Judge: DVD-copying software is illegal

[grumpy]

here (http://news.com.com/2100-1025_3-5162749.html?tag=nefd_top)

edit: added title.

Summary:
After eight months of deliberation, a San Francisco federal judge has ruled that software company 321 Studios' popular DVD-copying products are illegal.

[mrbass]

She said blocking people from making perfect digital copies of their DVDs did not unconstitutionally hamper free speech or fair-use rights. People were free to make copies of movies in other, nondigital ways that would give them access to the same content, even if not in the same, pristine form, she said.

Ok I'm taking my mini-DV camcorder out and making copies of my TV screen. No pristine form...dang....guess no more 5.1 Dolby Digital audio for me. This judge has clearly been bribed :sly:

This court battle is far from over...just look how long Microsoft trial went on. I'd say it'll take at least that for this mess too.

[r6d2]

Firearms factories should be enforced to make weapons that can't shoot real bullets. They give people the ability to kill other people, taking their right to life. I wonder why no judge has considered firearms more dangerous than ripping software.

[trapvector]

"It is the technology itself which is the issue"

WOW! I thought that I was the biggest brother in my family...

[Neo Neko]

Guns should be banned because they allow people to kill. Highways should be banned because they are the favorite place for people to speed. Public areas and parks should be banned because they are the favorite place for many types of criminals to conduct business. The internet should be banned because it allows people to prolifferate child porn and terrorist organisations to communicate. And last but definatly not least big governemnt should be banned because they make massively stupid mis-judgements and trample human rights and personal freedoms.

Freedom is evil! Not. Liberal or conservative they are all for big government of one form or another. I am however slightly more fond of the liberals vision. But still find it overly disagreable. Paradoxically it is because of our freedoms here in the US that our freedoms are in jeapordy. That special interest groups are pushing governmental persecution of christians and other religeons or federal re-definition of religeous terms(ala recent events in california) to mean something other than what they mean. Ironic no? While those things have no real place on this forum related issues of copyright and multimedia content do. And I am affraid to address the one we are going to have to address them all. Because they all have the same or similar root. Special interest. Those who use their freedoms to put their freedoms before all others. Which is a violation of the foundation of this country. But nothing that can't be fixed by throwing wads of cash at someone. It's sickening in know. I just wish that someone could come up with an effective countermeasure.

Despite having said that there are very few other places that I would risk living in on the globe. Anyone with some intelligent suggestions willing to chime in on how to counteract disney magic and mickey mouse copyright laws?

[mudda_t]

Does this mean 321 will have to "remotely disable" all those purchased copies of xcopy now?.........:D

[Neo Neko]

Hopefully they will be in such haste to shut the opperation down that it will be neglected. Some good in the bad. Personally I want to give that judge some advice. Tell her that she is obviously unqualified to judge such issues. But maybe not so politely. :D Then again perhaps she was. But her wallet clouded her judgement.

[Dimmer]

It looks like even though people have a right to back up their DVDs, there is no legal means to do so except perhaps taping your TV screen with a camcorder. The same goes for commercially-made VHS tapes, since defeating Macrovision is same illegal as CSS. That only makes me wonder, why there hasn't been a big-time lawsuit against the manufacturers of "color-correction" boxes that incidentally remove the Macrovision protection.

[Neo Neko]

It is a classical example of a catch 22. You can legally do it. But if you do you break the law. So somethings gotta give. Because either our rights clearly violate the laws or the laws clearly violate our rights.

[echooff]

What you are missing is the federal courts in the ninth circuit are the worst courts in the country. Almost 80% of their rulings are overturned on appeal. Why these judges have not been impeached for incompetence and removed years ago speaks volumns about how wimppy congress is.

[easybeat]

What is fundamentally wrong is the fact that all courts and governments now place a higher value on possessions and property than they do on people.
As said previously it is okay to sell a gun which has one purpose to kill, but it is not okay to sell a product which is used to copy 1's and 0's.
Quite simply nobody has ever died or been injured from backing up software but the penalties for doing this are larger than some crimes of physical violence.

We live in a crazy society!

[crusty]

It is a classical example of a catch 22. You can legally do it. But if you do you break the law. So somethings gotta give. Because either our rights clearly violate the laws or the laws clearly violate our rights.

In such a case, the constitution takes precedence, including freedom of expression. When there is a 'catch 22 situation' something is unconstitutional. In this case it's the judge's ruling, and she is indeed very likely incompetent.

[Pyscrow]

Judge: DVD-copying software is illegal

Only in the good ol USofA, land of the free
(whoops correction- once land of the free)

[trapvector]

I hear that! When did the human race begin valuing possessions more than people? When did we start judging people based on what they have and not who they are? ARRGH- Alright I'll get off my soapbox now:rolleyes:

[Neo Neko]

Well it is all part of a growing trend. Leading to our Orwellian future. The government here is wanting to dictate peoples lives. We are already way beyond the governments original scope of protecting personal freedoms with much of the recent laws and regulations. The problem is that people who run for federal and government offices are in it to make money. And not for the good of the people or the public trust. With only few exceptions. And in terms of making money while in office it is much more advantageous to serve yourself first and the public second. So needless to say most judgments fall on the side of big money.

[mpucoder]

While it would have been nice for 321 to have won this battle in the lower courts, it would NOT have struck down the DMCA. Only the Supreme Court can decide constitutionality of a law, and that is really what all of us want, to have the DMCA declared unconstitutional.

In reality, this decision makes no difference. If Judge Ilston had ruled in favor of 321, the studios, since this is a civil case, would have appealed. Either way she ruled, the case would be appealed and move on to the next level, she just played it safe and enforced the DMCA. That interpretation of the DMCA may actually help to highlight its contradiction of older law.

[Angelus]

Just another article I ran across with an editor not too happy with the recent ruling:

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,3973,1537630,00.asp