Following up the last mentioned development, the copyright of DVD’s and
the protective sanctions, which the copyright owners of the film industry
imposed, will be the central focus of the assignment. However, the paper will
not address the issue of downloading film data from the Internet. For the
purpose of that paper, the question of backing up purchased DVD’s will be
the major focus.
Under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), film is defined under secondary work. In
order to distinguish works from secondary works, the Copyright Act 1968
defines “protection of forms of expression that are artistic, literary, dramatic
and musical items”4 as works, whereas mechanical rights, “such as films,
sound recordings, television broadcasts and published editions”5 are defined
as secondary work. The reason for that differentiation is that secondary work
is generally based on a work. However, the copyrights exist independent of
each other simultaneously.6
Furthermore, “film is defined as the aggregate of visual images capable of
being shown as a moving picture, including the soundtrack.”7 This also
includes movies which are made by computer animation, such as Finding
Nemo for example. Moreover, even interactive video games fall under the
definition of film since the decision of Saga Enterprises LTD v Galaxy
Electronics Pty Ltd (1997) 147 ALR 2. However, the paper will not deal with
cinematographic films defined under that case (interactive games) but will
only focus on movies in a classical understanding.
As previously mentioned, the film industry developed several protective
strategies, which were supposed to resist against copyright piracy. However,
the copyright owners had to face several bitter discomfitures. A 15-year-old
Norwegian used basic mathematic formulas and cracked the protective code.
New high-tech technology offers devices for easy DVD copying of already
purchased products. The segmentation of the market in several area codes is
facing the test of the infringement of competition law. Also subject to the
question of competition law was the question dealt with in the Australian
case Australian Video Retailers Association Ltd v Warner Home Video Pty Ltd
[2001] FCA 1719, where Australian Video Retailers refused to accept the
Warners approach of introducing two different DVD types on the market, one
for retail and one for rental.[...]
4 Quirk, P., Forder, J., Electronic Commerce and The Law, p. 181.
5 s. above, p. 181.
6 s. above, p. 181.
7 s. above, p. 187.
Table of Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Abstract
1.2 Objective of the Paper
1.3 Procedure of Analysis
2 Movie Protection
2.1 The Copyright Owners Preventive Strategy
2.2 The Great Cases of “DVD Jon” and Others
2.3 Copying DVD’s and Digital Devices for Backing up – legal or illegal?
2.4 Is a DVD a Software?
3 The Moral Battle
3.1 MPAA
3.2 EFF
4 Conclusion
Objectives and Core Themes
This paper explores the complexities of copyright law in the digital age, specifically focusing on the legal status of backing up purchased DVD movies. It investigates the clash between the film industry's efforts to implement protective technologies and the rights of consumers and organizations to engage in "fair use" or "fair dealing" under international legal frameworks.
- Technological protective measures (Region coding, CSS, DeCSS).
- Legal precedents regarding DVD copyright and circumvention devices.
- Comparative analysis of "fair use" (US) and "fair dealing" (Australia) doctrines.
- The conflict between intellectual property rights and individual civil liberties.
- The definition of DVDs under software copyright law.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2 The Great Cases of “DVD Jon” and Others
Unfortunately enough for the film bosses, a case caused great international furore, when their protection system was defeated. In 1999, a 15-year-old Norwegian called Jon Johansen cracked the CSS code by using basic mathematic formulas. Although Johansen rejected that in interview given to LinuxWorld and stated to the reporter that a German member had invented the code, which also belonged to the group MoRE (Masters of Reverse Engineering).11 Jon was acquitted on all counts versus MPAA, because the court held that it could not be proven that Jon had invented DeCSS for illegal purposes. Instead, they accepted his claim that he only invented DeCSS for watching already purchased DVD’s of his. Therefore, the Norwegian Criminal Code section 145 (2) could not apply and Jon was acquitted.12 However, the case of “DVD Jon” is legendary now and showed the copyright owners that their preventive strategies have failed.
The case continued in Universal City Studios Inc v Reimerdes in the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. In that case several film studios, members of the MPAA claimed for violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Sec. 1201 that 2600 Enterprises INC. has infringed their right as copyright owners by publishing and linking to the DeCSS code “invented“ by Jon Johanson. The court held that DeCSS was an unlawful circumvention device. This case proved to be a fierce fight between two moral exponents, which will be discussed under point three.
Summary of Chapters
1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the challenges posed by digital piracy and the rapid proliferation of DVD technology.
2 Movie Protection: Examines the technological strategies used by Hollywood to prevent piracy and analyzes key court cases involving circumvention software and the classification of DVDs.
3 The Moral Battle: Contrasts the opposing philosophies of the MPAA and the EFF regarding copyright enforcement, freedom of speech, and the scope of fair use.
4 Conclusion: Summarizes the legal uncertainty surrounding digital media and reflects on the necessity of backing up purchased consumer goods.
Keywords
Copyright law, DVD, Piracy, Fair use, Fair dealing, MPAA, EFF, DeCSS, Circumvention device, Digital Millennium Copyright Act, Intellectual property, Reverse engineering, Technological protection, Backup copies, Legal reform.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the primary focus of this paper?
The paper examines the intersection of copyright law and new technology, specifically focusing on the legal debates surrounding the backup of purchased DVD content and the clash between film studios and copyright advocates.
What are the central themes addressed?
The central themes include the effectiveness of anti-piracy strategies, the legal definition of DVDs within copyright statutes, and the ideological divide between industry associations and civil liberties groups.
What is the research goal of this document?
The goal is to illustrate the risks and protective measures of the film industry through US and Australian court cases and to highlight the moral and legal tensions between copyright owners and users.
Which methodology is employed in this research?
The paper utilizes a qualitative legal analysis, examining judicial case law from the US and Australia, alongside a comparative review of international legislation regarding "fair use" and "fair dealing."
What does the main body of the work cover?
The main body details the evolution of pirate-protection technologies like CSS, explores the landmark litigation of cases such as "DVD Jon," and discusses the different legal interpretations of whether a DVD qualifies as software.
Which key terms characterize the study?
The study is characterized by terms such as intellectual property, circumvention devices, fair use, DeCSS, and the conflicting interests of the MPAA and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF).
How does the DMCA impact the distribution of circumvention tools?
Under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), any technology primarily designed to circumvent technological protection measures is prohibited, which directly informs the legal outcomes against developers of tools like DeCSS.
How does the Australian legal approach differ from the US regarding circumvention devices?
While the US treats the creation and distribution of circumvention tools strictly under the DMCA, Australian law creates a distinction where the "manufacture and supply" of such devices is illegal, but the underlying use by the individual remains a complex, often "two-faced" legal issue.
- Quote paper
- Julli Markgraf (Author), 2003, Copyright for DVDs - High-Tech Development - Blessing or Curse?, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/22518
