Tangled legal question but interesting

[arcorob]

As I have seem some WAY off topic topics floating today, I thought I might post an on-topic off topic post. Okay.

As I seem to understand it, it is ILLEGAL to make a BACKUP or COPY a DVD, for personal use no matter what , correct ? That includes rental or purchased.

Now it IS legal to copy a VHS version of a movie as was defined a while back, for personal use, no distribution.

So if you do that and put the backup on DVD are you still within the law because of the source ? If so, why in the world would a judge make any distinction on what is and isn't copyright infringement ?

I understand the NOT FOR DISTRIBUTION part, I don't understand how personal use would differ......Any info appreciated?

By the way, not a newbie, not looking to stir any pots, just really want to know where the law stands.......In the US of A that is.

[Marco33]

I can't see why they (Hollywood) would have a problem of me making a backup of my favorite movie for my own personal use.

I have the original.

I'm not making a profit off myself.

Now...

If I went to A rental place and copied that... then yes.

Or

I sold a copy to a friend.... then yes.


Altho they do figure you would wear out a VHS and have to buy a new one... so if you make copies they are losing money.

The problem I have is they created their own problems. Some movies you just can't get or can't get anymore. Star Wars WS original version for one. If I could capture, You better believe I would transfer my VHS of it to DVD.

If it were on DVD I would have bought it yesterday.

O' Don't get me started on that.

&*)&)$&! George Lucas *&%&!@*!!!

[SLK001]

About 20 years ago, a doctrine called the "Fair Use" was created out of a video tape copying case. The individual on trial was accused of copying his video tapes (these were tapes that he owned). The studios cried "foul" and filed suit, claiming a violation of copyright law.

The judge said that the studios were full of shit (actually, he said that they were being unreasonable) and said that a person could do what he wanted with his copies, which included making one (and only one) copy of them, provided that he kept that copy for his own use and didn't sell or distribute that copy. This doctrine could easily carry over to the latest electronic media, DVD.

So, if you own the original, you are probably safe in making backups of them. But renting or borrowing a DVD (or a video tape) from anywhere and making a copy is illegal under this doctrine and all current copyright law.

[sammie]

Actually, it isn't illegal to copy a DVD no matter what. If it isn't copy protected (begging the question of where you’d find such a beast) and you own a copy you would probably find yourself covered under fair use. People need to realize though that "fair use" is more of a judicial interpretation than any actual law. That means it is based on legal precedent (for most of our discussion here the Sony Betamax ruling). What the DMCA does is make it illegal to circumvent the copy protection.

Therefore, copying a VHS you owned to a DVD should be fine. BUT!!!! What does the DMCA say? I have to admit I’ve only seen pre-digested extracts of the pertinent pieces, but at least one associate has HEARD that the MPAA wants a vehicle for challenging the Betamax decision. Remember, it’s precedent not a specific law. They think certain clauses within the DMCA give them the grounds for reopening that case. As I mentioned in a previous post, a lot of this is speculation until some of the court cases get decided and probably, until they start reaching some high level of appeal.

[adam]

Right, arcorob you are drawing a distinction that doesn't exist. Its legal for you to make 1 copy of a any legally owned software, so copying your DVD is just as legal as copying your VHS. With DVD you have a catch 22, however, where it is illegal to circumvent the protection, which pretty much makes it impossible to copy the DVD which you have a legal right to do. Really this completely contradicts Fair Use so one or the other has to go, and that will happen, it just takes a long time for anything to change in the legal system.

[arcorob]

But I am not circumventing copy protection. I am copying the files for backup purposes. This entails using a tool that can read these files, in this case say SMARTRIPPER. DECSS has already be cleared so.....Where is the violation as long as I dont sell it , distribute it or BORROW the original from a friend ?

Hmm..I think they have a can of worms.

Actually, most of my DVD works is my own video productions...But would like the courts to MAKE IT CLEAR

[sammie]

Yes, that's what I mean by it will depend on court decisons. You have two pieces that are at legal odds. The concept of "fair use" which is a court interpretation and the DMCA which is the new law. A can of worms is a good description. If you use any sort of unapproved DeCSS you are circumventing the copy protection. This is currently being touted as being even just to PLAY a DVD you own. What this means is no one can fully answer the question until court cases are tried, ruled on and reach some level or appeal. My guess is this will end up in the supreme court eventually, but in what form or what the test case will be who knows.

[adam]

Of course you are circumventing the protection. The protection specifically seeks to prevent you from being able to copy the files onto your hard drive, and like you say, that is exactly what you are doing. DeCSS has NOT been cleared. The author of it has been cleared, but even that is on appeal. The program itself, at least for now, is not illegal because it has uses for playing DVD on linux, and allegedly that is why it was invented. But that doesn't mean it is legal to use DeCSS to circumvent the CSS protection for the purpose of copying the files onto your hard drive.

An analogy would be a crowbar. You are allowed to manufacture one because it has legal purposes. But that doesn't mean that a user of a crowbar can use it to break into someone's house. The difference is that breaking into a house is illegal and copying a legally owned piece of software isn't. Therein lies the problem. The laws are completely contradictory, its just a matter of time before one of them is struck down.

They are legalizing the ends but criminalizing all the means of getting there.

[sammie]

...your own video productions are obviously your own property. Presuming someone hasn't filed a copyright without you knowing about it, none of the above applies. The only problem copying your own stuff is that all of this legal hassle has kept the whole digital video field from progressing at the rate it probably would have otherwise.

[sammie]

... hopefully injecting a bit of humor into this. Crowbar? Bet your city, county, state all have laws about "posession of burgalar tools" and plenty of convictions under the same. So there are lots of cases of laws being enforced that require mind reading to understand what a tool is used for. With that said, the difference is that they aren't going into stores arresting people for selling crowbars. They also aren't saying that we don't care if you only use a crowbar to take off your own hubcaps. They are in the case of DVDs

[SaSi]

Well, actually the issues about copy protection are a bit different, at least in the EU.

I recently came across a EU directive regarding copy media and tools. This includes copy machines, copy paper, blank CD's and DVD's, recorders, etc.

The directive states that: Every manufacturer of such equipment must PAY an amount (percent on the value of the goods) to the intelectual property rights agencies against use of these equipment for copying copyrighted material.

If the manufacturer has not done this (e.g. non in EU), then the importer may do so.

If this is done, then the person who purchases such media or tools MAY use them to copy material that is copyrighted, provided this is for personal use. Examples in the directive include music, films, books, etc.

This directive (in EU) is enforced to manufacturers and importers. Therefore, a EU user can freely copy for personal use (no distribution or sharing).

I have recently bought a couple of Maxell DVD-RWs. They are marked to have CPRM v.1.1 which does not allow you to make copies of what you write to these discs. Now, this is funny, isn't it?

[Marco33]

I was over at DVDXCOPY's forum. They are giving away $1000 to anyone who can give a comprehensive list of DVD's you can't purchase anymore. This is for their law suite I would guess.

This falls in line into what we are talking about. Protecting our investment.

[energy80s]

Just because a disc has been deleted from sale doesn't mean that the copyright has also disappeared. It is still illegal to copy a disc that is no longer available to buy.

Oh and someone else mentioned about DVD's without CSS protection. well, I own one, it's a documentary on the making of the album Rumours by Fleetwood Mac. So no illegal decription is needed to copy the disc, however it is still illegal to copy it as I don't own the copyright for it!!

[miketree]

I recently came across a EU directive regarding copy media and tools. This includes copy machines, copy paper, blank CD's and DVD's, recorders, etc.

Where did you come accross this EU directive? On the internet? Do you have a link? Sounds interesting stuff (unusual for EU directives!).

[energy80s]

I think it's still only a proposal, it definately hasn't become law in the UK.

[Gazorgan]

The Whole issue of 'Backups' could be simply settled (and made illegal) in 1 fell swoop.

Simpley offer to replace any media for the 89 cents it costs to manufacture if it becomes damaged

Scratched copy of Lord of the Rings? No Problem take it to the MPAA store and get a new disk (only) for 89 cents plus tax. Now there is no reason to do backups!

Yeah right, the logistics would be a nightmare, especially on obscure DVD's. And it wouldn't be the true 89 cents, it would be $6.99 to cover overhead.

Wha tyou really need is a $15.00 License fee for Lord of the Rings, and then a $2.00 Media cost. that way you can show your license and get your media replaced for $2.00 (with the old media as a trade in).

Smells like Circuit City DivX...........

[sammie]

@Gozorgan your not far off from what the RIAA is proposing. They want fair use done away with. Of course they are saying the "extra" or "replacement" copies will be a lot less. Well if their download sites are any indication, dream on.