SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Briefs

Inside Views

Contribute your views! Submit an Inside Views idea to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch.

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Call For Transparency In The Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

In this post, three US law professors explain a recent call by over 30 legal scholars for the US Trade Representative to increase transparency for the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement intellectual property chapter, and their response to Ambassador Kirk’s response that he is “strongly offended” by the suggestion that the negotiation is not adequately transparent already.





Latest Comments
  • Congratulations upon re-election;-WHO chief.Priori... »
  • Great article. Ms. Chan may want to read our book ... »

  • For IPW Subscribers
    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >

    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >


    RealDVD Court Case Could Prompt More Commercial-Grade DVD Copying Software

    Published on 20 October 2008 @ 10:50 am

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By Bruce Gain for Intellectual Property Watch
    An upcoming federal court ruling in the United States that will determine whether or not RealNetworks’ RealDVD copying software violates the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) will likely have a major impact on releases of similar software in the near future.

    If RealNetworks can prevail in a US District Court in Los Angeles during the coming months, then vendors could sell similar software without violating an industry licensing agreement, said Fred von Lohmann, staff attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), a California-based digital consumer rights group.

    At the same time, the case will add momentum to consumers’ outcry for the ability to make personal use copies of their DVDs, Lohmann said.

    “No matter what the outcome of this RealDVD case will be, it does look like the levee is beginning to leak quite a bit,” Lohmann said. “It is going to be hard to prevent companies from serving this market.”

    At issue is RealNetworks’ claim that RealDVD does not violate the terms of its use of the Content Scramble System (CSS), which prevents DVD copies and their digitised distribution. But for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) and the music industry it represents, RealDVD allows for DVD movies to be copied illegally under the DMCA.

    At present, RealNetworks seeks to convince the Los Angeles federal court to lift a temporary restraining order against the sale of RealDVD during the coming weeks and then eventually to prevail in a full trial.

    But while a ruling in RealNetworks’ favour would mean that, under federal law, software vendors could sell similar software without violating the CSS licensing agreement, the ruling would not necessarily open the “floodgates” for many different kinds of commercial DVD copying software, either, von Lohmann said.

    “CSS licence requirements would have to be met. That would likely preclude many interesting market niches from opening (for example, if you are required to keep the original three-plus gigabytes of data encrypted until playback, it’s never going to permit moving to an iPod),” von Lohmann said. “So it’s not as much of a floodgate as you might imagine.”

    Specifically, RealNetworks says RealDVD “allows consumers to securely store, manage, and play their DVDs on their computers.” The firm says the software does not allow users to distribute copies of DVDs and that RealDVD maintains CSS encryption. RealNetworks also says RealDVD adds another layer of digital rights management encryption that locks the DVD copy to the owner’s personal computer “to ensure that the content can not be improperly copied or shared.”

    However, MPAA says that RealNetworks’ RealDVD does not meet the terms of the CSS licensing agreement and that it “illegally circumvents this copyright protection system.”

    “The RealDVD software does nothing to prevent widespread movie theft and in fact, facilitates such theft, thereby violating the legitimate interests of rights holders,” Elizabeth Kaltman, MPAA vice president for corporate communications, said in an emailed statement.

    The MPAA also maintains that RealDVD software will enable users to engage in “rent, rip, and return” practices. The MPAA describes a scenario where someone can rent a DVD from US outlets such as Blockbuster or Netflix and use RealDVD software “to make multiple permanent illegal copies of the movie, and returns the DVD, only to rent another popular title and make permanent copies of it, repeating the cycle of theft over and over again without ever making a purchase.”

    However, Bill Hankes, a spokesman for RealNetworks, said that “unlike other tools that have saturated the marketplace, RealDVD is not a vector for mass piracy,” while adding that RealDVD “does not violate the DMCA or any other copyright law.”

    Meanwhile, while the motion picture industry sues RealNetworks, several open source alternatives that can be used to copy DVDs are readily available for download over the internet. Freeware offerings include DVD Shrink, HandBrake, and DVDFab HD Decrypter. So why does the MPAA and its affiliates not sue these developers as well?

    MPAA says injunctive claims against freeware developers that create DVD copying software exist.

    “Regarding your question about injunctions against other freeware software, you can look at the DeCSS case as an example of an injunction against freeware decrypters,” Kaltman said, in reference to a court ruling over five years ago that prohibited the distribution of DeCSS , which was the first widely distributed freeware DVD copying software.

    However, Lohmann maintains that MPAA’s attempt to use legal channels to block DeCSS’ distribution was a “failure.”

    “Even though they won the DeCSS lawsuit, they lost the war,” Lohmann said. “DeCSS continued to be available and was replaced by newer software.”

    In the commercial sphere, the RealDVD software is often compared to multi-media systems manufacturer Kaleidescape’s product, which is a hardware system that allows for the distribution of DVDs and other content to be distributed for viewing to different screens in several rooms over a home network. The system also allows for DVD playback without DVD menus, trailers, or advertisements.

    But while Kaleidescape prevailed in a lawsuit filed by the motion picture industry, the ruling’s effect on case law is limited; Kaleidescape was a California state court case and is under appeal, and is not necessarily directly applicable to federal law.

    Still, however, Kaleidescape is considered as an important precedent, Hankes said. “Kaleidescape does exactly the same thing,” Hankes said. “We think we should be allowed to distribute just as they are.”

    Bruce Gain may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Barabara S. Sellner says:

      god bless dynamic IP :]


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.