DVD copying fight lands in UK
Posted by Sleeper on 09 September 2003 - 07:37 · 13 comments & 681 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
Sleeper
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name:
SleeperContact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by Hekx on 09 Sep 2003 - 07:45
..and so the MPAA follow the path of the RIAA.
-
#2 Posted by Inertia on 09 Sep 2003 - 07:47
- about 3 years too late i think.
Once the first ever decrypter was released there is nothing they can do to prevent us distributing it freely between each other.
they are wasting their time.
-
#3 Posted by AdamField on 09 Sep 2003 - 08:00
- I got my DVD (ahem) backup software as a free download from PC World Business. They have free software available every week and last week it was DVD echo
-
#4 Posted by MrHolliday on 09 Sep 2003 - 08:05
- So what's to stop them from buying the software from retailers elsewhere online?? All these legal cases must cost these organizations tons of money to file and the really funny thing is that all countries will not abide by there rules thus all of this will never be stopped. They are just wasting their $$.
-
(1 reply)
#5 Posted by ruskie on 09 Sep 2003 - 08:08
- This is going to have no effect whatsoever. there a plenty of free video conversion tools on the web....
-
(3 replies)
#6 Posted by Fubar on 09 Sep 2003 - 08:08
- the yanks can keep out of our bloody business when it comes to stuff like this, they can request it but weather the said parties agree is another thing. just a waste of time., you dont see people in the uk going to america and asking them to stop doing stuff do you ? why's that ? because its not our country and we have no right so sod off MPAA go play with the RIAA you Muppets
-
#6.1 Posted by YaddaMe on 09 Sep 2003 - 09:22
- lmao.... if you actually read the article, you will realize that while they are a US company, they are stating that the software violates the UK copyright laws.
-
#6.2 Posted by Fubar on 09 Sep 2003 - 09:27
- they are CLAIMING it breaches the copyright law not that it DOES breach the copyright law, this is where laws get changed as one of the statements says "why shouldnt home users be allowed to back up there dvd;s ?" this is the kinda things that gets laws changed if they have them
just another little thing, as far as im aware is that your are legally to have backup copies of things you own , i.e from music cd's to video's so im assuming this law is the same for dvds
Last edited by 3331 on 09 Sep 2003 - 09:40 -
#6.3 Posted by mrbester on 09 Sep 2003 - 15:54
- Using a UK arm of a US business in order to force US bollocks form an entirely US group on UK citizens isn't going to work. It matters not one whit what they state. They state it breaches copyright laws. I state they're a bunch of cnuts. There's one correct statement and it wasn't theirs.
We have a right to copy whatever we own, whether it be a "digital medium" (it has a physical entity, therefore we own it / the use of it, therefore we can copy it), an occasional table or the cat. As cloning labs are extremely expensive and subject to other legislation anyway, few people get around to the last one.
Remember the Macrovision cock-up a few years ago? It was ruled that the copy protection could be circumvented in order to create a backup and that Macrovision could fsck off. Exactly the same thing is going to happen here.
-
#7 Posted by badall on 09 Sep 2003 - 11:14
- well if they do try anything we can do them for tradeing standerds violations for crapy versions of the US dvds and pice fixing with region codeing
-
(1 reply)
#8 Posted by AdamField on 09 Sep 2003 - 13:12
- #6.2 I think that it isn't the same for DVD's as you have to decrypt them to copy them and i believe that is the illegal part.
-
#8.1 Posted by roadwarrior on 10 Sep 2003 - 01:39
- BUT, the fact that they put this encryption in place violates "fair use", compounded by the fact that after the movie studios made sure that all DVD's were encrypted, they then convienently had the laws changed in their favor so that decrypting them was illegal. They couldn't directly make copying the DVD illegal (due to "fair use" rulings), so they resorted to the underhanded tactic of encrypting the content and making the act of decrypting it illegal.
Last edited by 26908 on 10 Sep 2003 - 01:46
A US software company is fighting moves by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to have the sale of its DVD-copying software banned in the UK.
321 Studios said it would "vigorously defend" itself against the MPAA's claims that its software breaches the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 by allowing anti-copying protection of DVDs to be bypassed.
The MPAA, which is also fighting 321 Studios in the US over the issue of copyright, is seeking an injunction in the High Court next week against the company.
This would prevent 321's UK branch from selling its DVD X Copy software to UK users until a High Court judge rules on the issue of copyright at a full court hearing.
"We are actually quite excited about it because it brings us into the limelight. We feel we have a good chance of success," Rob Semaan, chief executive of 321 Studios, told vnunet.com.
Launching the MPAA's legal action through Warner Home Video UK, Jack Valenti, the organisation's president and chief executive, said in a statement: "No one should be under any illusions about the damage that this dangerous software would do to consumer choice and film-making."
But 321 Studios claims that an injunction would be unfair on consumers who use its software to back up their DVDs, and has called the case an important landmark for consumer rights.
"This approach is looking for criminal activity, [but] at the end of the day, why shouldn't consumers be allowed to back up and protect their DVDs?" said Margaret Briffa, lawyer for 321 Studios.
"Also, it means a lot of people who use the software to copy their home movies will be unable to use it. I think this case will go beyond a single judge sitting, and up to the secretary of state."