A scary thought for activating applications

[Easy Mac]

This sets a dangerous precedent. It basically says we can shut off what you buy from us at any time, even if you use the product for the reasons we made it. What would stop e-license from revoking my FOF licence because I made a 3rd party that read from a "secure" saved game file? How can you take away something I paid you for without giving me a refund? My favorite part is where the CEO says he is shocked one of the customers is using their product to circumvent copy protection... right.

321 STUDIOS SHUTS DOWN PIRACY SUSPECT<o:p></o:p>

Preliminary Injunction and Transfer Motions to be heard in New York City Court Today<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

ST. LOUIS, MO – February 5, 2003 – 321 Studios (321) declares that its piracy prevention measures are working on the day transfer and preliminary injunction motions are to be heard in a <st1:city><st1:place>New York City</st1:place></st1:city> courtroom.<o:p></o:p>

321 Studios recently relied on its DVDXCOPY’s built-in piracy prevention measures – the backup copy video disclaimer and ability to remotely de-activate a customer’s copy of DVDXCOPY – to shut down an accused copyright pirate.<o:p></o:p>

321 first heard of the <st1:state><st1:place>Illinois</st1:place></st1:state> man’s alleged activities in court papers related to Paramount Pictures Corporation and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation v. 321 Studios, a lawsuit filed in the Southern District Court of New York on <st1:date month="11" day="14" year="2003">November 14, 2003</st1:date>. The company took action the same day by remotely de-activating the man’s copy of DVDXCOPY XPRESS.<o:p></o:p>

321 Studios has several anti-piracy measures built into its DVDXCOPY series of software, including:<o:p></o:p>

<!--[if !supportLists]-->§<!--[endif]-->An eight-second, indelible video warning, similar to the FBI warning found at the beginning of many DVD movies, alerting viewers of the backup copy that the DVD is not an original and is to be only used for non-commercial, personal use. <o:p></o:p>

-- more --<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

321 STUDIOS SHUTS DOWN PIRACY SUSPECT<o:p></o:p>

PAGE 2<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

<!--[if !supportLists]-->§<!--[endif]-->An electronic watermark that can trace any backup copy made with DVDXCOPY back to the original point of purchase allowing 321 Studios to remotely de-activate the software and prevent further misuse. <o:p></o:p>

<!--[if !supportLists]-->§<!--[endif]-->An embedded bit flag that prevents making a copy of a copy using DVDXCOPY. <o:p></o:p>

<!--[if !supportLists]-->§<!--[endif]-->A $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person using 321’s software to pirate movies.<o:p></o:p>

“Although it was a shock to learn that one of our customers was arrested for piracy, it is comforting to know that our piracy prevention measures worked exactly as they were intended,” said Rob Semaan, CEO of 321 Studios. “The video warning found at the beginning of the copies made by this alleged infringer not only served as notice to his customers that the DVDs they were purchasing were not original DVDs, but also enabled the police to identify any copies he had made using our software. In addition, our software activation requirement and watermark technology allowed us to remotely disable his software and prevent any further abuse.”<o:p></o:p>

321’s anti-piracy tools can assist law enforcement in identifying DVDs bought on the street as copies rather than originals. Furthermore, through the watermark technology, 321 Studios can help investigators track down and prosecute the pirates who made the copies and shut down their software. 321 Studios stands ready to assist law enforcement at any time should another case like this arise. <o:p></o:p>

-- more --<o:p></o:p>

321 STUDIOS SHUTS DOWN PIRACY SUSPECT<o:p></o:p>

PAGE 3<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

"This case also proves that our customers are not pirates,” Semaan continued. “Out of the hundreds of thousands of copies of DVDXCOPY sold, the studios can only point to ONE alleged misuse of our product and in this one case brought to our attention, we were able to help bring a stop to it within minutes of learning about it."<o:p></o:p>

Today, in the Southern District Court of New York, Judge Richard Owen will hear a motion filed by 321 Studios to transfer <st1:city><st1:place>Paramount</st1:place></st1:city>, et al v. 321 Studios to the Northern District Court of California where a nearly identical case is already under consideration by Judge Susan Illston. <o:p></o:p>

Judge Owen will also hear a motion filed by the Plaintiffs for a preliminary injunction against the sale of 321 Studios’ DVDXCOPY products.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

About 321 Studios<o:p></o:p>

321 Studios provides software tools to help consumers protect their investment in digital media, and is the leading provider of DVD backup, recovery, and creation software. Founded in 2001, 321 Studios’ premier DVD backup title, DVD X Copy Platinum, is one of PC Magazine’s ‘Best Products of 2003’. The company is privately headquartered in <st1:place><st1:city>St. Louis</st1:city>, <st1:state>Missouri</st1:state></st1:place>, with distributors and sales offices throughout Asia-Pacific, <st1:place>Europe</st1:place>, and the <st1:country-region><st1:place>United States</st1:place></st1:country-region>. For more information, please visit www.321studios.com (http://www.321studios.com/). <o:p></o:p>

<o:p> </o:p>

About 321 Studios' DVD Piracy Prevention Program<o:p></o:p>

321 Studios is working to protect consumers' fair-use rights while preventing the illegal use of its products, and has established its Piracy Prevention Program so that people can easily report digital piracy and misuse directly to 321 Studios. Contact 321 Studios by calling the Piracy Prevention Hotline at 636-720-3769, or email the company at [email protected] ([email protected]). Individuals will be contacted and $10,000 reward paid if government authorities successfully prosecute the copyright infringer.

[Easy Mac]

Sorry for all the smilies, not sure why they are there... maybe it was just the way the sentences ended. I just copied and pasted.

[Peregrine]

Guess this won't matter as much now:

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62375,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4

"A federal judge ruled on Friday that 321 Studios, a software developer, must stop selling its DVD copying program, delivering a huge win for the entertainment industry.

Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District Federal Court for California sided with the Motion Picture Association of America, which claimed that 321 Studios' DVD-X Copy and DVD Copy Plus software violate copyright law. The company, based in St. Charles, Missouri, must stop "manufacturing, distributing or otherwise trafficking in any type of DVD circumvention software" in seven days. "

[Easy Mac]

Guess this won't matter as much now:

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62375,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_4

"A federal judge ruled on Friday that 321 Studios, a software developer, must stop selling its DVD copying program, delivering a huge win for the entertainment industry.

Judge Susan Illston of the Northern District Federal Court for California sided with the Motion Picture Association of America, which claimed that 321 Studios' DVD-X Copy and DVD Copy Plus software violate copyright law. The company, based in St. Charles, Missouri, must stop "manufacturing, distributing or otherwise trafficking in any type of DVD circumvention software" in seven days. "
It also means that anyone who has activated the product before will now have the program shut off remotely by the company. The only way to prevent it is by firewall.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It also means that anyone who has activated the product before will now have the program shut off remotely by the company.
Well, since the product was essentially a techo-version of burglar's tools, I'm not having a problem with that.

[Easy Mac]

so a VCR company can come in and beat up my VCR? And don't give me that shit that VCR's are allowed, b/c the program and VCR's are used for the exact same purpose... to copy copyrighted material.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Is theft of copyrighted material the primary use of VCR's?

[Easy Mac]

How many blank tapes are sold per year as compared to blank DVD's?

[cthomer5000]

Is theft of copyrighted material the primary use of VCR's?

It's one possible use of a VCR. I think playing legally purchased or rented copyrighted material is it's primary use.

[Airhog]

I have a feeling this ruling will be challenged. Similar cases have been overturned in the higher courts. Anyone remember that russian guy that they put in jail?

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's one possible use of a VCR. I think playing legally purchased or rented copyrighted material is it's primary use.
Thanks, that's what I was thinking.

VCR = baseball bat; a baseball bat can be used to commit a crime but that's not it's most common nor primary purpose

DVD copying program = burglar's kit, lockpick, etc; you could use the software for something legal, much like you could use the lockpick as a toothpick instead, but the illegal use is the most likely and primary purpose.

[Easy Mac]

Thanks, that's what I was thinking.

VCR = baseball bat; a baseball bat can be used to commit a crime but that's not it's most common nor primary purpose

DVD copying program = burglar's kit, lockpick, etc; you could use the software for something legal, much like you could use the lockpick as a toothpick instead, but the illegal use is the most likely and primary purpose.
How about a VCR blank tape? Or a TiVo? Or TV capture cards?

The primary purpose of DVD copying is to back something up, not to burn copies for my friends. Otherwise, there can be no CD recorders/burners.

[Butter]

So, Easy, did they turn off your copy yet?

[Easy Mac]

Don't have it.

[Butter]

So, what's the problem again?

[Easy Mac]

This could occur with any electronic license.

Say Jim and e-license have a rift, e-license could unlicense every copy of FOF if their system has remote deactivation. They have no obligation to uphold any contract they made with Jim if they no longer do business, they could leave him on his own to fix the problem.

[JonInMiddleGA]

<!-- / message --><!-- sig --> . Otherwise, there can be no CD recorders/burners.
Which would be a trade I'd make in a heartbeat if it were the only way to protect copyrighted material.

[cthomer5000]

<!-- / message --><!-- sig -->
Which would be a trade I'd make in a heartbeat if it were the only way to protect copyrighted material.

So wait, you're fine with VCR's but burners and DVD's are a no-go?

I think as long as the product serves a legitimate purpose, it really isn't their fault what the owners do with it.

[rkmsuf]

Sounds like their little system worked fine since it was intended to identify pirated copies that had been sold...

[John Galt]

The primary case that controls this dispute is the Sony Betamax decision. It decided VCR's were ok because they had a lot of other legitimate functions (time shifting being a key one). On those grounds, I think VCR's are different than DVD copying software.

However, there are other important precedents with closer analogies. Products like Copy2PC were found to be consistent with copyright law even though there only function was to copy copy-protected software.

Now, the DMCA changes all of this because the copying of digital materials is addressed by this horribly written law.

Do I think the judge decided the "right" way? Yes, given the way the DMCA is drafted. Do I think Jon is "right" to say that these are equivalent to burglar's tools? Not a chance. Under conventional copyright law, these products would be legitimate. Only the bizarre DMCA code has changed things. Also, there are very important differences between real property and intellectual property (copying v. stealing being very important). When it comes to intellectual property like books, a copy machine is fair game as long as you use it under "fair use." I think a DVD copy program is entirely analogous to a copy machine and not burglar's tools. However, the DMCA thinks differently. The decision was "right," but I don't think for the argument Jon is making.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So wait, you're fine with VCR's but burners and DVD's are a no-go?

I think as long as the product serves a legitimate purpose, it really isn't their fault what the owners do with it.
ct - Actually, I think you're combining 1+1 and = 3 there. (or at least 2.5)

I believe we've already established that the most common use of VCR's is not for violation of copyright (at least, that was the context of my acceptance of them).

I believe CD-R, et al is at worst close, if nothing else because of the business & small business use of them.

DVD-R, et al -- I believe the market there is not sufficiently mature that there is an overwhelming weight of legal over illegal usage. It could become so (just as CD's may well have done) but I don't know that it's there yet.

In the meantime however, I support the most vigorous defense of copyright law possible, and if that means cutting the DVD-R industry's throat before it reaches that point, so be it.

It's pretty simple stuff to me really - copyright protects my means of making a living while I give less than a flying rat f*** about recording DVD's (hell, I don't remember the last time I recorded anything on a VCR, nor anything on CD-R that wasn't either a)data or b)strictly for business.)

Now, which side of the debate do you think I'm gonna fall on? http://dynamic2.gamespy.com/%7Efof/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Peregrine]

How about a VCR blank tape? Or a TiVo? Or TV capture cards?

The primary purpose of DVD copying is to back something up, not to burn copies for my friends. Otherwise, there can be no CD recorders/burners.

Heh nice line but no one I know who has a DVD burner uses it to back things up, they all burn copies for friends, and I'm talking dozens a month.

[Maple Leafs]

For the most part I have little to no sympathy for folks who whine and bleat about their freedoms being abrdiged when all they're looking for is free stuff. I've been pretty vocal in threads about music theft and piracy, and I stand by that.

Still, there is a second concern here, and it's the idea of software ownership. I don't think most people realize that they never really "own" any of their software. These days everything is licensed, meaning the company that sold it to you still owns it and you can only do with it what they say you can.

And John Galt is right, this sort of thing will become pretty standard with the DMCA.

[John Galt]

Another point on all this is who should be the enforcer?

I think the classic example of the secret Coke formula is telling. Coke has never submitted any legal paperwork for protecting their formula. Instead it is kept highly secret and the government has nothing to do with it. Why did Coke do this? Because submitting intellectual property protection to the government comes with a time limit before it becomes public domain. Coke has maintained its secret for over 100 years instead of having it revealed in the 1920's. This has made all the difference for Coke.

Now, the movie and music industries have made the opposite decision. Sure, they try copy protection schemes, but they all don't work. They ultimately rely on the government to protect their secrets. This is, of course, their choice.

The biggest problem I have with the music and movie industries approach is that they don't provide end-users much in the way of "fair use." Typically, the rationale for using the government for a time period is that the company gains a massive benefit for a limited time, but then the public gets use of the good. With DVD's, the expected lifespan of the actual DVD is less than the time frame for becoming public domain. Most DVD's won't play 20 or 30 years from now. The movie and music industries have fought all efforts to allow copying to extend the lifespan of a DVD (a perfectly legitimate use). Further, they fight efforts to enforce the public domain timeline for their music. Copying old movies should be an entirely legal function, but right now, it isn't.

Giving the music and movie industries benefits that other copyright protectors don't have and pushing the whole burden to the government for enforcement is pushing the scale too far in their favor. Programs like DVD copying serve legitimate fair use functions, but the industries want their cake and to eat it too.

[Easy Mac]

I think I came up with a better analogy.

Think of how you have to license (and activate remotely) WinXP. Lets Windows is told again by the government they are a monopoly and can no longer sell their OS without major modification. Now, rather than risk future litigation from the people who still use their product, they decide it is better to just remotely deactivate all of the licenses. Basically, you pay $200 to use it for a short time, and they can deactivate it whenever they want because they designed it with the "ability" to break the rules, even if it wasn't their intent. And you don't get their money back.

This is what the people that sold the DVD software intend to do if they continue to lose. They intend to use their central activation database to disable all the copies of their software. So even if you use it to only backup real DVDs or make family ones, you're out $100 for the product.

To me, this sets a dangerous precedent for how e-licensing and similar things work.

[JonInMiddleGA]

This is what the people that sold the DVD software intend to do if they continue to lose. They intend to use their central activation database to disable all the copies of their software. So even if you use it to only backup real DVDs or make family ones, you're out $100 for the product.

To me, this sets a dangerous precedent for how e-licensing and similar things work.
Hmm ... methinks the thread actually steered away from your original intented subject (and if so, I deserve a lot of the blame for that I'm afraid).

But here's the thing, maybe you can shed some light on this part -- did the software manufacturer (this 123 or 321 or whatever it is) hide the fact that remote shut-off was a possibility? Or was this information available to the purchaser all along?

If it was hidden completely, like a closely guarded state secret, then I can see being upset with them. But if the information was out there, regardless of whether consumers bothered to take note of it, then I don't see that they have anyone to blame but themselves if the plug gets pulled at some point.

In that respect, it's no different than e-licensing already -- if you've got issues with the delivery method (or whatever it should be called) then don't buy the product. Otherwise, you pays your money & takes your chances.

(Is the part where I point out the I don't own WinXP, nor would I let it in my front door as a free gift? I don't trust the technology in use there, I don't want any part of it, so I make my choice & don't buy it)

[John Galt]

Easy, I think the analogy is flawed on a couple levels.

First, finding that Microsoft is an illegal monopoly is not the same as saying that Windows XP is illegal. In this case, the software itself is the problem. In the event Microsoft terminated their licenses after a court judgment finding a monopoly, they could be sued for termination of the license.

Second, related to the first - possession of Windows XP could never be construed as a crime or civil wrong. Possession of this software, however, is itself a criminal act or civil wrong.

[Easy Mac]

Hmm ... methinks the thread actually steered away from your original intented subject (and if so, I deserve a lot of the blame for that I'm afraid).

But here's the thing, maybe you can shed some light on this part -- did the software manufacturer (this 123 or 321 or whatever it is) hide the fact that remote shut-off was a possibility? Or was this information available to the purchaser all along?

If it was hidden completely, like a closely guarded state secret, then I can see being upset with them. But if the information was out there, regardless of whether consumers bothered to take note of it, then I don't see that they have anyone to blame but themselves if the plug gets pulled at some point.

In that respect, it's no different than e-licensing already -- if you've got issues with the delivery method (or whatever it should be called) then don't buy the product. Otherwise, you pays your money & takes your chances.

(Is the part where I point out the I don't own WinXP, nor would I let it in my front door as a free gift? I don't trust the technology in use there, I don't want any part of it, so I make my choice & don't buy it)
The only way to prevent remote disabling (as far as anyone has found) is to have an active firewall installed.

As to steering the thread, no big deal, it happens in this place :) And to note, I don't burn CD's for anyone but myself. If I buy it, you are not getting it. If you buy it, its up to you need not offer it to me, or else I'll get it. Also, I've backed up my DVD's on CD-r's, their mine, I'll continue to circumvent copyright protection because I own it. If I give it to someone else, then they can prosecute me, but until then, they can do whatever they want

[Easy Mac]

Easy, I think the analogy is flawed on a couple levels.

First, finding that Microsoft is an illegal monopoly is not the same as saying that Windows XP is illegal. In this case, the software itself is the problem. In the event Microsoft terminated their licenses after a court judgment finding a monopoly, they could be sued for termination of the license.

Second, related to the first - possession of Windows XP could never be construed as a crime or civil wrong. Possession of this software, however, is itself a criminal act or civil wrong.
I thought it was found an illegal monopoly in the first place was because of the inclusion of IE in their OS... aside from the obvious rackateering Microsoft took part in.

[John Galt]

I thought it was found an illegal monopoly in the first place was because of the inclusion of IE in their OS... aside from the obvious rackateering Microsoft took part in.

That is true, but look at it this way. Antitrust law is meant to protect the consumer - denying the consumer an existing product is not a solution (requiring microsoft to do any array of things is). Copyright law is meant to protect the copyright holder - denying the consumer an existing product used to break copyrights is a solution.

Copyright and Antitrust law are kind of opposite sides of the law. Patents and copyrights give exclusive monopolies to a person/company for a period of time - Antitrust law denies companies the ability to become monopolies.

[Butter]

I guess I understand your complaints about e-licensing, but don't think that this case applies in any way to, say, FOF. FOF is not going to be used to pirate other material illegally. The DVD Copy software is.

I guess if I bought it or was into pirating maybe I'd be pissed, but ultimately I just think the movie/music companies are trying to protect their products. I support their right to do so, even if I think their tactics are counterproductive.

[sabotai]

I have DVDXCopy. I use it to backup my DVDs. I got it mainly because of TV Show box sets. If a movie gets damaged, then rebuying it for $10 or $15 is no real big deal. But I'm not going to pay $60 or $100 for a season of a TV show if one of the several DVDs that come with it happens to get damaged in some way and it becomes unplayable.

And if they somehow take away my ability to use it, I'll just find another way to backup my DVDs.

[rkmsuf]

I have DVDXCopy. I use it to backup my DVDs. I got it mainly because of TV Show box sets. If a movie gets damaged, then rebuying it for $10 or $15 is no real big deal. But I'm not going to pay $60 or $100 for a season of a TV show if one of the several DVDs that come with it happens to get damaged in some way and it becomes unplayable.

And if they somehow take away my ability to use it, I'll just find another way to backup my DVDs.

Man that takes patience...not a knock; I just couldn't bring myself to copy everything...I'm more of a - if I damage the disk it's gone...

[sabotai]

It doesn't take THAT long. :)

Besides, I do have things to do that don't require me to be using my computer. I'll back up a DVD when I'm watching a movie, TV show, reading a book, playing a PS2 game, etc. But just when I'm about done backing everything up, I go and buy another box set of something. It's a never ending process. :D

[rkmsuf]

when do you find time to photocopy all of your literature? ;)

[sabotai]

Considering that I can still read a book even after it's cover has been severely scratched, I never thought to do it. ;)

[rkmsuf]

*Man I must have some super dvd player cuz I can scratch the hell out of all the covers of my dvds and heck they still work...




*secretly I wish I had copied selected dvds...