looks to me like a lot of judges are in the same boat with the RIAA and Co. Lately we have not witnessed ONE single case where the ruling would be on the sensitive side; only extreme penalties and lopsidedness in sentencing. I am losing faith that the justice will ever see the truth as being in the middle, as it really is.
CSS is a joke. it can be pwned with just a few lines of C++ rofl.
Causal users? Hmm, you mean "dumb fuxking" users.
Sorry but I crac ... err I mean every single Disc that I own I "removed" the Stupid ass CSS on it and burn it on another DVD so yeah I can watch it anywhere I want. Movie studios cant tell me what I can/can't watch on.
a better way to stop this instead of having a suit is including a digital copy with the dvd, which Disney does anyway in its special editions and some blu-ray copies. just make it a standard practice. a friend of mine works for Disney and they were practically throwing away free itunes redeemable codes for "Race To Witch Mountain".
I wonder how many here have made a movie. Does the millions upon millions upon millions of dollars that went into making and marketing the movie not deserve something for its work? In this me me me society I think america has proven it is the most selfish and horrible country.
The point of the DMCA is to protect the rights of the people that make a digital product. If you work around those protections, it is EXPLICITLY STATED in the DMCA that is illegal. It is RealMedia that is whining they tried to break the law and got a nice F-you from the people they tried to swindle. They may say they are trying to help the consumer but they just wanted a piece of the pirate pie.
All of you that think the RIAA is in the wrong here you maybe step up and write your congressmen/women and say the law is unjust. If you are too lazy to do that, shut up and follow the law. There are a bunch of whining pirates on this site and I for one think you need to either try to change it (legally) or back down.
Well that's stupid since you can do a google search and quickly find numerous DVD backup and shrinking softwares for free. Why not let someone make their own product and sell it if they wish. The DeCSS is mearely a few lines of code anyway.
RealDVD retains CSS and adds a second layer of security to make sure the DVD isn't pirated, but only used on the computer where the DVD was ripped. In other words, it's far harder to pirate using RealDVD than when using free products such as DeCSS. But hey, don't let that stop you claim they are trying to get part of the pirate "profits."
They created what should be a legitimate use of DVDs: a non-transferable copy on your hard drive, so you don't have to get the disc out.
But yeah, technically they violated DMCA. So do all free software DVD players. The law is f*cking dumb. Their software does nothing to increase piracy, just the opposite.
And yet Kaleidescape lives on. Hypocrisy is alive and well in the American "legal" system. I wonder how many studio executives and judges have shares in Kaleidescape? That would be a interesting question to ask them.
I think they should do the ultimate FU to all of the studios and "leak" the software to the world. If the courts are going to make it where they cannot make an honest dollar exactly like Kaleidescape (for them I should say something like 10,000 dollars) then cut your loss and shoot the finger.
I have read the actual 58 page opinion and the statute. The judge is correct in her ruling; it's the statute that is broken.
Here is a read of the law as it pertains to an individual (at least my read from it. Yes, I am an attorney. No, you may not rely on this, the law in this area is too uncertain to be sure of anything).
An individual who owns DVDs could otherwise copy the contents under fair use, assuming there was no copy protection. This is made clear by the proliferation of iPods and people being encouraged to rip their unprotected CD collections. I see no reason why video works would have more protection than audio works.
1201(a) of the DMCA is clear that it is unlawful for anyone (except those listed in (1)(A)(B)) to circumvent access protection, or manufacture, traffic, etc. in a product that circumvents access protection. Access, however, is not copying (under the law); it is playing the DVD. See the opinion at page 38 lines 10-12 and 21-22.
1201(b) prohibits manufacturing, importing, providing, making available to the public, or trafficking something that circumvents the copyright holder's rights, which includes copying. This is different from (a) in that the actual circumvention is not prohibited.
What does this mean? It would seem to mean that an individual owner of a DVD could copy the disk by circumventing the protection. How? Well if you write your own software, you would be manufacturing, so that is out. If you buy software, then you are trafficking, so no go there. But if you downloaded something that is free (like DVD Shrink) from a domestic server (to avoid importing), then it would seem that you are not violating the law. This is supported by:
"Since copying may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances,section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying." Page 38, line 20-22, quoting the US Copyright summary.
"The fact that Congress elected to leave technologically unsophisticated persons who wish to make fair use of encrypted copyrighted works without the technical means of doing so is a matter for Congress." Page 39, line 24-26, quoting Reimerdes, an other case.
This copy, however, would have to leave all the copyright protections intact, else you would be circumventing the access protections. This means you could not run an image file off your computer. Such an act would require unauthorized access. The image would have to be burned to a disc and accessed through an authorized player.
The whole access vs. copying thing would also seem to apply to the analog hole, like if you play a DVD in a player, and then record the analog out. The player allows for lawful access, so no 1201(a) violation, and as discussed above, there is no violation for the actual circumvention of copy protection.
If the movies studios had some intelligence and foresight, they would have developed the ripping software themselves, "buy our software to make legal backups of our products", then my might have a leg to stand on with third parties who publish ripping software.
i agree that the law has been broken here and Real's attempt to ignore it was wrong, but i do also believe that CSS and the DCMA destroy all that was established by the Sony BetaMAX case for consumer rights. instead of the studios appealing or trying to update the limitations of consumer rights they simply constructed new laws. producers of content should be entitled to payment for first sales but after that their rights should end and any resale or manipulation (not for resale) of said copies by the consumer, should not be hampered. people that argue for over the top protections for 'content producers' so that they may be paid for every instance of playback, or copying (by a consumer for personal use) is insane. there should also be a far smaller window for these 'content producers' to be able to milk the system to get paid. anything over 10 years is ludicrous...
we didn't always have these lame laws and artists and musicians did just fine. that they somehow now believe they need special laws is more of an indication of greed some people think is only limited to consumers...
I thought RealDVD did not try to circumvent the access protection. That is how Kaleidescape got around it (and supposedly tons of royalty fees to the studios.) I was under the belief that RealDVD left the CSS on the copied data from the DVD. Am I wrong in this? If RealDVD is not removing the copy protection, but retaining the CSS on the copy then what is the problem? That is exactly how Kaleidescape works and charges tens of thousands of dollars for their worthless products.
The business models of the DVD/movie companies are short sighted. They recognize that modest talented computer users can find ways to overcome CSS protection. The balancing factor is that they need to make money for their product and they feel that allowing unlimited copying allows mass free distribution. The Milennium Act is designed to prevent the latter. Those are the givens.
When the only solution is the patchwork quilt of various court decisions there is no real solution. More and more people learn to disrespect the unrealistic law by finding alternative copying modes. Lawyers stay busy while some people continue to copy disks while others increase their anger at the DVD/movie companies that exacerbate the situation.
The DVD/movie companies need to develop a business model that accepts reality and encourages the public to support the industry, rather than disrespect it.
I don't have a solution, so I am just hot air, but I do know that the more difficult and convoluted the system the less likely it will be a success. Perhaps the music industry model is an appropriate paradigm. In the mean time we just watch these skirmishes make bad law and waste money. What folly.
I can't help but interject ONCE AGAIN that the law in the united states should follow what the people decide. The majority of the public is on the side that when they purchase media they want it to follow through onto any device they get. meaning in 10 years, they don't want to be forced into either buying a jalopied out of date dvd player and/or forced to re-purchase their entire media collection. I'm sorry but i'm not paying for a service, i'm paying for a product that i'm going to keep enjoying for as long as i live, not until technology moves on.