As Expected, Judge Still Bans Real From Selling RealDVD

from the no-surprise dept

This will come as absolutely no surprise to folks who have followed Hollywood's self-defeating battle against Real Network's RealDVD offering. If you don't recall, Real announced a product that would let users back up a DVD in their possession. Now, it's important to understand a few basic facts: under copyright law, you are allowed to make a personal backup of something like a CD or software. That's been found to be perfectly legal fair use. So, what's the problem? Well, one of the worst aspects of the DMCA is that it includes a totally unnecessary (and constitutionally questionable) anti-circumvention clause. Basically, the DMCA says that if you circumvent (or offer tools to circumvent) any kind of DRM, you've broken the law (and here's the ridiculous part) even if the actual copying you then do is perfectly legal. Yes, it's like saying that breaking into your own house is illegal. It makes no sense at all.

Real tried to get around this issue in a clever way. It figured that if you really were limited only to being able to make a backup copy (rather than an unencrypted copy that could be passed around), then a court would have a hard time finding it illegal. And, in fact, it had some legal precedent on its side. Two years ago, a court found that Kaleidescape, makers of a super high-end DVD jukebox, was perfectly legal, since the device was clearly only designed to make personal backups, and couldn't be used to distribute content.

Unfortunately, it appears that judge Marilyn Patel (who was also the judge who killed the original Napster) disagrees. She's issued yet another injunction blocking Real from selling RealDVD, saying that it violates copyright law. Again, this isn't a surprise. She had issued an initial injunction last year, and seemed quite skeptical of Real's arguments earlier this years, declaring:

"They have the copyright. That's the issue here right? They have the copyright. They have the right to exclude."

This is only partially true. They have some rights to exclude, but those rights are limited. The question is whether or not Real's actions fall outside that limit. But Judge Patel seems to disagree entirely with the Kaleidescape ruling, on that point.

Of course, the real issue here is how pointless a move this is for Hollywood, anyway. There are tons of DVD ripping software offerings out there -- which don't even have the limitations that RealDVD does. I can't fathom who would buy Real's product in the first place, knowing that there are much better, non-limiting products out there. Yet, here was a product that was doing everything it possibly could to play within the rules to make DVDs more valuable by letting people make use of their legal right to back up a DVD they had purchased, and Hollywood wants to crack down on it? The only thing that will do is drive more people to use the other versions of DVD ripping software out there. So, congrats, Hollywood, on pushing more people -- people who wanted to be good, legal, customers of your DVDs -- to go around the law to back up their DVDs, leaving them more open to file sharing.

It's difficult to fathom how anyone could think this was a smart move by Hollywood, or even how this is a "victory" for Hollywood.

50 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Real DVD Copying Case Gets Off To An Inauspicious Start

from the not-a-good-sign dept

The latest joke of a lawsuit from Hollywood, over Real Networks' RealDVD software, began today. The movie studios were actually able to get the judge to close the courtroom and kick out the press, despite not following the normal procedures to request such a move. If you haven't followed the case at all, basically Hollywood is suing RealNetworks for making software that allows you to back up your own DVDs, though it places significant limitations on them. What's really odd about this is that there are tons of free DVD rippers out there that put no restrictions whatsoever. In Real's case, it puts significant limitations on the backup copies -- and courts have shown in the past that making a backup of a digital good is accepted as fair use. Taking Real's product off the market makes almost no sense at all.

However, it seems like Hollywood's argument is based on the claim that Real somehow is using "hacker" technology in its product that violates the DMCA. It's not clear why using hacker technology should make the situation any different than having built your own. The MPAA is also claiming that there is no fair use defense to backing up a DVD, which is difficult to believe, given that fair use covers backups of music and software. What makes a movie so different? Well, the MPAA, of course, will claim (as it did in a previous case, against 321 Studios) that the encryption makes it illegal.

And that's where the problems come in. Thanks to the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA, an action that is clearly fair use (backing up a movie) becomes illegal not because of the backup, but because of the circumvention of the DRM. That should go against all common sense: if the action itself is legal fair use, why should it matter how it's done (or who made the software)? Unfortunately, we don't often see common sense win out in these cases... and the early reports from the court room suggest that the judge is siding with the MPAA. Perhaps this isn't a surprise. Marilyn Hall Patel is the same judge who declared Napster illegal as well, despite a strong safe harbor defense. In this case, she told RealNetworks:

"They have the copyright. That's the issue here right? They have the copyright. They have the right to exclude."

That's actually a somewhat scary quote from the judge who should know better. Copyright does give them a right to exclude, but a limited right, which is supposed to be weighed against the rights of consumers, including their rights to fair use for things like (drum roll....) making a backup.

86 Comments | Leave a Comment..

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.

30 Comments | Leave a Comment..

RealNetworks Picks Fight With Hollywood; Plans To Release DVD Ripping Software

from the legal-battles-on-the-horizon dept

You may remember about six years ago, a company named 321 Studios released a product called DVD X Copy, that was designed to allow you to rip a DVD to a digital file on your computer. Despite the fact that the law is clear that making a backup copy like this is perfectly legal, the problem (from the movie studios' perspective) was that this software got around the encryption they put on DVDs, and thanks to the "anti-circumvention" clause of the DMCA, the act of getting around that DRM (even if for a perfectly legal reason) was illegal. Unfortunately, 321 Studios lost that suit and eventually went out of business, when it became to expensive to continue to fight the studios. It was a very bad ruling, highlighting the more ridiculous aspects of the DMCA, but without anyone else willing to take the case further, not much has happened in the space since. There are plenty of DVD ripping tools out there, but none from a major company... until now.

Apparently, Rob Glaser over at RealNetworks is so desperate for some attention that Real is releasing its own DVD ripping program, though it's loaded down with its own limitations. You'll only be able to watch the movie on the machine you ripped it to -- or can transfer it to another machine, but with a limit of 5 machines, and each of those machines has to have a purchased copy of the same software. In other words, while it rips the movie, it puts its own restrictive DRM on it as well, which hardly seems appealing -- especially at $30, when there are DVD ripping products for free that don't have such restrictions.

Yet, the nameless Hollywood insiders still think that Real will get sued over the product, which is probably what Glaser is hoping for (in order to get the free press). So, even if the product is likely to be a dud, the resulting lawsuit could be pretty important in determining the limitations of the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause -- or, at least, reminding the American public that the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause leads to ridiculous situations, such as making it illegal to provide a product that does perfectly legal things.

19 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Mixed Ruling In Case Over Limitations On DMCA Anti-Circumvention Clause

from the will-have-to-wait-for-the-trial dept

John Stottlemire, who is being sued by Coupons.com in a case we've been covering, writes in himself to let us know that the court has ruled on various motions to dismiss (warning: pdf). If you don't recall, Coupons.com offers online coupons using some software. The software is designed to limit how many copies of a coupon each person can print, but Stottlemire figured out ways to easily get around that limit and both built a tool to do so, as well as explained how to do it manually -- at which point Coupons.com sued him for a DMCA violation, claiming he circumvented their anti-copying mechanism. The specifics of the case are pretty confusing, but basically Coupons.com is trying to stretch the DMCA beyond what it was intended for. The ruling dismisses some of Coupons.com's claims, while allows others to go forward.

It's not a complete win, but the court did deny Coupons.com's attempt to blur the line between "rights-control" and "access-control" which is a good thing. However, on the issue of whether or not just explaining how to circumvent the copy protection by deleting some files is a DMCA violation, the court is allowing that issue to move forward at trial. So while this is a good partial win, we'll still have to wait and see what happens in the next stages of this case to determine whether or not Coupons.com can expand the DMCA.

18 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Canadian DMCA Introduced (Finally); Pretends US Lobbyists Had Nothing To Do With It

from the 51st-state dept

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. Originally slated for the end of last year, an uproar from tens of thousands of concerned citizens in Canada, made Industry Minister Jim Prentice delay the bill. He insisted that he would listen to constituents and open the process up to make sure the bill achieved the right balance -- except that no open discussions were ever held. Instead, he apparently looked to add a few "consumer friendly" provisions to the bill, legalizing things that should be perfectly legal anyway (time-shifting, ability to move songs you purchased to an iPod) and then kept all the bad things. After trying to sneak it through last week, the bill was delayed briefly. However, with Prentice promising the entertainment industry that the bill would be released before summer, he was running out of time.

And, indeed, this morning the bill was finally introduced. It's pretty much as bad as you would expect. It includes a DMCA-like anti-circumvention clause and fines of $500 to $20,000 for any unauthorized content you may have. Existing law already had similar fines, but the new law basically expands what you may get fined for. The law also does provide safe harbors for service providers (a good thing) including a "notice-and-notice" provision, rather than an American-style "notice-and-takedown" system (i.e., when informed of infringement, the service providers just need to inform the user, rather than immediately take down the content). Those make sense, but are drowned out by other problems with the bill. Prentice is pushing the angle that this bill is a "made-in-Canada" law, which is pretty laughable, since everyone knows that it was pretty much written by US industry lobbyists.

Even the supposedly "pro-consumer" parts of the bill (which weren't in the original version) have a lot of questionable fine print. And, of course, it looks like Prentice is using some procedural tricks to try to get the bill fast-tracked with as few opportunities to change it as possible. Hopefully, the expectations by some that this bill will be left to die come true. While there may be elements of Canada's copyright law that need updating, creating a mini-DMCA is hardly a step in the right direction.

15 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Antitrust Lawsuit Wants To Force Apple To Add WMA Support To iPods

from the right-diagnosis-wrong-solution dept

We've noted a few times that people have gotten way too trigger-happy about invoking antitrust law any time a company does something they don't like. Antitrust law is supposed to prevent the abuse of actual monopolies like Ma Bell. It's not supposed to be an all-purpose weapon to be used against any company whose market share exceeds 50 percent. A lawsuit filed on New Year's Eve claims that Apple has violated antitrust law by declining to license the WMA DRM format from Microsoft for the iPod. There are several obvious problems with this. In the first place, while Apple has undeniably dominated the market for portable music players, there's no shortage of competition. Big companies like Microsoft, Sony, and Samsung make competing MP3 players. Consumers who don't like the formats supported by the iPod have no shortage of alternatives. Second, it's really not a good idea for the courts to be getting embroiled in technical debates over what formats devices should support. The issues involved are complicated, and the market evolves quickly. By the time the courts get around to making a final decision, the issue is likely to be ancient history. Third, it's hard to fault Apple for failing to support WMA-based DRM when even Microsoft itself broke compatibility with its old DRM scheme when it introduced the Zune. Surely if Microsoft can't be bothered to support its own audio format, it's hard to justify forcing Apple to do so.

It's also worth noting that none of this would be an issue if the DMCA didn't give digital rights management technology the force of law. This sort of thing isn't a problem with non-DRMed music formats because there are plenty of tools out there for converting from one music format to another. Without the DMCA, there would be similar tools for converting copy-protected music to the appropriate format. But under the DMCA, such a tool would be an illegal "circumvention device." Repealing the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions is a much better solution because it would give consumers the freedom to play their music on the device of their choice without getting the courts involved in the messy business of deciding which MP3 players have to support which audio codecs.

Timothy Lee is an expert at the Insight Community. To get insight and analysis from Timothy Lee and other experts on challenges your company faces, click here.

35 Comments | Leave a Comment..

Is It A DMCA Violation To Tell People To Delete Some Files From Their Hard Drive?

from the so-says-one-company dept

One of the worst parts of the DMCA is the "anti-circumvention" law that makes it illegal to help people get around any kind of copy protection. First of all, there are plenty of legitimate reasons why someone might want to get around copy protection -- but, more importantly, if someone is violating copyrights by getting around copy protection, then they should be liable, rather than the person who showed them how to get around the copy protection. However, that's not how the DMCA is written -- and because of that, we get ridiculous situations like the following. A guy pointed out that if you delete a few files from your computer, the limitations on how many coupons you can print via coupons.com disappear. Coupons.com is responding by filing a DMCA lawsuit against him. Remember, he's not hacking their software in any way. He's just pointing out that their software protection scheme is so poorly designed, that deleting a few files renders it useless. And for that, he may be facing tremendous fines. The problem here isn't that this guy pointed out that their software was weak -- but that their software was weak in the first place.

56 Comments | Leave a Comment..