Copying rented/borrowed poll

[aero]

It was MY blank disc, and MY Internet connection. Since I own the disc in question, I don't think it's an issue.

Yes, that is absolutely correct. Under copyright laws if you make such great changes to the original works in question then you have the right to copyright the new versions you created! So you own those!!

That's what Turner did colorizing PD movies right??

No that is not what turner did. It is an illustration however about why you have to be careful about amatuer discussions of copyright on the net.

Turner purchased the rights to the orignal films first. He was one of the largest holders of pre color fims.
The controversy was about whether he should do this to, not about his full legal rights.

fortunaly he stopped but this never had a thing to do with copyright.

colorizing a film, indeed editing out even almost all of a film, would never even approach the cahnges needed to avoid copyright violation

[Supreme2k]

So whats the position on ripping a rented movie to replace a defunct one you own?

If you still have the original, then you've already paid for a permanent copy of it. Perfectly legal, IMO.

If you no longer have the original, but owned it at one time, it's still illegal without possession of the original.

The first one is utterly false (and wrong IMO).

If your movie is "defunct" (wear and tear, damaged through use/misuse), you have to buy a new one. You never paid for a permanent copy. Just like anything else, once you use it up, you have to get a new one or go without. It would be your lack foresight or caution that prevented you from backing it up when you were able.

On the other hand, it looks more like asking for justification. If you plan on doing something illegal, it is best to make that decision on your own.

Unless Cap gave out his password in another thread. Is that still you Cap?

[DereX888]

nevertheless - there is a relation....
:P

[Supreme2k]

Actually it works that way with other things around here also, small rural area. I have rented equipment like little backhoe/front end loader, ditch witch, ect.. And same thing applies normally. $150 a day, I rent on Saturday and return on monday, but only want to be charged 1 day when I actually use it! Since they are not open on Sunday I can't pick it up or bring it back that day, So I AM charged only One day when I actually use it
But I rent on Saturday and return on Monday, which is 2 days.

1. That's their policy, though. The video rental place has their policies, which don't account for closed days (do they ever?).

Also with "Time shifting" unlike renting a car or backhoe, you do not have it tied up from Monday-Thursday which is when you want to use it. A car you have to have possesion of to use. So they can not rent it while you have it.

2. That's just rationalization. The bad deed is the copying, no matter how long you keep rental. It doesn't matter that they get it back early because you were nice enough to copy it.

Now I have rented a car on Monday and only been charged one day when I actually use it which was a Sunday, almost a week latter! I did not pick it up or use it till Saterday, but then it would not have been available to rent, so I rented for the day I wanted in advance. Kinda the same thing really, except they have it the day you actually are going to use it in the case of Time Shifting a movie.

3. That's called a reservation. They still rent the car, use the table in the restaurant, or what have you, in the time between your reservation and your actual use.

Seems as kinda the same things in way, in a way not. I am renting the Movie in advance for when I actually want it. Unlike a car I could time shift a movie, but a car is a physicall mass that can not be Shifted that way. A movie is not mass, it's data, and can be shifted.

4. Yes, yes...whatever. The fact is that you are not allowed to "time shift" rentals. Period. The whole concept of a rental is time-shifting. You rent the movie when you have time (and don't go into that Sunday or weekend babble, or I shall be forced to belt you about the mouth).

I geuss another way to look at it, if I was closer to the store so driving time were not a factor (far away so really it is).

5. see answer 7.

If I were to rent the movie on Wendsday at 5pm, make a "Time Shift" version in 30 minutes, then return the movie! Then what??
I have paid rent for a 24 hr period, had the movie for maybe total of 40 minutes. It's a 2 hour movie so I have not even had it long enough to watch once. So then what? Should they refund my money because I return it the same day, or should I be able to watch it on Saturday for the other 23 hrs?

6. See answer 4.

And ya know many people do still live in rural areas like here. For friends I have it's 45 minute or hour drive one way for them to return a movie, if they aren't going in town anyway for anything those days they simply don't rent anything and that is causing lost revenue for the rental stores and lost tax money that could be collected. Also if all those people were renting more movies the rental stores would buy more movies also so the Studios are not making as much either.

I simply must get stock tips from you, since you have such a firm grasp of economical machinations

Now some of these people do work near the rental store or drive by it on the way to work. So they could in theory rent a movie durring the week, make the "Time shift" disk at work, and return the disk the same day. Then they could watch the movie on Saturday or Sunday when they won't be in town. But instead they just never rent anything Because they won't waste the time and gas for a 1 1/2 - 2hr round trip just to return a 1 day rental, nor will they pay for more than one day.
So unless the store would rent it to them on Friday and let them return it on Monday for the one day price (and they won't) those people never rent anything.

7. Boo-fricken-hoo. On simple word: Netflix.

Anyway, I am really bored as you can probably tell.

Seems more like sleep-deprived

[overloaded_ide]

I simply must get stock tips from you,

I have gave those in the past and made alot of people alot of money.
Might have caused a little of it to be lost back again too though.
I recomeded buying K-mart stock when it hit $1.00 a share
Has it gotten back on wall street yet

At least I did also advice not to buy more than they cared to lose just in case, and they ain't totally dead yet some stores still exist!!

Seems more like sleep-deprived

Ya that too! I quit drinking along time ago, but this would have been a good weekend for a case of BUD anyway!

If you still have the original, then you've already paid for a permanent copy of it. Perfectly legal, IMO.

If you no longer have the original, but owned it at one time, it's still illegal without possession of the original.

I would disagree on the second one! Without the original you would not be able to show proof you ever owned it, unless maybe you still have the case it came in and a reciept for it. BUT if you ever bought it then you did pay the FEE to own one copy and that DOES NOT expire when the disk breaks for whatever reason. It's only a question if you can prove it or not.

In other words you would be saying that two of my game Cds I have made are illegal because I bought the games then broke the original cds and threw those away. I still have my backups (about the 15th set now), the retail box the games came in, the manuals and books you only get in the retail box when you buy the games, and anything else that came with those games.
Now if I did not make my own backup of those games BEFORE breaking the disks, then what would be the difference if I borrowed YOUR disk and made a copy??? I still have everything else that came with the game including my own KEY that is stuck to the original cd case. The only thing I do not have is the original disks. Blizzard will even send me a new disk for $5 I think if I request a replacement.

And if you want to think of those copyrights as being a contract, the terms of that contract is I pay the fee to own one copy and I have the right to that copy for life! Mine, not the products!! SO I paid for 1 copy, when that copy no longer exists I have the right to replace it! That is still ONLY 1 copy and I have paid the fee for 1 copy!!

As for what I said about Turner and colorizing, ya he bought the rights to some of that stuff but I think some of it is in the public domain also. Unless I have my colorizing studios mixed up. I have found public domain works in black and white and the same titles colorized with new copyrights applied as "NEW WORKS". Maybe they expired on the black and whites after the new colorized version were made??
I have also found many other public domain works with new copyrights!!
Many of which have very little or no noticeable changes!

Some of those titles I have seen the PD broadcast Beta tapes and own the DVD, and I have not found any differences in them durring normal viewing though I have not gone frame by frame.

[Supreme2k]

Seriously, you need to stop talking completely out of your ass.

I would disagree on the second one! Without the original you would not be able to show proof you ever owned it, unless maybe you still have the case it came in and a reciept for it. BUT if you ever bought it then you did pay the FEE to own one copy and that DOES NOT expire when the disk breaks for whatever reason. It's only a question if you can prove it or not.

It does expire when the disk breaks (or whatever). You are allowed that copy, and any backup of that copy. Whether you can prove you owned it or not is irrelevant. Once you start copying outside of your purchase, Fair Use does not apply.

In other words you would be saying that two of my game Cds I have made are illegal because I bought the games then broke the original cds and threw those away. I still have my backups (about the 15th set now), the retail box the games came in, the manuals and books you only get in the retail box when you buy the games, and anything else that came with those games.

No, because you made those backups from your originals. You should have actually put the original in a safe place once you made the backups, then used the backups.

Now if I did not make my own backup of those games BEFORE breaking the disks, then what would be the difference if I borrowed YOUR disk and made a copy???

Because it is MY disk, so yuor fair use does not apply. Since you didn't make your own backup, tough shit.

I still have everything else that came with the game including my own KEY that is stuck to the original cd case. The only thing I do not have is the original disks. Blizzard will even send me a new disk for $5 I think if I request a replacement.

Well then follow the legal protocol and send them the $5. If you have all of the paperwork that came with it, I'm sure it contains literature on copying.

And if you want to think of those copyrights as being a contract, the terms of that contract is I pay the fee to own one copy and I have the right to that copy for life! Mine, not the products!! SO I paid for 1 copy, when that copy no longer exists I have the right to replace it! That is still ONLY 1 copy and I have paid the fee for 1 copy!!

That is complete, utter, armageddon-sized bullshit.
When you buy anything, you're not guaranteed a (your) lifetime copy. If you break, lose or misuse the product, that's it, you replace it out of your own pocket. You have no "right", no matter how many exclamation points you use.


Basically, backups are meant to be used so that you always have a clean, original copy in pristine condition. It is your responsibility to do so. No one else has the legal authority to provide you with a "backup". As in the case of Blizzard, they will replace it (I'm trusting that your info is true).

If you screw up your DVD, you have absolutely no right to back up a rental.

You can rationalize it all you want, and in the end, it is your decision on whether you illegally copy a rental or not.

[aero]

If you screw up your DVD, you have absolutely no right to back up a rental.

You can rationalize it all you want, and in the end, it is your decision on whether you illegally copy a rental or not.

I think you would need to post some case law where it was established that you don't have a right to do this. If you contend that a cosnumer has or would lose in a jury trial, I seriously doubt it. Much of this has not been interepreted. Be aware the mpaa contends you don't have a right to a back up fo a disk you bought and own and still possess.

Indeed the representative of the major studios, Jack Valenti, has ion many cases stated that consumver have no right to a discounted replacement copy. considering that the value is almost exclusively manefest in the ip and not the physical disk, that is a tuatology and illigitimate.

do you have any case law for the prosecution or successful civil action of someone consumer or otherwise who purchased digital ip, had their digital copy damaged, made another copy of the same ip from a different source and were ruled against in a court?

I am a strong supporter of i.p. protection, but I see no ethical issue whatsoever in replacing a damaged, or lost rightfully purchased dvd film with a copy from a rental.

when you paid the $25, 99% of it was for costs outside the media. The producers, owners, and even the wholealer and retailer still have the money. you dilute nothing and ask them to bear no additional costs. Indeed they get royalties from rentals so you are actually re contributing to some degree.

If you purchase a car and it gets wrecked you don't have the right to take another, but if it is ip the whole theory of what you are paying for is different. as almost all of the costs are outside the physical product.

I had a job where used to buy rights to copyright work. If we lost our physical copy and had continuing use rights, there was NO way in hell we ever had to, or did, puchase the item again.

That leaves the legal question. Again isnt there a theoretical legal question to decss althegether? Isn't there a theoretical legal impediement, claimed but not used, against any consumer on backing up css material?

In the end, with the specific question of using another source to reaquire ip already purchased, what you are suggesting is the average consumer is forbidden something corporations do all the time.

here is a question. if you lose the original, are you allowed to back up from your backup? If you say yes you are suggesting that someone qwho does something the MPAA contends is illegal has MORE rights than someone who didn't until nessessary!

[Gurm]

I've been asking for this for some time - someone show me a case where an INDIVIDUAL was ruled against for doing what the MPAA and RIAA claim is illegal - making mix CD's or backing up your own movies. I'd LOVE to see the legal precedent - but there isn't any because no judge in his right mind would really support that sort of thing.

The RIAA has subpoenad hundreds of people, and made deals with them - has anyone said "**** it" and gone to court? I can't believe that they would actually lose! I just can't believe it - ESPECIALLY since the subpoenas in the first place were deemed illegal.

[aero]

I've been asking for this for some time - someone show me a case where an INDIVIDUAL was ruled against for doing what the MPAA and RIAA claim is illegal - making mix CD's or backing up your own movies. I'd LOVE to see the legal precedent - but there isn't any because no judge in his right mind would really support that sort of thing.

there are cases where an individuals lawyer has apparently adivsed them to settle with the RIAA, eg uploading onto p2p. the RIAA (for good reason) and 90% of the press (out of stupidity) call this "downloading." the difference is quite relevent.

But your point in general is well taken. One poster here is claiming that backing up an ownded dvd, as long as you sitll have possession of the dvd is legal, but backing up a rental if you bought and then lost/damaged the orignial is illegal. That is false, either both or neither are illegal. the mpaa's position is neither are legal. I would say both are ethical..

[Supreme2k]

Actually, if you follow the law, it is illegal either way.

Your only defense if you own the title is Fair Use (which hasn't exactly been tested), but is probably a pipe dream.

But the thing that will most assuredly screw things up is stretching even the concept of Fair Use to include a neighbors copy, or a rental copy, or all this "bought it for life" bullshit. Just as you have no right to copy a copyrighted book in it's entirety from a library, even if you had "owned it at one time", the same applies to videos.

If the store from where you bought the video or the video producer won't replace it in five years, you are out of luck. Read your receipt, every millimeter of the video box and whatever else you can find about it, but it will show that there is no guarantee or right to have the merchandise for your lifetime. What you (overloaded, aero) are talking about is complete stupidity. You don't need case law to back up what is so simple. The law of rentals is Do Not Copy. Period. There is no allowance for your previous purchase or any other nonsense that you have said.

Hell, a marriage is "till death do you part" guaranteed, but there is still divorce.

[Gurm]

What it comes down to is this:

When we go to the store and "buy" a video... a CONTRACT has been made. Our half of the contract is an agreement to pay $19.95, and THEIR half of the contract is to provide us with that video. Nowhere in this contract is there an explicit limitation.

The big companies want to introduce an IMPLICIT limitation, which you have to agree to "after the fact". This has been declared 100% illegal by the supreme court. This is why companies HAVE to give you your money back on software if they put EULA's in it. EULA's are an addendum to the contract after the fact, not agreed to by either party at the time the contract was fulfilled (at the register at your local store).

No ruling has YET been made on music, but many stores WILL give you your money back if you bring the disc back and say "can't play this in the computer because of copy protection".

IMPLICIT in this interpretation of things (contract law interpretation) is the thought that you DO, in fact, own A COPY of the work contained in the package "in perpetuity". Not "until this medium degrades".

[Supreme2k]

No ruling has YET been made on music, but many stores WILL give you your money back if you bring the disc back and say "can't play this in the computer because of copy protection".

What I was getting at was the "owned it at one time" idea, where you have some sort of inherent right to the media, whether lost, broken, or inoperable.

IMPLICIT in this interpretation of things (contract law interpretation) is the thought that you DO, in fact, own A COPY of the work contained in the package "in perpetuity". Not "until this medium degrades".

Medium degradation is one thing, but loss or breakage (intentional or otherwise) is beyond this scope.
IMPLICIT would be more like that you own THAT COPY of the material on THAT EXACT MEDIUM. Copyright is never forfeit just because they are selling you one copy. Perpetuity does not survive loss or mishandling.
Copyright is not hidden. It is right on the package and available to read before the purpose. I agree about the EULA, but copying is a different matter.


Spot on with your previous post (RIAA).

[Gurm]

What I was getting at was the "owned it at one time" idea, where you have some sort of inherent right to the media, whether lost, broken, or inoperable.

Medium degradation is one thing, but loss or breakage (intentional or otherwise) is beyond this scope.
IMPLICIT would be more like that you own THAT COPY of the material on THAT EXACT MEDIUM.

The problem with this line of thinking is that it gives rise to the "can't make a copy of this song on a mix CD to listen to in your car" argument that the RIAA puts forth. Or the "can't make an archival backup" argument. You HAVE to have some sort of rights to the CONTENT itself, not just to the physical medium on which the content is recorded.

And eventually people will stand up for their rights. Look at the UTTERLY failed test marketing for those Disney self-destructive DVD's. Look at the DISMAL failure of the original DIVX. Nobody wants to own a DVD that they can't play. The idea is that, barring unforseen events, once you buy it you can watch it whenever you want... "forever".

[Supreme2k]

You HAVE to have some sort of rights to the CONTENT itself, not just to the physical medium on which the content is recorded.

I agree, to a certain extent. The right is to the content on that specific medium, and any backups that you make from that medium. You are not actually purchasing the copyright to the content.

The idea is that, barring unforseen events, once you buy it you can watch it whenever you want... "forever".

Agreed. Any purchased item (not counting food) can be theoretically kept "forever", if the proper care is taken. Once that item is damaged, stolen or lost without a backup (in this case), you are out of luck. There is no so-called right to the content in perpetuity.
Again, the ideal method is to backup the media, then put the original away for safe keeping.

Some of the points I'm refuting were not yours (gurm).

[Gurm]

I agree, to a certain extent. The right is to the content on that specific medium, and any backups that you make from that medium. You are not actually purchasing the copyright to the content.

I would agree with you to an extent. The issue as I see it is "how inclusive/exclusive is the license to the content that you are acquiring with the medium"? The RIAA/MPAA would have you believe that the license is limited to THAT SPECIFIC MEDIUM, no copies, no transfers, and they'd LOVE it if they could find a legal way to limit the length of time for which it is valid. You aren't buying the copyright, but what you ARE buying is less limited than people might like to think.

Agreed. Any purchased item (not counting food) can be theoretically kept "forever", if the proper care is taken. Once that item is damaged, stolen or lost without a backup (in this case), you are out of luck. There is no so-called right to the content in perpetuity.
Again, the ideal method is to backup the media, then put the original away for safe keeping.

Right. This makes the situation somewhat unique, in that you are buying a license to content AS WELL AS the physical medium. I think the argument at hand is whether or not the law ought to be changed to reflect that idea. However, when such an issue is broached, it's entirely likely that the RIAA/MPAA will exercise their clout and cause the law to be modified in THEIR favor, not in the consumers' favor.

[/quote]Some of the points I'm refuting were not yours (gurm).[/quote]

I know. You'll note that I've largely tended to NOT answer the original question of the thread, but I'll address it briefly right now.

Is it LEGAL, under the current interpretation of copyright law, to make a backup of a rental copy in the event that your copy becomes illegible? No. Is it "ethical"? Perhaps, although one could certainly make the argument that breaking the law automatically renders an action unethical. Is it something we've all done? *ahem* Probably.

It's a thorny issue, complicated by a bunch of very greedy people on both sides.

One the one side you have the heart of greed and avarice, located at the major motion picture and record studios.

But on the OTHER side you have a bunch of people who want stuff for free. Let's not pull punches here - it's relatively rare that this particular event occurs (dead original, rented duplicate). Most of the time people are renting, copying, returning, and NOT owning the original - clearly both illegal AND unethical.

[aero]

Actually, if you follow the law, it is illegal either way.

Your only defense if you own the title is Fair Use (which hasn't exactly been tested), but is probably a pipe dream.

But the thing that will most assuredly screw things up is stretching even the concept of Fair Use to include a neighbors copy, or a rental copy, or all this "bought it for life" bullshit. Just as you have no right to copy a copyrighted book in it's entirety from a library, even if you had "owned it at one time", the same applies to videos.

If the store from where you bought the video or the video producer won't replace it in five years, you are out of luck. Read your receipt, every millimeter of the video box and whatever else you can find about it, but it will show that there is no guarantee or right to have the merchandise for your lifetime. What you (overloaded, aero) are talking about is complete stupidity. You don't need case law to back up what is so simple. The law of rentals is Do Not Copy. Period. There is no allowance for your previous purchase or any other nonsense that you have said.

Hell, a marriage is "till death do you part" guaranteed, but there is still divorce.

No offense 2k, but your language "complete stupidy" is not warranted. You are yourself citing no case law, no proesecutions etc.

When you say "read your reciept," I had to chuckle. That is either a joke or niave. Many acts, already ruled as acceptable are forbidden by receipts. If you rent your home your lease probably has several codicils whichare unenforcable or inapplicable, but the landlord has thown in anyway. EG You may not know it, but most of the time an agreement, including ones you sign before a notary, calls for "binding arbitration" in fact that is unenforcable as well.

Hell my condo has a highly specific codicil forbiding dishes on our balconies. that is totally unenforceble despite it being a contract, but it is there.

I just bring it up because you are confusing assertion of rights with actual upheld contract law, which is ALWAY subject to inptrepretation and frequently invalidated, is not the same as law, and certainly not as criminal law.

for years I worked for a fortune 500 company which frequently lost or damaged original copyright work. in this digital age it is extremely easy to procure the same data from outside the original source and it is ROUTINELY done. As long as you are not using it for for profit rights you did not contract there is just no prosecution or civil acton that ever resulted from such an act.

I give a good look on lexis. You can say all you want but you can not come up with a single prosecution NOR a single civil case asserting otherwise.

Perhaps you are not old enogh to recall dongles. Almost the companies seeling software with dongles asserted you had to buy a replacement dongle. almost no one did, including major companies, and government offices when circumvention could be done. Tell me a prosecuition or civil suit for circumventing a dongle when the firm circumventing it had the rights for a given number of stations?

Moreover in your confusion betwen civil and criminal law you are overlooking the issue with civil law. The simple and plain fact that there are no damages, no dilution, etc.

Ironically I hold a much stonger positon on copyright than 90% of the people I have engaged in discussion here. I believe a film rights holder has not only every right to charge whatever theywant for to recoop talent fees, production fees, advertsing and marketing fees, distribution channel costs, pysical media production costs, profit for retailers and WHATEVER profit they feel the market will bear. I beleive people whining about hollywood fat cats. overpaid actors, etc are rationalizing.

but if you have already paid the full price, and find a mechanism to replace data on the the damaged media (which is analogous to the box it came in), you are not costing or dilutiing whatsoever.

Back to the dongle. cirumventing it is now illegal under the DMCA, but so is making a single copy, even a backup of your disk.

unless you are going to argue that ANY DeCSS is illegal, your own argument is inconsistant.

[aero]

Again, the ideal method is to backup the media, then put the original away for safe keeping.

Which is of course illegal under DMCA!

[Cobra]

Fair use. What Supreme2k is doing is perfectly legitimate, if confusing legally.

[aero]

Fair use. What Supreme2k is doing is perfectly legitimate, if confusing legally.

right so you agree with me. you are parsing legitimate as "illegal but ethical" from "legal" by contending it is ok to violate the law in the form of the DMCA inorder to excercise fair use. IE you know it is illegal, but you also know the laws conflict, and absent a ruling or harm you feel it is ethical. thank you.

[Cobra]

No, I do not agree with you. Fair use allows us to back up our DVDs. Simple as that. Also, the DMCA is not an issue for me - I am British.

I will not argue this further.

[aero]

No, I do not agree with you. Fair use allows us to back up our DVDs. Simple as that. Also, the DMCA is not an issue for me - I am British.

I will not argue this further.

I am not arguing, I am thanking you for taking my position and for your statement which in support of what I wrote.

Your own disagreement with supreme2k postion is understandable, you are making the same parsing as gurm and I.

Of course if you are in Britian, you know that the fair use vs. fair dealing doctrine is quite different.

[Gurm]

Of course the entire DMCA is quite illegal, it just hasn't been fully challenged yet due to the nearly limitless pockets of the MPAA/RIAA.

[Cobra]

I support Fair Use. I agree with Supreme2k. I did not agree with aero.

'nuff said.