Judge sides with MPAA in case against Real Network’s RealDVD software that would allow consumers to make backup copies of purchased DVDs for personal use.
Chalk up another win for the MPAA and another loss for consumers. For US District Court Judge Marilyn Hall Patel has issued a permanent injunction against Real Networks DVD-backup software RealDVD.
The Judge declared that RealDVD, in order to make backup copies, would likely violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Content Scramble System (CSS) license.
If you recall, back in September of 2008 Real Networks launched RealDVD to allow users to make backup copies of purchased DVDs for private use. The MPAA immediately dubbed it “StealDVD” and filed a lawsuit to ban its sale.
The kicker is that the MPAA then said that making even one copy of a DVD is illegal, arguing that the price of a DVD is predicated on the “notion of certain use rights associated with certain price points,” and that it would have to change the price of DVDs (certainly upwards) if people wanted to be able to make copies.
In other words, it only charges $9.99 per DVD, for example, because it assumes it lasts for a finite period of time. If you want a DVD you can make copies of then the “price point” must be higher to reflect “expanded use rights.”
The MPAA’s statement after the verdict reaffirms these earlier sentiments.
“We are gratified by the successful conclusion of this important matter,” said Daniel Mandil, General Counsel & Chief Content Protection Officer for the MPAA. “Judge Patel’s rulings and this settlement affirm what we have said from the very start of this litigation: It is illegal to bypass the copyright protections built into DVDs designed to protect movies against theft. We will continue to vigorously pursue companies that attempt to bring these illegal
circumvention products and devices to market.”
So though you may buy the DVD the MPAA still gets to decide how, when, and where you can watch it.
And they wonder why people turn to piracy for content.
“(Real’s testimony) made it clear that Real was out to deliver to consumers a product that people wanted to see,” said Fred von Lohmann, the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s senior staff attorney, to CNet. “I think the message this sends is if you get into the business of enabling consumers to do with DVDs what they’ve long done with CDs, you’ll get sued out of the business. I think that’s bad news for consumers. What that means is that if you want to create a digital back-up of your movies, you have to pay for that a second time on iTunes.”
Even worse still is that Real Networks was reportedly working on a a DVD player/burner codenamed Fact that would’ve stored more than 70 movies on its internal HDD. This also no way to fight piracy. File-sharers simply turn to illegal alternatives, in many cases filling up 1TB HDD with hundreds of XViD copies of their favorite flics.
The MPAA insists in the same press release that “major motion picture studios continue to invest heavily in technologies that allow people to access entertainment in a variety of legal ways,” but what it’s not saying is that that “access” is coming with an increasingly burdensome price.
Consumers only want to pay for a product once and they be able to do with it as they please. So it’s a good thing there alternative software programs that do the same thing as RealDVD.
Stay tuned.
Guess I’ll just keep using one of the many free alternatives that exist.
And in the rest if the world.. no one cares about Real and their crap software, and people still use DVDDecrypter for free.
PS: Screw you MPAA
Or SlySoft…
They might actually do it. They could pass a law forbidding you to even discuss the topic. The media industry has the money to pass all the laws it wants.
Are you prepared to take the steps necessary to protect your freedom?
That’s why torrents are so popular for getting your backup copy.
and so more education to all you ignorant users who think you own what you buy? when will you get educated ranting off like you own the cd or dvd so you own it yes ? you own that bits in your hand not the content embedded into the bits
and you never will own the content thats why the law is right and you twits are stupid .. education education education .. you cant afford to own a million dollar movie you just buy a licence to view it on a format (dvd) and thats it! if you want to view it on a different format you have to buy that format also this is how its always been and if you had a brain you would understand this and stop winging 9.99 buys you a plastic disc with some licensed media on it ..wake up! you don’t own the media you cant do what you want with it you can just watch it on the disc you purchased! how hard is that to understand..what you want to own it then cough up 20 million then you might be in with a chance..
Clearly you are interested in strong copyright laws, as can be ascertained by your website. What you, and the rest of those defending strong copyright neglect to realize is that intellectual property is abstract, it holds no value except for the power granted by government. As such, artificial restrictions are placed on society in order to allow individuals to profit from ideas. But the reality is that those rules can only apply so long as society is willing to accept them, you make copyright too restrictive and people will ignore them as illegitimate.
The copyright system was originally only supposed to give rights of 20 years, and did not conceptualize the modern age. Over the years the lengths and powers have of copyright been extended to the point where society no longer accepts, and no longer acknowledges copyrights. You can cry foul and claim people have to right to content shift and the like, but the reality is that its human nature to share information, and content shifting is just making use of content you purchased. All that restrictions bring about is piracy, which generates no profit, so choose your battles wisely, is it better to make some profit or no profit?
There is also the whole issue of how over bearing copyright can hamper creativity, in effect degrading culture, and lowering what could be an optimum content creation, profit generating model. Given the rate of development of work, how similar a work has to be to be considered infringement, and how long current copyright terms are, how long before any new creation is infringing? You see us as vile, as cry babies, but the reality is we are the consumers, and we are realistic. You on the other hand are living in a dream world were money grows on trees, and society exists only to generate money.
Well said, mark Ryder likes to play games just like all greedy copyright holders. Use semantics to keep stealing from you. I pay $20 for a movie, guess what, I OWN the right to play it, copy it, lick and paste it to mark’s moms ass if I want to. I just don’t have the “right” to resell it. The industry preys on the weak minded public, those of us that know better prey on the industry. Welcome.
There’s the MPAA with it’s wonderful logic: “We want you to Pay Again for the things you have already bought. If you’ve paid for it once, we want you to keep paying for it, hopefully forever.” Meanwhile the people who paid zero for the same media aren’t affected at all.
Nice way to beat up on people who still pay for media, jackasses.
How wrong you are.If you rent the dvd you do not own it.If you buy the dvd you do own it and whats own it.NO WEREON ANY DVD DOES IT SAY YOU DO NOT OWN THE CONTENTS..DOES IT??????? NOPE.
PLEASE SET UP A BOYCOTT WEBSITE AND WE CAN PROMOTE A BOYCOTT AND SEE HOW LONG THE RULING LAST.
Corp greed knows no boundaries, they’ve even infiltrated other nations. Despite WORLDWIDE resistance, this is what you get. It doesn’t matter what’s right or wrong or what the public overwhelmingly wants, all that matters is that rich men want to be richer, all else be damned.
Its a good thing opensource devs exist, and our more than willing to build products to fit their needs. You want to copy a dvd, you can do it for free using ripping software like AutoGK or Handbrake. Hell you can even rip Blu-Ray. So what have they accomplished. They have prevented consumers from enjoying their products in novel ways, lowering the value of their product. They would not have to charge more for a open model, they are forced to charge less because they make their product worthless.