MPAA strikes again, says transporting DVDs to iPods is wrong
By Darren Murph 
posted Nov 19th 2006 10:28AM
posted Nov 19th 2006 10:28AM
We don't seeing anything with helping a man out, or cutting him a sweet deal if he picks up a bundle of goods, but apparently the MPAA isn't down with companies loading the DVDs that consumers purchase onto their iPods as a friendly convenience. In another round of studios forcing consumers to purchase content multiple times for no good reason at all, Paramount Pictures has filed a lawsuit against the all but helpless Load 'N Go Video, which provided customers picking up an iPod and a few DVDs with a converting service to get flicks onto their handheld as a thank you for their business. According to the suit, the actual ripping of the DVD is illegal under the almighty DMCA, making the entire process illegal, fair use or not. Evidently selling millions of copies of Mission: Impossible III isn't good enough, as it appears that customers will be asked to shell out multiple times for the same (admittedly subpar) content. While pirating copies for personal gain is certainly aggravating the law, transcoding content for personal use sure seems harmless to us, but you'll have an exceedingly difficult time convincing Hollywood of that.
Gotta love the MPAA.
i mean i know that Hollywood's Lawyers wrote the DMCA, but dont we think it might be time to go back and have an impartial council with tech knowledge to go back and really break this thing down to explain it to the politicians. Then show them how it is completely unfair to consumers and try to corret this archaic law thats really needs to catch up to the present day. Ive stopped purchasing movies because of these greedy pr!cks. Ill buy my music and read good books, they are often better than the screen adaptation anyways. fu©k H0llyw00d.
Personal Use is personal use - they can't take that away from us.
Ali Aboutaam and Hicham Aboutaam
Phoenix Ancient Art
Its shit like this thats driving people TO piracy. And we all know how easy it is to pirate DVDs.
We don't seeing anything with helping a man out
you don't see anything //wrong// with that??
I would be interested to talk to them and see what there reasoning for why I cant put Click on my PSP when I payed 19.99 for it and don't share it with anyone else. It doesn't make any sense.
Fu©k you, Hollywood.
If thats the way they want to be I say screw them!! Steal everything!!!
I hope they actually go to court. This is one of the most blatant abuses (among MANY blatant abuses) of the DMCA that I've seen, and it should be struck down sharply.
The only danger would be an technophobic judge setting a sh!tty precedent in favor of the MPAA, but at least that would underscore the money-grubbing of the xxAAs to the general public.
[sarcasm] Yes, this policy is perfectly acceptable. I'm sure consumers will understand it completely. [/sarcasm]
This stuff drives me crazy. I'm almost 100% done with movies in general. Last night I went to see that new Will Ferrell movies. There was one place in the movie that within 5 mintues I saw MORE THAN 10 (TEN!!!!) of those dots grids that mpaa is putting on individual prints for track piracy. It was a mess. I dont' even rememeber what scene it was b/c I got so pulled out of it by grumbling about the dots. ack!
Hollywood, you're out of control. Change with the times - keep up or you'll go way of the horse buggy.
There is an important distinction here that needs to be understood: this company is doing the ripping for and end user, and charging for the service. Courts have traditionally held that this doesn't have the same fair use protection than if someone does the copying themselves. So this business might lose in court even if the DMCA didn't apply, because traditional copyright law might still bite them.
The difference, though, is the difference between malum in factum and malum prohibitum - wrongs that are inherently immoral and wrongs that are wrong only because the law says so.
Downloading a movie that you do not own from the interweb is malum in factum. You are taking property without right.
Ripping the movie that you legitimately paid for in a durable format (DVD as compared to pay-per-view) to another format (space shifting) is malum prohibitum.
I pose a question for you: Are CD-ripping companies that will rip CDs to an Ipod committing a wrong (set aside the fact that any home user can do it)
The two are analogous except for the fact that one has CSS.
Discuss y'all
To Michael,
It seems like you misread the article, since the company is not charging for transcoding the DVDs to the iPod. It is done as a free convenience for the customer that buys both at the same time. (I also checked the company website on this point.)
Andrew
Embee:
Not really the point in this case. We're talking legalities, specifically the DMCA.
It seems like a lot of people here don't understand how the DMCA can be invoked in a case that clearly seems to be one of fair use as defined under copyright law and as excepted in the DMCA itself.
The obvious distinction, as Michael said (though he was making a different point), is that this company is doing it for profit - they're using this service as a way to sell their products.
It is fair use if *you* break encryption to rip a DVD to your iPod. While not specifically tested in court, that would almost definitely fall under fair use (it's not really any different than other forms of fair use that have been defined in case law), and would therefore be excepted from the DMCA.
It is *not* fair use if somebody *else* breaks encryption for you as part of a for-profit service they are providing.
Unfortunately, stories like this confuse the issue, which is probably the whole point. The MPAA wants you to think that ripping DVD's is 100% illegal and that they'll go after anyone who does it. That's not the case. The issue is whether it's fair use or not (again, the DMCA makes a specific exception for fair use), and fair use doesn't apply to companies making a profit from selling a service to you.
wow, u kno ill just download my movies anyways but thats just pushing the limit... and embee is totally right. they rightfully bought it! so i dont see the big deal. i guess thats how everything is accomplished in america, suing...
To clarify for some of you that are siding with the MPAA and think the company is stealing something. You go to their site, buy some DVDs like you can at Amazon, and if you buy an iPod from them at the same time, they transcode the DVDs you just bought from them to the iPod, and then send you the iPod and the DVDs. If a judge finds any wrong-doing on their part, it should prove to all that the DMCA must go. Call your Reps and Congress, only they can fix this crap. Site this story as proof. Lobbyists have always had influence in DC but at least they weren't writing the laws, do you think a 70 year old has the knowledge to write the DMCA, no, it was probably typed up right at the RIAA or the MPAA office. We pay them to make life better for us, not make us all of us into criminals for doing something that rich executives don't want us to.
"While pirating copies for personal gain is certainly aggravating the law, transcoding content for personal use sure seems harmless to us, but you'll have an exceedingly difficult time convincing Hollywood of that."
With good reason. Convince Hollywood that it's technically possible to prohibit transcoded content from being given to a person who didn't buy the original copy.
Actually, it's not "fair use" if you break the encryption.
Section 1201 (a)(1) prohibits unauthorized access to a work by circumventing an effective technological protection measure used by a copyright owner to control access to a copyrighted work. There is no mens rea element. It is a strict liability provision. Under Section 1201, any action of circumvention without the consent of the copyright owner is criminal.
Therefore, personal DVD ripping is every bit as illegal as DVD ripping as a paid service to legitimate owners.
Thankyou for showing us that.
I was always concerned, but this article and that point specifically have certianly sparked my interest in this and i shall be taking a much closer look at the whole DCMA.
I think what many people fail to understand is the contract that they are entering into when they purchase this music/films. Especially when it comes to online music. The misconception that you have aquired the right to use the music as you wish, when infact you are leasing it from the producer under their terms, is highly deceptive and it needs to be challeneged.
Piracy is wrong, no question about it, but the terms of the contract between the user and the owner of the copyright are also fundamentally flawed. They either need to be changed, or the customer must be made more aware of what their rights are when they purchase such items.
You might have missed it, but at the bottom of the same section you quoted:
(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED- (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.
And now we come back to the question: How is a paid DVD-ripping service different from a paid CD-ripping service, CSS aside?
Assuming that the disc being ripped is a legitimately purchased copy, then such a service should qualify as "fair use."
After reading the complaint, it does not read as though the company was nabbed only for breaking CSS, but also for distributing movies in general. This is also what got Clean flix in trouble. One is 'allowed' to rip a DVD and archive the film for Fair Use, if and only if, the ripping came specifically from the exact DVD. That is, to be reasonably 'okay', Load N Go, has to take the EXACT DVD you bought, and rip it to another format. The company cannot have an archive of films pre-formated, and give a customer a copy from the pre-formatted files along with the DVD purchase. The Fair Use copy must be from THE physical DVD purchased, not another physical DVD of the same title.
So yes, the company is getting nailed for breaking CSS, but it aslo reads as though they are illegally distibuting films as well - probably because it had a library of films pre-formatted.
Oh I guess they should outlaw CD and DVD burners too.
At this point I have had enough of the MPAA and the RIAA; drm sucks, the DMCA sucks even more and they will not be satisfied until Fair Use is completely destroyed. So screw them, they were already getting very little of my money and now they can look forward to getting none of it. Hollywood wonders why even now with ITunes, Unbox, etc. people still go to the trouble of torrents, newsgroups and "rent to rip"; news like this is the reason. If I buy something I should have the right to use it whenever and wherever I choose to use it and if that is not the case then I will simply not buy it, I will pirate instead.
Well I never saw the appeal of trying to watch a movie on such a small screen anyway. I have a PSP and have looked at a few videos on it but didn't like it too much and it's screen is bigger than the ipods. Maybe it is just me but when I get ready to watch a movie I want to see it in all it's glory on a tv not on a tiny ipod screen. Even though I don't agree with the MPAA going after them it seems like they would have seen this coming. If they don't like people coping the DVDs themselves then they darn sure aren't going to like a company doing it regardless of if you purchased the DVD.
I am an advocate of anti-piracy, 100%. In the last year alone I've purchased over 100 CDs and 20 DVDs. I buy my music for my iPod (that I don't get from CD) from iTunes. I have purchased season passes to television shows and downloaded (paid) for a few movies when the service was introduced to me.
I consider myself to be a "good example" of what the MPAA an RIAA want. (I am also in a band. Support your fellow band...er record label... er distribution company, right?)
A great example. Or am I? Until I get a letter of legal action from the MPAA that has somehow pirated my Macintosh to figure out I'm 'instant handbraking' all of the movies that I'd enjoy seeing during tavel TO my iPod, I won't stop. There is no wrong. It's not even an instinctual action. I don't rip a DVD unless I want to watch it. Usually, thereafter, I even delete the files because I have no reason to archive two formats.
The main intention of Apple, et al was to let consumers do this. There was no movie download service, TV show downloads, or video podcasts. Those all sprung up after seeing the possibilites. We, as consumers, had unmet needs.
I'll NEVER download a feature movie illegally. I'll also NEVER pay twice for content I already own and in perfectly transportable condition.
Suck it MPAA, suck it.
I don't pirate stuff, but I've already ripped lots of my own DVDs and copied 'em to my iPod. And I'll keep doing it, because I paid for them. They're mine and nobody can tell me otherwise. Imagine how (much more) ridiculous these same rules would be if they applied to other things. Does IKEA tell you where in your house to position your furniture? Of course not, you bought it and they should no longer care what you do with it after that. I understand this is slightly different as you could potentially distribute your ripped/encoded movies, but if we're only talking about copying to your iPod for personal use, then it's about as ludicrous.
But really, I guess this is nothing new. The MPAA and RIAA are stupid and we all know it...
"But really, I guess this is nothing new. The MPAA and RIAA are stupid and we all know it..."
Wrong. Consumers are all stupid and the RIAA and MPAA know it.
You have to write every Congressman and Senator if you want any change here. Companies don't vote, but we do, and it you tell them, they will pretend to listen.
I'm not missing anything, Andrew. They aren't offering it out of the goodness of their hearts, they're doing it as part of their business approach---presumably as a calculation that doing so will boost profits.
We can discuss the legalities of it until we're blue in the face. The bottom line is that I'm not going to pay for a movie on DVD, then pay for it AGAIN to put it on my iPod. That's never going to happen.
All this nonsense perpetuated by the MPAA and RIAA does nothing to dissuade the people dealing in piracy. On the contrary - the guy who doesn't want to pay for anything will continue not to and the person dead set against piracy will continue to pay for everything. But the person who is on the fence about downloading illegal movies will eventually say, 'if the MPAA are gonna be asses about it then f'em.'
So MPAA and RIAA go ahead and continue to try to take away our ability to exercise our right to Fair Use, and see how far it gets ya.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20050402-4767.html
DVD profit margins double that of VHS
I thought this would be a nice link to see just how much MPAA members have benefited by the easy-to-produce disc format as opposed to VHS.
Too bad the links have long since been removed. We can argue all we want, but those buying DVDs are supporting them 100%.
I'm not a fan of overpriced crap with few features to boast in general - but, can't Apple take a leaf out of Samsung's book and add 200GB of flash memory to its iPod and then just include a DVD Decoder/Emulator? Oh wait, this would mean an iPod would need processing power greater than that of a gnat.
I guess if they have their way watching DVD's will eventually be like installing computer software. One DVD license per television.
If this this crap flies in court you can be sure the record companies will follow suit in an attempt to prevent consumers from ripping CD's and forcing them to buy DRMed content for digital media players.
As Embee points out, even private ripping of your legally purchased titles at home, for your own use violates the DMCA. The DMCA doesn't overturn consumers' fair use rights. What it does instead is place copyright holders' access control rights ahead of end-user fair use rights. The copyright holders get to decide who has access to the content before any of us get to implement our fair use rights.
Standard CD technology is older and therefore doesn't have any access control technology (something I'm sure the labels are kicking themselves over). CSS is employed on DVDs and, contrary to popular belief, is not a copy protection measure but an access control measure. Without a valid key, the content on the DVD can't be read (of course we all know how easy this is to bypass following the advent of DeCSS). The DMCA backs that up by making it illegal to circumvent access control measures. The DMCA does nothing to restrict or make illegal copying or even circumventing copy protection measures. But, since you first have to gain access in order to make a copy, the illegality of circumventing access control essentially takes away users' fair use rights to copy. It makes the creation, distribution and even the use of access circumvention technology illegal.
An example of how fair use is maintained even in the face of the DMCA can be seen with Kaleidescape. They use legally acquired keys from the DVDCCA (DVD Copy Control Association) to access DVDs and then copy the content over to the system's HDDs. Since they are not bypassing CSS, they aren't in violation of the DMCA. Now, the DVDCCA contends in their lawsuit against Kaleidescape that they are violating their contract by using the CSS key in a way they aren't supposed to. It is believed though that since there is no specific wording in the CSS key contract forbidding Kaleidescape from using the keys in the manner in which they are, that the DVDCCA will lose its case. Again though, that's a contract dispute over a legally licensed CSS key and not a DMCA violation because the act of copying the content isn't illegal.
Whether home users are circumventing CSS to copy content or a 3rd party is doing it for them, both are illegal. In my opinion though, the MPAA nor any of the studios will EVER sue an end user for ripping their own legally purchased content. That kind of PR could wake up teh general public to the reality of the DMCA and finally get a vocal movement going to have it repealed or changed.
By the way, in case any of use had any doubt about how inadequate the old folks in Congress are to understand current tech, let alone legislate it, let us bask in the intelligence of Senator Ted Stevens' (R - Alaska) now famous "series of tubes" comments:
"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got... an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, I got it yesterday. Why? [...] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material"
Ah, the genius of our system. ;-)
1, this is an American problem. and although most Americans don't know it, some of us live in OTHER countries,
2. read the real news story. engadgets is like CNN or a chat show. you don't actually get news. Ripping DVD in the USA is illegal and you have no fair use rights, unlike CDs.
3. Despite that, the studios will not go after individuals who rip for ipod, etc; obviously they understand the letter of the law is somewhat unreasonable,
4. they will go after any business that rips dvds as part of their business plan.
5. Even Apple are on the industry side with this. You have to realise the way the ipod works and and copy protection it uses comes at the insistence of the media industry. Apple needs to stay part of the team or they will be kicked out of the game.
Now argue about the facts and not the engadgets slant they provided.
waddo
http://www.waddo.net/
RIAA also says CD ripping to ipod is illegal
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004409.php
"1, this is an American problem. and although most Americans don't know it, some of us live in OTHER countries,"
Wait, you mean there is life outside the US? Who knew? :-P
Jeff
I don't have an "iPod" nor would I. I do however own an Creative Zen Vision W. I also have a DVD collection of well over 500 movies. Couple that with AnyDVD and CloneDVDmobile and I'll copy any of my DVDs to my Zen that I want.
Read it again, I OWN the DVDs. I PAID for the DVDs. I did NOT pay for the fraking encryption. If I want the means to watch them on my portable then I am going to do do it. The MPAA and the RIAA can frak off.
Consumers are stupid, and sure, the RIAA/MPAA try to take advantage of that. But it doesn't mean they aren't stupid themselves. They've shown time and again that they have no grasp on their own businesses, and don't understand what people want. Oftentimes they even try to stop things that they could potentially use in their favor. And while these companies don't directly vote, they most definitely have some influence over the laws that affect them.
I am going to boycot all theather and DVD sales (and rentals) until the MPAA gets their collective heads out of their asses.
They need to allow for fair use or risk looking customers. They wont consider it until it makes more fiscal sense to work with thier customers than against them. I think everyone should boycot movie and DVDs until they come up with some realistic options.