|
|
| French Appeals Court Rules DVD Copy Protection Violates Privacy Rights |
 |
|
Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 03:50 PM EDT
|
This extraordinary story from the AP just out: that a French appeals court has ordered a DVD with digital rights management pulled off the shelves, saying that the DRM violates consumer privacy rights. A customer bought the movie on DVD and then tried to transfer it onto a video cassette so he could show his mother the movie at her home. The DRM wouldn't let it happen:"This ruling means that 80 percent of DVDs now on the French market are equipped with illegal mechanisms," said Julien Dourgnon, spokesman for consumer advocacy group UFC-Que Choisir, which brought the case.
"Stores will probably not have to send back products already in stock," Dourgnon said Tuesday. "But in the future, no DVD or CD that has the device can be sold."
France, along with other European Union members including Germany and Spain, has laws guaranteeing the right of consumers to copy recordings they have purchased for private use. The defendants in the litigation are Alain Sarde Films and Studio Canal and distributor Universal, who were also were found guilty of violating French consumer protection laws, because the only notice that there was such copy prevention software on the DVD were the letters "CP", standing for copy protection. The law is that consumers must be clearly notified of a product's "essential characteristics". How amazing, and reassuring, to find that the rights of consumers are finally being given some weight.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: ansak on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
Just remember to post HTML, balance your <A HREF=""> and
</A> tags, and test your links in "Preview" mode.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: grundy on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:12 PM EDT |
For typos in the article
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bap on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
The US movie industry will now start relying heavily on the regional encoding
features of DVD's in combination with the manufacturing of different DVD content
for sale in Europe vs. elsewhere. They'll sell DVD's in Europe that don't
contain any extras, no "extended" editions, etc. and encode them to
only play in region 2 (Europe, Japan, Middle East) but without any DRM. In the
US they'll sell DVD's locked to region 1 (US only) with heavy DRM built-in, but
also all the extra goodies like bonus tracks, directors commentaries, etc.
Or is it time for me to go check the fit on my tinfoil beenie? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
The right solution but wrong way to arrive at it.
The market should have killed off this technology, instead of a court ruling.
Consumers should have boycotted this DVD and it sholud have died a horrible
death, bankrupting the businesses that invented and used this technology -
forever
scorching the field that no-one else attempts it again.
Such a verdict from the market would have been a permanent one, instead of this,
which can be overturned, made obsolete (by new laws) or worked around (new
technology).
Such a verdict would be slow to reach at, but lasting.
Proof? We are still debating this question again - because the Sony case was
decided by judges, not the market.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
| Should we understand that this ruling just means that DVDs would have to carry
new stickers ("DRM protected!") and not that DVDs in France can't be
encrypted? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
I assume this relates to Macrovision, which even prvents one from taking a
signal out of a DVD player, through a VCR and then into a TV -- even if one is
not recording.
Why would one do this? Because DVD players only have A/V outputs and many TVs
only have HF inputs. In the US, one can buy boxes that strip Macrovision out of
the signal. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Macrovision - Authored by: whoever57 on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:27 PM EDT
- Macrovision - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:45 PM EDT
- Macrovision - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 06:03 PM EDT
- Macrovision - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 05:10 PM EDT
- Macrovision on RAID - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 06:56 PM EDT
- Macrovision - Authored by: slackhead on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 10:45 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: AdamBaker on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 04:29 PM EDT |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/04/26/french_drm_non/
The Friday referred to in this article can't be 29 April as The Register had the
story up on the 26th. I thought at first this might refer to the higher appeals
court ruling that the register article mentions but as this article clearly says
this overturned the lower court decision that can't be the case.
Are any french speaking readers able to track down some more precise details of
what court this is and what if anything is happening / possible in terms of
further appeals.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 05:07 PM EDT |
The copy protection on the DVD media only works in cooperation with the DVD
player's firmware itself.
<p>
You can get Apex DVD players that don't have the Macrovision copy protection
(copied to tape), and you can easily make Linux based DVD players that don't
have the CSS protection (DeCSS).
<p>
Note that this (removing it from the players, not the media) would also save the
French economy quite a bit of money because each DVD player with those devices
ends up having to pay macrovision and the DVD consortium quite some money.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dluebke on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 05:22 PM EDT |
France, along with other European Union members including Germany
and Spain, has laws guaranteeing the right of consumers to copy recordings they
have purchased for private use.
Unfortunately, in Germany there
isn't a right to copy recordings, at least not in the sense of "right" you would
expect. In Germany it is an unenforceable right (yes, you don't need glasses).
Effectively, in Germany you are not allowed to bypass "effective copy control
meassures" with effective defined by lawyers as something not really
comprehendable for computer scientists. Because that effective does not mean
technically effective, it is forbidden to copy audio CDs which are damaged on
purpose so that cd-rom drives should not be able to read them etc. The CSS
algorithm is legally effective as well, so it is forbidden by law to circumwent
it.
However, as IANAL, I really cannot tell you all the details, especially the
concept of unenforcable rights is somewhat beyond me.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sjgibbs on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 05:34 PM EDT |
The long arm of big business stretching into your home and stopping you from
pursuing perfectly legal interests is somewhat irksome, but isn't what most
people would describe as an infringement of privacy, as such.
Is the privacy angle just a case of "Lost In Translation", or is the
concept more broadly defined in French culture?
I understand that France has laws that specifically allow home-copying I'm just
confused about the categorisation and interested in the philosophical and legal
basis of the judgement.
It would be good to hear from someone close to the case on this PJ!
SJG, a brit.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 06:19 PM EDT |
| Seen a few posts here which contain incorrect information on DVD protections.
Hopefully this will correct a few.
There are two forms of digital rights
management on a DVD - analogue and digital.
Macrovision (tm) is the
analogue protection and is included in all standalone DVD players. This stops
you recording the disc to video (and messes up people with projector systems).
The protection does a few things to the video signal (inserting a burst after
the frame sync to throw automatic gain circuits out - hence light and dark
pictures, incorrect line sync level - banding of the picture, offset voltage at
the end of the frame (rolling picture).
The disc is then allowed to
switch the protection on if the appropriate licence fee is paid.
The
second protection is Copy Generation Management System -CGMS, which inserts a
signal into the output data stream to indicate a digital source. If you have a
DVD recorder and try and do a DVD to DVD transfer you will see some message like
"operation prohibited" if you try (even if the disc has no macrovision
protection).
Content scambling system - CSS is another layer of
protection to scramble the data on the disc so that you can't just disk
copy.
A lot of info on how it all works
Here
The judgement would seem to only include the first protection
(analogue).
BTW The region coding of discs is actually illegal under
international law (as it's a restraint of trade). Just that no country seems to
want to challenge it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 07:38 PM EDT |
I understand that the British-style common law legal system used in Canada,
Britain and the US is very different from the legal systems in other countries.
Commentary about the German GPL suit always came with the disclaimer that other
judges weren't required to apply that decision to other cases, even if those
other cases were substantially similar. Can anyone say if France has a system
where this ruling would affect those other 80% of DVDs?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Appeal. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 09:33 PM EDT
- Appeal. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 07:03 AM EDT
- But what's the result? - Authored by: billposer on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 01:57 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: starsky on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 07:56 PM EDT |
| In Australia there is a slightly similar case before the High Court of Australia
(Appealed from the Federal Appeals Court). FYI: The High Court in Australia
judges on constitutional matters and matters of federal significance. High Court of Australia
The case
is
Stevens v Kabushiki Kaisha Sony Computer Entertainment & Ors
(S319/2004)
Date heard: 8 February 2005. Judgment reserved.
The court
catchword summary is (I have bolded the important
parts):
Intellectual property – copyright – circumvention
devices – respondents manufactured Playstation consoles and games for use in
those consoles – Playstation console as manufactured by respondents contained a
BOOT ROM which was said to be a technological protection measure within meaning
of Copyright Act 1968 (Cth) – BOOT ROM prevented pirated games being played on
Playstations as well as games that had been purchased out of relevant geographic
regions – applicant installed “mod chips” in Playstation consoles allegedly to
allow Playstation consumers to play games purchased in different geographic
regions – BOOT ROM inhibited infringement of copyright in Playstation games by
rendering pirated copies useless for purpose for which they were made
–
acts of infringement of copyright were therefore anterior to actual effect of
BOOT ROM
– whether BOOT ROM was nevertheless a technological protection
measure as defined in Copyright Act
– whether definition of technological
protection measure could be concerned with devices or products which had a
general deterrent or discouraging effect on those contemplating contravention of
copyright.
The Australian
Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) has already said that Region
Codes are anti-competitive, and they were involved in this court case (funding
Stevens up until the high court appeal).
So Stevens original argument was
that the circumvention of the Technological Protection Measure (TPM) was
incidental in bypassing region codes, and the federal appeals court disagreed.
Now the argument in the High court is that the TPM (boot rom) itself doesn't
stop the copyright infringement, that the infringement occurs BEFORE the TPM
comes into play. You can copy the disc even if there is no mod chip in the
console. So the Boot Rom isn't really a TPM because it doesn't stop the copying
of the software! Great argument...
Unfortunately there is a flip-side. The
court may rule on the side that a copyright infringement detterant is
effectively a TPM... and that would be a disaster for consumer
freedoms.
Anyway, I think the outcomes of this case are significant, and
related.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 03 2005 @ 09:36 PM EDT |
``How amazing, and reassuring, to find that the rights of
consumers are finally being given some weight.''
But it's a
shame that I'd have to move overseas to get a few of those rights. The courts
here in the U.S. seem determined to roll over whenever some corporate legal
department tells them to.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 02:25 AM EDT |
It is Macrovision that has caused this problem - this copy
protection system distorts the timing signals of the analog video signal coming
out of the DVD player. A TV can correct the signal timings and display the
picture correctly.
But a VCR has spinning video heads that can't speed up and
slow down quickly enough to cope with the changing timimg on the video signals
and it will fail to record a usable picture.
Actually, a very old
VCR (mine is 15+ years) has no problem with Macrovision.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 05:15 AM EDT |
After all, it is quite an impediment to free trade.
Unfortunately, most of these things get settled after boycots. Boycots are nice
if a country does not want some good (because of export subsidies ect.), but
quite useless if it demands some good (and especially the ability to *use* it).
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 07:57 AM EDT |
It is a very surprising news, since two weeks ago, a French appeal court
validated the Data protection measures for Audio CDs. Here is a news about the
topic (in french, sorry) on a French linux web site (kind of slashdot, but with
less morons):
http://linuxfr.org/2005/04/20/18765.html
The ZDNet news was announcing that the very same association mentionned in the
DVD trial ("UFC-Que Choisir" is the French consumer association) lost
the trial against EMI (but EMI was condemned to reimburse the CD).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 10:25 AM EDT |
" How amazing, and reassuring, to find that the rights of consumers are
finally being given some weight."
Unless you happen to reside in the USA
I find it amazing that most of Europe understands the concepts, but the country
that supposed to be all about rights (USA), is the most restrictive.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: haegarth on Wednesday, May 04 2005 @ 12:26 PM EDT |
Great decision, at least for French consumers.
But to be more precise concerning German law: over here in Germany the right to
make private copies of material in one's posession isn't exactly granted, it's
merely tolerated. According to the latest German laws making a copy is forbidden
(or to be exact, is deemed illegal but not prosecuted when executed for private
purposes only) when the process involves overturning a copy protection.
Thus we are not allowed to use a device or computer program only meant to
'crack' a CP. Alas it's not so clear how to deal with a device that isn't
originally meant to do so, but still does, like my DVD burner which out of the
box simply ignores the copy protection of a music compact disk (as I found out
by accident when I inserted one of my daughter's CDs to encode it to mp3 so that
she would be able to listen to it using her mp3 player, and only noticed that it
said 'Copy Protected' on the label when I put the CD back inside it's jewel
case).
Some manufacturers even rely on that law in a very clever way: they save money
by not protecting their stuff at all, they only print a CP notice on the media,
thus instating some kind of 'virtual' copy protection and making any attempt of
copying illegal (so they think).
So I may have violated German law in the process, but i'm not too sure, because
as it seems this particular law isn't too well crafted. Looks more like a favour
to the musical industry by our Government.
In my opinion I didn't do anything wrong on an ethical level, because clearly my
daughter can't listen to the CD *and* her mp3 player at the same time, can she?
Still the question is: do we own the music or simply the media it resides on? In
the latter case no copying of any kind appears to be legal, but without the
possibility to produce, at least, one backup copy, we depend on the
manufacturer's good will and ability to produce media that last a lifetime
(which they obviously still can't or just don't intend to do). Heck, what would
keep them from producing stuff that only lasts a year forcing us to repurchase
everything on a regular basis? Would be a real cash cow for the industry, thank
you very much.
I wonder how the European legal system will react. On one hand we have that
french decision pro private copying, on the other hand there is our German law
stating otherwise. Normally European countries try to harmonize their national
laws, and so I hope they will finally overturn the absurd German copyright
protection act in the process.
Oh, and, of course, IANAL, so don't expect more than a personal opinion.
---
MS holds the patent on FUD, and SCO is its licensee....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
