Can You Be Sued For Helping Clients Rip DVDs? 231
DRMer writes "CE Pro has a series of stories that tries to untangle the legalities of DVD ripping in light of the recent RealDVD announcement from RealNetworks. In one of the stories, EFF Attorney Fred von Lohmann discusses the potential liability of those who resell or install DVD-ripping machines (the courts have yet to rule). Another article provides a rather amusing look at how manufacturers justify the legality of their products. Here's one example: 'We are just like Microsoft Vista that does not have a CSS [Content Scramble System] license.'"
You can be sued for anything (Score:5, Insightful)
You can be sued for anything, the question is can you be successfully sued
Re:You can be sued for anything (Score:4, Informative)
Not everywhere. In Spain there must be some merit to the claim... if it doesn't make sense at all they send you home (ie the court can reject your filling).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the claim you're being sued for has no merit, you have to pay a lawyer to go to court and explain that to a judge in order to get it dismissed. So even in the best case you're out of pocket for some amount of money. Other countries have "loser pays [wikipedia.org]" (aka English-rule) provisions -- which require the loser in a suit to pay both sides' attorneys' fees -- to prevent this, but that's not true in the U.S.
The absence of such a rule is the reason SLAPP suits [wikipedia.org] work -- corporations just threaten to bury their
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"The purpose of a lawsuit is not to win, but to harass" - L. Ron Hubbard.
Ironically, the largest fine under SLAPP went against $cientology, I think the fine was in the range of $500,000
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If those suing are the same as those who successfully lobbied for the law, then the answer is almost certainly yes.
Re:You can be sued for anything (Score:4, Interesting)
"Success" depends on objectives. As J. K. Rowling found out, "profit" doesn't follow from "winning." On the other hand, if the objective is to drain your opponent's bank account, then "success" is almost certain.
Re: (Score:2)
He quite obviously meant "winning the lawsuit" by "success". Whether you get any significant amount of money from it is an entirely different matter.
Location, location, location (Score:5, Interesting)
And in both cases, a lot of this seems to depend on where you live.
In North America, Canada seems safer, but there's also a push to hit us with new laws that would be even more draconian than those in the US.
Personally, if person X wants to pay person Y $1.50 to copy his (bought and paid for) "Little Mermaid" DVD so that the kids don't ruin the original, why shouldn't he be able to?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Obviously because Company D(isney) doesn't get any of that $1.50. Company D would rather you purchase additional copies of "Little Mermaid" at full MSRP.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So don't buy the kids DVDs in the first place, or wait until they're older and can take care of them properly. If they break it, tough.
Re:Location, location, location (Score:4, Funny)
Right. Why should I buy him anything at all? Clothes, well he just rips them and gets them dirty. Toys, nah, they break too. He can sleep as well on the floor as on a bed.
So I'll just let him wandering around naked and play with a stick, it'll build character, that's what Calvin's dad always says...
Or I could just copy the damn DVD...
In theory.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You can't necessarily sue for anything. An attorney can even be liable for bringing a frivolous case to court.
And, in fact, attorneys can and have been disbarred from bringing frivolous claims to court.
Of course (Score:3, Informative)
But in this case, you just might.
Re:Of course (Score:5, Insightful)
With the current US system, you lose practically automatically as you're out a reasonably large amount of money in legal fees. Sure, you can counter-sue for your costs, but that could very well be several years down the road.
This is why the RIAA's sue-them-all-and-sort-it-out-later campaign has enjoyed such success. the cost of the settlement is significantly less than the cost of fighting it in court, regardless of the validity of their claims.
Why risk it. (Score:4, Interesting)
I hand the client on my own time a un-labelled Cd with instructions to get anyDVD and the other software they need along with a basic guide. I tell them, you did not get this from me and will deny I have ever seen it or know about it.
I inform them that the MPAA thinks they are crooks and actually hates them and that is why you have to do this silly cloak and dagger crap to rip a DVD for their new expensive Media server system for the home so they can actually have 21st century entertainment.
they typically understand after the mess is explained to them. My sticker is they want to hire someone to do all the ripping for them.
Re:Why risk it. (Score:5, Funny)
You should tape the cd under the seat of a park bench and tell the client to find it there.
That way you cover yourself, and get a repeat customer. That Tom Clancy shit is fun - who wouldn't come back?
right vs wrong and legal vs illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
It is not interesting if you can be sued (as mentioned by others, you always can be).
There are two questions that should be answerd:
1) is it right or wrong?
2) is it legal or illegal?
If 1 and 2 give different answers than the law should be updated.
Lawsuits often don't answer any of the questions (which is actually a very bad thing).
Of course answering question 1 is the tough one.
Re:right vs wrong and legal vs illegal (Score:5, Interesting)
The issue is that different people will give different answers for both 1 and 2.
Re:right vs wrong and legal vs illegal (Score:4, Interesting)
This is why I don't believe in having "for the people by the people". In modern days, it should be, "by the people"... we have the technology... we can build it.
Imagine a system where every law gets voted yes or no by anyone who wants to vote on it. No attachments of crap underneath. If it is too complex, even have a 3rd option "too complex/ambiguous" to force a rewrite of the law. Tie it into a continuously voted law (where every 6 months, voting begins again). That way, those who voted against (example) nuclear power, and learned how safe it became can now vote for nuclear power.
Re:right vs wrong and legal vs illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically mob rule. Nothing will ever get done (esp. your nuclear power example) if the crowds are just going to change their minds that often and change their votes. And you thought bureaucracy was bad now...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I think bureaucracy is good. It slows politicians down, and prevents them from getting things done. It would be even better if they could go in reverse.
That said, I think that the GPP has a great idea, but I also agree that a society need leadership. Perhaps a hybrid. Something like what we have, but more power to the people, and less to the politicians. Perhaps an authoritative document that describes a bunch of stuff that the leaders can and can't do, with consequences for violating the document
Re: (Score:2)
different people will give different answers for the question "how old is the earth" but that doesn't mean the matter is entirely subjective.
this particular issue may be controversial, but the argument for one side is much stronger than for the other. and on legal matters the court's interpretation of the law should be that which protects public interest and best serves public good.
Re:right vs wrong and legal vs illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
(Note, I am very libertarian)
I would disagree with you on that.
Laws should only intervene when your actions directly harm another person. So, only a subset of "wrong" should be illegal.
When talking about psychological harm "wrong" gets very muddy. Does protecting people under 18 from any sexual information help or hurt [amazon.com]?
Is it wrong to be rude to someone? Should that be illegal?
Re:right vs wrong and legal vs illegal (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say that in this case, #1 is subjective, #2 is not. The law is written down, if a judge has ruled that the law is legal then it's legal. For instance, the SCOTUS has said that when it comes to copyright, "limited" means whatever congress says it means, despite all logic and reason.
A movie studio would disagree with me on whether there is harm; I would say "no", he would say "yes" (althogh the MPAA said through its spokesthing that "the VCR is to the movies industry as Jack the Ripper was to women"; obviously Mr. Valenti was a shortsighted fool for saying that).
Legal != "right" and illegal != "wrong". Adultery causes great harm; nothing in my life ever came close to hurting me as much as my ex-wife's adultery. You will never convince me it isn't wrong. Yet adultery is perfectly legal, and the only bearing it has on a divorce is it is grounds for divorce. yet if I have a joint in my pocket it harms no one, yet having a joint in my pocket is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:right vs wrong and legal vs illegal (Score:4, Insightful)
They will always give different answers. (legal, illegal) doesn't match (right, wrong).
And, on a serious note, nor should they. The question of what is "right" or "wrong" differs between a lot of people. Things like the first amendment address the right to say things that others might consider wrong. Should the law be updated so people can't say "wrong" things? I didn't think so. This simple test may be pithy, but it's not sufficient.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
They will always give different answers. (legal, illegal) doesn't match (right, wrong).
And, on a serious note, nor should they. The question of what is "right" or "wrong" differs between a lot of people. Things like the first amendment address the right to say things that others might consider wrong. Should the law be updated so people can't say "wrong" things? I didn't think so. This simple test may be pithy, but it's not sufficient.
To me this is much simpler than what you're presenting. To me the First Amendment is a recognition that trying to determine what speech is right and wrong is, in itself, far more wrong (dangerous) than anything that anyone could say. Wherever possible the law should work this way since you are correct, morality and legality are two entirely separate issues. Handling things this way wherever possible recognizes not only that they are separate issues, but also that it is not the province of the State to d
Re: (Score:2)
"it is not the province of the State to declare what is moral"
You sir, are a moron. If one looks at the canon of US law and reduces it to just those things that a majority of the population agrees are good and just laws, you will find that almost all of them very much revolve around declaring what is moral.
There is a great deal of overlap, yes. But let's take an example like the fact that murder is illegal. There is certainly a moral argument for this, both from an ethics standpoint and also a religious one (i.e. "Thou shalt not kill"). The argument could also be made on a purely pragmatic basis, in that you cannot have a stable society where people can freely do business if that society is like a warzone.
There are also areas where there is little or no overlap. For example, I believe that a person's
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
According to whose ethics? The classic example being abortion -- some feel that abortion is not wrong, others feel abortion is wrong. And please no one start a debate about abortion -- it's a very polarizing subject (and irrelevant to the topic at hand). But that's why it's such a good example.
Our system of government already proscribes a solution: take a vote. And take another one periodically to make sure it reflects what people want.
Not everyone will be happy with the result, and they can work to educate
Re: (Score:2)
Our system of government already proscribes a solution: take a vote. And take another one periodically to make sure it reflects what people want.
First, nitpick (or, being charitable to my intentions, "opportunity for education"): you mean prescribes, not proscribes.
Second and more substantially, in addition to the various citizen votes (and more relevant to the creation of laws, votes by representatives on behalf of the citizens), there is also what should be a strict set of rules as to what sorts of laws can be created. This is (supposed to be) especially strict at the federal level. Laws should not 1:1 map to anyone's ethical code. It's not a m
Re: (Score:2)
First, nitpick (or, being charitable to my intentions, "opportunity for education"): you mean prescribes, not proscribes.
Heh. Thanks. I thought it looked off, but the spell check didn't complain, so I didn't dig deeper.
IMO, it's irrelevant whether the majority of US citizens feels that abortion should or should not be performed. That is simply not a question that should be legislated federally.
In your opinion. I'm guessing your pro-choice. (FWIW I am too.) But if you believed that abortion was equivalent to
Re: (Score:2)
Voting like that doesn't scale; you'll just end up creating a society of interfering busybodies with no concept of minority rights. To have a sane system you need to introduce the concept of standing, such that people only get a vote on those actions which can be objectively shown to affect them. At that point it makes sense for the vote to become an outright veto, and -- congratulations! -- you've re-invented the anarcho-capitalist (libertarian) position.
In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
Why do we collectively accept this madness when it's copyright that we don't accept otherwise? There are legitimate reasons to rip a DVD, and there are also uses of a DVD ripper that violate copyright. A hammer can help to build a house to shelter a family, or it can be used by a criminal to bludgeon someone to death. In principle, I see no fundamental difference here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The hammer lobby in DC isn't big enough.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The hammer lobby in DC isn't big enough.
Haha that's a good answer. But still. That only explains the source of this madness. It does not explain why we (collectively) would ever put up with it for one minute. The cynic in me thinks that the average American doesn't have a single thought in their head that the media didn't put there, and you can rest assured that such messages are bought and paid for. I really think that many years from now, this will be considered a Dark Age because it represents the near-death of critical thinking and inde
Re:In other news (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with you about the media thing. The "infinity+" copyrights are a horrible abomination on the public.
The other thing is that the US isn't a democracy, especially at the federal level, so it really doesn't matter what "the people" want. Just look at the War on Drugs.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree with you about the media thing. The "infinity+" copyrights are a horrible abomination on the public.
The other thing is that the US isn't a democracy, especially at the federal level, so it really doesn't matter what "the people" want. Just look at the War on Drugs.
The form of government isn't really at issue here. There are many non-governmental ways to solve this problem, a widespread boycott being one idea. If enough people got pissed off enough, this is not outside the realm of possibility -- my question relates more to why people are laying down and accepting this instead of getting pissed off and doing something about it. I think we forget sometimes that we are the *aa's customers, that they are nothing without us, that they will go bankrupt and disappear in
Re: (Score:2)
It has happened. Several gun makers have had to defend themselves...
However, since they lost, I think that families of folks killed by drunk drivers shoudl be able to sue Ford, etc. (whoever made the DD's car)
Re: (Score:2)
The question usually comes to whether there is a legitimate legal use of the item, and how common that use is. As an extreme example, what about an atomic bomb? Could any individual legitimately have one for a lawful purpose? I would say not. What about a hammer or chainsaw? I would say most definitely, and the illegal uses are miniscule in comparison. Then you get into the grey area of automatic machine guns, DVD ripping software, and other items that have substantial illegal use. To not see that t
DCMA (Score:4, Interesting)
I though assisting one in bypassing DRM to copy media was very direct and clear in the DCMA, which is why people are wary of including libdvdcss in Linux distros, even if it is used for playback and not copying.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
CSS isn't really a copy protections scheme though, in fact it provides no protection at all against copying the DVD. I could easily distribute a .iso file over the internet that could then be burned to a DVD and played in a regular DVD player. I don't know of any precedent that says if DRM can legally be used to prevent space shifting but not copying though. So its definately a shakey argument.
If you are going to set up DVD ripping for a client, it might be very wise to
A) refuse to work for or sell rippi
Re: (Score:2)
CSS isn't really a copy protections scheme though, in fact it provides no protection at all against copying the DVD. I could easily distribute a .iso file over the internet that could then be burned to a DVD and played in a regular DVD player.
(Part of) the CSS keys are stored in an area on the DVD that is not present/writable in writable DVDs (at least not those sold in normal shops).
Quoting [wikipedia.org]:
...
Some of the keys are stored on the lead-in area of the disk, which is generally only read by compliant drives. Keys can be passed from a DVD drive to a descrambler over a PC bus using a secure handshake protocol. [1]
CSS can only be added to replicated DVDs. A duplicated DVD, i.e. DVD burned from recordable media such as DVD-R or DVD+R cannot have C
Re: (Score:2)
Story Repackaged (Score:3, Interesting)
Selling products that archive DVDs
The MPAA is likely to argue that (1) selling anything that makes copies of movies if you have reason to know that the customer is going to use it to infringe is, itself, an act of contributory infringement and (2) while the "archiving" may not violate the DMCA's [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] prohibition on unauthorized decryption, any device that includes any unlicensed "decrypter" or "player" is a circumvention device prohibited by the DMCA.
I think the gist of the story is broken down into those two questions and based on the response from von Lohmann, I would say is the profit worth the risk. I wont argue anything that allows you to backup the legally purchased DVD's you own (or is it lease...might have to re-read the license)is and should be 100% legal, however, if I am just an installer putting these devices in play, I would think long and hard when the customer who begins his "dvd-reselling" business points the finger back at you..
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Then that customer has broken the law and you haven't. It's no different from the bank-robbery getaway car and the auto dealer, or the counterfeiter and the printing-press manufacturer.
MPAA/RIAA (Score:5, Insightful)
They keep telling us we're buying a license to listen/view the content they are selling to us.
But then they try to lock it down to the actual media.
If I pay for the content, let me rip it so I can use it on my own hardware, the way I see fit (MPAA/RIAA calm down, that doesn't include giving away nor selling copies to others). Also, why do I have to pay full price to get a replacement CD/DVD, my content license has already been paid.
Re:MPAA/RIAA = Greed (Score:2)
RE: why do I have to pay full price to get a replacement CD/DVD, my content license has already been paid.
'cause they can.
They paid for a law to protect profits from their outdated business model.
Unless you can find a congress critter who doesn't take bribes, we are stuck with laws that kill progress and the public domain.
Re: (Score:2)
What's funny is that at least the EULA-using software companies, include a copy of that license (after you've already bought it). The MPAA/RIAA don't even do that. Some RIAA/MPAA lawyer might be saying they're selling licenses, but the packaging (no license included) and advertisements ("own it now!") say otherwise.
And DMCA might be why they don't include that license. If they did give you permission to watch
Re: (Score:2)
You just repeated my last sentence. :P
I've never heard of such a thing ever happening either. In fact, if I remember correctly, I can't even re-download a song I paid for on iTunes (i.e. I can't use the iTunes Store as a personal, last-hope emergency backup, even though they keep a list of what I have already bought).
It's not as bad as you think (Score:2)
How to speed (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Take note of the posted speed limit. On many major highways it is generally 55 or 65 MPH, but this varies from region to region. Better to check first.
2. Press down on the accelerator of your vehicle until your speedometer indicates that you are traveling at a speed higher than the posted speed limit.
3. Maintain a rate of travel above this speed by keeping the accelerator depressed and by not hitting your break pedal.
Now I guess I can be sued if you ever get a speeding ticket.
Tedious (Score:5, Insightful)
Tivo 30 sec skip (Score:2)
Tivos don't allow 30 second skipping ...
Actually, you just have to enable it. See http://bigmarv.net/how/tivo30secondskip.html [bigmarv.net]. They don't enable it by default or advertise the feature in order to mollify the networks, but it's still there.
The rest of your post I basically agree with, but I thought I should pass that tip along.
Re: (Score:2)
How exactly are iPods crippled by DRM?
You mean the fact that they won't play non-Apple DRMed files, right? If so then they're crippled by DRM like EVERY OTHER MP3 PLAYER IN THE MARKET.
Okay, so iPods don't squirt songs at each other. But with a handy-dandy computer(they're quite cheap these days, you should try to get one) of some sort you can transfer music, or *gasp* any old type of data from the iPod to, brace yourself, ANYTHING! Now Apple tries to keep this a secret, but the iPod is basically just a hard
Re: (Score:2)
The Copyright Cartel knows that the technology to thwart them already exists, and that they'll never get that toothpaste back into the tube.
Their big fight now is to keep that technology from appearing friendly and safe to the general public. If they can make it look to Joe Average like there's a Copyright War going on, and he might get hurt, then they can bully the general public into another few years' compliance before the technical know-how becomes ubiquitous.
The direct tv DRVS have 30 second skip on them (Score:2)
The direct tv drvs have 30 second skip on them
CSS license (Score:4, Insightful)
They could get a CSS licence from somebody else other than the DVD-CCA. The DVD-CCA has no special authority to license the use of a CSS descrambler than any content producer.
Since CSS isn't a trade secret anymore (it is PD knowledge now) nobody is prohibited from implementing it on trade secret grounds.
Since CSS was never patented, nobody is prohibited from implementing it on patent grounds.
Since each CSS implementation is an independent work rather than derived, nobody is prohibited from implementing it on copyright grounds.
I'll give them a licence for free. Here you go. I hereby license you all, each and every one.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Myth TV? (Score:2)
This issue interests me regarding MythTV setups. There's already a feature to backup DVDs (rip option when you load a dvd), but I was pondering adding an option to "time-shift" rentals. In other words say you get some movies out of order from Netflix, you could simply have it automatically backup the dvd and hold it for a maximum of x days (then delete it after being viewed or when the time is up).
Currently you can do this manually, but adding a feature that does this explicitly would run afoul of some co
Good god, this is considered a feature? (Score:2)
What the fuck? I understand trying to cover your asses and all, but who in their right mind would produce such a crippled piece of hardware? And who would buy it?
Yes, it is in violation of the DMCA (Score:2)
By plain reading of the law, you may not assist anyone, in any way in circumventing DRM...
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
A and B are pretty clear, regardless of C. You might argue that the primary purpose is convenience, but since it could also be argued that convenience explicitly requires circumvention that may be shaky ground. I haven't heard of a test case in this, as nobody has been willing to put their corporate butt on the line yet.
Now, this doesn't mean that making the copy is illegal, as the DMCA does _not_ take away any right
The copyright holder DECIDES if it's legal (Score:3, Interesting)
You have to keep in mind the very radical terms of DMCA. That law is unlike anything else that people have experience with, and you can't just apply common sense to it, or think about the issues in terms of what copyright is for. Anyone who talks about issues like "copyright infringement" in this context, is not in the right frame of mind. Copyright infringement is a totally unrelated concept to DMCA.
The key part of DMCA is that no one is allowed to access the content without authorization from the copyright holder. Do you have authorization? (Can you prove you do?)
We generally ass/u/me that we have authorization to play our DVDs, provided that we are using equipment for which the manufacturer got a DVDCSS license. But look at your DVD and the booklet and the case: the conditions under which you are authorized to play it, are not actually stated anywhere.
If you play a DVD and then for whatever reason, and in service of whatever agenda, the copyright holder decides to sue you for violating DMCA, then they just need to answer one question: Do you authorize what the defendant did?
If the copyright holder says Yes, then the judge should say, "I find in favor of the defendant."
If the copyright holder says No, then the judge should say, "I find in favor of the plaintiff."
The same goes for a manufacturer. If a copyright holder decides that people are not authorized to play their DVDs on your equipment, then the primary purpose of your equipment is to play DVDs without authorization.
There is no code of conduct you can follow, or rules spelled out, or anything you can do to make sure what you're doing is legal. There aren't even vague rules of thumb, parallel to the Fair Use criteria like you have in copyright-infringement related discussions. Every DVD user, every DVD player manufacturer, and every DVD-related toolmaker (which accesses the content of CSS-scrambled DVDs) is at their arbitrary mercy. All they have to do, is say you are not authorized, and then unless you have some sort of evidence that they did authorize you (do you (does anyone?) have this evidence, for any of the DVDs that you own?), then you have clearly violated DMCA.
This holds even if you get a DVDCSS license, and strictly adhere to its terms. But, if you do that, then they have no incentive to come after you (and they would undermine all the reasons that anyone bothers to get DVDCSS licenses), so you will get away with it. That's the safest way to go.
If this all seems unfair to you, then I advocate you vote against everyone in the 2008 elections who doesn't say they will sponsor or vote for legislation that repeals DMCA. Remember: a president, a third of the senate, and the whole house. This law could be gone in a few months, if only people would vote on it. Yes, some will say it's naive to think people would vote on actual issues, but we do have the ability, should we ever choose to exercise it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
Absent a court ruling to back that up, it isn't anything. It's a hypothetical because there is no case law to establish anything.
Note that copyright infringement is a civil matter. So, aiding and abetting doesn't apply.
Maybe if you did it on a commercial scale, for profit, you could make that point. Helping people to install software to perform what is considered to be fair use ... that has yet to be determined.
Would I want to make a business out of selling this kind of stuff without legal precedent? Nope. But, neither does your summary decision that it's a aiding and abetting a crime have anything to support it.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Helping people to install software to perform what is considered to be fair use ... that has yet to be determined.
I'm fairly certain the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been tested in court, specifically in relation to backing up DVDs. Remember 321 Studios?
Re:Yes (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that was a combination of running out of money and losing a lower court ruling.
At present, there isn't definitive case law to identify if this is legal or not. Unfortunately, the pecker heads at the MPAA have deep enough pockets to buy whatever ruling they want until someone pushes this far enough through the courts. The whole point of TFA is that this is a gray area that hasn't been finally determined by the courts.
Cheers
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
However, you're all not actually paying close enough attention to the question.
The question is, "Can you be sued for helping to perform action X?". The answer to that question is an unequivocal "Yes!". In America you can be sued for anything. Whether you can win in court is dependent largely on whether you can afford to stay in for enough rounds to have baseless claims thrown out. Occasionally, really badly executed lawsuits are thrown out in the beginning. But since any copyright infringement lawsuit is li
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the circumvention that's prohibited, not the copying itself. So, if you can get at the data without circumvention, fair use provisions should still apply.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
how is it illegal to take something you purchased, and rightfully own, and convert it to a format that better suits your purposes. if i want to rip all my DVDs and CDs onto my hard drive, that is my prerogative. as long as i'm not distributing them illegally, it falls completely within fair use.
just like, if i have a child who is blind, and i want to take all the books i've bought her and record myself reading them aloud so that she may listen to the books when i'm not around, that is not a crime--not yet, at least.
Re: (Score:2)
Making the copy is not illegal.
Making, possessing, using, etc. etc. technology that can make the copy may be illegal, because to do so you have to circumvent a technology whose primary purpose is to protect copyright.
That's why the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA is such a problem. Either "fair use" has to be held up as a significant non-infringing use (which could/should apply to pretty much any circumvention technology, negating the effect of the anti-circumvention clause), or fair use has to be re
Re:Yes (Score:5, Interesting)
I retain right of first sale on DVDs, CDs, and books.
I own the disk, and while I'm limited in what I can do with its contents .... this "license to view what's one the disk" argument is fallacious. Don't buy into the unproven claims of the *AAs. This is more than just what they claim they've licensed you to do.
Cheers
Re: (Score:2)
Incorrect. It's true if you are renting it might be true (it IS true in that event) but when you BUY it you:
1. Are purchasing an off-the-shelf commodity good
2. Are doing the exact same as buying a book
3. Are agreeing to the transaction advertised: "Own $MOVIE on DVD today!" in every TV ad, store kiosk, marquee/poster, and radio ad they smother us with. Their marketing departments KNOW the law and that you OWN that
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
on that advertising bit...
say you are taken to court and the decision is that in fact you ARE only licensed to view. At that point you file a motion charging the *AA with literally MILLIONS of cases of false advertising. NICE!
Re: (Score:2)
Informative my arse, this comment was dead wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Either you do or it's advertisement fraud
"Own it Today" the TV ads say.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That's what they want you to believe, but I don't think there's actually any legal basis to it. I need a license if I want rights I don't already get from the act of purchase -- like distribution of copies, hence the meaningful-ness of the GPL -- but "view the content" isn't a right reserved to the copyright holder. I don't need or want a license, hence there is no leverage to impose constraints on my use.
This is the fundamental problem IMO with any EULA. The publisher wants the best of both worlds -- th
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are circumventing technical measures for the express purpose of interoperability (with your backup software). Perfectly legal.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Insightful)
No?
Unfair laws make criminals of everyone.
Re:Yes (Score:4, Insightful)
If they make criminals of EVERYONE, then they ARE fair.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Yes (Score:5, Informative)
There is no such law that allows for one backup. I can make 100 copies of CDs that I bought and go skeet shooting. I am only breaking the law when I distribute those copies to others.
Re:Yes (Score:5, Funny)
that is still illegal. skeet shooting is like bittorrent - distributing little chunks of files over a broad area, but never the whole file at once! =P
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that mix tapes are technically legal. It's not something that you'll ever be prosecuted for (unless you are distributing those mix tapes/CDs to tons of people or selling them), but it still falls within the realm of copyright infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's the shitty catch.
You can very well likely make a backup copy of your DVD legally. The criminal aspect is the bypassing of the copy protection. So, if your DVD came without the protection you could make backups. If it didn't then, well, you're kind of screwed legally.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For the purpose of interoperability it is legal to circumvent technical measures. Getting it to work with your backup program is an interoperability situation.
Re: (Score:2)
So far as I know, as long as you don't have to *transcode* the data (for example, to fit a double-layer DVD onto a typical 4.1GB recordable DVD), there's no problem with copying bit-for-bit, and then burning that onto whatever medium you want, whether or not there's copy protection on there.
Re: (Score:2)
Can DVDShrink be legally hosted in the USA? Or are they (the dvdshrink people) just choosing not to because they want to avoid legal problems?
As to your second paragraph, I am pretty sure that the MPAA/RIAA want to outlaw you programming your own tools to rip things... which is wrong.
Re: (Score:2)