Speaking of the Rules....

[adam]

The fact that we could copy our own videotapes legally, and pretty soon we will legally be able to back up our dvd's in the US.

Its never been legal in the US to backup a videotape with copyrighted material on it. A VHS tape is no different then a DVD under copyright law. Its infringement to copy the material under Title 17 and its illegal to bypass any form of protection or encryption (Macrovision for VHS and CSS and the like for DVD) under the DMCA. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good thing, but that is the current law and its been like this since 1967, (the title 17 part I mean) a good while before the first VCR was even made.

[gitreel]

I beg to differ with you adam.

Private noncommerial copying is ok.

That warning is for people making profit.

It is ok if you copy your videotapes that you bought.

Even if it is not legal, it is unenforceable.

I draw a line in the sand on this issue.

[kjbrack]

I beleive that rules were made to be broken :P :P :P

[proxyx99]

Laws do evolve so there's still a chance that that you'll make your first legal copy of your DVD before we all retire (or go in peace...). Have some faith

[adam]

gitreel the provisions of Title 17 are very clear. A copy right is just that, it is the exclusive right to copy. If you don't have the copyright in something then you cannot copy it, for private or commercial use, without permission unless you fall under one of the exceptions within Title 17. There is one for pc software, for example, but one does not exist for VHS tapes or DVDs and Fair Use has never allowed you to make backups of anything other then a broadcasted signal, unless you are a library or receive an exemption. I can assure you that this is the current state of the law on this matter. I deal with Title 17 on a daily basis and have had to answer this same question for many of my clients.

And I admit that is is nearly impossible to file a suit of infringement for private copying simply because the copyright holder would be hard pressed to even know the infringement was taking place, but the legality of an act has never turned on the difficulties it poses for the fact finder. Unauthorized copying in your home is a violation of copyright, and if the copyright holder can show that it has taken place then they can file a suit of infringement. The fact that the copying is non-commercial is irrellevant. If the copyright was registered with the US copyright office prior to infringement, then they can collect statutory damages. They can get a fixed amount of damages for each instance of infringement whether it affected them monetarily or not.

Unauthorized private copying of copyrighted material is indeed a violation of copyright and is indeed legally enforceable.

[gitreel]

You know, while we are on the subject of copyright,

It was originally supposed to be a temporary monopoly to create incentive for a creator to keep creating. After a given period of time, that work was supposed to fall in the public domain. That almost never happens anymore.

I am not going to argue with you anymore adam. I see things from a customer perspective and you don't.

[adam]

Well, I know I wasn't arguing...just clarifying what the law is in this area because that seems to be what this thread is about.

It has nothing to do with perspective, I didn't write those laws. I'm simply stating what the law says, not defending the rationale behind it. I've already stated numerous times in this thread and probably hundreds of times in this forum that I do think the consumer should have more rights including the right to backup their VHS tapes and DVDs. But Title 17 is very clear that the consumer does not have these rights. It is completely black and white, and is simply a fact. You cannot draw any conclusions about me or my perspective from me quoting black letter law.

You don't have to agree with a law to acknowledge its existence. I'm sorry if I somehow offended you but I won't apologize for correcting you.

[gitreel]

You did not offend me.

I just don't see things the way you do.

I don't compare copying a book with copying a dvd, and my point was that you are comparing two completely different objects.

I am still not sure why you would want to copy a whole book. Let's be practical and realistic.

I was also trying to point out that there is very little chance of enforcement and if you do copy your own movies, the Mpaa is not going to make you walk the plank or walk on hot coals. The Mpaa also is not going to tar and feather you.

[adam]

That's fine. Those are things that are open to interpretation. I was simply trying to reiterate that private copying is still copying as defined in copyright law. Its not "ok" as you suggested, just as its not "ok" to run a red light because no one is around. Harmless? Perhaps. Legal? No.

[jarvis1781]

I beleive that rules were made to be broken :P :P :P

Yeah I know you do. You are the same guy who claimed to be a fireman in the netflix forum. You disappeared quite fast after they bashed the heck out of you for your lame excuse. I can't believe you are even still allowed on these forums.

[haloblack]

Yeah I know you do. You are the same guy who claimed to be a fireman in the netflix forum.

pwned.

[FIRE MONSTER]

so if you can not copy from books why do they do it every day in courts all over the us ?

[gitreel]

Groannnnnnn.

Not the book analogy again.....

Why do completely different objects get compared?

There is no point.

They are different.

[indolikaa]

I beleive that rules were made to be broken :P :P :P

Yeah I know you do. You are the same guy who claimed to be a fireman in the netflix forum. You disappeared quite fast after they bashed the heck out of you for your lame excuse. I can't believe you are even still allowed on these forums.

Fabulous. A firefighter that promotes civil disobedience.

[smearbrick1]

Nobody seems to be mentioning that the other use of this site is those who to create DVD's from entirely new, original (and uncopywritten) content.

Not everyone is here to backup DVDs.

[indolikaa]

Nobody seems to be mentioning that the other use of this site is those who to create DVD's from entirely new, original (and uncopywritten) content.

Not everyone is here to backup DVDs.

I'm sorry, but I believe the do-gooders have already established that EVERYBODY copies rental DVDs. The people whom you are referring to are only using that 'story' as a smokescreen to cover their illegal activities.

[adam]

so if you can not copy from books why do they do it every day in courts all over the us ?

I'm not sure what you mean. Do you mean the copying of pages of a book for use as evidence? We have a discovery process. If its relevant then it can be used in a court of law unless there is an overriding concern to keep it out. You can for example, get a ruling that a certain document constitutes a trade secret, and it will not be discoverable. But otherwise, copying pages and using them as exhibits does not infringe on the copyright. Also, most of the time if you want to use any part of a book as an exhibit then you use the actual book, not a copy.

You can also copy SECTIONS of books for limited purposes. Teachers can do this to let the entire class read a section of a commercially released book instead of having to go out and buy a copy for each. Teachers can also do this with video from a DVD. SECTIONS of a book can be used in another work as a parody. Again, the same is true with DVDs. These limited exceptions are all specifically provided under the codified Fair Use provisions. But the law does not allow you to copy and entire book or an entire DVD for the purposes of having a backup copy. If you want a backup copy then you have to go out and buy another one.

Its really very simple. With the single exception of pc software, full backups of commercial products of any kind are not allowed by the consumer. In this respect, books, DVDs, VHS, tapes and anthing else are completely analogous. If you want a second copy then you have to buy it. If you want to protect your investment then your only legal remedies are to attempt to enforce any warranty or guarantee on the product offered by the manufacturer/distributor, or to insure the product. Yes, you can get insurance for a book or a DVD.

[FIRE MONSTER]

what i was stateing is that if it is not within the law why do they allow it because it is .

[2-cat]

Actually for #1 on orig message ?:
would challenge someone to post a COMPLETELY CLEAR legal reference from a high court or supreme court that has supported the FREE USE policy in this forum and has written it into LAW and LAW BOOKS by CONGRESS or other government body



Don't have 'details' such as case # & etc; but 20 years ago the U.S. Supreme Court gave what is know known as the "Betamax Decision"!
In that case the right of "free use" as to copying both broadcast & other was considered a "given"!
The plaintifs in the case had argued against VCR's because *they* claimed that VCR's were an *inducement* to copying & *selling* (or otherwise distributing for gain) copyrighted broadcasts (incl both TV shows & Movies).
Mentioned in the decision was that the right of individuals to 'record'(eg.copy) broadcasts "for their own use" was UNDENIABLE & undisputed!!!
This was the "noninfringing use" referred to in the decision.



for some other info re that decision, the following recent argument re S.2560 mentions the Betamax decision & these rights QUITE clearly:
http://www.ce.org/s2560test.pdf
In fact, in this breif to the Senate one VERY interesting comment re "Industry' (eg. RIAA, MPAA, & related) attitude is made:
"With respect, Mr. Chairman, citing the MPAA and the RIAA as the guides and protectors
of the Betamax doctrine would be akin to appointing Fagin as Oliver Twist’s personal protector.
In fact it would be worse: Fagin sought to exploit Oliver, not to kill him. Neither the MPAA nor
the RIAA has ever agreed that the Betamax case was correctly decided, or that private,
noncommercial home recording by consumers is and ought to be legal. Each is on record as
wanting to limit the principles underlying the Betamax holding strictly to its narrowest possible
set of facts. So of course they see no “threat” posed by S. 2560."

NOTE the phrase: "...private,
noncommercial home recording by consumers is and ought to be legal"




Also: I believe that if you read the copyright laws closely; that until DMCA came along here was even specific mention of the right to 'copy' for personal use.
& within copyright laws is the use of re copying & DISTRIBUTING & "for gain" (note: 'gain' can be both direct & non-direct; eg. copying to prevent having to buy further copies, or say copying & distributing 'free' for advertisement or recognition are considered 'gain' to the distributor).


addendum for "adam"
Fact is, copyright laws (the ones I've read thru personally; & I've had reasons to do so re material of my own) do NOT ban 'copying' per se. They ban DISTRIBUTION of 'copies'!!!
Or Use of portions of a work in another work except 'by permission' & distributing such 'derivative' works.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

For #2 item:
Oh but I thought backing up was so important and that everybody needs to do it?

Everybody on here claims their dvds are instantly detroyed as soon as they buy them. Mine sit nicely in their protective cases on my mantle when they are not in use, I have yet to see one go bad in like 5 years.


*I* would say that YOU were blamed lucky then.
*My* FIRST DVD was a Music Video.
Double sided DVD with Dolby 5.1 audio track on one side & LPCM audio track on the other.
The 2nd time it was taken out of it's case (on the day of purchase even) it CRACKED at the center on the dolby side making that side unplayable. (combo of POOR 'commercial' disk construction & cheap *ssed cases to blame here)
A call to the place of purchase got me the response that since the pkg (shrinkwrap) had been opened the problem would be considered one of "user abuse" & the disk was NOT returnable for replacement!
Thankfully the LPCM side was the one I'd bought the disk for, but I considered the presence of the crack as a possible source of inbalance and there was a chance of it shatttering in the future.


At that time I proceeded to learn how to do a rip & copy of the blamed thing (had bought a DVD burner about a month before to do data archiving - I work with video stuff); & now do 'playing copies' of ALL good DVD's I purchase (don't mess with the cheapie movies I get on clearance/sale racks).


& despite all the claims of 'durability' of commercial DVD's; I find that when examined closely, Many are VERY poorly constructed as opposed to decent recordable disks, esp the double sided ones!

[adam]

I still don't know what the infringement is that you are talking about, and I don't know what you mean when you say "they allow it." If someone infringes on your copyright then the burden is on you to file a suit of infringement. The government is not going to do anything on its own. If an actual infringement takes place during or in connection with a trial or legal proceeding then yes the copyright holder still has the same rights as usual and can halt the infringement and seek damages. A copyright, trademark, or patent holder could intervene in a suit and request that the court protect their rights if the suit somehow had the possibilty to harm them.

But like I said, what infringment goes on during a trial? I work in a lawfirm and out of the millions of photocopied documents here I don't see any that infringe on any copyrights. Every photocopy from any manual or book was ordered by a judge to be produced by the company that authored it. Its a court order, its the same as the law.

[proxyx99]

Groannnnnnn.

Not the book analogy again.....

Why do completely different objects get compared?

There is no point.

They are different.

No, they fall under the same law, that's why. Completely legitimate example and question.

[proxyx99]

...out of the millions of photocopied documents here I don't see any that infringe on any copyrights. Every photocopy from any manual or book was ordered by a judge to be produced by the company that authored it. Its a court order, its the same as the law.

Really, none? Then your firm must be a shining example for others to follow... although I think you are a bit ahead of yourself now.

[gitreel]

I do not go around comparing two different objects.

I don't compare my car to a toaster.

That is what y'all are doing.

[proxyx99]

Oh, don't be stubborn. Fact is a fact whether you like it or not (just read Adam's response to Five Monsters post above).

[lordsmurf]

Oh but I thought backing up was so important and that everybody needs to do it?

Everybody on here claims their dvds are instantly detroyed as soon as they buy them. Mine sit nicely in their protective cases on my mantle when they are not in use, I have yet to see one go bad in like 5 years.

I recently bought a limited edition set of DVDs. There was only one run, it's not overly popular, and I had to learn some Chinese just to place the damned order. They came fubar'd, horrible press job. It took a couple hours to rip the discs and burn backups. If I lose these discs, that's the end of it. There are no more available anywhere, unless I can hook up with another collector (very, very unlikely).

I personally think "backing up" new movies is stupid. They'll almost always be around. But for rare things, you need a safety net. The "well buy two" argument doesn't apply either, was limit one per person.

I've actually seen a good handful of pressed discs go bad. For example, the Transformers season box sets have already given me one bad disc. Those were expensive, several hundred total, so I backed them up. I copied the backup of the bad disc, and it's not in the case. The bad disc is in a sleeve somewhere, entirely useless. That set rarely left the DVD case, no scratches, as perfect as the day they came, with the exception of the metal rot. I know it was perfect earlier on.

Don't clump the netflix losers in with those of us that have real concerns and reason to protect huge investments and rare items. This is a benefit of the digital age: duplicate protection options.

[gitreel]

Correction

A book is not like a dvd.

That is a fact.
:P

[adam]

NOTE the phrase: "...private,
noncommercial home recording by consumers is and ought to be legal"

Note the context. Its referring to the Betamax decision. Read the decision, its posted in full all over the internet. Its holding is strictly construed to private noncommercial home recording of broadcast signals. It means absolutely nothing as far as backups of DVDs, VHS tapes or anything else is concerned. You have completely taken that quote out of context, and its not law much less even dicta, its just someone's commentary.

Also: I believe that if you read the copyright laws closely; that until DMCA came along here was even specific mention of the right to 'copy' for personal use.
& within copyright laws is the use of re copying & DISTRIBUTING & "for gain" (note: 'gain' can be both direct & non-direct; eg. copying to prevent having to buy further copies, or say copying & distributing 'free' for advertisement or recognition are considered 'gain' to the distributor).

No. If you read copyright law closely then you can't help but find the section which grants the copyright holder their rights in the first place.

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Exclusive as in you and nobody else but you. The copyright holder is the ONLY one with the right to copy and the ONLY one with the right to allow another to copy. What are the legal requirements necessary to prove infringement?

1) ownership of valid copyright, and
2) copying of constituent elements of work that are original

That came from Feist Publications v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340.

Copyright grants the author or publisher the exclusive right to prevent copying.

Perris v Hexamer (1879) 99 US 674, 9 Otto 674, 25 L Ed 308.

Last time I checked, these were both US Supreme Court decisions too.

addendum for "adam"
Fact is, copyright laws (the ones I've read thru personally; & I've had reasons to do so re material of my own) do NOT ban 'copying' per se. They ban DISTRIBUTION of 'copies'!!!

And that is 100% flat out wrong. I don't understand why people have such a hard time understanding this. Read the section under Title 17 on exclusive rights of the copyright holder. Its the crux of all of copyright law. It is the whole reason that Title 17 was passed in the first place. It is blatant and clear.

Sorry if I am being rude but this is getting ridiculous. I file suits of infringement every day. I work with people who make damn sure that they actually read the entirety of a law before referencing it. I just don't understand how so many people can ignore a law that is so blatant. The very definition of copyright means that if you don't own that right, you can't copy it. Its that simple

[adam]

I do not go around comparing two different objects.

I don't compare my car to a toaster.

That is what y'all are doing.

Stealing a toaster and stealing a car are both illegal under the same anti-theft laws just as copying a copyrighted book and copying a copyrighted DVD are both a violation of copyright law.

A law can have identical implications for two intrinsically different objects. The fact that a copyright can be taken out on "any work of art" automatically means that you can draw analogies under copyright law between "any work of art."

According to Title 17, copying a copyrighted _______ for personal use is a violation of that copyright.

You can substitute the word DVD or book into that sentence and its still true and has the same meaning. THAT is an analogy!

[gitreel]

I know what an analogy is.

I am not stupid.

I am just saying in my mind the analogy is erroneus.

[gitreel]

I was also not talking about stealing anything.

It is infringement. It is not stealing.