Questions on Legality

[macleod]

we have K-Marts here, however, they, IMO, are on their way out. Also IMO, Wal-Mart is much better than K-Mart.

Those questions I posed are the ones that in my mind, blow the government groups statements out of the water. I'll even say, if I bring it back, I pay a nominal fee for the new media, but NO, I have to rebuy the license. That doesnt make sense at all. Their own arguments have a lot of holes in it. Its greed pure and simple.

I understand why piracy abounds in todays world. Just look at all of the stuff out there. Although I understand how to do a lot of "illegal" things, I dont do them. I have my own moral compass and am led by that. Like I said, I have been backing up peoples' home VHS tapes to DVD to protect their memories (hmm, some would say all this knowledge is a bad thing). My customers that will have their child's birth,birthday, passed-on parents, put on high quality digital media would say that they are grateful that I have been dealing in the "dark arts" (oh crap, a harry potter reference ). I am proud of what I do for these people. This whole site and the majority of the people on it are all doing the ethical thing with the knowledge they have gained. I look at myself as a tax paying law abiding person and I get ticked when laws are imposed that are for the minority and not the majority. Yes, anyone with this knowledge could do something illegal with it. Most of us, however, use our powers for good and not evil. Certain groups need to get a clue to that fact.

These groups are creating half of their problems. A lot of people fall into the same category for a number of things. We all bitch about the price of gas and milk. We love our country (although each of our contry's have their own problems). God loving/fearing folks. When our discretionary income becomes available, we look at CD's which cost from $14-$22 and DVD's and software, etc. Hmmmm, people can over pay for these items or get them for free. I look at piracy as a form of capitalism, albiet not the best form. Fair prices to the consumer. Does MS Office REALLY cost $300 to develop, market, produce, profit? Is that reasonable. I am all for people making a profit on their works, but when it is a monopoly or an ogalopoy (cant remember the correct spelling), that isnt right either. Instead of these groups saying that piracy is unfair, maybe they should concentrate on making these people play fair with consumers.

I also read the thread on the guy that got busted with the camcorder. I had to laugh for a number of reasons. 1)movie theatres with night vision goggles and metal detectors??? WTF!?!?!? Our schools dont have these things. The men and women overseas (regardless of opinions of why US/Britian, etc folks are there, they are our citizens) dont have this. Our stores, etc. dont have this. This expense for what, a couple of kids pirating movies that may/may not cost someone money. Hmm. Here is a concept, lower your frickin' ticket prices. I havent been to a theatre for at least 5 years. Why. Last I checked ticket prices are in the $8 range per person. Are these people nuts? 2)They guy was dumb enough to do this and not put tape over the red light or something 3) it does nothing for the honest people

I am a "reasonable person theory" kind of guy. What would the reasonable person do. Pay bloated prices (at least that is the way a lot of us perceive it) or find other avenues for getting our entertainment. Last rant, this is all over our FRICKIN' entertainment. Putting people in jail for pirating is apparently worse than:

1) murder
2) protecting our boys overseas (or in the same country, depending on where you are)
3)protecting our children in school
4)spousal abuse
5)defrauding the govt through tax evasion
6)stealing from companies

I mean really, what the hell are these morons thinking....

Ok rant over (for now)

[indolikaa]

As I've said before, ranting is good.

[housepig]

I own the license to listen view the material. Its not what the media is, is what ON the media.

yes. on the single piece of media that you bought, not on all media everywhere.

as far as audio, there is an exception in the copyright law in the U.S. that permits home taping (format shifting) so you can, for example, record a cassette for your car of an l.p. that you own.

for dvd or video, there is no codified legal right to format shift for alternate players or backup purposes.

[Capmaster]

macleod is right-on in his assessment. That's a pet peeve of mine too. So much time is spent on reporting about some trivial crap. Meanwhile some kid is abused and killed but that isn't newsworthy enough ...old news, so instead they run a 30-second piece on Paris Hilton's new series.

The public focuses on what's handed to it by the media .......people don't want to think independently ....just listen to some of the reasons people vote for a particular candidate in an election and you'll see.

People are happier when someone can interpret events for them. "Spoon-feed me what I need to know and don't muddy the issue with facts". That leaves them more time to go pump their abs at the gym, or go drive to Subway, in their $40,000 Lexus SUV, for a low-carb submarine, patting themselves on the back all the way for being "all that".

Then it's home to watch Paris Hilton pretend she's a farmer and not a spoiled rich slut, or some cookie-cutter sitcom with canned cliches and enough sexual innuendo to titillate the mindless masses, or some reality show about people willing to whore themselves out to make a few bucks.

Hey, I was in a good mood ..... :P

[macleod]

with what housepig said, in my warped little mind, I may be lumping audio and video into the same thing, but I believe I keep hearing "them" make references back and forth.

Throwing audio out the window (and with the some of the crap they have out there today, I should do that literally ). I own a VHS tape of <whatever>. I own a license to view it. So, I should go into best buy and say, "guess what y'all, my VHS player crapped out and I want one of 'dem new fangled dvd players. Oh yea, here are my 400 overpriced VHS tapes that I would like the DVD version of". In my mind, they should 1:1 exchange my VHS tapes for the DVD's OR for a nominal fee (although DVD is much cheaper to make) make the trade. What's the difference since I own the license to the media.

Another way to put it. Bob and I walk into best buy to purchase the license to view <whatever>. I have the VHS version of <whatever>. Should I pay the same $20 that bob has to pay since I already own the license? (man, starting to look like the ole' who's on first bit ). This is where my confusion comes in. Bob and I should NOT be paying the same amount as I ALREADY OWN the license. How much is the royalty/license and how much is the cost to make the actual media. I half expect this arguement to show up in one of gallagher's routines (one of the few comedians that is funny AND makes you think).

[Xesdeeni]

I eliminate the problem entirely.

If I buy a DVD or CD and I end up liking it, I buy a second copy and store in a very safe place.

So, just out of curiosity, if I buy a DVD, and the company that makes it stops making it (like Disney does), we would all agree that they didn't forfeit their copyright (although I have a radical view that this should be reviewed, especially when the original material was in some way displayed publicly - like a OTA broadcast, or was made available publicly in the first place). So now I can't buy a replacement (and for the sake of this question, assume no-one is selling their copy on eBay) and I decide to "back it up" at that point. Do any of you think this pokes a hole in the argument the MPAA has made that a "backup" should be buying another one, even if you agreed with that view while the DVD was available?

Xesdeeni

[indolikaa]

An excellent question, Xesdeeni.


It is my personal opinion that if an entity does not keep an item in print and available for distribution, the consumer should have the right to take whatever action necessary to backup and protect their investment.

We live in the year 2004. Electronic distribution should (at least to a large degree) eliminate the need to allow material to go out of print.

My dad has a collection of LPs from the 50's, 60's and 70's that numbers over 2000. He has a first-release 45 of 'Rock Around the Clock' that still plays well enough to be appreciated. I have just started to work on transferring his vinyl to something that isn't 30-50 years old, and his 45 collection is supposed to be a collector's dream.

Vinyl deteriorates over time. What about my right to protect his investment by transferring the music to another media that will survive another 50 years? Almost none of this collection has been released on CD, and most of it probably never will be.

I understand the argument that I purchased a license. But nowhere did it say my license was finite.

[RabidDog]

Vinyl deteriorates over time. What about my right to protect his investment by transferring the music to another media that will survive another 50 years? Almost none of this collection has been released on CD, and most of it probably never will be.

SO in fact it is your duty to protect this stuff.
Old episodes of steptoe&son, now considered classics were thrown into the dumpster, and it was only because an old fan noticed and saved a few that some were saved! Make no mistake the Mpaa wants old stuff to disappear as this means more cultural "room" for the new, also there is no money in old stuff as its out of copyright

[adam]

Vinyl deteriorates over time. What about my right to protect his investment by transferring the music to another media that will survive another 50 years? Almost none of this collection has been released on CD, and most of it probably never will be.

Well, any wasting asset depreciates over time. When it happens to your car or your computer or your office building you do whatever you can to prolong its life, and then you live with the fact that nothing lasts forever. When you buy a product you don't buy a right to own a working copy of it forever, you own a right to possess and use it for as long as its useful life. In regards to cds and DVDs and vinyl records, you didn't buy the content you bought the disk, so when it craps out that's the end of your investment.

That's the problem with intellectual property. Its so easy to copy that its often hard to realize that each disk is a unique product. If you want a "backup" of that product, you really should buy a 2nd one. I know I sound like Jack Valanti, but don't get me wrong. I'm all for Fair Use backups, I just think its important to realize WHAT we are backing up.

Does anyone know if there is actually a country where there is a law that specifically states that I cannot make a backup of a DVD that contains copyrighted material (maybe not with these exact words, but something that without any doubt means what I mentioned)?

petar just about every country that has copyright laws has exactly that. Copyrights are inherantly broad. A copyright literally means a right to prohibit copying of any kind. So all copyright law starts with this basic presumption and then lists exceptions to it. Some countries like Canada have made an exception for backups generally. Some countries like the US have made exceptions for certain media (ie: computer software). Probably all countries have made exceptions for certain uses regardless of source media. But unless the country has a particular law or caselaw which says that copying a DVD for backup purposes is not a violation of copyright, then it is illegal. Most countries with copyright laws have not made this exception.

[Defcon]

Not to alter the original posters topic.....

I was curious (legality) if one had a VHS original and you made a dvd back up copy of the same movie from a DVD..... Would that be illegal since you already own it on VHS ???

[indolikaa]

Vinyl deteriorates over time. What about my right to protect his investment by transferring the music to another media that will survive another 50 years? Almost none of this collection has been released on CD, and most of it probably never will be.

edit out 1st paragraph...

That's the problem with intellectual property. Its so easy to copy that its often hard to realize that each disk is a unique product. If you want a "backup" of that product, you really should buy a 2nd one. I know I sound like Jack Valanti, but don't get me wrong. I'm all for Fair Use backups, I just think its important to realize WHAT we are backing up.

I've already confessed to being one who does do that. I've also previously stated I'd have no qualms with shoving my foot up Valenti's rear-end.

My concern is that intellectual property withers and dies over time because it is not preserved for future generations to enjoy. Maybe in the past it was due to technology barriers, but now it comes down to whether or not the 'property' can produce a profit or not.

I'd like my brother's grandkids to hear some of these records. Will they like them. I seriously doubt it! But it might help them to appreciate who their great-grandfather is (or was) a little bit more. To do that, I've got to move them at least once to another format. I'm not looking to profit from it, nor am I looking to distribute it. I'm looking to preserve it.

And that's how I see it. In the eyes of the RIAA, I'm probably wrong and should serve 25 years in prison. But I sleep just fine at night.

[adam]

Not to alter the original posters topic.....

I was curious (legality) if one had a VHS original and you made a dvd back up copy of the same movie from a DVD..... Would that be illegal since you already own it on VHS ???

Depends on the laws of your country. Unless your country has a general allowance for backups or a special allowance for format shifting, the answer is no. Under US law the answer is probably no, though this is one area that is about as grey as it gets.

indolikaa I understand the sentiment, but its still a product like any other. I may like for my great grandchildren to see the car I drive now, but if it doesn't last that long than what am I to do? My great grandchildren didn't buy the car, and when it was sold to me there was no guarantee that it would last that long or that a similar model would still be manufactured 2 generations later. A vinyl record is no different.

Now you obviously have pretty noble reasons for wanting to make a backup. And its obvious that there is no stopping people from making backups, for both legitimate and illegitimate reasons. And its obvious that copyright holders have an interest in not allowing even legitimate backups since that cuts into future sales. And as you pointed out, this creates problems because by the time someone might need to replace the item, it may no longer be available since its no longer marketable.

So to me, the only economical solution is to charge more for each sale, and grant the right to back it up. Presumably the industry will level out and the increased price will be offset by lost future sales. (repeat purchases). This is essentially what Canada does by charging a tax on backup media (blank cdrs, dvdrs, VHS tapes etc..). This tax works as a subsidy to the various affected industries. It sounds like a good idea to me, but good luck getting a tax like that to pass in the States. And good luck getting the MPAA or RIAA to ever support the right to make a backup.

[indolikaa]

So to me, the only economical solution is to charge more for each sale, and grant the right to back it up. Presumably the industry will level out and the increased price will be offset by lost future sales. (repeat purchases). This is essentially what Canada does by charging a tax on backup media (blank cdrs, dvdrs, VHS tapes etc..). This tax works as a subsidy to the various affected industries. It sounds like a good idea to me, but good luck getting a tax like that to pass in the States. And good luck getting the MPAA or RIAA to ever support the right to make a backup.

That solution would be just fine with me, too.

[petar]

petar just about every country that has copyright laws has exactly that. Copyrights are inherantly broad. A copyright literally means a right to prohibit copying of any kind. So all copyright law starts with this basic presumption and then lists exceptions to it. Some countries like Canada have made an exception for backups generally. Some countries like the US have made exceptions for certain media (ie: computer software). Probably all countries have made exceptions for certain uses regardless of source media. But unless the country has a particular law or caselaw which says that copying a DVD for backup purposes is not a violation of copyright, then it is illegal. Most countries with copyright laws have not made this exception

Thanks for responding Adam. I trust your experience and knowledge on all these legal issues. But if the laws are that precise what strikes me is how the hell did they get implemented on the first place.

If I buy a DVD, I own it. It's my private property. In my home I can do with it whatever I want, as long as it's for private purposes. I understand that what's on the actual DVD is copyrighted but that doesn't mean it doesn't belong to me (that particular copy). If I've paid to purchase a product, the whole product belongs to me. I stress "purchase" because in my understanding that's what I do - I buy the DVD with its content. I don't see anything on the case that states otherwise. It does state that copying is prohibited but then if I own it nobody has the right to tell me what I do with my legally owned property in the privacy of my home. I can watch it on my DVD player or I can set it on fire if I want to.

Can someone name another product where you are being told that though you own it you are not allowed to do certain things even though they would qualify as private and domestic use? I buy a TV and I can't do whatever I want with the remote because someone has copyright on it? Or a simplier example (remote isn't that easy to copy) - I buy a magazine and the story written inside maybe copyrighted but I can still photocopy it for my own uses and won't be breaking any laws.

[Rookie64]

Can someone name another product where you are being told that though you own it you are not allowed to do certain things even though they would qualify as private and domestic use?

hmmm....well....

you can buy a bottle of asprin...but are only allowed to take 1 or two tablets a day

you can buy a camera...but you can't take pictures through your neighbor's window while she or he is undressing

you can buy a TV...but you can't throw it into the bathtub filled with water while it's plugged in

you can buy a gun...but you can't shoot your neighbor with it

you can buy a can of hairspray...but you can't make a bomb with it

you can buy a book of matches...but you can't burn down your house

you can buy a set of drums...but you can't start banging on them in the middle of the night if you're disturbing the neighbors while they sleep

you can buy a lawn mower...but you can't start cutting your grass at 2 AM

you can buy a dozen eggs...but you can't throw 'em at passing vehicles

you can buy a computer...but you can't download copyrighted music with it


Sorry...couldn't resist 8)

[petar]

hmmm....well....

you can buy a bottle of asprin...but are only allowed to take 1 or two tablets a day

No. I can take the whole bottle. Will kill me but it's not against the law

you can buy a camera...but you can't take pictures through your neighbor's window while she or he is undressing

That's not private use. I'm affecting someone else.

you can buy a TV...but you can't throw it into the bathtub filled with water while it's plugged in

No. I can. Will kill me but not against the law

you can buy a gun...but you can't shoot your neighbor with it

Not where I live but even if it would be legal to buy a gun, shooting your neighbor, again, isn't a private use

you can buy a can of hairspray...but you can't make a bomb with it

Not the same. You are altering the product. I'm not altering the product by copying it.

you can buy a book of matches...but you can't burn down your house

Says who? Insurance won't pay for it but I still can.

you can buy a set of drums...but you can't start banging on them in the middle of the night if you're disturbing the neighbors while they sleep

Again, not private use

you can buy a lawn mower...but you can't start cutting your grass at 2 AM

Again...

you can buy a dozen eggs...but you can't throw 'em at passing vehicles

Again...

you can buy a computer...but you can't download copyrighted music with it

Again...


Seems you didn't get my point. By private/domestic use I mean the product has influence on me and me only (maybe it's my English; sorry I'm not native English speaker).

[adam]

Petar, you buy the disk and a license to use the content. In the license it basically states that your only rights to the content are to watch it, and you agree to that when you purchase it. There is nothing stopping you from buying a different license (commercial) which would allow you to make copies and sell them. Copyrights have to be pervasive to put affected industries on even ground with others. I mean you can't copy a car. No matter what someone does with it, they are never going to divest the seller of the benefit of that first sale. With books, audio cds, movies etc... it would be very easy for a single customer to make a fairly significant dent in potential sales by distributing copies. Copyrights provide incentive to create intellectual property and allow the copyright holder a remedy when someone does infringe on that copyright.

I think the best answer to your question is that copyright laws in effect aren't this pervasive so its a moot point. I think almost every one of your responses to Rookie64 was that copying a DVD, for example, falls more under private behavior. Well there is no way or even reason to enforce a copyright against an individual for private use. It would almost never be profitable. So regardless of what the law says you are pretty much safe, its just a matter of wanting to do the right thing or not. So what I've always said when asked about alleged Fair Use backups is to just let your conscience be your guide.

[petar]

Adam, I agree with everything you say. I understand that intellectual property needs to be protected and I'm all for it (as I mentioned in another tread, I own a DVD rentals store and most certainly won't be happy if one of my customers makes a copy of my DVDs are distributes them to all other customers). But it seems that the protection has been done at a cost of my basic freedom - to do whatever I want with a good I legally own in my own home (as long as it's for private/domestic use).

Basically I don't have problems with anything in the copyright, except the "no copying" part. Copying doesn't immediately equal distribution or sale. As such copying is a private use.

I know what you are saying that this law cannot be enforced upon an individual (I can't believe a judge can be bothered to issue a warrant to search my home for personal copies of DVDs) but it does affect things like software to make copies (DVDXCopy was declared illegal, wasn't it?).

[Rookie64]

Seems you didn't get my point. By private/domestic use I mean the product has influence on me and me only (maybe it's my English; sorry I'm not native English speaker).

What I was attempting to point out, is that you're responsible for everything you buy/own...and even though you own things, you can't just do anything you want with 'em.

I think it was my English that wasn't clear

No. I can take the whole bottle. Will kill me but it's not against the law

Actually, it IS against the law to attemp suicide - and you'd be 302ed (code for the mental health department) for evaluation

[gmatov]

And in the midst of this rampage we have indolikaa who wants to take perfectly good 30-40-50 year old vinyl and copy to CD-DVD to "preserve" for "posterity".

Good grief, we don't know if the "best" quality disks will still play tomorrow. The vinyl still plays now. And, as it is an analog format, invented over a 100 years ago, by one T. Edison, can be reinvented in case of, say, a nuclear holocaust by, any survivors.

Riddle me how long it would take for some future brains to reinvent the competing DVD standards, and play your "posterity" copies, from scratch.

Even granting that they will have perceptible data on them in a year's time.

I have taken to dating all my burns, just to see if they fail at a given point. Be interesting to see how long they last, on average.

Cheers,
George

Copy to your heart's content. When Adam is done with school, he may take your case, if you get nailed. 'Course, he may get a job with "them" and be prosecuting you, too.

[petar]

What I was attempting to point out, is that you're responsible for everything you buy/own...and even though you own things, you can't just do anything you want with 'em.

This is where we disagree. If I use a product for private purposes (i.e. I'm in my home and I'm not affecting anyone) I can do anything I want with it. Let's take one of your examples from before.

you can buy a set of drums...but you can't start banging on them in the middle of the night if you're disturbing the neighbors while they sleep

Even though this is hardly private use of the product, if your neighbor reports you, you won't get charged with illegal use of the drums. You get charged with distrurbing your neighbor. The product you use is irrelevant.

My point is: you are responsible for your actions when they affect other people but this has nothing to do with the product you use. Who do I affect when I copy a DVD for my own use?

Actually, it IS against the law to attemp suicide - and you'd be 302ed (code for the mental health department) for evaluation

I didn't know that. OK, so I can't attemp suicide but copying a DVD is hardly life endangering (unless when I connect my external burner to the power socket I get electrocuted ).

[spiritraveller]

I'd like to add my 2 cents (not an answer, but a question). I have read and believe that I understand the (il)legalities of doing backups. I do home movie VHS backups for customers, but through the process of learning, know of the other ways to back stuff up. Anyway, the question (and I hope I can explain it well enough) is that the MPAA/RIAA (whatever) says that you do not own the music/video, merely that you have a license to view/listen to it. So does that mean:

Do they really say that? That would be an absurd position for them to take, since you don't agree to anything of the sort when you buy a cd. Of course you can sell your used cds, etc. The thing that gives you the right to make copies for your own use (but not for anyone else's) is the Fair Use Doctrine.

1) I have a record of a Metallica album and I want the tape or CD, I should be required to purchase the tape or CD of it since record players are all but gone in today's world? Based on some interpretations I have made, I should be able to take the album to my local best buy and say that I want a tape or CD of it since I have already purchased the license to listen to it? I actually own the albums, tapes, AND CD of various music.

You don't have any such license. You don't need any such license. You own the media, and with that ownership comes the right to listen to it. The only thing you can't do is make unauthorized copies of it (unless said copying would fall under the Fair Use Doctrine).

From a reading, I was told that I dont own the media, but rather the ability to listen to it. Shouldnt someone provide the method for me to listen to the music/watch the movie? (a little far fetched, I admit).

You bought the media... without agreeing to any strange terms, so how could anyone argue that you don't own the media? You have a property interest in the media. You do not have a property interest in the copyright itself.

The way I look at it, the rules that these groups have imposed are not fair

They have not imposed any of the rules you speak of. I don't know that they say you can't make a copy for your own use, but if they do, they are simply full of hot air.

Just because someone says something doesn't make it true.

[spiritraveller]

Actually, it IS against the law to attemp suicide - and you'd be 302ed (code for the mental health department) for evaluation

Totally OT, but...

It used to be illegal to commit suicide. Today, there is no state in the union that outlaws it.

You don't have to commit a crime to be committed to a mental health facility.

[macleod]

spirittraveler. I read over your responses and I think you are making some assumptions based on the "pushed to the limit" interpretations of fair use (I am talking about the United States if that makes a difference).

Everyone's interpretation is/may be a little bit different (which is why we have some of these lovely debates), but from my understanding of what the MPAA/RIAA (I know their different, I just cant remember who belongs to what -and dont want to know) is saying is that you pay a royalty to listen to music or watch a film (there are a few differences).

One of the things you mentioned with selling a CD. At the time that you sell the CD, you also sell your rights away to that particular music. Basically, giving away your license. (another reason that what "they" say doesnt make sense).

There was an article that someone posted awhile back that talked about when a person is in violation of copyright law. From what I remember (and hopefully someone can remember the location of that document), there was one in particular that was completely stupid. It had to do with if person a was at a mall and taping their kids recital. If some music was playing in the background and it was audible, you would be in violation of copyright for recording the music onto your camcorder. From what I remember that document explains in more detail copyright and supports the "license" theory I was talking about.