Does the Magnussen-Moss Act Cover DVDs?

Woody77 asks: "I'm somewhat familiar with the Magnussen-Moss Act of 1975, which is mainly about warranties, but also mentions that you can't link one product to another. The wording, in typical lawyer-fashion, is vague. But it boils down to stating that you can't tie one product/service to another. It was mainly put together to handle situations as aftermarket parts being added to a car, and a dealer trying to claim the warranty is void for doing so. Now the question is: How does the Magnussen-Moss Act pertain to DVDs? It seems to me they are trying to tie one product (DVD Players) with another (DVDs). They both use the same technology, and are a natural pair, but why can't I use my DVDs elsewhere?" This raises the point: are DVDs covered by the Magnussen-Moss Act, or was there some legal maneuvering performed to make them exempt? If they aren't exempt, then what law allows the MPAA to tie DVDs and DVD Players together?

How could that possibly apply here?

[Space Cow]

There is nothing about DVD technology that inherently couples a specific DVD to a specific player. I can buy a Sony produced DVD and play it on any hardware player in the market and any software player I can get my hands on. In fact, as we saw in a recent /. article [slashdot.org] you actually pay more to add CSS et al. I don't think that the M&M Act could apply here (although it won't melt in your hand :-)

Anyone with a deeper understanding want to correct me on this?

what about other uses for M&M Act?

[einstein]

I don't see how this law applies to DVDs and DVD players, but what about another some other issues? My cable modem provider makes you subscribe to cable television (a company which the ISP is a subsidiary of). Now, I would like to eliminate that cable TV bill, cause I don't watch much TV, but It seems I'm not allowed to do such a thing. Is that legal?
---

Not applicable

[Daffy Duck]

"Product tying" doesn't refer to compatibility or interoperability, it refers to purchasing. The M-M act says that it's illegal for me to take two separately available products like, oh I don't know, say HooverVacuum95 and HooverVacuumBagsIE and demand that you cannot buy one without buying the other. But it doesn't outlaw the fact that HooverVacuum95 won't work without HooverVacuumBagsIE if I am able to buy them separately.

Not any DVD player...

[Bazman]

You couldn't play it on a DVD-player that won't play DVDs from that region. (not without the well-known DVD region hackery, that is).

Baz

Patent Pool

[Detritus]

I believe DVD players are covered by a patent pool. You can't build a DVD player unless you license the patents from the patent pool. To license the patents, you have to agree to follow their rules on DVD player design.

Another technique is trademarks. If you want to manufacture VHS cassettes, you must license the trademark if you want to market them as VHS cassettes and use the VHS logo.

Re:what about other uses for M&M Act?

[iMMersE]

Yes, it's legal. You are paying for a service, and in this case the service is cable modem access and cable TV together. That's the package, and that's what you agreed to pay for.

.iMMersE

Re:How could that possibly apply here?

[DaveHowe]

here is nothing about DVD technology that inherently couples a specific DVD to a specific player. I can buy a Sony produced DVD and play it on any hardware player in the market and any software player I can get my hands on.
Actually, you can't. All DVD players are made by licencees of the technology from the DVD manufacturers; there is no such thing as a non-licenced DVD drive.
--

Re:what about other uses for M&M Act?

[DaveHowe]

Unfortunately, no. The breakline between your cablemodem service and your cabletv service isn't where you think - it is that you are hiring the cable service (which contains both modem and tv support, and bundles the minimum channels) and an ISP (which uses the modem bandwidth). One cable company can support multiple ISPs if need be, and no ISP is force-tied to one Cable company - they can support several. However, if they say that the only cable company in your area whose fibre they connect to is the one you are currently using, you can't force them to support more.
--

This is incorrect

[CentrX]

Buy a DVD player in England. Now buy a DVD in the United States. Now try and play the DVD on the DVD player. It won't work without performing "illegal" acts, which really shouldn't be illegal at all.

Chris Hagar

Re:Patent Pool

[eclectro]

That would be great if they would make it a patent issue, because the constitution was not intended to have one play off the other, creating a "super monopoly" The arrogance of the MPAA is stupefying though, because that's exactly what they are trying to do.

There was a discussion about this on openlaw. Not so much that they have patents (I'm sure somebody does, knowing how the PTO is patenting the time of day now), but that they are using their copyright in a patent like manner,

But this is just the beginning folks. Next week the MPAA is holding their crypto-warez meeting in LA. To see what kind of fun they have in store for us, go here [cryptome.org].

One aarguement for the new batch of software players is that software patents can't preempt mathematical algorithyms, which the new brute forcing dvd player does now. (In fact the DeCSS code doesn't work on new disks as the Xing key was revoked). See here [lemuria.org].

In other less than stellar news Senator Leahy made this [senate.gov] statement today:

In 1998, the Chairman and I worked closely together on the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act, "DMCA," to advance the complementary goals
of protecting intellectual property rights in a digitally-networked
world and promoting the continued growth of electronic commerce and
development of innovative technologies. As new online services are
launched and new websites created, the DMCA is helping order the
online environment. For example, earlier this year a federal court
relied on the DMCA to shut down websites that were used to post a
computer program permitting users to break the encryption used to
protect copyrighted motion pictures on DVDs, and copy the movies
without permission. See Universal City Studios, Inc. v. Reimerdes,
82 F. Supp.2d 211 (S.D.N.Y. 2000).

All this makes me feel pissy allover. Go to openlaw to feel even more pissy.

not exactly what we're tryin' to get at...

[Slynkie]

Using your analogy, the situation is this...

Is it legal for another vacuum company to build a machine that uses HooverVacuumBagsIE?

not that the whole vacuum thing works too well in this case anyways, considering dvds+movies are a much different product than bags, but whatever...;)

What about other fun stuff?

[Scott Robinson]

Forget about DVDs, what about things like the SegaNet rebate for Dreamcasts
or Netpliances and freePCs?

Scott.

A geek example of Magnuson Moss.

[xjosh]

I'm a bit familiar with the MM act, as I've had to argue it with a certain automobile manufacturer before (Hint: it's common nickname starts with a V and ends with a W).

Here's an example of the where the MM act comes in that folks here can probably relate to:

Say you buy an HP printer and decide that those toner cartridges are too damn expensive from HP. You find a reputable company that offers a low cost alternative that is of equal (or maybe better) quality. A few months later you experience a problem with the printer and take it an HP dealer for service. The dealer immediately refuses to service the printer under the manufacturer's warranty when they see the non-HP toner cartridge in it. This is where the MM act comes in. The manufacturer (or it's agent - the dealer) cannot refuse to honor a warranty simply because it has a non-hp part in it. They do not have to warrant the replacment part, nor do they have to cover any damage that occurs as a result of the non-HP part being installed. The only exception to this is if the manufacuter (HP in our example) were to provide the parts to the owner free of charge (ie: if HP gives you free toner for life and you decide to replace it with non-HP toner, they can refuse coverage).

xjosh