<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/">
<channel>
<title>Techdirt. Stories filed under &quot;css&quot;</title>
<description>Easily digestible tech news...</description>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/</link>
<language>en-us</language>

<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Feb 2012 13:03:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>MPAA: Ripping DVDs Shouldn't Be Allowed Because It Takes Away Our Ability To Charge You Multiple Times For The Same Content</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/11540317771/mpaa-ripping-dvds-shouldnt-be-allowed-because-it-takes-away-our-ability-to-charge-you-multiple-times-same-content.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/11540317771/mpaa-ripping-dvds-shouldnt-be-allowed-because-it-takes-away-our-ability-to-charge-you-multiple-times-same-content.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ It's that time again when the Librarian of Congress is <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111202/09555116956/copyright-office-once-again-preparing-to-throw-citizens-fair-use-bone.shtml">considering</a> special exemptions to the DMCA's anti-cicrumvention provisions.  One of the key proposals, which we discussed earlier, was Public Knowledge's request to allow people to rip DVDs for personal use -- just as we are all currently able to rip CDs for personal use (such as for moving music to a portable device).  The MPAA (along with the RIAA and others) have <a href="http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2012/comments/Steven_J._Metalitz.pdf" target="_blank">responded to the exemption requests</a> (pdf) with all sorts of crazy claims, but let's focus in on the DVD ripping question, because it's there that the <a href="http://www.publicknowledge.org/blog/mpaa-customers-if-you-are-lucky-you-can-pay-a" target="_blank">insanity of Hollywood logic</a> becomes clear.
<br /><br />
Effectively, the MPAA is arguing that there is no evidence that ripping a DVD itself is legal, and since anti-circumvention exemptions are only supposed to be for legal purposes, this exemption should not apply.  Leaving aside the sheer ridiculousness of the fact that we need to apply for exemptions to make legal acts legal (I know, I know...), this is quite a statement by the MPAA.  While it's true that there hasn't been an official ruling on the legality of ripping a DVD, the fact that CD ripping is considered legal seems to suggest that movie ripping is comparable.
<br /><br />
But the bigger point is that the MPAA is arguing that because they offer limited, expensive and annoying ways for you to watch movies elsewhere, you shouldn't have the right to place shift on your own:
<blockquote><i>
Copyright owners include with many DVD and Blu-
Ray disc purchases digital copies of motion pictures that may be reproduced to mobile devices
and computers pursuant to licenses. Blu-Ray disc purchasers can also take advantage of
"Managed Copy" services that are scheduled to launch in the U.S. later this year. Movie
distributors and technology companies are also making available services such as UltraViolet,
which enables consumers to access motion pictures on a variety of devices through streaming
and downloading. Many movies and television shows are also available online through
services such as Comcast Xfinity, Hulu and Netflix, or websites operated by broadcasters or
cable channels, which consumers can enjoy from any U.S. location with internet access. With all
of these marketplace solutions to the alleged problem PK points to, it is unlikely that the
presence of CSS on DVDs is going to have a substantial adverse impact on the ability of
consumers to space shift in the coming three years.
</i></blockquote>
Notice that almost all of these "market solutions" mean you have to pay multiple times for the same content -- and they ignore the fact that these offerings are all very limited and may not have the content on the DVDs people have.  Public Knowledge has a quick summary of how these "solutions" are not solutions at all:
<blockquote><i>
The MPAA had two specific suggestions.  First, consumers could re-purchase access to a subscription service such as Netflix of Hulu.  They did not dwell on the fact that 1) this would require you to pay again to access a movie you already own; 2) these services require a high speed internet connection in order to work; 3) There is a reasonable chance that the movie you own is not available on any of those services at any given time; and 4) MPAA member studios regularly pull videos that were once available on those services off of those same services.
<br /><br />
The MPAA&#8217;s second suggestion was even less helpful.  In their comments, they pointed to Warner Brothers&#8217; DVD2Blu program.  This program allows people to use their existing DVDs as a coupon towards the purchase of a handful of Warner Blu-Ray disks.  They did not dwell on the fact that 1) this program is limited to Warner Brothers films; 2) the program is limited to 25 exchanges per household; 3) while some Blu-Ray disks include digital copies that can be moved to other devices, it is unclear how many of the disks in the DVD2Blu program include that option; 4) only 100 movies are included in the entire program; and 5) each exchange costs at least $4.95 plus shipping (which, for the record, is about as much as it would cost to buy the digital file from Amazon.).
</i></blockquote>
When you think about it, this is really quite crazy.  They're saying because they offer you an option to pay for a way too expensive, very limited option that might not really exist, you shouldn't have the right to rip your DVDs.  This would be like the recording industry claiming you can no longer rip CDs because they offer a limited locked down selection of music in an online store.  People would revolt at such a claim, and they should find the MPAA's ridiculous claims here equally as revolting.
<br /><br />
If the MPAA stopped there, it would be crazy enough... but no, in the mind of Hollywood, they have to take it even further.  They claim that because the ability to rip your DVD might take away their ability to keep charging you for the same content over and over again, that it goes against the purpose of copyright law.  Seriously.  They're actually claiming that their ridiculous "windows" are "new business models" that copyright law is designed to encourage:
<blockquote><i>
In fact, granting PK&#8217;s proposed exemption would be directly counter to the purpose of
this rulemaking. It would undermine emerging business models that increase access to creative
works in precisely the manner Congress intended the DMCA to promote.
</i></blockquote>
But that's pure bullcrap.  The business models in question do not "increase access."  They increase the ways in which you can <i>pay</i>.  If they want to increase access, they would let you <i>rip your damn movie</i>.
<blockquote><i>
It is clear that access controls have increased consumers&#8217; options with respect to
motion pictures in digital formats. The Register should not interfere with that progress. Instead,
she should endorse it.
</i></blockquote>
Up is down, black is white, day is night.  <i>Controls</i> have increased consumer options?  No freaking way.  Controls have limited options... but have allowed the MPAA studios to set up tollbooths and charge people multiple times for content they legally had purchased the rights to.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/11540317771/mpaa-ripping-dvds-shouldnt-be-allowed-because-it-takes-away-our-ability-to-charge-you-multiple-times-same-content.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/11540317771/mpaa-ripping-dvds-shouldnt-be-allowed-because-it-takes-away-our-ability-to-charge-you-multiple-times-same-content.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120215/11540317771/mpaa-ripping-dvds-shouldnt-be-allowed-because-it-takes-away-our-ability-to-charge-you-multiple-times-same-content.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>um,-wow</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20120215/11540317771</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 5 Dec 2011 22:06:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Copyright Office Once Again Preparing To Throw Citizens A Fair Use Bone</title>
<dc:creator>Zachary Knight</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111202/09555116956/copyright-office-once-again-preparing-to-throw-citizens-fair-use-bone.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111202/09555116956/copyright-office-once-again-preparing-to-throw-citizens-fair-use-bone.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A few weeks ago, I was talking with one of my friends about copyright law and just what is legal for us and consumers to do with the movies, games, music and software we own. In that conversation, the topic of copying a movie from a DVD to her computer for use on her family's computers and tablets came up. I had the pleasure, or more accurately the displeasure, of trying to explain the nuances of copyright law and why making a copy of a DVD may not be legal. While it is generally accepted that copying a CD for home use is considered a fair use, the ability to do the same with a DVD has not been legally tested. For the most part, it remains illegal because the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause makes bypassing DRM, whether that DRM is effective or not, illegal. With the DMCA in place, it doesn't matter is you are copying that DVD for personal use, it is still illegal. 
<br /><br />
 In response to public concerns over this portion of the DMCA, Congress added a process to the DMCA that allows citizens to petition the Copyright Office to seek an exemption. Every three years the Library of Congress and the Copyright Office team up to request, review and grant exemptions to the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Every three years, the American citizens get the chance to beg the government to re-grant rights they should have if it had not been for that clause in the DMCA. Every three years the Copyright Office gets to tell American citizens just what rights they are allowed to exercise and which they can't. We have already expressed why we think <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100804/04102010491.shtml">this process is completely bogus</a>. So this year isn't really any different. But it is important to take a look at just what exemptions are being requested this year. <br /><br /> One of the most active consumer groups in this process is the EFF. They have requested exemptions all but one year in the process. The year it didn't submit a request was spent in protest over the insanity of the process. However, it has since won some important exemptions, specifically the right to jailbreak a legally purchased iPhone. This year, the EFF has decided to take it up a notch and request an <a href="https://www.eff.org/press/releases/eff-seeks-widen-exemptions-won-last-dmca-rulemaking" target="_blank">exemption to jailbreak not only the iPhone, but also other smartphones, tablet computers and game consoles</a>. It also seeks to have exemptions made for the breaking of DVD's CSS encryption for the purpose of extracting clips to be used in non-commercial videos. <br /><br /> Following suit on the idea of bypassing CSS encryption, we have both <a href="http://publicknowledge.org/blog/pk-copyright-office-let-people-rip-their-own-" target="_blank">Public Knowledge requesting an exemption for space shifting of DVDs for home use</a> and the <a href="http://policynotes.arl.org/post/13638524058/libraries-let-profs-and-film-students-continue-to-rip" target="_blank">Association of Research Libraries requesting an exemption for educational use of copied DVDs</a>. Three requests for bypassing CSS encryption. Perhaps there is something there. The ability to bypass CSS encryption and copy DVDs to computers has existed for pretty much the entire life of DVDs, yet it is still illegal to do so.<br /><br /> Now remember, just because these requests are being made, it does not mean we are guaranteed to get these exceptions. Companies interested in blocking these requests can still add their own submissions in response. We can certainly expect the MPAA to object to any kind of exemption for bypassing CSS encryption that doesn't <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090506/1851344774.shtml">involve a video camera</a> recording the TV. We can also expect objections from <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110620/02535014751/sony-continues-suing-people-who-help-others-modify-their-ps3s.shtml">Sony</a> and <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111022/08231916467/nintendo-fans-hijack-twitter-hash-tag-meant-nintendo-america-ceo-are-promptly-ignored.shtml">Nintendo</a> who both hate the idea of people jailbreaking their consoles even for fair uses. <br /><br /> Regardless of what happens in the next few months (or two years if the last process was anything to go by), US citizens will be thrown a bone and given the semblance of fair use rights again, at least for the following three years when this whole process starts over. That is the biggest problem with this whole process. If something is worth making a temporary exemption, is it not also worth making that exemption permanent?<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111202/09555116956/copyright-office-once-again-preparing-to-throw-citizens-fair-use-bone.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111202/09555116956/copyright-office-once-again-preparing-to-throw-citizens-fair-use-bone.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111202/09555116956/copyright-office-once-again-preparing-to-throw-citizens-fair-use-bone.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>please-sir,-may-I-have-some-rights</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20111202/09555116956</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jan 2010 05:45:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Judge Says No Antitrust Violation In Hollywood Killing RealDVD</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2023347693.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2023347693.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In the ongoing saga of Hollywood's bizarre and self-defeating <a href="http://techdirt.com/search.php?cx=partner-pub-4050006937094082%3Acx0qff-dnm1&#038;cof=FORID%3A9&#038;ie=ISO-8859-1&#038;q=realdvd">attack on RealNetworks for its RealDVD offering</a>, a judge has <a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2010-01-08/disney-studios-win-dismissal-of-realnetworks-claims-update2-.html" target="_blank">dismissed Real's countersuit claiming antitrust violations</a> by the Hollywood studios in effectively creating a cartel that controls the encryption on DVDs and refusing to license it to Real for the purpose of its DVD backup solution.  The court basically said that there is no harm to Real caused by any actions of the Hollywood studios, because the real "harm" is in the fact that it created an infringing product in RealDVD.  
<br /><br />
This reasoning isn't surprising given the earlier rulings in this case, but is no less ridiculous when looked at in context (and with any bit of common sense).  Remember, the product in question does not allow for anyone to make a bunch of copies and pass them along.  It allows you to make a <i>single</i> backup copy for personal use -- a use that has been found to be perfectly fair use for software and music.  It makes little sense that the law did not intend for movies to be backed up in this manner as well.  The <i>only</i> reason this is stopped is because of the bogus DRM that the studios put on DVDs, known as CSS.  This has been widely broken and does absolutely nothing whatsoever to stop copying of DVDs.  The <i>only</i> thing that CSS serves to do these days is act as a tool for the Hollywood studios to team up to prevent products like RealDVD, because they can use the DMCA's anti-circumvention rule to claim that products like that circumvent the broken DRM they use.  And, even if it's for a legal backup that can't be copied again (i.e., like RealDVD, it puts <i>new</i> DRM on top of it), suddenly it's "infringing" thanks to the DRM.  In other words, the <i>only</i> purpose CSS serves is for the Hollywood studios to have full veto control over any software product that wants to be marketed legitimately, rather than underground.  Under almost any definition of antitrust, it's difficult to see why this is <i>not</i> an antitrust violation.  It's the major companies in a market, putting in place a tool whose sole purpose is to block others from offering up products.
<br /><br />
Of course, the whole lawsuit and this whole charade is incredibly self-defeating for the studios anyway.  Because now, instead of having a product on the market that limits what kind of copies people can make, instead, people who want to back up their DVDs simply get one of the long list of underground products out there that will let you rip your DVDs with no limitations whatsoever.  It's simply stunning that the studios think it makes sense to drive users to such a solution.  The only possible way it makes sense is if you put on your "studio thinking cap" and realize that the studios, in their infinite wisdom, think that they can ship these special -- much more expensive -- dual layered DVDs that have a DRM'd-up digital copy included.  But, again, this should raise an antitrust flag, in that the studios are killing off the RealDVD product to try to protect their own sales of these DVDs with the silly Digital Copy technology.  But, instead, many users are simply using the underground technology that doesn't cost them anything and gives them much more value.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2023347693.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2023347693.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100110/2023347693.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>it's-just-a-mad-power-grab-by-paranoid-delusionals</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20100110/2023347693</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Tue, 4 Aug 2009 03:13:33 PDT</pubDate>
<title>European High Court Will Examine DRM Anti-Circumvention Rules</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0402595730.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0402595730.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ A European directive from a few years ago included a DRM anti-circumvention clause that even made it illegal to host an "organized discussion" of techniques for circumventing DRM.  That seemed excessively broad (and unfairly limiting) to Mikko Rauhala, who set up a discussion site where people could discuss CSS, the notoriously lame copy protection used on DVDs that has been broken for ages.  He did it mainly to get the issue into court -- which it did.  Two years ago, a Finnish court had an odd ruling on the case, in which it claimed <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070525/160415.shtml">circumvention was okay</a> <i>if</i> the DRM was ineffective.  That's because the directive specifically claims that it applies to "effective DRM."  Of course, taken to its logical conclusion, one might think that means if you can break DRM, then you haven't violated the anti-circumvention language, because you've proven that the DRM is ineffective.  It's a bit of a logical pretzel.  So, while I agree that it's silly to make discussion of circumvention illegal, the legal reasoning was a bit twisted.
<br><br>
So, it came as little surprise a year later, when an appeals court <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1606231237.shtml">overturned the lower ruling</a>.  However, from a free speech perspective, this was still quite troubling.  Banning any organized discussion about a technology seems tremendously questionable.  The good news (as found via <a href="http://twitter.com/CopyrightLaw/statuses/2944807077">Michael Scott</a>) is that the case is <a href="http://b2fxxx.blogspot.com/2009/07/finnish-css-case-heading-for-european.html" target="_new">now going to the European Court of Human Rights</a>.  One hopes they'll recognize this as a violation of basic civil rights.  It's troubling enough that simply circumventing copy protection on legally purchased goods is considered breaking the law.  It's much worse to say that even talking about it is against the law.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0402595730.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0402595730.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090731/0402595730.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>free-speech-anyone?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20090731/0402595730</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Mon, 3 Nov 2008 13:52:00 PST</pubDate>
<title>Why Does The MPAA Get To Approve DVD Players?</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0317472720.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0317472720.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ In discussing a recent ruling against a Chinese manufacturer of DVD players who wasn't implementing approved DVD DRM technologies, News.com notes in passing that the ruling allows the MPAA to <a href="http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10080559-93.html?part=rss&#038;subj=news&#038;tag=2547-1_3-0-20" target="_new">review and test any new or re-engineered products</a> that use CSS technology before going to market.  It's difficult to see what sort of rationale there is for this.  Once again, we see a situation where the MPAA seems to think that it gets to <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081013/0105432524.shtml">decide</a> what innovations are allowed, and which are not.  And, unfortunately, we have a court which has agreed, basically giving the MPAA full control over what kinds of DVD players can be sold in the US.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0317472720.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0317472720.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20081103/0317472720.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>that-doesn't-seem-right</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20081103/0317472720</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
<item>
<pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 01:35:00 PDT</pubDate>
<title>Finnish Appeals Court Overturns Decision That Said It Was Okay To Circumvent Ineffective DRM</title>
<dc:creator>Mike Masnick</dc:creator>
<link>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1606231237.shtml</link>
<guid>http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1606231237.shtml</guid>
<description><![CDATA[ Almost exactly a year ago, we wrote about a rather confusing legal decision that came out of Finland that said that no laws were broken in showing how to circumvent the notoriously weak CSS encryption scheme found on DVDs.  The reasoning was that there was nothing wrong with breaking an encryption scheme if it was <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20070525/160415.shtml">"ineffective."</a>  Of course, that opens up all sorts of questions.  If it's illegal to crack DRM that is effective, but the only way to prove that it's ineffective is to crack it... then, what happens?  And, of course, once the encryption is cracked, haven't you then automatically shown that it's ineffective, thereby making it okay -- even if it was effective until you cracked it?  The mind boggles.  Apparently, it was equally mind boggling for a Finnish appeals court who has <a href="http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/14244.cfm" target="_new">overturned the ruling</a>.  That said, the new ruling is still problematic.  It still seems troublesome that anyone could be found to have broken the law for merely explaining how to circumvent a copy protection scheme.  That holding leads to obviously bad outcomes.  Anti-circumvention clauses are really dangerous restrictions on free speech, trying to criminalize the explanation of how to do something that's potentially infringing, rather than the infringement itself.  It's a crutch relied on by the content industry that still can't come to terms with the fact that copy protection isn't a good idea.  But rather than deal with that via business model changes, it simply passes laws that tries to stop people from doing anything the industry doesn't like.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1606231237.shtml">Permalink</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1606231237.shtml#comments">Comments</a> | <a href="http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080527/1606231237.shtml?op=sharethis">Email This Story</a><br />
 ]]></description>
<slash:department>so-that-makes-it-effective-again?</slash:department>
<wfw:commentRss>http://www.techdirt.com/comment_rss.php?sid=20080527/1606231237</wfw:commentRss>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>