Doesn't matter. The Librarian is not a Federal Judge and that legal ruling supercedes anything the Librarian may do or not do. Nothing to do with rights. The court points out that's a possible liability. BUT Again that point was made clear in the ruling: The DMCA does not create a new property right for copyright owners. Nor, for that matter, does it divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public. Which is the key point. Fair Use has four tests and making Personal Backup Copies of Digital Media has always passed those tests (two are neutral, two are positive for consumer use). As it did against RIAA against Diamond and Universal against Sony. Fair Use laws haven't changed since those rulings which allow consumers to make backup copies of their digital media and as the court said: the DMCA emphatically did not “fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers. Your interpretation would indeed FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER those reasonable expectations of consumers. Which explains why there are no cases against anyone for making backups of their DVDs.
Nope, from your source: \ But FAIR USE, making copies of Digital Media you own for backup or time shifting or Format Shifting, as decided by several courts, is not an INFRINGEMENT of Copyright. So it is NOT a "protected interest".
Of course it does as you are saying consumers don't have fair use to make backup copies, or shift formats of their digital media simply because the recording industry decided to put CSS on top of it. Which is indeed the same as giving them a NEW RIGHT under Copyright law. And that's EXACTLY what the courts said was not true: The DMCA does not create a new property right for copyright owners. Nor, for that matter, does it divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public. Can we not legally, under Fair Use, make back up copies of all other Digital Media we own? Of course we can. And you, for some unknown reason, want to interpret DMCA as taking that right away. When that was never the intent.
lets read further.... The DMCA does not create a new property right for copyright owners. Nor, for that matter, does it divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public. The anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA create new grounds of liability. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused circumventor must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the circumvention at issue and a use relating to a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization-as well as notice that authorization was withheld. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused trafficker must demonstrate that the trafficker's device enables either copyright infringement or a prohibited circumvention. on many dvds..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! ...the withholding of authorization (1) Motion pictures on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System when circumvention is accomplished solely in order to accomplish the incorporation of short portions of motion pictures into new works for the purpose of criticism or comment, and where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary to fulfill the purpose of the use in the following instances: (i) Educational uses by college and university professors and by college and university film and media studies students; (ii) Documentary filmmaking; (iii) Noncommercial videos http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html ...the circumstances in which circumvention and copying is permitted under current copyright law
Except that making digital copies for personal use/format shifting has already been established as an authorized use under FAIR USE and thus doesn't require any additional authorization from the Copyright holder, nor can it be arbitrarily withheld. So it is NOT in the category of a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization And thus NO EXEMPTION is needed from the LOC. Really funny how when Quad pointed out (repeatedly) For about the tenth time now, nobody disputes that back-up copies count as Fair Use. Not a peep. From anyone. No one was arguing with his assertion that making back-ups of your DVDs wasn't FAIR USE. That is until I pointed out how if making back up copies is fair use and the court has ruled that circumvention is not infringing, that there is then no legal basis for the Copyright holder to claim infringement and thus there is no Federal reason to apply the DMCA when what someone is doing is non-infringing.
So do I. Making back-up copies hurts no one. Format shifting likely increases sales since a movie is more valuable to me if I can watch it anywhere and whenever I want.
digital copies of what? encrypted movie dvd's? show me an explicit ruling opinions and interpretations are far from codified law. even the village idiot in some communist utopia can have one
who do you think you are fooling? you lend your shit out. you make one specifically for friends and family. some then upload on to the internet you rape and pillage content creators /smirk show me how
What part of circumvention is not infringement do you not understand? Adding encryption didn't do anything to make digital media special and exempt from FAIR USE. True, that's why I've cited actual Federal Court Rulings about the DMCA. As in: The DMCA does not create a new property right for copyright owners. Nor, for that matter, does it divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public. And the DMCA emphatically did not “fundamentally alter” the legal landscape governing the reasonable expectations of consumers. Interesting how all of you appear desperate to try to interpret the DMCA as doing just that. Which is hilarious since you can't find a single court case since the DMCA was passed over a decade ago to back up your anti-consumer interpretations.
LIAR Obvious, indeed a number of labels now include non-encrypted versions of their movie on the DVD just so people who don't have DVD copy programs can shift them to other formats such as tablets. They did it because it had VALUE, but that means it already had value to people with a Copy Program.
10a and 10b will never be approved Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! despite that..... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! commies can prattle about honorable intent and other deceptive shit but in practice one will see an explosion in pirated content if encryption can legally be circumvented and whole movies backed up and format shifted by the general population that would be the practical effects of allowing unfettered back ups of dvds no one will see the need to purchase a legal copy the industry will collapse cali will slide into the sea while adoucette ripples
This dead herring again? Why do you keep carping on about it, is there something you're fishing for? At no point have I stated that it is illegal to make a backup copy. The only thing that I have said is that it is illegal to bust any form of DRM to do so. It's perfectly legal (as far as I can tell) to make a backup, even of protected material, if you can do so without bypassing DRM. Only according to the strawman you keep trotting out.
Then you are accepting a very literal interpretation of the DMCA system and ignoring the fact that the legal system actually deals with intent. You claim that it is legal to make a backup copy. Everyone seems to agree on this point. And since the court has ruled that circumvention is not infringement, then if making a backup copy is legal then the Copyright holder has no basis to sue since there is NO INFRINGMENT. Which leaves the Feds and the provisions of the DMCA. Which you are claiming could be used against people making backups based on a very literal interpretation of the DMCA. BUT The whole point of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act was to protect the rights of Copyright holders. BUT Based on the above, you have said that the person making the copies is NOT infringing on anyone's copyright. So you are arguing that the Fed would use a law designed to stop copyright infringing against someone who isn't infringing anyone's copyright. Why would the Fed do that? They wouldn't (and they haven't in over a decade since the DMCA was passed ever done so). Mainly because the prosecution would fail based on the fact that the INTENT of the law wasn't to stop Fair Use.
Nope, there are already millions of copies of the back up software out there and as DVD-less devices with playback capability continue to increase (smart phones and tablets) the amount of format shifting will only increase. The way to stop piracy is not ever going to be done by making copying illegal
Well my reasons are that for DVDS that are in frequent rotation I only keep the backup in use, not the original. So if the backup get's damaged or becomes unplayable for any reason, I can simply make another backup and toss the old one away. A DVD+R costs me about 10c, so it is very cheap insurance. I started doing this with CDs and found that it has been needed quite a few times (true, more often with CDs than DVDs, but so?) The other reason for making a copy is to simply shift the format to a diskless device (Android Tablet which has great video capability but no DVD player)
