Confusing two issues. 10b is more extensive. With the latter two exceeding (IMHO) the requirements for fair use. Which is why the Copyright office is slow to grant exemptions as they have to be rifle shots, not shotgun approaches. The point that all of this misses is that DMCA itself granted an exclusion for innocent violations, and making single copies for your own personal use which you don't sell or give away, will fall under normal users expectation of Fair Use. Which is why in over 12 years of the law being in effect and millions upon millions of DVD-Rs being sold and millions upon millions of DVD recorders being sold and ready availability of cheap (to free) programs which will copy protected DVDs not a single person has been charged/convicted of violating the DMCA for making a personal back up copy. Those who want to continue to argue that even though it has never been prosecuted that it isn't legal are free to continue to do so.
Nope The Audio Home Recording Act of 92 took care of this for audio recordings No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright [1] based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or [2] based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.[10] They may be of the opinion, but so what? Software is readily available for purchase, machines and media are available for copying protected DVDs and no one is getting arrested or prosecuted for making single back up copies for personal use. See rule making in 2010 (below) that took care of that for you. Since the 92 AHRA it has been explicitly legal to do so. As to DVDS, in this 2009 article that's covered: http://money.usnews.com/money/busin...articles/2009/09/30/is-it-legal-to-copy-a-dvd He goes on to point out that the issue is the software to do so is not legally made or sold in the US, but that was in 2009. Jump forward to 2010 and the Ruling by the Librarian of Congress (which is what grants the exemptions) And you find that he states: The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls More to the point, he states that there are many legitimate uses for the software that copies protected DVDS and thus ended attempts to stop the production/sale of that software. Note that (1) specifically allows you to do what you said you could not do as a Science teacher. So, since ~2010, software has been freely available to back up DVD disks and with this ruling the studios are no longer bringing suit against them. http://www.copyright.gov/1201/2010/Librarian-of-Congress-1201-Statement.html
Yes. That is/was their opinion. That is the opinion that was provided to the librarian by their lawyer, as explicitly stated in the link that I provided. Try and stay focused here Adoucette. What is my argument? What has my argument been the entire time? That it's illegal to break the CSS to make a copy of a DVD or a CD. In otherwords, it's the act of breaking the CSS that generates the crime, not making the backup copy (or has until very recently). I've been quite specofoc about this, or in general have tried to, and there is a good reason for this. CSS is Access control. And yes, the librarian says: "The DMCA does not forbid the act of circumventing copy controls..." However, he goes on to say: "...The focus in this rulemaking is on whether people have been adversely affected by access controls in th ir ability to make noninfringing uses of particular classes of copyrighted works." There are some access controls that also act to prevent copying. Busting those (IE CSS) in order to make a backup copy, is not yet legal. To give you an example - I purchased a legitimate copy of C&C 3, took it home went to instal it, and couldn't. After doing some digging, I worked out that the problem was that the CSS that C&C 3 used - I think it was SecureRom was stopping me from instaling C&C 3 because it had detected that I had Nero instaled, which lwft me with two options if I wanted to play C&C 3 - bust the CSS or uninstal Nero - legitimate, legally purchasable software that came bundled with the laptop. Likewise, some DVD's piss me off. Why? Because they won't play in my DV/HDR if I'm recording something else on the Hard drive - for example, the legitimate use of time shifting that doco on the history of space flight, and trying to put a DVD on for the kids.
What adoucette seems extremely reluctant to actually put into words is that "the studios" have realised there isn't much they can do about copyright violations any more. Not by hundreds of millions of individuals anyway. The "right" to make backup copies contravenes copyright. The decision to allow this kind of infringement is a recent development, a legal convenience.
Who cares what their opinion is? The AHRA specifically allows people to make copies of Audio recordings for non-commercial uses. So you claim that even though no one has ever been arrested or charged with this crime that it is still illegal? That's hilarious. The fact is you ignore the fact that the DMCA specifically provides a "get out of jail free" card for innocent violations, and because of the existing affirmative Fair Use rulings for all other digital media that have gone to court, anyone who is just making a copy for personal use with legal hardware, media and software they purchased can obviously claim that DMCA exemption.
and those that want to continue to express that it is legal may do so. the fact of the matter is it is ILLEGAL to copy copyrighted movie DVDs.
I'm not reluctant. Studios and the FBI indeed do deal with copyright violations. See MegaUpload for recent example. Or several recent examples of RIAA suing people for infringement for file sharing of copyrighted works on peer to peer networks. So clearly they are against people infringing their copyright for profit and aren't reluctant to go after infringers. But, multiple Fair Use rulings have consistently allowed consumers to make copies of material they purchased for personal use without infringing and thus no suits would be filed since it would lose. The FBI could go after you based on the provisions of the DMCA, but there is the no penalty for Innocent Violations clause that makes beyond a reasonable doubt proof of intent impossible if only back up copies for personal use are made.
Sure, but even after 12 years of the law being in effect not a single person has been charged/convicted of violating the DMCA for making a personal back up copy and thus you have no actual legal decisions or convictions on your side. On the other hand, every related court decision about copying digital media has given consumers the right to make copies for personal use. Not really a tough call.
please cite relevant cases as for your links that allegedly buttress your argument...... Isn't there still software for ripping DVDs? Plenty of tools can be found on the Internet for sale, or even free downloading, that make it reasonably easy to copy DVDs. Some even work on the stronger software that protects high-definition, Blu-ray disks. But you won't find them in stores. Producing or distributing such software would appear to be illegal in the United States. Still, many people will and already do take advantage of the software, feeling they are safe from prosecution as long as they don't distribute the content from DVDs. http://money.usnews.com/money/busin...articles/2009/09/30/is-it-legal-to-copy-a-dvd yeah criminals that think the world owes them a living (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 nothing about backing up an entire movie by the general public please learn to read and comprehend are you posturing as a science teacher now? the general public is not a protected class yeah hosted in foreign countries by megaupload and we all know what happened to your hero, mr dotcom Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! indeed in your case, more often than not
The proposed classes of works listed below were received on or before December 1, 2011. The grouping of the classes mirrors the structure contained in a forthcoming Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments on these proposed classes of works will be due by 5:00 PM E.S.T., February 10, 2012. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! those are the only ones that propose entire movie dvd be backed up by the general public. as far as i can tell, they have not been addressed....yet here is Cassiopaea Tambolini ranting in section 10b Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! /snicker
Already did. See previous posts on court cases supporting consumer right under Fair Use to make back up digital copies for personal use. That's from 3 years ago. Times change. Specifically the 2009 case and the 2010 LOC ruling. Nothing criminal about making a copy of a disk you purchased for your personal use. Infringement only happens when you sell or give someone else a copy. You can argue this point as long as you want but it won't wash, copying for personal use is Fair Use though. Right, because this was clearly NOT for personal use, an exemption was required. Nope, copying for personal use is not what Dotcom was doing, and fyi the web site and payments are domestic. You might have heard of them: AMAZON http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B005CELIKU/ Then there is: http://www.leawo.com/dvd-copy/ http://www.opencloner.com/ etc etc etc
dumbass inference (5) Innocent violations. — (A) In general. — The court in its discretion may reduce or remit the total award of damages in any case in which the violator sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the violator was not aware and had no reason to believe that its acts constituted a violation. mr dotbiz: your honor, i did not know that purchasing specialized software to hack the copy protection of "afghan golden showers vol 3" and making a back up copy is illegal judge gustav: baliff, prepare for an execution!!
what do you mean no legal decisions? it's been decided that it's illegal. period. and i have already stated the original concept and intent of a "back up copy". to be honest there is NO justifiable reason for a "personal" DVD back up. negligence is YOUR fault.
Nope. Of course it's a reasonable inference. Since my daughter can go online to Amazon and buy a DVD movie, a pack of DVD-R media and this software, pay for it with her MC and have UPS ship it to our door and when it arrives she can make a back up copy of the disk. Never once would it cross her mind (or indeed most non-anal types) that she might be breaking an obscure law she has never heard about.
Really? Then where is the court case where someone was charged with violating the DMCA for making a personal use back-up copy? Fair Use doesn't require that it meets your definition of what is justifiable. Fair Use also allows format shifting, which is moving it to your i-pod for viewing the movie you bought on your next plane flight.
so why provide antiquated bullshit? quote relevant portions cite the specific portion from copyright.gov that allows the general public to do so moderators please investigate the facilitation of possible illegal activities by adoucette with his linkage (b) Additional Violations. — (1) 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 protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person's knowledge for use in circumventing protection afforded by a technological measure that effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title in a work or a portion thereof. (2) As used in this subsection — (A) to “circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure” means avoiding, bypassing, removing, deactivating, or otherwise impairing a technological measure; and (B) a technological measure “effectively protects a right of a copyright owner under this title” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, prevents, restricts, or otherwise limits the exercise of a right of a copyright owner under this title.
Yes, because I'm not sucked in by red herrings and false dichotomies. The only thing that proves is that Industry has yet to go after individual users on this grounds - perhaps they're feeling their way around the issue and creating some case law they can cite to support their case should they choose to do so. Only there is not yet a DMCA exemption, and up until now the Librarian has agreed with the industry.
Nor am I Trippy. You can keep arguing that making personal copies is illegal, but you have no court that has agreed with you. Which might be why no one has ever been charged under the DMCA for this and the hardware and software is now available for purchase in the US for making copies, including breaking the CSS protection.
