Copyrights laws

[hakamtzan]

Hi Guys

Not sure where to post this. I have just witnessed a topic lock because of very het-up discussion over copy rights.

I am no great small-print-reader and was wondering if anyone can give me a short and informative streight answer.

I do not deal with piracy, online or offline and the information I seek is for my general knowledge only.

Please consider the following sceario (excuse the spelling...) which I have posted in the topic which got locked:

I have a Backup of a legit DVD movie I bought in a shop.
Like some of you people I have backed it up but not for safe keeping. I wanted to try and get rid of the black borders which I get, as my TV is not wide screen and the movie is (before you ask, no I can not "fit to screen" in any way...)

Theoreticaly, if I lend my copy to someone, am I in breach of the copyrights law? What if I lend the original?

I invite anyone to participate as long as you give honest respectfull posts!
Please do not start getting personal and rude.....

Thanks all

[fmctm1sw]

I have a Backup of a legit DVD movie I bought in a shop.

The more I read into it, you can pretty much stop right there. Reproducing anything that is copyrighted is a no-no AFAIK. Adam usually weighs in on these type threads.

[johns0]

You can lend the original but not the backup,just my opinion as to what sounds more legit.If the original isnt returned then you must destroy the backup you made.

[hakamtzan]

Hold on a sec, fmctm1sw

I have read in one of the forums that people are backing-up their purcahsed DVD's to preserve the original. They were very pationate about their right to keep their originals in mint and being able to have a back-up in case the original was destroyed or damaged.

Where do you draw the line?

I am conpletely confused now

[fmctm1sw]

Hold on a sec, fmctm1sw

I have read in one of the forums that people are backing-up their purcahsed DVD's to preserve the original. They were very pationate about their right to keep their originals in mint and being able to have a back-up in case the original was destroyed or damaged.

Where do you draw the line?

I am conpletely confused now

I know. These threads almost invariably break down into "they're making too much money off of me" or other related rants. I'm just being devil's advocate here. Adam seems to know copyright law pretty well. You can look through the thread I started just a couple days ago titled "the legalities of all this" (or something like that).

[hakamtzan]

Hey fmctm1sw

Seems like you did a bit of homework....
I did not realise you were hanging your livelyhood on the matter.
As I do not live in the USA or Australia these rules might not apply to my country of residence anyway. I was just trying to clarify a bit.

Like you, I did not want to start a ranting post. What each of us do in the privacy of our homes is our business. I truely beleive that you should pay for music and video but after that, what you do with it is your own business, as long as you do not seek to make capital gain from it. I also beleive that making loads of copies and giving them to all your freinds is capital gain (or loss to the producer/owner of the material).
I think that the scenario I have explained, if could be proved, will hold water in court. Don't you?

If anyone wants to break or adhere to the law, I hope they enjoy themselves. I just hope they knock on the door before they enter.....LOL

Thanks fo taking part...

[rkr1958]

hakamtzan,

The legality of DVD backup really depends on where you live. But in the US you have two competing concepts. The first is fair use, which some feel that gives you the right to backup up content you own (to protect your investment) or format shift (e.g., VHS to DVD, music CD to MPG3 player). The second is a law that makes it illegal to circumvent the protection on DVDs, VHS tapes and music CDs. It's the view of this site, and many people who visit this site, that you have a right to backup or format shift content that you own.

Now, making a backup and "lending" someone your original is a bit of a grey area. I'd leave that one to the mods to make a call on.

[pbhalerao]

Please see this topic:

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=152132

In that topic, almost everyone agreed that lending your DVD to a friend was not an infrigement of copyright. But I think that principle applies only to the original. If you make a copy/backup and lend that, it probably means theft; don't ask me why but that is what it will be deemed as. If you rent a DVD/VHS from BB you get the original and not a copy.

I think fair use policy points that you may backup for safeguarding but you must own the original as well - and original and backup(s) must be in your possession at all times.

On the other hand, perhaps you can lend your friend the original and the backup together and let him/her know the reason why both are being lent. You can then instruct him/her that the backup should be played as you don't wish the original to be damaged.

Regards,

[hakamtzan]

This is a very interesting angle....

No, really!

Thanks for posting!

[waheed]

I guess its an opinion everyone is entitled to.

The whole point of making backups is to preserve the original and keep it from being scratched, damaged etc. So originals can be kept safe while backups are used.

If a friend wanted to watch a movie, i would rather lend the backup than the original.
Otherwise, the whole concept of makng a backup seems pointless if your going to use the original often.

Just my opinion, not sure where the laws stands about it in the UK.

[adam]

Under the first sale doctrine you can do anything you want with the original. That includes reselling it, lending it, or burning it. This applies to all forms of media. This right does not extend to any archival backups. The use of those is strictly limited to uses allowed in the section of the law which authorizes them. This is a pretty universal concept in all countries with copyright law.

In the United States there are several forms of archival copying that are expressly made permissible under Copyright law.

17 USCS 108 allows libraries to make archival copies of certain types of media.

17 USCS 117 allows you to make archival copies of computer software.

17 USCS 1008 allows you to make archival copies of "musical recordings" so long as they are for personal use and are done using "digital audio recording devices," which are defined under that act as being a device which is primarily marketed as such.

Fair Use grants no real rights at all, it is a test to distinguish between an infringing act and a permissible personal use. No court has ever heard a case on this issue, so it is absurd to suggest that Fair Use actually grants archival rights. In my opinion, this whole "fair use right to backup" is an internet rumor. Legal scholars have toyed with the idea that backups could be read into Fair Use, but what is blatantly clear is that literally no such right can exist until it is ruled on by a court of law. This has not happened and it is clear that the Legislature did not intend for Fair Use to allow archival backups, because if they had there would have been no reason to make the express archival allowances I mentioned above. If you read the Committee Notes to section 1008 and the Legislative Comments to the Audio Home Recording Act, the Congressman go on and on about how audio-visual works are entitled to far greater protection than merely audio works, and how the section is specifically not to apply to video. Furthermore, the only reason why the right to backup musical recordings was codified into Title 17 was because the manufacturers agreed to subsidize (2% of all sales) the music industry. You better believe that the day archival copying of copyrighted DVDs and VHS tapes is codified into US Copyright law, is the day that manufacturers agree to another subsidy, this time to the Motion Picture Industry.

Also, one of the four prongs of the Fair Use test is the substantiallity of the copying. There are numerous cases suggesting that an exact bit for bit copy of the entire work can never be permissible under Fair Use.

Simply put, there is currently no right to backup a DVD in the United States, so if this is where you are located than I think that pretty much answers your question.

As for the DMCA, it really isn't even applicable here. As with most Federal Legislation, it has a savings clause. Nothing in the DMCA can be used to remove or dimish any rights provided elsewhere in that Title. Thus if Copyright Law allows you to make an archival copy of certain media, music recordings for example, then you are authorized to circumvent protection measures to do so, unless otherwise prohibited.

[johnhamler]

lending is legal, as long you give the original with the copy.
the original will stay in the box.

now if you keep the original at home, and used it while one of your friend have a copy and watch it, it is not legal.

personaly I believe blockbuster make more money since people are able to makes some DVD backups.

the thing is do not give your copies.make backup of whatever you want, but all copies must stay in a safe place and only for you.

[Bigdaddybrat]

This is a great discussion. I admit that I make back up copies, but this is because I have a 3yr old and 20 month old in the house that have used the originals as Frizbiees! and I would prefere to have a backup copy destroyed than the $20 one.

However, this is my question. How does this apply to Television shows?

I am a huge fan of the Simpsons and I record the majority of the episodes on the hard drive of my computer, edit out the comercials and put them to DVD or SVCD.... So, let say my friend wants to borrow a bunch of the discs because he missed a few shows... is that illegal?

[jbenj01]

Adam,

Just curious.. What if I decide to hold a party at my mansion/castle of a residence (in the U.S.) and have 1000 people over to watch my latest and greatest DVD purchase.. mind you, in the privacy of my own home.. is that technically still a private showing and therefore, legal?

Secondly, so basically what the deep pockets are saying is that if I want to preserve my original DVD copy.. I MUST buy a two DVD's of the same title, yes??

[adam]

However, this is my question. How does this apply to Television shows?

I am a huge fan of the Simpsons and I record the majority of the episodes on the hard drive of my computer, edit out the comercials and put them to DVD or SVCD.... So, let say my friend wants to borrow a bunch of the discs because he missed a few shows... is that illegal?

Absolutely, because you not entitled to make those kinds of copies in the first place. Your right to record broadcast transmissions is via the time-shifting exemption read into Fair Use. In the Betamax case the court said that it is permissible to time-shift material for a ONE TIME later viewing. They expressly excluded time-shifting from allowing "library building" which is the recording of broadcasts for permanent storage. If you want the Simpson's episodes in your library then you have to buy the VHS/DVD. If a particular series is not yet released in hard copy, you have to either wait for that to happen or you have to continue to watch it as it is broadcasted.

Recording broadcasts for the purpose of adding them to your permanent library is a direct infringement. The way you describe your process, it sounds like this is exactly what you are doing.

[DaveS]

This is a great discussion. I admit that I make back up copies, but this is because I have a 3yr old and 20 month old in the house that have used the originals as Frizbiees! and I would prefere to have a backup copy destroyed than the $20 one.

However, this is my question. How does this apply to Television shows?

I am a huge fan of the Simpsons and I record the majority of the episodes on the hard drive of my computer, edit out the comercials and put them to DVD or SVCD.... So, let say my friend wants to borrow a bunch of the discs because he missed a few shows... is that illegal?

I'm not a lawyer but I will try to summarize what I learned by researching this topic area - this is for the US and is my layperson's boiled down view:

- the legality of copying a single broadcast for the purpose of time shifting was affirmed by the US courts - e.g. you are allowed to record a show and watch it later

- the courts have not established a precedence for the legality of recording multiple shows - when you 'time shift' an entire season of a series, you are in a lot more grey and murky area where no court has said that is legal ( b/c all of a sudden, you now have an entire legal property for which you are not the owner)

- in my opinion, when you then edit that and remove commercials, etc., you have really waded into murky area b/c you now have a # of episodes and have come even closer to reproducing someone else's property

also, imho, many of the above posts are trying to split hairs to find an angle to validate what is being done with a copy, when really the overriding issue is that any of this copyrighted content is not owned by you, so you can only use it as licensed, and those licenses don't give you the authority to make copies. to me, again, in my opinion, 321 studios came as close as they thought they could and were shut down..taking an analog original and making a digital copy of it I think is viewed as fair use, but once you get into copying anything that is in digital source, you are on a whole new ground...

where you would start to run into trouble is that by copying a season, let's say, you now have somthing that the rightful owner might sell, which you obtained without authority for free..if you start to impinge upon their revenue stream, that's when you will get noticed (although I still can't figure out how those guys who sell the bootleg movies on a blanket on the sidewalk aren't arrested or used to find the source)..that's not to say that the mpaa won't take the same tact as the recording industry and pursue individuals (although it was terrible PR)..anyway, this is just my 2 cents...

[adam]

Adam,

Just curious.. What if I decide to hold a party at my mansion/castle of a residence (in the U.S.) and have 1000 people over to watch my latest and greatest DVD purchase.. mind you, in the privacy of my own home.. is that technically still a private showing and therefore, legal?

Generally the public/private distinction turns on commercial profit. If you are charging for the price of admission then it is a violation even if its just a few people. Inviting even a large group of people to your house to watch one of your movies is not prohibited under Copyright law, if there is no commercial transaction or gain.

Secondly, so basically what the deep pockets are saying is that if I want to preserve my original DVD copy.. I MUST buy a two DVD's of the same title, yes??

Well, its not the deep pockets its your elected officials, though I realize they sometimes go hand in hand. But this portion of Copyright Law, and Copyright Law in general predates motion picture by over 100 years. I think its more along the lines that one's right to preserve the medium containing material licensed to them, is outweighed by the copyright holder's right to prevent unauthorized copies. I'm not saying that is fair, but that is certainly the intent of copyright law; to balance the interests of the copyright holder with the consumer. You do have a right to protect your initial investment, but like I mentioned earlier, Congress has made it clear that audio-visual works are granted much more protection than any other form of intellectual property. As such, they have chosen to limit your ability to protect your investment in DVDs and VHS to those manners associated with the sale of any other commercial good. You can take out insurance on it or you can enforce the implied warranty of merchantibility if violated, or you can avail yourself of the distributor's replacement plan if they provide one. Otherwise, yes when your DVD breaks you just have to buy a new one.

Despite our best efforts we will still scratch our DVDs, but the same can be said of our cars too. The right to copy something is not inherant in the ability to copy it.

Now I do believe we should have a right to backup DVDs, and I'd guess that most American's would agree. But as of yet, the Legislature has not chosen to make this exception for DVDs or VHS.

[housepig]

- the courts have not established a precedence for the legality of recording multiple shows - when you 'time shift' an entire season of a series, you are in a lot more grey and murky area where no court has said that is legal ( b/c all of a sudden, you now have an entire legal property for which you are not the owner)

nope, it's the same as time shifting one show - you can tape one show and watch it later, you can tape 50 and watch them later... but after you watch them, you are supposed to destroy / tape over the show. library-building or archiving shows you have watched is prohibited.

[DaveS]

- the courts have not established a precedence for the legality of recording multiple shows - when you 'time shift' an entire season of a series, you are in a lot more grey and murky area where no court has said that is legal ( b/c all of a sudden, you now have an entire legal property for which you are not the owner)

nope, it's the same as time shifting one show - you can tape one show and watch it later, you can tape 50 and watch them later... but after you watch them, you are supposed to destroy / tape over the show. library-building or archiving shows you have watched is prohibited.

yes, agree - library building is definitely prohibited...I just couldn't recall finding any cases where this was in a court and where one could look at what was tried and the outcome / ruling..I'm not advocating it, rather I just didn't have any case references (and I think the courts have avoided it from what I recall reading)

[lpn1160]

Make TIVO illegal, all forms of blank media illegal, DVD recorders, DVD burners, VHS, computer capture devices etc...
All these things are marketed for being able to make copies.
99% of us make copies for personal use and never for monetary gain.
Lend a disk to your cousin, or neighbor!! Go to jail!!
The Industry should worry about those (primarily in asia & elsewhere) that pirate for profit, and leave the avg poor joe blow the f--k alone!!

[housepig]

library building is definitely prohibited...I just couldn't recall finding any cases where this was in a court and where one could look at what was tried and the outcome / ruling..

IIRC, it's spelled out pretty explicitly in the Sony (Betamax) case - I was pretty surprised by it when I read the ruling!

[Bigdaddybrat]

GEEZE... I never thought it was illegal to make a copy, since it was broadcast over the airways! I mean, I'm sure we all have copied shows on VHS tapes prior to doing it on computer and I remember that some of the companies put out recorders that would skip the comercials for you too.

Sooooo, my next question is how does this apply to Canadian Law?

[hakamtzan]

I think Adam and Dave S have more or less nailed the issue for the Americans -

Making copies of your DVD's is illegle. Which everway you look at it. Fair or not. This also apply to TV shows. If anyone is trying to find loop holes they are doing so because they know full well that their actions are less than "kosher". I am so glad I have raised the issue because once and for all I am starting to understand some of the gobel-di-gook which is the copy-right law.

I am pleased how this post has developed into an adult discussions of facts rather than silly mud slinging and s**t stirring. Thanks all for keeping levels down....

I think that at the end of the day it is advisable to try and get hold of a copy of your countriy's copy-right law (if it has it) if you wish to stay on the explicit side of the law. Which is exactly what I am about to do.

At the end of the day everyone will do their own thing behind closed doors and drawn curtains but there is no point digging under every stone to try and find that coveted loop holes which will allow you to do as you wish with regards to anything in this world.....

Media prices are droping dramaticaly the more people shake off their ignorance regarding it's pricing. Hopefully in the not-so-far future we will be able to pay far less for stuff and then we will be able to buy two originals without needing another mortgage.....

Thanks again to all who participated. Maybe next someone can tell me how media is priced, what precentage goes to who etc. Are you guys up for it?

Good night.....

[byteguy]

Media prices are droping dramaticaly the more people shake off their ignorance regarding it's pricing. Hopefully in the not-so-far future we will be able to pay far less for stuff and then we will be able to buy two originals without needing another mortgage.....

I remember when I bought my first CD and paid $15 instead of the $8.99 that the album was going for. The newspapers were full of stories of how the prices will come down once more pressing-plants are built.... the prices will go down when the new format is accepted... the prices will go down when the cheaper cost of shipping and packaging is factored in...

20 years later I'm still waiting.

Just to get back on-topic; thanks for all the information on US copyright. I knew there was a divide between what people thought should be legal and what actually is. Nice to see it spelled out so well.

[Karate Media]

I think Adam and Dave S have more or less nailed the issue for the Americans -

Making copies of your DVD's is illegle. Which everway you look at it.

Actually, I don't see where Adam said this at all. It seems to me that he said that copying DVDs is not an explicit right in America:

"No court has ever heard a case on this issue, so it is absurd to suggest that Fair Use actually grants archival rights[...] what is blatantly clear is that literally no such right can exist until it is ruled on by a court of law."

Therefore, it is not explicitly legal or illegal. Adam goes on to contemplate the intentions of the lawmakers, but from how I'm reading his words, it's a limbo concept that simply hasn't been tested in the courts. A future case could set a precedent for interpretation of existing laws, but as the law is currently written, one can only make assumptions, not certainties. Adam, feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood your post.

[adam]

Well I think in effect you are correct. As an issue of first impression, no one knows what would happen until it actually made it to the courtroom. However, Copyright law always defers to the copyright holder absent an express exemption. The first section of Title 17 states that a copyright holder has exclusive rights to copy and to authorize copying. Therefore, unless, and until Title 17 is amended to include an exemption for the personal copying of DVDs, or until a court of law reads such an exemption into the existing Fair Use provisions, the general prohibition against unauthorized copying controls.

US copyright law, as it is written, expressly states that copying a copyrighted DVD without authorization, for archival purposes, is an infringement.

[Karate Media]

Hmmm... I think you are confusing me, adam (or I'm confusing myself)... It seems like your first paragraph contradicts your final sentence...

Does it expressly or implicitly state that archival copies are infringement? I would take expressly to mean that it explicity states, "You cannot copy for archival purposes," whereas your previous comments seem to say that it is implicitly stated, that the definition of infringement implies that archival copies are infringement.

And as I understand it, Fair Use is almost always a per case/in court decision. That is, in most cases of Fair Use protection, you still get hauled into court and a judge still has to hear the case and decide if it is indeed Fair Use -- you can't necessarily even follow Fair Use precedent and avoid going to court. I may not be explaining this correctly, but this is how am IP lawyer explained Fair Use. Regardless, if this is correct, then anything not explicitly covered as infringement could be ruled as Fair Use in court, correct?

[adam]

Copyright law is by definition overbroad. Its like Tax law, there is far too much to delineate all the things that are not allowed. The statute would be 100 times longer and make no sense. Instead you start with the absolute principal that everything is prohibited and then the statute carves out the exceptions. Most comprehensive statutes are like this actually.

Title 17 clearly and expressly makes ALL unauthorized copying an infringement unless otherwise exempted. Unless you can find an express exemption for archival copies of DVDs then it is not allowed. There are express exemptions for both musical recordings and computer software, but as of yet none exists for DVDs or any other form of audio-visual work. Make no bones about it, copying a DVD for archival purposes is expressly an infringement under Title 17.

But as with other forms of intellectual property law, there is a Fair Use exception. Its really nothing more than a test, and in the case of Copyrights it has 4 prongs. Its essentially just a way for courts to read more into Title 17 than is there, so long as it jives with what the court feels was the Legislature's overall intent.

So, like I said. Archival copying of audio-visual works is expressly impermissible under Title 17. But as an issue of first impression (no court has ever heard this argument before) it is anyone's guess whether a court would read in this right to the existing Fair Use provisions. Personally I don't think a court would.

You are correct, Fair Use is applied ad hoc (on a case by case basis.) It is an affirmative defense therefore it only even comes into play after you have been sued. Its a "yeah so what?" defense. You admit that you commited an infringement but your defense is that it essentially was done in good faith and did not cause any harm to the plaintiff.

You are also correct in suggesting that a court could deem something Fair Use at any time, but we still have some absolutes that guide us. There are several Supreme Court cases construing the "substantiality of copying" prong as precluding a Fair Use defense if you have copied the work in its entirety and in its exact form (ie: bit for bit copy of entire movie as opposed to analogue copy of entire movie.) This seems to pretty much hammer the nail into the coffin for the argument that archival copying is protected under Fair Use, IMO.

There is also a Supreme Court case which says any commercial gain from the copying creates a strong presumption that the copying is not "Fair." If you read very many Supreme Court opinions you'll see that "strong presumption against" basically means never.

So Fair Use caselaw is somewhat wishy-washy, but you can still make an accurate prediction as to what a court would do with a given fact pattern. And as always, until a new exception is read into Fair Use, that action remains prohibited by the general grant of exclusive rights to the author.

[Karate Media]

adam -- thanks for the thoughtful and extensive reply. Reviewing the Fair Use info at fairuse.stanford.edu, I can't really see where archiving would fall under its purview. Interesting...

[DVD Polizei]

Basically, it's safe to assume copying ANY media that is copyrighted...is illegal. You then prioritize who is more likely to be prosecuted...

1) The guy who is selling copies on the net or to local people.

2) The guy who makes copies because his kids ruin the originals and has no history of any selling whatsoever.

I'd love to see #2 taken to court. So far, they have not. Why? Public relations and why prosecute someone who is not making a profit.