law no matter what country you're in and no matter what fair use clauses may be in place. So I don't think that this is going to affect your civil liberties too much.
I just hope our government (in the UK) wakes up soon and changes the copyright law to allow me to legally copy my CDs to mp3 so I can stick 10 albums on one disc to play in my car! (Legally that is... ;o) )
It's obvious this is wrong; a clear violation of the law. It just gives more ammo to the movie and recording studios that copying is run amok and NOBODY should be allowed to make copies.
--mark d.
Worse, obviously. That's the problem with the DMCA, and the prohibition on breaking encryption. In the future, every work will be rendered digitally, and if permitted, every business will encrypt everything. There will be no more fair-use.
Let's say that, as a student, you buy a text book. Today, you can drop a page from that book onto a photo-copier, and make a copy. You can take that copy, highlight it, make annotations, and your book remains intact. If it were an encrypted eBook, you couldn't do that.
Furthermore, they can and would disable the "copy and paste" functions of your operating system. So, when you're working on that term-paper and you need to use an except of the text for critical-analysis. No can do, because it's locked up. You'd have to re-type it, and that would run counter to the logic that technology should make life easier.
In copyright law, there are extensive fair-use provisions for academic purposes. The DMCA allows all of those provisions to be taken away.
It's absolutely unconstitutional.
Chargeing a "service fee" causes a bit of a grey area if that was the case. Still, a service fee is for the service of transfering data from one medium to another but it's still something the Greed of RIAA can get a toe hold into.
Let's hope the courts do the right thing and turff RIAA on it's A$$. Sueing 15 year olds and 85 year old indaviduals who are not reselling content is absalutely criminal.
Let's just hope that hope that one of the outcome of the case would split of price of media and price of content. While the case touches indirectly the issue - long avoided by RIAA/MPAA.
But something tells me that under RIAA/MPAA pressure, Load'N'Go would settle. Or even if Load'N'Go's chances of winning would be good, RIAA/MPAA would prefer to settle - to avoid setting unwanted precedent.
Being realistic, we all have to agree that as long as DMCA is in effect, you Americans have few chances for fair use to prevail.
CSS predated even the MP3 swapping mania. CSS was not imposed to prevent digital reproduction. At that time nobody had the means to do so. CSS was implemented to prevent users from buying a DVD and copying it onto VHS tapes. At the time most consumers we used to VHS quality, so a VHS copy of a DVD would not be a quality degredation for them. My first big disappointment with DVD was when I learned I would not be able to take my favorite DVD and compile a best scenes VHS cassette. Again - no threat to the content industry and yet still I was treated like a pirate.
They may try to claim a different lineage for CSS now, but the statement made here is simply not true.
At that point, there is no CSS involved anymore, since it's already been decoded by yout player.
At that point, there is no CSS involved anymore, since it's already been decoded by yout player.
And they're not claiming they implemented CSS because they feared that home users would copy DVDs (it's true that they lacked the technology to do so when DVDs were introduced), but rather that some people (read : chinese/russian/etc/ pirates) could have copied DVDs easily if they had not done so.
Macrovision, which is the technology that
interferes with making an analog copy from the
digital original.
CSS was meant to be an access control
restriction. It wasn't really meant to be
unbreakable (as is often portrayed in the
press), but as a symbolic gesture that would
make circumvention of the technology an obvious
willful act. Coupled with legislation that the
industry prepared for congress at the time (now
the DMCA), they would assert a new right in
addition to copyright: access control, and CSS
would be the symbolic line in the sand. If you
decoded the content, you had accessed it, and if
you did that without a license you'd break the
new law.
Nonesense. I doubt I need to expand on this.
DMCA provisions making such activity illegal are not based on any reasonable or legal rights of the content owners and such laws need to be revoked or amended immediately to prevent any futher abuse of consumer rights.
infringement, they are claiming that the
activity violates the DMCA. The DMCA doesn't
make accessing a work copyright infringement, it
establishes unlicensed access as a crime in its
own right. Infringement, itself is a tort, while
violating the DMCA is a criminal act.
The activity itself is probably non-infringing
and the industry has no rationale for attempting
to claim that it is. There's considerable
case-law that would back-up the claim that the
copies are fair-use.
screw these guys and their lawyers. even if they win this battle,
they lose the war.
Want proof - look at CDs and ripping. True, there isn't CSS on CDs, but aside from suing businesses and distributors, that amounts to little more than a technicality. The music industry sues, sues, sues .. and still 99% of iPods are FULL of ripped MP3s.
So, listen up Hollywood - give us a legit, elegant way to move movies from your DVDs, or we will do it ourselves. Learn a lesson from your Music Industry counterparts, or suffer at the hands of repeating (bad) history.
The outcome of the DMCA has more to do with making sure big money keeps generating their guranteed profits than what it's intended purpose was for.
What the MPAA is arguing is that it is not fair use to make a business out of copying data. This is the fundamental issue that the supreme court will consider -think about it, if you are an end user ripping your own cds to your zune, it makes sense that you should be allowed to do so, as you are not taking money out of someone's pocket, (nothing guarantees that you will copy music that is not yours) and that is why the ruling went in the favor of the RIO player way back when.
Similarly, you can rip your DVDs to the PSP or the Gigabeat or the Ipod or whatever, but if you send it out to be done, then the studios are missing our on a revenue opportunity (i.e., licensing a business to do that with their software, just like they license movie theaters to 'show' their software, or TV stations to broadcast it)
Ultimately, all lawsuits are about the dough $. If someone set up a collective to freely load these movies onto players and didn't charge for it, then the studios could not argue agains the fair use doctrine.
They want control and are using the DMCA to do it so that they are the only ones with the service and so they can charge a highly inflated price with outlandish control and rules.
I think it is time that people of the US step up to the plate and force the government and the media companies to abolish DMCA so that we once again have fair use rights and the rights to backup the expensive products we buy.
Any one notice with Netflix that there for example TV series on DVD come on single sided discs and not the double sided double layer discs that consumers get when they buy the set from a store? I bet it is because they know that these double sided, double layer discs just don't last. They wouldn't hold up to the massive amount of use that Netflix would put them through. But, if they don't last for the person that bought the set that is fine, they can buy another set. Something fishy here too.
Consumers are getting screwed left and right. It is time to drop the lemming mentality and fight back. Otherwise we all might as well walk around bent over with our pants down.
Robert
Regarding Netflix, it's great when some TV shows come on 10 disks and the disks are marked "Exclusively for Netflix." If this bothers me of course I could just not subscribe or rent something else.
You see nobody's entitled to anything. You want to fully own content you buy, but that's not what they're selling. They sell you licenses. Nobody's forcing you to buy anything. Same with Netflicks. If you don't want the throttled 10-disc TV show then cancel the subscription. Consumers will get screwed only if they buy this crap.
I disagree with this...people are downloading and copying music and movies now more than ever, all the studios have done is driven the public to do this even more
Here, it's a FOR PROFIT company that's doing this, so fair use is more or less out of the question. It might be another thing if end-users were copying these movies themselves, but as soon as it's a for profit enterprise that does it fair use goes out the window.
Anyways, since when is the DMCA subject to fair use? The DMCA bans all circumvention devices, regardless of fair use concerns.
Also, the "for-profit" is done on behalf of the customers. Someone made a good analogy to Kinkos: They charge customer for making copies of copy protect protected work all the time.
The goal would be to have the DMCA reversed as unconstitutional because of its restriction on fair use. Fair use can still be claimed since this is a service requested by the end consumer.
Also, the "for-profit" is done on behalf of the customers. Someone made a good analogy to Kinkos: They charge customer for making copies of copy protect protected work all the time.
The goal would be to have the DMCA reversed as unconstitutional because of its restriction on fair use. Fair use can still be claimed since this is a service requested by the end consumer.
Soon, DVD's will only be for archival movies. All the new ones will simply stream from the internet.
The owner of the copyright will have the option of selling you a "view once," "View X days," or "view forever."
We are using .WMV technology that requires a visit to a website EACH TIME a movie is played in order to prevent inappropriate viewing of our adult HDTV movie content.
Fair use can easily be changed, defined, or redefined in the license agreement. However, it is up to the consumer to take it or leave it. Unfortunately for us though, most people will choose to accept it -- thus promoting the use or DRM technologies...
However actually this turns into scheme where authors are getting few percents of reward at the best, some doubtful companies like RIAA and MPAA getting biggest piece of cake and everyone who is not agree to pay to these racketeers is a criminal, violates something, pirate or whatever else, so almost nobody can make business without these "we-are-producing-nothing-but-racket" associations.
But still, the point is that we as the consumers keep buying these DRM-contaminated products, thus encouraging this behavior...
The technologies for customer duplication was not a part of the landscape until xerography and cassette tape emerged.
To see the studios embrace the bit torrent business model, in which the cost of the medium becomes zero, the consumer is already buying a pay per view or monthly asubscription content model.
Posession of the bits does not emply a license to view. Any more that the possesion of a DVD print conveys an exhibition license.
how many times DO i want to watch a movie, afterall?
It's obvious that the DMCA has the result of forcing you to buy another copy of the content if you want to play it on something that doesn't accept DVD disks, but so what? You agreed to the license and the license doesn't allow you make any copies.
To me this is so hilarious since music and movies are extremely stupid nowadays and I could never imagine wanting to watch this stuff on a portable player or anywhere else. I can't wait for the next installment of the Fast and the Furious, though.
Let's look at the current Stupidity of the Film Industry, at this moment:
UNIVERSAL: Suing MYSPACE (They MUST NOT Win that suit!!). This is not like when MP3.com deliberately ripped over 100,000 CD's for the "Beam It" program. This is simply a matter of Policing the site - No need for a lawsuit, just take the fake pages down.
New Line: Suing Peter Jackson. AFTER PJ made them billions from Lord of the Rings: Why? Cos of some Accounting poo. So now? They tell PJ "Sorry, you are henceforth dismissed as the director of The Hobbit." Result? Turns out they they do not have compleat ownership of the film rights anyway: Saul Zaentz has that. So, Zaentz (Who may not be able to dance, but is pretty good with money) steps in snd tells New Slime: Peter jackson WILL be directing The Hobbit.
Paramout: Doing this poo.
Let's be clear: There is nothing thgat will ever prevent me from excersizing my God and State given right to copy the DVD's I buy. They are MINE. I prefer to PROTECT them by NOT USING them- I prefer to make a copy of them, and watch the COPY.
This is my right, BY LAW. The LAW states I CAN DO THIS.
So, step in Macrovision, getting DVD Decrypter "outlawed" - Well, I still use it. Step in Macrovision again, and they get the popular DVD Shring to remove the ability to remove Macrovision Protection. SO now, THAT program no longer works to copy DVD's
But, it DOES work: Because all you have to do is search for DVD Shrink 3.2.0 15 and find the original version of that version number- It is still available.
Then, you can find Ripit4me and FIXVts very easily: What you have is a package including DVD Decrypter, DVD Shrink, Ripit4me, and FixVTS- You use the 1-Click Mode in Ripit4me version 1.5.7.0, and it automatically creates your DVD copy from your copy protected DVD.
I did it with The Davinci Code, works great.
And I am your simple everyday computer user, all I want is to copy MY movies.
I am making this statement to PARAMOUNT directly: And to Universal, and to SONY:
IF I BUY YOUR DVDs I WILL COPY THEM for my own private purposes and YOU WILL NOT STOP ME. If you copy-protect any DVBD I buy, that will make me MAD. If you make me MAD, I will RIP your DVD anyway. It'sd MINE- I BOUGHT IT. It is MY Property.
Not the content, but the Physical DVD. Now, with everything I BUY, that I OWN- I protect,l and this includes ALL of my DVD Movies, CD Audio and Computer Programs.
My Computer programs especially: These are MY Life's BLOOD. If someoe tries to put a security descriptor on a simple CD, I will use A-Ray Scanner to find out what it is, and remove it: Cos I cannot afford to LOSE my ability to install anything I got.
Case in POINT: Back in 1993 I bought Windows 3.11 and Dos 6.22 or something. They were on 3 1/2 floppies. There were 4 Floppies for DOS and 7 for Windows.
Now, Disk Three or somehting WENT BAD, as Floppy disk will ALWAYS go bad. After I fixed it: I STARTED COPYING ALL OF MY PROGRAM DISKS. ...And I have been doing that ever since that time. Over 10 years.
So, I make this statement to the companies: Even if yo use a new protection scheme, WE WILL OPEN IT FOR YOU so that we can copy OUR DVD's.
That is all.
- You're right - Hear me loud and clear
- by mabradford November 30, 2006 8:02 PM PST
- It is now time for everyone to send in their iPods, Zumes or whatever and TURN OFF THE RADIO, TELEVISION, DVD PLAYERS, CD PLAYER and start creating our own music, movies and the rest of the entertaining media we like.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (92 Comments)Turn it ALL OFF. As we are seeing with YouTube - millions of people can make their own videos, music and comedy and post if freely for everyone to enjoy.
Obviously - the Media Industry's real cause here is to make bucks off the population - and to hell with their enjoyment. Money comes first....so let them keep their stuff and we'll keep our money and we can own our own stuff.
Make the Media Industry thus - Pay Us - to watch their crap. That's right -- they like trying to brainwash the world with their crappy music, shows and whatever else - just like bankers - if you don't use their stuff they want to start wars and kill you. I say - TEHLL THE MEDIA INDUSTRY THAT TEHY CAN KEEP THEIR CRAPPY MEDIA. Tell them to Sell it to each other or trade it to each other like baseball cards. No one really needs their crap anyhow.
There are plenty of people performing on YouTube that I totally enjoy...and a lot are doing their own work. How long do you think it's going to be something you create - that a media industry company comes along and says it "belongs to them" even though it came out of your head - they really own it. They are zealots the lot of them. Just Say No to the Media Industry. They want you to listen or watch their stuff - then they should pay you for the use of YOUR TIME and YOUR BRAIN and YOUR LIFE.
This is my opinion and I'm sticking to it...OR do they own everyone's opinions --- tooooooo?