DVD Copy Protection Strengthened

[suspiciousBob]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4266977.stm

DVDs will be harder to copy thanks to new anti-piracy measures devised by copy protection firm Macrovision.

The pirated DVD market is enormous because current copy protection was hacked more than five years ago.

Macrovision says its new RipGuard technology will thwart most, but not all, of the current DVD ripping (copying) programs used to pirate DVDs.

"RipGuard is designed to... reduce DVD ripping and the resulting supply of illegal peer to peer," said the firm.

Macrovision said the new technology will work in "nearly all" current DVD players when applied to the discs, but it did not specify how many machines could have a problem with RipGuard.
So how is this different from DeCSS exactly? If it's backwards compatible won't that mean it'll still be easy to rip DVDs?

[smiller667]

This is not exactly new, see http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86622&highlight=ripguard

[Sirber]

They don't say what they do... easy speculations :rolleyes:

[edit]

web site don't tell much more..

http://www.macrovision.com/products/ripguard/index.shtml

[fewtch]

Originally posted by Sirber
They don't say what they do...
Easy... takes money out of MPAA exec's pockets, puts it in Macrovision exec's pockets.

Edit -- oh yeah, creates an entertaining challenge for smart dudes like Lightning U.K. :D

[mpucoder]

:)

A company built on a myth.

[fewtch]

Interesting in reading the Macrovision site, they repeatedly talk about "rent, rip, return."

I don't really understand this issue. With a rental costing here (Pacific N.W. USA) around $3.50-$4.50 per rental, add the cost of a recordable DVD disc ($0.50) and factor in the cost of the burner over time. You end up with a total price just a little below the cost of most used DVD's and even some new ones ($5.00-$7.00), and certainly would be losing out on the nice plastic 'keep case', artwork, booklet insert, DVD-9 format, compatibility with all DVD players, and some other things.

I value my DVD collection, why would I want a bunch of homemade DVD-5's written with black felt tip pens, in CD wallets with most extra features cut so the movie fits with good quality?

If they're talking about transcoded MPEG4 with "rent, rip, return" the issue becomes even sillier, IMO. The original DVD *always* looks better, and always offers *many* more features (including for most people, the ability to play on the TV set and not be stuck sitting in front of a PC monitor!!!).

Is this really a big problem worldwide, or is Macrovision inventing this issue?

[k0r0n4]

Just saw this article on Google....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4266977.stm
(all related articles: http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&gl=us&ncl=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2005-02/16/content_2581302.htm )

My guess is it's something similar to securerom for DVDs. I hope it gets hacked the day after it appears xD.

Anyways, how hard will this probably be to get around? Or, a better question is probably "how long will it take for someone to come up with a way to circumvent it?" Any ideas?

Edit: oops, didn't see there was already a thread devoted to this...sorry!

[KaiserS]

I did find this statement by the one of the guys at Macrovision about fair use to be fairly interesting:

"The concept of digital rights management has been a controversial one, in part because consumers have come to expect that a movie or other piece of software they've purchased is theirs to do with what they wish, part of the "fair use" concept. Gervin said he's sympathetic to that viewpoint: Macrovision currently encodes digital bitstreams using ACP, which includes rules-based restrictions that can allow content to be piped to various devices within the home."

Really drives home the point how groups like Macrovision and the MPAA/RIAA utterly despise fair use. And I seriously doubt this guy or anyone one else in these groups are sympathetic at all to the consumers when its more fun apparently to screw them over instead.

[shevegen]

but well thats fine, who likes macrovision except the industry anyway
;)

[dragongodz]

you have to remember that any "new" protection they use still has to be able to play on a standard dvd player. so that can not add some fancy new technology, period. that being the case the old addage remains true, if it can be played it can be ripped. you just may need to work out exactly how, same as has been done with arccos. :)

consumers have come to expect that a movie or other piece of software they've purchased is theirs to do with what they wish, part of the "fair use" concept.
hmm so when i buy something i am not actually the owner of that object that i have bought ? of course nobody believes by buying a dvd they have bought the complete rights to the movie but according to that statement i havent even bought the reproduction/copy of the movie. according to that i shouldnt be allowed to give it away as a present or sell it or throw it in the rubbish without permission. shows the mentality of these people.

Really drives home the point how groups like Macrovision and the MPAA/RIAA utterly despise fair use. And I seriously doubt this guy or anyone one else in these groups are sympathetic at all to the consumers when its more fun apparently to screw them over instead.
have a read of the "Aus fair use" post for another example of how these people dont think people should have rights and what they would like people to think fair use really means(and why its evil).

[adam]

No not at all. The right to resell, give away, or destroy something you buy is provided by the First Sale Doctrine, it has absolutley nothing to do with Fair Use which is what the quote is talking about.

That quote is just referring to the widespread belief that Fair Use allows you to copy a DVD for backup purposes, or for other personal uses. The Fair Use exception was never intended to be used for this purpose and no court has ever extended it this far. In fact, multiple rulings have held that under the substantiality prong of the Fair Use test, a complete and exact copy can never be protected under Fair Use.

The US Legislature took it upon themselves to extend backup rights to other areas such as to computer software (section 117) and musical recordings (section 1008). They have yet to do so for audio-visual works. The obvious conclusions to be drawn from these express exemptions, in regards to Fair Use rights, is twofold. First off, if Fair Use generally allowed backups then there would have been no reason to create these express laws allowing backups under these limited circumstances. Secondly, if the Legislature had wanted to permit backing up DVDs they would done so through its own express exemption.

Currently there is no right to backup a DVD in the US. I am confident that in the near future there will be an amendment to Title 17 similar to the Audio Home Recording Act, which created the 1008 exception for musical recordings, but for audio-visual works. Then it will finally be legal to backup DVDs in America. I don't believe that this right will ever come by way of Fair Use.

[KaiserS]

Originally posted by adam
The US Legislature took it upon themselves to extend backup rights to other areas such as to computer software (section 117) and musical recordings (section 1008).

Funny cause if I'm legally allowed to make backup copies of my own computer software why are their explicit statement in the licenses for many pieces software expressly saying the opposite? Secondly, would that not make any of the anti-copying protections on software illegal? The old ad of "Don't copy the floppy" comes to mind here.

[fewtch]

Originally posted by adam
Currently there is no right to backup a DVD in the US. I am confident that in the near future there will be an amendment to Title 17 similar to the Audio Home Recording Act, which created the 1008 exception for musical recordings, but for audio-visual works. Then it will finally be legal to backup DVDs in America.
Not CSS-protected works (see: DMCA). It would only legalize the backing up of unprotected works.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if backups of CSS-protected DVD's were ever to be legalized in USA, the DMCA would have to be amended. It would be nice if that happened, but in the current climate it's pretty unlikely.

[adam]

Originally posted by KaiserS
Funny cause if I'm legally allowed to make backup copies of my own computer software why are their explicit statement in the licenses for many pieces software expressly saying the opposite? Secondly, would that not make any of the anti-copying protections on software illegal? The old ad of "Don't copy the floppy" comes to mind here.

Its not funny, you are just extending the scope of the license beyond its intent. Most software licenses generally prohibit any unauthorized copying. Well, under Title 17 section 117 you are authorized to make archival copies of computer software, therefore you are not in violation of the license and the license is not suggesting that archival copying is prohibited. You can read the section yourself, its public knowledge.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000117----000-.html

(a) Making of Additional Copy or Adaptation by Owner of Copy.— Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.

In regards to the "don't copy the floppy" ads, those probably predate the enactment of this section. It is relatively recent.

[KaiserS]

Originally posted by adam
Its not funny, you are just extending the scope of the license beyond its intent. Most software licenses generally prohibit any unauthorized copying. Well, under Title 17 section 117 you are authorized to make archival copies of computer software, therefore you are not in violation of the license and the license is not suggesting that archival copying is prohibited. You can read the section yourself, its public knowledge.

Well, I've read quite a few licenses that pretty much say you aren't allowed to make any copies of the software. Secondly, many pieces of software prevent you from using them if you have made a backup copy without cracking the software which pretty much defeats the purpose of being able to legally make a backup copy if it isn't gonna work.

[adam]

Originally posted by fewtch
Not CSS-protected works (see: DMCA). It would only legalize the backing up of unprotected works.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I think if backups of CSS-protected DVD's were ever to be legalized in USA, the DMCA would have to be amended. It would be nice if that happened, but in the current climate it's pretty unlikely.

There is no need to amend the DMCA for this, as it already contains a Savings Clause.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00001205----000-.html

The DMCA cannot be used to dimish the rights provided elsewhere in Title 17. If Legislature decided to expressly permit the archival copying of DVDs then the DMCA would not apply to such copying. It already doesn't apply to bypassing protection mechanisms for archiving computer software, or musical recordings.

[adam]

Originally posted by KaiserS
Well, I've read quite a few licenses that pretty much say you aren't allowed to make any copies of the software. Secondly, many pieces of software prevent you from using them if you have made a backup copy without cracking the software which pretty much defeats the purpose of being able to legally make a backup copy if it isn't gonna work.

I've never seen any. You can always make at least partial copies under Fair Use. A license which completely prevented all copying would be legally unenforceable. Hell, if the license prohibited all copying then that would mean you couldn't even do it with the permission of the copyright holder. As I said, most licenses will prohibit unauthorized copying, which would not prevent you from making an archival copy.

As for copyprotection mechanisms, it is a fine line. Some music labels were actually successfully sued because their copyprotection methods were unreasonable and 1) prevented the cds from working properly and 2) unreasonably interfered with the consumer's right to make an archival copy. But general copyprotection mechanisms are not illegal so long as they are reasonable. Whether or not the common methods of protection used in the industry right now are reasonable or not is a matter of debate and continued litigation. You've got to balance the manufacturer's right to protect unauthorized copying with the consumer's right to make authorized copying.

[dragongodz]

No not at all. The right to resell, give away, or destroy something you buy is provided by the First Sale Doctrine, it has absolutley nothing to do with Fair Use which is what the quote is talking about.
no it goes beyond fair use, beyond its meaning that is. they equate everything to being expressed under fair use.

to understand what these people think fair use means to people and how evil it is go read the "Aus fair use" post.

if the license prohibited all copying then that would mean you couldn't even do it with the permission of the copyright holder. As I said, most licenses will prohibit unauthorized copying, which would not prevent you from making an archival copy.
and how about a license that says "no copying/backup without express permission of the copyright holder". does that law allow you to then make an archival backup ? that i have seen heaps of times with software.

[adam]

Originally posted by dragongodz
and how about a license that says "no copying/backup without express permission of the copyright holder". does that law allow you to then make an archival backup ? that i have seen heaps of times with software. [/B]

The law could not be clearer. You can make an archival copy of computer software that you own, provided that you do not retain such copies if you no longer possess the original. You have this right under US law regardless of what the license says.

Again, if a license stated that you could not make an archival backup without express permission of the copyright holder, than that particular langauge as applied to that particular action would be legally unenforceable. Software licenses are routinely declared unenforceable, in whole or in part, for various reasons. In some US jurisdictions the license is entirely unenforceable if it is just given to you inside the box and the terms are not also written on the outside of the box itself. This happens quite often actually.

[dragongodz]

if a license stated that you could not make an archival backup without express permission of the copyright holder, than that particular langauge as applied to that particular action would be legally unenforceable.
so basically F.U.D. for the common person to scare them in to not copying or buying another copy. ;)

Software licenses are routinely declared unenforceable, in whole or in part, for various reasons. In some US jurisdictions the license is entirely unenforceable if it is just given to you inside the box and the terms are not also written on the outside of the box itself. This happens quite often actually.
i have to wonder then why it is allowed to continue to happen.

[adam]

Originally posted by dragongodz
so basically F.U.D. for the common person to scare them in to not copying or buying another copy. ;)

By and large, that's exactly what it is. But then the purposes of all licenses are really to provide the broadest protection for the seller. Its up to the buyer to decide whether or not to accept that license, and whether to exercize a known legal right even though the license purports to prohibit it.

Originally posted by dragongodz
i have to wonder then why it is allowed to continue to happen.

Well, like I said its a matter of continued litigation. There is a suit in the works against Microsoft for its "click the box" approach to getting you to accept their license.

Alot of it has to do with practical reasons. Its cost prohibitive to modify your license and packaging for each jurisdiction, especially when it is not really clear whether these types of, "after the fact" or "overly broad" licenses are enforceable there or not.

We've got a uniform commercial code that governs the sale of all licensed goods, its just that each jurisdiction interprets certain parts of the language differently. It happens with all legislation and is an inherant problem/feature of any nation that is made up of multiple sovereignties.

Sorry, I just realized how far off topic we are getting.

[dragongodz]

Sorry, I just realized how far off topic we are getting.
yes we tend to take over threads when we start talking about all this stuff dont we. so probably a good idea to leave it at that and let people get back to talking about macrovisions plans. :D