Encoding Video for Zaurus...

[javab0y]

I haven\'t been on in a few days, but I wanted to respond to DRWowe...regarding DMCA and fair use...

The same argument was brought up by the defense in Universal vs Corley (the 2600 DeCSS lawsuit). The court rejected it.

I cannot agree here...

The issue at hand was the distribution of DeCss.  Please see http://www.hklaw.com/Publications/Newslett...33&Article=1863.  Fair use was used as a defense, where fair use did not apply, therefore it was rejected.  The 2600 site was considered \"distributing\" due to its links to the software and thus a DMCA violator.

The article states:

Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories:  measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work.  Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measures are prohibited, as is the act of circumventing access control devices.  However, the act of circumventing copy control devices is not prohibited.  This distinction was intended to preserve the public’s ability to make fair use of copyrighted works.

If you are interested in the case law that helped to define \"fair use\", please see Sony vs. Universal 464 U.S. 417 (1984)(http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getc...l=464&invol=417).  This was a landmark case that clearly allows you to make a copy of your movies for private viewing on other devices.

[omega]

Hey Tony,

If you want to encode videos there is a very simple way to do it. I started doing it on Saturday, and three hours later i was on a bus down to see my parents watching Futurama and Dilbert. I used the mplayer that came with cacko, i haven\'t yet installed the optimised version 1. So all you need is divx, i used 5.0.3 from nimo codec pack and flaskmpeg. Open your DVD or MPEG-1 in FlaskMpeg, select resize to 320 * 240, DIVX 5.03 slowest setting (quality) bitrate to 300 and MP3 codec to 128k 48kHz. The result is very nice looking full screen movies that seemed to work everytime. When i tried ogg for audio there was lack of sync, even in my windows player. I have yet to fully explore all the different settings, but those above worked very nicely for me!

[omega]

Oh and i hope you realise that it is in windows. Plus, there\'s also a option on the encode screen to set the process to idle so that it doesn\'t affect whatever else you\'re doing on the system (within reason). Enjoy, and let me know how you go on. Sometimes, i had to use MAD audio decoding, instead of FFmpeg but i think that FFmpeg worked for all the divx files.

[DrWowe]

So it still isn\'t legal.

I should add, that\'s not really the end of the story either.  Because they still have to catch you decrypting your own legally owned DVD on your own computer (yeah right).  And decide it\'s worth their while to prosecute.  And then, supposing that happened, then you could always try a defence called \"jury nullification\".  That\'s basically, when you convince a jury that the law is so unfair, or confusing, that you don\'t deserve to be convicted, even though you are guilty.

So bottom line is, it\'s a good academic legal debate, but even though it\'s technically illegal, I just wouldn\'t worry too much.  

[ScottYelich]

jurors are always allowed to vote their conscience...

Scott

[javab0y]

For Tony Olsen...

Per your original post...it *is* legal to hire someone to rip your DVDs for you...

A company already does this legally for the iPod.  They will rip your entire CD collection and copy it to your iPod for a fee: http://www.loadpod.com/

Thus, by the law of transitivity, I assume hiring someone or a company to rip DVDs to DIVX for viewing on \"other\" devices is completely legal as well.

Perhaps a new business venture for you?   You can probably charge a nice fee...like $8-$10 per DVD due to the tremendous time it takes to rip a reasonably good copy.

[DrWowe]

Per your original post...it *is* legal to hire someone to rip your DVDs for you...

 

Nope.  CDs are legal precisely because they aren\'t encrypted, so the DMCA doesn\'t apply.

[javab0y]

Nope. CDs are legal precisely because they aren\'t encrypted, so the DMCA doesn\'t apply.

Wrong again.  please view the links I responded to you above.

The act of circumventing copy control devices is not prohibited. This distinction was intended to preserve the public’s ability to make fair use of copyrighted works.

Aiding someone to create a copy for thier own library who already own a copy of the DVD has a right under fair use to make the copy is completely legal.  Read the DMCA...its very clear on this issue.  The \"illegality\" of the DMCA is distribution or manufacturing of a device that aids in circumvention of a protection.

[DrWowe]

So it still isn\'t legal.

Who nuked my message before this one?  I was quoting myself, and the original post disappeared!  The one where I responded to javab0y\'s DMCA quotation and the Sony vs. Betamax case?  Grrr....

I\'m not going to rewrite the whole post but the summary of what I said was that the DMCA trumps the Sony vs Betamax case, and the passage of the DMCA you quoted applies to a \"copy control\" device, but the CSS encryption is also considered an \"access control\" device, to which the exemption doesn\'t apply, and that also, I\'ve discussed this issue with an IP lawyer who believes the matter is quite clear.

Finally, you DO have the right to backup a DVD (as per Sony vs Universal), but you do NOT have the right to decrypt it.  The 1st right is useless without the 2nd.

[javab0y]

1201 © gives you the right to decrypt it...its clearly written in US code...and paves the way for the Sony vs. Universal application of case law.

I\'ve discussed this issue with an IP lawyer who believes the matter is quite clear.

I am in law school and am emphasizing in IP/Cyber law.  I also have discussed this at great length with professors...USC 17 1201 © will likely land any attack from a corporation on a DVD owner into summary judgement .

[DrWowe]

I am in law school and am emphasizing in IP/Cyber law.

Well, why didn\'t you say so.    The law has so many nuances that it\'s dangerous to believe someone who doesn\'t have the training.

Can you explain to me why the opinion of the judge in the Corley case won\'t be used as a precedent in determining that 1201© doesn\'t permit DVD decryption?  I realize the case as a whole was about trafficking, but it seems like that part of the opinion generalizes to personal use.

[DrWowe]

I think the bottom line is, that even if you turn out to be right, and a court eventually declares that DVD decrypting/copying for personal use is legal, you\'d better have a large tolerance (and budget) for legal risk before doing something high profile activity like starting a business, because you WILL be sued.

[javab0y]

Can you explain to me why the opinion of the judge in the Corley case won\'t be used as a precedent in determining that 1201© doesn\'t permit DVD decryption? I realize the case as a whole was about trafficking, but it seems like that part of the opinion generalizes to personal use.

I would be happy to...

The reason I posted the link above about the Corley case was it clearly showed that the issue at hand were the links to a tool or \"device\", which does indeed violate the DMCA (as crappy of a law as it is).  The focus wasn\'t truely fair use (although it was attempted as a defense), but that the 2600 and other Connecticut based website were indirectly distributing or \"trafficking\" (sounds like they were dealing drugs...eh?) in a tool or device whose primary use was to aid in circumventing protection of a copyrighted work.

This can be evinced by the judge\'s statement:

Defendants, however, are not here sued for copyright infringement. They are sued for offering and providing technology designed to circumvent technological measures that control access to copyrighted works and otherwise violating Section 1201(a)(2) of the Act.

Again, unfortunately, US code clearly states that one cannot distribute/traffic in a tool or device whose primary use is to circumvent protections.  Therefore they had a tough battle...as Fair Use did not apply here.    

However, what I think is truely chilling, is that the website owners claimed a defense based on the 1st amendment (or freedom of speech), where they had a right to post links to information on DeCSS.  The judge struck this down as a defense.  This is where I thought they would have had the greatest defense... Perhaps they would have been more successful under the 9th circuit (a much more liberal district).

Its scary where our country is heading.

[ScottYelich]

Its scary where our country is heading.

I\'ll second that...

you\'d think that a difference of opinion and being able to express it in a civilized way
would be one of the most precious and valuable components of our society -- but just
try to say something bad about bush now -- the SS will be kicking down your door.

can I have an intolerance for intolerance?

Scott

[LilMikey]

Add 500 more lawsuits, weeee:
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,...tw=wn_tophead_4

I\'m telling you, we\'ll all be listening to NPR by the time the RIAA is done.