|
Viewed 9510 times. 2 people liked this blog. You can rate it below if you haven't already.
Since this is Handtops.com and the vast majority of "handtop devices" (OQO's, Sony UX's, Flipstart's, UMPC's, etc) lack optical drives, I thought this would be good a place to discuss this topic.
Before getting to far, I offer my "opinion" of the current state of things. As I understand it, when I buy a movie on DVD or music on a CD, I'm paying for a license to listen to or watch the media. I don't own the copyright. I cannot resell it while keeping a copy for myself. I cannot legally play it in a public forum. Thus, what I own is technically the plastic casing and disk, as well as a license to view/listen to it. And, in the case of CDs, even if the lyrics are printed inside the case, while I own the paper they're printed on, the lyrics themselves are copyrighted material and I cannot legally reprint them. Similarly, if I buy Windows XP, I am buying a case, a plastic form of media, an End User License Agreement, and a license to install and use a single copy of the software. I am, not, however entitled to the source code of the operating system. [If I'm wrong about any of this, please correct me].
Now, as I also understand it, there is either a law or a portion of a law referred to commonly as "Fair Use". This provision allows me to make a single (just one) copy of a piece of digital media that I have purchased specifically "for backup purposes". Whether this be a music CD, a movie DVD, or an operating system or other software, I'm allowed to make a single copy of it so that I have a fallback in the event the original media is damaged. [This, though, doesn't cover loss... in other words, if I buy Windows XP and I copy the CD and write the CD key on it, then lose the original, I cannot technically use the copy on my system because someone could find the original and use it... definitely a loophole of sorts, to be sure]. Now, the Fair Use provision does not specific the format of the copy I am legally allowed to make. I could, for example, copy my Wiindows XP CD to another CD. Or I could copy a movie DVD to a digital format (ie: rip it to Xvid or Divx). I could also make it a Virtual CD (VCD), and be able to store it on a hard drive, but access it like a normal CD.
Now for many of us with smaller devices that lack an onboard optical drive, storing a CD in MP3 format or a DVD compressed into Xvid format is the ideal way to take our media with us, whether that be to listen to music in an iPod or to watch a movie on a flight (there's also the added benefit of better battery life as you don't have an optical drive spinning).
But this makes me wonder about the legality of "downloading movies". Case in point... let's say I buy the DVD "Gone in 60 Seconds". As previously noted, I have purchased a license to watch the movie (as often as I like) and legal provisions allow me to make a copy of it while not restricting the format of the copy. Now let's say I completely lack an optical drive. Shouldn't it be completely legal for me to download a copy of "Gone in 60 Seconds" from someone else that has made a copy of it available for download? Technically speaking, I own a license to view the movie and technically speaking I'm allowed to store a copy of it in another format. So why is it illegal for me to download? Put in another view, why is it illegal for someone else to make it available for download? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the person downloading it to ensure they have a license to view it?
I know there are many tangents we can go down with this subject. And I know its been discussed before. The DMCA has the FairUse provision, yet the RIAA and MPAA want to make it illegal to share the media or to download it, even if you bought a copy of it. I'm sure they and some here will say that 99% of those that download media haven't bought the license to use it. But sadly, they are lumped into the same group of people who, like myself, prefer to download a copy I'm licensed to use that someone else ripped instead of ripping it myself.
Please feel free to post your comments. I for one believe that piracy is wrong. However, I also believe that technology moves faster than most laws allow. At this time, I own somewhere close to 300 DVDs. I've ripped perhaps five of them to Xvid, yet I've downloaded digital copies of perhaps 100 of them. Apparently, what I've been doing is illegal, yet perfectly legal as well. Odd...
| |
Comments
08/10/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
fil
I think we're all on the same page.
Just to show you all how confused this topic is, check out Engadget for August 10, 2006 and you'll find the following articles:
More mylo deets emerge, Linux is under the hood: link
Sony is packing in MP4 video support, so ready-to-go videos shouldn't be hard to find. There's also MP3, ATRAC and WMA to round out format support.
MP4 for the unwashed masses is DiVx...as in DiVx movies, which are not sold anywhere today, so...it has to be homemade.
DVD Copy Control Association to lighten DVD restrictions: link
Too convoluted to repeat here at Handtops.
Korea's Curon busts out CE-based QCOX DMB/PMP: link
Just because everybody and their mom builds DMB/PMP devices in Korea doesn't mean they have to be boring about it, and this new QCOX device from Curon manages a nice bit of sexy even if the feature set is rather tried by now. The Windows CE 5.0-based device sports a 4.3-inch screen, 30GB HDD, DMB tuner and TV out, with only a medium-chunky form factor to show for it.
Again for the unwashed masses, Portable Media Players (PMP) show picture files, play MP3 audio, provide video playback, may have built-in radio and TV tuners, may play games, may have WiFi, work with digital cameras, may have Web browsing, and may even have GPS navigation. Most of these devices are small enough to fit in a pocket and feature hard disk drives that can also double as portable data storage devices. Screen sizes run from ultra-small 1.77” up to 7” but many of them can be connected to an external TV set or computer. In general most of these devices support MPEG4 and/or Windows Media files for video playback and some support DivX, XviD, and even MJPEG. Just about all of them will playback MP3 files and some will playback other audio formats such as MTV, MP1, MP2, WMA, or WMV. And finally most of them will show pictures in JPEG or other formats. Beyond the three basic functions common to all of these devices (video, audio, and picture viewing) you can find a wide range of capabilities, colors, shapes, sizes, and price points.
Well, VIDEO is the key point here.
Where does one get this VIDEO since no one truly sells it yet?
Is it OK? No, you're right blackmane et al.
Are the laws messed up in almost every category? Perhaps so.
08/11/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
rgbyhkr
Well, the amount of confusion about this issue never ceases to amaze me. Very few people seem to really understand the specifics of the DMCA and why commercially available DVD rippers are illegal while standard CD ripping is not and never will be. I've studied the DMCA as well and read quite a lot on it's history, how it impacts DVDs vs CDs, etc. Here's what I know:
The DMCA never did nor does it now make the physical act of copying content illegal. It also does not make the act of circumventing copy protection measures illegal (there is a specific exception for the video analog loophole - it specifically protects Macrovision and required its use on all players made after a certain date). It even goes so far as to say that it is not intended to strip user's previously established fair use rights.
What the DMCA does is outline the content owner's right to control access to the content. To that end, the DMCA makes illegal the circumvention of access prevention technologies. It makes the creation, distribution and use (yes, even use by Joe Sixpack at home with his own legally purchased content) of such technology illegal. Again, it does not make illegal the circumvention of copy protection measures.
So, what does this mean in the real world? When the DVD standard was created, it included a technology called CSS. Contrary to popular belief, CSS is technically not a copy protection technology. It is an access control technology. All it does is prevent optical drives from reading the content on a protected DVD unless a properly licensed key is available. With that key, you can read the disc. We don't think about that because it all happens seamlessly in the background. However, the manufacturer of your DVD player or DVD software paid the DVD Copy Control Association (DVDCCA) a fee to get a license to use on the players.
The important part to keep in mind here is that bit about getting a license from the DVDCCA. Those folks control the licenses for both player manufacturers and the folks that actually press the commercial DVDs. On the player side, the license has restrictions about how it can be used. One way that it can not be used is to access the data for purposes of making a copy (or so it would appear - see my mention of Kaleidescape below). To this point, the DVDCCA has not issued a key that would allow for access to the content for purposes of making a copy. Follwong along with that, the DMCA gives content owners the right to control access to their content, the DVD standard employs CSS as a method of enforcing that access control and the DVDCCA licenses CSS keys and restricts in the contract what the keys can be used for and won't issue a key that allows for copying of the content on a DVD.
Here's the kicker - without access to the content, you can't make a copy. So, in effect, the access controls (CSS combined with the DVDCCA's usage limitations for keys) prevent copying. The DMCA backs that up by making it illegal to circumvent the access prevention measures. Therefore, indirectly, the DMCA limits fair use by placing the content owner's access rights above the consumers fair use rights. Any piece of software that allows you to bypass CSS in order to rip the DVD is a violation of the DMCA. What a slick piece of legislation huh? My personal belief is that if the hollywood folks had tried to get a law enacted that outright stripped fair use rights, they couldn't have gotten it passed. This was the means to their end - getting legal tools by which to prevent or at least limit movie file trading online.
So how come this doesn't apply to CDs? The simple answer is that CD technology is too old. The redbook CD format, as it is called, doesn't have any access control technology. Data is readily available on the discs with no key necessary to read them. You're talking about technology that started in the 80s, before the proliferation of the internet and especially broadband. They didn't know that this would be a problem or they likely would have taken similar measures. The point is that without access controls in place, the DMCA doesn't apply and fair use rights can be exercised.
So why doesn't the music industry change the format? Easy enough to say, but once you do you make 100s of millions of CD players obsolete. New discs wouldn't play on old players because they wouldn't be able to support the access controls. Once you have a market segment this saturated with hardware, you're shooting yourself in the foot as a content owner by putting out new discs that aren't compatible. The hardware guys might love the idea to resell to existing customers, but that's another story.
But haven't the record labels implemented copy protection features on CDs? Yes. And we all know how successful those have been (my all time favorite is the sharpie workaround). Notice the difference though. They were implementing copy protection features, not access prevention. The DMCA doesn't make circumventing copy protection features illegal so all the ways that people have come up with to outsmart the labels when they intorduce "copy proof" CDs are fine.
I mentioned Kaleidescape and I'll briefly touch on it here. Firstly, who and what the studios or the DVDCCA choose to go after has as much to do with PR as it does with legality. Just because these folks can go after someone, doesn't mean they will. I personally believe that they will NEVER go after Joe Schmoe for making copies of his own legally purchased DVDs. That's bad PR and might put focus on the effort to change or repeal the DMCA and the hollywood folks definitely don't want that. So, there are entities out there in violation of the DMCA who have not and may not be sued - but it doesn't mean that they are any less in violation.
But anyways, back to Kaleidescape. They are currently being sued by the DVDCCA for breach of contract. Note, they are not being sued by anyone for a violation of the DMCA, nor will they. Kaleidescape legally contracted with the DVDCCA for a CSS license. The DVDCCA claims that Kaleidescape is violating that contract by using the CSS key improperly. The system uses the CSS key to access the content, and then offload that content onto hard drives in the system for playback on players within the system. Using that CSS key to gain access takes the DMCA out of the equation. Keep in mind that the Kaleidescape system is not some run of the mill DVD ripping tool though. It's a very expensinve DVD movie server. It includes proprietary hardware for an end to end solution (it includes a DVD reader, a server with 12 HDD bays, and movie player - can support many simultaneous players) where content can not be offloaded (you can't transfer the ripped DVDs from the Kaleidescape server HDDs to your PC, portable player, etc).
Kaleidescape claims that no such language exists in the contract which forbids them from doing what they are doing. They've asked the DVDCCA to point out such language and claim that it definitely is not stated in the contract. The case is still pending and creates an interesting scenario. Supposedly, other players in the industry are watching and waiting on the outcome. If Kaleidescape wins, it could mean that other manufacturers with legally licensed keys could offer a similar system. I'm not sure exactly what the DVDCCA contracts do say (apparently their dealings and contracts are pretty secretive), so I can't say whether a K victory could also open up the ability for general DVD disc copying using software that has a legally contracted CSS key. There may be something specific about Kaleidescape's system or process that creates the contract loophole. I'll leave that to the courts.
Anyways, I hope this has been somewhat helpful.
Jeff
edited: Aug 11 2006
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
fil
Great info Jeff!
So what I'm doing with my ATI All-in-Wonder and Hauppauge video capture cards and recording TV shows for later playback is allowed.
Play DVDs and recording the content using the same capture card method (as above) to make DiVx or WMV copies is allowed since I'm not breaking the DVD encryption.
You covered Audio and Video thoroughly, how about the rules with software copying?
My assumption has always been that you can make copies, just as long as you abide by the software license (e.g. single system use, corporate use, etc.).
08/11/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
rgbyhkr
I haven't spent as much time looking at the Macrovision provision, but it differs from the rest of the DMCA by leaving out the act of usage. For access prevention, even the act of circumventing it is illegal. For Macrovision, only the creation and distribution of circumvention measures appears to be illegal. So, you capturing the analog outptu from a DVD player and circumventing Macrovision does not appear to be illegal. The folks making and distributing such equipment or software are violating the DMCA though. Macrovision recently won an injunction against a company called Sima who makes those devices you put in between a DVD player and a recorder to remove Macrovision. The lawsuit alleged both copyright infringement and a violation of the DMCA.
As for software, I've never really looked into it. However, I believe the same fair use backup allowance applies and adherence to license agreements of course is paramount. Also, if there were any access prevention measures employed, the DMCA would apply. Of course, the software and games industry have been implementing copy prevention measures for years so they are ahead of the music folks in that department.
Jeff
08/19/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
MeanSquare
Not wanting to add to the confusion, but, walking through Fry's the other day, I happened upon a section of somewhere around 18 different DVD-ripping products, all of which were blissfully for sale, apparently in contradiction to what rgbyhkr (Jeff) writes about DVDCCA. Some of those product rip to PSP disks and, as such, may not remove or obviate the CSS keys. However, nearly all of them also rip to DivX or other MPEG variants. So, the questions on the floor are "How can companies create, distribute, and sell those products if it's in violation of the DMCA? How can Fry's sell them if the same is true?" Is it like the idiotic fireworks laws that allow sales and distrubution as long as you promise to use them "out of state?" Or is it legal to create and sell those programs, but ironically illegal to use them?
08/24/06
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
rgbyhkr
Just to clear up something, the law doesn't care what the output format is. Only the act of circumventing of the access prevention measures (CSS) is a violation of the DMCA. The creation and distribution of such tools is also illegal. Whether you're ripping to DivX, MPEG, AVI, etc it doesn't matter. The first act of gaining unauthorized access is what is illegal. The rest of it including conversion, etc is perfectly legal. But you have to do step 1 before any of the rest. This comes into play below.
One of the biggest DVD ripping software tools available prior to it being pulled from shelves was from 321 Studios. They made a series of solutions under the DVD XCopy brand name. The software was popular and was a boxed product sold in stores. Back in 2002 or so, they started getting sued by a variety of entities for violating the DMCA. The litigants in various cases included movie studios, Macrovision, the DVDCCA, etc. Basically, there was a coordinated effort to takedown the most publicly recognized DVD copying software tool.
At that time, the 321 Studios products contained CSS circumvention tools. Users were able to buy an end to end solution to rip and copy DVDs, including CSS protected ones. By early 2004, with the DMCA against them, 321 Studios was on the losing side of a judgement which barred the sale of the software. They had to pull it from shelves. Shortly after, they responded by releasing a version of the software that differed only by removing the CSS circumvention component. Users still could rip these DVDs, but thay had to "bring there own" circumvention tool. Doing so wasn't that hard as such tools were and still are available on the web. So, with this simple plug-in, the full functioanlity is restored but because 321 Studios didn't distribute it, the DMCA violation was avoided in the new version. Copying the material once you have access is protected under fair use rights. Again, it's the access prevention circumvention that gets you into trouble. Unfortunately, for 321, the many lawsuits drained them and they eventually closed up shop because of it.
So, what you have now are either solutions that may be in violation but haven't been sued yet or solutions that do what 321 Studios did in response. That is to sell a ripping solution without CSS circumvention but to allow users to bring their own. For example, I'm guessing what you may have seen at Fry's is a program like this one:
link
These folks go a step beyond by not even mentioning copyrighted DVDs. I searched their site including the FAQ in the support section and found no mention of such DVDs. However, if you look in their forums, there are a number of posts from users complaining about getting an error message about copy protection when trying to rip CSS protected DVDs. See an example here:
link
One of the forum mods always seems to chime in with the same response message each time. It lets folks know where to get a "plug-in" so that "the copyright thing should go away  ". So, it would appear that this program is the same in its design to avoid a DMCA violation. I'd be willing to bet that probably every other program you saw was the same, even if that wasn't indicated on the box.
As for retailers selling programs that violate the DMCA, my guess is that the studios would rather go after the source directly. Even if the retailers were liable, the studios would be going after the folks that are their distribution chain. If they can cut off the source, they'd almost certainly rather do that than bite the hand that feeds them. You'll notice that these DMCA lawsuits are very selective. They want to be careful not to ruffle too many feathers for fear that a groundswelling could grow enough to get the DMCA changed to eliminate their legal protection.
Jeff
06/28/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
educationk12
I'd like to know what software program people here use to convert your own DVDs to your hard drive.
07/13/07
+
PM |
QUOTE |
PERMALINK |
REPORT
madison
some useful softwares :
DVD Copy softwares link
DVD burner softwares link
DVD maker softwares link
DVD ripper softwares link
I think you need .
Register / login
|
^
Handtops is Copyright 2003-2009 Handtops.com
All rights reserved. | Contact | RSS
|
