In the Lawyers vs. Judges thread in GQ, an interesting tangent emerged about movies, DVDs, copy protection, “access controls,” and the like.
Basically, it is illegal to use or distribute any device or program which defeats copy protection or “circumvents technological measures which control access to copyrighted material.”
What that mouthful seems to mean, from the very limited court rulings so far, is that DVD movie publishers have the right to control not only if you see the movie (that is, it’s illegal to copy a DVD) but also how you view it. The DVDs can contain codes that disable fast-forward during the “Coming Attractions” section, for instance. Some smart folks wrote a program that would remove such codes, and allow the owner of a DVD to view it any way he pleased.
The MPAA, an association of motion picture studios, sued the smart folks to make them stop distributing their program.
So - should the movie publisher have the right to dictate how you watch, or should forking over the cash for a movie pretty much allow you to do whatever you want with it?
Thats just completely ridiculous as far as I’m concerned. The fact that they won the court case(or so i’m assuming from the context) is plain disgusting. Hopefully future cases will strike that ruling from the books.
Well, Nu, suppose I am a movie publisher. And suppose I tell you, “See here, kid. I own the rights to this here movie. ANd I am not willing to publish it in DVD format and sell it to you unless you agree to abide by that restriction.”
That I can always watch in on VHS. Their right to how the movie is distributed should be weighed with the right of a person to enjoy a product that they bought. The whole reason DeCSS was created was because linux users couldn’t play DVDs, and wanted to be able to use the product they paid for.
Demosthenes, if the purchaser buys the DVD knowing that the rules are that he has to watch it in accord with the company’s directives, how are his “rights” vitiated? He paid for the movie, yes – the movie with those rules attached. If he doesn’t like the bargain, it seems to me he should buy it on VHS. What “rights” are you talking about?
I don’t understand how a company can dictate how you play back data stored on a DVD. They certainly have the right to say “don’t reproduce my intellectual property”, but I don’t understand the logic that says “you can only look at my data in the manner I want you to”. Book publishers can’t forbid us from skipping the pages with the copyright notice, or reading the last page first, or anything else. Why should DVD’s be different? Data is data is data. If they sell us the data, we should be able to view it however we want.
How does the “program that would remove such codes, and allow the owner of a DVD to view it any way he pleased” work – is it creating a “mangled” copy of the original DVD? Is it possible to get a DVD player which don’t obey the “no fast forward” codes?
I agree with Erratum. The content owner should not be able to dictate what the technology can do. This would be similar to book publishers outlawing Xerox machines or record companies banning cassette players with a fast forward feature.
It is already illegal to violate someone’s copyright. Further draconian measures seems a little too much like Big Brother to me.
I have no opinion on the justification of breaking a promise that should not have to be made in the first place. I feel they should not be able to compel you to make that promise.
The only reason that ridiculous law was passed in the first place was due to the huge amount of power and influence the movie industry wields. They have already delayed the DVD technology by demanding copy protection in the players. And their current flurry of lawsuits against websites that posted the DeCSS program reeks of free speech restraints. Heavens, under that silly law, PCs could be considered illegal!
If they can control how you view a DVD that you purchased, how long until they can control how you view a VHS tape, or a CD, or a cassette tape, or a web page, or a…
Maybe I should refrain from posting after drinking :::::::buuurrrrp::::::::
Once the DVD player overtakes the VCR in popularity I think all restrictions (other than digital copying and that’s already been hacked) will eventually be discontinued due to public outcries against them. Remember DIVX? I don’t either…
I for one welcome our new insect overlords… - K. Brockman
So… I am a movie publisher. You, a member of the public, ask me to publish DVDs. I say, “I’m sorry. I don’t want to. I am concerned that I will lose money. When I publish a tape, I get revenue from other movie publishers for putting their previews in the front of my films. But I am afraid with the DVD format, I will lose that revenue. No one will want to pay me for preview space because they’ll know the end user can leap directly to the movie’s starting point. So forget it, I’m not publishing any DVD movies.”
That was exactly the position taken by the movie industry.
Who is saying they don’t have the “right” to take that position?
From the other thread it seems like the above is not a given and unlikely that restrictions on “how” will occur.
I bought it, I own it and use my drivers to view it. The drivers used do not modify bits on the CD or copy them for duplication. The driver also does not modify CSS but defeats it. The code defeated is not copyright related code - at least I don’t think it is. It could get sticky if the CSS code is intertwined with the copyright protection code but in that case the defeating code is not intended to have anything to do with violating copyright protection. The driver would be separate and not modify any combined code.
Bricker:
Which restriction? The copyright laws or the manufactures restrictions printed on the packaging that impose some limits on how I can use it? Buying a DVD copy with the extra legal rules does not commit me to anything. The rules can require that I can only listen to the DVD in my garage so they can be ignored.
The DVD company can put all they want on there for controls and I can circumvent them at will provided I do not violate “established” laws like the current copyright laws.
The right to do what you want with your own property provided if it does not violate the copyright laws. The right to do what you want with your purchased property would over ride a whimsical “company directive”.
This argument would not stand, as current home use of fast forwarding through ads on a DVD would not be anymore detrimental to revenue than fast forwarding through them on a VCR.
[Very minor modification to post made per trout1’s request–Gaudere]
[Note: This message has been edited by Gaudere]
Bricker, I think you are representing two different facets of the movie publisher’s options. Certainly, as you noted in your 2/13 8:16 am post, the copyright owner can decline to publish in DVD format for fear of losing revenue. However, it is my opinion that they should not be able to require that I stand on my head while viewing once they have distributed said movie.
I’m not sure what “No, that’s not so” was referring to. We are not talking about skipping over tracks but fast forwarding through ads. My point was that fast forwarding through ads on VHS movies does not seem to have hurt the industries sales of VHS tapes and that claims by DVD manufacturers for something that has not hurt a similar product would not go far.
Brickers movie producer:
I buy it and ignore the “extra requests” on the package as having no merit against my right to do what I want with my own property in my own house. Who was ever arrested for tearing a don’t touch this tag off a pillow?
Movie producer:
There is no such law that restricts FF through ads on DVD’s yet. Who made the bogus promise to you?
So I’d agree with you that my case is:
“Hey, screw you. I am going to buy your movie but not follow your restrictions.”
I can’t develop a good legal arg as I’m not a lawyer. This is all “seems to me stuff”. I can do what I want with my property provided I don’t break the copyright laws, which I would not be doing. The movie industry cannot restrict my rights in this situation, as there is no basis. A non-signed agreement on the back of a DVD player which I think you say I’m bound to by purchase would not bind me or preempt other laws giving me the right to do what I want with my property. For example my right of free speech may be preempted by a non-disclosure agreement - there is prescience for that but none for DeCSS.
I believe that if the copyright owners decide that they will sell DVDs only if people promise to not skip over their commercials, that’s a valid request if they state that requirement clearly and prominently and the buyer accedes to the requirement. When you buy a movie, does the package prominently describe in detail how much advertising there is, where it is, and what steps have been taken to keep people from skipping over it? I really don’t think so. Companies have absolutely no right to sell you a movie and then afterwards to say “Oh, by the way, you have to watch our commercials”. That’s fraud. A contract is valid only if both parties give informed consent.
You seem to be saying that “valid requests” can be binding on me. How are the limits defined? If a “request” says I can only listen to the DVD if I kill my brother first that would probably not be legal. What are the bounds? Can a “valid request” that is unsigned prempt other rights?
Trouts, you seem to be missing the whole concept of “license.”
When you buy a movie on DVD, it is true you are the owner of the physical medium. But you are also buying a license to watch the movie. That is the whole concept of “intellectual property.” The disk is your property, yes. But the movie itself is still MY property. I can, for example, forbid you from taking your property (the DVD) into your basement, putting on your property (the large-screen HDTV) and charging twenty of your friends $3.50 each to come over and watch it. Because that action violates my agreement with you… the agreement you accept when you break open the DVD envelope. It clearly says so, right on the package.
What makes you think I should not have the right to restrict how you watch it? I made the movie. It’s my masterpiece. If I want you to watch the whole thing and not jump over certain parts, and you don’t want to… you shouldn’t buy it in the first place!
Now, I agree I can’t make you kill your brother before watching it. That kind of condition is “against public policy.” It is void, under the law.
But it’s not against public policy for me to insist you not disable my access controls, is it?
I’m not buying into the right of the DVD manufacturer to be able to preempt my other rights and at his arbitrary pleasure restrict how I watch the movie that is licensed to me. The license does not cover how I run my life or the proper methods to view a movie.
You setup a straw man black & white illegal use case which is not similar and does not make the case that all manufacturers rules have to be legal and CSS defeats are illegal. The manf can’t make me kill my brother. He can’t restrict my usage of the license to that extent. Besides we’re not really talking about the movie as such but the portion of the DVD with controls and the whether or not I can be restricted from using code, which jumps over an embedded control.
So there are two parts:
Do I have to obey all rules a manf may impose with the sale of his product?
Are defeats for CSS legal?
Bricker:
I would say yes it is. Trying to control my use of the license to that extent in my home would be too much of an invasion of my privacy of use of the license to view the movie the way I choose.
Licensing laws don’t give producers rights to control my home life like forcing me to watch ads.
For part 1 above:
You say I should avoid this by not purchasing the product. I say that controls and label warnings are invasive for the usage I’ve described and are not binding.
For part 2 above:
If your case were right then there would be no court challenge but there is. CSS defeats do not break copyright laws or worse case it’s currently up in the air but definitely not defined as clearly illegal. By the time it is decided it may be unenforceable, as the defeats will be in place and widely used.