[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dvd-discuss] banned software on sale in compusa
- To: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Subject: Re: [dvd-discuss] banned software on sale in compusa
- From: "John Zulauf" <johnzu(at)ia.nsc.com>
- Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2002 17:18:44 -0700
- References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021219155018.04366ed0@earthlink.net>
- Reply-to: dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
- Sender: owner-dvd-discuss(at)cyber.law.harvard.edu
The product is also on sale at amazon.com (with a 0 stars vs. 5 stars
war of reviews) full "find a store" listing is here:
http://www.dvdcopyplus.com/order_bundle/retailers.htm
"James S. Tyre" wrote:
>
> At 06:45 PM 12/19/2002 -0500, Jeremy Erwin wrote:
> >While shopping for christmas, gifts at compUSA , i came across copy of
> >dvd-copy-x (or a similar sounding name). It promises the user the ability
> >to "backup" dvd-video to dvd-ram/cdr.
>
> http://321studios.com/
>
> They've had a declaratory relief DMCA lawsuit pending against the studios
> for awhile, no decisions yet, http://321studios.com/lawsuit.htm
I just review this article in the SF Chronicle
Compare and contrast:
"Our view is that any product or service that
circumvents the copyright protection scrambling
technology on DVDs" opens the door to criminal
prosecution under the 1998 Digital Millennium
Copyright Act, said Marta Grutka, spokeswoman for
the Motion Picture Association of America."
and
"The studios have not responded to the suit, but
instead filed a motion to dismiss it on grounds that
there is no current dispute between the industry and
321 Studios."
and
"The MPAA, which represents the movie studios
named in the suit, has repeatedly declined to
comment on 321 Studios' products because of the
suit. Grutka, the group's spokeswoman, would only
comment in general terms about provisions in the
DMCA that make it a criminal offense to use
technology to circumvent the industry-standard
scrambling system that prevents copying of a DVD
movie. "
Now somebody help me here. How can there be "no current dispute" and
the organization representing the movie studios holding that 321's
actions are illegal. Aren't there some ethics standards that prevent
claiming no dispute, when in fact that same party's representation
claims (and states publicly) to have grounds to press criminal charges
against the other?
IANAL. Help Mr. Wizard!!!!
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> James S. Tyre mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> Law Offices of James S. Tyre 310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512 Culver City, CA 90230-4969
> Co-founder, The Censorware Project http://censorware.net