Travel Technology - is it okay to save DVDs rented from Netflix and watch them on planes later?

I never buy any DVDs, since I've never watched a DVD more than once.

Never tried Netflix, but have been told by friends that the service is great. Is it okay to save DVDs rented from Netflix and watch them on planes later?

I don't feel it's safe to carry about rental DVDs on planes.
They could get lost and I'd be responsible for paying the
full price of a DVD to Netflix.

If I simply copy it to my laptop and watch on the plane,
it will just be deleted after it has been watched. For one
thing, each DVD is at least 4GB+ and my laptop only has
a 60GB drive(with less than 20GB free).

Any thoughts on this?

No it is not sadly.

You are allowed to make a personal copy of a DVD you OWN, but since that doesn't work in the case of Netflix you are not legally permitted to do so. Of course, whether or not you do so is up to you ;)

yeah, that's what I figured... technically is should no be done...

the only reason I thought it might be okay is that I did pay for the $49 monthly rental membership fee, plus the fact that I still end up watching the movie only ONCE.

Oh well... guess I'll just have to be more careful bringing the rented DVDs with me.

Wait... I've heard there are websites where you can go and legally download movies for a fee. Can anybody recommend
a website? I think that might be a better choice for me.

yeah, that's what I figured... technically is should no be done...

the only reason I thought it might be okay is that I did pay for the $49 monthly rental membership fee, plus the fact that I still end up watching the movie only ONCE.

Oh well... guess I'll just have to be more careful bringing the rented DVDs with me.

Wait... I've heard there are websites where you can go and legally download movies for a fee. Can anybody recommend
a website? I think that might be a better choice for me.


www.movielink.com

The newest player in town: www.vongo.com

I would simply bring the Netflix DVDs with you. I do it all the time. If you have a problem losing stuff on airplanes, then a $25 DVD should be the least of your concerns. Do whatever you need to do to fix that problem regardless of whether you go with Netflix.

By the way, Netflix ranges from about $10.50 per month (for 1 movie out at a time) up to the mid-$20's (for 5 movies at a time, I think) with a couple of tiers in between. If you watch even one movie a month, it's probably worth it unless you have an extremely convenient Blockbuster location that always has exactly what you want in stock. If you rent 2 or more movies a month, Netflix (or a similar service) is a no-brainer. We rent maybe 4 per month on the $10.50 plan and I cannot believe it took me so long to discover Netflix.

As for download sites, I don't know. I do not know of any out there that have similar selection to Netflix. And I know nothing about their pricing (e.g., per-movie, monthly subscription, etc.).

$49 monthly fee :confused:

just tried both movielink and vongo neither supports mac
another problem with saving a movie is the amount of storage needed

are we all tired or charly and the chocolate thing...

Under RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, it's legal to copy CDs you own onto an mp3 player. This is a practice called "space shifting," and is the basis for devices like the iPod as we know them today.

It should therefore be legal to copy DVDs you own to your hard drive for viewing on your laptop (ignoring the possibility that using some DVD ripping software may violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by breaking the CSS encryption on commercial DVD movies).

And I think you could make a very good argument that it's legal to copy rented DVDs to your hard drive, too, especially if you delete them from your hard drive before returning the DVD to NetFlix.

It's more questionable if you're keeping the copy on your hard drive longer than you keep the physical DVD from NetFlix, although I could make a good argument for that being legal, too.

I'm sure the MPAA would disagree, but how exactly are they going to seek enforcement?

As long as you're not distributing copies to third parties or keeping your copies to view them more than once, I personally don't think there's any real problem with copying movies to your hard drive.

And I think you could make a very good argument that it's legal to copy rented DVDs to your hard drive, too, especially if you delete them from your hard drive before returning the DVD to NetFlix.
Since you paid to rent the item and not to purchase the item how would renting make it acceptable for one to copy the item in question? Renting does not constitute ownership or NetFlix would not ever get any of their DVDs back and would not be able to charge the replacement fee for the DVD in question...


As long as you're not distributing copies to third parties or keeping your copies to view them more than once, I personally don't think there's any real problem with copying movies to your hard drive.
I've done this on long flights as DVDs playing from my HD use less power than DVDs playing from the CD/DVD drive ... as such I can watch a second movie on a 6+ hour flight without the need for a second battery...I use Netflix for travel entertainment but how I do it is bring the DVD along with me and then just delete the DVD image off my HD when I finish the movie and then mail it back to Netflix from where ever I happen to be ... Probably not legal but it works as far as Im concerned since the DVD never leaves the same city or state that I am in unless I am finished with it ...

Be warned that some Netflix movies are so scratched up that trying to rip or copy them is nearly impossible...guess what I am saying is plan ahead so you dont get stuck without a movie for a trip

I carry Netflix DVDs with me when I travel. I used to have the 4 DVDs at a time subscription, so I would take all 4 with me on long road trips to play on my laptop. Since these were trips within the US, I would just drop the DVDs in the mail when I finished with them as usual. By the time I got home, Netflix would have sent me the next DVDs in my queue and they'd be waiting in my mailbox.

Since you paid to rent the item and not to purchase the item how would renting make it acceptable for one to copy the item in question? Renting does not constitute ownership or NetFlix would not ever get any of their DVDs back and would not be able to charge the replacement fee for the DVD in question...

By renting the DVD you take temporary ownership of both the physical disc and its content. You are obligated to return both the physical disc and the content to NetFlix when you are done with it, but until you return the disc, I see no reason why "space shifting" the content is illegal, unless it violates the NetFlix terms of service.

So as long as you delete the data from your hard drive before returning the disc, I don't think there's any problem.

Whether "time shifting" the content (i.e., keeping the copy longer than the disc and watching it later) is legal is a bit more problematic, but there are definitely arguments for why it should be legal within certain constraints.

Is it really possible to copy NetFlix DVDs to a hard drive? I thought those disks were protected.

I travel without the DVD drive and was thinking about this for two long trips coming up. But I'd prefer TV series segments to a movie, am looking into how to get those.

Sylvia

It's more questionable if you're keeping the copy on your hard drive longer than you keep the physical DVD from NetFlix, although I could make a good argument for that being legal, too.

I'm sure the MPAA would disagree, but how exactly are they going to seek enforcement?

As long as you're not distributing copies to third parties or keeping your copies to view them more than once, I personally don't think there's any real problem with copying movies to your hard drive.

Yeah, I agree...I don't see anything ethically wrong with viewing a hard-drive copy of a Netflix DVD and then deleting it before you return the disc. It's not a question of whether you'd get caught - you wouldn't - and I don't even think it's a question of right and wrong. You aren't violating the spirit of your Netflix subscription (e.g., using the strategy to hoard movies on a cheap plan) and you aren't sharing or retaining the content.

To me, I'd simply say...why? It doesn't seem worth the effort. Just throw the disc in your laptop bag and don't worry about manipulating the huge video files. Plus, you get the distinct advantage of getting to drop the DVD in a mailbox as soon as you're done with it - instead of having to go back home and then mail the DVDs.

Under RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, it's legal to copy CDs you own onto an mp3 player. This is a practice called "space shifting," and is the basis for devices like the iPod as we know them today.
This was based on the AHRA - Audio Home Recording Act of 1992. It applies to audio only.


It should therefore be legal to copy DVDs you own to your hard drive for viewing on your laptop (ignoring the possibility that using some DVD ripping software may violate the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by breaking the CSS encryption on commercial DVD movies).

First, since AHRA doesn't apply to video, the legal citation means nothing.
Second, OP doesn't own the DVD's

And I think you could make a very good argument that it's legal to copy rented DVDs to your hard drive, too, especially if you delete them from your hard drive before returning the DVD to NetFlix.

You could certainly argue it. But you have no legal basis for it, IMHO.

As long as you're not distributing copies to third parties or keeping your copies to view them more than once, I personally don't think there's any real problem with copying movies to your hard drive. Unfortunately, the law doesn't agree with you.

Yeah, I agree...I don't see anything ethically wrong with viewing a hard-drive copy of a Netflix DVD and then deleting it before you return the disc. It's not a question of whether you'd get caught - you wouldn't - and I don't even think it's a question of right and wrong. You aren't violating the spirit of your Netflix subscription (e.g., using the strategy to hoard movies on a cheap plan) and you aren't sharing or retaining the content.

It's hard to argue that it's not a question of right and wrong when it is explicily prohibited by Netflix.

All content included on the Netflix Web site and delivered to subscribers as part of the service, including DVDs, text, graphics, logos, designs, photographs, button icons, images, audio/video clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of Netflix, Inc., or its suppliers and is protected by United States and international copyright laws.

Netflix reserves the right to terminate your membership hereunder if Netflix, in its sole and absolute discretion, believes that you are in violation of this paragraph, such violations including the copying of DVDs rented to you by us or the copying or other unauthorized use of our proprietary content. Netflix does not promote, foster or condone the copying of DVDs or any other infringing activity.



I'm nobody's Nanny, so do whatever you please, but don't try to justify using incorrect facts. It is indeed a violation of the TOS. And to do it, you most likely need to violate the DMCA also.

It is indeed a violation of the TOS. And to do it, you most likely need to violate the DMCA also.

It's been a while since I read the RIAA v. Diamond case, and I'd forgotten that it was about AHRA and not actual copyright law. You are therefore correct that the case doesn't make it legal to copy DVDs, but the rationale that Diamond used certainly lends weight to the argument that DVD space-shifting should be legal (and I have yet to find a case that says flat out that it's illegal).

Furthermore, the Netflix TOS forbids violation of "United States and international copyright laws" and "copying of DVDs rented." Space-shifting the content of your DVD is arguably neither a violation of any copyright law (the DMCA isn't really copyright law) nor technically "copying" a DVD (it's "space-shifting," not "copying," right? ;)).

It's hard to argue that it's not a question of right and wrong when it is explicily prohibited by Netflix.

All content included on the Netflix Web site and delivered to subscribers as part of the service, including DVDs, text, graphics, logos, designs, photographs, button icons, images, audio/video clips, digital downloads, data compilations, and software, is the property of Netflix, Inc., or its suppliers and is protected by United States and international copyright laws.

Netflix reserves the right to terminate your membership hereunder if Netflix, in its sole and absolute discretion, believes that you are in violation of this paragraph, such violations including the copying of DVDs rented to you by us or the copying or other unauthorized use of our proprietary content. Netflix does not promote, foster or condone the copying of DVDs or any other infringing activity.



I'm nobody's Nanny, so do whatever you please, but don't try to justify using incorrect facts. It is indeed a violation of the TOS. And to do it, you most likely need to violate the DMCA also.

(1) I never said it wasn't a violation of their TOS. I've never read their TOS: I just assumed it said "Don't copy our stuff" in it. I simply stated my opinion that it didn't violate the spirit of the agreement with them. I have absolutely no doubts that Netflix disagrees - so be it.

(2) To me, there's still no question of right and wrong. I think if the OP did what she initially proposes - temporarily space-shifts a DVD and then deletes the file before she returns the DVD - she's ethically right. (Legally, I don't think this specific case has been fought. Furthermore, the MPAA would never file this particular suit for fear that the OP would be found at least partially if not wholly in the right, potentially strengthening the rights of content users. They want cases they can win in a big, splashy way to deter active file-sharers.) The TOS language you've provided is meaningless: Netflix reserves the right to terminate anyone's membership, anytime, for any reason as it is. And they don't foster, promote, condone, blah blah blah DVD copying. Duh. We knew that.

Again, my recommendation is to NOT space-shift the DVD, because it's simply easier and better for the subscriber to watch using the disc itself and then mail from the airport (or wherever) when you are done.

Which is worse?

(1) me copying a Netflix-rented DVD to my laptop hard
drive, watch in inflight once, and deleteing the DVD
image.

(2) me having a party with 20 friends... everybody
watching it on the projection screen in my living room.


In scenario (1), they make money by charging me the
monthly fee. In scenario (2), they potentiall loose the 19
other rental/sales of the DVDs after I let my friends watch
it together. Yet (1) is technically illegal, while (2) is
perfectly legal right now.



I think I'm begging to get the logic of the MPAA/RIAA
groups. If I work for them, I'd try to get the Congress to
pass a law banning scenario (2).... :)

Is it really possible to copy NetFlix DVDs to a hard drive? I thought those disks were protected.

I travel without the DVD drive and was thinking about this for two long trips coming up. But I'd prefer TV series segments to a movie, am looking into how to get those.

Sylvia
If you've got a TiVo, TiVo2Go is one solution. For ReplayTV, there's DVArchive.

My personal solution is a desktop PC with a Hauppage TV Tuner card, GB-PVR (http://www.gbpvr.com), comskip/comclean, and lots of hard drive space. While I'm away, GB-PVR is recording my favorite shows to MPEG, then scrubbing them free of commercials with comskip/comclean. When I get home, they're ready for transfer to my laptop or burning to DVD.

A standalone PVR with a built-in DVD burner is much simpler to set up and use, though . . . but then you have to watch commercials :D

No it is not sadly.

You are allowed to make a personal copy of a DVD you OWN, but since that doesn't work in the case of Netflix you are not legally permitted to do so. Of course, whether or not you do so is up to you ;)

technically, i don't believe even copying a DVD you OWN, is legal. The legalit - or illegality comes in the breaking of the ENCRYPTION means on the DVD in order to copy it. Ownership was hard to prove and track, or enforce. But, making a copy involved without question, cracking the encryption and therefore they went after that as the reason for possible prosecution.
At least that is what ultimatly nailed DVD 123, Xcopy and DVD decryptor.

ooops, you didn't hear those names from ME!

Sign up for peerflix.com. You trade your own DVDs. Thus, any DVDs you receive you own until you pass them on. It costs a service fee of $1 for each DVD you receive (but not the ones you send). You mail them to the next person in an envelope with no DVD case; it costs just the cost of a first class stamp.

please, never try and get a job for the mpaa! ;)

logically your argument might make sense, but the mpaa (and riaa for that matter) haven't exactly built reputations of being bastions of reason. myself, I think copying a DVD you own to your laptop is legitimate fair use. I can, however, see how (1) you present isn't something netflix would like - it opens the door to renting nonstop, and just copying each DVD to a hard drive to watch later. though I guess if it means you return it sooner, it's better for netflix...then again they have no way to force you to delete the image, and we all know how much it bothers the mpaa/riaa when they don't have total power over things. if anything I'd say checkout movielink which someone posted earlier.

Which is worse?

(1) me copying a Netflix-rented DVD to my laptop hard
drive, watch in inflight once, and deleteing the DVD
image.

(2) me having a party with 20 friends... everybody
watching it on the projection screen in my living room.


In scenario (1), they make money by charging me the
monthly fee. In scenario (2), they potentiall loose the 19
other rental/sales of the DVDs after I let my friends watch
it together. Yet (1) is technically illegal, while (2) is
perfectly legal right now.



I think I'm begging to get the logic of the MPAA/RIAA
groups. If I work for them, I'd try to get the Congress to
pass a law banning scenario (2).... :)

Is it really possible to copy NetFlix DVDs to a hard drive? I thought those disks were protected.

They're "regular" DVDs, so the only copy protection they have is the CSS copy-protection system found on all DVDs. So you can copy them and rip them to your HDD, though doing requires breaking the CSS system and therefore is in violation of the DMCA and probably a few other laws, as noted.

So if one was interested in ripping a DVD to a HD to watch later, where could one find that information. . ... .. ;)

I don't think post 21 had any information

nmenaker I need sleep in chunks of more than 2 hours here and there as it will help my mind :)

Perhaps a nice trans con, will help . . . . .

Thanks

So if one was interested in ripping a DVD to a HD to watch later, where could one find that information. . ... .. ;)

Why here on TravTech forum of course......I'm "certain" if you do a search you'll come up with a number of options...! ;)

Best wishes, Dave

Why bother with renting a DVD to get a movie annd then copying it? I generally download a few episodes of CSI or whatever when I'm back on weekends in order to view them the following week wherever I happen to be. Bittorrent works well for me.

maybe a little OT now... but any of you have any opinions on AnyDVD? Does it work well? slow down the puter at all?

maybe a little OT now... but any of you have any opinions on AnyDVD? Does it work well? slow down the puter at all?

I use it to watch my Region 2 DVDs from Japan. I don't notice any issues, but then I have a 3.4Ghz P4 on my lappy. :)

This should be a sticky it is asked so often. I do this all of the time with movies I rent. Have also used the Netflixs but renting is better for me. I watch movies on either my laptop or PDA (IPAQ). The following works great.

Here is what I use to break the DVD copy protection: http://www.slysoft.com/en/anydvd.html

To Copy from DVD to Hard Drive (into DIVX format) http://www.intervideo.com/jsp/InterVideoDVDCopy_Profile.jsp

To compress for Pocket PC
http://divx.ppccool.com/langue.php?lang=EN&PHPSESSID=e5bf561f4e17c6c1ee850ebbcdceeb4e

Pocket PC movie player
http://tcpmp.corecodec.org/about

Laptop movie player. Also good site to learn about the DIVX (avi) format http://www.divx.com/divx/player/

No it is not sadly.
I'm not so sure of that. What the OP is suggesting is a form of time shifting, which long ago was held fair use in Sony v. Universal. The question is complicated by a number of issues. First, the fair use finding in Sony was predicated upon some factual assumptions by the court that have since proven wrong, e.g. no one would build a personal video library of protected expression. Second, the composition of the court has changed, and it's difficult to tell how the present court would come down on this issue. Finally, fair use is an equitable doctrine -- simple application of the four fair use factors codified in the statue will not necessary predict how a distict court judge would decide this issue.

All of that notwithstanding, my personal belief is that it is fair use and, in fact, I do exactly this -- copy rental DVDs to my laptop hard drive to watch on the plane and then delete them afterwards.

You are allowed to make a personal copy of a DVD you OWN,

Absolutely untrue. Nothing in the copyright act authorizes making a personal copy of a DVD. The AHRA, which permits personal copying, applies to recorded music, only.

Aside from Netflix rules, most DVDs are going to be copy-protected. It's my understanding that the mere act of removing this copy protection is illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. (Unless something has changed in the various court cases I don't keep up with.)

Aside from Netflix rules, most DVDs are going to be copy-protected. It's my understanding that the mere act of removing this copy protection is illegal under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. (Unless something has changed in the various court cases I don't keep up with.)

I'm guessing that any Air Marshals on board will be pre-occupied with more important matters than arresting DVD duplicators. :)

Legal or not, the chances of getting caught, let alone prosecuted, for copying a Netflix DVD for one-time viewing later are probably less than those of being struck by a meteor.

How do some of these sites that offer Ipod ready movies get away with it then?

Time will tell whether they do get away with it.

The one I looked at required you to confirm that you're a legal owner of the DVD (by checking a box). They were selling a "rip your DVD to iPod" service, not the movies themselves (wink, wink).

I think this is similar to the business model that mp3.com tried witout legal success (and they required you to actually insert the CD into the drive to demonstrate ownership).

Time will tell whether they do get away with it.

The one I looked at required you to confirm that you're a legal owner of the DVD (by checking a box). They were selling a "rip your DVD to iPod" service, not the movies themselves (wink, wink).

I think this is similar to the business model that mp3.com tried witout legal success (and they required you to actually insert the CD into the drive to demonstrate ownership).


How is that possible to verify? putting in your CD to show that you own the music that you are downloading?

By the way what is the name of that site you are talking about? (curious) (wink wink)

How is that possible to verify? putting in your CD to show that you own the music that you are downloading?

By the way what is the name of that site you are talking about? (curious) (wink wink)IIRC, the mp3.com business model was that you would register the CDs that you own (a CD "signature" similar to what CDDB uses) and then you could stream playlists from their website to your PC while you work. The downfall was that you could easily register all of your friends' CDs by borrowing the physical disks for the afternoon. This was pre-Napster, BTW.

The DVD-to-iPod "service" site is http://www.ishowstogo.com/ Don't spend time trying to compress your own movies. Let us do it for you! Download a copy of your movie now, for less than $5!You don't even have to send in your DVD - you just have to promise that you own it.

If you want them to rip a title that isn't on their site they can do that also, just send the DVD to them. This costs a dollar more.

EDIT: Here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3.com)'s the wikipedia article on the MP3.com service called "my.mp3.com":My.MP3.com

On January 12, 2000, MP3.com launched the "My.MP3.com" service which enabled users to securely register their personal CDs and then stream digital copies online from the My.MP3.com service. Since consumers could only listen online to music they already proved they owned the company saw this as a great opportunity for revenue by allowing fans to access their own music online. The record industry did not see it that way and sued MP3.com claiming that the service constituted unauthorized duplication and promoted copyright infringement.

Judge Jed S. Rakoff, in the case UMG v. MP3.com, ruled in favor of the record labels against MP3.com and the service on the copyright law provision of "making mechanical copies for commercial use without permission from the copyright owner." Rather than fight on appeal, MP3.com settled with the major labels for more than $200 million and the service was discontinued. This decision turned out to be the beginning of the end of the original MP3.com as the firm, unaware of the impending dot-com bust, no longer had sufficient funds to weather the technology downturn. To add to their woes music publishers, spurred by the success of the record label suits, also sued MP3.com with their own claims of payment due.

Last year I was on the Amtrak between DC and NY and Jack Valenti was sitting across the aisle and a row back from me. I had some DVDs that I had purchased, not rented, transferred to my PDA for watching while travelling. I was tempted the whole trip to watch one while holding the PDA in the aisle so he could see it. I think the industry are being real jerks about the whole idea of media shifting. I dont support real piracy, but if I buy it or even if I rent it, what business of theirs is it in the final analysis what machine I use to watch it.

Quite frankly my dear friends, if you've ever gotten a speeding or even a parking ticket, you really shouldn't be worried if copying a DVD is breaking the law.

But since humans are selective creatures that place their own individual importance on what laws are OK to break and what laws aren't OK to break, I will leave the doublestandard to the doublestandardists and try to be helpful.

Buy the damn movie!

I own some 200 movies on DVD. When do I watch them? Whenever I feel like it. What do I watch? Whatever I feel like.
I have this obsession with owning my memories instead of renting them, and while certain movies sometimes are not that memorable, a few gems out there are.
Besides, 200 DVDs, at an average price of 10 dollars a DVD (oooohh how I love BlockBuster's previewed section), spanned over a period of 5 years equals about 500 dollars a year, or about 1 DVD purchase a week and a half, or just 91 cents a day. Hell, I pay more for lunch every day :) even today that I decided to go to mcdonalds and get me one double cheeseburger for exactly 1.09 (i donated the penny so that doesn't count).
Some people here spend more than 400 a year only on MRs, heck one MR alone may just be that 400 dollars :)

Quite frankly my dear friends, if you've ever gotten a speeding or even a parking ticket, you really shouldn't be worried if copying a DVD is breaking the law.

But since humans are selective creatures that place their own individual importance on what laws are OK to break and what laws aren't OK to break, I will leave the doublestandard to the doublestandardists and try to be helpful.

Buy the damn movie!

I own some 200 movies on DVD. When do I watch them? Whenever I feel like it. What do I watch? Whatever I feel like.
I have this obsession with owning my memories instead of renting them, and while certain movies sometimes are not that memorable, a few gems out there are.
Besides, 200 DVDs, at an average price of 10 dollars a DVD (oooohh how I love BlockBuster's previewed section), spanned over a period of 5 years equals about 500 dollars a year, or about 1 DVD purchase a week and a half, or just 91 cents a day. Hell, I pay more for lunch every day :) even today that I decided to go to mcdonalds and get me one double cheeseburger for exactly 1.09 (i donated the penny so that doesn't count).
Some people here spend more than 400 a year only on MRs, heck one MR alone may just be that 400 dollars :)
This is a very narrow view, for a couple of reasons.

As a pratical matter, you can watch more movies, longer if they're on the hard drive than if you're playing them off the DVD.

However, as a legal matter, it is not at all certain that copying DVDs to a laptop to watch on the plane is illegal. Fair Use doctrine is certainly implicated, and it is impossible to ignore decisions such as Sony v. Universal, and the various MP3 cases which, on their face, would seem to support a finding of Fair Use. On the other hand, the DMCA is also implicated, as copying the DVD requires using decryption software. The case law is far from clear, but there is at least one which suggests that, though a use may be Fair Use, it is still actionable if it also results in a violation of the DMCA.

As an intellectual property lawyer, I am not prepared to say that copying a DVD to a laptop to view on the plane is violative of law (nor am I prepared to say that it is not). However, I'm certainly not going to agree with your contention that it is clearly illegal.

I think the use of decryption software, in essense BREAKING the encryption that a company has put in place, is a violation.

this is at least how the most recent corporate cases went down in California, which resulted in the shutting down of companies involved in delivering solutions that enabled decryption.

The newest player in town: www.vongo.com


Looks very good. Two questions: how much space does an average movie take? It the figure 4.7 a valid maximum for a single movie DVD?

Second, what does Vongo cost? Nothing on their introduction screen mentions that. One has to download their proprietary software first. I'd rather have a bit more info before doing that.

Thanks for any help!

Looks very good. Two questions: how much space does an average movie take? It the figure 4.7 a valid maximum for a single movie DVD?

Second, what does Vongo cost? Nothing on their introduction screen mentions that. One has to download their proprietary software first. I'd rather have a bit more info before doing that.

Thanks for any help!

It says in big letters on their main page "$9.99 a month".

I think the use of decryption software, in essense BREAKING the encryption that a company has put in place, is a violation.
Fair Use is an equitable doctrine that embraces First Amendment concerns. The
DMCA, on its face, states that it would not interfere with traditional First Use defenses to infringement and, indeed, it shouldn't, as the First Amendment will trump any restriction on speech that implicates a core value. As I said, there is at least one case at the district court level that found a DMCA violation in what would otherwise be a privileged Fair Use doctrine context, and some of the rationale is applicable to copying a DVD to a laptop for the purpose of time/venue shifting. However, the potential conflict between the DMCA and the First Amendment is not exactly a secret, and Congress is already working to rewrite the statute to ensure that it is not unconstitutional. At the moment, though, it's an open question.

this is at least how the most recent corporate cases went down in California, which resulted in the shutting down of companies involved in delivering solutions that enabled decryption.Right, but that's an entirely different issue. Fair Use was not implicated in the context of producing decryption software -- only the DMCA violation. The question, here, is whether producing a copy that, ordinarily, would be deemed privileged pursuant to Fair Use is still sanctionable if it entails breaking a digital copy protection system pursuant to the DMCA.

This is a very narrow view, for a couple of reasons.

As a pratical matter, you can watch more movies, longer if they're on the hard drive than if you're playing them off the DVD.

However, as a legal matter, it is not at all certain that copying DVDs to a laptop to watch on the plane is illegal. Fair Use doctrine is certainly implicated, and it is impossible to ignore decisions such as Sony v. Universal, and the various MP3 cases which, on their face, would seem to support a finding of Fair Use. On the other hand, the DMCA is also implicated, as copying the DVD requires using decryption software. The case law is far from clear, but there is at least one which suggests that, though a use may be Fair Use, it is still actionable if it also results in a violation of the DMCA.

As an intellectual property lawyer, I am not prepared to say that copying a DVD to a laptop to view on the plane is violative of law (nor am I prepared to say that it is not). However, I'm certainly not going to agree with your contention that it is clearly illegal.

I don't believe copying to be illegal as far as the law of the land is concerned but I do believe it to be a violation of the rights of ownership. As an owner you have certain rights, including the right to destroy the item. However copying the item creates a whole new item or even more than one. When you paid for your item you paid for one item alone, not two or three.

However, I don't consider it illegal from the legal standpoint because what you are creating isn't an excact copy of what you purchased.
A DVD is encoded in a certain format and part of what you buy is the format itself. The DVD is meant to be used in a certain manner using certain hardware, such as a TV&DVD Player or Monitor&Computer&DVD ROM Drive. Once you eliminate some of the components for example eliminate the DV ROM Drive, or swich them such as playing the movie from your hard drive directly while the computer is connected to the TV for output, the DVD you purchased ceases to be a DVD. Yes, the contents are still the same but they have been altered. As far as I know noone from the American Farmers Association is going to sue you because you fried your egg instead of eating it raw. It is essentially the same egg, just in a different form.

A copy is something that is used in the same exact manner as the original was, and a ripped DVD is not a copy. Nor is it a copy if you burn it into a DVD and use it in the manner the original equipment was intended to, because part of this usage is the actual checking of the disk by the hardware for coded material and decoding them accordingly. Since your burned copy won't have that material, it is now an incomplete attempt to a perfect replica.

Still though, I say go buy the movie :)

To expand on PTravel's comments, it's important to understand that the DMCA isn't really part of copyright law, but is a very different animal.

An analogy would be theft. Copyright law is sort of like a law against theft: you can't take something unless you have a right to use it. Fair Use is a doctrine that gives the public rights to copyright-protected works in certain situations.

The DMCA, on the other hand, is like a blanket law against lock-picking: it essentially says you can't pick a lock, regardless of whether you have a right to thing the lock protects.

You could easily write a lock-picking law that exempted situations where you have a right to thing behind the lock (for example, if you locked your keys in your house). But the Jack Valentis of the world didn't want the DMCA to be like that: they wanted total control over the content they produced, and the right to go after anybody who interered with their control. So they lobbied for and got the DMCA to essentially cover all digital lock-picking, even when Fair Use doctrine says you have a right to the stuff behind the lock.

Courts will therefore continue to find DMCA violations even where there's a Fair Use right, because Fair Use is a defense to an allegation of copyright infringement--it's not a defense to an allegation that you violated the DMCA. One of these days, though, somebody will hire a better First Amendment lawyer than the record companies, and the DMCA will be declared unconstitutional. I hope.

I don't believe copying to be illegal as far as the law of the land is concerned but I do believe it to be a violation of the rights of ownership. As an owner you have certain rights, including the right to destroy the item. However copying the item creates a whole new item or even more than one. When you paid for your item you paid for one item alone, not two or three.
There is no such thing as "right of ownership" under U.S. copyright law. U.S. Copyright law identifies several reserved rights for the copyright owner, including the right to make copies, the right to prepare derivatives, the right to distribute and the right to publicly perform. First Sale doctrine restricts the extent to which a copyright owner can control how an authorized copy is used after it has been sold, and it is First Sale doctrine that permits loaning, gifting, renting or destroying a DVD (Droit moral, or "moral rights" are, with a few exceptions, not recognized under U.S. law).

However, I don't consider it illegal from the legal standpoint because what you are creating isn't an excact copy of what you purchased.
Well, sorry, but it doesn't matter what you consider. Copyright law precludes creating an unauthorized copy. Period. Fair Use provides some defenses to infringement. The classic (and most relevant) example of Fair Use is time shifting (See Sony v. Universal, the so-called "Betamax Case.")


A DVD is encoded in a certain format and part of what you buy is the format itself. The DVD is meant to be used in a certain manner using certain hardware, such as a TV&DVD Player or Monitor&Computer&DVD ROM Drive. Once you eliminate some of the components for example eliminate the DV ROM Drive, or swich them such as playing the movie from your hard drive directly while the computer is connected to the TV for output, the DVD you purchased ceases to be a DVD. Yes, the contents are still the same but they have been altered. As far as I know noone from the American Farmers Association is going to sue you because you fried your egg instead of eating it raw. It is essentially the same egg, just in a different form.
That's all very interesting, but has nothing to do with copyright law, which is what controls here.

A copy is something that is used in the same exact manner as the original was, and a ripped DVD is not a copy.
No. "Copy" has a legal meaning, i.e. reproduction of protected expression. A ripped DVD most certainly is a copy.

Nor is it a copy if you burn it into a DVD and use it in the manner the original equipment was intended to, because part of this usage is the actual checking of the disk by the hardware for coded material and decoding them accordingly. Since your burned copy won't have that material, it is now an incomplete attempt to a perfect replica.
As I said, that's all very interesting, but completely irrelevant to the legal issue. You don't get to make up the law -- Congress does. You can come up with your own definition of "copy" but it doesn't comport with either Congress' definition, or the construction accorded that definition by every single court that has examined this issue.

Still though, I say go buy the movie :)Why, if it's fair use, and therefore not infringing, to copy it to a laptop for viewing on an airplane?

It says in big letters on their main page "$9.99 a month".

Oooops! :o :o And there I was looking and looking and just not seeing.

Sorry to bother you and thanks for your patience.

Oooops! :o :o And there I was looking and looking and just not seeing.


That's ok ;)

I did the same :D

As I said, that's all very interesting, but completely irrelevant to the legal issue. You don't get to make up the law -- Congress does. You can come up with your own definition of "copy" but it doesn't comport with either Congress' definition, or the construction accorded that definition by every single court that has examined this issue.

I don't pretend to have read all of the laws pertaining to this matter... it may have something to do with the fact that I am not a lawyer but an IT guru with, among others, extensive knowledge in file conversions. I'm looking at it purely from the technological side of it, which, if I understand correctly, hasnt really been considered that much.
Here's an interesting take... does the law say anything about partial copies? If a partial copy is legal, then DVD ripping isn't a copy but in fact a partial copy because you aren't making a copy of the protection software that coexists along with the entertainment content of the DVD. But if it is illegal, then every single manufacturer out there is to blame and must be sued for copyright infringement since all products out there are in a way or another partial copies of the original design.

You ask why I dont think it's right to make the copy of a DVD...
I have downloaded plenty but plenty of movies from various sites throughout the internet. I believe in trying before buying. If I like the movie, I buy it. If I don't like it I don't buy it. In fact, I remember one instance back in 1999, I downloaded "American Beauty" I was completely in awe of that movie, so 3 hours after watching the illegal copy, I went and saw it again at the movie theater. I ordered the DVD a month and a half before its release and had Amazon overnight it to me on Monday so I'd have it for the Tuesday release date without having to go to the store to buy it. In fact I paid a lot more than what I would have paid at the store, but I wanted to make sure I would have it exactly then.
Not every movie is worth buying so frankly I don't believe in this whole idea of paying 9 dollars + those hugely overpriced food items to see a bad movie in the theater. So, I download the movie, and in a lot of instances, some 200 of them, buy the movie. But I also want to enjoy the movie. The sound, the picture quality, and yes even that pesky FBI warning about public screenings. I've got a nice widescreen, a kickass sound system, a top of the line DVD player, a very comfy couch and I use all of them to my heart's content. I guess that's just me... but I also like to have my little movie library with the cases and all. I've got this friend of mine who rents from blockbuster, copies the dvd then sticks the copy in a cd wallet. He's got more movies than I do, it cost him a lot cheaper to get them, but I'd never watch a movie at his house because the setup just isn't there.

Thats it, I'm done and going to bed.

I have downloaded plenty but plenty of movies from various sites throughout the internet. I believe in trying before buying. If I like the movie, I buy it. If I don't like it I don't buy it.So it's OK to watch a movie without paying for it as long as I decide I don't want to own it?

Here's an interesting take... does the law say anything about partial copies? If a partial copy is legal, then DVD ripping isn't a copy but in fact a partial copy because you aren't making a copy of the protection software

Copyright protects the expression on the DVD, not the physical disc itself or the raw data on it. A commercial DVD probably has dozens of copyrights. The script of the movie is protected. Every frame of video and every snippet of audio is protected. The music of the songs of the soundtrack are protected. The recordings of the songs of the soundtrack are protected. The text on the back of the DVD box is protected, as are the pictures on the front and the liner notes (if any) inside. The CSS encryption on the disc is protected by copyright (only the author of CSS is allowed to sell it to the movie studios) and by the DMCA (it's illegal to break the encryption). And so on.

You need a legal right to copy or otherwise use ANY portion of any of those things. Fair Use doctrine provides you with some of these rights--even to copyrighted works. For example, you have the right to use portions of the movie for purposes of criticism or parody, the right to "space shift" the DVD (ignoring DMCA issues) to another medium for backup purposes, etc.

But the law doesn't think of copying in the technical sense of "is it an exact copy." Rather, it looks at whether the protected expression has been misappropriated. The guy selling bootleg DVDs on the street that were shot with a camcorder in the theater is violating the filmmakers' copyright just as much as the guy selling bootleg DVDs on the street that are perfect bit-for-bit copies of the commercial disc.

BTW, I registered with vongo as a pay per view customer for no charge. You have to register before you can see their selection.

This scheme looks like a good thing, but it is not yet ready for prime time as the selection is not huge. I assume that as it matures, that will get better.


I will keep my eye on it as it would be great to be able to download a bunch of movies for extended working times abroad when slouching in front of undemanding movie of an evening is juuuuuust what is needed.

I don't pretend to have read all of the laws pertaining to this matter... it may have something to do with the fact that I am not a lawyer but an IT guru with, among others, extensive knowledge in file conversions. I'm looking at it purely from the technological side of it, which, if I understand correctly, hasnt really been considered that much.
Well, I am an intellectual property lawyer and I have read all of the laws pertaining to this matter, along with the case law construing. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm really curious. It seems that I routinely get into arguments on the internet about law with "IT gurus." They always start by saying something along the lines of, "I haven't read the law, but it seems to me . . ." and goes down hill from there.

What is it about IT that causes their practioners to think that their beliefs about law are the equal of an attorney who specializes in an area?

I'm just curious, because this has happened quite a bit, recently.

Here's an interesting take... does the law say anything about partial copies? If a partial copy is legal,
It's not. The law precludes unauthorized copying, absent a cognizable defense to infringement.

You ask why I dont think it's right to make the copy of a DVD...
Actually, I didn't ask. I said, essentially, that you were wrong.

I have downloaded plenty but plenty of movies from various sites throughout the internet. I believe in trying before buying.
Evidently you also believe in copyright infringement, as well. Whereas it's still an open question as to whether the DMCA and Fair Use doctrine permit or preclude copying a DVD to a laptop for airplane viewing, it is clearly, unequivocally, and unambiguously a violation of law to download a film protected by copyright without authorization for the purpose you have stated.

What is it about IT that causes their practioners to think that their beliefs about law are the equal of an attorney who specializes in an area?

Both IT pros and lawyers are trained in finding creative solutions to problems within the constraints of a system of rules (the law for lawyers; preexisting code, APIs, compilers, etc. for programmers). The difference is that in IT, you can alter the rules as you go, making up new definitions and rewriting old code if it doesn't suit your purposes. In general, as long as you can reduce something to a written logical statement, you can find a way to make it work in the world of computers.

Unfortunately the same approach doesn't work for law (at least when it comes to litigation and compliance). Litigators use similar logical reasoning skills, but do so to persuade a judge or jury that their argument correctly fits within the framework of existing statutory and case law. If the case or statute doesn't work with their argument, they can't go back and rewrite the law.

I think that Vongo is to retricted to just their player and stuff, lame!

I think that Vongo is to retricted to just their player and stuff, lame!

Actually, they say on their website that content can be copied onto a WMP compatible (DRM'd) portable device.

...I use Netflix for travel entertainment but how I do it is bring the DVD along with me and then just delete the DVD image off my HD when I finish the movie and then mail it back to Netflix from where ever I happen to be ... Probably not legal but it works as far as Im concerned since the DVD never leaves the same city or state that I am in unless I am finished with it ...

The legal problem lies in copying the DVD to your HD. In order to do that, you have to be using some De-CSS software, and according to the DMCA that is unlawful - whether you own it or not. Not saying I agree with it, or that's it's very enforceable, just the way it is.

Having said that, I'm sure Netflix DVDs are copied everyday by hundreds, if not thousands of individuals and put on HTPCs. And never deleted when it is returned.

Watching movies via the net has never been a high point in my movie viewing, or computer experience! It's just too clunky, and the restrictions on when it can be viewed is laughable. Maybe that will change, but for me, I prefer to own DVDs and I've built-up a nice library of popular titles. This way, I can view them whenever and wherever I want.

redjr... :)

Well, I am an intellectual property lawyer and I have read all of the laws pertaining to this matter, along with the case law construing.Thank you for your clear, accurate, and insightful posts to this thread, addressing various misinformation or personal views masquerading as "law."

If people don't want to take your word for it, perhaps they should buy, borrow, rent, or copy the treatise by Professor Thomas McCarthy.

I also appreciate the various hints and "how to" posts by others about the DMCA and avoiding speeding tickets or red-light cameras, from an academic viewpoint, of course.

Well, I am an intellectual property lawyer and I have read all of the laws pertaining to this matter, along with the case law construing. Please don't take this the wrong way, but I'm really curious. It seems that I routinely get into arguments on the internet about law with "IT gurus." They always start by saying something along the lines of, "I haven't read the law, but it seems to me . . ." and goes down hill from there.

What is it about IT that causes their practioners to think that their beliefs about law are the equal of an attorney who specializes in an area?

I'm just curious, because this has happened quite a bit, recently.


It's not. The law precludes unauthorized copying, absent a cognizable defense to infringement.


Actually, I didn't ask. I said, essentially, that you were wrong.


Evidently you also believe in copyright infringement, as well. Whereas it's still an open question as to whether the DMCA and Fair Use doctrine permit or preclude copying a DVD to a laptop for airplane viewing, it is clearly, unequivocally, and unambiguously a violation of law to download a film protected by copyright without authorization for the purpose you have stated.


This is not an attack or even a rebuttal directowards this poster, but if I own something, morally, I can copy it, burn it, skim it across the lake, staple it to a Beanie Baby or paint it blue. Like many things in our society, this one is political. The "industry" has the lobby to get the laws written. Us disorganized peons, do not have the wherewithall to challenge the insane laws effectively.

Where, for example, did even the CONCEPT of the various International "Zones" come from and the "laws" that a DVD bought in one place (lets take UK for example) could only be played a few times on an American DVD, computer, etc?

>>>. . . Us disorganized peons, do not have the wherewithall to challenge the insane laws effectively.<<<

I would submit that the "disorganized peons" have done pretty well with things like, e.g., bittorrent, although it's true it hasn't gotten rid of any laws.

This is not an attack or even a rebuttal directowards this poster, but if I own something, morally, I can copy it, burn it, skim it across the lake, staple it to a Beanie Baby or paint it blue. Like many things in our society, this one is political. The "industry" has the lobby to get the laws written. Us disorganized peons, do not have the wherewithall to challenge the insane laws effectively.
I wasn't making any moral judgments at all -- merely explaining the law.

First sale doctrine provides that, once you purchase an authorized copy, you can do anything you want with it that doesn't implicate any of the reserved rights specified in the Copyright Act. You can burn it, skim it, staple it or paint it (or sell it, rent it, loan it or give it away). Legally, you can't copy it without authorization, absent a statutory exception, e.g. fair use. Nonetheless, I routinely copy rental DVDs to my laptop so that I can watch them on the plane and in hotel rooms. It's probably fair use (though don't take that as a legal opinion) but, even if it's not, I'm sure I would do it anyway.

Where, for example, did even the CONCEPT of the various International "Zones" come from and the "laws" that a DVD bought in one place (lets take UK for example) could only be played a few times on an American DVD, computer, etc?The zone concept implicates only the DMCA in that, to view a zone 1 DVD on a zone 2 player or computer, you need to get around the coding which, in this context, may constitute a DMCA violation if zone coding is deemed a digital copy protection scheme (I don't know the answer to this). Differential pricing based on geography has been practiced by businesses for years, and a whole body of law evolved in trademark to address gray-market importation (which is legal in some contexts). The problem, as you've correctly indicated, is that corporate interests have managed to get special-interest laws enacted -- the DMCA is clearly an example of this, as are the laws intended to prohibit Americans from buying prescription drugs in Canada and Mexico.

I'm not a politician, only a lawyer. I don't make the laws, and I don't have to like them, only understand them. ;)

The zone concept implicates only the DMCA in that, to view a zone 1 DVD on a zone 2 player or computer, you need to get around the coding which, in this context, may constitute a DMCA violation if zone coding is deemed a digital copy protection scheme (I don't know the answer to this).

The "zone" system isn't based on law in the sense of statutes and court decisions. It's based on contract law. To produce and sell a DVD player (whether a hardware DVD player you hook up to your TV or a software DVD player you run on your computer) that plays commercial DVDs, the maker of the DVD player has to get a license for the CSS decryption software that decodes encrypted (i.e., most commercial) DVDs.

I believe the license requires (someone please correct me if the requirement exists elsewhere) makers to restrict their DVD players to playing only DVDs from one zone. The zone system is designed to protect differential pricing, and to protect international release schedules so that a movie still playing in theaters in one country but available on DVD in another country can't be easily exported, cannibalizing box office receipts.

PTravel is right that circumventing the zone system on your DVD player "may" constitute a DMCA violation if it is seen as circumventing copy protection technology. My guess is that a court wouldn't punish you for it, however, since you can make a pretty forceful argument that the zone system technically doesn't protect copying, but only a distribution scheme. The catch is that makers of DVD players that are too easily hackable may be in violation of their licenses for CSS, and could in theory lose the right to produce DVD players that play back CSS-encoded DVDs.

But again, I could be off, so someone please correct me if you have better information.

You could just copy the movie to your HD, not tell anyone, watch it, delete it (maybe even keep) and nothing will happen--unless of course you turn yourself in to the Feds.

-W

You cannot be busted for the Zoning thing on its own. Hell, technically you could just buy a half dozen machines from different zones. Producing machines that are all zone is not necessarily illegal either as certain countries have PROHIBITED the zone system and manufacturers have to produce open zone machines for those markets. In any case, other than only 2-3 serious manufacturers almost all machines are now easily changeable through semi-hidden service menus. Technically and legally you can do whatever you want to your hardware, the only question becomes whether you void your warranty.

The "zone" system isn't based on law in the sense of statutes and court decisions. It's based on contract law.
That's correct. However, getting around the zone system probably violates the DMCA.

To produce and sell a DVD player (whether a hardware DVD player you hook up to your TV or a software DVD player you run on your computer) that plays commercial DVDs, the maker of the DVD player has to get a license for the CSS decryption software that decodes encrypted (i.e., most commercial) DVDs.
Not exactly. There are a variety of patents and trademarks associated with DVDs. The license covers all of these, not just the CSS decryption.

I believe the license requires (someone please correct me if the requirement exists elsewhere) makers to restrict their DVD players to playing only DVDs from one zone. The zone system is designed to protect differential pricing, and to protect international release schedules so that a movie still playing in theaters in one country but available on DVD in another country can't be easily exported, cannibalizing box office receipts.
The zone system also support differential pricing.

PTravel is right that circumventing the zone system on your DVD player "may" constitute a DMCA violation if it is seen as circumventing copy protection technology. My guess is that a court wouldn't punish you for it, however, since you can make a pretty forceful argument that the zone system technically doesn't protect copying, but only a distribution scheme.
Sorry, but that is not right. Copyright is an exclusive right that includes the right to distribute as well as the right to copy.

To the OP:

I face the same situation as you and I do copy the movies to my computer. The first and obvious reason is it reduces things I need to keep track of while on the road. The second reason is a little less obvious: watching a movie that has been stored on your hard drive uses less battery power than popping in a disc and having it spin up and down while watching the movie. I usually delete the files after I am done watching the movie.

I know this is a legal gray area, but I do what I want. If MPAA really wants to prosecute me for copying a couple of movies onto my computer that I delete anyway, bring it on. :)

That's correct. However, getting around the zone system violates the DMCA.How do they sell these (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002JABOY/) players?

Others... (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=region-free+dvd+player&hl=en&btnG=Search+Froogle)

How do they sell these (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002JABOY/) players?

Others... (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=region-free+dvd+player&hl=en&btnG=Search+Froogle)


Good point!

Often I am in the position of having to purchase DVDs from Europe, region 2 coded. Innitially, online retailers would ask me if I had a region 2 player and upon my positive response they would charge my CC and send out the DVD.
In this manner I have obtained all sorts of movies, including one that has been banned for sale in the US.



What is it about IT that causes their practioners to think that their beliefs about law are the equal of an attorney who specializes in an area?

I'm just curious, because this has happened quite a bit, recently.

While a lawyer may very well specialize in that area, what he/she is exactly specializing in is the law of the matter, not the matter at hand. A lawyer may tell me what I can or cannot do based on the terms of use agreement, but a lawyer cannot tell me why this is so. An IT person can explain why the terms of use are such as they are and if requested, go in more detailed technical explanations. But all of this pertains to the IT world, not the lawyers world. IT related laws must have been written with the help of IT practitioners, but more often, as somoene mentioned here earlier, they cater to the paying (donating, contributing, campain funding, whatever) lobby. In essence, lawmakers are the shopkeepers and the industry is nothing more than a paying customer that demands service.
While I realize this view may be too controversial for some people's ability to suck in certain information, I would like to direct your attention to the skyrocketing profits of the contracting companies working in Iraq. Oh man how the money is flowing... straight from our pockets onto theirs!
But back to the topic at hand...
You mentioned how you rent DVDs then copy them to your HDD for later viewing. Doesn't this violate some terms of use agreement between you and the rental company?

Sorry to bring this up again. But I have a Video Ipod and I have friends that own other portable players that are for sale in any store really. My questions is this. Why sell a product that laws will restrict you from using them. I read an article which I don't know where now,but it was talking about Video Ipods and how if I were to rip my dvd to put on my video ipod that I would be doing so illegally. So why sell a product that will get someone in trouble? I went to that website mentioned earlier www.ishowstogo.com (http://www.ishowstogo.com) and checked it out and regardless of if how they are doing it is legal or not they have a good point. I can get my movies on my ipod but through them if I want. Or I can buy software out there that will make it so I can convert my own.

So i ask how can they allow companies to sell this if we can't even use them without breaking the law?

While a lawyer may very well specialize in that area, what he/she is exactly specializing in is the law of the matter, not the matter at hand. A lawyer may tell me what I can or cannot do based on the terms of use agreement, but a lawyer cannot tell me why this is so. An IT person can explain why the terms of use are such as they are and if requested, go in more detailed technical explanations.

A good lawyer has to be able to do both. A litigator needs to know the specific subject matter of his case at least as well as the expert witnesses if he wants to convince the jury that his client's position is correct. Similarly, a business lawyer needs to understand exactly how her client will use complex enterprise software before she can help her client negotiate the terms of the license.

Sure, the lawyer probably can't actually program the computer or deploy the software herself, but she better understand the ins-and-outs thoroughly if she's going to do a good job.

Sorry to bring this up again. But I have a Video Ipod and I have friends that own other portable players that are for sale in any store really. My questions is this. Why sell a product that laws will restrict you from using them. I read an article which I don't know where now,but it was talking about Video Ipods and how if I were to rip my dvd to put on my video ipod that I would be doing so illegally. So why sell a product that will get someone in trouble? I went to that website mentioned earlier www.ishowstogo.com (http://www.ishowstogo.com) and checked it out and regardless of if how they are doing it is legal or not they have a good point. I can get my movies on my ipod but through them if I want. Or I can buy software out there that will make it so I can convert my own.

So i ask how can they allow companies to sell this if we can't even use them without breaking the law?


Well there are different kinds of videos, hence not everything that you can watch in your ipod can be a movie. Family videos, vacation videos, skydiving videos, even your own adult reenactment of "Beauty and the Beast" :)

BMW isn't selling you the Z4 so that you can dragrace it along I-95 but you do it anyway...

Sorry to bring this up again. But I have a Video Ipod and I have friends that own other portable players that are for sale in any store really. My questions is this. Why sell a product that laws will restrict you from using them. I read an article which I don't know where now,but it was talking about Video Ipods and how if I were to rip my dvd to put on my video ipod that I would be doing so illegally. So why sell a product that will get someone in trouble? I went to that website mentioned earlier www.ishowstogo.com (http://www.ishowstogo.com) and checked it out and regardless of if how they are doing it is legal or not they have a good point. I can get my movies on my ipod but through them if I want. Or I can buy software out there that will make it so I can convert my own.

So i ask how can they allow companies to sell this if we can't even use them without breaking the law?


Welcome to Flyertalk. I have a video iPod and I buy TV shows from the iTunes site. It is perfectly legal. I also subscribe to video podcasts that are again perfectly legal (and free) such as the Tiki Bar ;) . I suspect they will also sell movies sooner rather than later. So it isnt that you cant use it legally.

How do they sell these (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0002JABOY/) players?

Others... (http://froogle.google.com/froogle?q=region-free+dvd+player&hl=en&btnG=Search+Froogle)
Possibly the same way that they used to sell hacked DirecTV and cable boxes.

While a lawyer may very well specialize in that area, what he/she is exactly specializing in is the law of the matter, not the matter at hand. A lawyer may tell me what I can or cannot do based on the terms of use agreement, but a lawyer cannot tell me why this is so.
Then it's time to get a new lawyer. That is exactly what I do for my clients.

An IT person can explain why the terms of use are such as they are and if requested, go in more detailed technical explanations. But all of this pertains to the IT world, not the lawyers world. IT related laws must have been written with the help of IT practitioners, but more often, as somoene mentioned here earlier, they cater to the paying (donating, contributing, campain funding, whatever) lobby. In essence, lawmakers are the shopkeepers and the industry is nothing more than a paying customer that demands service.
Laws are written by legislators. However, you are right -- more and more, Congress caters to the lobbyists, and it was they who were responsible for the DMCA and other bad IP law.

While I realize this view may be too controversial for some people's ability to suck in certain information, I would like to direct your attention to the skyrocketing profits of the contracting companies working in Iraq.
Let's see -- the IT professional thinks that the lawyer doesn't understand the legislative process?

You mentioned how you rent DVDs then copy them to your HDD for later viewing. Doesn't this violate some terms of use agreement between you and the rental company?No, it does not. The rental company couldn't care less what I do with the DVD, as long as I return it in good condition and on time. It probably does, however, violate the DMCA. The DMCA, on its face, is contradictory because (1) its express language indicates that it does not implicate traditional fair uses, but (2) copying it to my hard drive requires using a program that breaks CSS, which is violative of the DMCA. I'm not aware, off the top of my head, of any cases that have tested this particular use, but the inherent contradiction in the DMCA is well known . . . among IP lawyers.

I am planning on taking the LSAT this year and becoming an intellectual property rights lawyer. I appreciate this discussion...

I wasn't making any moral judgments at all -- merely explaining the law.

First sale doctrine provides that, once you purchase an authorized copy, you can do anything you want with it that doesn't implicate any of the reserved rights specified in the Copyright Act. You can burn it, skim it, staple it or paint it (or sell it, rent it, loan it or give it away). Legally, you can't copy it without authorization, absent a statutory exception, e.g. fair use. Nonetheless, I routinely copy rental DVDs to my laptop so that I can watch them on the plane and in hotel rooms. It's probably fair use (though don't take that as a legal opinion) but, even if it's not, I'm sure I would do it anyway.

The discussions have been very specifically been about dvds and the DCMA. I might as well discuss my method of movie watching while travelling and why I believe that there are no legal issues associated with this method. I am prepared for learning that it is illegal.

fair use with pre-DMCA technology(ie vcr). My understanding is that the DMCA only applies to digital formats, and is not retroactive to legacy formats. Legacy formats from such equipment as vcrs and tv are not bound by the DCMA and because of fair use, I should be able to make a copy on my hd or a make a dvd with movies made from legacy formats. The vcrs that I have are very old and allow me to make a video of non-copyrightable movies, but because the equipment was made before the DCMA was enacted, it is not illegal to use for fair use (I know, I am waiting for the response on this.) I bought several before the DCMA was enacted to avoid illegal activity in the future. My understanding of the DCMA is that it disallows the selling of equipment that circumvents encryption, but the owning and use of such equipment is only illegal if it violates the copyrights laws not including fair use. This allows use for copying purposes because I although I may be using equipment that circumvents encryption, the DCMA does not apply because the equipment was obtained before the DCMA was enacted.

What does this mean? I can make a dvd or make mpg files for hd viewing from legacy formats (which are not bound by the DCMA) by going to the local video store and renting videotapes for viewing while travelling (under fair use doctrine.)

What do you think?

I am planning on taking the LSAT this year and becoming an intellectual property rights lawyer. I appreciate this discussion...

Good luck with the LSAT. And remember that learning things about law (even bad law like the DMCA) will have absolutely no effect on your LSAT score. It's all about the ability to solve puzzles and parse language.


What does this mean? I can make a dvd or make mpg files from satellite, local tv or vcrs (go to the local video store and rent videotapes) for viewing while travelling under fair use doctrine.

If your source material does not contain a "technological measure that effectively controls access" to it, then Section 1201 of the DMCA should not prohibit making copies that fall within fair use. The DMCA issue with time-shifting commercial DVDs is that css "controls" access to the video information on the disk, so you have to break css to rip the DVD. You therefore might run into similar trouble if you copy VHS tapes that are protected by Macrovision, since that may be considered a "technological measure that effectively controls access" to the video, too.

Of course all this talk about DMCA violations is very theoretical. As PTravel pointed out, there isn't any authoritative answer out there as to how the fair use protection provisions of the DMCA interact with 1201(a).

The following is your statement: If your source material does not contain a "technological measure that effectively controls access" to it, then Section 1201 of the DMCA should not prohibit making copies that fall within fair use. - if equivalent to - "if source does contain ... , then section 1201 should prohibit ... making copies ... that fall within fair use. I disagree with this statement for the following reason" : exceptions to circumvention.

If your source material does not contain a "technological measure that effectively controls access" to it, then Section 1201 of the DMCA should not prohibit making copies that fall within fair use.

The DMCA issue with time-shifting commercial DVDs is that css "controls" access to the video information on the disk, so you have to break css to rip the DVD. You therefore might run into similar trouble if you copy VHS tapes that are protected by Macrovision, since that may be considered a "technological measure that effectively controls access" to the video, too.

Of course all this talk about DMCA violations is very theoretical. As PTravel pointed out, there isn't any authoritative answer out there as to how the fair use protection provisions of the DMCA interact with 1201(a).

I disagree with your interpretation. I am not talking about the DCMA interacting with fair use doctrine. I am saying that that the following 1201 subsection of the DCMA permits CIRCUMVENTION and is PERMITTED and therefore your discussion of css is irrelevant.
----
(1) CIRCUMVENTION PERMITTED- Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), it is not a violation of that subsection for a person to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title, if--
...
`(B) in the normal course of its operation, the technological measure, or the work it protects, collects or disseminates personally identifying information about the person who seeks to gain access to the work protected, without providing conspicuous notice of such collection or dissemination to such person, and without providing such person with the capability to prevent or restrict such collection or dissemination.
----
This section is applicable to the equipment that I have in that it does not provide any notice that a video is playing a videotape that has Macrovision protection and thus circumvention is allowed under this provision. I was very specific as to the type of technology and application used. It is no longer possible (as far as I know) to obtain this equipment and the DCMA makes it illegal to sell this equipment (sellers on Ebay are liable under the DCMA, but not the buyers as I interpret the DCMA).

Since the DCMA is not applicable for disallowing by circumventing the DCMA, the copying would then be permitted only if allowed within the fair use doctrine.

The discussions have been very specifically been about dvds and the DCMA. I might as well discuss my method of movie watching while travelling and why I believe that there are no legal issues associated with this method. I am prepared for learning that it is illegal.

fair use with pre-DMCA technology(ie vcr). My understanding is that the DMCA only applies to digital formats, and is not retroactive to legacy formats.The DMCA has nothing to do with formats, and everything to do with copy protection schemes. Read the statute. You'll find it at 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(a)(1)(A):

"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected uner this title."

Nothing about digital. Nothing about "legacy formats."

Legacy formats from such equipment as vcrs and tv are not bound by the DCMA and because of fair use, I should be able to make a copy on my hd or a make a dvd with movies made from legacy formats. Absolutely, unequivocally dead wrong. Perhaps, instead of making up the law, you should wait 'til you study it before giving an opinion as to what it is.

The vcrs that I have are very old and allow me to make a video of non-copyrightable movies,What is a "non-copyrightable movie"? All movies are works of authorship within the meaning of the copyright act and, as such, "copyrightable."

but because the equipment was made before the DCMA was enacted, it is not illegal to use for fair use (I know, I am waiting for the response on this.) You've got your response: You're completely wrong.

I bought several before the DCMA was enacted to avoid illegal activity in the future.You haven't avoided anything.

My understanding of the DCMA is that it disallows the selling of equipment that circumvents encryption,That's one of the things it does.

but the owning and use of such equipment is only illegal if it violates the copyrights laws not including fair use.Wrong, and this is the problem with the DMCA. It says that it doesn't effect fair use doctrine, but it does . . . activities that would have been within fair use are precluded because they violate the "no circumvention" provision.

This allows use for copying purposes because I although I may be using equipment that circumvents encryption, the DCMA does not apply because the equipment was obtained before the DCMA was enacted.Not even close to reality. This is completely wrong.

What does this mean? I can make a dvd or make mpg files for hd viewing from legacy formats (which are not bound by the DCMA) by going to the local video store and renting videotapes for viewing while travelling (under fair use doctrine.)

What do you think?I think you should wait 'til you complete your legal studies and pass the bar before you start construing the law for other people.

I had provided a more detailed response with the provisions discussed. I have not done more than tell why I feel comfortable with putting movies on my hard drive. I look forward to going to law school, but I hope that I don't pick up the same kind of self rightous attitude that you have developed.

I had provided a more detailed response with the provisions discussed. I have not done more than tell why I feel comfortable with putting movies on my hard drive. I look forward to going to law school, but I hope that I don't pick up the same kind of self rightous attitude that you have developed.Perhaps, when (and if) you become a lawyer, you'll understand the frustration that results when lay people with no understanding of the law argue with you about what it means. Arrogance isn't necessarily a bad trait for a lawyer, but, when coupled with ignorance, it's deadly.

Perhaps, when (and if) you become a lawyer.
I have formed my opinion based upon an important section of the DCMA that allows encryption circumvention. As you yourself have tried to justify your use of copying dvds, and given your opinion on the subject, I am giving an opinion on why the method I have discussed is appropriate . Everyone who wants to watch movies while travelling is affected by these laws, but I have no intention of paying a lawyer to give me an opinion on this subject. Your ambiguity in your opinions while you also put movies on your hd does not give you any moral authority to discount other opinions.

When the law was being drafted, this is the provision that the lawmakers incorporated into the law that would (supposedly) still allow fair use for legacy equipment. Yes, I paid attention to the opinions of the lawyers before and after the run up to the DCMA and I have read the law. I also recognize that interpretation does not have to follow intent, but the DCMA does allow encryption circumentiion.

No, you are not arrogant. You are self righteous for calling people ignorant if they are not lawyers and want to try to understand the law. If you don't want to exchange ideas, but instead legal technicalites with other lawyers, this is not the forum you should be on.

No, you are not arrogant. You are self righteous for calling people ignorant if they are not lawyers and want to try to understand the law. If you don't want to exchange ideas, but instead legal technicalites with other lawyers, this is not the forum you should be on.You don't want to understand the law. You think you already do.

Go to law school. Get a JD. Get admitted to the bar. Work in the field for a decade or two. Then, I'll consider your opinion.

I don't argue the law with lay people.

No, you are not arrogant. You are self righteous for calling people ignorant if they are not lawyers and want to try to understand the law. If you don't want to exchange ideas, but instead legal technicalites with other lawyers, this is not the forum you should be on.

Whoah. I often think PTravel gets a little overbearing in his legal discussions, but he does know what he's talking about. Meanwhile, you brought up a technicality in the law that you thought might present a loophole, PTravel explained how it doesn't really work that way, and now you're complaining that he wants to argue legal technicalities? Puh-lease.

If you can find the place where PTravel says that it's immoral to copy DVDs (or VHS tapes or whatever) to your hard drive for later personal viewing, I'd like to see it so I too can admonish PTravel for making such a dumb statement. But if you ask a question about whether something violates the DMCA on a thread monitored by lawyers who know what they're talking about, expect them to give you an answer, and don't get all defensive simply because your theory was wrong.

The bottom line: most of us don't believe that time-shifting DVDs is immoral--even if you use css or some other on-its-face-DMCA-violating method. I, like many people, think 1201(a) of the DMCA is a stupid law and has nothing to do with morality or protecting "art" and everything to do with wealthy media executives trying to protect their business interests. But could you in theory get in trouble for violating it? Yes. For all its stupidity and self-contradictory provisions invoking fair use, 1201(a) is the law, and because there is no clear judicial guidance on how the fair use and anticircumvention provisions interact, copying DVDs (or VHS tapes or whatever) to your hard drive may technically be illegal.

Whoah. I often think PTravel gets a little overbearing in his legal discussions, but he does know what he's talking about. Meanwhile, you brought up a technicality in the law that you thought might present a loophole, PTravel explained how it doesn't really work that way, and now you're complaining that he wants to argue legal technicalities? Puh-lease.

No, my point is that he never explicitly commented on the technicality that I discussed and gave his opinion on everything else as well as insulting me. I love to dig into rules to look for loopholes - I would gladly accept his calling me ignorant if anyone (and I don't meant PTtraveler) would comment on the encryption circumvention allowance. The opportunity to learn is more important than having thin skin and if I learned I would be the better for it. PTTraveller just about reinforces every negative thing I have heard about lawyers - condescending and insulting.

I never said PTtraveler admitted to doing anything immoral - he makes a lot of statements but does not give an opinion. - "As an intellectual property lawyer, I am not prepared to say that copying a DVD to a laptop to view on the plane is violative of law (nor am I prepared to say that it is not)". What are we supposed to believe? Maybe that he knows it is illegal, but won't admit it. I wouldn't put it past this one...

I have not seen a response to my question on the specific details that I asked concerning the DCMA and insulting me about my ignorance of the law does not help me understand the issue (themicah, I am not talking about you). Since I don't expect to hear from PTtraveller for about 23 years, I am still curious about this issue and hope that I can learn more about this issue. I accept his statement about case law not being a guide, but I can see that we will be different types of lawyers.

I do appreciate your (themicah) bottom line view which I had intended to state as well. That it is probably legally safer to copy to a hd rather than copy a movie to a dvd.

I think we'd all hold your opinions in somewhat higher regard if you'd at least get the acronym for the act right. It is the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act," often referred to as the DMCA. Not, as you've written over and over again, the "DCMA."

Or were you discussing the Defense Contract Management Agency?

I think we'd all hold your opinions in somewhat higher regard if you'd at least get the acronym for the act right. It is the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act," often referred to as the DMCA. Not, as you've written over and over again, the "DCMA."

Or were you discussing the Defense Contract Management Agency?

:cool: :p ;) :) :D

The DMCA has nothing to do with formats, and everything to do with copy protection schemes. Read the statute. You'll find it at 17 U.S.C. Sec. 1201(a)(1)(A):

"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title."



It's certainly a flippant argument to make, but I've heard a few people make the argument recently that CSS doesn't constitute an "effective" access control mechanism because a 16-year old kid from Norway was able to figure out how to circumvent it. :D

I can't imagine any judge buying it (aside from a judge with a slightly twisted sense of humor who had it in for the entertainment industry). That said, I do think that the use of CSS-stripping software for the purpose of interoperability (ie playing a DVD in Linux circa 2000-2001) should be explicitly permissible, subject to fair use doctrine.

It's certainly a flippant argument to make, but I've heard a few people make the argument recently that CSS doesn't constitute an "effective" access control mechanism because a 16-year old kid from Norway was able to figure out how to circumvent it. :D

I can't imagine any judge buying it (aside from a judge with a slightly twisted sense of humor who had it in for the entertainment industry). That said, I do think that the use of CSS-stripping software for the purpose of interoperability (ie playing a DVD in Linux circa 2000-2001) should be explicitly permissible, subject to fair use doctrine.I agree completely. The DMCA is bad law, written by lobbyists solely to protect special interests.

So why sell a product that will get someone in trouble?

Such products have been sold since the first commercially available tape deck and VCR rolled off the conveyorbelt.

Before computers, CD-R and DVD+/-R, bootlegging still existed but not at such a scale as it does now. "Back then" it was hard work and time consuming. These days it's a couple of mouse clicks and a coffee break. There is no such thing as "3rd generation copy" and crappy images anymore. Today the image/sound quality will be the same as the original.

I trust PTravel to know the law on Intellectual property but I can say that as someone who has produced intellectual property on CD and doing it now via camera, I am royally piffed off at those who have been bootlegging CDs with songs I wrote the words for or my website designs or my photography. And if they also make money on it - it's even worse.

/E

The whole issue is a lot simpler if you do what I do....just read a book on the plane, and leave the movie viewing for home.

And by a book I mean a real book, not a photocopy of a book.