Personal copy - legal in US or not?

[jarvis1781]

HA HA HA HA.

the classic reply of someone who knows they are wrong
you make me laugh

[thayne]

ha ha, whatever. I guess that's all you could come back with.....

[housepig]

According to your statement you cannot record a broadcast for the purpose of keeping it for multiple future viewings?

That's correct. I spent a few hours this afternoon trying to find a legal right to make backups, and came up quite empty. But as a side note, I read up on the Betamax case, which is where the legality of "time shifting" came from.

Building a library of archived broadcasts is not covered. In theory, once you've watched it, you should erase it.

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.

That's what I'm having trouble finding - Fair Use actually covers none of this activity, unless you are ripping part of a disc to use for a review, or for social commentary or parody, etc. I have not been able to find any legal precedent for making legal "backup copies".

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.

What movie is irrelevant. What is relevant is that, HBO On Demand notwithstanding, you can't tell HBO when to play something. If they want to run the movie you want to see one time, at 4:30 in the morning, you can't make them run it again when you want to see it.

Therefore, you are allowed to tape it to watch it at a time convienient for you.

If you go out and rent a movie, and you are informed that you have 2 days, 5 days, 10 days, whatever before you have to return it, you have chosen to watch the movie in that time period. You are "time shifting" it by virtue of being in control of that movie's start time during the period you have rented it.

Arguing that you are dubbing it to "time shift" is a bad argument - if you have to time shift it, you should rent it at a time when you can watch it.

And I'll also say, Movie A on disc and Movie A on HBO aren't the same, because they are not equivalent media - one you can control (the disc), the other you can't (the broadcast).

do a Google search for the terms "Betamax" and "time shift" or "fair use" and look up the decisions in the case.

[jarvis1781]

ha ha, whatever. I guess that's all you could come back with.....

whatever? I guess that's all you could come back with. there was nothing that needed a come back. you just said "hold no water". as if that is an argument or anything that needed responding to. i merely pointed out the fact that you are obviously wrong in this case.

[thayne]

Well, then maybe you can explain why there aren't hudreds of cases piling up in the courts? Hell, there's not even one. Why is that? If you are right you would think the mpaa would be all over it making example like the riaa is trying to do....

[poopyhead]

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

that is exactly what i was saying... there ARE ways to make legal backup copies of copyrighted materials you do own (i.e. not illegal under DMCA), but the quality of the backup may not be very good...

----------

@fvd72,

i believe the "zones" you're referring to is called "regions" :P

as for practicing "fair use," yes...you can make personal copies of copyrighted works you own..however, DMCA prevents you from breaking CSS encryption to do so. you would need to make personal copies using a different method that does NOT break CSS encryption to be legal under DMCA.

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).

they actually have started to do that with windows media files. every time you play them, they look up the registration to make sure you have the proper license to play the file.

---------

Well, then maybe you can explain why there aren't hudreds of cases piling up in the courts? Hell, there's not even one. Why is that? If you are right you would think the mpaa would be all over it making example like the riaa is trying to do....

we are NOT arguing whether you will get punished or not. we ARE arguing whether copying rented movies is illegal under the law. ppl commit crimes everyday that go unpunished...that doesn't mean it's legal.

also, your analogy b/w MPAA and RIAA is quite different:

1) RIAA has a simple method to prove ppl are pirating...i.e. P2P networks.....MPAA needs to invidually prove you are copying rented movies (i.e. by spying or you or something)...not quite as easy as RIAA going to Kazaa and downloading some .mp3s to prove ppl guilty

2) RIAA is making an example of everyone because music sharing has gone rampant....however, good quality DVD rips are NOT being shared at an equal pace..so MPAA still has more time to deal with the problem at hand.

so, plz don't try to argue "time shifting" as a way to legalize copying rented DVDs. the other posters have made it quite clear why this is the case.

[vitualis]

As before.

Recording off broadcast is quite different -- and in any case, this was already been tested in court in the aforementioned court case. Time-shifting is legal by common law (we are looking at a US perspective of course, but the legal position of most countries is similar).

Copying a rental is qualitatively different and the "time-shift" arguement is very very weak -- I would say unsustainable. If you want to "time shift" the watching of content in the rental system, then you rent it at a later stage.

As for fair use, it isn't a "free for all". It is a number of quite strict scenarios of where the breach of copyright is not considered illegal (e.g., this includes for education purposes, for the purpose of a single personal backup, etc.)

People also seem to have some confusions between the DMCA and "fair use".

You can quite legally under fair use create a personal back up of a DVD (e.g., the same as CDs). The DMCA definitely does NOT prevent this. What the DMCA does make illegal is the circumvention of a digital copy protection device. That is, breaking CSS encryption would be illegal.

Thus, you reach the quandry where the concept of digitally backing up a DVD is legal but the practical steps required is illegal. Exactly which takes precedence has not been tested in court. My opinions on this has been discussed up this thread and is in general similar to that in the doom9 analysis of the DMCA.

Of course, if you backup your DVDs in a way that does not break CSS (e.g., pointing a camcorder at the TV, or even recording onto VHS) this is perfectly legal.

Regards.

[housepig]

You can quite legally under fair use create a personal back up of a DVD (e.g., the same as CDs).

Michael -

do you have any citation that supports this? I spent several hours yesterday trying to find clarification on Fair Use and personal backup copies, and I was unable to find it.

All the material I read for Fair Use centers on the ability to excerpt pieces for commentary, criticism, parody, etc. - not making a backup.

And the only stuff in the Copyright Act about archival copies (extremely dry reading) states that you can make a backup only if a replacement copy is not available at a reasonable cost - which wouldn't wash for most dvd backups.

The backing up of music to other formats seems to address space shifting - ie I make a cassette copy of this record because I can't fit a record into my car stereo.

Even the EFF, who have various lawyers on staff and who are trying to make the case for the broadest rights possible, could only say this:

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)

Making a personal back-up copy of content you own - for instance, burning a copy of an audio CD you own.

... but I notice they could cite case law for space-shifting, but not for backup copies...

So do you have any good citations for me?

[vitualis]

You are of course correct. I am using a "broadish" definition of fair use.

I believe that where personal backup of "content" you own is fairly clearly stated (though I haven't got any handy references) is with software.

It can (and has I believe) been argued that there is a qualitative difference between software and (for example) CD audio or DVD and that the fair use of "personal backup" does not carry over. I (and others), however, disagree with this.

The whole point of backing up software is due to the not unrealistic concern of the fragitility of the MEDIUM that holds the content. If we are talking purely about information/data, I believe that the fair use of personal backup DOES carry over (and reasonably so) to other forms of digital media (e.g., audio CD and DVD).

Regards.

[next]

You are of course correct. I am using a "broadish" definition of fair use.

I believe that where personal backup of "content" you own is fairly clearly stated (though I haven't got any handy references) is with software.

It can (and has I believe) been argued that there is a qualitative difference between software and (for example) CD audio or DVD and that the fair use of "personal backup" does not carry over. I (and others), however, disagree with this.

The whole point of backing up software is due to the not unrealistic concern of the fragitility of the MEDIUM that holds the content. If we are talking purely about information/data, I believe that the fair use of personal backup DOES carry over (and reasonably so) to other forms of digital media (e.g., audio CD and DVD).

Regards.

Absolutely correct. You are purchasing a "license" as was so well stated above. Not the medium or media itself. As it relates to this topic we as consumers never "own" anything but the license. Read the fine print.

In my opinion that is why this whole thing works. The medium can be damaged but the license remains.

[next]

How many of us that own company's across the states or for that matter across continents have ever worried about the disc? It's the license.

[next]

If I wasn't clear I simply agree with Michael's argument.

[painkiller]

In simple, layman's terms - the legal allowance of a person's "fair use" of a copyrighted work, a person must have purchased, and own/keep/maintain, the item being backed up.

Once a transfer of the original material (from whence the copy was made) goes to another (individual) - the copy must also be transferred with it, or be destroyed.

That is the rudimentary essentials of current copyright law concerning "fair use" in the USA.

This is the primary, legal definition held by judicial systems throughout the USA. This is not to say that any judge, being human, may mistakenly come up with different interpretations.

[poopyhead]

@next,

i totally agree with you.

however, in the act of exercising your right as a "license" owner, you need to circumvent CSS, then you will be violating the DMCA. so, unless the DMCA is removed, etc.... you can still be arrested for violating it...even if you are exercising your "fair use"

it can be said you can exercise "fair use" without violating DMCA by using other methods...(i.e. play the DVD on the TV and point camcorder at it and tape it)....may not be good quality, but it is still considered "fair use"...since as housepig pointed out, "fair use" doesn't guarentee the quality of the personal backup...just your right to it.

also, you would be able to do a digital copy of a non-encrypted DVD...i've encountered some before...even released by major hollywood studio...this would fall under "fair use" but would not violate DMCA because there's no CSS to begin with

[dcsos]

fvd 72, you're misinforming us!

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.

Not only as someone pointed out is it the MPAA not the RIAA that is the governing body,
but what you assert frankly isn't possible
What the article was stating is that you may need to play a litte of the MOVIE before you can operate the ripper to copy the files to the hard drive..try it some time..
ONLY DVD's without CSS can be "copied" to the hard drive without the DECRYTING application!

[housepig]

In simple, layman's terms - the legal allowance of a person's "fair use" of a copyrighted work, a person must have purchased, and own/keep/maintain, the item being backed up.

That is the rudimentary essentials of current copyright law concerning "fair use" in the USA.

This is the primary, legal definition held by judicial systems throughout the USA.

Painkiller -

can you cite any case law to support this? That's (partly) the gist of this thread - the original poster was looking for precedent that's on point.

All I've been able to find is the Copyright Act (which as far as I can see, allows archival copies only when a replacement is not available at a fair price), the Betamax case (which allows time shifting, but not archiving) and summaries of Fair Use (which covers use of part of a copyrighted work, but not copying the entire work).

Other than that, I've found info at the EFF that I quoted previously - it's "believed by many lawyers" that a backup copy is Fair Use, but there is no clear-cut precedent.

[jarvis1781]

@housepig

you said it precisely!

Right now there is NO "clear-cut precedent". we are too early in the game here for there to be one....yet.

[painkiller]

Housepig -
No I can't provide an example of any case law that supports this.

However, this is what has been taught in the copyright & trademark legal classes I have taken.

This is the reason I 'stuck my nose in' so to speak, this is the ideal definition in class. I have heard this repeated throughout the years, but when it comes down to it before the bench --- you can't necessarily count on what any particular judge is going to say.

Which is why there are different levels of courts, for appeals processes.