[Julie Jacobson]

The End of DVD Copying? MPAA Kills RealDVD for Good

Instead of appealing a decision that deemed its DVD-copying software illegal, Real Networks caved to the studios and will pay $4.5 million. Implications for Kaleidescape?


Real Networks (RNWK) caved to the studios yesterday.


Instead of appealing a decision that deemed its $30 RealDVD ripping software illegal, the company is paying the studios $4.5 million as reimbursement for legal fees.


Under the auspices of the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the studios sued Real in September 2008, claiming violations under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).


An injunction was imposed – and never lifted -- on sales of RealDVD.


In August 2009, the MPAA prevailed in its case against Real, which promised to appeal the decision.


Yesterday, Real gave up.


In addition to coughing up $4.5 million, Real agreed to abandon its claims against the studios and shut off metadata to the 2,700 users who managed to buy the software before the injunction was ordered.


After yesterday’s decision, MPAA general counsel Daniel Mandil said that the court’s “rulings and this settlement affirm what we have said from the very start of this litigation: It is illegal to bypass the copyright protections built into DVDs.”


[ MORE, including implications for Kaleidescape ]

 

[AvGeek07]

lol,mpaa still try's to cut dvd copying. that is a big "epic fail".because like leo laporte say's there just creating new pirates. we have the right to copy our "legal" movies to our computer. I mean why can't they see that! what a bunch of you know what.!

 

[Ovation]

That simply means people will get the necessary software elsewhere. It's hardly the "end of DVD copying".

 

[redondoman]

"The End of DVD Copying?" Talk about a misleading headline. So 2700 people got cutoff from a so-so software product. Yawn. Not even worth mentioning. I think the Billion or so Chinese that have perfected pirating down to an art would laugh at your comment.

 

[sharkcohen]

Linux FTW.

 

[MTyson]

How is it the end of DVD copying when there is still free software called "DVD Shrink"? lol. What is amazing is that people were paying for software to copy DVDs when they could do it for free.

 

[Artslinger]

This only drives more people to the "illegal" off shore software.


MPAA... that old saying goes, more money then brains.

 

[Eldorado]

My good ol FREE copy of DVDDecryptor keeps running along nicely!


When will these guys get out of the dark ages and realize people will find a way to get their media in the format that THEY want, not what the MPAA/RIAA want you to have


Digital Media is about to explode!

 

[mhufnagel]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldorado /forum/post/18249400


My good ol FREE copy of DVDDecryptor keeps running along nicely!

QFT


It's easy to store backed-up iso's on a portable hdd using free programs. Why in the world would anyone pay to be able to do it? And Real has a history of using crappy protection systems themselves. That's the last company I would support.

 

[paulw2]

Looks like the MPAA still live in the dark ages..

 

[iansilv]

Someone please correct me on the following if I am wrong:


Kaliedescape's issue is one of contract, and specifically whether it is acceptable to give further terms to a contract after the initial terms have been agreed to when those additional terms materially alter the original agreement (they are not part of the contract.)


RealDVD's issue was that it was a commercial program that violated the DMCA, and the DMCA was specifically passed to make the breaking of encryption schemes intended to prevent copying illegal.


The real issue here- the one that has not been tested in the courts- is whether you and I, as consumers legally-owning a piece of media, can break encryption to facilitate making a backup of media for personal use. This right was established by Supreme Court case law back in the days when the VCR was introduced, and has not been challenged since. It has not been challenged because no consumer has been sued for just making copies in the name of personal backup without the added element of piracy of distribution. It has also not been challenged because the DVD CCA likely does not want to get shot down and have a legal exception made to the DMCA that publicly acknowledges the right of consumers to make legal backups, with say, anydvdHD.


I ****ing hate pirates and I pay for my stuff. But I maintain that I have a right to make a personal backup of media I own.

 

[WizardOfZo]

So where DOES this leave us with media servers?

I just picked up a Popcorn Hour C200 and am putting all of my CD's, DVD's and Blu Ray's on its hard drive. They are all legally owned originals, Once ripped, I will store them away in case I need to re-rip them.


Is Big Brother going to come and put me in jail for watching the media I own?


On a side note, if you read the "Warning" on DVD's and Blu Ray's, besides the fines and jail time warnings for making "illegal" copies, it goes on to imply that if you show the movie to anyone besides the owner, you could be in trouble for that as well.

So will we soon be restricted to only one chair in our home theaters also?

 

[moviegeek]

If I can backup my CD's under Fair Use then I should be able to backup my DVD's! The MPAA is fighting a lost cause because the RIAA has given up on DRM, the sales of digital music has soared since DRM was abandoned. If the MPAA had their way we would be charged everytime we watch our movies.


As for Kaleidescape it doesn't look good, they are still breaking the CSS agreement.

 

[jaegertc]



Quote:
Originally Posted by AvGeek07 /forum/post/18248215


lol,mpaa still try's to cut dvd copying. that is a big "epic fail".because like leo laporte say's there just creating new pirates. we have the right to copy our "legal" movies to our computer. I mean why can't they see that! what a bunch of you know what.!

Um, you actually don't have that right. Or have you been to law school? The packaging tells you what rights you have and archiving (*copying*) isn't one of them. This may not be a popular statement on this site, but it is the correct one.

 

[iansilv]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jaegertc /forum/post/18252821


Um, you actually don't have that right. Or have you been to law school? The packaging tells you what rights you have and archiving (*copying*) isn't one of them. This may not be a popular statement on this site, but it is the correct one.

No, the packaging cannot contract around rights given to people through laws or court decisions. The right to a personal backup copy of media you have purchased was protected under the fair use doctrine. This was established during the days of the introduction of the VCR. That right has not been challenged in court, as all piracy cases are just that- piracy. No consumer has been brought to court for making a single backup copy of media they own in the name of fair use.

 

[jaegertc]



Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv /forum/post/18252838


No, the packaging cannot contract around rights given to people through laws or court decisions. The right to a personal backup copy of media you have purchased was protected under the fair use doctrine. This was established during the days of the introduction of the VCR. That right has not been challenged in court, as all piracy cases are just that- piracy. No consumer has been brought to court for making a single backup copy of media they own in the name of fair use.

"In the case where media contents are protected using some effective copy protection scheme, the Digita Millennium Copyright Act makes it llegal to circumvent that copy protection scheme. This law makes it llegal to rip most commercial DVDs as they are typically protected by CSS encryption."

 

[iansilv]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jaegertc /forum/post/18253227


"In the case where media contents are protected using some effective copy protection scheme, the Digita Millennium Copyright Act makes it llegal to circumvent that copy protection scheme. This law makes it llegal to rip most commercial DVDs as they are typically protected by CSS encryption."

Reread the thread. While the DMCA was passed, the circumstances that would test its legitimacy against prior Supreme Court decisions concerning fair use rights have not occurred. In other words, the law has been passed, but it conflicts with a prior decision when it comes to copying media. Encryption did not exist when vcrs were invented.


Hence, no consumer has been sued and then challenged the DMCA on the issue of fair use rights.


Congress can pass a law and it can remain in existance until it is successfully challenged in the Supreme Court, even if it conflicts with a prior decision.


This is why commercial applications, not grounded in the personal rights of an individual, have been sucessfully sued.

 

[Lazarus Dark]



Quote:
Originally Posted by jaegertc /forum/post/18253227


"In the case where media contents are protected using some effective copy protection scheme, the Digita Millennium Copyright Act makes it llegal to circumvent that copy protection scheme. This law makes it llegal to rip most commercial DVDs as they are typically protected by CSS encryption."

True, the DMCA makes breaking copy protection illegal.

HOWEVER, The fair use doctrine has been established prior to that by the Supreme Court.

I would argue that the DRM is actually illegal under fair use as it artificially attempts to OBSTRUCT a users fair use rights, thereby making DRM a violation of rights established by the Supreme Court. (example, albeit more extreme than media rights: Supreme Court decides having an abortion is legal... but Congress passes a law that a doctor performing abortion is illegal. Congress can't restrict Americans rights by trying to circumvent the Supreme Court. -again, I'm not comparing abortion to media rights, and lets not discuss abortion rights please! this is just an example)


Thereby, the DMCA is actually invalid, as copy protection which violates a users fair use rights was established by the supreme court to be illegal prior to the the DMCA's enactment.



As an example: Mandatory Managed Copy I would deem as perfectly legal, so long as it allows an individual to put that copy in on as many devices as they personally own without compromising quality. If it restricts a user from giving friends a copy somehow, that is within fair use rights. And so, breaking MMC copy protection I would actually agree would fall under the DMCA as illegal. (I don't quite understand exactly how MMC works, so if it reduces quality or restricts an individuals rights in some way that prevents its use in a legal, personal situation, then MMC would not be legal... I'm just using it as a hypothetical example)

 

[kinglerch]



Quote:
Originally Posted by iansilv /forum/post/18252838


No, the packaging cannot contract around rights given to people through laws or court decisions. The right to a personal backup copy of media you have purchased was protected under the fair use doctrine. This was established during the days of the introduction of the VCR. That right has not been challenged in court, as all piracy cases are just that- piracy. No consumer has been brought to court for making a single backup copy of media they own in the name of fair use.

The above is correct and often misunderstood. If the truck ahead of you has a sign that says "Not responsible for damage caused by thrown debris" or the car park hands you a ticket that says "Not responsible for items stolen from cars" those statements may or may not be true. Or said another way, handing you a sheet with your "rights" does not make them your rights.


Likewise, if you push "accept" on a software agreement that says "1% of all money made using Excel shall be paid to Microsoft" or "you agree not to share this movie with anyone" does not in itself make it legally binding. A company can not give themselves rights they are not due, nor take away rights you are not able to give away.


In fact, it is astonishing to me that some of these supposed "rights" are not challenged in a court.

NOTE: By reading this message to agree to send me $5

 

[Heli Pilot]



Quote:
Originally Posted by Lazarus Dark /forum/post/18260880


(example, albeit more extreme than media rights: Supreme Court decides having an abortion is legal... but Congress passes a law that a doctor performing abortion is illegal. Congress can't restrict Americans rights by trying to circumvent the Supreme Court. -again, I'm not comparing abortion to media rights, and lets not discuss abortion rights please! this is just an example)

Another example, less extreme is the ownership of class III firearms, short barreled rifles, full auto machine guns, etc...they are actually controlled by the Treasury under the 1934 NFA (National Firearms Act), and in that act it states that any person who can legally purchase a firearm, in others words if you can walk into a gun store and buy a shotgun, you can legally purchase, and own a class III firearm by passing the FBI background check, and paying the $200 tax. Many local law enforcement offices try to keep people from owning things like suppressors, full autos because they don't want them in their area, but the fact is that they can not stop you from buying them because the NFA trumps local ordinance.