Hollywood And RealNetworks Head To Court Over DVD Ripping
from the fun-to-watch dept
As was widely expected when RealNetworks announced plans to release some DVD ripping software, the lawsuits are now flying. RealNetworks rushed to court to ask for a declaratory judgment, though the MPAA admitted it had its own lawsuit ready to go as well. Real getting to the courthouse faster may mean slightly more favorable jurisdiction for the company. In the meantime, it seems like the MPAA is facing a huge uphill battle here, as Real's software includes its own DRM, so it's hardly a case of allowing widespread copying. Plus, making personal backups is allowed under copyright law. The real issue is where two conflicting parts of the law collide: the right to make personal backups and the DMCA's prohibition on circumventing DRM. Real claims that since it adds its own layer of DRM, the studios' DRM is not circumvented. That may make the most sense from the standpoint of the lawsuit, but it still seems like a strong case could be made by simply focusing on how people have a right to make personal backups. Of course, this lawsuit is something of a marketing stunt. There are better DVD rippers out there that are available for free, so it's difficult to see Real ever getting very far with this product, no matter what happens with the lawsuit.
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
Filed Under: anti-circumvention, dmca, dvd ripping
Companies: 321 studios, mpaa, realnetworks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Is it wrong...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you explain how a movie (a bunch of bits) is different from a software program (a bunch of bits)?
The law is quite clear that archival copies of a bunch of bits is perfectly legal. Archival copies of software (a bunch of bits) is explicitly legal. Time shifting and place shifting of content has also been ruled quite legal.
It would take a really twisted legal mind to then claim that movies (also a bunch of bits) are illegal to copy for archival or time shifting purposes.
So, the only way you could claim that it's not legal to make a archival or backup copy of a movie is if you honestly believe that there's an inherent difference in the bunch of bits that represent a software program and the bunch of bits that represent a movie. And I think you'll find it quite difficult to make a compelling argument that one batch of bits is different than the other.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I know you are not an attorney, but it does seem you have a strong belief in what I have quoted above. The problem is, your arguments notwithstanding, the only section of The Copyright Act that speaks to archival copying by individuals involves computer programs. See: 17 USC 117.
Bills have been introduced to expand archiving beyond just computer programs, but none of them appear to have gained any traction within Congress.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You must have missed my earlier comment.
Again, please explain in any meaningful way how one bag of bits is different from the other.
Hell, if you want to get technical about it, and require an executable, then you could basically wrap a piece of content in an executable and then copy that. In fact, that's what Real is doing here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
For other media, you can make as many copies as you want as long as you don't distribute them. So, if you buy the latest Harry Potter book, you can make 2000 copies of it and store them in your basement and you haven't infringed. The right to archive computer software was just codifying that it was no different from other media.
Making personal copies of other media (even in alternate forms) has been upheld many times by courts. In particular, VCRs were shown not to be contributory infringing devices, which means that recording TV is not itself infringing. Although not in 17 USC, case law is as much a part of copyright as it is for anything else.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then you are rooting for one side based on ignorance.
The program in question does not allow someone to rip as many copies as they please.
Second, if you've bought something, why shouldn't you be allowed to make a backup copy of it for personal use?
So, why should the blood, sweat and tears that was put into earning the money that was spent on a DVD not lead to actual ownership of the content purchased?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am not "requiring" anything, but merely noting that the declarative statement made in the article is limited to computer programs. Should the law be broader? Perhaps, but what the law "should" say does not trump what it "does" say.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I am noting, again, that you refuse to explain how one bag of bits is different than the other.
A movie IS a software program. It's a bag of bits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Interesting, but irrelevant. The "law says" what the "law says", and sidebar discussions about comparing binary files does not alter the rights of authors stated in 17 USC 106 (rights granted under copyright) and the limited archival exception for computer programs stated in 17 USC 117.
Whether good, bad or indifferent, the "right" to make an archival copy is limited by law to computer programs.
Merely FYI, I am simply a messenger and not an apologist for what comprises the text of The Copyright Act.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Again, you are missing the point: a movie IS a computer program.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-digital.html
You are not permitted under section 117 to make a backup copy of other material on a computer's hard drive, such as other copyrighted works that have been downloaded (e.g., music, films).
This seems to be in direct conflict with the Supreme Court ruling on time-shifting. Since time shifting is nothing more than copying material for viewing at a later time, it allows for the creation of an archival copy of copyrighted material (as long as it is used for non-commercial purposes).
The ability to make an archival copy of purchased content is typically held to be fair use, and depending on what day of the week it is, even the RIAA sometimes agrees. Since the qualifications for fair use are not explicitly defined, it is uncertain at this point whether archival copies are considered to be legal. Despite the governments copyright website however, most of the rulings on the matter lean in the direction of allowing for noncommercial personal use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
We've just has a copyright law amendment in NZ. It's legal now to transcode your music (eg copy it to an mp3 player) but not movies. It might not make any sense to you, but that's the law. (AFAIK, IANAL, TINLA, etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bag'o'bits
A “computer program” is a set of statements or instructions to be used directly or indirectly in a computer in order to bring about a certain result.
So essentially an audio/video file is a said "set of statements or instructions"...."in order to bring about a certain result": some patterns in the video memory (a motion picture).
Albeit probably it was not the intention of the law, this language is definitely explicit here (chevron defense applies?)
Granted, movies are also "audiovisual works" according to earlier definition but hence the law does not prohibit for a certain work to fall under more then one definition, it would appear that 17 USC would allow the backups...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
buying....what?
The right to "enjoy" the works I purchased no matter from what media?
or
The right to "enjoy" the works but only from the exact media I purchased?
If we assume the later, one can make a logical statement that when listening or viewing the video, we are breaking the copyright as we are not "enjoying" the "bits on the media" because we are first making a copy to electric signals and then another copy to sound waves or photons...you are all thieves!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: buying....what?
This does kinda suck from a consumers point of view.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: buying....what?
Don't buy into this "have your cake and eat it too" argument that the MPAA and RIAA have tried to convince people is correct.
If a DVD is software, then you have an explicit right to make backup copies.
If a DVD is not software but just a movie, then you have the first sale doctrine and implicit personal copying rights that all other media is granted.
What the MPAA wants you to believe is that by adding some language to the back of the DVD box they can restrict your rights. This is absolutely not true, any more than the NFL or MLB can require that you get "express written consent". Fair use says that you can use parts of the broadcast in whatever way you want and they have no say in the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: buying....what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: buying....what?
What a way to make a leaving...I have no clue how they can face themselves in the mirror every morning.
I hope you are not one of them, are you?
I suppose you are, since you have not contributed anything valuable to the discussion, as nobody is paying $$$
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
having a fun with law
17 USC 101
“Copies” are material objects, other than phonorecords, in which a work is fixed by any method now known or later developed, and from which the work can be perceived, reproduced, or otherwise communicated, either directly or with the aid of a machine or device. The term “copies” includes the material object, other than a phonorecord, in which the work is first fixed.
So if you remember anything fromt he moview you just saw, you are making a illegal "copy", so please, forget it immediately!
BTW it appears 17 USC is distinguishing the "audiovisual" works from "phonorecords"...
BTW if I buy a movie or mp3 on line and download it, then I cannot legally move it from one location of my hard drive to another as it is illegal copy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The difference with CDs is?
That one having DRM and the other not seems a bit anecdotal in terms of what laws they fall under. It almost feels like the MPAA are sticking a post-it note on the DVD saying 'please do not copy this, signed the MPAA' and somehow that makes it illegal to.
I'm not sure how the American system works, but last I heard the UK system was gong to be changed to enshrine the right to copy for personal use.
Theres nothing necessarily malicious in that either. I know plenty of young parents who’d love to make cheap copies of DVDs so their kids don’t scratch the originals.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The difference with CDs is?
Yup, that's exactly what's happening. That's what the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause says. As long as the MPAA does *anything* to say "don't copy this" suddenly making a copy is illegal. And providing any tool to make a copy is illegal.
It's a travesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Better program?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Better program?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just use SlySoft's AnyDVD to copy DRMed DVDs.
Who wants to use any product by Real, anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]