French Courts Ban DRM on DVDs

[Wilbert]

Sorry, i had to post this quote from a slashdotter :)

Every morning, 60 million Frenchmen wake up and think about how they can annoy the Americans.

In any case it means that the use of DVD-based copy protection systems is not allowed. I guess it also implies that DeCSS is now legal in France!

http://www.allpeers.com/blog/?page_id=113
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/04/25/122230&threshold=1&tid=123&tid=126&tid=97&tid=1

[unskinnyboy]

Great news! Now French users don't need DVDDecrypter anymore. Now when will the Americans see the light? :D

[Sirber]

is Québec part of France? :D

[DigitAl56K]

Originally posted by Wilbert
I guess it also implies that DeCSS is now legal in France!


That I'm not so sure on. Did france adopt the EUDMCA? Backing up a DVD that originally had no copy protection, and circumventing copy protection to make a backup that you are legally entitled to make could be viewed differently by a court. One involves circumvention of copy protection, while the other does not.

I wonder if there are conflicting laws here, and if so who will be the first to test them?

[Joe Fenton]

The ruling means movie companies must sell unencrypted discs. This is part of the ruling:

"Les Films Alain Sarde and Studio Canal have one month to unblock their DVDs."

That's pretty clear - CSS is ILLEGAL in France because it conflicts with user's clear rights. It's the same here in the US, but no one has yet to push that angle in a US court.

[Wilbert]

Perhaps this is the catch why the laws are not conflicting

"However, my understanding of the DMCA is that it only applies to digital copies and protections. Thus you are still legally allowed to circumvent analogue copy protections, which is what prevents you from copying a DVD to VHS."

I guess the EUDMCA says something similar (and yes France has to implement it).

[mpucoder]

So they didn't outlaw CSS, but Macrovision? Great!

[adam]

The situation in France is very different than here in the States. As the article states, France has an express consumer law which allows archival copying of DVDs...the US does not. We've got archival laws allowing us to back audio CDs and computer software, and we've had similar court rulings already. There have been cases holding that certain protection mechanisms have gone too far in limiting backup rights, but that general protection methods are permissible. But like I said, there is simply no law saying you can backup your DVDs yet so there are no grounds to outlaw any protection mechanisms on DVDs so long as the DVDs still function as advertised and sold.

As for the DMCA, it clearly applies to both analogue as well as digital sources and to analogue as well as digital protection mechanisms. The law has an entire section specifically banning and requiring removal of all Macrovision removal devices. The term Digital in the title is very misleading. It applies to its justification (need for more protection for copyright holders now that there are more digital methods to infringe on copyrights) not its application.

[reepa]

I thought the EUDMCA had amendment that stated that the law only applies to mass piracy or something like that, not fair use at home.

[niamh]

This leads me to a question, possibly silly.

If an american person buys their DVD from France, region 2 and all (are they allowed in the first place?)...are they allowed back them up, according to the french laws, or are these DVD subject to american laws ? (as an example)

Every morning, 60 million Frenchmen wake up and think about how they can annoy the Americans.
:D

Sirber: Vive le Québec libre, of course ;)

[Doom9]

you are subjects to the territory where you currently are. But, if a DVD has no copy protection, it's needless to say that regardless of how many anti-circumvention laws a country has... if you're not circumventing anything you cannot be held liable for what you have not comitted. Copyright law obviously still applies to the full extent.

The EUDMCA as well as the "mothership" contain a fair use provision that is purposefully held vague.. it's not really clear what is permissible and what isn't so it depends on whom you ask. Needless to say around here we consider it applies to the full extent that lawmakers intended when they created today's copyright laws, but MPAA and RIAA would like us to believe that there's no fair use, period.

There will be no publication of an explanation to the ruling, but I suppose the ruling still has to be filed away somehow, so if anybody happens to be in a Paris court in the next weeks, perhaps you can dig something up. The source for the news item does not mention any specific kind of copy protection.. it uses the generic term copy protection mechanisms. That includes any kind of copy protection mechanisms and is not limited to analogue, digital, Macrovision, CSS or any other specific copy protection mechanism.

And as to whether or not it makes it whatnot legal... most countries have some kind of fair use provision, many of us even have to pay levies on blank media to compensate musicians, actors, composers, etc. for possibly private copying (what kind of copying is meant is not explicitly stated.. it's not like "recording from TV/radio is okay, copying a VHS tape is not okay" (DVD wasn't known when those laws were created).. so any xDMCA conflicts with those... it is all about the small but very important details as to which provision applies in case of a conflict... are you allowed to copy because copyright law says so, or are you not, because MPAA/RIAA sponsored "digital whatnotcrap" legislation says you cannot circumvent copy protection mechanisms, thus creating a ridiculous situation where you could be found in violation of the anti-copy provision, and that you had to commit that violation in order to make use of your fair use rights (for which you may even have paid by buying the device and media used to make the copy in question).

And obviously this wasn't a Supreme court ruling, though I wouldn't think that getting politicians to appoint more industry friendly judges and eventually have another case to overthrow a ruling that establishes our rights above theirs would be beyond the industry. They've certainly proven themselves to be extremely devious and untrusthworthy in the past.