Dvd Backup Law

[ViRaL1]

DVD size isn't the problem with a bit-for-bit copy of a DVD. There are encrypted DVD movies out there with less than 4.xGB of data, but that doesn't mean you can just copy it like an unencrypted DVD. DL only solves the compression issue of either shrinking or using two discs.

[nezza_42]

As was stated earlier, the law varies depending on your geography. As I understand it, in the UK, it is illegal to make a backup if the material is copyrighted.

It is even illegal to make a compilation cd, cassette, minidisc, whatever for use in your walkman, car, whatever........from any source of copyrighted material, despite you having bought the original.

Is that ethical?

Is making a copy of your favourite tracks, for use in the car, from a collection of CD's you've bought going to ruining the lives of the record company mogals & recording artisits?

Probably not....doesn't make it legal though

Would you get caught & prosecuted......check out your neighbourhood coppers glove box and ask him if he'd book you for it!!!!!

Nezza

[proxyx99]

@jaxxboss - if you copy it without breaking encryption, you are safe from the DMCA, yes. (which you could do by pointing a videocamera at your tv while playing the movie - the copy would suck, but you didn't break encryption). that doesn't mean it's legal to back up the movie.

I'm having trouble understanding the logic here. You say "you are safe but it may be illegal". That makes no sense.

It makes perfect sense - you wouldn't be breaking encryption, so the DMCA would not apply. But the DMCA is not the only law that applies, copyright law still applies, and you are infringing on copyright when you make a copy.

This statement makes no sense either. It can't be legal and illegal at the same time. You are making the same mistake in your reasoning.
Legal means to be in conformity with or permitted by law (I stress LAW- the body of rules) not just one legislative act or statue). Copying without permission is illegal as a rule. There may be some limited exceptions just as the one you have brought up.

[newbievamp]

No you got it all rong.to get over the DO NOT BREAK INCRYPTION THING you need a new,ish video card what you do is you connect it to the tv and record the playing dvd to your pc and then back it up on your pc on to a dvd-r and there you have it no broken encrytion thing.

[housepig]

This statement makes no sense either. It can't be legal and illegal at the same time. You are making the same mistake in your reasoning.
Legal means to be in conformity with or permitted by law (I stress LAW- the body of rules) not just one legislative act or statue). Copying without permission is illegal as a rule. There may be some limited exceptions just as the one you have brought up.

I never said it was legal - this is the second time you have missed it. I said if you copied a disc without breaking encryption, you are not violating the DMCA - there are other laws you are potentially breaking, but not that one.

Go reread my posts - "not violating the DMCA" does not equal "legal".

[jimmalenko]

No you got it all rong.to get over the DO NOT BREAK INCRYPTION THING you need a new,ish video card what you do is you connect it to the tv and record the playing dvd to your pc and then back it up on your pc on to a dvd-r and there you have it no broken encrytion thing.

We really need a filter to stop threads like this.

[wings]

Ok. I have a panasonic stand alone DVD-R bruner. It even has a tuner in it to record shows. Now the movie in question gets played on pay per view. Or on Starz in May. I tape/burn it on my player. Just like when I tape The Sopranos to watch after the kids go to bed. I give the copy to a friend. Did I break the new law?

[jimmalenko]

Ok. I have a panasonic stand alone DVD-R bruner. It even has a tuner in it to record shows. Now the movie in question gets played on pay per view. Or on Starz in May. I tape/burn it on my player. Just like when I tape The Sopranos to watch after the kids go to bed. I give the copy to a friend. Did I break the new law?

I tell you what. Get rid of anything in your house that can reproduce any part of any DVD. Then you will not be breaking the law. Better yet, ring the cable company and ask about their policy of you "taping" the broadcast. Better yet, ask a lwayer. I don't know of any on this site.

[wings]

My point. Who knows. I taped a show with a stand alone DVD burner off TV. No DVD copy. Recorded just like VHS. This DVD stand alone recorder/ player with built in tuner and vcr+ is sold in the US. Like I said. I did not rip a DVD or "Decode" a DVD.

[nezza_42]

You can record pay-per-view? I can't in the UK

Recording free-to-air stuff has obvious differences to copying marketed products with a clearly displayed copyright warnings, displayed on both packaging & movie intro.....but then again.......free-to-air movies have copyright blurb on the credits.......oh what a tangled web we weave.......

[adam]

I don't understand why this question gets asked about once a week. Just do a forum search for an answer.

Everything housepig said was correct. Forget about whether its a DVD, VHS, or cave drawing, if it is copyrighted than you must look to the copyright laws of that country to see what your rights are. In the US the only outright allowance for backing up copyrighted works applies to computer software. That is ALL! You do not have a right to backup a DVD, VHS or anything else for that matter.

But then there is the exception to copyrights known as Fair Use. This allows you to time shift (you pay for cable broadcast so you can copy it to watch later) and to duplicate (usually only in part) only for certain purposes. As of this moment NO court anywhere in the US has ruled that backing up a DVD or VHS qualifies as a Fair Use.

It is NOT legal to backup (1:1 copy to protect investment) any copyrighted work other than pc software in the US. If you want to know why programs like DVD Decryptor and sites like this are still perfectly legal then do a forum search. These questions have been answered way too many times already.

[aggies11]

I think these questions get asked, because they are interesting intellectual problems.

The digital age, and in tandem with that, the idea of "intellectual property", are fairly new concepts that don't fit in to well with our previous ways of thinking. We are a society firmly rooted in the material world and "actual physical objects".

The concept of theft is based heavily on the idea of "physically taking something away" from another person. "Stealing my neighbors mule" for example. Now in terms of intellectual property, or digital information and copying, there is no solid comparisson because "copying a cd" doesn't physically deprive the original from anyone. So the concept is one we haven't really encountered before. (Eg. If in the ancient past, we were able to "copy our neighbors mule", I doubt it would have been outlawed). The originals still exist, unaltered.

We are all quite aware now, that most of us live in societies where the people in charge (those who make the rules) are not necessarily representive of the population as a whole. They are the ones that make the rules, and quite often, those rules are not in the interest of the society as a whole, but instead aimed at protecting the interests of those in charge, and their peers.

So we often have situations where the rules, the laws, are not necessarily in the "best interest" of "most people".

So the question will undoubtably turn to one of "ethics", "right vs wrong" which ofcourse, is a highly subjective area. The opinions vary widely.

The questions of "Is xxx action illegal?" and "Should xxx action be illegal?" are not always in agreement.

It's interesting to note that alot of the ethical arguments that come up are based largely out of "capitalistic" ideas. Ie. Focusing on the individual, rather than the whole. ("Whats good for me" vs "Whats good for everyone"). Eg. "Is copying a Britney Spears CD really that wrong?" "Does she really need another $20, when she already has millions ?" "Is her 'right to earn as much money as ridiculously possible' more important than the benefit to society in being able to enjoy this 'wonderful music'?"

More on topic, this sort of law is quite interesting in Canada.

Ofcourse, it's largely untested, but current and popular interpretations of Canadian Copyright law have lead to interesting conclusions such as:

"It's not illegal to download, only to upload"

That "fair use includes making a copy for personal use only"

Even further that "It's not okay to make a copy for your friend. But lending him the original to make a copy for himself, is fine".

-If the previous holds, than Renting Discs and copying the contents for "personal private use" could actually be allowed.

All of the above have ofcourse, not been tested in the courts. Only time will tell what the results will be.

Ultimately, debating the letter of the law is a fruitless task. It often reduces down to a game of semantics. And more importantly, the law is supposed to merely be a written enforcement of societies thoughts on what is acceptable behaviour. And so it is these beliefs, "ethics", if you will, which are the most fruitfull things to investigate.

Aggies

[proxyx99]

Even further that "It's not okay to make a copy for your friend. But lending him the original to make a copy for himself, is fine".

-If the previous holds, than Renting Discs and copying the contents for "personal private use" could actually be allowed.

Neither is true. The only instance you can make use of the "Fair use" clause is when you keep the original at the same location. Since this is not the case (in the first example) then it is not permissible (copy must be destructed when origilal is not present or given back).
Copyright laws protect the intangible. Book or disk is its physical representation only. Comparing copying books to stealing mules is therefore inapropriate. You are not supposed to make a xerox copy of the borrowed book as well as a DVD rental.
With regard to your notion that society has a right to enjoy B.Spears work is somewhat crazy. Only those who purchase a copy of her intellectual property have the right to enjoy it. Period. This has a lot to do with a concept of "licensing". You basicaly purchase a license to limited use (books, software, music, video) whereas all the ownership rights still rest with the author. Patents are a vey clear cut examples of that.
Let's not forget that "fair use" concept (still controversioal and unclear) is an exception to the otherwise prohibitive rule. Exception applies only when a specific conditions are met (e.g. you keep the original). If they are not then an act of copying is illegal (as a rule). Just like with tax law where all income should be taxed at a certain rate, there are instances of income "free" from taxation that were excluded from this rule by a specific act that also regulates conditions under which that exception applies. Some posters seem to take the "exception" as a rule. That is incorrect.

[/quote]

[ViRaL1]

Question(s)...

Is fair use a right?

If so, has anyone filed suit against the RIAA for violating that right by preventing 'Fair Use' by legal means?

[adam]

Fair Use is not a right per se. It is literally an exception to a right, that right being a copyright. Under the copyright law provisions it lists the rights and limitations that one has when they file for a copyright. One of those limitations is that you are barred from seeking damages from or seeking penalties against anyone who violates your copyright during the course of exercising a Fair Use. If I write a book and file for copyright no one can just copy my book. But if a teacher buys my book and makes copies of certain pages and distributes them to his or her students, then I am barred from seeking damages against them, even though techincally that teacher did violate my copyright. Its also not a bar per se, the person just has an affirmative defense. It means they admit they violated the copyright, but that there is legally nothing anyone can do about it.

Sue the RIAA for what? I don't understand what you mean. You can still take excerpts from audio cds for Fair Use purposes. Anyway Fair Use is an affirmative defense which exempts you, the copyright infringer, from penalty or liability. You can't use a Fair Use argument as grounds for a suit against the copyright holder.

[MrMungus]

what is the law on dvd backup? iv heard that you can backup your dvds as long as you keep the originals?.is that true? also can you give one away to your friend free of charge or would that be breaking the law?

It's illegal to copy any form of copyrighted video except in the case of fair use which does not allow copying the whole video, even as a "backup".

[marshalljames]

"In Jersey everthings legal as long as you don't get caught"...

[ViRaL1]

Is that why when they pull up and say 'Let's go for a ride', and escort you into the back seat, they always drive to Jersey?

[aggies11]

In defense of a few points

What I was describing, is the copyright law, in Canada. More specifically, what I can remember from a few treatise(s) I have read on it. I may ofcourse be mistake, since it has been a few months since I last read any, but it's what I remember the contents being.

More specifically, the point that "copying for your own personal private use" was a recognized exception. With no actual mention of it being a "backup", and always having the original in your posession. It was fine to make a copy for yourself, as long as it is only for you, and you do not distribute it, or copy it for anyone else. Which leads to the "it's illegal to upload, but not to download" scenario.

Further: I was not trying to equate stealing of a mule, with copying of intellectual property. Merely showing that our past, our roots, lie in concepts firmly seated in the physical world. And how this causes problems with the fairly new concepts of "information" and intellectual property. Property whose "essence" does not lie in the physical world. Such that we have no past experiences to draw upon, and thus there is alot of uncertainty regarding "exactly what to do". Ie. Ask anyone "Is stealing a mule wrong?" and the answer is rather uniformly "no". Where if it's "Is copying a CD wrong?" there starts to be some serious deviation in responses, things like "Nothing is actually Stolen. The original isn't harmed. Nothing is actually taken away" etc etc. I'm not necessarily agreeing with those sentiments, merely pointing out that such considerations are brought up. And all this confusion, and dissent comes from the fact that these concepts, (ip, digital information, etc) are not intuitive.

The final point that I thought interesting to consider, was the idea that alot of the reasoning behind the "moral" and ethical issues involved, seem to be largely capitalistic. The individual rather than the whole. The right to accumulate ridiculous sums of money.

Again, these aren't arguments or viewpoints I am trying to put across. Merely observations that I find interesting, and thought worthy of discussion .

Aggies

[proxyx99]

I can understand the tone of your post, you seem dissatisfied, but most of all very confused. You say that intellectual property concept is fairly new. L. Da Vinci protected his ideas by using "mirrored" script. Every culture has some major unresolved mysteries (Egypt, Maya, India etc.) that remained such due to high level of protection and limited access (priests and other privileged). So the concept of "idea" protection is almost as old as humanity. The need to protect intellectual property was never confusing or underestimated. Only the medium evolved and what follows the methods of protection. You say that when CD is copied nothing happened. The original was untouched. True but by copying you have produced an unauthorized copy that was never paid for and expanded the number of users by 1. That violates the rights of the author. Don't forget that every author wants to collect royalties to be able to continue working. Would you prefer to work for free? Your notion that copyright laws are immoral and capitalistic is also incorrect. Most communist countries have adopted UCC (Universal Copyright Convention - 1952) very early just like most of the western world. This has to do with the recognition of the author’s rights to his intellectual property. In fact USA has adopted Bern Convention almost 100 years after its inception. These conventions provide for uniform standards in all member countries. I would suggest that you do some reading before posting your thoughts.

[aggies11]

Well,the term I was going for is "relatively new" Human beings have a history of *many* thousands of years. But i'm also talking more along the lines of public conciousness. The fact that for the majority of people, it's a difficult concept to wrap your head around. (lots of debate, confusion, and grey areas).

You say that when CD is copied nothing happened. The original was untouched. True but by copying you have produced an unauthorized copy that was never paid for and expanded the number of users by 1. That violates the rights of the author

- Well, thats not necessarily what I say, merely an example of the types of arguments you see (to illustrate the point that opinions on the subject are not uniform).

I read a very interesting article once, on the concept of copyright, and the origins of copyright law. It basically brought up the point that the purpose of copyright is not to "protect the individual", but actually to protect society. The idea being that "if ideas/inventions/innovation", things all deemed beneficial and possibly necessary to society, were not given some sort of protection so that the originators could benefit some way, that people would largely stop inventing. (Why bother inventing the tv, when joe next door can buy one, take it apart, and then start selling them himself.) So in order to keep encouraging this sort of activity, some protections were set up to allow them to keep their livelihood, if you will. So it's not because it's the "right" of the individual, but simply because it's a way for society to get more innovation.

So fastforward to recent times, and we see that things have changed. It is now mostly centered on the individual (which interestlingly enough, is often "the corporation"). We go way beyond ensuring livelihood and the continued production of innovative ideas. It's about making as much money as ridiculously possible, all concerns for the betterment of society be damned. Just look at the length of copyrights and other such protections. They go way beyond the length of time required to "make enough money to continue producing ideas" to have a livelihood, into "milk the idea for as much as you can, spawning a corporate dynasty".

You often hear the ideas that "without copyright enforcement etc" there would be no music, no art. Which is one I always like because, obviously, music is only an invention of the 19th and 20th century. Back before the time when you couldn't become a millionaire making music, there world lay silent, because *no one* thought it worthwhile to create song...

I won't say that these sentiments are only found in the western world, afterall greed is universal. (One can actually argue that greed, and lust for power/control, are one of the primary reasons why communism has failed)

Ultimately our discussions regarding ethics and morales, should be a question of "what is fair?", finding the balance between both individual livelihood, and the interests of society as a whole.

Aggies

[proxyx99]

This is a really difficult dilemma, how to balance the interests of the society without harming the prime motives beyond inventive or artistic process. That is why copyright and patent laws give artists/inventors limited, not absolute protection. As much as society has an interest in incorporating the idea into the public domain it must not remove incentives for people to continue creative process. In our world it translates into money. Whether ridiculous or not, more is always better. That feeds the progress.