Why Was The Restraining Order On RealDVD Kept Secret?

from the questions,-questions,-questions dept

Monday morning, we wrote about how a judge had issued a temporary restraining order against RealDVD until he had time to review the details and rule one way or the other on a pre-trial injunction. In our comments, one of our readers suggested this story was incorrect, as there didn't appear to be an actual restraining order on file -- suggesting that Real Networks may have pulled the software on its own. Yet, it turns out that, yes, in fact there was a temporary restraining order, but the judge ordered both sides to keep it secret. This is quite odd, as almost everyone immediately figured it out from Real pulling the software, and then it was confirmed by Real in a filing responding to the court. But all this does is raise a simple question: what could possibly be the rationale for keeping the temporary injunction secret?

Filed Under: dvd ripping, injunction, realdvd, restraining order, secrecy
Companies: mpaa, realnetworks

Judge Temporarily Blocks Sale Of RealDVD

from the who-does-this-help? dept

In the lawsuit between the movie studios and RealNetworks over Real's DVD ripping software, RealDVD, it appears that a judge has issued a temporary injunction against Real, keeping the company from distributing the software until the judge has had a chance to read through the various documents. A more complete decision allowing or disallowing the sale prior to a trial should come on Tuesday. Of course, the movie studios will claim that Real should be barred from allowing the software to be sold because it will cause "irreparable harm." That, of course, is ridiculous. Real's software only lets you make limited backups, by putting its own DRM on the copies. If someone really wants to make backups, and Real's software isn't available thanks to an injunction, then they'll most likely get a copy of other DVD ripping software that doesn't even include the limitations that Real's does. In other words, in taking RealDVD off the market, as the studios would like, it actually would probably lead to more movies being copied without DRM than if RealDVD were on the market. On a separate note, it appears that Real's decision to rush to court and file for a declaratory judgment on this case was a wise move. The lawsuit has been moved from Southern California, where the studios filed suit later in the day, to Northern California, where Real filed suit in the morning.

Filed Under: dvd ripping, injunctions, realdvd
Companies: mpaa, realnetworks

Why Won't The MPAA's Lawyers Identify Themselves?

from the what-are-they-scared-of? dept

One interesting tidbit to come out of the MPAA and RealNetworks suing each other over Real's DVD backup software: the lawyers for the MPAA who presided over the press conference announcing the lawsuit asked the press not to identify them. This is bizarre. What sort of spokesperson won't allow themselves to be identified? And why would the MPAA's lawyers do that? More importantly, why would the press oblige?

Filed Under: anonymity, lawyers, spokespeople
Companies: mpaa

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.

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, dmca, dvd ripping
Companies: 321 studios, mpaa, realnetworks

MPAA Now Says It Can Regulate Internet Advertisements

from the but-why? dept

It's no secret that the MPAA's highly secretive rating process doesn't make very much sense. Kevin Smith, the well known director (and sometimes actor) got some press recently when he convinced the MPAA to change its initial rating of his new movie, Zack and Miri Make a Porno from an NC-17 to an R. There was also some buzz online about the MPAA's odd rejection of a movie poster for the film that seems pretty harmless. However, perhaps much more interesting is the information hidden at the bottom of a Salon.com interview with Smith about the whole ratings process, where Smith notes that he was surprised to find out that the MPAA now claims authority over not just posters, but any online ads for the movie as well -- even if they don't even include any footage from the movie:

I put up a teaser trailer [for "Zack and Miri"] back in April that had no footage from the actual movie in it. Just Seth and Elizabeth riffing. And the MPAA made us take it down. They said, "Look, we're in charge of all marketing materials as well, and we didn't approve this." So they made us take it down.

The MPAA's job is to rate the movies, not the ads for the movies -- especially when they're appearing online. But since the whole thing is "voluntary" (and secretive) and no theater will show a film without an MPAA rating, basically filmmakers are forced to play ball with the MPAA's regulatory whims. And, those whims can be really bizarre sometimes. Remember the movie poster that wasn't approved because a gun was aimed directly outward (and, the MPAA effectively argued, some people might think it will shoot them).

And it may get even worse. While Smith doesn't seem too worked up about the whole thing (or, rather, he's not worked up at all), he also wonders, as an aside, if the MPAA will also start regulating DVD extras. In noting that, these days, any content that the MPAA requires people to cut, will eventually make it onto the DVD anyway, he sort of wonders if the MPAA is going to expand its purview over DVD content also -- which is where he brings up the issue of the MPAA claiming control over movie trailers.

Filed Under: advertisements, internet advertisements, kevin smith, movies, ratings, zack and miri
Companies: mpaa

Zango May Have Worked Things Out With The FTC, But What About The MPAA?

from the out-of-the-frying-pan,-into-the-fire dept

We've pointed out for years the various questionable activities performed by adware firm Zango (or one of its earlier incarnations). The company has gone through so many changes it's tough to follow, but every time it insists that it has somehow "cleaned up" its act, it doesn't take long for researchers to find evidence to the contrary. For a while, the company was in hot water with the FTC for tricking people into downloading its adware. It eventually settled with the FTC, paying a hefty fine. These days, once again, the company insists that it's reinvented itself to focus on the "casual gaming market."

However, that doesn't appear to be the case. I recently saw a presentation from the company where it didn't mention casual gaming at all, but instead called itself a "publisher" of content -- though it was quite vague and evasive about just what kind of content. Perhaps that's because it doesn't want parties like the MPAA to know. As Ben Edelman had noticed a few months ago -- and now more and more security researchers are finding, Zango's software is being offered up by folks who are promising fully pirated movies.

It makes you wonder if Zango recognizes that dealing with the MPAA may be a lot less pleasant than fighting the FTC. Of course, maybe the MPAA recognizes that when pirated movies come with intrusive adware like Zango, it only gives pirated movies a bad name.

Filed Under: adware, ftc, malware, popup advertising, zango
Companies: mpaa, zango

A Lot More At Stake In TorrentSpy vs. MPAA Email Snooping Lawsuit

from the wiretapping-laws dept

For a few years now, we've been covering the battle between TorrentSpy and the MPAA. While TorrentSpy has given in and shut down on the question concerning the operations of its business, there was a separate legal question that is still being fought in court. As we noted recently, TorrentSpy has appealed the judge's ruling that the MPAA didn't break any laws in gaining access to its executives' emails. As you may recall, the MPAA hired a guy who hacked into TorrentSpy's servers to send copies of all the emails to himself first, which he then sold to the MPAA (he later regretted this decision and confessed to TorrentSpy, which is what resulted in the lawsuit in the first place). When the issue first came up in court, the MPAA played dumb, and pretended that it assumed the guy had legal access to the emails.

While this may seem like just a straight privacy case, the EFF, along with the ACLU and others, have filed a brief noting that there's much more at stake here. Specifically, the EFF is concerned that the court ruled that since the email messages were not technically "intercepted" under the wiretap act, due to the fact that the emails were stored, however briefly, on a mail server before they were copied and re-forwarded. In other words, as the EFF points out, if you have access to any server that handles a message as it travels across the internet, it's not "intercepted" for you to read that message. That has huge and very dangerous implications for any sort of internet wiretapping -- suggesting that as long as the government routed all communications through its own machines, it could read everything without a warrant. This case is about a lot more than a BitTorrent tracker battling the MPAA.

Filed Under: email, surveillance, wiretapping
Companies: mpaa, torrentspy

Judge In Jammie Thomas Trial Seems Likely To Declare A Mistrial

from the appeals-on-the-way dept

In the ongoing saga of the Jammie Thomas trial, where the RIAA tried to get its first serious victory in court against an alleged file sharer, things may be looking a bit grim for the RIAA's argument. While it initially gloated after winning the case, the judge later admitted that he may have made a "manifest error of law" in saying that the RIAA did not need to prove actual infringement -- but that showing Thomas had "made available" content was good enough. While both the MPAA and the RIAA tried to explain why actual proof of infringement shouldn't be necessary because it's just too difficult (the gist of their arguments), it appears that the judge is not at all persuaded by their arguments and seems quite likely to declare a mistrial.

In the hearing today, the RIAA's lawyer basically argued the same point: that because it's too difficult to obtain evidence, evidence shouldn't be necessary. The judge responded by pointing out that if Congress really intended for that to be the case, then it would have written the law to make it clear that "making available" was infringement. Since it did not, it seemed likely that Congress did not intend for the law to be read as the RIAA wants it to be read (have no fear, of course, because as we speak you can rest assured that RIAA/MPAA lobbyists are working to get the law changed on this point).

Of course, whoever loses this ruling will appeal, this case is far from over. It will go through a series of appeals to determine whether or not the whole "making available" aspect is distribution, and then even after that's settled there are numerous other points that Thomas is likely to appeal (assuming the case is still going). What I don't understand is why Thomas and her lawyer haven't also appealed over the fact that the RIAA later admitted that a key witness lied on the stand concerning a key point over the legality of making personal copies of music you bought. That would seem to also be an important point.

Filed Under: copyright, jammie thomas, making available, mistrial, trial
Companies: mpaa, riaa

Congress Moves Forward With Plan To Make Universities Copyright Cops

from the first-ISPs,-then-colleges dept

For a little over a year, there have been stories about how the entertainment industry has been pressuring Congress to make universities responsible for stopping copyright infringement on their network. This got a lot of attention late last year when Congress tried to tie such a mandate to a provision granting financial aid to students. In other words, the threat was that if universities didn't act to stop file sharing, their students wouldn't be eligible for financial aid. This got plenty of attention, and the bill never passed. The most interesting part of it, though, was that much of the reasoning for the bill was driven by MPAA claims that 44% of all illegal file sharing took place on college campuses.

There was just one problem with that: the number was completely wrong. Earlier this year, the MPAA admitted that it had made a small mistake, and the number was actually something like 15% (and even that could be argued).

You might think that would allow our Congressional representatives to focus their attention on something a bit more important -- but with super low approval ratings, the people they actually represent matter a lot less than their biggest campaign donors. So, of course, the bill to turn universities into copyright cops is back once again. It is somewhat toned down, but will still require universities to basically be the mouthpieces of the entertainment industry, repeating their propaganda and ignoring that the problem is the industry's obsolete business models rather than any legal issue.

However, as you read William Patry's post on this above, you see that the MPAA is also positioning the legislative history on the law so that next year or so, they'll be able to come back and insist on mandatory filters at universities. Basically, it looks like the MPAA tried to bite off too big of a chunk when it pushed for this law last year, so this year, it's taking half a bite, but getting everything ready to get the rest of what it wants next year.

Filed Under: congress, copyright, copyright cops, intellectual property, mpaa, universities
Companies: mpaa

Is Embedding Infringement? MPAA Sues Two Sites

from the we-may-find-out dept

While we still need to wait for the end result of the YouTube/Viacom case to learn whether hosting infringing videos is infringement itself, there's another open question about whether or not linking to or embedding infringing videos is also infringing. It seems difficult to understand how it could be infringing, as it's no different than pointing someone to freely available content (and, technically, linking and embedding are no different at all -- it's just some HTML). The person (or computer) doing the linking or embedding has no idea whether the content being linked or embedded is infringing -- and it seems reasonable to believe that if it's available online, there's nothing wrong with linking to it.

Yet, here we have the MPAA suing two sites that both link to and embed various movies. The two sites in question, FOMD (Found Online Movie Database) and MovieRumor, don't host the movies themselves. They merely point people to various movies that are publicly available online. It would seem like a rather drastic stretch of copyright law to claim that is also infringement, but don't be too surprised at how this will be argued. The MPAA will play on emotional, rather than rational, arguments -- and it may actually work, given some similar cases in the past.

Filed Under: copyright, embedding, fair use, legal issues, linking
Companies: fomd, movierumor, mpaa