Apr 24, 4:47 PM (ET)
By PAUL ELIAS
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Hollywood calls it "rent, rip and return" and contends it's one of the biggest technological threats to the movie industry's annual $20 billion DVD market - software that allows you to copy a film without paying for it.
On Friday, industry lawyers urged a federal judge to bar RealNetworks Inc. (RNWK) from selling software that allows consumers to copy their DVDs to computer hard drives, arguing that the Seattle-based company's product is an illegal pirating tool.
RealNetworks' lawyers countered later in the morning that its RealDVD product is equipped with piracy protections that limits a DVD owner to making a single copy and a legitimate way to back up copies of movies legally purchased.
The same federal judge who shut down the music-swapping site Napster in 2000 because of copyright violations is presiding over the three-day trial, which is expected to cut to the heart of the same technological upheaval roiling Hollywood that forever changed the face of the music business.
The studios fear that if RealNetworks is allowed to sell its RealDVD software, consumers will quickly lose interest in paying retail for movies on DVD that can be rented cheaply, copied and returned.
Their lawyers argue the software violates a federal law known as the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that makes software and other tools that enable digital piracy illegal. They also contend shoppers will widely condone such illegal behavior if RealNetworks' product is allowed on the market.
Bart Williams, a lawyer representing the studios, told the judge that evidence uncovered in the litigation shows RealNetworks engineers purchased copying software illegal in the United States from a company in Ukraine.
"One is not supposed to copy DVDs and that's in fact what RealDVD does," Williams said. "Real's objective in all of this is to make money off the studios' investments without paying for it."
The company argues that the contract it signed with the DVD Copy Control Association, which equips DVD player manufacturers with the keys to unscrambling DVDs, allows RealDVD because the software doesn't alter or remove anti-piracy encryption like illicit software that is easily obtained for free online.
RealNetworks says its product legally fills growing consumer demand to convert their DVDs to digital form for convenient storage and viewing.
"RealNetworks saw there was an unmet consumer need," said company lawyer Leo Cunningham. "RealNetworks is a company that respects copyrights."
In October, U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel temporarily barred sales of RealDVD after the product was on the market for a few days. At the time, the judge said it appeared the software did violate federal law against digital piracy, but ordered detailed court filings and the trial to better understand how RealDVD works.
The lawsuit has incurred widespread wrath from bloggers, digital rights advocates and groups on both sides of the political spectrum, including former Republican congressman and Libertarian presidential candidate Bob Barr and the left-leaning Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Critics accuse the studios of stifling innovation as they attempt to develop their own copying software.
"It's all about control," said Cato Institute scholar Timothy Lee. "No one is allowed to innovate in the DVD space without industry permission."
The industry, through the Motion Picture Association of America, counters that its goal is to stamp out piracy. It says it welcomes legitimate attempts at innovation.
Regardless of the trial's outcome - and the judge isn't expected to rule immediately - some predict that Hollywood control over digital copies will continue to wane because of the proliferation of illegal software online.
"If Hollywood wins, I don't think much changes in the real world," said Fred von Lohmann, an attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Anybody who wants DVDs copied can download software for free in 10 minutes."
Full Version: Hollywood in showdown over DVD 'ripper'
As I see it, the fundamental question to be answered in this legal tussle is, "Does the software have a legitimate use that does not violate copyrights?"
Go back several decades (way back!), to the legal case between the recording industry and Sony, who invented and marketed the Betamax video-recording system, at the time when recording onto videotape was just entering the market for home users. It was a U.S. federal case, meaning that the outcome would affect the entire nation. The judge ruled that although the potential for copyright infringement existed, the technology's legitimate uses -- videotaping your daughter's wedding, your son's Bar Mitzvah, your dog playing catch with a Frisbee in the backyard -- made any federal restriction of the technology's use nonsensical and wrong (I am paraphrasing here, obviously). No, the recording industry would have to prove, on a case-by-case basis, that the videotape recorder had in fact been used to violate copyrights, and pursue those cases individually. And yes, Sony could market its product freely, without restriction and without any unwarranted royalties to the recording industry. Case closed!
Come forward roughly thirty-five years, and we have yet another legal fight between the recording industry and a new technology: peer-to-peer file sharing, or P2P. Inevitably, the recording industry in the U.S. brought lawsuit against the various entities who were creating and disseminating P2P client software -- some free, some to buy. "These various applications are used to violate copyrights!," the recording industry declaimed. "These programs must be outlawed, and those who provide them and those who use them must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!"
P2P file sharing, like the Betamax, has legitimate uses that don't violate anyone's copyrights. I am living proof of that -- I have over 1,600 files on my computer that I offer for upload over eDonkey, Gnutella 1 and Gnutella 2, and every one of them is in the public domain! There are repressive nations in the world where free access to information is restricted, and by offering literature and other files via P2P, I help those who thirst for knowledge to get around those restrictions -- hoping while I do it that I don't get anyone under a repressive government into trouble.
Without going into details, just please let me say that the global response to what I have to offer indicates that I am not wasting my time.
So with this in mind, once again, the U.S. federal court system acknowledged that although there existed a great potential for copyright abuse, peer-to-peer file-sharing software had legitimate uses, and therefore would not be outlawed. Nor would the purveyors of such software be held accountable for what the individual users of such software might do with it, nor would the software writers or users be "taxed" to provide a kick-back to the recording industry, as that would be a presumption of guilt disallowed by the U.S. Constitution (I'm paraphrasing again!).
I expect that when the lawsuit is finished, and the dust settles, the judge in the case will follow precedent and rule that while RealNetworks' DVD-copying software carries a potential for abuse, that abuse cannot be assumed and therefore the software itself cannot be banned under U.S. law. What will happen in the rest of the world, particularly the EU, is anyone's guess.
Go back several decades (way back!), to the legal case between the recording industry and Sony, who invented and marketed the Betamax video-recording system, at the time when recording onto videotape was just entering the market for home users. It was a U.S. federal case, meaning that the outcome would affect the entire nation. The judge ruled that although the potential for copyright infringement existed, the technology's legitimate uses -- videotaping your daughter's wedding, your son's Bar Mitzvah, your dog playing catch with a Frisbee in the backyard -- made any federal restriction of the technology's use nonsensical and wrong (I am paraphrasing here, obviously). No, the recording industry would have to prove, on a case-by-case basis, that the videotape recorder had in fact been used to violate copyrights, and pursue those cases individually. And yes, Sony could market its product freely, without restriction and without any unwarranted royalties to the recording industry. Case closed!
Come forward roughly thirty-five years, and we have yet another legal fight between the recording industry and a new technology: peer-to-peer file sharing, or P2P. Inevitably, the recording industry in the U.S. brought lawsuit against the various entities who were creating and disseminating P2P client software -- some free, some to buy. "These various applications are used to violate copyrights!," the recording industry declaimed. "These programs must be outlawed, and those who provide them and those who use them must be prosecuted to the full extent of the law!"
P2P file sharing, like the Betamax, has legitimate uses that don't violate anyone's copyrights. I am living proof of that -- I have over 1,600 files on my computer that I offer for upload over eDonkey, Gnutella 1 and Gnutella 2, and every one of them is in the public domain! There are repressive nations in the world where free access to information is restricted, and by offering literature and other files via P2P, I help those who thirst for knowledge to get around those restrictions -- hoping while I do it that I don't get anyone under a repressive government into trouble.
Without going into details, just please let me say that the global response to what I have to offer indicates that I am not wasting my time.
So with this in mind, once again, the U.S. federal court system acknowledged that although there existed a great potential for copyright abuse, peer-to-peer file-sharing software had legitimate uses, and therefore would not be outlawed. Nor would the purveyors of such software be held accountable for what the individual users of such software might do with it, nor would the software writers or users be "taxed" to provide a kick-back to the recording industry, as that would be a presumption of guilt disallowed by the U.S. Constitution (I'm paraphrasing again!).
I expect that when the lawsuit is finished, and the dust settles, the judge in the case will follow precedent and rule that while RealNetworks' DVD-copying software carries a potential for abuse, that abuse cannot be assumed and therefore the software itself cannot be banned under U.S. law. What will happen in the rest of the world, particularly the EU, is anyone's guess.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.