PTravel

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.

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.

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.

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

themicah

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.

PTravel

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).

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.")


That's all very interesting, but has nothing to do with copyright law, which is what controls here.

No. "Copy" has a legal meaning, i.e. reproduction of protected expression. A ripped DVD most certainly is a copy.

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.

Why, if it's fair use, and therefore not infringing, to copy it to a laptop for viewing on an airplane?

Teacher49

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

Sorry to bother you and thanks for your patience.

ScottC

That's ok

I did the same

DEVIS

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.

pdhenry

So it's OK to watch a movie without paying for it as long as I decide I don't want to own it?

themicah

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.

Teacher49

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.

PTravel

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.

themicah

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.

nordmann

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

ScottC

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

redjr

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...