DCMA's No Backup Provisions Now Null and Void in USA!!!!!

[videobread]

It is now legal to backup copies of DVD's you have purchased. Well that's my legal opinion.
The September 30, 2007 issues of Home Media Magazine, www.homemediamagazine.com, has an article titled, "CCA Says OK to Burn". The Copy Control Association, CCA, will now allow it's Content Scramble System software, CSS, to be overridden by consumers. Consumers who purchase downloaded content will be able to burn themselves copies for playing on home DVD players. That in effect negates the DCMA's not allowing individuals to backup/copy digital content. What is the difference between buying a DVD and backing it up and downloading a DVD and backing it up? Think about it. NONE!!!! The industry has caved. The Fair Use Doctrine can again be argued in legal proceedings.
The key is that the material was purchased and then backed up - copied. Today the first download music case went to trial. The issue there is theft. The music was being downloaded for free. There is evidence of the crime - download records. The lesson - never download if you are the paranoid type.
Conclusion: Fair Use Doctrine is back in USA.

[dphirschler]

Forgive me, but you don't sound like a lawyer. So how can you have a "legal opinion?"


Darryl

[jman98]

I looked at your link. I don't see the article you reference. Anyway, I think you misunderstand something. There's been some recent talk about how some studios will allow downloaded DVD to be burned, but here's the catch - the DVDs will have CSS on them and will require burners and discs that don't exist yet for this to work. To me that seems like a far cry from something that supports Fair Use. Also, since the service does not yet exist, for all we know there may be restrictions on it, like you get to burn one copy and one copy only for each download, which would not support Fair Use.

[adam]

There have been plenty of instances in the past where certain companies have sold online content with little or no restrictions on making additional copies. This is done through license that you purchase when you buy the content. It is a contract. It has absolutely nothing to do with the DMCA or general copyright provisions. It is still a violation of copyright to backup audio/visual works without permission and it is an additional violation of the DMCA to break any form of content protection mechanism in the process.

[oldandinthe way]

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/index.cfm?search=css&section=2-3&sec_id=search

Licensing CSS for downloads. Not permission to copy.

[videobread]

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/index.cfm?search=css&section=2-3&sec_id=search

DCMA is weaker as a result. Anyone being prosecuted now has argument. Selective prosecution is argument. The practice will soon become more widespread. Amazon and others will want in on the profits. If you purchase content and are allowed to copy it. Does it matter if you download the content or just back up a DVD that you bought? No. The genie is out of the bottle.

[adam]

How do you figure? The report specifically says that you are burning the content to a DVD with CSS encryption. The resulting DVD cannot be copied legally. Its no different than the DVD you purchase in the store, which again cannot be copied legally. All this is, is another way to reach the content. That content still has the exact same protections, legal and physical, that you get from the store purchased DVD.

In any case, this is a LICENSE allowance to make that initial burn. It is a contract, it has no effect on any existing law. Think of it like this... Theft statutes make it a crime to take someone's car without their permission. Just because someone does give me permission to take their car, that doesn't invalidate or "weaken" theft statutes.

You need to change the topic of this thread. It is simply not true.

[videobread]

I don't agree. The article follows from "Home Media Magazine":

"In a potential boost for consumers and companies offering video downloads, the DVD Copy Control Association made a decision Sept. 20 that will allow video purchased over the Internet to be burned to DVDs that play on almost every DVD player.

The DVD CCA will allow its Content Scramble System software, the copy protection included on most DVDs, to be licensed out, giving consumers the ability to take video they've downloaded, burn it to a DVD with CSS encryption, and play it back on any standard DVD player.

"This important change is in direct response to industry and consumer demand for new legal alternatives for the creation and digital distribution of secure DVD content," said Chris Cookson, chairman of the DVD CCA Board. "Now that the process needed to enable this exciting capability is complete, we anticipate that new products and services will quickly appear in the marketplace."

In addition to giving online movie providers better ability to offer download-to-burn options to consumers, DVD kiosk operators can possibly expand their DVD offerings."


The consumer will be allowed to burn content that they have purchased and downloaded from the Internet to play on their home DVD players. My point is that backing up a DVD that you have purchased at Walmart is the same thing. It's allowing you to back up digital content that you have purchased. This used to be known as the Fair Use Doctrine - Betamax Decision. It is still recognized in most countries around the world. "As new products appear in the marketplace", like buying DVD-R's from a Walmart store server or a stand alone kisko, the argument for backing up content that you have purchased becomes all the more defensible. Industry has weakened it's legal position by allowing digital content to be backed up by consumers.

[AlanHK]

You need to change the topic of this thread. It is simply not true.

No, it's quite correct. The DCMA is null and void.

But we still have to worry about the DMCA.

[adam]

videobread what is being backed up??? You download something for the sole purpose of burning it to DVD, and that DVD then has CSS protection so it cannot be legally copied again. You only get one single copy. There is no backup. Making a copy of a DVD you purchased from a store would be entirely different because then you'd have TWO copies.

All CCA is doing is allowing consumers to use CSS protection on the discs that they burn. How does allowing consumers to add copy protection to a disc undermine the DMCA, a law aimed at protecting copy protection?

The article simply explains how motion pictures will be able to be distributed through a different medium as a result of this. You still wind up with a single disc playbable in hardware players. It still has the same CSS keys on it. The only difference is that you downloaded it and burnt it yourself instead of having to go to the store to pick up the already pressed disc.

The Betamax ruling never allowed backing up of anything (ex:two existing copies.) The ruling only applied to ota broadcasts and recognized timeshifting, and it only created a lesser standard for manufacturers that limited their liability even when their products could be used for infringing purposes. Fair Use still exists in the United States, but is has never been held to allow the archiving of anything in any country as far as I know. Archival rights come through express exemptions, not ad hoc legal principles like Fair Use.

[sacajaweeda]

I don't agree. The article follows from "Home Media Magazine":

"In a potential boost for consumers and companies offering video downloads, the DVD Copy Control Association made a decision Sept. 20 that will allow video purchased over the Internet to be burned to DVDs that play on almost every DVD player.

The DVD CCA will allow its Content Scramble System software, the copy protection included on most DVDs, to be licensed out, giving consumers the ability to take video they've downloaded, burn it to a DVD with CSS encryption, and play it back on any standard DVD player.

Seems pretty straight forward to me. I don't see where your confusion is coming from. They are quite clearly and in no uncertain terms stating that you may originate your licensed DVD product by downloading their encrypted file and burning it to a disc. There is no mention of or implication whatsoever of the end user being permitted to make a "copy" of or "back up" their licensed product without purchasing additional licenses.

[videobread]

Substance prevails over form. The attorney's for the CCA have structured the sale of content to preserve their legal standing under law, the DMCA. As a consumer you, "originate your licensed DVD product by downloading their encrypted file and burning it to a disc." That is the form. The substance, and change, is that the consumer is now allowed to burn purchased content. The content came as a downloaded computer file. The consumer is allowed to change the form of the content and burn the content to DVD. Burning to DVD is backing up or copying. It could be argued that the CCA is in effect helping the consumer circumvent CSS and further weakening their position.

I believe that once you buy content you can do what you want with it. That is the Fair Use Doctrine. In my opion, allowing consumers to burn to DVD's makes the Fair Use Doctrine more defensible even under the DMCA.

[sacajaweeda]

Do you even know what you are talking about? You're certainly not coming across as appearing to.

[videobread]

I am mortified that you believe I don't know what I'm talking about. I have never been so humiliated. We mock what we don't understand. Shame on you my good man. To think that a posting on this or any other forum could be pure bull. I challenge you to a duel at first light!

We lose the rights we don't exercise. The DMCA was bought and paid for. If you accept the DMCA's no backup provisions they win. You lose your Fair Use rights.

[sacajaweeda]

Ok so you were just putting everybody on.

[videobread]

No. I have not been putting you on. In my legal opinion, allowing consumers to burn content strengthens the argument for the Fair Use Doctrine. I've given my arguments above. The Fair Use Doctrine has always been a point of contention. Individuals were copying away on their Go-Video machines and content creators felt they were being robbed. When you made a copy of your kid's Bambi VHS and set the original aside there was no intent to defraud and no monetary damage to Walt Disney. The content was bought and paid for. The DMCA tried to take away your right to back up your kid's Disney DVD's with the stoke of a pen. The logic was that in the new digital millennium new laws were needed to protect content creators. Nothing has changed with Fair Use. There are no damages. The DMCA is meant to intimidate because it is unenforceable regarding Fair Use. You will never be sued for backing up content you have purchased. The question is, will you be intimidated into not backing up content?

[guns1inger]

If you are not a judge or lawyer, you have no legal opinion. You have an opinion on the state of the current laws, and your interpretation of them, but your opinion holds no legal position, and is based on no legal training. It is just an opinion. The only person here qualified to give a legal opinion is Adam, and he has done so. You may not like what he has to say, but he is at least qualified to say it. So unless your training extends further than watching Boston Legal and re-runs of The Practice, you are just another unhappy consumer.

[gll99]

@videobread

In the USA is it not breaking the encryption that is illegal? Are not the tools to do that banned in freedomland? Since you won't be doing that by burning the encrypted file it's just saving them the cost of the middle men (manufacturers, handlers, brick mortar stores and shippers). If the price is right, realistically this is saving them a ton of money and presumably you save some too although many costs are passed on to you through probable higher ISP charges, discs, labour etc...

What is getting blurred with all the online content is who really is authorised to distribute or sell the wares. You could end up paying a counterfeit vendor who has no distribution rights. Even now so much video and music is being released on various sites with claims that it's free and completely legal paid by advertising. Even tv networks are participating directly and indirectly in releasing content freely. Except for highly suspicious first run movies, how is the average guy supposed to know what is and isn't true?

[videobread]

I have plenty of legal opinions. Here is another one for you.

This downloading case has a lot of people spooked and rightfully so. In this litigious age it might be wise to delete some logs on your PC. I just don't like people logging my activity. I guess I'm just a privacy nut. Just a suggestion. Go to:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data on your PC.
You will find a history of your activity in RipIt4Me, ImgBurn, DVD Shrink and maybe some others. Also, check text files and problems logs. Do you really want this info on your PC. Especially when some of these programs are "checking for updates" every time you use them. Like a cookie on your PC, are they reporting your activity back to the mother ship? Who knows. Maybe it's just anal retentive computer geek stuff to keep the logs in the first place. I just don't like it. I have even deleted my automatic update file.

[sacajaweeda]

Well at least YOU think you're right, and that's all that really matters.

[SWBisbee]

One of the nice things about living in America and being an American is the fact we have the right to express our opinions, wheather they are legal opinions or not, show me in the constitution where it says you need a law degree to be the President of the U.S. or for that matter a senator or Congressman and they deal with laws every day. And it will be a sad day in hell when we let some SMUCK say we can't express said opinions legal or not!!!!

[SWBisbee]

And for that matter most law clerks write opinions everyday, and they don't have law degrees, they are still studing the law!!

[SWBisbee]

And further more I will backup any movie I own as I see fit, No DMCA or other law is going to stop me from doing what I want in my own home, this is not BIG BROTHER LAND, as of yet !!

[thecoalman]

One of the nice things about living in America and being an American is the fact we have the right to express our opinions, wheather they are legal opinions or not,

True, however and I quote

Well that's my legal opinion.

Is like saying I'm a lwayer and this is my opinion. I'm sure the OP didn't intend fo it to appear that way but that's the way it appears. I have opinons on a lot of things, some of them qualified and others not. To represent myself as something I'm not and post unqualified opinons that others may take as qualified would be a diservice to whomever is reading it.

[Nelson37]

A "legal opinion" is nothing more than an educated guess. A "Ruling", by a Judge, is one man's opinion with the force of law behind it. This can be superseded by other opinions.

We are all empowered to act as our own attorney, having an opinion is certainly not unlawful, therefore ALL opinions are "legal opinions", what else, an "illegal opinion"? Actually possible during time of war.

My legal representative says that I should be ruling the galaxy.

Perhaps he should have said "I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet".

I am greatly saddened that there is a prevailing sentiment that only a member of the bar is entitled to have an opinion on the law.

I have on three seperate occassions disagreed with the "legal opinion" of a paid attorney. With significant stakes on the table, I was right and he was wrong, on all three seperate issues. Unfortunately for me, I "listened" to my attorney.

I am not an attorney, but I can read.

The unaddressed legal point here is this. Are the downloaded videos playable in their original state on the PC, and is this playability maintained AFTER the DVD is burned? This condition would satisfy the OP's desire to represent an official recognition of the right to shift content to different media, while maintaining the original, thus qualifying as a Backup. However, nothing whatsoever that I see involves an authorization to Break CSS encryption, rather this is a methodology designed to increase its usage.

If the download is only usable on the DVD media, then this is nothing more than another way to buy a DVD, and insomuch as it represents an addition of encryption to an otherwise unencumbered distribution channel, constitutes a backward step.

[Dv8ted2]

I have plenty of legal opinions. Here is another one for you.

This downloading case has a lot of people spooked and rightfully so. In this litigious age it might be wise to delete some logs on your PC. I just don't like people logging my activity. I guess I'm just a privacy nut. Just a suggestion. Go to:
C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Application Data on your PC.
You will find a history of your activity in RipIt4Me, ImgBurn, DVD Shrink and maybe some others. Also, check text files and problems logs. Do you really want this info on your PC. Especially when some of these programs are "checking for updates" every time you use them. Like a cookie on your PC, are they reporting your activity back to the mother ship? Who knows. Maybe it's just anal retentive computer geek stuff to keep the logs in the first place. I just don't like it. I have even deleted my automatic update file.

You do realize that that stuff can be recovered. It can be recovered from the master file table. I can even recover data from drives that have been formatted.

You would need to do a DOD wipe of the hard drive for it to be truly gone.