Originally Posted by DEVIS
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?