Slashdot Mirror
Can You Be Sued For Helping Clients Rip DVDs?
DRMer writes "CE Pro has a series of stories that tries to untangle the legalities of DVD ripping in light of the recent RealDVD announcement from RealNetworks. In one of the stories, EFF Attorney Fred von Lohmann discusses the potential liability of those who resell or install DVD-ripping machines (the courts have yet to rule). Another article provides a rather amusing look at how manufacturers justify the legality of their products. Here's one example: 'We are just like Microsoft Vista that does not have a CSS [Content Scramble System] license.'"
You can be sued for anything, the question is can you be successfully sued
Cruise TT
You can be sued for anything. It doesn't mean you'll lose.
But in this case, you just might.
A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
I hand the client on my own time a un-labelled Cd with instructions to get anyDVD and the other software they need along with a basic guide. I tell them, you did not get this from me and will deny I have ever seen it or know about it.
I inform them that the MPAA thinks they are crooks and actually hates them and that is why you have to do this silly cloak and dagger crap to rip a DVD for their new expensive Media server system for the home so they can actually have 21st century entertainment.
they typically understand after the mess is explained to them. My sticker is they want to hire someone to do all the ripping for them.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
It is not interesting if you can be sued (as mentioned by others, you always can be).
There are two questions that should be answerd:
1) is it right or wrong?
2) is it legal or illegal?
If 1 and 2 give different answers than the law should be updated.
Lawsuits often don't answer any of the questions (which is actually a very bad thing).
Of course answering question 1 is the tough one.
Maybe we should sue Craftsman for making hammers and chainsaws, since those might be used as murder weapons. Or perhaps Raid for making bug spray, since it could conceivably be used to poison someone. Or architects for designing tall buildings since a suicidal person might jump off of them. How about manufacturers of ropes or chains, since those might be used to hang somebody?
Why do we collectively accept this madness when it's copyright that we don't accept otherwise? There are legitimate reasons to rip a DVD, and there are also uses of a DVD ripper that violate copyright. A hammer can help to build a house to shelter a family, or it can be used by a criminal to bludgeon someone to death. In principle, I see no fundamental difference here.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
I though assisting one in bypassing DRM to copy media was very direct and clear in the DCMA, which is why people are wary of including libdvdcss in Linux distros, even if it is used for playback and not copying.
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
Selling products that archive DVDs
The MPAA is likely to argue that (1) selling anything that makes copies of movies if you have reason to know that the customer is going to use it to infringe is, itself, an act of contributory infringement and (2) while the "archiving" may not violate the DMCA's [Digital Millennium Copyright Act] prohibition on unauthorized decryption, any device that includes any unlicensed "decrypter" or "player" is a circumvention device prohibited by the DMCA.
I think the gist of the story is broken down into those two questions and based on the response from von Lohmann, I would say is the profit worth the risk. I wont argue anything that allows you to backup the legally purchased DVD's you own (or is it lease...might have to re-read the license)is and should be 100% legal, however, if I am just an installer putting these devices in play, I would think long and hard when the customer who begins his "dvd-reselling" business points the finger back at you..
They keep telling us we're buying a license to listen/view the content they are selling to us.
But then they try to lock it down to the actual media.
If I pay for the content, let me rip it so I can use it on my own hardware, the way I see fit (MPAA/RIAA calm down, that doesn't include giving away nor selling copies to others). Also, why do I have to pay full price to get a replacement CD/DVD, my content license has already been paid.
1. Take note of the posted speed limit. On many major highways it is generally 55 or 65 MPH, but this varies from region to region. Better to check first.
2. Press down on the accelerator of your vehicle until your speedometer indicates that you are traveling at a speed higher than the posted speed limit.
3. Maintain a rate of travel above this speed by keeping the accelerator depressed and by not hitting your break pedal.
Now I guess I can be sued if you ever get a speeding ticket.
Next thing they will come up with is that you can be sued for watching the stuff,because you have probably recorded the DRM crippled,encrypted stream into one of those cyborg devices you have lying around[proof?Who needs proof?He's next in line] and you will probably spread the story,thus acting as spoiler.You should be in jail now,because you read this comment.
Absent a court ruling to back that up, it isn't anything. It's a hypothetical because there is no case law to establish anything.
Note that copyright infringement is a civil matter. So, aiding and abetting doesn't apply.
Maybe if you did it on a commercial scale, for profit, you could make that point. Helping people to install software to perform what is considered to be fair use ... that has yet to be determined.
Would I want to make a business out of selling this kind of stuff without legal precedent? Nope. But, neither does your summary decision that it's a aiding and abetting a crime have anything to support it.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I suggest you check exactly how many barratry cases have been prosecuted in the US in the last decade. Even Jack Tompson hasn't been charged with that yet. Although one lawyer did have to cough up for his opponent's legal fees recently.
And in both cases, a lot of this seems to depend on where you live.
In North America, Canada seems safer, but there's also a push to hit us with new laws that would be even more draconian than those in the US.
Personally, if person X wants to pay person Y $1.50 to copy his (bought and paid for) "Little Mermaid" DVD so that the kids don't ruin the original, why shouldn't he be able to?
In the case of CDs, you're legally allowed to make one copy for backups.
I haven't check the law, but logic would follow that we have similar rights for DVDs. In such a case, DVD ripping software and hardware would be off the hook, as it has a legal purpose.
There is an inherent stupidity to much of what goes on in the new frontier of digital media. Tivos don't allow 30 second skipping to mollify the networks, but I can install MythTV and skip as much or as little as I want. Ipods are built to be crippled with DRM and the inability to move files from one player to the other, but anyone can go out and legally purchase an MP3 player from a different manufacturer that allows you to move files onto it or off of it without restriction. Anyone with minimal savvy can use the publicly-available DeCSS code to rip as many DVDs as they want onto their home media server and have been able to do that for years, but now the Copyright Patrol has its panties in a bunch over boxes that are dedicated to this function. The discourse is fundamentally stupid.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
how is it illegal to take something you purchased, and rightfully own, and convert it to a format that better suits your purposes. if i want to rip all my DVDs and CDs onto my hard drive, that is my prerogative. as long as i'm not distributing them illegally, it falls completely within fair use.
just like, if i have a child who is blind, and i want to take all the books i've bought her and record myself reading them aloud so that she may listen to the books when i'm not around, that is not a crime--not yet, at least.
So does that mean that I installed dvdshrink on my friends computer for him, that I can be sued for having given him the tools to do this?
If not, then why is it that if he could easily have created a tool to allow him to rip a dvd on his own (as I have) then it is not illegal, but if he uses one I created installed on HIS machien, then it is illegal???
They could get a CSS licence from somebody else other than the DVD-CCA. The DVD-CCA has no special authority to license the use of a CSS descrambler than any content producer.
Since CSS isn't a trade secret anymore (it is PD knowledge now) nobody is prohibited from implementing it on trade secret grounds.
Since CSS was never patented, nobody is prohibited from implementing it on patent grounds.
Since each CSS implementation is an independent work rather than derived, nobody is prohibited from implementing it on copyright grounds.
I'll give them a licence for free. Here you go. I hereby license you all, each and every one.
You don't own it.... you own a license to view what's on the disk. See how they get you there.
Helping people to install software to perform what is considered to be fair use ... that has yet to be determined.
I'm fairly certain the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA have been tested in court, specifically in relation to backing up DVDs. Remember 321 Studios?
It looks like it requires a phone call though. My sources: http://lifehacker.com/software/itunes/redownload-your-lost-itunes-music-176323.php http://thecontent.wordpress.com/2006/05/24/itunes-lets-people-re-download-all-your-music-once/
Once you start despising the jerks, you become one.
There is no such law that allows for one backup. I can make 100 copies of CDs that I bought and go skeet shooting. I am only breaking the law when I distribute those copies to others.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
No?
Unfair laws make criminals of everyone.
Om, nomnomnom...
Well, that was a combination of running out of money and losing a lower court ruling.
At present, there isn't definitive case law to identify if this is legal or not. Unfortunately, the pecker heads at the MPAA have deep enough pockets to buy whatever ruling they want until someone pushes this far enough through the courts. The whole point of TFA is that this is a gray area that hasn't been finally determined by the courts.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Tivos don't allow 30 second skipping ...
Actually, you just have to enable it. See http://bigmarv.net/how/tivo30secondskip.html. They don't enable it by default or advertise the feature in order to mollify the networks, but it's still there.
The rest of your post I basically agree with, but I thought I should pass that tip along.
I retain right of first sale on DVDs, CDs, and books.
I own the disk, and while I'm limited in what I can do with its contents .... this "license to view what's one the disk" argument is fallacious. Don't buy into the unproven claims of the *AAs. This is more than just what they claim they've licensed you to do.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
There's the shitty catch.
You can very well likely make a backup copy of your DVD legally. The criminal aspect is the bypassing of the copy protection. So, if your DVD came without the protection you could make backups. If it didn't then, well, you're kind of screwed legally.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
For the purpose of interoperability it is legal to circumvent technical measures. Getting it to work with your backup program is an interoperability situation.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
This issue interests me regarding MythTV setups. There's already a feature to backup DVDs (rip option when you load a dvd), but I was pondering adding an option to "time-shift" rentals. In other words say you get some movies out of order from Netflix, you could simply have it automatically backup the dvd and hold it for a maximum of x days (then delete it after being viewed or when the time is up).
Currently you can do this manually, but adding a feature that does this explicitly would run afoul of some companies (though many would argue there's no real harm done). But will adding (ease of use) features to a product that violates the DMCA also put you in further liability? What if instead of a rental time shifting feature you just add a system to streamline ripping to xvid or h264 (with presets for movies, tv shows, animation, etc)?
Georgia Tech, the leader in Chia(tm) technology.
Incorrect. It's true if you are renting it might be true (it IS true in that event) but when you BUY it you:
1. Are purchasing an off-the-shelf commodity good
2. Are doing the exact same as buying a book
3. Are agreeing to the transaction advertised: "Own $MOVIE on DVD today!" in every TV ad, store kiosk, marquee/poster, and radio ad they smother us with. Their marketing departments KNOW the law and that you OWN that copy, and yet their lawyers are trying to brainwash the courts otherwise.
You OWN the copy of the content; you simply do not have a license (or the right) to redistribute outside of Fair Use provisions.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You are circumventing technical measures for the express purpose of interoperability (with your backup software). Perfectly legal.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
You can be sued for anything. The question is whether or not you can afford to try to prevail.
If they make criminals of EVERYONE, then they ARE fair.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
that is still illegal. skeet shooting is like bittorrent - distributing little chunks of files over a broad area, but never the whole file at once! =P
http://kered.org
So far as I know, as long as you don't have to *transcode* the data (for example, to fit a double-layer DVD onto a typical 4.1GB recordable DVD), there's no problem with copying bit-for-bit, and then burning that onto whatever medium you want, whether or not there's copy protection on there.
on that advertising bit...
say you are taken to court and the decision is that in fact you ARE only licensed to view. At that point you file a motion charging the *AA with literally MILLIONS of cases of false advertising. NICE!
But I installed the application to help them rip and copy dvds of their own design and copyright. they lost the original data, and needed to make 10 copies, not enough to warrant them paying a 3rd party, so they ripped and copied them. perfectly legal in every way shape or form. And what happens after those 10 copies of their training video are copied isn't my concern any longer. but according to you, it's aiding and abetting... I guess the guy selling and showing another person how to load a gun is aiding and abetting too. intent has to proven in those cases, and installing software isn't enough to prove intent for copyright infringement Also copyright infringement isn't a "criminal" offense (yet). And there are perfectly legal reasons and uses for these software packages. not all copying is illegal. there's also that pesky fair use...
Actually, you can legally make a copy for a friend. This came up in the 80s with mix tapes.
you're right. The law is fair. It's the enforcement that isn't fair. But that's the whole point of making everyone a criminal: harassing undesirables.
What the fuck? I understand trying to cover your asses and all, but who in their right mind would produce such a crippled piece of hardware? And who would buy it?
Informative my arse, this comment was dead wrong.
Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
gaaah, just replying to undo some bad moderation, sorry
Those are legal? Are they still? I mean if it's actually a mix tape/CD as opposed to a complete copy.
I have a lot of emo friends with birthdays coming up
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
Um... hardware copiers anyone? I've got one, as does my church... for legitimate use. The devices are not illegal, the backup copies should not be illegal... playing the discs should not be illegal. Breaking the copy protection? Ok... maybe (though if the DMCA is legal in and of itself is still up for debate).
Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Either you do or it's advertisement fraud
"Own it Today" the TV ads say.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
It hasn't been tested nationally, but lower courts have decided. Not everything needs to go to the Supreme Court to be decided, that just adds finality to the decision.
Well IIRC the DMCA only makes helping someone else/distributing a tool to circumvent, for any reaosn including legal ones, a crime. Receiving such a tool is not illegal, nor is having, using, or creating one.
So if I download requiem off the tubes (before it moved to freenet) I'm not breaking the law but the guy who is hosting it is.
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
The direct tv drvs have 30 second skip on them
I'm not certain of full/partial copies, but last I checked infringement included single songs as well as full albums. I would imagine that lack of distinction carries over here as well.
Yeah, just because a company delivers a DVD backup solution, that fact doesn't make the company complicit in copyright infringement. I could see it if the company designed a package that demonstrated how to generate money from selling illegal pirated movies using the hardware, but I doubt that exists to the extent people cry about.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Making the copy is not illegal.
Making, possessing, using, etc. etc. technology that can make the copy may be illegal, because to do so you have to circumvent a technology whose primary purpose is to protect copyright.
That's why the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA is such a problem. Either "fair use" has to be held up as a significant non-infringing use (which could/should apply to pretty much any circumvention technology, negating the effect of the anti-circumvention clause), or fair use has to be reduced to something you get if the content publisher chooses to give it to you (which explicitely isn't supposed to be the case).
I'd like to see this solution: Let them keep the anti-circumvention clause, but also make it illegal for a content publisher to make, possess, use, etc. etc. any technology that inhibits the consumer's ability to exercise fair use.
It's all about balance.
It's the circumvention that's prohibited, not the copying itself. So, if you can get at the data without circumvention, fair use provisions should still apply.
RE: why do I have to pay full price to get a replacement CD/DVD, my content license has already been paid.
'cause they can.
They paid for a law to protect profits from their outdated business model.
Unless you can find a congress critter who doesn't take bribes, we are stuck with laws that kill progress and the public domain.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
The frustrating part is they already have the songs as legally as I do; the cool part is the order and audio effects applied to them.
*nerd rage*
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
I don't believe that mix tapes are technically legal. It's not something that you'll ever be prosecuted for (unless you are distributing those mix tapes/CDs to tons of people or selling them), but it still falls within the realm of copyright infringement.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
you can make back-ups of your DVDs, but you're not allowed to circumvent CSS, otherwise you run afoul of the DMCA.
In other words, 'We don't care if you copy our disks, but we encrypted them with pig-latin and breaking that encryption is illigal'
As far as 'I' care, all programs are just really large numbers in binary form. Not sure how you copyright a number.
That's what they want you to believe, but I don't think there's actually any legal basis to it. I need a license if I want rights I don't already get from the act of purchase -- like distribution of copies, hence the meaningful-ness of the GPL -- but "view the content" isn't a right reserved to the copyright holder. I don't need or want a license, hence there is no leverage to impose constraints on my use.
This is the fundamental problem IMO with any EULA. The publisher wants the best of both worlds -- the no-effort boiler-plate transactions that take place at retail sale, along with the control of a contractually negotiated arrangement. Thing is, that's not supposed to be legal -- at best it's a contract of adhesion.
And don't kid yourself -- the publishers know full well they wouldn't get the sales volume they do if the purchaser didn't think of it just like any retail transaction. I'd argue they're using the form of a retail transaction to lead consumers into believing they're buying the disc, then later trying to claim "oh, that wasn't the arrangement at all; all you got was a license."
Golf clap!
Don't worry if you're a kleptomaniac, you can always take something for it.
By plain reading of the law, you may not assist anyone, in any way in circumventing DRM...
No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that--
(A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title;
(B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or
(C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
A and B are pretty clear, regardless of C. You might argue that the primary purpose is convenience, but since it could also be argued that convenience explicitly requires circumvention that may be shaky ground. I haven't heard of a test case in this, as nobody has been willing to put their corporate butt on the line yet.
Now, this doesn't mean that making the copy is illegal, as the DMCA does _not_ take away any rights generally considered to be fair use.
Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this titl
So you are free to make any copies for personal use which would have been allowed prior to the DMCA, regardless of DRM. The catch is that nobody can help you without running afoul of the law - which means you have to break the encryption yourself and code the decrypter yourself. It's like locking you in a steel cage and telling you that you can leave any time you want, you just have to get out all by yourself.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Mod parent up. I don't know why this argument keeps coming up. You cannot sell software that breaks encryption, it is however, legal to own and use. This was the ruling the judge came up with during the 3-2-1 case.
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted â" and you create a nation of law-breakers â" and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with." Ayn Rand('Atlas Shrugged' 1957)
You have to keep in mind the very radical terms of DMCA. That law is unlike anything else that people have experience with, and you can't just apply common sense to it, or think about the issues in terms of what copyright is for. Anyone who talks about issues like "copyright infringement" in this context, is not in the right frame of mind. Copyright infringement is a totally unrelated concept to DMCA.
The key part of DMCA is that no one is allowed to access the content without authorization from the copyright holder. Do you have authorization? (Can you prove you do?)
We generally ass/u/me that we have authorization to play our DVDs, provided that we are using equipment for which the manufacturer got a DVDCSS license. But look at your DVD and the booklet and the case: the conditions under which you are authorized to play it, are not actually stated anywhere.
If you play a DVD and then for whatever reason, and in service of whatever agenda, the copyright holder decides to sue you for violating DMCA, then they just need to answer one question: Do you authorize what the defendant did?
If the copyright holder says Yes, then the judge should say, "I find in favor of the defendant."
If the copyright holder says No, then the judge should say, "I find in favor of the plaintiff."
The same goes for a manufacturer. If a copyright holder decides that people are not authorized to play their DVDs on your equipment, then the primary purpose of your equipment is to play DVDs without authorization.
There is no code of conduct you can follow, or rules spelled out, or anything you can do to make sure what you're doing is legal. There aren't even vague rules of thumb, parallel to the Fair Use criteria like you have in copyright-infringement related discussions. Every DVD user, every DVD player manufacturer, and every DVD-related toolmaker (which accesses the content of CSS-scrambled DVDs) is at their arbitrary mercy. All they have to do, is say you are not authorized, and then unless you have some sort of evidence that they did authorize you (do you (does anyone?) have this evidence, for any of the DVDs that you own?), then you have clearly violated DMCA.
This holds even if you get a DVDCSS license, and strictly adhere to its terms. But, if you do that, then they have no incentive to come after you (and they would undermine all the reasons that anyone bothers to get DVDCSS licenses), so you will get away with it. That's the safest way to go.
If this all seems unfair to you, then I advocate you vote against everyone in the 2008 elections who doesn't say they will sponsor or vote for legislation that repeals DMCA. Remember: a president, a third of the senate, and the whole house. This law could be gone in a few months, if only people would vote on it. Yes, some will say it's naive to think people would vote on actual issues, but we do have the ability, should we ever choose to exercise it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
the courts have yet to rule
You mean, they have sucked to date?
Over the years, I've bought vast quantities of such licenses - LP's, cassette tapes, CD's . . . most of which have fallen to the ravages of time (You try preserving the integrity of your LP's when you live in the desert Southwest - sand and dust are everywhere. We won't even talk about the lifespan of an 8-track or cassette tape left baking in an automobile all summer). SO . . . by the RIAA's logic, I do indeed have a right to download Jailbreak by Thin Lizzy - I bought the LP and despite the failure of the media to survive, my rights under that license do survive.
In Australia ripping DVD's is legal. Making backup copies your you own personal use weather its DVD's, CD's, games etc is not only legal its protected. Region locking (without allowing ways around it i.e. mod chips) is not compliant with Australian law.
Make SELinux enforcing again!
The converse, however, is false. We don't make laws based on minimising the number of criminals. Otherwise we simply wouldn't have a legal system.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
DVDs have copy protection, and circumventing copy protection is what's at issue here, not making the copy.
See where this is going? Making a personal copy is legal but circumventing copy protection isn't...
That's the sort of laws they've been buying over the last few years.
No sig today...
"How to speed" is pretty damn obvious. Perhaps "how to bump a lock and commit a burglary" would be a better analogy.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I don't know if this is meant as a joke, but it is hilarious and true.
What's the legality of going to the library and checking out some CDs and ripping them to iTunes?
Can I bum a sig?
Pretty sure you're renting, not buying, if you get from library, so I'd be surprised if you were allowed to. If it's legal at all I'd suspect you are required to delete the rips after you return the CDs.
As to my original post, not a joke. I am genuinely curious. I don't think it's likely mix tapes/ CDs are (or, frankly, ever were) legal but would love to see evidence to the contrary, both for aesthetic and practical reasons
93rd rule of Slashdot: No matter how obvious my sarcasm is, my comment will be taken seriously by someone.
You have the right to burn the contents of the disk. It's the fact that you have to circumvent a copy protection measure to transcode that's the illegal part.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
If they make criminals of EVERYONE, then they ARE fair.
Please tell me that you were laughing your ass off when you wrote that and only decided you were on to something when modded up. And please tell me that your friends modded this drek as insightful as part of the joke.
Seriously. Somebuddy's liable to read that and start to believe that it has merit. Think of the children.
Pathological kinda promises Path + Logical - but instead, you get stuck with pathetic.
Spares you the difficulty of actually thinking of something intelligent to post. Kudos!
http://www.kaleidescape.com/company/pr/PR-20070329-DVDCCA.php
Basically, if you're in compliance with the CCA requirements, there isn't anything they can do about it.
The CCA is now trying to change the license to prevent copying, but every storage system on the planet is going to file complaints and litigation if that happens.
I've been called a "Fucking Dick" by better people than you.
Actually, you can legally make a copy for a friend. This came up in the 80s with mix tapes.
Really? I know that's true in Canada (and by, "I know," I mean someone who was allegedly Canadian said so /.) but I still think would be infringing stateside.
DATABASE WOW WOW
People can commit copyright by copying a book with paper and pencil. Should we ban those too, since they have the potential to break copyright?
Unfair laws make criminals of everyone.
If they make criminals of EVERYONE, then they ARE fair.
I worry about the grasp on logic of those who modded you Insightful. Funny, yes, Insightful, no.
If they make criminals of everyone, then they're still unfair, merely equally so.
Title 17 Section 106:
You could conceivably run afoul of #4, #5, and #6. The right to perform as well as perform publicly *IS* a protected right.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/circ92.pdf
I suggest everyone imposing their interpretation of Title 17 at least read it. The problem is Title 17 has been modified so many times, it is just about impossible to make coherent sense out of it as the author of the linked document states. Simply looking at Title 17 is a sure way to run afoul of another existing act. In the front of that document I linked to it lists all the various acts that either changed or impact Title 17.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
The essence of decisions like Sony v Universal (the "Betamax" case) turns on the question of whether a device has "substantial non-infringing uses." Pencils and paper clearly qualify here; Grokster did not. Whether a device to make DVD copies has such uses is prima facie an open question.
The number of ridiculous postings like the above in any copyright discussion just shows how really uninformed most Slashdotters are about copyright law. Try reading a few of the major decisions like Betamax and Grokster, or discussions at places like the EFF and ChilingEffects, before posting on these matters. You'll sound a lot more intelligent if you do.
A major problem with people is that a lot of them think that "fair" means "equal".
If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
copyright is about distribution, not what you do in your own house. If you don't distribute, you're fine.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
Public performance is protected, but watching a DVD in my home is not public performance. Non-public performance is not protected. You say it is, but even your own quoted passage doesn't back you up -- notice how the 3 bullets you cite all say "perform publicly" and do not just say "perform" ...
I've read Title 17 many times. And FWIW, that's only the tip of the iceberg if you want to actually understand the law.
There's no law (at least in the U.S.) that says 'only one backup' or anything similar. There are some examples involving the government's recognizing the need to make at least one backup for data, codified as an example of fair use. For example the Berne treaty has a section about fair use that lists on site and off site backups, which would seemingly imply that at least two backups are an example of fair use if they are kept in separate locations. Software, music, video, and other categories all have differing parts of fair use codified, i.e. there's no legal opinion on time shifting as it might or might not apply to software. AFAIK, there's no list of fair use examples that sets a lower limit of acceptable backups the industry must allow for music or movie files.
Some people are confusing the actual laws referring to backups with those fairly common EULA clauses that give specific permission to make no more than X number of backups, but those are only meant as the manufacturer purports in the rest of the EULA. That is, usually they give a specific permission to do action X, but they don't say whether or not the user may already have that right or some larger right as part of fair use laws. Actual statutory references are mostly in regards to just that one legal area - 'fair use', and fair use doctrine is not all spelled out, far from it.
Who is John Cabal?
Actually in Canada you can not make a copy for a friend. You can lend them your CD for them to copy or you can let them use your system to make a copy but you can not distribute to your friend.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
If they make criminals of EVERYONE, then they ARE fair.
Are you sure? I'm sure there's plenty of people on /. that can name several laws that are unfair and make criminals of people but doing something is considered a social norm. To boil it down simply, any law that makes large segments of the population a criminal should be looked at objectively by both society, the judicial and the legislative branch.
Cicero said that excessive law is no law.(To paraphrase) The point on this when a society makes laws that criminalize the 'norm' of behavior, has legislation become excessive?
If by then, you accept all laws to be fair regardless of how excessive they are. This is an example in the story. How much further are you willing to go?
Om, nomnomnom...
However, you're all not actually paying close enough attention to the question.
The question is, "Can you be sued for helping to perform action X?". The answer to that question is an unequivocal "Yes!". In America you can be sued for anything. Whether you can win in court is dependent largely on whether you can afford to stay in for enough rounds to have baseless claims thrown out. Occasionally, really badly executed lawsuits are thrown out in the beginning. But since any copyright infringement lawsuit is likely to come from deep pocket corporations, those lawsuits will be full of rational sounding legal FUD.
So, yes, you can be sued for helping someone rip DVDs, whether there is a legal standing to support that suit is another question.
Here's the problem though. When you go through it I saw where "publicly" had been dropped in quite a few instances and when you go to the definitions you see "publicly performed" defines as well as simply "performed". Yes, it is just the tip of the iceburg as I tried to point out since about 15 other laws modify, dovetail or "enhance" Title 17. The problem as I see it is - it is an "exclusive right" which means, as I understand it, a right that is granted in such a way that any assumed right not expressly given is reserved for the holder of the right. This is what makes the GPL enforceable. I think there are still plenty of untested waters in this area though so I could very well be wrong....
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
... and lose it all in solicitors fees.
*weep*
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
Sigh....
I'm sad none of you seem to have heard about the supreme court's decision on the matter. It established your privilege to make and keep duplicates of your media.
SONY CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
(b) Kalem Co. v. Harper Brothers, 222 U.S. 55 , does not support respondents' novel theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement
Now, was that so hard?? More to the point, when the server shows up, your reply to the complaint is right there. No merit to the case at all.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
So, i can produce guns and sell them around, but i can't produce something to transform my files into another type. what if i made my own wedding video in a DVD and i want to store it in a HD, i can't rip it?
...that you haven't circumvented any access controls if you don't violate the copyright of the work in question... If you break the DRM on a DVD for somebody for their own personal use, and that person doesn't redistribute the work in any way, theoretically you may be OK. Of course, you'd be trusting your customer not to post the files you rip for them on the internet, and let's be honest... A few customers in, at least one is going to do exactly that.
I wouldn't want to be the test case for that argument, but it seems like there's a non-zero chance for success.
There's also that pesky term 'effectively' in there. In the case of DVDs, there's a lot of wiggle room with that term, since the copy protection on DVDs doesn't protect against exact copies of the disc in any way whatsoever, much less an effective way. Sure, most people don't have the equipment to make an exact copy, but that's beside the point...
Yes I was.
I still didn't.
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Yes, I'm sure. If they don't discriminate in making people criminals (so if everyone is an criminal now), these laws are very fair. Is it more funny for you now?
Extreme Programming - Redundant Array of Inexpensive Developers
Because they made a law saying it is.
I find being offended by me offensive.
Yes, I'm sure. If they don't discriminate in making people criminals (so if everyone is an criminal now), these laws are very fair. Is it more funny for you now?
Absolutely, then again you just pointed out the problem with unfair and unjust laws.
Om, nomnomnom...
Note that copyright infringement is a civil matter. So, aiding and abetting doesn't apply.
Before you start quoting the law at people, it might be a good idea to know what you're talking about. Copyright infringement can be a civil matter (17 USC 504), but it can also be a criminal matter if "willful infringement" is the basis of the action (17 USC 506). If an infringement case is prosecuted as a criminal action, aiding and abetting or conspiracy charges could also be brought.
I suppose that owning a gun must also be called aiding and abetting and it's a crime. Particularly when the gun is an AK47.
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Indeed, I recall that the DMCA specifically prohibited trafficking in the tools, but not their creation or use.
I hadn't considered when reading the law whether offering circumvention as a service was covered.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
You don't own it.... you own a license to view what's on the disk. See how they get you there.
I've never seen an "I Agree" button on any of my DVDs.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?