MPAA Sues Firm For Loading Legally Owned DVDs Onto iPods

from the come-again? dept

Fri, Nov 17th 2006 2:42am — Mike Masnick

It really was just a few days ago that the entertainment industry folks were claiming that it was the consumer electronics industry that was trying to pervert "fair use," right? Somehow, it seems like it's the entertainment industry that's the one pushing the boundaries. Almost exactly a year ago, we had a post about a new service that would sell you a video iPod and DVDs... and would load the video from the DVDs onto the iPod (and then ship you both the iPod and the DVD). This should be perfectly legal. After all, the owner has legally purchased both the iPod and the DVD, and the company is simply making the process easier by transferring the video to the iPod as well -- and it's well established that you can make a personal backup of content you have legally purchased. However, knowing how the industry views fair use, Carlo titled his post "Sue Me, I Dare You" and noted in the text: "the clock's ticking on the first lawsuit." Well, it turns out the clock ticked a little longer than we expected, but it did happen eventually. The EFF is noting that the MPAA has sued a company for doing exactly this. They are, of course, claiming that ripping the DVDs is a DMCA violation, because the DVDs have copy protection, and circumventing that is against the DMCA -- even though physically copying content you own to another format is legal fair use.

As the EFF notes in the post, while the MPAA is focusing on this company that does the ripping for you, the meaning is clear: they do not believe that making a personal copy of a DVD is legal -- despite all of the historical precedent set with CDs and software. The only "difference" here is that the DVD has some weak copy protection, and therefore the DMCA applies. In other words, they're not saying that it's illegal to make a copy -- because it's not. They're saying it's illegal to get around the copy protection. And, of course, they're doing this because they want to force you to buy the same content over and over and over again. And, yet, they still claim that it's folks like us who are changing the meaning of "fair use."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

83 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anon, 17 Nov 2006 @ 3:20am

I'm really begining to get annoyed at the MPAA and RIAA. They are just trying to suck every penny out of the consumers. Maybe we should just not buy any movie or music for say a year. I mean the artists dont get much of those profits anyhow. I have read something similar about doing this with the gas companies but that is not realistic... we NEED gas.. but we DONT need to buy music and movies.

Maybe doing something like that would teach the companies that WE are the reason they are around and not to mistreat their customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Louis, 17 Nov 2006 @ 3:43am

Argh!
All this does is just make me feel powerless and sad. I'll let this illustrative emoticon convey my feelings:

:'-(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 3:50am

Fuck the RIAA and MPAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Idiot, 17 Nov 2006 @ 3:53am

Crazy Idea
If we have a legal right to make copies of our legally purchased movies and music. Wouldn't it make sense that anything (copy protection) that is preventing us from exercising that right would be illegal?

If, and this is a very big if, this court decided this is the case, then perhaps all of the United States should join in a class action lawsuit against the RIAA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
August West, 17 Nov 2006 @ 3:56am

MPAA and RIAA have their heads for far up their own asses they cannot see anything. They are motivated by greed and self-absorption, not the best interests of the artists.The answer is simple: Don'y buy DVD's. Rent them, or go see the movie. Don't buy records. Go see the band live, and download the non-copywrited recordings of their live shows. Most intelligent artisist have discovered the value of allowing people to record and trade their concerts. They look back at the Grateful Dead, who sold out shows for 30 years with no hit records, and go Hmmm..... We should do that too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The infamous Joe, 17 Nov 2006 @ 4:11am

Re:
Although it looks great on paper, boycotting the music and video industry requires a substantial chuck of paying customers to stop paying, and the sad fact is that a majority of people don't care. The biggest tool the RIAA and MPAA have at their disposal is public apathy. Maybe if someone on the Real World got sued, The Public might notice and begin to think about attempting to realise there might be something wrong, but have you ever seen anything about this on the news? I haven't, though that's because I get my news from this box and not that other box probably.

The point is, you The Public to act as one for a boycott to be effective, and that only happens during major acts of terrorism or when the underdog on American Idle comes from nowhere and wins.

I feel the BEST way to fix this obvious problem is (dare I say it) the government. Change the laws, make it clear cut. There are so many grey areas that it's not clear who the law is trying to protect. Our laws don't appear to be built to deal with a digital world, and that's why you see lawsuit after lawsuit, even in cases like this, where it's clearly a big kid picking on a little kid because he can get away with it-- the rules allow it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Protoplasm, 17 Nov 2006 @ 4:14am

Crazy Idea is not so crazy. Parasites that they are though will lobby, successfully most likely, that the copy protection is thier right to prevent circumvention. The thing is that this should be an "Unfair Use".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shohat, 17 Nov 2006 @ 4:15am

Ahem
DVDs come with copy protection . No mater how weak, including copy protection means : WE DON'T WANT THIS COPIED .
So yes , copying something that is specifically designed to not be copied , is illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 4:31am

Re: Ahem
"DVDs come with copy protection . No mater how weak, including copy protection means : WE DON'T WANT THIS COPIED .
So yes , copying something that is specifically designed to not be copied , is illegal."

Just becuase they don't "WANT" it copied doesn't make it illegal. However, that being said, I am not a lawyer nor claim to be one on TV so I cannot tell you if it is or isn't illegal, just thought that I'd point out not wanting something done doesn't make it illegal to do.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
moe, 17 Nov 2006 @ 4:44am

Re: Crazy Idea
Wouldn't it make sense that anything (copy protection) that is preventing us from exercising that right would be illegal? I came in here to mention the exact same thing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
John Quigley, 17 Nov 2006 @ 4:45am

Fair Use and Copy Protection
When I purchase music I purchase it with the right to make personal copies. When I purchase a DVD it too comes with a right to make a personal copy. They call it a backup, but many of these come with the right to make x number of copies. These are fair use, now when I buy an iPod and a DVD that has fair use as a part of the purchase, what difference does it make if the guy I buy the iPod from does the copying or I do it when I get it home?
These guys are just working overtime to keep absolute control over their artists and their customers. This is another example of the dumbing down of America. People don't even realize they are losing their freedom to these greedy corporations
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 5:20am

Re: Ahem
Um ...
uh ...

ugh! ... just forget it ...

*sighs*
*shakes head*
*pulls out hair*
*vomits blood*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 5:39am

This isn't necessarily a bad thing.

It may finally force the courts to rule on whether the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA violate the fair use sections of the copyright act. This is something that the courts have so far avoided ruling on. It's almost comical to read the opinions of some of the major cases involving (de)css.
The courts have studiously avoided making a determination of whether the presence of DRM infringes on fair use, choosing to decide the cases on other factors.

Now, we just need to hope that the courts don't rule *against* fair use, or just punt again...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Celt, 17 Nov 2006 @ 5:40am

Not impossible
It's not impossible to boycott the RIAA and MPAA. I haven't bought a CD in 5 years, although I've received two as gifts. I simply don't buy music, nor do I download music. I listen to the radio and once a song is off the airwaves I move on. Movies are a bit harder because my wife going to the theater, but I tend to avoid buying DVDs as well. Again, I don't download them, I simply avoid them altogether.

Is it my way of making a statement? Yes and no... I refuse to pay $14.99 for a CD when the format has been around for 15 odd years. The same goes for DVDs. But I won't knock the studios for charging what they do, that's capitalism at its best.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
comboman, 17 Nov 2006 @ 5:45am

A Good Thing?
IANAL but this could be a good thing. This aspect of the DCMA (interfering with the established right to backup/format-shift) has never been tested in court. If a judge rules against the MPAA, it could invalidate the whole DCMA.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Eric Miles, 17 Nov 2006 @ 5:52am

Re: Ahem
"So yes , copying something that is specifically designed to not be copied , is illegal."

You are plain wrong.
The supreme court has ruled, in the 1984 Sony Betamax case, that making copies of purchased content by the purchaser is fair use. However the DMCA modified the law that the Sony decision was based upon and now new interpretations are constantly being handed down but judges. This will eventually go back to the supreme court and they will once again rule that regardless of the format, type or content of the media it is fair use to make a copy for the use of the purchaser.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Alex, 17 Nov 2006 @ 6:00am

Re: Ahem
FAIR USE FAIR USE FAIR USE FAIR USE

what do you think it means?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 6:34am

encoding
Pass them a note in court saying nasty things about them. When then tell the judge what the note said complain that they broke the simple coding on your message. After all you encoded the message in English (a very simple form of copy protection if you can not typically read english).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Evil Shiester, 17 Nov 2006 @ 6:35am

!!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
First off, let me say that I can tell by reading your posts that none of you are lawyers. All of you are thinking like programmers, in absolutes. The law is not like a computer program, it’s more like hard molding clay. We’ve been taught since children that “laws are always set in stone”. No, that’s never the case. Human beings (lawyers/judges) interpret the laws and make decisions based on the intent, fairness of law as they apply to the facts at hand. A hardliner of a judge will generally rule to the letter of the law. Most judges will weigh the facts and rule accordingly.

In the case of copyright law and the internet, the doctrines of “Fair Use” have not been fully explored; and I stress the word EXPLORED. Please keep in mind that fair use is a doctrine of law based on presidents set over decades of rules. The only way the “system” has of exploring this relatively unknown world is to try a bunch of cases. In the process a “pendulum” swings back and forth until it settles someplace that all parties, while not getting exactly what they want, are treated ‘fairly and just’ under the law. That precedence (body of rulings) is then used by future lawyers and judges as a basis for their rulings which in turn is used by companies and people to dictate their actions.

Right now the pendulum has swung towards the RIAA and MPAA by way of strict interpretation of the DCMA; without president that’s all a judge has to go on right now; but don’t worry, there are plenty of other folks pushing very hard in the opposite direction and making good progress (and yes, getting rich in the process).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My 2 cents, 17 Nov 2006 @ 6:37am

Runaway you Sissy
The big mean industry says I can't copy it. WEAK. Just go put on a tinfoil helmet and hide in the mountains for fear that they will be scanning our brains to see if we thought about breaking the anti-copy device inside the product they sell.

If the movies and music didn't cost so much, there would be no underground selling of them for a 1/3 of the price. While on a trip to Thailand a person could pickup movies, some that were not even released in US yet, with the covers/box for about $2 each. The copy protection didn't protect the industry from anything, nor did it protect the hundreds of travelers who were so naive as to think that the movies they were buying were legitimate. I knew that the couple movies I aquired were not real and I actually owned the movie legally anyway. I bought it to be able to watch a few disney movies in Thai and see if it still had the same comedic effect.

How can it be fixed? good question. As long as the industry sells dvd/cds for end-use, there will be a way to break the copy protection. If you don't sell that as a service, chances are you won't get sued. Help they are scanning my brain.......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
james-42, 17 Nov 2006 @ 6:45am

but don't you want my money
Oh, that is just brilliant! Not only are they suing people who illegally download content, they are suing people who BUY their content too!

So, in their perfect world, we are all in jail. Who does that leave to buy their content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 17 Nov 2006 @ 6:47am

Put it to the people
I don't think the judicial system is working to well anymore... let me add to the list executive. We need a way for the people to decide. Not the congressman shill who has his hands in the pockets of big business.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 6:59am

Listen, we can do all the bitching we want, I propose a forum be set up to discuss copyright laws and econimical solutions that benefit both the industry and consumer. No more "MPAA RIAA SUCK!" Of course they do....but that's like saying "YOU NEED AIR!" Everyone knows it, no point in saying it over and over.

email me at digitalsaint@gmail.com if you are willing to participate in a forum and maybe a wiki designed to let us work out business models for the recording industry.

I will front the costs for a year in advance. Whatever happens next would be up to everyone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:02am

Re: but don't you want my money
Not only are they suing people who illegally download content...

No, they are not suing DOWNLOADERS. They are suing SHARERS.

There is a big difference there. So far, there is no law against the downloading, and the **AAs haven't been willing to get an unfavorable precedent in the courts, so they don't even try to sue for it.

The copyright violation comes in when you share the work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick o Las, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:06am

I don't really understand what there is to be so upset about. They can sue this guy (which appears to be something he wanted) and chances are they will lose.

Media comes with copy protection, how many people honestly make backups of all the media the legally purchase? I'm willing to bet very few and of those very few most are interested in the illegal aspect of this (copies of media you don't own).

I personally feel that copy protection violates a number of the rights we have to use the media as we want. If I want to put my dvd I purchase on my video ipod, I don't want to have to use tools to break through the protection. At the same time think about it...if you really want to get the media off, do a little research and get the tools and bam you've got it off and nobody is going to prosecute the individual user for doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Nick Burns, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:24am

Consumer rights and Fair Use protection
The DMCA has a provision that allows for review of the statute prohibiting circumvention of technological copy-protection measures. In a nutshell, it states that the Librarian of Congress, Register of Copyrights, and the Department of Commerce are responsible for identifying media wherein technological measures can potentially limit Fair Use. They have the legal right (and obligation) to identify whether persons who are users of a copyrighted work are adversely affected by the prohibition on circumvention of technological copy-prevention measures in their ability to make noninfringing uses of a particular class of copyrighted works (ie. nonprofit archiving) (PL 105-304 Section 1201.B).

Has anyone looked at the implications of this statute? Shouldn't we be writing the Librarian of Congress and Department of Commerce telling them how we (users of copyrighted digital media) are being "adversely affected" by this prohibition? Get DVDs and CDs added to the list. It can be perfectly legal to circumvent the encryption to put a DVD on your iPod.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
brad, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:24am

Recording Industry's Next Move
*Disclaimer* -- I've worked for a major publishing house for 15+ years and have a vested interest in ensuring that asian ripoffs and scanned copies of the books I publish don't erode the revenue potential of the work I and my authors invest.

That said, I think the recording industry's next move will be to license you the content instead of sellling you the content.

Say they give you the option of "buying" for $20 bucks and it's yours for all time or "subscribing" for $2 and it's yours for five years?

In the "buy" model you get completely encrypted, non-shareable content with a guaranteed lifetime replacement if you ever lose or damage the content you've purchased.

In the "subscribe" model, you get the same content delivery except your replacement guarantee only lasts for a specified time.

How does something like this fit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Leanna, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:35am

Re: Ahem
Are you a shill for the MPAA? I copy music daily onto my IPOD. Music that I bought legally on CDs and that I own. You're telling me that just because the CD label clearly states that the item isn't to be reproduced, that I've just committed a crime? Go fly a kite in a windstorm, you loser!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:36am

I doin't buy music anymore. i don't download music. most of what's out there is crap anyway. if i want music, i borrow friend's cd's. or ipods or whatever.

as for movies. i try to attend. i also buy dvd's. i lovem. sure i can't make "bacukp" copies or whatnot. there are various products in the opensource/interntional market that allow for ripping of dvds. i don't feel the need to horde all my dvd's or share them on the net. so, if i make a backup copy, who knows? no one. i don't distribute. i don't sell, or whatever.

however i feel the dmca and fair use have been conflicting for many years now. how can we have a law that says we are able to have an archive copy of copyrighted material in case the original is harmed, and then have the original work copyrighted, and have the dmca say you can't work around copyrights for backups?

here's a suggestion. copy with copyrights. sounds dumb, right? not really. first, the backup copy (with copyright) will have an addtional encoding stating it's a copy, made from a legit copy, and therefore can't be copyrighted. next, have the original be able to be "written" to stating that it has been copied. that way, you have a backup copy that you can use like the real thing. this will make fair use eligable again, because you aren't breaking copyrights. the aa's put out the software (for free!!!) so we are all happy.

now, sure people will break/hack this copyright scheem too, but they break drm anyway. so this gives the aa's the choice of saying HERE's your copyprotected legal backup for fair use. all while piracy is still at a consistant level. if they can make the consumer happy, i'm sure piracy will decline, or at least people will start buying more?

oh and one more thing...better content. that'll help.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jon-Paul Fegan, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:48am

Ownership
When did it become acceptable to us that you no longer have ownership of the things you purchase?
Whats next am i not going to be able to change the tires on my car because the lugnuts are a "weak" form of protection?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:59am

#26
do you realize that's what we have now, except for the timetable?

we don't buy content. we buy a license to "expierence" the different media. we don't own it. we don't control it. we just have the right to "expierence" it a(albeit watching a movie or listening to the audio). that's it.

we can't change/modify it. resell for profit and the like.

we just have the right to expierence it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rob, 17 Nov 2006 @ 8:19am

Re: !!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
And you obviously are not a lawyer either seeing how you don't even know how to spell the word "precedent".

Dumb fuckin idiot lawyer wannabe.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Ripper, 17 Nov 2006 @ 8:41am

0-o
As long as the MPAA hasn't a conscience, neither have I.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 8:46am

Fair Use...

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means...

Copyright Act:

Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use." These factors are as follows:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

There is no mention of backups, or commercial transfer services, or even personal use. As a matter of fact, it states only 2 uses: Commercial, or non-profit educational.

I fail to see how either applies to "Load N' Go'.

I have no love for the MPAA, the DMCA, or any law who's sole purpose is the support of an outdated and flawed business model, but this misconception that fair-use *grants* any rights to anyone is getting absurd. Fair use implies limited exception only. It grants no rights, whatsoever....to anyone.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cb, 17 Nov 2006 @ 8:48am

Big Bad Wolf
I told U..... WATCH OUT FOR THE BIG BAD WOLF.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
charlie potatoes, 17 Nov 2006 @ 8:48am

Re: Re: !!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
ah shit. i was gonna say that but i was afraid it would make me look petty, crass and spiteful...we now see who the REAL lawyer is in here...:D
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DVD_PIRATE, 17 Nov 2006 @ 8:59am

**AA CAN BURN
I'm not a lawyer, I'm not a criminal, and yet I feel that the **AA thinks that I am.
Personally, if I purchase a vehicle which comes with locks and I don't like the locks, I have every right to remove the locks. However, it probably wouldn't be prudent. Tell me the difference between copying an automobile (if I had the knowledge or the ability) and copying Music or DVD? Either way, once I have purchased an Item, and if I am clever enough, or educated enough, to make a coy of said item, shouldn't I be allowed to?
I personally make back up copies of all my DVDs. I have children who, God bless them, aren't as responsible as I'd like. I'd rather spend $.30 and a few minutes of my time to protect the money I've invested in my collection.
Come on people, give me a break. I bought it, it's mine. I'll do with it as I wish. If I decide to "loan" an original DVD to a friend or a copied DVD to a friend, what difference does it make.
I don't sell them, I don't make a profit, and my friends get to enjoy a movie that they might not otherwise have got to see.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:04am

Re: !!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
Human beings (lawyers/judges) interpret the laws and make decisions based on the intent, fairness of law as they apply to the facts at hand.
You're joking, right? Judges make decisions according to what is most politically correct, which usually goes with the side with the most money.

In the process a “pendulum” swings back and forth until it settles someplace that all parties, while not getting exactly what they want, are treated ‘fairly and just’ under the law.
That joke wasn't very funny the first time you told it and it isn't getting any better with age.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jack the Ripper, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:04am

Please
Ok.. So I say that we just keep going as we are. We the people have been getting screwed by these dudes for so long.. "Ahh little Johnny can't get his braces because you downloaded a song or movie".. Man, kiss my ass is all I can say. I've been downloading free movies and songs for so long now. And I'm going to keep downloading them too. I don't believe I've actually ever bought a CD or DVD. Actually, check that, I did purchase Scarface way back when. Figured I'd owed Tony that much for being such an inspiration to me. But other than that, screw'em. Cut back on the 20 million you paid one actor or the owners of the companies and get little Johnny his braces you cheap crooks. Until then, FREE stuff for everyone!!!! Copy protection or not, we will break you and copy protection.. For the people, by the people. Keep your Jesus off my penis and I'll keep my penis off you!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DVD_PIRATE, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:12am

Copy Protection
As noted earlier, circumventing copy protection is illegal. My question then, if you write a program that automatically decrypts a DVD when inserted, haven't you violated the DMCA? If so, then when ever you insert a disc into a DVD player, or use a software DVD player, you are violating the circumvention clause.
DRM is a joke. Somebody creates a encryption process, another will break it. Why waste the time. If you treat people as criminials, then criminals they will become.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not A Lawyer, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:17am

The DMCA and Fair Use
DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act), Oct. 20, 1998
Sec. 1201. Circumvention of copyright protection systems
...
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

I guess if you're the **AA, you get to pick and choose which of parts of the law you like and which parts you don't like.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:21am

This all boils down to which view you take of copyright.
Copyright is either:

A. An inherent right of the content creator to their expressive labors, including those rights covered in copyright. This view generally includes people who think that copyright law is just the affirmation of what is the "right" thing to do in regards to intellectual property.

B. A temporary measure to reward creators of expressive content, and incentivize their further innovation in the "useful arts and sciences". This view generally includes people who view copyright as an artificially constructed monopoly that serves a singular purpose; To offer content creators an incentive to keep creating.

This is a debate that has existed since before the founding of this nation, and is unlikely to be resolved in any meaningful sense. The truth is that the people who profit from copyright generally fall into category A, and more often than not the creation of content or the protection of copyright is a significant portion of their livelihood. This means they generally spend more time and money to get legislators to see things their way than the people in group B, who are generally consumers.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a guy who has read some books and some cases. I fall into category B, but I understand where people with the other point of view are coming from.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:23am

Re: Recording Industry's Next Move
I think the recording industry's next move will be to license you the content instead of sellling you the content.
To be followed up by the publishing industry: Reading a book without a license will be illegal.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DVD_PIRATE, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:29am

Re:
As long as people disagree on definitions, then there will never be a complete resolution.
I agree that I'd like all my works protected (my writings, my movies, etc.) however, If I decided to sell them to someone, then I'd give up the right to controll what's done with them.
Example: I recently made a wooden table and sold it to an individual (who shall remain nameless). I designed it, bought the materials, and hand crafted to my specifications. Everything is originally created. The individual loved the tablle, and in an inspirational moment, took my design and copied it. Do I have the right to sue him? He bought the table, he owns it. He can do what he wants with it.
This is what it boils down to: Once you have sold an item, you should no longer have any rights to the item. If you don't want it copied, don't sell it. Otherwise, sit down, shut up, and move on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
maxx, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:35am

finally
Finally you people got it right! THIS is not right. All the licensing SEEMS to be followed this time.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:37am

tha'd be nice dvdpirate.

however, the comparison between the table and music/movies is slightly flawed.

when you sell a table, you sell the complete object. the onwer can burn it, chop it up, serve tea on it, use it for other "personal" pleasure. he can also make copies for himself. he can make copies and sell them, as long as you didn't file for copyright.

the deal with music/movies, is that you pay for a license to view/hear the stuff bought. you don't own the song, you don't own the notes/lyrics. you own the "RIGHT" to hear/view the song/movie.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AMradioguy, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:39am

Re:
Have you ever heard of www.boycottriaa.com and www.boycott-riaa.com, because Anon, you basically just explained their mission statements.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:41am

Re:
There is no '"RIGHT" to hear/view the song/movie'. That is an inherent right for all people. Copyright has nothing to do with your experiencing of media. It deals only with the rights to:
1.To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
2.To prepare derivative works based upon the work;
3. To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
4. To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;
5.To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and
6.In the case of sound recordings*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Copyright already has an obscene overbreadth (duration, current implementation), let's not give them rights they don't have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DVD_PIRATE, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:45am

Re:
Not flawed. I still own the plans to the table. A DVD is an object. If I mass produced my table and even attempted to copyright it (which you can't copyright an object, as I understand it. However, I could patent it.)
The correlation between the the table and a dvd (or a cd) is this: I sold it. I still own the original, yet I cannot control the copying of the table, even if I did ingeniously come up with a way to circumvent the ability to copy the table.
It really doesn't matter. Music set to CD or Movies set to DVD become objects. Objects that are sold become property. Property, is by definition, a physical object owned by an individual(s).
To bypass the patent, all the the new owner of the table would have to do is change the wood.
Continuing with this argument all a individual would have to do with a movie is to change what media it is on, i.e. a different format of DVD or CD. This becomes a new object with the same overall appearance of the original, yet it is not the original.
You cannot make me believe that any group, or person, can say that they own the "new dvd" which i created. They didn't create it, in fact, I truly didn't copy it, as I changed the format and media upon which it resides.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:48am

Re:
Under the Act, four factors are to be considered in order to determine whether a specific action is to be considered a "fair use."
These factors are only to be _considered_, they are not rules. As such, the judge determines their relative weights and application.

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
As I understand this case, the final use is of non-commercial nature. There is commerce involved in the copy step before the end use, but if this were illegal then so would be commercial photocopy machines.

2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
To be considered by the court.

3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
Again, to be considered by the court.

4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
An increase in value, in this case.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:48am

Re: Fair-Use
Fair use does indeed grant rights to content purchasers. One of those rights is platform shifting.

Get a clue, you're been brainwashed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
chris (profile), 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:51am

Re: Recording Industry's Next Move
guaranteed lifetime replacement if you ever lose or damage the content you've purchased.

yeah right! tell me another good one. apple WILL tell you to go pound salt if something happens to your downloaded iTunes media. why would anyone else be any different?

this is the recording industry we are talking about. they would sell CD's that explode in two years if they could get away with it.

the problem with digital formats is the fact that they never degrade. if they never degrade, there is no reason to replace your entire collection every 5 years.

THAT is why CD sales are slipping. THAT is why we have HD-DVD and blu-ray. THAT is why copy protection is so important.

it's not that people are refusing to buy new stuff... it's that they aren't re-buying the old stuff. that is the industry's problem. the unit price of media is falling and there is nothing that they can do about it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:53am

Re: Re:
The individual loved the tablle, and in an inspirational moment, took my design and copied it. Do I have the right to sue him?
And if he took a picture of it, could you sue him for that too?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:54am

Re: #26
They would like you to believe that we only licence the experience. But in reality, we are buying the content. We are buying the right to use that content in any legal form we choose. We have a right to copy that content for our own backup/use in other places and devices. They want you to believe that you do not own it, and as long as they have you convinced, they can get you to buy it over and over again in different formats. They do nothing, you pay them more money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mike, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:55am

Re: Please
Hats off to you, Jack!! I wholeheartedly agree. Fuck the **AA, fuck them right in thier stupid ears. They won't get a single penny from me until CD/DVD prices fall significantly. Even then, I probably still won't be willing to give these assholes my $$. They have permanently damaged thier reputation IMHO. I feel that vindication on thier part is unattainable. Let the **AA dissolve and die off, bring rise to the independant artist disributing thier own content, free from the clutches of big record labels, then, and only then will I happily spend $$, knowing (hopefully) that $$ actually gets to the artist.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
uh, no, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:59am

Re: Recording Industry's Next Move
The problem with your idea is the 'analog hole' as they call it. Anything that can be heard or seen can be recorded, and such a recording of it will have no copy protection. For example, you can have a CD with all the copy protection in the world on it, but if I have the speaker signal from my CD player going into my computer instead, I can just record the sound itself to make a copy. And with that copy I can do whatever I want, any format, etc... with no copy protection of any kind. There is no such thing as 'completely encrypted, non-shareable content'. Anything that can be played can be recorded. (And for those of you who think a water mark does anything, those can be simply filtered out).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DVD_PIRATE, 17 Nov 2006 @ 10:01am

Well, in the US, you can sue any one for any thing.
This discussion is actually pointless, as we are all preaching to the choir anyway.

My beliefs are simple, and I suppose that some would agree, and others would disagree.

1. If I bought it, I own it.
2. If I sold it, I don't own it.
3. If I can figure out how to copy it, good for me.
4. If you can outsmart me, good for you.
5. Don't get mad at me for being smarter than you.
6. Don't mess with me, and I won't mess with you.

As long as we are different people, we will have different opinions. Some people are out to make others suffer, some aren't. Some people don't want you some things, and other people just don't care what you do.

Our society was founded on certian principles, which are slowly being erroded away.

Go back and read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States and compare them with what is happening today.

We are protected for a time from intrusion of our works, but after a time, they become public domain.

This was to help improve our society, not to cripple our society.

So, you tell me, are we improving or are we being crippled?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ugh, 17 Nov 2006 @ 10:06am

Re:
you seem to think copyright and copy protection mean the same thing! the main thing you are forgetting is that people use things like iPods and their computer hard drives to make their music & movies & whatever else easier to use. copy protection only makes those things harder for the consumer to use. why would anyone want a product that makes itself harder to use? that is the problem with ALL copy protection and that is why it will never work.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 10:11am

Re: **AA CAN BURN
Tell me the difference between copying an automobile (if I had the knowledge or the ability) and copying Music or DVD?
One gets the FBI busting your door down with guns drawn, the other doesn't, at least not yet.

I'd rather spend $.30 and a few minutes of my time to protect the money I've invested in my collection.
The **AA would rather you invest in a new collection. If it is between what you would rather and what they would rather, guess who is higher up in the pecking order.

...I don't make a profit...
Sinner! Burn him!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DVD_PIRATE, 17 Nov 2006 @ 10:17am

Re: Re: **AA CAN BURN
What? Burn me? That'd be a violation of the DMCA, as you can't burn original material owned by someone else...............
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 10:25am

Re:
Go back and read the Bill of Rights and the Constitution of the United States and compare them with what is happening today.
Those obviously don't apply today.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DVD_PIRATE, 17 Nov 2006 @ 10:29am

Rights
Of course they do, otherwise they aren't worth the paper they are written on.

It is time for we the people to get off our lazy butts and take control of our country again.

Let's try to get it right this time
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 10:56am

Of course they do, otherwise they aren't worth the paper they are written on.
Well, I guess they could still be used for toilet paper.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 11:13am

Re: Re: Fair-Use
If you're so sure of it, pal....show me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 11:18am

Re: Re:
[i]There is commerce involved in the copy step before the end use, but if this were illegal then so would be commercial photocopy machines.[/i]

1.) It is illegal to use Photocopy machines to copy and distribute protected works without the permission of the copyright holder.

2.) In this case, a protected work is both copied, transformed, and distributed, all without the consent of the Copyright holder.

3.) This very same thing was tried not too long ago by Circuit City. They no longer offer this service. There is a reason why, and it isn't because they found something better to do.

This does nothing to increase the value of the work. It has the opposite effect by lowering the value of the work on the format it's being shifted to (since a commercial product for that format already exists).

Care to try again?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 11:37am

Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
No.

Go research it yourself.

You show me a law that makes it illegal to move the contents of a CD to an ipod, and I'll show you australia, not the usa. (assumption was made that this discussion is about us copyright law).

You cannot show me any law that says its illegal to platform shift audio cds to an ipod because its perfectly legal. Fair-use allows for it. The DMCA tries to backhandedly prevent its possibility by adding a magical shield of weak encryption.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
lawyer dude, 17 Nov 2006 @ 11:43am

Re: Re: but don't you want my money
*AA or ??AA not **AA
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 11:52am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
It's called the Copyright Act, genius.

1.) It is the Copyright Holders sole and exclusive right to determine how their work is distributed, and in what format it is distributed in.

2.) The Copyright holder holds the sole and exclusive right to transform said work for commercial purposes.

It is illegal for *any* commercial entity, under current copyright law, to perform this service since it involves duplicating (distributing a copy) and transforming (From DVD to iPod).

As stated in my original post, I do not agree with current copyright law. I think it sucks. But claiming such use is legal is uninformed, ignorant, and potentially dangerous to anyone who might actually believe you and start doing it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 12:10pm

Re: Re: Re: but don't you want my money
*AA or ??AA not **AA

If you are trying to indicate an invalide use of wildcards, I suggest you take note of the fact that an * can represent zero or more characters. The zero is significant, as it means you can have a million *s in a row and it represents the exact same thing as one.

So basically, you're wrong, and **AA is every bit as good as *AA, only it presents to the reader the sense that there should be more than one character, however technically indifferent the specification is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 12:14pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
I said it before and I will say it again.

You have been brainwashed.

the Copyright act does not in any way shape or form prevent platform shifting.

As for distribution, you obviously havent ever heard of the doctrine of first sale. The copyright holder FORFEITS ALL RIGHT TO CONTROL over a physical copy the first time they sell it. I can resell it all I want, for as much as I want.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 12:28pm

If DMCA violates my right to fair use by not allowing my to make a legal backup then I say DMCA is illiegal and therefore does not apply. They should sue the MPAA for frivilous lawsuit.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 12:28pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
The Copyright Act gives the Copyright Holder sole rights to reproduce (copy), create derivatives (transform), distribute copies, and display their work.

The only limitations on these rights are Fair Use, which excepts only certain non-profit or educational use, and First Sale, which governs *only* the original physical media obtained, and *not* the digital content which resides upon it.

You are mistaken.

...and since you appear to be both unwilling to support your claims, and unable to accept facts, even when quoted directly from copyright law, I think we're done here.

Funny how one assumes I am the brainwashed one when I am the only one presenting facts, while simultaneously stating my disapproval with the very facts I am presenting...while the only argument you can provide seems to be automatic gain-saying by rote.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hal, 17 Nov 2006 @ 12:37pm

Re:
I've been doing just that. For the last year or so, I have not purchased a DVD or a CD, or been to the movie theater. I haven't rented either. I will admit that I still watch TV. Maybe it say a few million other people join me, we could get this party started.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
A chicken passeth by, 17 Nov 2006 @ 6:49pm

You ever notice how the industry adapts to fair use laws by circumvention - just like pirates do?

Doctrine of first SALE? Fine. Then we don't sell you the goods. We license them to you. Nyah.

We're playing semantic games, people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:47pm

Re: Re: Re:
1.) It is illegal to use Photocopy machines to copy and distribute protected works without the permission of the copyright holder.
Ah, so you are indeed a "fair use" denier. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

2.) In this case, a protected work is both copied, transformed, and distributed, all without the consent of the Copyright holder.
Again, fair use, which you oppose.

3.) This very same thing was tried not too long ago by Circuit City.
Not only do you seem to be a fair use denier, you also seem to spread untruth. Which **AA do you work for anyway? For anyone else: Here's the _real_ Circuit City story.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 17 Nov 2006 @ 7:52pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair-Use
1.) It is the Copyright Holders sole and exclusive right to determine how their work is distributed, and in what format it is distributed in.
No it isn't. No matter how much you wish it were so.

As stated in my original post, I do not agree with current copyright law. I think it sucks.
Could have fooled me.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cleverboy, 17 Nov 2006 @ 9:47pm

Re: Fair Use and Copy Protection
John Quigley wrote:
These are fair use, now when I buy an iPod and a DVD that has fair use as a part of the purchase, what difference does it make if the guy I buy the iPod from does the copying or I do it when I get it home?

Well, not only are the assertions in the article silly, but your comments (along with many of the yes-men in this thread) are silly. Of course these guys should be sued. They have NO RIGHT to create a derivative work and then sell it as a service. Point... if Disney releases CARS with an iPod movie on it, I think it would be fair to say that the company "Load 'n Go" could copy that onto yoru iPod for you as part of the sale, provided they deliver the DVD to you OPENED (in such a state that the copy could have been made from the included DVD).

However, to say that the company has every right to take the DVD, translate it into another format, and sell you that format along with your iPod is rubbish. If an art store sold a poster, and made a small wallet-sized reproduction of the poster, and called it "fair use", they'd also be wrong.

If Amazon.com decided to allow digital downloads of all the books it has for sale in PDF format so that you could read it the moment you bought it... and they did not clear this with the publishers THEY would also be wrong. Why? Because by doing this, the seller is in essence posing as the publisher, assuming an unrestricted right to create a reasonable facsimili of the product, and sell it to you at the same time. Nothing is ever really "free", its simply part of the price they can afford to ascribe to the service and still make a profit.

Let me throw two more examples out there. Plantiff A says, "Company B has deprived us of profits from products we sell by violating our copyright." Defendant B then says, "No, this is within fair use for a customer to make a personal backup." Judge asks, "So, you're asking for us to allow the customer to exercise his/her fair use rights through you as a proxy?" Defendant B, "Um, sure, that's it." Judge, "Plantiff, how are you harmed?" Plantiff A says, "The product Defendant B is giving our customers, is actually something we already sell through other avenues. If we choose to include this product (format) for FREE, it should be our choice. If we sold a DVD in Widescreen format and separately in Fullscreen format... people who purchase the widescreen edition should NOT be able to get a 'fullscreen' facimilie as part of the defendants so called service." Judge turns to the Defendant. Defendant says, "Crap. We're up shit creak, aren't we your honor?" Judge, "Afriad so."

Another example... if you coud "fair use" by proxy, BestBuy could sell "backups" for any DVD or CD you buy. So, you could get 2 copies of every movie you purchased. Of course, this would result in people giving the extra copy to a friend... just like someone who wanted their DVD movies on their iPod may pay for such a service, and be immediately able to sell the original DVDs if the 640x480 iPod versions are fine enough for them. With the upcoming iTV, such an alternative digital library is close to what many will be compiling anyway.

To review:
It's fair use for the person to do it. It's not fair use if the seller does it, because it is part of the sales process, and therefore representative of the altered form of the "product".
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jordan, 19 Nov 2006 @ 6:51am

Re:
I am not buying any products that are MPAA or RIAA artists or films.etc.
I also have dumped my cable TV back in September as I am also sick of all the mindless reality shows and other non-interesting shows so I now read a lot more like I used to and I listen to more music that I have owned for years now.

If we did a huge boycott of RIAA and MPAA then they would in fact feel the heat.It is the oinly way to get at these shmucks who want to steal our fair use rights and they want to rip us off.We need to do what they do back to them.
BOYCOTT is the answer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cleverboy, 19 Nov 2006 @ 11:57am

Re:
Jordan wrote:
If we did a huge boycott of RIAA and MPAA then they would in fact feel the heat.It is the oinly way to get at these shmucks who want to steal our fair use rights and they want to rip us off.We need to do what they do back to them.
BOYCOTT is the answer.
Jordan, boycotting is TOTALLY the answer. But, people are woefully ignorant to how the world operates. For some nifty reason, like a strike where the workers keep coming to work and operating the equipment... people assume that they can complain and whine their way to a better world without causing themselves discomfort. Remember how the "Christian Coalition" had politicians quaking in their boots at an organization that could cause immediate financial impact to their bottomlines? It doesn't seem like anyone is paying attention though. It's more popular to complain with toothless accusations.

Illegal file sharing doesn't work either, as it eventually ends in the "two wrongs don't make a right" notion, as most illegal sharers aren't really tryin to make a political point, they just want to score free content. That's why people will continue to be sued, as dodgy a response as that continues to be.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DC, 20 Nov 2006 @ 11:05am

Re: !!!That's why I'm getting so rich!!!
First off: It's "precedent" not "president". And a fine evil lawyer you are ripping off people. Yes, greedy people like you are the root of the problem: Everything is open to interpretation "define the meaning of the verb 'to be'", "define 'have sex'".

Greedy, amoral lawyers (not the good ones, mind you) are the scourge of this world.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Like you care, 20 Nov 2006 @ 5:18pm

Re: Ahem
Ahem by Shohat.
Are you some kind of Rep for the Industry of Nazi'ism.
I buy a DVD for way to much money and through accident or bad pressing My DVD wont work anymore.
If I can make a copy and shelve the original so it dost get so hot that it somehow breaks or gets scratched from my kids handling it how is that illegal, THATS WHAT FAIR USE IS ABOUT.
If I choose to watch my property on a different device than a DVD player thats not illegal either, ITS MY PROPERTY.

You represent all that is wrong with the World, ALL THE GREED and NAZI'ISM THAT IS RAMPANT RIGHT NOW.
Laws were made to protect consumers from Nazis like you.
You are a greed Nazi!!!!!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Not for The Content Nazis, 23 Feb 2012 @ 7:28pm

Heard of Cinavia?/Closing the analog hole
Actually, the MPAA is successfully closing the analog hole with their blu-ray players. Heard of the analog sunset? The original hi-def component outputs are being discontinued because they aren't "secure" enough. Then the red white and yellow output will be gone. Encrypted HDMI output will be the only output allowed. I was in Walmart the other day, and some of the players only had HDMI, and maybe red white or yellow but I think there was a player that didn't have those either. A new additional layer of protection has just been started on some blu-rays and it is a watermark. It is called Cinavia. This is designed to make sure streaming or copies don't work. You have to have the original disc, and ALL blu-ray players will now be mandated to support Cinavia. How Cinavia works is that if the player sees the watermark, but does not see AACS, you will get an error message after 20 minutes. The watermark is so integrated into the audio, it is impossible to remove without destroying the audio. Get ready to keep buying. The error for a BD-rom on this will be error 3 _NOT_TRUSTED_SOURCE.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Tech Guy, 23 Feb 2012 @ 7:40pm

Muted Audio
I found they are starting to put this Cinavia onto some DVDS too. Cinavia will mute the audio after 20 minutes since copies aren't encrypted. So any file that is unprotected/untrusted which has the watermark simply will not play past the 20 minute mark.

This content is protected by Cinavia and is not authorized for playback on this device. ERROR 3 _NOT TRUSTED_SOURCE_

I found that this will eventually make its way into software players too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]