It's Illegal Not To Include Copy Protection In DVD Players?

from the but-why? dept

Thanks to John for passing on this story that Samsung is facing a lawsuit from a number of movie studios, though over what is still a bit up in the air. Samsung believes it's about a DVD player they stopped making and shipping over a year ago. The movie studios are upset that people could use the DVD player to avoid DVD copy protection, but it's not entirely clear (1) why that's illegal and (2) why the studios are suddenly interested in this so long after the product has been removed from the market.


Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

  •  
    identicon
    Mike, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 5:03am

    Streisand Effect and eBay...

    Just a thought, but wouldn't the Streisand Effect come into play here?

    I would just love to see these Samsung DVD-HD841 players start going for $500 each on eBay.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 5:06am

    No Subject Given

    I suspect that the 'Streisand Effect' will create a demand for Samsung's DVD-HD741,841 &941 models on ebay......

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Bill, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 5:19am

    New copy protection coming

    I think there is a new HD copy protection coming and I guess they want to enforce this to set a precedent before the new copy protection comes to the DVD player/ HDTV market.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Duffman07, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 5:20am

    No Subject Given

    those movie producing screw-jobs have to stop whinning! Thats all they ever do is whine about stuff. If u ask me someone should go and give them a good kick in the bum

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Devon, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 5:23am

    No Subject Given

    Of course it's illegal! The only reason that Fox and Disney signed up to the standard was on the condition that copyright protection was incorporated.

    Be thankful that we have DVD and not that crappy DIVX license-driven format to deal with.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      erik, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 8:17am

      Re: No Subject Given

      It's in violation of the DMCA because it helps users to circumvent a mechanism intended to protect copyright interests. It's a pretty simple case, actually, and Samsung should try and settle quick.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    giafly, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 5:42am

    Background

    "Why would such an unremarkable player be at the center of a lawsuit? As it turns out, the DVD-HD841 player allows users to circumvent both region encoding and HDCP. It has been known for some time that the major studios are unhappy with the number of DVD players that allow users to circumvent region encoding practices, either by allowing too many "resets" of a unit's geographic location, or allowing users to turn off compliance altogether." - arstechnica

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Robbie Mundan, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 5:48am

    DVD Players in Asia

    The DVD players in Asia/Australia and probably elsewhere are starting to *anything*. Google Shinco for example from China. The cost is about USD$60 and they play anthing you download from the web.

    DiVX is great. Great quality and the size that lets you burn 4 four feature movies on a standard DVD. Nice!

    China has made a big industry copying content from Hollywood. I think we are in this cat and mouse game for a long time.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    •  
      identicon
      ehrichweiss, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 6:10am

      Re: DVD Players in Asia

      Maybe we need to clarify which DIVX is which. Afterall, about 10 years ago there was the collarboration between Circuit City and some attorneys(who else) that tried to allow you to "buy" a movie and then pay on a nearly per-play basis as if renting it.

      The other Divx is an encoding standard created a few years ago that, as is mentioned, allows you to store high quality video in a compressed format that allows 4 times more video per disk.

       

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Chris Hanson, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 8:18am

    Breach of contract/license

    My (lay) understanding of all this is that in order to use the patents and other specifications necessary to create a device that can play DVDs (including the "DVD" logo and trademark) you need to obtain a license. In order to do that, you must agree to adhere to the copy-protection and region-coding rules used by the technology.

    That would make this a breach of contract, not a violation of law.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Anonymous Coward, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 9:25am

    No Subject Given

    Your terminology is muddying the discussion. If a lawsuit -- a civil legal process -- is occurring, then there is no "illegal" element (i.e., a criminal legal issue). While there may be a violation of the DMCA, this would need to be addressed in a separate criminal process.

    Possibly the studios feel that the DVD player in question represents such a threat that they must stomp on it quickly with a civil case before finally killing it with a criminal case. However, I wonder why they want to spend the money on a private suit against a product that is already supposed to be off the market. This seems like anything but a clear-cut DMCA case.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Jeff, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 10:18am

    ...

    problem: frivolous lawsuits filed by pussy homo lawyers, much too often.

    solution: we start killing lawyers in front of their families.

    lawyers need to be put in their place in this society, that place being UNDER the piece of shit stuck to my shoe. they're thoroughly worthless and evil people.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  •  
    identicon
    Matt, Feb 22nd, 2006 @ 12:52pm

    No Subject Given

    Aren't they just arguing that it includes a "mechanism to bypass copy protection?"

    Sure that's still a flawed argument, but I didn't think DRM was mandatory... yet.

     

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Save me a cookie
  • Note: A CRLF will be replaced by a break tag (<br>), all other allowable HTML will remain intact
  • Allowed HTML Tags: <b> <i> <a> <em> <br> <strong> <blockquote> <hr> <tt>
Follow Techdirt
Flattr rss rss
A word from our Sponsors...
Sponsored Resource
Essential Reading
Techdirt Reading List
Techdirt Insider Chat

A word from our Sponsors...
Recent Stories
A word from our Sponsors...

Close

Email This