Advertisement

There's no such thing as a stupid question, but they're the easiest to answer.
Login
Search

Advertisement

Do It Yourself (Not Computer-Related) Do It Yourself (Not Computer-Related)
Search Search
Search for:
Tech Support Guy > > >

Illegally copying movies


(!)

r'n'r's Avatar
r'n'r r'n'r is offline
Junior Member with 15 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Experience: Intermediate
24-Aug-2006, 11:06 AM #16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tidus4Yuna
r'n'r: Why would do download something you already own? The problem is with people who DONT own them.
Read the first post, the person says he already owns it but he wants it on his laptop which doesn't have a dvd drive
Couriant's Avatar
Couriant   (James) Couriant is offline Couriant is a Trusted Advisor with special permissions.
Trusted Advisor with 30,834 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Chillin in AZ
24-Aug-2006, 11:13 AM #17
Quote:
Originally Posted by r'n'r
Read the first post, the person says he already owns it but he wants it on his laptop which doesn't have a dvd drive
then tough titties. Get a DVD drive.
thecoalman's Avatar
Member with 2,491 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
24-Aug-2006, 11:19 AM #18
Quote:
Originally Posted by r'n'r
You can start reading again because the case I pointed to brought about that amendment so at the time of that case there was no provision for music so as I say untill there is a court case for video this is a comparison
No, that case you are referring to is to whether the RIO fell under the home recording act which it does not. It's simply labeled a storage device, which is what it is.
r'n'r's Avatar
r'n'r r'n'r is offline
Junior Member with 15 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Experience: Intermediate
24-Aug-2006, 12:01 PM #19
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
No, that case you are referring to is to whether the RIO fell under the home recording act which it does not. It's simply labeled a storage device, which is what it is.
Sorry about you are right that this didn't cause an amendment to the home recording act although the provision in the audio home recording act you refered to earlier is for artsists to reclaim money from recordings that people don't have an origional copy of e.g. downloads of music, taping off the radio, etc http://ecf-guest.mit.edu/~jc/ideas/A...ordingAct.html
but if you read the summery of the case I linked to earlier you'll see that its not just about whether the rio falls under the home recording act, but about space shifting digital media also, at the time of the case tranfering films over the net wasn't as practicle as it is now and what the judge says is now very relevant to films and the only comparison in law that I can find, if you'd care to point me to another case or a case that says that downloading a film oyu already own is breaking copyright or the applicable piece of law then I'll read them but untill I see a piece of law or a case saying otherwise I'll continue to state that it may be legal it may not and that no-one will know till there is a case brought and ajudge decides one way or the other
thecoalman's Avatar
Member with 2,491 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
24-Aug-2006, 12:50 PM #20
Quote:
Originally Posted by r'n'r
is for artsists to reclaim money from recordings that people don't have an origional copy of e.g. downloads of music,
That AHRA does not cover illegal downloads of audio, just ask the people getting convicted:
http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/s...TOKEN=29735460

Quote:
them but untill I see a piece of law or a case saying otherwise I'll continue to state that it may be legal it may not and that no-one will know till there is a case brought and ajudge decides one way or the other
You can believe what you want but everything you have referenced has to do with audio so it's irrelevant. There is no provision for copying DVD's. The fundamentals of copyright law are you can't make a copy of something you own the copyright or are licensed to do so. Just because copyright law as it pertains to DVD's you own hasn't been tested in a court of law doesn't allow you to interpret as you want.
r'n'r's Avatar
r'n'r r'n'r is offline
Junior Member with 15 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Experience: Intermediate
24-Aug-2006, 01:02 PM #21
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
That AHRA does not cover illegal downloads of audio, just ask the people getting convicted:
http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/s...TOKEN=29735460
the ahara does cover illegal downloads http://ecf-guest.mit.edu/~jc/ideas/A...ordingAct.html and the people getting convicted are being convicted because they were proffiting from thier activities as you will see if you read what the charges were that they pleaded to in the link you referenced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman
You can believe what you want but everything you have referenced has to do with audio so it's irrelevant. There is no provision for copying DVD's. The fundamentals of copyright law are you can't make a copy of something you own the copyright or are licensed to do so. Just because copyright law as it pertains to DVD's you own hasn't been tested in a court of law doesn't allow you to interpret as you want.
The fundamentals of copyright law are not in question here although they are more complicated than you state, what is in question is the technicalities of copyright law which change quite often according to technological advance and case law e.g. betamx. The points in the references could very easily be applied to video.
As to wether I'm interrupting copyright law I'm not I saying until a judge interprets the law its an open question, your the one interpreting copyright law by saying its illegal
thecoalman's Avatar
Member with 2,491 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
24-Aug-2006, 01:41 PM #22
Quote:
Originally Posted by r'n'r
and the people getting convicted are being convicted because they were proffiting from thier activities
These are not just people that are profiting:

Quote:
According to Beckerman, the RIAA has brought 19,000 cases against private individuals. "You have a multi-billion-dollar cartel suing all sorts of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations,"
Take your pick: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...a&sa=N&start=0

The one about the dead guy makes for qiuite interesting reading.


Quote:
As to wether I'm interrupting copyright law I'm not I saying until a judge interprets the law its an open question, your the one interpreting copyright law by saying its illegal
I'm not interpreting anything I'm twlling you what it says:

Quote:
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;

To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and

In the case of sound recordings*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a “compulsory license” under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.
There is no exemption listed for DVD, video.... You may be interested in reading the part about fair use listed in section 107

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
r'n'r's Avatar
r'n'r r'n'r is offline
Junior Member with 15 posts.
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Experience: Intermediate
24-Aug-2006, 04:57 PM #23
[QUOTE=thecoalman]

These are not just people that are profiting:



Take your pick: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr...a&sa=N&start=0

The one about the dead guy makes for qiuite interesting reading. [/QOUTE]

The ones in the article that you reference are profiting from thier actions, the storis in your google link are not about criminal convictions as your fisrt link was about they are about civil suits, the vast majority of which are settled out of court, out of the ones that have been taken to court by the RIAA either the defence has been laughable or the RIAA has lost, in none of these cases has the part of the home recording act been brought into the case (did you read the link I gave you from MIT (qutie a reliable source) about the AHRA or did you just assume that people settling out of court or court cases that don't reference that piece of law were proof of your point)




Quote:
Originally Posted by coalman
I'm not interpreting anything I'm twlling you what it says:

I'm not interpreting anything I'm twlling you what it says:

Quote:
Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of “original works of authorship,” including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:

To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;

To prepare derivative works based upon the work;

To distribute copies or phonorecords of the work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

To perform the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works;

To display the work publicly, in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work; and

In the case of sound recordings*, to perform the work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

In addition, certain authors of works of visual art have the rights of attribution and integrity as described in section 106A of the 1976 Copyright Act. For further information, request Circular 40, Copyright Registration for Works of the Visual Arts.

It is illegal for anyone to violate any of the rights provided by the copyright law to the owner of copyright. These rights, however, are not unlimited in scope. Sections 107 through 121 of the 1976 Copyright Act establish limitations on these rights. In some cases, these limitations are specified exemptions from copyright liability. One major limitation is the doctrine of “fair use,” which is given a statutory basis in section 107 of the 1976 Copyright Act. In other instances, the limitation takes the form of a “compulsory license” under which certain limited uses of copyrighted works are permitted upon payment of specified royalties and compliance with statutory conditions. For further information about the limitations of any of these rights, consult the copyright law or write to the Copyright Office.


There is no exemption listed for DVD, video.... You may be interested in reading the part about fair use listed in section 107

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html
Would you care to provide a link to where you quoted that from as there is an asterisk by the part about sound recordings that may be of relevance.

The section you point to about fair use makes no provision for audio recordings or DVD yet you accept that spaceshifting a cd is legal but don't accept that space shifting a film may be legal.
thecoalman's Avatar
Member with 2,491 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
24-Aug-2006, 09:35 PM #24
Quote:
Originally Posted by r'n'r


Would you care to provide a link to where you quoted that from as there is an asterisk by the part about sound recordings that may be of relevance.
.
Sorry the first part is the first section in Copyright basics: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci
gurutech's Avatar
Computer Specs
Member with 2,911 posts.
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Central NJ
Experience: Seasoned Professional
24-Aug-2006, 10:19 PM #25
In my opinion, you have an illegal copy of the movie.

BUT - If you somehow were able to make your OWN copy of the DVD on your OWN computer (obviously not the laptop, since you have no DVD player/burner), but on another computer with the ability to burn DVD's, then you could make a copy for your own personal use, for backup purposes. And as long as you do not allow others to make copies of your original or your copy, then you should be OK.

But that's just my opinion.
thecoalman's Avatar
Member with 2,491 posts.
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
24-Aug-2006, 10:30 PM #26
Quote:
Originally Posted by gurutech
then you could make a copy for your own personal use, for backup purposes.
Most of the above back and forth between me and r'n'r is really meaningless because the DMCA prohibits the breaking of the encryption to make the copy which is on nearly every commercial DVD. The legality of the copy has become a moot point because to make the copy you have already broken the law.

Bottom line is even if you were legally entitled to a backup copy you would have to break the law to produce the backup copy.
JohnWill's Avatar
Computer Specs
Retired Moderator with 106,412 posts.
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: South Eastern PA, USA
25-Aug-2006, 08:03 AM #27
I think we're done here. TSG does not assist in illegal copying.
As Seen On

BBC, Reader's Digest, PC Magazine, Today Show, Money Magazine
WELCOME TO TECH SUPPORT GUY!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.


Search Tech Support Guy

Find the solution to your
computer problem!




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools


WELCOME
You Are Using: Server ID
Trusted Website Back to the Top ↑