[Infowarrior] - DVD Copying Case: Why You Should Care

[Richard Forno]

DVD Copying Case: Why You Should Care

Christopher Breen, Macworld.com
Apr 24, 2009 3:40 pm

http://www.pcworld.com/article/163821/dvd_copying_case_why_you_should_care.html

RealNetworks and the major movie studios are gathering in San  
Francisco's U.S. District Court on Friday to, possibly, determine the  
fate of DVD copying.

RealNetworks would like to sell its $30 RealDVD application--an  
application that allows consumers to back up commercial DVDs to their  
computers' hard drive for archival purposes. (These back up copies are  
still protected and can't be burned to DVD.) The movie industry wants  
to maintain control of its content and argues that RealNetworks has  
breached a license to use CSS encryption (the form of copy-protection  
found on commercial DVDs) and is in violation of the Digital  
Millennium Copyright Act. The Motion Picture Association of America  
(MPAA) won a temporary injunction in October that prevents  
RealNetworks from selling RealDVD.)

While this may result in a narrow ruling--RealNetworks did or did not  
breach its CSS license--it has broad implications for the future of  
media distribution and copyright. The movie industry, like the music  
industry before it, wants complete control over its content and,  
therefore, hopes RealNetworks takes the fall. If digital copies must  
be made, they will be provided, at extra expense, by the movie  
companies in the form of special edition DVDs that contain bonus  
digital copies which can be played on computers and portable media  
devices such as the iPod. Or, of course, consumers are welcome to  
purchase digital copies directly from online retailers such as  
Amazon.com and the iTunes Store.

Unfortunately for the movie industry, that wall has already been  
breached. California-based Kaleidescape, makers of high-end media  
players, were sued by the DVD Copy Control Association (DCCA) over the  
company's high-end media systems that can archive commercial DVDs to a  
hard drive. After a seven-day trial in 2007, Kaleidescape was judged  
to be in full compliance with the DCCA's encryption license.  
RealNetworks is suggesting that if Kaleidescape can do it, why not them?

A less compelling argument, but one RealNetworks representatives might  
want to mention when it's the company's turn to stand before the  
judge, is that this train left the station long ago. Software to  
remove copy protection from commercial DVDs has been around for more  
than five years. A Google search (or search of Macworld.com, for that  
matter) will provide links to such software that's free and not  
terribly difficult to use. And, unlike RealDVD, these applications  
completely strip copy-protection from DVDs. If someone were really  
interested in pirating and distributing the contents of commercial  
DVDs, RealDVD would not be the way to do it.

Fair Use advocates might also argue that there are certain conditions  
under which archival copies are allowed and, therefore, technology  
must exist to create such copies. Those supporting the Digital  
Millennium Copyright Act might counter that the DMCA trumps Fair Use.

And that's what makes this case so important and interesting--once you  
purchase a hunk of media, is it or is it not yours to do with as you  
legally please? I fear, however, that we won't learn the answer from  
this trial. I suspect that one reason we continue to see cases that  
focus on narrow issues such as whether Company X breached License Y is  
that no one really wants a final judgment on Fair Use versus the DMCA.  
There's a lot at stake.

If Fair Use triumphs, the media companies fear they'll go out of  
business because their wares will be pirated from one end of the world  
to the other. And if the DMCA wins the day, the Fair Use crowd  
believes they'll be ground under The Man's heel.

Will one San Francisco judge be willing to dip a toe in this legal  
morass?

In the case of Kaleidescape v. DCCA it's happened before. I, for one,  
hope to see it happen again. My archived copy of Mary Poppins depends  
on it.