Real DVD Copying Case Gets Off To An Inauspicious Start
from the not-a-good-sign dept
The latest joke of a lawsuit from Hollywood, over Real Networks' RealDVD software, began today. The movie studios were actually able to get the judge to close the courtroom and kick out the press, despite not following the normal procedures to request such a move. If you haven't followed the case at all, basically Hollywood is suing RealNetworks for making software that allows you to back up your own DVDs, though it places significant limitations on them. What's really odd about this is that there are tons of free DVD rippers out there that put no restrictions whatsoever. In Real's case, it puts significant limitations on the backup copies -- and courts have shown in the past that making a backup of a digital good is accepted as fair use. Taking Real's product off the market makes almost no sense at all.However, it seems like Hollywood's argument is based on the claim that Real somehow is using "hacker" technology in its product that violates the DMCA. It's not clear why using hacker technology should make the situation any different than having built your own. The MPAA is also claiming that there is no fair use defense to backing up a DVD, which is difficult to believe, given that fair use covers backups of music and software. What makes a movie so different? Well, the MPAA, of course, will claim (as it did in a previous case, against 321 Studios) that the encryption makes it illegal.
And that's where the problems come in. Thanks to the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, an action that is clearly fair use (backing up a movie) becomes illegal not because of the backup, but because of the circumvention of the DRM. That should go against all common sense: if the action itself is legal fair use, why should it matter how it's done (or who made the software)? Unfortunately, we don't often see common sense win out in these cases... and the early reports from the court room suggest that the judge is siding with the MPAA. Perhaps this isn't a surprise. Marilyn Hall Patel is the same judge who declared Napster illegal as well, despite a strong safe harbor defense. In this case, she told RealNetworks:
"They have the copyright. That's the issue here right? They have the copyright. They have the right to exclude."That's actually a somewhat scary quote from the judge who should know better. Copyright does give them a right to exclude, but a limited right, which is supposed to be weighed against the rights of consumers, including their rights to fair use for things like (drum roll....) making a backup.
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, backups, copyright, dmca, dvds, fair use, movies
Companies: mpaa, real networks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In that case, when the disc gets scratched up due to common everyday usage I'll just request a new copy from them and they will oblige at no additional charge. Everyone will be happy.
Except that will never happen.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Why should they? If you buy a couch from somebody and, after a year or so, it starts to smell like your butt, should the couch-maker be responsible for providing you a new couch? Why should you be able to buy a physical item and then have access to free replacements in perpetuity?
Perhaps you're just clumsy? I have a nice DVD collection and somehow they manage to not get scratched up in "everyday use." I have plastic lenses I keep on my face all day, and somehow they manage to last years and years. If your equipment is scratching up your DVDs, you should really buy better equipment.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cake and eat it too
1) You bought full rights to it and can do what you like, including creating a backup, reselling, etc
2) You bought a license to use product, which would imply that if the medium were damaged it would be replaced - after all you purchased the right to the product, not the medium
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
If you buy windows and something goes wrong with it, does that invalidate your license to use Windows? Does your COA all of a sudden become invalid?
No... it is a license to access and use the information, not a license to have plastic.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Maybe misinterpreting, but I thought there was chance this could be argued as a licensing issue rather than a fair use issue. (Not that I agree with things either way.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Ha!
HAAAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA HAAA! BWAAAA HAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA HAAAAAA HAAAAAAAA! BWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HHHAAAAAAAAAAAAA HHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAA HAAAAA!
Oh god...I'm tearing up from the laughter...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
"But," says the copyright idiots, "you have purchased a license for the data contained on the media, therefore you can't copy the media."
Fine, I say, I own a license for the data, the media is near valueless. Therefore, if I damage the media, it should be replaced at cost. (manufacturing a CD costs less than 10 cents, a DVD less than 20 cents).
"No," says copyright idiots, "if you want to replace the media you must also purchase another license."
So, basically, I have no rights and own nothing. I have paid you money to rent a piece of plastic until said plastic degrades or is damaged.
Is this correct, or am I missing something?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Souless, clueless, principle-less
Welcome to the USA, where we have the best judges money can buy. Corruption this bad should be grounds for immediate disbarment and removal from the bench. ANY judge hearing a copyright case should be aware of fair use issues, or he should be removed.
COPYRIGHT IS NOT ABSOLUTE!
LIMITED rights for a LIMITED time. It's even in the FRIGGIN CONSTITUTION.
This judge should be removed from the bench, he is a disgrace to the judicial system.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
It's more like the Couch Maker is preventing you from not only washing the cushions on your couch, but keeping you from reupholstering your ass-scented furniture and barring secondary sale to someone else.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Patel
And speaking of strings, I imagine Patel is dancing at the end of Hollywood's strings now, otherwise they wouldn't have picked her. Is this going to be just another show trial?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Souless, clueless, principle-less
She.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, no, no. That would be "stealing". Only the furniture company has the right to provide you with a new couch. The people who work for them have children to feed and they pay taxes so it is clearly a matter of national security to keep them employed. Besides, you might take the money you saved and use it to fund terrorism instead.
Clear now?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
I remain quite amused by your clever use of bodily functions to prove a point which isn't what CleverName was asking. Very inventive.
So then what are you buying? When you acquire a video from, say Blockbuster, you attain no product ownership, but receive license to watch the show for a limited amount of time. If someone purchases a DVD, they attain a physical product with a manufacturing value of less than $2.00 and license to watch the production on an unlimited private basis. If someone purchases a movie on iTunes, they attain a digital product and a license to watch the production on an unlimited, private basis. So what constitutes the difference between a rental and a iTunes purchase? Both end with no physical product acquisition. That's right: the license.
In each situation, the license is what dictates the value of the product. The costs involved with manufacturing and distribution are marginal at best. Where I got a chuckle is how backwards this is to the logic of the "smelly couch" illustration you bestowed, and how material costs for a couch are much closer to the actual product pricing.
I believe there was a court case a few years ago that proved a person was not held liable for "piracy" when they could produce a scratched disc, (proving ownership of a license), in court.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sounds like they already bought the judge
[ link to this | view in thread ]
When you purchase an item it is one of the following:
1) You bought full rights to it and can do what you like, including creating a backup, reselling, etc
2) You bought a license to use product, which would imply that if the medium were damaged it would be replaced - after all you purchased the right to the product, not the medium
Well it would simplify matters greatly if this were true, but it isn't. I think the court in Autodesk managed to provide a third answer: that software is neither wholly licensed or wholly sold: it's sold with restrictions.
Although Autodesk doesn't mention movie DVDs, I have to assume it works the same way. Do movies on DVD even have a license agreement (with the ultimate consumer?) I've never seen one.
You don't really want to license your DVDs, though, even if it would mean they would likely be obligated to give you low-cost replacements for damaged media. If you did license them, then they could impose REAL licensing restrictions on you: they could take away your right of first sale, as well as take away your right to transfer your license. You're certainly not going to give those up, right?
Luckily for you, at least a couple major studios will let you have it both ways. You can keep your first-sale and transfer rights AND get cheap replacement discs. Both Universal and
Disney offer conspicuous DVD replacement programs; I couldn't find them for other studios, but they may exist.
What's interesting is that while I've heard this argument (that replacement discs should be cheap or free) about DVDs and CDs, I've never heard it about books. The cover price/production cost ratio is not the same as DVDs or CDs, but it's in the ballpark. Should book publishers also send you new books when yours get old or worn?
If I have a couch and it starts to smell like my ass, I have the right to make an exact copy of that couch, no questions asked.
Actually there's a chance that you don't, especially if it's a designer couch.
In each situation, the license is what dictates the value of the product. The costs involved with manufacturing and distribution are marginal at best. Where I got a chuckle is how backwards this is to the logic of the "smelly couch" illustration you bestowed, and how material costs for a couch are much closer to the actual product pricing.
So, in your world, how small a percentage of the retail cost of an item has to be production cost before the manufacturer is obligated to replace it for (near) production cost when it gets worn through ordinary use? Does your answer apply uniformly for movies and books and couches? Designer couches can be awfully expensive compared to their costs of production...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
What do they really want? Sell a product, but, magically be the owners still, and able to tell the buyer, years and years after the purchase, what and where they can use said product?
So, actually, what have they sold? Absolutely NOTHING.
So, actually, what did you buy? Absolutely NOTHING.
What did you payed them for? For the right to watch the movie, where, and how, they determine. Only thing you are free, as of yet, is too choose the when. Maybe not for long.
So, for them, you are not a client. You are more like a hotel guest, only, you pay the bill before using the services. And you have absolutely no right to complain about "the room".
Next pace in their businness, will be, limited number of views, followed by extra views being bought in THEIR stores.
Forget it... They someday will disappear, if not, I however, never ever will pay them one cent again.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mathematical Examination of the Cost of a movie versus its copyright
replacement cost: $20
amount paid for copyright "license": $20 - $20 = $0
If the copyright actually had any value, then replacing media for something you already purchased should have some "nominal" cost, let's say "manufacturing cost" plus shipping.
Say, $5?
BUT they say, just go buy another one, which means 0 percent of the original purchase price is actually for the copyright license, which means the copyright has no value to them...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Have you ever wanted to watch a movie that just came out in theaters in your bedroom? I hate to be the guy to tell you, but "when" was first to go.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
I believe there are unicorns.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
"Trade dress" only applies in connection with goods or services in trade.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Since when do they sell DVDs of movies that just came out in theaters?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
You can only watch it, WHEN they let you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Comparing software to music and movies does work. Making a personal backup copy of software that I have purchased a license for has always been legal - even if that software is copy protected. There is only a problem when I give that copy to someone (or more than one someone) else who does not have a license AND we both (all) use the copies simultaneously.
Having said all of that I think the real issue is the value proposition that Music and Movies offer. Getting Music and Movies that are strapped down with DRM and that come at an unreasonable cost is a bad value propostion. No one wants to pay top dollar for infinite goods that have artificial restrictions on when, where and how you can use them.
The MPAA and RIAA are just driving people to fuck them over. Artisits have every right to get paid and they should be paid. How well they are paid is an issue. Companies that have licensed an Artist's work and simply create and distribute infinate copies DO NOT deserve to be well paid - they are just middle men that do not provide much value.
So, pay a reasonable price for finite goods that have value to you - like the couch you park your smelly ass on. But do not let a bunch of assholes rake you over the coals for a crippled copy of an infinite good.
If we all stop buying these infinite goods then the assholes that sell them will eventually run out of money (especially at the rate they are burning it in the leagl system and through lobbying). They cannot prosecute all of us for 'stealing' - if we were all broke or in jail then they would have no customers.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ba-dum dum crash!
seriously though. its getting to the point where the bigger surprise is any tech sites being surprised at this type of outcome. i have not bought a new movie in probably three years. i support blockbuster, not hollywood. (yes i understand how they do support hollywood so spare me the arguments. the point is that they get no money from me directly)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ah. I see. Well, unicorns, as well as the occasional delicious cake, have often been found on Lexis Nexis.
Perhaps you've heard of such a resource.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Souless, clueless, principle-less
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Still confused
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wow, then every band or every author that has ever signed a record deal or a book deal must be a flaming delusional idiot, because they are willing to give up nearly all their potential profit to these "middle men that do not provide much value."
The reality is that any artist or content creator who signs such a deal must believe there is tremendous value in the package of services provided: fronting costs and taking a monetary risk, production, packaging, marketing, merchandising, organizing tours, semi-exclusive access to high-value distribution channels, retailing, cachet and reputation, and so on. While it would be nice if we lived in a world where these things were at least LESS valuable than the content, it seems the market has spoken and that's just not the case.
Note also that these "middle men" traffic pretty much exclusively in "scarce goods." They, unlike the artists, understand where the money is.
If you want to intimate that media companies defraud artists, then the appropriate remedy is to sue them (and some artists do). But let's not pretend that artists walk into a record deal like babes in the woods, and then (only after producing their first record) end up figuring out how bad a deal they got. Maybe the earliest artists that got seduced by the earliest A&R men could lay claim to this - maybe Ray Charles or somebody fifty years ago. Has it really been a secret since the 1960s among artists that record company deals are dangerous?
If you want to intimate that the record companies are "the only game in town," and therefore artists have no choice, then you're not giving artists enough credit. Artists have had the opportunity to take on part or all of the scarcities of a record company for a long time, and many have. If you want to argue that it's easier now because of the Internet (more distribution channels, easier access?) then look at the whole picture. The Internet did not increase people's attention spans. Getting access to enough of someone's attention - a scarce good to be sure - to monetize it is going to be harder than ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
whats yours is mine ...and i aint payin for it...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
what next?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Prepare for the Supremes
I'm pretty sure they do. Ah yes, it appears Tascam has a nifty little device that looks just like a computer. Why haven't they been sued?
It also appears that Primera makes BluRay Duplicators, available to the general public, I may add. Are they in litigation?
But that may be slightly unfair as Primera and Tascam have been manufacturing duplication machines used in professional application for years, something Sony didn't have a solid foothold on, resulting in the case of Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc., 464 U.S. 417 (1984) which
Still, this device is available on the free market to anyone who happens to have the cash, much like how Tascam back in the 1950s was one of the first companies involved in developing a video recording system on reel-to-reel. Seems Reel, I meant, Real ironic.
So in light of this, the problem warrants a question: what is the true problem? Is it the fear that people may copy DVDs to their computer? Such copies also use a form of digital rights management, protects the copyright holders, and prevents blatant pirates from making copies enmasse, something the Tascam and Primera apparently have a business built on and for some reason are allowed. So what makes Tascam and Primera different than Real? Being a part of the club? A nod from a friend in the industry not to be sued? Who knows. All I know is that there exists competing products available to the free market that have more functionality than what Real's $29.99 software does.
I often become quite interested by people who don't take their husbands name, as if they have something to prove. Looking over Marilyn Hall-Patel's bio, (note proper addition of the hyphen) based on previous rulings I see that she seems to be quite the activist. MPAA did a good job Judge Shopping. It's also quite possible Judge Shopping is slightly illegal these days too.
Very interesting. Very interesting indeed.
I see a mistrial.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
There's so much wrong with this thread it's insane
2) When you buy something on itunes, it's (currently) a sale, not a license, regardless of what Apple wants to call it. This was a ruled on a few weeks ago too (http://dockets.justia.com/docket/court-cacdce/case_no-2:2007cv03314/case_id-389130/). Look it up on PACER.
3) No country's copyright laws recognize fair use as an affirmative right. You cannot sue someone claiming "they're infringing on my fair use" or "they're prohibiting me from exercising fair use." The public has no affirmative right in distributing anything until the content goes into the public domain and then the first amendment gives you an affirmative right to show and tell. This is what happened (in also recent litigation) where the URAA was held unconstitutional for removing things from the public domain: http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/node/6149
Now that you have been schooled on what the law is, here's some info on what the law should be. Once you have paid for personal ownership of a copy of an artistic work, you should retain that ownership, regardless of whether the medium that it comes from breaks. In other words, once you buy that DVD, if it breaks or scratches, you should be entitled to copies of that movie at cost. You're not buying the DVD packaging -- you're buying the artistic work. If these dinosaurs don't want to acknowledge this, that's fine. They'll get put out of business by competitors who adapt and file sharers who don't agree with how copyright is turning out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To Alan
You've overstepped the line.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: To Alan
Your the wrong one here. You're the one who accepted retirement to work on Priceline Negotiations.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: To Alan
It's you that they were afraid of. You identified with the libertarian as well as the liberal audience, and you that provided sound testimony when I couldn't. They needed to kill you off, but they couldn't, they liked you too much. The numbers favored you, Alan, but your politics didn't match that of the network executives, so they killed the series.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: To Alan
I have no problem giving advice when I can. Your a staunch conservative, and at times we get along quite a bit, perhaps it's our polar opposites that continue to drive us together. But I, am quite disappointed in the way things went, and wish they didn't cancel the series. We both have good writers. I have good writers that create a character I am proud to portray. But overall, I remain quite disappointed that you decided to take a 180 against me.
Perhaps they'll bring the series back?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Let's let bygones be bygones.
I just learned that Denny Street, quite possibly probably named after me, is one block from the street Real Media is off of. I wonder if there's a Denny Market near their office.
Denny Crane, Denny Crane, Denny Crane.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: couches & copyright
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: couches & copyright
Hello Couch Potato,
It seems by your own actions, perhaps you may have have learned much from Mr. Ingvar Kamprad. Are you related somehow?
Just curious. The sudden move of this thread back to Couches and Copyright seems a little odd, yet surprisingly appropriate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
The difference is that unlike the duplicators you linked to, the RealDVD software makes copies of encrypted/copy-protected discs. That's the whole thrust of this lawsuit - the plaintiff is claiming that Real's software is violating the DMCA because it bypasses the copy-protection scheme on the discs in order to copy them.
If RealDVD only made copies of unprotected discs (like the Tascam/Primera duplicators in your post), then this lawsuit wouldn't be happening, or at the very least, the plaintiff would have to find a different strategy to attack Real.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
Are you sure of this?
On one level or another, by your own ascertainment, this comes down to is DeCSS and the inability for Real to appropriate a proper license.
Overall, this seems like a business problem that could be answered outside of the legal system. Is this a good way to spend taxpayer money? Why the hell should taxpayers pay for the courts to waste time to see this business problem go to this supreme court?
Besides, DeCSS was developed by a Norwegian, so to introduce evidence showing it came from the Ukraine is not only misleading, but idiotic at best. Norway is often #1 in business ethics. To say it came from the Ukraine just discounts Norway. Of course, when the case is based on the ethical #4 ranked USA, (or potentially #599 California if it was it's own country) there's a need to find a lower ranked country to pick on.
Moreover, I assure you Tascam and Primera have devices on the market that circumvent said copy protection.
This is an absolute waste of time, just like your commentary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
To Scott
A few links for you to consider:
http://www.forbes.com/2009/03/18/best-countries-for-business-bizcountries09-business-wa shington-best-countries_slide.html
http://dataranking.com/table.cgi?LG=e&TP=bm02-2
http:// www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/WEC_00220_00701_Snowdon.pdf
http://www.weforum.org/pdf/Global_Compe titiveness_Reports/Reports/gcr_2006/gcr2006_summary.pdf
http://www.weforum.org/documents/PR/GCI_2 008-2009_highlights.pdf
My favorite-- Why isn't there more representation from Hollywood? I mean, they claim to be the biggest export industry of the USA...
http://ethisphere.com/2007-worlds-most-ethical-companies/
Thank you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: To Scott
First, there's nothing in my post that has anything to do with which countries are best for business, or whether DeCSS came from Norway, the Ukraine, or East Podunk, so that part of your reply has me a little confused.
And if Tascam and Primera have *consumer-oriented* duplication machines that bypass the disc copy protections, I'd love to hear about them. I'm sure that there are *commercial* duplicators out there - after all, the studios are obviously copying millions of DVDs from the original master discs, but all of the consumer-oriented products I've heard of that bypass the copy protection have ended up on the wrong side of a court judgement. That is, unless they make the end user jump through hoops by not including the DeCSS code in the actual product, like Mac the Ripper. In those cases, it's up to the end user to find and install the CSS libraries. That way, the actual authors of the copying software haven't technically broken the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: To Scott
Bart Williams, a lawyer representing the studios, told the judge that evidence uncovered in the litigation shows RealNetworks engineers purchased copying software illegal in the United States from a company in Ukraine.
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/Hollywood-vs-RealDVD-Its-On-66898.html
Good night, Scott.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps you've heard of such a resource.
Of course! That's the best place to find them!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Souless, clueless, principle-less
I believe the commenter was correct. The judge is indeed a woman, not a man. Calling her a barnyard animal might be going a bit too far though.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
Analogies need not be exactly the same in all respects to be a valid representation of a underlying principle. If they did, then your analogy of software to music and movies wouldn't be valid either. In other words, analogies are usually chosen to represent underlying principles from a different angle.
And that is where you missed the point of the couch analogy. It was presented as a representation of a legal position on the right of someone to make a copy of something. However, you faulted it on the basis of an economic argument based on scarce vs. finite goods that it was never intended to represent, showing that you missed the original point.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Still confused
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: whats yours is mine ...and i aint payin for it...
No, it isn't theft and to say so is a lie.
IF WE THE CONSUMER DEMAND HONESTY FROM THE INDUSTRY(s) then does not THE INDUSTRY HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.
Honesty seems to be a problem for you.
And by the way, there seems to be something wrong with the shift key on your keyboard. Sometimes it appears not to work at all and at others it seems to be stuck on.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: To Scott
Ahh, so commercial copying for profit is OK, but non-commercial copying for personal use is not now, eh? Wow, and I can remember when copyright only applied to commercial use. But then they discovered that there was lots of money to made in suing over personal copying. How things have changed.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: To Scott
I'm claiming that either he's wrong, or that such devices are meant for strictly commercial use. Obviously such commercial duplication devices exist, because that's how all of the DVDs that end up on store shelves are produced in the first place.
All this goes back to my response to Alan's post where he asked why Tascam and Primera haven't been sued like Real is being sued for RealDVD. I claim that any consumer-oriented duplication machines like the examples he gave are incapable of copying CSS-protected discs, and that's why Tascam and Primera aren't being sued.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To Scott
One meant for the professional group with no lawsuits, no restrictions, and nothing of the sort versue
Another market for consumers or the amateur or hobbyist crowd as you may wish to label them.
Each group has separate rights and each is entitled to different level of capability, compatibility or whatever. Those who do not produce a work product for profit are entitled to a different set of rules than those who copy a DVD to back it up are at a disadvantage.
Is this not what your fighting for?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Scott
Sony Pictures isn't going to ask a duplicating service to make them ten million copies of "Angels & Demons" and then turn around and sue the service for duplicating copy-protected discs - that's asinine.
As for my personal opinion on end-user copying of protected content, I think that consumers should be allowed to make backup copies of protected discs and/or transfer the content to other formats for viewing on laptops, personal video players, etcetera. In fact, I was disappointed to hear that the RealDVD software wouldn't let you burn a disc from the saved copy. To me, that's like having backup software without any "restore" functionality.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Scott
Thank you for your commentary.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shut Up!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Still confused
You only get a license for the judge. However, should the judge be found to be defective (i.e. through an appeal), you will need to replace it by purchasing another judge.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: To Scott
In other words, commercial duplicators are nothing like the machines listed above. Those are what are called professional consumer, or "prosumer" devices, which are really just upper-line consumer devices. You can have one of these devices delivered to your front door at home and run it in your living room. Something you can't do with true commercial duplicating equipment.
Here's a video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ncU_A76W3P8
So much for the argument that the devices described above are "commercial". You might find it helpful to know what you're talking about when making up apologies for the industry.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: To Scott
[ link to this | view in thread ]
@ Scott How discs are made
This statement is incorrect.
The big entertainment companies use production plants to make what is called a "Glass Master" which is used to "cut" the remaining copies from at the plant. This process is nothing like what your computer burner does when it copies a disc or what the semi-pro units like Tascam's do. Yes, some companies offer CD-R burner services, but you will never buy these from a Big Media company or one of their retailers as this is an inferior way to produce copies. Your distinctions between Commercial and Private use are moot. Tascam sells a product to anyone who pays such as a duplicator service, small record company or an independent band. FYI in my experience as a studio pro, most burners of Tascam quality indeed do copy discs regardless of protection schemes.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: @ Scott How discs are made
Do you have any specific models you can name? Because if the Tascam consumer/prosumer duplicators *will* copy protected DVDs, they're being awful quiet about it on their website.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
how much does it cost to buy a judge
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
If we were truly just purchasing a license, I wouldn't be looking at four copies of the Beatles' "White Album" on my shelf, all on different media and purchased at full retail price. Instead, I would have been able to just purchase the license once, and then pay a nominal materials fee to get it on whatever media I wished.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: To Scott
Huh? Alan listed links to a couple of them, which you tried to claim were "commercial" (but weren't). Now that that untruth has been exposed you're trying to make up another one by claiming that they won't copy CSS-protected disks. I bet you don't even know how those machines or CSS work, do you? And you're a Naval officer? I know that they've got people whose specialty is "disinformation" (i.e. lying). Are you one of those, just getting in a little practice?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: @ Scott How discs are made
The better question is, which ones don't? Do you have any specific models you can name?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: To Scott
"The difference is that unlike the duplicators you linked to, the RealDVD software makes copies of encrypted/copy-protected discs. That's the whole thrust of this lawsuit - the plaintiff is claiming that Real's software is violating the DMCA because it bypasses the copy-protection scheme on the discs in order to copy them.
If RealDVD only made copies of unprotected discs (like the Tascam/Primera duplicators in your post), then this lawsuit wouldn't be happening, or at the very least, the plaintiff would have to find a different strategy to attack Real."
Unless you can show me some evidence that those two duplicators can in fact copy protected media, then I don't see anything wrong with my reply. Likewise, prove me wrong in my assertion that this case wouldn't be happening if RealDVD didn't bypass the DVD protection. That's the claim that the plaintiff's **entire case** hinges on - that Real Networks is violating the DMCA by bypassing the disc protection.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: @ Scott How discs are made
That's pretty good evidence that either they can't copy protected media, or that Tascam doesn't advertise the capability because they know doing so would be inviting lawsuits similar to the one Real Networks is currently facing. Either scenario would prove my point equally well.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Scott How discs are made
Can I copy commercial DVD movies?
No. Our duplicators are intended only for duplication of original content audio, video and other digital information. All applicable copyright laws must be observed. Most DVD movies are copy-protected with encryption and this prevents a "global image," necessary for duplication, from being created.
So, the Primera duplicators can't copy protected discs, which means that the MPAA can't come after them using the same approach as they're taking with Real Networks in this lawsuit. I'm still looking for a definitive answer regarding the Tascam duplicator Alan linked to.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Ha!
10202 W Washington Blvd
Culver City, CA 90232
Information: 310-244-4000
Operations: 310-244-6926
What other ones do you want me to find for you? Basic contact information isn't that difficult to find.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Scott How discs are made
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: @ Scott How discs are made
You're comparing apples to oranges anyway - the two specific machines that Alan linked to are *standalone* duplicators. They're not used with a separate computer and don't have any additional software included - just the firmware inside the duplicator unit itself. And that firmware doesn't include the code to bypass the protection on commercial DVDs. THAT'S the reason the companies that sell those duplicators aren't being sued by the MPAA like Real Networks is. (And that's the question Alan was asking when he brought up those duplicators)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: whats yours is mine ...and i aint payin for it...
1) Copying is not Theft...No one was deprived of there product only, though record companys like to think they where deprived of as much money as they want.
2) I will give the industry honesty, as soon as they even begin to acknowledge that
- Downloading mostly happens due to underserved clients
- working with the customer (remember us, were the ones that have money you want) and artist fairly and acknowledging technology and how it makes thier life easier too
- Agree that changing their business model will help them survive...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
if it's only about making a backup
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: To Scott
To understand this fully, you need to consider the past. Back in the 1980s a small firm called Macrovision incorporated a copy protection scheme in VHS tapes that increased and decreased the either the horizontal or vertical video sync levels (you do the research, as this is not Wikipedia or Google) at regular intervals to thwart casual copying.
After a while, devices that re-synced the video signal were introduced into the market, and later deemed legal from a court decision stating that they infringed on Fair Use, and that there was a legitimate use for the devices. (LexusNexus is your best resource for this research)
When it comes to Professional-grade equipment, most all remove copy protection.
Philips, the inventor of the CD, even came to market with a redbook compliant CD recorder in the late 1990s. This later spawned new technologies such as Macrovision's Cactus Data Shield, and Philips to issue a statement that such CDs, including "Cactus Data Shield"-enabled CDs no longer are considered CDs as they violate the standard. Philips requested such CDs have the CompactDisc brandmark removed from them.
This all comes to functionality within the confines of FairUse.
Of course, this all means that there exists legitimate case law for RealDVD. The fact that it respects copyright holders views just make this a stronger case for Real.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The silliness of this whole thing: hope MPAA loses
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
When Hollywood first came out with "Digital Copy" they wanted to charge an extra $5 for a second copy of the movie. I looked at that and said, "Hell, if I want to load a copy on my computer or whatever, I don't need to pay them an extra $5. I'll just copy the DVD."
Then they started including the "Digital Copy" only on the Special Extended Unrated Director's Cut Edition. And I said, "Hey, I want the special features so I'll buy that one in spite of the extra copy."
But recently DVDs are coming out where there's no special features, just the extra copy of the movie. That's when I knew Hollywood doesn't know what the hell they're doing.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Fair Use
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Real DVD
[ link to this | view in thread ]
I wish that were possible
Unfortunately, I've run across many VHS tapes that cannot be converted to DVD due to Macrovision. I guess I am expected to go and re-buy all of these movies on DVD.
[ link to this | view in thread ]