MGM Concedes Some Fair-Use Rights Exist

jambarama writes "MGM seems to have given a little in the Grokster case. After getting nailed on the possible implications of banning P2P software, they've now admitted it is perfectly legal to rip one's own CD and store it. Is this a return to the stripped down 'fair use' rights or a temporary court concession?"

Comments

Hopefully...

[quark101]

This is the first step in P2P being declared legal. Although it may seem like an obvious decision to the people here, remember that not everyone understands the issues so well- i.e. Politicians who make these decisions.

Re:What about DeCSS?

[kraada]

Actually, I think this is big news, and here's why:

If they say that it's ok for fair use to be able to rip media for personal use, then it follows that they must admit users can do the same for DVDs.

If they are saying it is only allowed in cases where compact discs are involved, then the question becomes: "What makes music special in this way?"

I for one cannot think of why it would be ok to rip cds but not rip dvds. If it is fair use to rip a medium (cd) for use on another device (like an iPod), it should be just as legal to rip a medium (dvd) for use on another device (like xine).

They better think hard and long as to why one is okay and not the other, because the courts will draw the analogy I just made and agree that if some ripping is ok, then all should be (so long as you have the media in question legally, of course).

DVD Packaging Warnings

[lxt]

This seems like a good time to ask a question that's been bugging me since I bought a new release DVD a few days ago - as well as some copy propaganda video that came up, I also got a FACT (the UK copy protection "federation") warning which in very bold letters told me "It is illegal to copy this DVD".

It didn't say anything about distribution - merely "It is illegal to copy this DVD". But I thought under UK (and US) law I was allowed to copy physical media for my own personal use, or if not that for my use as a backup copy.

If I'm right, does that mean someone could actually have some sort of legal case against FACT, seeing as they are wrongly informing consumers of their legal rights?

I'm obviously not a lawyer, and I only ask this out of curiousity...

Re:DVD Packaging Warnings

[arkhan_jg]

Actually, that's not an explicit defence against infringement under UK copyright law. Our version of Fair Use is called Fair Dealing, and has very limited exceptions -
basically, you can only use a limited portion of a copyrighted work for education or news reporting etc. A wholesale copy, even if it's for your own use, is technically illegal. Ergo, ripping a CD to MP3's, or a DVD to your hard drive are not legal - but not enforced.

However, the courts have generally ruled that a non-distributive, non-profit copying is legal, such as timeshifting by taping radio shows, or making transient copies in order to run a program.

It's likely that ripping a CD or DVD, for your own personal use (and not say, your mate) would equally be judged non-infringing if it ever came up in court.

That is until the EUCD comes into force. The UK has already signed up to this european legislation, we're just waiting on the patent office to write a version of the law for parliament to pass. The EUCD is more restrictive than the DMCA, and the UK version will almost certainly prevent the bypassing of copy-control mechanisms by any means. Therefore when it passes, bypassing CSS to rip your own copy will likely be explicitly illegal, rather than technically as at the moment.

Re:But they weren't going after rippers to begin w

[dalutong]

I highly doubt that this really the big concession that the ZDNet blog says it is.

Ah, but it is. Admitting that people have _any_ rights to their purchase (other than listening to it in its original form) is a big step. After all, you can't argue that you have the right to share something legally until you have crossed the very basic step of establishing that you have the right to do something with it besides listen to it on the original medium.

Re:What about DeCSS?

[timeOday]

I would say all recorded knowlege must be encoded, but encryptiond is encoding with the intent that not just anybody can read it. It's a question of intent. Granted that's not a very technically meaningful distinction, but through the DMCA it is a distinction enshrined in law (hopefully not permanantly but I'm not holding my breath).