RealNetworks confident it will win 'RealDVD' lawsuit

Fair use and even the DMCA says you may copy a dvd you own.

So this is not only tiffing but moot....

Gotta love the DMCA it says you can legally copy a dvd you own, and yet it is illegal to break the encryptions on the dvd, of which they keep piling more and more on to them...

Originally posted by ZippyDSM:

---

Fair use and even the DMCA says you may copy a dvd you own.

So this is not only tiffing but moot....

---

Once again Zippy...........your head is up your ass.

The DMCA does NOT say that you can copy your own DVD. It specifically states that NO ONE MAY CIRCUMVENT COPY PROTECTION (CSS). So you are wrong. Fortunately every-so-often, your head actually appears out and about.........................with a little brown goo on it.

Legally copying a "DVD" is like one you made at home or a tutorial DVD but essentially, it does not state you may copy dvd in the sense that ANYONE WITH COMMON SENSE thinks of "DVDs". So...........maybe you're just a little slow.

Of course...........AD will ban me AGAIN for pointing out that some of their readers are just plain dumb. But hey..........I simply call 'em as I see 'em.

And I Look forward to creating yet another alias through Yahoo and rejoining AD to post an occasional comment.



Tester22 was an earlier name. There have been at least 20. Would love to see AD complain to my ISP when I'm joining via 6-7 different ISPs including T1s from various businesses.

HA HA HA

lynchgoop

Incorrect as long as a DVD dose not have CSS it can be copied, removing, circumventing protection is only part of of it as the protection has to be prominent and vital and very difficult to bypass, in order for it to be a protection means that's protected(I might be mixing UK and US rulings here lulz).

IE between fair use and the ease of circumventing the CSS protection its all moot, the only reason its used is the media mafia bought it and had it put into law the trouble is its bad flawed law that dose not circumvent fair use rights fully.

Dose this mean they will win? Maybe if the judge is not on the corporate tit and sees what a absurd mess the DMCA is.The main sticking points of the DMCA need to be brought to court and fully aired and tested with fair use. Untill fair use is taken off the books there's always a chance the courts will trash the DMCA ruling if they dare go past the surface of it.


Yes zippy has his head up his arse...where have you been? Also zippy=zippy speak(incoherence).

Know it and luffs it. *lick lick luv luv rub rub*

lynchgoop

Oh behave :P

I agree with Lynchgoop, and along time ago i too got banned because of Zippy, he's a complete ignorant, he never knows what he is talking about, and instead of admitting he's wrong and going back to his hole he'll start arguing with you, he's like those 10 year old kids on forums that will comment on anything and everything even though they don't know the answer, the difference is that at least those kids just comment to say that they don't know the answer, but zippy actually tries to convince other people that he is right even though he knows he's completely wrong. I too got banned for pointing out the obvious, but its ok because people like Zippy really do have NO LIFE, i bet hes over 30 and still lives with his parents, seriously Zippy why don't you just go chase your imaginary friends, it must suck having no REAL friends, what a lonely and sad person you are.

Originally posted by allwitty:

---

I agree with Lynchgoop, and along time ago i too got banned because of Zippy, he's a complete ignorant, he never knows what he is talking about, and instead of admitting he's wrong and going back to his hole he'll start arguing with you, he's like those 10 year old kids on forums that will comment on anything and everything even though they don't know the answer, the difference is that at least those kids just comment to say that they don't know the answer, but zippy actually tries to convince other people that he is right even though he knows he's completely wrong. I too got banned for pointing out the obvious, but its ok because people like Zippy really do have NO LIFE, i bet hes over 30 and still lives with his parents, seriously Zippy why don't you just go chase your imaginary friends, it must suck having no REAL friends, what a lonely and sad person you are.

---

Why do you think I am here, my imaginary friends wont play with me anymore. Both my parents died in 05 and I am 3o...something...i forget.... but really is flaming all you are capable of or can you muster a thought other than "ZOMG I look cool trolling,hur hur hur....".

I am human I error, I might error more than normal people but thats only because normal people don't like to think.... I have to pick up all the thinking slack for humanity don'tcha know so of coarse half my thoughts are full of fail. ^^


But back to my point the DMCA is flawed when it tries to circumvent rights already given to use by fair use because of this its on crutches and needs many law suits to counter it to polish it up since the law makers are sold out to other interests.

Up until February 2004, 321 Studios' hugely popular line of DVD-copying products, including DVD X Copy, DVD X Copy Xpress, and DVD Copy Plus, gave consumers the power to make backup copies of DVDs--even those with copy protection. But when a San Francisco federal judge ruled that 321 Studios' products were illegal because they circumvented commercial DVDs' antipiracy technology--not because it's illegal to make copies, mind you--the party was over. Since then, 321 Studios has released new, ripper-free versions of its line of DVD copying apps, but these programs are considerably less potent and cannot copy commercial DVDs.

The ability to create copies of the media you've purchased for personal use is a long-accepted facet of the fair-use doctrine in U.S. copyright law (at least, it used to be). However, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) states that it's illegal to break the CSS copy-protection mechanism employed by most commercial DVD movies. What does that mean? Most fair-use advocates say that the policy directly contradicts U.S. copyright law, but the DMCA seems to indicate that you cannot make a copy of a commercial DVD, even for personal use, and you certainly cannot give a copied DVD to anyone or watch copied DVD files on your computer. Ripping is what "CSS… is intended to prevent"

Yeah, anyone can make mistakes, but you really do try hard to sound stupid, i mean if you hear a group of people talking about politics and you know NOTHING about that, do you start giving your honest but completely wrong opinion and end up looking like an idiot, OR do you keep your mouth shut and go somewhere else?

Originally posted by allwitty:

---

Up until February 2004, 321 Studios' hugely popular line of DVD-copying products, including DVD X Copy, DVD X Copy Xpress, and DVD Copy Plus, gave consumers the power to make backup copies of DVDs--even those with copy protection. But when a San Francisco federal judge ruled that 321 Studios' products were illegal because they circumvented commercial DVDs' antipiracy technology--not because it's illegal to make copies, mind you--the party was over. Since then, 321 Studios has released new, ripper-free versions of its line of DVD copying apps, but these programs are considerably less potent and cannot copy commercial DVDs.

The ability to create copies of the media you've purchased for personal use is a long-accepted facet of the fair-use doctrine in U.S. copyright law (at least, it used to be). However, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) states that it's illegal to break the CSS copy-protection mechanism employed by most commercial DVD movies. What does that mean? Most fair-use advocates say that the policy directly contradicts U.S. copyright law, but the DMCA seems to indicate that you cannot make a copy of a commercial DVD, even for personal use, and you certainly cannot give a copied DVD to anyone or watch copied DVD files on your computer. Ripping is what "CSS… is intended to prevent"

---

well you dose haz brwains...or are a plagiarist.... anyway :P

You've made my point that its still something people argue over and since copy right and fair use takes president the unlawfull DMCA anti copy protection laws can be ignored, bad laws are meant to be ignored and challenged in court. But then I bet you consider a good law. :P

First of i never said i wrote that, how could i have done that in just a couple of minutes? i bet your brain overheated when you thought of that. Second, how did i make your point? see? you just keep making your self look like a complete fool! you said "the DMCA says you may copy a dvd you own" and like lynch said, the DMCA NEVER SAID such a thing! just shut up zippy, go help your mom fold your underwear.

BTW, whats with all the Smiley faces and all the ZOMG? i really do hope you are just a confused little girl and not a 30 year old fatso, thatd be really REALLY sad.

Errrr.. when did the rules about personal abuse of members go out of the window?

For the pair of you idiots.. breaking css is illegal?? errrr.. you have to break it to watch the ----ing film in the first place.. ffs!! as all open source software users know only too well.

Originally posted by varnull:

---

Errrr.. when did the rules about personal abuse of members go out of the window?

For the pair of you idiots.. breaking css is illegal?? errrr.. you have to break it to watch the ----ing film in the first place.. ffs!! as all open source software users know only too well.

---

A idiot is as a idiot dose*wears dunce hat* LOL
"Circumventing" CSS is illegal in teh states.

Someone should take MS to court over media player ability to play DVDs, but enlighten me on great one, whats the difference in decoding the encryption and breaking it?

I have never read/heard merely reading a DVD with CSS breaks the encryption to view it...

allwitty
Smilies are smilies, and ZOMG goes with narf..I am more pinky than brain after all. ^_~

hi all - what a cheery thread this is!

at the risk being hideously flamed..

i always *assumed* that when you *purchase* a hardware or software DVD player (eg your sony playstaion2, your hitachi dvdplayer, your pc with powerdvd bundled,) part of what you are paying for is a license from movie land to decrypt the protection system on dvds by use of the chip or codec that is part of the hardware/software.

it logically follows that most open source / free software (the majority of which is based on the css hack made openly available by dvd-jon) do not pay a license fee to movie land so frowned upon.

oh an its a bit lame but i'm pretty sure microsofts media player wont actually play dvds until one of the many 3rd party dvd codecs are installed - thats way the big boys always bundle something like powerdvd, windvd or nero on their systems...

I find this whole thing a waste of time and money for both parties involved i think this has got more to do with the fact that the Hollywood studios want the technology for themselves there fore the can have all the revenue instead of a piece of the pie.

Originally posted by borhan9:

---

I find this whole thing a waste of time and money for both parties involved i think this has got more to do with the fact that the Hollywood studios want the technology for themselves there fore the can have all the revenue instead of a piece of the pie.

---

Then that's how the technology should be desiminated and protected fully by law, the trouble is it can not be.

I hope the judge either dismisses it or sides with real, the studios need a head check.....