New DVD copy protection???

[Sefy]

If they didn't want us to copy anything, they should have not invented any backup device or even the copy command :P

It's about time they take responsibility for their own actions
How dare they give the common person a way to copy things

[jimmalenko]

This has turned out to be quite an amusing thread. Gurm can't provide a solid reference to prove that the backup of a DVD under Fair Use has been sanctioned as legal by the law, Adam can't find a reference to a case that does not exist. It's like two scientists going head to head to prove that the chicken came before the egg.


The point that bothers me is that petar has outlaid the cash to purchase said DVD on behalf of his own business. The DVD is for commercial use - for renting by customers of his business. As Supreme2k pointed out to me, wouldn't he lose all "personal" rights to fair use, time shifting and/or format shifting because this DVD was not purchased for his own personal use ?


The legal systems of most of the countries represented here are based on the statute of Innocence until proven guilty. Does that also mean legal until proven illegal ? A I said, nothing is illegal until you get caught and it gets proven that what you have done is illegal.

We could go the legal/moral/ethical debate for hours and I think if the truth be known, because there have been no precedents to hang their hats on, Baldrick and the other administrators of this site or moderators cannot clearly and definitively state one way or the other that X is illegal whereas converting X to Y is permitted under format shifting. No one really knows if this video stuff is legal or illegal, so it sits in a grey area of it probably is legal but we do not know for sure.

[Gurm]

You're very correct, I can't cite cases.

But it's ALWAYS been legal to run off a copy of what you OWN.

Which, of course, is why software companies now want you to think that you don't OWN anything anymore. You're just "licensing" it from them.

But Christ Almighty, I have actually purchased software that ENCOURAGED you to copy it. Right in the manual "it is recommended that you purchase a blank floppy disc and copy this software to it for backup purposes".

I mean, DAT tapes and recorders all came with a built-in TAX because it was ASSUMED that you would make perfect copies of your music with them. ASSUMED. Companies aren't allowed to charge you for breaking the law.

But y'know, I am also not a hot-shot IP lawyer... instead, I make my living off something OTHER than the misery of others. *ahem*

- Gurm

[Sefy]

@jimmalenko, just so no one gets confused, i'm not a Moderator, i'm just in a blue color, but i'm a regular user like everyone else here, ever since I got a yellow card from Baldrick, i've requested to have my status revoked, basicly, don't take me as a Moderator here

@Gurm, that last comment of yours was irrelevent and should have never even been included, if I were you, i'd apologise and remove it. I find it to be rude and distasteful and rather hurtful.

PS: I Don't think Baldrick or any Moderator here can or will take responsibilty for someone elses actions, this webpage provides information for free, what someone does with this information, is their own responsibility, like selling a gun is legal in stores, however, using that gun to murder someone, is caused by the person owning it, it's not the fault of the one who gave it to you.

I know it's a harsh example, but it's the best I could come up with at 4 am

[adam]

So are you saying that this site is not in the "grey area", and that it is actually condoning (and teaching) completely illegal activities?

It sounded like you were referring to only archival backup, but you strayed to copies, period. I don't know if it has been applied to entertainment media, but software backup constitutes "fair use". As a matter of fact, it has been recommended for years, since floppies (and before).*

If you read my post you'll see I addressed software backups.

Archival copying of any copyrigted material is obviously always going to be presumably illegal under Title 17. That is the whole point. Unless you have an exception to that (Fair Use, or the copyright limitation for computer software) then what you do is illegal.

Software backups do not constitute Fair Use. There is a specific provision in copyright law which allows for computer software backups. If you would like to look it up, its 17 USCS section 117. Its an entirely different provision from Fair Use, and you'll see that it only applies to computer software, not DVDs, VHS, cassette, tapes, or anything else.

Most of the information on this site can be used just as easily for non-copyrighted material as it can for copyrighted material. This site can't take responsibility for how its readers use the information. For that information which would almost surely be used exclusively for copyrighted material, well yes the site does operate in somewhat of a grey area. In some countries (Canada) it is legal to make archival copies, so there are legal uses for all of the guides on this site for that reason alone. It is no secret that Fair Use does not allow backups for DVDs or VHS in most countries. But the idea is that if anyone were ever prosecuted for making an archival backup, they would have a strong Fair Use argument. Essentially, we are operating on the assumption that what we do is only illegal because a court hasn't had the occasion to address the issue yet.

[adam]

jimmalenko: Actually something becomes illegal as soon as a law is passed prohibiting that action. As I already posted earlier, it is illegal to copy copyrighted material under Title 17. If you you insist that someone must be prosecuted under Title 17 before the law takes effect, well then I can surely cite about 50 years worth of caselaw. Enforcing copyrights is nothing new.

You're right I can't cite cases that don't exist, but it should be enough that I cite the law making the process itself illegal. You don't need caselaw that says hopping on one leg while smoking crack is illegal, if we have laws prohibiting crack use under any circumstances.

Copyright law is like tax law, its broad protection for the copyright holder with specific and limited exceptions. If you fall under one of those exceptions then what you do is excused, and legal. If you don't, then any unauthorized copying is a violation of that copyright unless proven otherwise. Maybe this sounds harsh, but over 50 years or so Fair Use has been raised enough that just about any defense left has already been codified, so everyone should know where they stand fairly well, if they bother to actually read it. DVD is one of those grey areas though. But unlike what Gurm purports, there is actually no caselaw at all on it, so there is simply no way it can be considered a Fair Use right until that affirmative defense is actually raised and ruled on.

Needless to say, it would be very difficult to catch someone in the act of copying their DVDs. It'd be even more difficult to even conceive of any instance in which prosecuting such a person would be feasible for the copyright holder. THAT is why its a grey area, because there is no reason to enforce the law under that particular circumstance. Its like jaywalking.

[adam]

You're very correct, I can't cite cases.

But it's ALWAYS been legal to run off a copy of what you OWN.

And once again, you are just making this up. This is simply not true, you just refuse to accept it. You don't have to like or even understand the law in order to accept it as it is. Currently backing up a copyrighted DVD, VHS, cassette tape, or audio cd is a violation of that copyright. The action is most certainly not protected under Fair Use or under any other limitation or exception to copyright law. You can't cite any case or law stating otherwise because one simply doesn't exist.

But Christ Almighty, I have actually purchased software that ENCOURAGED you to copy it. Right in the manual "it is recommended that you purchase a blank floppy disc and copy this software to it for backup purposes".

As I told Supreme2k, I already addressed the copyright limitation for computer software. Yes you can make archival copies of computer software, and only computer software under 17 USCS 117. And yes, many programs encourage you to excercise this right. Many commercial licenses actually REQUIRE you to make a copy and, keep it at the corporate office for example. But this has nothing to do with DVDs, VHS tapes, cassette tapes, or audio cds, and it has nothing at all to do with Fair Use. They are two separate provisions of Title 17.

I think your misunderstanding is a combination of two things. You are confusing the limitation of copyrights for computer software with all media in general, and you are confusing time shifting with archival copies. These are very common mistakes, like I said, it seems most people who rant about the DMCA just assume that Fair Use allows you to make archival copies of anything you own. But this is simply not true.

So in conclusion, you can copy computer software for backup purposes. You can record broadcasts off of the radio or television. You cannot make an archival copy of any other copyrighted form of media. Despite what you think, this is actually what the current law says, and its been that way for many years.

[hiptune]

And once again, you are just making this up. This is simply not true, you just refuse to accept it. You don't have to like or even understand the law in order to accept it as it is. Currently backing up a copyrighted DVD, VHS, cassette tape, or audio cd is a violation of that copyright. The action is most certainly not protected under Fair Use or under any other limitation or exception to copyright law. You can't cite any case or law stating otherwise because one simply doesn't exist.

I hate to break it to you Adam, but I can site the case. It is a legendary case that has been refered to over the last two decades many many times. It is the Betamax case. You should look into this, and understand that it covers not only recording broadcasts for personal use, but also music and films for personal use. This generally means one copy and no more, but there are even exceptions there. You can copy a CD for the car, and this has been shown in court as legal and fair.

Jeff

[adam]

hiptune I'm quite familiar with the sony vs. betamax case, and even brought it up earlier in this thread and explained the holding. Nowhere does it even suggest that personal archival copying is excusable under copyright law.

The complete holding of the Supreme Court can be read here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417

The only ruling they made was that VTR's have a substantial non-infringing use, that being time-shifting, and that time-shifting constitutes a "Fair Use", and is thus excusable under copyright law. The ruling WAS in fact limited only to time-shifting which applies only to broadcasts. Time-shifting only even allows you to watch the copy ONCE, at which point you must erase the program. Obviously this is nothing like making an archival copy of a commercially bought VHS tape or DVD.

Archival copies are not protected under the Fair Use exceptions to copyright. You can read Title 17 in its entirety, including the Fair Use provisions here, http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/index.html

Sony v. Betamax is of course cited under the Fair Use provisions (well only in the actual code, which I can't link to), standing for the proposition that time-shifting is a Fair Use. No where does it state that archival copying is a Fair Use.

Copying your cd to have one for your car is NOT legal. Don't get me wrong, I think this should be considered a Fair Use, just like making an archival copy of a DVD. But there is no such case that I know of. If you want a copy for your car you are supposed to buy a second one.

BTW: as always I'm only talking about US law here. I know nothing about how foreign jurisdictions handle these issues.

[petar]

Hi guys,
Just to give you an update on my problem. I received a new copy of the House of Sand and Fog today and exactly the same problems repeated with this disc. Well, I'm back where I started .
I can again assume that it's one of the following:
- Bad batch. All the replacement copies also come from the same production line
- Something is intentionally done with this DVD to prevent it from ripping

The former is quite likely but I'm still puzzled about one thing. If something is wrong with the disc it should manifest on playback in some way, shouldn't it? Maybe not on all players, but on some. I just rang another friend that has a video rentals store and none of his customers complained about the disc either.

Adam, I still have doubts that this disc is correctly authored. I used DVD-Lab to create few NTSC DVDs and it always put the menus in VTS_xx_0.VOB and the movies in VTS_xx_1.VOB. Even when I didn't have a menu, it started the VOBs from 1. Are you sure movies can go in VTS_xx_0.VOB? I checked some more commercial DVDs and I still can't find a single one that has a VTS with a _0 and no _1 VOB file.

Just to clear one thing (maybe here we misunderstood each other). I know movies can go in menu PGCs and menus can go in movie PGCs but as far as the DVD structure is concerned a movie in a menu PGC is still a menu (but with no user interaction) and the DVD structure treats it as a menu, not movie, hence it will go in the VTS_xx_0.VOB file. Same applies vice versa. A menu in a movie (title) PGC is considered a movie with user interaction and the DVD structure will place it in the VTS_xx_1.VOB file.
This disc in VTS 6 has one menu PGC and one title PGC but there's only VTS_xx_0.VOB file, no VTS_xx_1.VOB file. Are you sure this is correct? Never seen (a Region 2) disc that has a VTS like this. In fact, never seen a VTS_xx_0.VOB file of 1G (you mentioned before that only when this file reaches 1G, another VOB file is created).

[adam]

The DVD standard does not make distinctions like that. You have various types of play items and you have various interactive options. You can put anything in the _0.VOB you want, and you can put anything in the _1.VOB that you want. It isn't defined by where it is stored, it is defined by how you author it. Just because you put a video track in the _0.vob, that doesn't make it a menu. Yes, the domain you store something in will have an effect on its functionality, but a hotspot button is a hotspot button, and a link is a link regardless of what domain it resides in.

A button over video feature in a main movie functions no differently then a main menu. Yes typically the _0.vob is used to store the menu's. This is not required, and some authoring packages don't even allow you to do this.

It is not required that you have a _1.vob either. Think about a VTS whose only asset is one that is stored in another VTS. What would it even put in the _1.vob? And again, all I can say is that I see this occurrence all the time in commercial DVDs.

In fact, never seen a VTS_xx_0.VOB file of 1G (you mentioned before that only when this file reaches 1G, another VOB file is created).

No, I said IF you author everything in the _0.vob then it won't start using the _1.vob until the set filesize (usually .99gig) is reached. If you are just authoring the menu's here, which is the industry standard, then it won't span into the next vob unless the menu's exceed 1 gig. I've seen this happen several times.

If you haven't done so already, maybe try sector extractor. Otherwise I guess you will just have to purchase your own copy. Without knowing anything in particular about Spanish law, my guess is that that is the only legal way for you to obtain a personal copy anyway. If its any consolation, I thought that movie stunk. Really good acting though.

[petar]

The DVD standard does not make distinctions like that. You have various types of play items and you have various interactive options. You can put anything in the _0.VOB you want, and you can put anything in the _1.VOB that you want. It isn't defined by where it is stored, it is defined by how you author it. Just because you put a video track in the _0.vob, that doesn't make it a menu

Yeah, I know this; what I was trying to say is that, at least here in "PAL Region 2", all the DVDs I've seen had the cells of the menu PGCs in _0.VOB (regardless whether the cells contain user interaction or not, as long as they are created as part of PGCs in the VTSM domain) whereas the cells of the title PGCs were in _1.VOB and beyond (again, regardless whether the video has buttons or not, as long as the PGCs are in the VTS domain). I'm yet to find a DVD that is not authored like this (and trust me, since I started this topic I checked a lot, all from different studios, production year...) which led me to believe that this is standard. But I guess the authoring differs here from North America.

It is not required that you have a _1.vob either. Think about a VTS whose only asset is one that is stored in another VTS. What would it even put in the _1.vob? And again, all I can say is that I see this occurrence all the time in commercial DVDs.

Definitely we author DVDs differently over here. Never seen this. The way they do it here is to put it in one VTS and two separate titles inside the same VTS. I actually didn't know what you just mentioned was possible (honestly, out of hundreds and hundreds of commercial DVDs I've ripped trying to learn the DVD structure, I've never seen this).

If you haven't done so already, maybe try sector extractor. Otherwise I guess you will just have to purchase your own copy. Without knowing anything in particular about Spanish law, my guess is that that is the only legal way for you to obtain a personal copy anyway. If its any consolation, I thought that movie stunk. Really good acting though.

Tried but there were two VOB files it couldn't extract. The same two from the first copy.
Did I lead you to believe I was ripping the DVDs to make a copy for me? No, that's not why I rip them. I rip them on my portable PC (I don't even burn them, nor shrink them) to watch them at home via my TV output. I delete them afterwards. If I want to watch the movie again, I take the original home (though I don't want to do this on the day of the release when every customer wants it).

I saw the movie day before yesterday actually (wasn't a good day for the business with the Spain-Russia football match, so it didn't get rented). Not my type of movie but my wife liked it though (cried her eyes out at the end).

Ah well, I saw the movie but it still bugs me why I can't rip it (if you remember my first post, DVD Decrypter and SmartRipper didn't even want to open the disc, DVD Shrink reported a CRC error in the CSS and only AnyDVD and Sector Extractor managed to get something out of it). Do you think the studio made a whole bunch of faulty DVDs or maybe they found some workaround to protect them from ripping, since they play just fine?

[Gurm]

Let me make an argument that is based on a little thing called LOGIC. I realize that this is seldom uninvolved in real life, and virtually never involved in the law, but let me make the argument anyway.

----------------

If it is ALWAYS ILLEGAL to make backups of copyrighted material, regardless of whether you own it or not...

THEN everything this site discusses is illegal.

BUT SINCE this site is legal, and the discussions here are legal, and the moderators draw clear distinctions on what is and isn't legal to discuss here...

THEN it can't possibly be ALWAYS ILLEGAL to make backups of copyrighted material.

-----------------

Now, in the previous argument you can substitute out "this site" and substitute in any of hundreds and thousands of legal uses.

In fact, if you buy a tune from iTunes, you can make as many copies as you like for yourself. One for the PC, one for the car, one for the MP3 player... you paid for it, you can copy it.

If it were ALWAYS ILLEGAL to copy the material, then why would you be allowed to do so, explicitly, in that case?

I could go on and on. But seriously, this argument is getting silly. It's like when someone says "well anal sex and blowjobs are illegal in all 50 states" (not true any more, but until recently it absolutely was). Happens anyway, is practiced by our President in public places... hence moot.

- Gurm

[adam]

I already explained why the guides and information on this site are legal, and it has nothing to do with your "logic." By your "logic" knives should be illegal because stabbing someone to death is always illegal, even though knives can be used for perfectly legal purposes. There is a thing called contributory copyright infringment, and that is essentially what you are accusing this site of. If you aid someone violate a copyright, then you can be held liable as well. but if you read the Sony v. Betamax case which I linked to, you'd see that merely providing the tools or the information to commit the copyright infringement is not contributory copyright infringement, as long as there is a substantial non-infringing use. I have already named several non-infringing uses for the information and guides on this site. (ie: copying of public domain material, legal archival copying in Canada, copying for Fair Use purposes-note that does NOT include archival copies.)

I also did not say its ALWAYS illegal to copy copyrighted material. I said such copying is always presumed to be a violation of the copyright unless you fall under an exception or limitation, and then I was thorough enough to explain the various exceptions to copyright law. Once again I'd like to direct you to the Sony v. Betamax case where almost this exact language was used by the Supreme Court in their analysis. That is the very definition of "copyright." Its the exclusive right to copy, only subject to the limitations imposed by the very authority granting the copyright, ie: Title 17.

I have never used itunes. If you are, in fact, allowed to make multiple copies after purchasing one, then it is because that permission is expressly written in the license agreement when you make the purchase. If you will just bother to read the appropriate provisions of Title 17, or the appropriate terms of the licenses for the products you buy, you will plainly see that copyright holders have the exclusive right to copy and to GRANT copy permission. If you have permission from the copyright holder to copy, then obviously it is not violative of their copyright to do so. If you don't have this permission then once again you are just defending your actions with the same circular logic. Just because you are physically able to, and do in fact make a copy, that doesn't mean its legal.

I agree this is silly. I have shown you the law which expressly prohibits archival copies, and you just dismiss it. Your argument is basically that archival copies are legal.....because. And by the way, that's the way it has always been....just...because. You are assuming its legal to copy these things simply because its possible. And once again, you are just plain wrong. Now you are just resorting to personal attacks against lawyers and the law generally. Its obvious that you aren't at all interested in reaching the truth, only in proving you are right against all odds.

But I think we are both equally interested in just dropping this discussion, so hopefully we can end it here.

[handyguy]

U can also try Anydvd, then copy it to the hd. Also make sure your laser is clean.

[petar]

U can also try Anydvd, then copy it to the hd. Also make sure your laser is clean.

Tried it, even on the brand new copy I received this morning and with two different DVD-ROMs, and no luck.

Adam,
I've got a question regarding the legality of making DVD copies (not trying to flame the argument; it's just a question). It's regarding personal backups, not regarding my capital crimes of ripping DVDs from my rentals store .
I remember I once read the constitution and I can't remember the exact words but it was something like "the privacy and the inviolation of my home is garanteed except by a court order to prevent or detect criminal offences". So in the privacy of my home I should be able to do whatever I want with the stuff I legally own unless it's a criminal offense. Is violation of copyright a criminal offence? I know it's an offence but is it a criminal one?
Not sure if I'm explaining myself correctly so to make an analogy - speeding at 120 km/h on a motorway where speed limit is 100 is not a criminal offence. It is an offence of traffic laws and you'll get a ticket (if caught) and if you don't pay, you go to court (and if you defy the court you may end up in prison) but it's not considered a criminal offence.

[Gurm]

Petar,

Yes, that's another aspect of this little argument, one which thus far I've avoided because it's petulant.

A great many things that are "illegal" are routinely unenforceable due to the fact that they happen in private.

- Gurm

[adam]

Well, first off there are surely differences between your Constitution and mine, but protection from governement invasion of privacy, and protection against unlawful search and seizures does not grant you the right to do whatever you want in your home. It just limits how the goverment can pursue enforcement against you. So, doing drugs is illegal even if you are in your bedroom. But a cop can't bust down your door just because he suspects you are a drug user because of the potleaf sticker on your window. He must have at the very least probable cause, and in most cases a search warrant.

This is a fundamental concept in the law of just about any country. An otherwise illegal act does not become permissible simply because its done in private, unless the public nature is a requisite of the crime (ie: public intoxication or indecency.)

Gurm, you inadvertantly cited to Lawrence v. State when you brought up sodomy. That was the case where anti sodomy laws were struck down. In those cases, both the Texas Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court discussed, in great length, this fundamental concept I am speaking of. I agree that actually catching someone making an illegal backup in the privacy of their own home is improbable and impractical, but its no more permissible then burning off your copies on the street corner in front of the MPAA's headquarters.

[andkiich]

I may have missed this, but if petar is the owner of the business, and he/she has the time to send the DVDV back for a new one that might "backup", then why not just take one of the originals home and watch it?

[petar]

Adam, I agree that I can't do drugs in my bedroom. The constitution doesn't protect me from that. It states an exception that the privacy of my home can be violated, upon a court order, for criminal offenses only. Doing drugs (at least in my country) is a criminal offense. But my question is, is violation of copyright laws a criminal offense? Because if it isn't then it has no validity in the privacy of my home.

[Gurm]

Actually, interesting material on who can be punished... not necessarily a determination of who is violating the law itself... can be found in Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 506 as well as Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1204.

To be punished, not only must you benefit financially from the infringement BUT the work must have a RETAIL VALUE of greater than $1000.

This means that (at least according to Title 17) nobody who makes a personal backup copy can be punished. It does NOT mean that they aren't breaking the law (I concede that point, of course) but simply that the government will not punish them... which in practicality amounts to the same thing.

- Gurm

[adam]

Peter, once again I don't know about Spain's copyright laws. But in the US, yes copyright infringment as well as DMCA violation can carry with it criminal penalties.

Also, even assuming copyright infringment isn't a "crime" in your country that doesn't mean you can't be held liable just because you do the action in your home. It just means the copyright holder can't bust down your door to catch you in the act. You can still be sued for civil damages.

[Tommyknocker]

If that is the part of the law Mr. Valenti wants to get pirates on, can he prosecute them for making and selling bootleg copies of a first run DVD for $10.00 apiece? Or once the criminal sells his 100th copy, the cops bust him wide open?

[Tommyknocker]

Peter, once again I don't know about Spain's copyright laws. But in the US, yes copyright infringment as well as DMCA violation can carry with it criminal penalties.

Also, even assuming copyright infringment isn't a "crime" in your country that doesn't mean you can't be held liable just because you do the action in your home. It just means the copyright holder can't bust down your door to catch you in the act. You can still be sued for civil damages.

Isn't there a forbidden fruit precedent that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court, or is that just criminal law?

[adam]

Actually, interesting material on who can be punished... not necessarily a determination of who is violating the law itself... can be found in Title 17, Chapter 5, Section 506 as well as Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1204.

To be punished, not only must you benefit financially from the infringement BUT the work must have a RETAIL VALUE of greater than $1000.

This means that (at least according to Title 17) nobody who makes a personal backup copy can be punished. It does NOT mean that they aren't breaking the law (I concede that point, of course) but simply that the government will not punish them... which in practicality amounts to the same thing.

- Gurm

You obviously haven't followed the MPAA's recent slew of litigation The criminal penalties pale in comparison to the civil liability incurred from copyright infringement. Personally, I'd rather go to jail for a month then have to pay half a million dollars. First and foremost, copyrights are intended to protect the copyright holder and promote creation for the benefit of the public. Criminal punishment is only necessary for the more eggregious offenses. Archival copies of copyrighted material, except where exempted, are still a violation of copyright even if they don't constitute sufficient damages to warrant criminal penalties. You will still have to pay through the nose if found in violation.

And of course don't forget the DMCA. If that copyrighted DVD you copy was encrypted then you have no broken two federal laws, and the DMCA imposes much stricter penalties then just copyright provisions alone.

[petar]

I may have missed this, but if petar is the owner of the business, and he/she has the time to send the DVDV back for a new one that might "backup", then why not just take one of the originals home and watch it?

They normally "backup" . But this one I watched from the original DVD 'cause it didn't want to. Hence my topic - why can't it rip? I'm not making backups, just ripping to my HD.
Come on guys stop attacking me for silly things. I own the DVDs. I rip them to my laptop in my store, watch the movie at home, and delete afterwards. No biggy.

Adam, I don't know much about the copyright laws, here or in US. That's why I was asking you. I know you know a great deal about it. If infringment of a copyright law is a criminal offense then, yes, the law is valid even in the privacy of my home.

But if it's not then it's not valid in my home because neither the copyright holder nor the police, in fact, can enter my home because a judge won't issue them a warrant since it's not a criminal offense. However, if I leave my home with the backup in my hand, that's a different issue.

The constitution may vary in different countries though but it should garantee the privacy of your home, with the exception of criminal offenses, in all democracies.

[adam]

petar, I don't think I'm making myself clear. A guarantee of freedom of privacy is not a license to do whatever you want in private. A copyright holder can hold you liable for civil damages without ever going near your home. Yes, it would be difficult to build a case without catching you red handed, and that is one reason why such litigation is virtually non-existent. The point is that a violation of copyright occurs regardless of where you are. If you do it in your home, and the copyright holder can prove it, then you can be held liable. The fact that it would be very difficult to legally obtain evidence against you doesn't change the fact that the act itself still constitutes infringement.

[petar]

Adam, I understood you OK. I know what you're saying - an offense is an offense whether caught or not but you only get punished if caught.

But you can't get caught in this case, can you, because the constitution protects you from being caught (not directly, of course, but by twisting few words around)? All this assuming breaking copyright laws is not a criminal offense. But I don't know if it is or not. Do you or someone knows for sure?

[adam]

If that is the part of the law Mr. Valenti wants to get pirates on, can he prosecute them for making and selling bootleg copies of a first run DVD for $10.00 apiece? Or once the criminal sells his 100th copy, the cops bust him wide open?

Jurisdictional amounts (are damages enough to get into X court?, or enough to raise criminal charges, etc...) are calculated according to total damages. But copyright law can, and the DMCA does allow you to recover set amounts for each act of infringement. So even though the infringing vendor might have sold the item for $5 below normal retail value, the copyright holder can allege more damages than that. After all, part of having a copyright is having the right to control distribution.

Isn't there a forbidden fruit precedent that any evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in court, or is that just criminal law?

Regardless of the nature of the proceeding, illegally obtained evidence will almost always be suppressed.

[adam]

Yes you can still be caught, and yes you can still be punished. There are other ways of obtaining evidence besides entering the perpetrator's home. The fact that copyright infringement is difficult to prove doesn't make it legal.

As one example, let's say a copyright holder suspects you of infringement. He can legally take a camera and film into your house through a window, as long has he himself is not on your property. This is not an invasion of privacy. Survielance is used time and time again in obtaining evidence for civil litigation. If his video is convincing enough, he could convince a court that he has reasonable belief of your infringement. He could then ask for any burnt media you own in his request for discovery. You would be required to give him those copies of yours. He would then have very strong evidence against you, and he would not have violated your Constitutional right to privacy in obtaining it.