Personal copy - legal in US or not?

[rdalcanto]

There has to be a lawyer or two here that can give us the true answer to this question, rather than speculation. I would be amazed if it is legal for Blockbuster to buy a few copies of a movie and make a ton of money renting out their copies to people (thereby taking profits away from Hollywood), but it is illegal to make a personal copy from an original (rented or purchased) for personal use. However, I am frequently amazed at how stupid the laws are in this country, so I would like to know the facts from someone who knows....

Thanks,
Rick

[sammie]

I think it's as clear as it's likely to get till the court cases start shaking out. It's legal to make backups of things you own, as long as you don't break the copy protection on any form of digital medium (aye, there's the rub). Stuff you rent, no not legal.

You do raise an intersting question though. What about rental places. The stuff they rent clearly says it can only be used for personal home viewing, not for commercial purposes. I know the studios fought tooth and nail against rental places for a very brief period of time, until someone did the math for them and they realized how profitable rentals were to them. But, the warnings certainly haven't changed. I think BlockBuster clearly comes under the legal definition of open and notorious, which would tend to invalidate most legal warnings. What that means is you can't selectively enforce your rules, and the studios would have a hard time arguing that they didn't know BlockBuster was renting movies.

[rdalcanto]

Sammie,
Thanks for your reply. You wrote "It's legal to make backups of things you own, as long as you don't break the copy protection on any form of digital medium (aye, there's the rub). Stuff you rent, no not legal."
While that jives with what I've heard before, I don't want to further incorrect speculation, so if you wouldn't mind telling us the source of your info and your background (law?), that would be great.

Thanks again,
Rick

[kirpen]

according to the movie studios it isnt legal to backup your own movies from dvd. The courts have held that you can copy vhs rentals. So yes the law is weird.

[thayne]

Why would it be illegal to copy a rental DVD? People have recorded from HBO for years... What's the difference?

[Gurm]

It's legal to copy your discs.

It's ILLEGAL to break any form of copy protection in the process.

However, the legality of a personal copy is threatening to VERY SOON outweight the illegality of breaking the protection.

Now, as to why video stores can rent out movies... they pay more. A LOT MORE. The same movie that we buy for $14.88 at Wal-Mart costs the video store $50 or more. They basically worked a (very lucrative) deal with the movie studios.

Now, can you get busted for copying a movie you own, in the privacy of your own home? No. They have no grounds to do so.

But it's not TECHNICALLY LEGAL at this point in time, at least in the United States.

- Gurm

[poopyhead]

Now, as to why video stores can rent out movies... they pay more. A LOT MORE. The same movie that we buy for $14.88 at Wal-Mart costs the video store $50 or more. They basically worked a (very lucrative) deal with the movie studios.

not really....ppl on the forums who work (or used to work) at blockbuster say that BB actually buys their "for rent" DVDs at cheaper than what normal consumers pay because BB buys them in bulk. there was a HUGE thread about the BB freedom pass deal...and it got sidetracked to how much BB pays for their DVDs...

it would make sense BB pays less because they buy in bulk and prolly represents a huge buyer for the studios. i mean...for each BB store....some carry 20-30 copies of certain new releases...multiply that by the # of stores worldwide..that can get to be a big chunk of revenue for the studios...

----------

@rdalcanto,

copying rented DVDs is absolutely illegal.... that makes sense and is NOT a stupid law because you DON'T OWN the DVD...you're just renting it. you have absolutely no "fair use" rights.

what is stupid is the DMCA. there was, again, a huge thread that got sidetracked....and ended up referring to the DMCA.

DMCA basically counters the "fair use" rights. under "fair use," if you bought the DVD, you should be able to make personal copies. however, DMCA states that it is illegal to circumvent any copy protection (i.e. CSS, which is used to encrypt DVDs).

so, in order to excerise your "fair use" rights, you will have to violate the DMCA and break CSS. as it stands, it is ILLEGAL to make personal copies, IF you break CSS enryption. whether or not you will be arrested is another matter. however, it is completely LEGAL under the DMCA to copy commercial DVDs that you own that don't have any encryption on it.

[wulf109]

The "Betamax" decision,I believe by the Supreme Court,ruled that copying for personal use was legal. Does the DMCA void the earlier "Betamax" decision?

[poopyhead]

@wulf109,

nothing really negates anything else....since the DMCA still stands, but counteracts "fair use," the authorities can still invoke DMCA as a reason to arrest someone.

the courts need to deliberately invalidate the DMCA, or parts of it, for it to be legal to break CSS for personal "fair use" reasons.

so, technically "fair use" allows us to make personal copies, but because the DMCA has NOT been invalidated or voided or made unconstitutional...wutever, we can still be arrested for violating it...even if it counteracts "fair use" rights

[DivXExpert]

what if you export the video from your macrovision disabled DVD player, or with a Sima Copy Master, that is not illegally getting past CSS.

[poopyhead]

what if you export the video from your macrovision disabled DVD player, or with a Sima Copy Master, that is not illegally getting past CSS.

well...dunno if macrovision can be considered a type of encryption or not...

---------

the act of disabling macrovision might be compared to using those illegal cable boxes to descramble cable TV signals

--------

either way....you would be making an ANALOG copy (whether to VHS, (S)VCD, DVD-R/+R)...this will never be as good as a digital copy (i.e. ripping)

also, you would have to manually switch to all the extra features, etc...if you were to record to VHS or capture it...and you would loose the menu system.

[muratturel]

I'll tell you what, The Terminator 3 DVD has been on the market for 2 weeks now for 10$, on tuesday we played it on our personel film night.

The trouble is not the back-uper like us with single witer on our pc taking 1-2 hour to back one film up.

The real trouble is the really big pirate factories that mass "back-up" the films even before they are on the cinemas.

In a day they "back-up" (forum does not like to see the other word that starts with C ) more films than the entire people of this forum does in a YEAR.

So I think you are being a little bit too paranoid...

Don't worry the hollywood will not bankrupt by your 50-60 back-up s a year. After all as dvd back-up is fairly new so once everbody back-up the films they always wanted to have it is nearly going to be over...

uzme canini, dik tut patlicanini
(means don't worry about things too much just keep your ..... erected )
byeeeee

[Gurm]

Murat,

I've been VERY nice to you so far, but you are either purposely missing the point or being REALLY thick.

Not everyone lives in an area with a huge outdoor black market where we can buy in-theaters movies for $10 on DVD. (Some of us could have access to those HIDEOUS cam-jobs and wouldn't WANT THEM anyway...)

You know DAMN WELL that those $10 DVD's are illegal, under your country's laws as well as ours. So cut it out already! The fact that you've convinced yourself that it's ok because it doesn't hurt Hollywood is irrelevant.

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

Blockbuster NOW pays less than we do, but small video stores pay more. Blockbuster USED to pay more until they renegotiated their bulk deal. On small films I'd guess they still pay more (hence only one copy of "Equilibrium" in stock).

- Gurm

[vitualis]

Firstly, for you to be able to rent out DVDs or video, you have to buy / negotiate a license with the copyright owner. This is what Blockbuster (or any other video rental store) does and hence it is perfectly legal for them to do so.

Secondly, the warnings at the beginning of DVDs and VHS are meaningless in terms of the actual legality. They could equally put up a warning that states "warning: if you copy this disc, your hair will fall out". What is legal or not legal depends on the relevant copyright / intellectual property laws where you live.

Thirdly, copying a rental DVD or VHS tape is definitely illegal. It does not fall under the "fair use" provisions.

As for backing up a DVD you own, that in itself is legal as per fair use. Breaking CSS encryption is illegal as per DMCA. This means you reach a legal grey area that has not been tested in court. doom9.org has a pretty good analysis of the DMCA. The problem is that it on one hand states that the circumvention of a digital copy protection device (e.g., CSS) is illegal but at the same time states that the DMCA does not override existing copyright laws (i.e., including fair use).

I don't believe that the 321 Studios case will resolve this either as firstly they are trying to argue that their product doesn't circumvent CSS at all and secondly they are a commercial product. Personally, I think that they are stuffed.

In any case, the personal backing up of DVDs you own, I believe should be allowed under the prior concept of fair use (in the spirit of the law). Corporations should not be able to widescale restrict consumer freedom with products they have purchased by an artificially created technical impediment. It has always been argued that the legal protection of something like CSS was to prevent piracy. However, what is increasingly obvious is that this is used as a tool by the media companies rather to restrict consumer freedoms.

Regards.

[Dragonsf]

Here in Germany, the law is a little different (regarding copies of rented DVDs).The correct term here is not "owning", but "being in possession" of the original.Nobody can force you, to watch a DVD at a certain time, so it's legal, to make a personal copy of the rented DVD and watch it later.
(as long, as you don't mess with a copy-protection).
All copyright holder's fees are paid with the rental fee, the fees on the blank media and the DVD writer.You can't of course sell or make another copy of this copy.
Maybe, the Admistration (lobbied by MI) will change that in the near future.

[housepig]

either way....you would be making an ANALOG copy (whether to VHS, (S)VCD, DVD-R/+R)...this will never be as good as a digital copy (i.e. ripping)

true, but I don't think the Fair Use precedents make any guarantees for the quality of your backups...

you could make a backup by aiming a camcorder at the tv as you play the dvd, and that would back it up without violating the DMCA... it'll look like crap, but you'll be legal

[spiderman2k1]

I really do not care if the law say's i'm breaking the law my making a back up. Some thing I have are out of print and I must have a back up. Of these VHS tape's and DVD's. I do not sell copy's. I do not rent movie's to copy. I buy my movie's and back up the one's I really like and most import the one's that are out of print. If HollyWood had it's way there wold never even be a VHS player never mind DVD or even the great Laserdisc player's

[Schmendrick]

The new german copyright law (and I think it might be the same in other european countries) protects the circumvention of "effective" copy protection means. Due to the availability of a mass of DVD-ripping programs I think CSS has be proven as being not (!!) an "effective" means of copy protection.

So the question is, can a copy protection mechanism be assumed to be "effective" if almost anybody can use a wide variety of programs to render it "ineffective".

At least the use of these programs to backup or convert the movie to a different format to enable a vieweing on different hardware of your own DVDs should still be considered "fair use".

CU
Schmendrick

[fvd72]

I red in an article that if you open a DVD with a DVD Player, than you can copy the entire content on your HDD. You don't need a ripper. I guess that in fact the CSS is only to restrict your rights in a different way. A company who produces a DVD player (standalone or software) must get a licence from the RIAA. This way they make some extra money, plus they can condition the producer.

It is the same story with the zones. Did you know that it is "illegal" to buy DVDs from one zone and use them in a different zone? Like, if I buy a DVD in USA and send it to Europe to my friends, I comit an "illegality" by RIAA.

When I buy a DVD, that DVD becomes my property, and I can do what I want with it. If I want to scrach it, I can scrach it. If I want to brake it, I can do it. If I want to give it to my friends, I can do it. If I want to resel it (the original, not copies), I can do it. It is my right. RIAA doesn't like it. If they could, they would like to sell you only the right to watch the movie, and maybe to make you pay for each extra time you watch it (like in the software case - you buy the right to use it).

As far as I know (different scolars have different oppinions), "fair use" implies making copies for yourself and for your family members and friends too, as long as you have the original not a copy and you don't sell it. Napster and the like were sued because they gave the posibility for to complet strangers to exchange copyrighted files. AOL gave the posibility for "budies" to exchange mp3s too. Nobody sued them because that's legal.

[housepig]

A company who produces a DVD player (standalone or software) must get a licence from the RIAA.

First, you are confusing the RIAA with the MPAA. I think you also may be thinking of a royalty payment to the manufacturers of the technology, not a royalty to the MPAA?

Did you know that it is "illegal" to buy DVDs from one zone and use them in a different zone? Like, if I buy a DVD in USA and send it to Europe to my friends, I comit an "illegality" by RIAA.

The Region Code system is not law, it was a distribution scheme to keep people from being able to easily view movies that might still be in theaters in their part of the world. Check the DVD FAQ

As far as I know (different scolars have different oppinions), "fair use" implies making copies for yourself and for your family members and friends too, as long as you have the original not a copy and you don't sell it.

Nope, that's outside the boundaries of Fair Use. And selling has nothing to do with it - even free distribution is a crime, because it's not being done by the person with the rights to the material.

Napster and the like were sued because they gave the posibility for to complet strangers to exchange copyrighted files. AOL gave the posibility for "budies" to exchange mp3s too. Nobody sued them because that's legal.

Napster got sued before AOL becuase a) it was cheaper to go after them, b) there were more users sharing files on Napster than on AOL, c) AOL has at least made motions to prevent unauthorized file sharing on it's systems*. It takes a lot fewer lawyers and a lot less money to bankrupt Napster than it would to take AOL to court.

(*how well they work is not the point - the point is they have taken measures to say "hey, we're trying to fix the problem"... something that Napster did not do).

[indolikaa]

A company who produces a DVD player (standalone or software) must get a licence from the RIAA.

Companies that wish to advertise their compatibility with the standards set by the DVD Forum (the DVD logo) must carry a valid CSS License, available from the DVD Copy Control Association.

[thayne]

copying rented DVDs is absolutely illegal.... that makes sense and is NOT a stupid law because you DON'T OWN the DVD...you're just renting it. you have absolutely no "fair use" rights.

Then why is it legal to record a movie from HBO? It's the same movie, differnt media. I think "Backing up" rental DVD's is just as legal as recording the same movie from HBO under fair use.

[housepig]

Then why is it legal to record a movie from HBO?

because that's "time shifting".

when you rent something, you're not renting it for a two-hour viewing period between 6 and 8 a.m. on Thursday - you are renting it for a period of days in which it is assumed you will have time to watch it - if you don't have time to watch it, why did you rent the movie?

by contrast, recording a televised broadcast is legal because it allows you to view it at a time convienient for you, not a time convieninet for the broadcaster.

[margib]

by contrast, recording a televised broadcast is legal because it allows you to view it at a time convienient for you, not a time convieninet for the broadcaster.

Okay, then what if you are watching the broadcast and still record it (or record it and watch it repeatedly)? According to your statement you cannot record a broadcast for the purpose of keeping it for multiple future viewings?

[MOVIEGEEK]

Under the US Supreme Court ruling(Universal Studios vs.Sony)we(Americans) are allowed to record a tv show to be viewed at a later time(time-shifting) but as for copying rented movies it is illegal because we do not own them.Copying DVD's that you own is illegal because you must crack the CSS encryption which is punishable under DMCA but you can make one "backup" of your DVD.
Confused yet?

[thayne]

That's dumb. It's the same thing. Aside from DMCA, which I think will be thrown out once challenged, it's no different to "Time Shift" from TV or DVD.

What if I rent a DVD and don't have time to watch it before it's due?

[jarvis1781]

then you dont rent it until you DO HAVE TIME.

[thayne]

then you dont rent it until you DO HAVE TIME.

Then you don't watch HBO untill you have time..... It's no different! It's can't go both ways.

"Movie A" Recorded from HBO is the SAME as "Movie A" copied from DVD. In both cases you do not own the movie so they either both have to be legal or illegal.

The courts have already ruled it's legal to copy movies from HBO, therefore a precidence has already been set. You will never see the MPAA challenge this in court because they will loose.

As long as there is some question they are hppay to tell you it's illegal, but if it goes to court everyone will find that it is perfectly legal. Period....

[jarvis1781]

it is different. you can CHOOSE when to rent a movie. you can't CHOOSE when the network decides to play a flick.

[thayne]

Your argument hold no water.... You're wrong.