Hollywood v. DVD
With billions sold, the DVD remains the principle way that millions of consumers experience digital video. Yet Hollywood has, from the birth of this format, imposed unprecedented restrictions on what customers can do with the DVDs they own.
Hollywood has argued in lawsuits and before policy-makers around the world that it is always illegal to make a digital copy ("rip") of a DVD. Even if you own it, even if you're trying to make a personal copy so that your children don't scratch the original, even if you want to make a copy to watch on your iPod, even if you want to skip those annoying "unskippable" commercials at the beginning.
Hollywood has also sued companies that try to provide DVD owners with the same kinds of innovations that we take for granted with CDs—such as a "DVD jukebox" that lets you watch your own DVDs around your own house from a central home media server.
The difference between DVDs and previous media formats—like the CD—is the CSS encryption system used to "scramble" the digital bits on the DVD. Thanks to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), a federal law passed a the behest of Hollywood, consumers enjoy fewer rights with respect to copyrighted works that are protected by "technical protection measures" (aka DRM) than they did with prior formats. Congress was told that the DMCA was necessary to prevent "digital piracy" online, but the use of anti-consumer DRM has been a total failure at preventing "piracy." Instead, the legacy of the DMCA has been to penalize legitimate consumers and impair competition and innovation. So Hollywood today clings to DRM not because it has any impact on "piracy," but because it allows the movie studios to dictate the features and innovations that legitimate companies can deliver to legitimate consumers.
This page tells the story of Hollywood's persistent efforts to punish DVD owners and the companies that want to help them get the most from the DVDs they own.
Hollywood v. DVD Cases
- 2003 DMCA RulemakingEFF applied for four exemptions to the Digital Millenium Copyright Act.
- 2000 DMCA RulemakingEFF filed comments to the Copyright Office on the topic of the DMCA and its anti-circumvention provisions.
- 2006 DMCA RulemakingEFF did not file for DMCA exemption requests in 2006. Instead, we explained why the rule-making process is fundamentally broken and unable to protect consumers.
- 2009 DMCA RulemakingFor the 2009 rulemaking, EFF filed three exemption requests with the Copyright Office today aimed at protecting the important work of video remix artists, iPhone owners, and cell phone recyclers from legal threats under the DMCA.
- RealNetworks v. DVD-CCA (RealDVD case)On September 30, 2008, the day Real was to formally launch its RealDVD product, the motion picture studios filed a lawsuit in Los Angeles and asked for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to block the launch. The same day, RealNetworks filed a lawsuit in San Francisco asking the court to declare that distribution of RealDVD is lawful.
- Macrovision v. SimaIn 2005, Macrovision sued Sima to block the sale of the Sima CopyThis! (CT-1, CT-Q1, CT-100, CT-2, CT-200) and GoDVD (SCC, and SCC-2) products, which are designed to digitize analog video, such as the analog video outputs of DVD players and analog VCRs. The Macrovision Analog Copy Protection (ACP) signals often embedded in these analog outputs, however, do not survive the digitizing process, and therefore are not embedded in the outputs of the Sima devices. Macrovision argued that this violates both Macrovision's patents and the DMCA's prohibition on circumvention.
Related Issues
- DMCA RulemakingEvery three years, the U.S. Copyright Office convenes a rulemaking to consider granting exemptions to the DMCA's ban on circumvention to mitigate the harms the law has caused to legitimate, non-infringing uses of copyrighted materials.
Deeplinks Posts
- October 27, 2008 Hollywood Menaces DVD Rental Kiosks
- September 10, 2008 The Latest on DVD Copying
- November 28, 2007 Year-End 2007: Darknet Assumptions Still True


