What's the legal position regarding copying?

[m1ckran]

This might appear to be a stupid question but it is prompted by the news of legal actions that have been taken in Europe.

My view is that it is morally and legally wrong of me to copy a DVD that I have not bought. I believe that I am morally justified (but probably legally not) in copying a DVD I have bought.

I realise that the studios are striving to prevent anyone copying anything and prosecuting hundreds of people in several countries to achieve this end.

I recently read that a French court dismissed all charges against a person who copied downloaded files from the internet and created his own DVD's. The reason, apparently, was that the studios receive a royalty on every blank DVD in lieu of copyright. It seems that the court ruled that the defendant had not infringed copyright because he had already paid his dues when buying the blank DVD's.

Does anyone know where we stand?

[cyberVera]

It's all a matter of price. ONLY. I thought about it many times before, and here what I can say to calm down your "social conscience".

You are all thieves! - can be in short phrased the position of most weel-known software and publishing software companies regarding home pc users, which as you might know, do not necessarily paid license for every disc they own. Let's not argue, just let's say that appeals to user's conscience and moral aplomb, with which such phrases about inamissibility of thievery are delivered - are less likely appropriate from people, which haunt only one purpose: to make money. Morality for them in such a situation - is just a whip, with which they would like to pen user to shop's counter. It is beneficial for them to impose us this choice: either you buy a licensed disc - or you do not deserve to be called a noble man ...
A businessman, preaching to his buyers the moral to make them give in with high prices, - is a comic character. It is also comic because it breaches the main precept of classic capitalism: business is successful in that place, where it contents human demands. And if millions of people have a necessity in cheap discs without license and DVD-ripping to a CD, then let them not deceive you by preaching plane and banal notations about the benefits to wash your hand before your start to eat. Better them make such cheap discs. But instead of offering to public a product, which would be commonly acceptable in terms of cost, software and publishing business heroicly insists to explain and make it clear to us its cherished wish: it wants people to pay more! It just can not live without it!
The case is that concept of software and publishing (content, entertainment) business regarding ownership and copyright come into direct contradiction with social concepts. It is a very complicated legal and moral issue, and let us not discuss it here. But what should be said: the choice between a high price and a status of thief, the choice we are being imposed - is false. This choice is most likely deals with marketing, than to morality. They just want to make us buy.

(Sorry any possible mistakes - English is a foreign language to me)

[cyberVera]

(Btw, I don't quite understand why Doom9 is constantly outpouring all that in everyday news in the site's front page. Is anybody knocking to his door and requires licenses or liability proofs? Or this site is not all about DVD-ripping? Sorry, I do not believe in any intensions of one's own DVDs to CD for back-up purposes. Anyway, to discuss such things here is pretty bizarre.)

[Doobie]

Originally posted by m1ckran

My view is that it is morally and legally wrong of me to copy a DVD that I have not bought. I believe that I am morally justified (but probably legally not) in copying a DVD I have bought.

I don't see anything morally wrong per se with copying a DVD you don't own. You have a right not to give the "owner" your money in the first place; by what logic do you lose that right if you copy something?

What if you copy a DVD and then watch it and you decide it's worthless trash that was misrepresented by advertisements? Are you still morally wrong for not not paying even though paying would have been ripping you off?

What if you copy a DVD and then watch it and you like it? What if you drive by someone's nice lawn and you like it? Do you feel morally compelled to walk up to the door and give the home owners a couple of dollars because you enjoyed looking at their lawn? Would you pay them a couple of dollars if you took a picture?

Do you feel immoral when you go to the library and enjoy a copyrighted work without paying?

The only reason the US Constitution allows for copyright laws is the main reason (without respect to the law) you might choose to pay for a copy of something - to encourage more of it to be made for your continued enjoyment. You have the same moral obligation to pay for a DVD copy as you have to pay Doom9 for using his forums.

If the owner doesn't want you to have a copy, he's free to keep control of the content so you can't copy it. He's also free not to produce anything, in the first place.

[markrb]

Doobie I feel your logic is seriously flawed.

You say.

Do you feel immoral when you go to the library and enjoy a copyrighted work without paying?
This statement is false as most work is paid for by taxes or donated.

What if you copy a DVD and then watch it and you decide it's worthless trash that was misrepresented by advertisements? Are you still morally wrong for not not paying even though paying would have been ripping you off?
It is not up to the maker of such items to make sure that you like or understand their advertising. As in all things it is buyer beware and be informed before buying.

You have a right not to give the "owner" your money in the first place; by what logic do you lose that right if you copy something?
Of course you have the right NOT to see it or use it, but if you CHOOSE to do so then you also CHOOSE to pay for it if that is what is asked for.

You have the same moral obligation to pay for a DVD copy as you have to pay Doom9 for using his forums.
If Doom9 required payment then yes if you wished to use it you should pay for it and if you CHOOSE not to then you go elsewhere.

The only reason the US Constitution allows for copyright laws is the main reason (without respect to the law) you might choose to pay for a copy of something - to encourage more of it to be made for your continued enjoyment
The main reason behind copyright is to try and make sure the right people are credited and payed for their work.

It all comes down to choice. If you CHOOSE to watch something that you know upfront has a fee then you knew this and should be required to pay.

I am not a huge fan of the MPAA or others of their like or how they have been going seriously overboard, but there is a line that if somebody makes something they should recieve compensation for it. What they ask is not up to you to decide. If you Choose not to pay or find it too much then don't pay and don't use it.

In all of this I am a firm believer of FAIR USE and the individuals right to protect items legally paid for (whether just rented or bought, depending on the laws of the area) by backing up and saving wear on the original.

Mark

[Doobie]

Originally posted by markrb Doobie I feel your logic is seriously flawed.

There's your first problem, trying to handle logic with feelings.

This statement is false as most work is paid for by taxes or donated.

Are you saying that if someone has bought a DVD then it is morally okay for someone else to copy it? Somehow, I don't think that is your point.

It is not up to the maker of such items to make sure that you like or understand their advertising. As in all things it is buyer beware and be informed before buying.

It is up to the makers of advertisements to not be fraudulent. Even in the absence of misleading advertisements, you have a right to expections that the product will not be shoddy. If you're building a house and you order wood from the lumber yard and they send you a bunch of severely warped boards, are you going to pay the lumber yard for that worthless wood?

Of course you have the right NOT to see it or use it, but if you CHOOSE to do so then you also CHOOSE to pay for it if that is what is asked for.

To repeat: "You have a right not to give the 'owner' your money in the first place; by what logic do you lose that right if you copy something?" Your excuse for logic amounts to "Because I say so." Besides, a lot of people prove you wrong because they choose one thing but they don't choose the other.

If Doom9 required payment then yes if you wished to use it you should pay for it and if you CHOOSE not to then you go elsewhere.

If Doom9 required payment, he wouldn't give you access until you paid. Morality has nothing to do with it (and my comments were not in regard to the law). You missed the point by a country mile. The reason you would give money to Doom9 is to support the future of the service (Didn't I just say that). Your hypothetical case of Doom9 requiring payment is irrelevant to my comments about the forum.

The main reason behind copyright is to try and make sure the right people are credited and payed for their work.

I referenced the US Constitution when explaining the purpose of copyright law. Go read it (I:8,8) before you type again.

It all comes down to choice. If you CHOOSE to watch something that you know upfront has a fee then you knew this and should be required to pay.

Why don't you ask the moderator to delete your post so that you can start over with a fresh reply to my first post. This time, reply thoughtfully instead of with kneejerk gibberish.

[Paulcat]

Being a Canadian, I am legally allowed to make a backup of a dvd that I own (there being no moral issue in this case!) even if I have to bypass anti-copying methods to do it.

I do not know whether I am legally allowed to make a copy of a dvd I have rented or borrowed even though the copyright owners have been paid by the rental company, and I have paid a levy on blank media.
Whether I am morally allowed to depends on my morals (!), personally if the dvd is crap, I won't waste the media on it, and if it's good, I'd rather buy it (we can get used dvd's here for between $10 and $16 CAN, which to me seems reasonable).

I see nothing wrong morally or legally with manipulation or re-authoring of dvd's that you own (converted to avi, mkv) provided it's for your own use or curiosity or to increase your knowledge of digital video...

Paul

[ukb008]

Hi

To me it seems that we are discussing two aspects: moral and legal. One has nothing to do with the other. Morality is a personal thing. Conception of morality differs from person to person, and it is entirely subjective. The law, while not always objective, is indeed concrete and tells one what's what in no uncertain terms, in language requiring as less interpretation as possible.

So, gentlemen, do whatever your conscience dictates, but don't ostensibly get on the wrong side of the law.

Regards.

[m1ckran]

I still think it's morally wrong to copy DVD content unless the original has been paid for. I think it's equally wrong to copy a rented DVD, even though a rental fee has been paid. To me, both "feel" like stealing, in the same way as shoplifting feels like stealing.

I believe the creators of cinematic, musical or written works should be rewarded for their efforts like anyone else. Why not?

What I do object to, is the apparently cynical attitude of large corporations that appear to try to control everything and everyone they come into contact with. My local rental shop faces closedown since the studios started leaning on the video rental industry because there is more revenue from sales than rentals.

I'm also concerned with the legal position, where a studio apparently receives royalties on a blank DVD in lieu of copyright but still sues if you use that DVD to copy a film. Of course, you still have to pay that royalty if you don't use the DVD to copy the studio's film. It's a bit like making a motorist pay an automatic speeding fine every week, just in case he might exceed the speed limit.

The French court seems to be saying that by buying a blank DVD, a Frenchman has paid for the right to copy fims he's not bought provided he does not redistribute the copy. I realise that French law does not automatically apply to the rest of the world, but the prescedent has to be of some significance, especially to other EC membe r countries.

I have to admit that the thought of legally copying rented DVD's has some appeal. On the other hand, it still "feels" wrong. I suppose it's too much to hope for some sort of legal ruling. It seems to me that the studios want things every which way. Oops, isn't "every which way" a film title and subject to copyright? I supposed I'll receive a knock on the door one night soon...

Isn't it a stupid situation?

[adam]

No offense but this seems like a silly question. There is a reason that rentals cost roughly 1/4th of the retail price; because you are only renting it not buying it to keep permantently. Copying a rented anything with the intent to keep it permanently is clearly illegal in any country with copyright laws and is clearly immoral.

As far as backing up your own DVDs, the answer is obvious there as well. Morally it depends on the person, and legally it depends on the country.

And as far as having to pay the subsity on media even if you aren't using it for backing up, well welcome to the wonderful world of taxes. If you don't have kids you still have to pay a tax to fund the local education system. That's just how taxes work.

[m1ckran]

I pay 17.5% VAT to the government when a buy or rent a DVD. No problem. But the royalty payment is not a tax: it's a payment that goes to the entertainment industry regardless of the intended use of the blank DVD.

I suspect that, under English law, it is illegal to interfere with DVD content just is is has always been so with music CD's, LP's and 78rpm records. I remember the outcry from the entertainment industry on the introduction of VHS/Betamax and the compact cassette. But I don't know of any prosecutions.

My point is that the entire legal system is a joke and there should be clear international guidlines. I notice that the Chinese are fed up with it and they're beginning to do their own thing. Perhaps, when they become more dominant, they will bring some order where the American and Japanese multinationals have not. Perhaps not.

I take no offence and I hope I give none. I do understand what taxation is about; I've certainly paid enough and benefitted enough from it over the years.

[keel]

Originally posted by m1ckran
Does anyone know where we stand? Regarding the US (which you might not be), some people might be interested in this explanation
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=86695#post587481

[dragongodz]

keel - yes this has been discussed before. thanks for finding that post and saving me the time. :)
though of course that is for the U.S.A. only and people would have to look up their own countries laws on the matter to be sure, just as adam said. in most cases making a personnal backup of a dvd you own is either allowed or ignored.

as for rental, next time someone rents a dvd have a read of the paper you sign, or if done electronically then read the original contract you signed to become a member etc. either case should clearly state what you are paying for and entitled to do. if you dont like the conditions of rental then you have the choice not to rent. please dont use a rental fee as some excuse to be allowed to copy whatever you want because it isnt.

[adam]

m1ckran I'm not familiar with the various taxes that countries pay, I just know the ones I pay in the US are high enough and ours are much lower than other countries. But I do believe the royalty payments you are talking about are by definition a "tax." It is as you say, a subsity paid to the industry, mandated by Federal law. It is a tax either paid by the consumer or paid by the manufacturer, with the price passed on to the consumer. That is a tax. But semantics aside, we are obviously talking about the same thing. The point is that it is a compromise between the industry and the consumers. As with any compromise, some people get the shaft sometimes.

We have the same thing in the US but only for "digital audio recording devices" and media. So we pay that tax when we buy a dat recorder or those special music cdrs, but we have no such provision for video like DVDs. So our US legislation largely takes care of the casual media buyer who does not wish to backup audio cds under this section. As long as they are buying regular cdrs, they are not being subjected to the tax.

[m1ckran]

Thanks, keel. Interesting. I was wondering if the French decision had made any ripples.

Adam - Your article too. I understand what you say about tax and royalty payments effectively being the same, but I disagree. In the UK, VAT (Value-Added-Tax not Vodka-and-Tonic) is paid on most goods and services at 17.5% of their value directly to HM Customs and Excise. That's a tax. Wish we had US, levels of taxation!

As I understand it, in the US even private backups of paid-for DVD's contravene copyright but the studios tend not to prosecute. I think it's very similar in the UK. Even newspapers and magazines carry notices forbidding the purchaser from allowing anyone else to read them, but if Reader's Digest and Cheshire Life were to sue, there'd be very little to read in hospital waiting areas.

I think the French have shown a little commonsense that seems unusual in law these days, but I suppose there will be an appeal.

Just in case people get the wrong idea, I'm not trying to encourage illegal copying at all. I don't consider that I do it myself but that's in spite of the studios' antics as reported on the internet and newspapers. I have been appalled by some of the tales I have read where ordinary people are prosecuted on the flimsiest of evidence, whether they are alive or not.

I think I'll carry on as before. If I like a film I'll buy it then I'll use Decrypter and Shrink to make working-copy movie-only backups. If I'm not sure whether I want to buy a title, I'll rent it and decide whether or not to buy. I think I have a resposible and morally justified attitude. If I had not, I would probably buy illegal copies at sub-rental prices from almost any pub in the country.

A few days ago, I rented The Grudge. Not the sort of film you want to watch again immediately but, now it's been returned, I think I'll buy it. The DVD box contained an insert asking me to support the rental industry against the restrictions being imposed by some studios. Hmmm...

Thanks everyone for your replies. Different points are view are appreciated.

[adam]

I am not saying that royalties are taxes, on the contrary royalties are entirely permissive. If you want to license use of something you pay royalties on it. I am saying that these particular, government imposed royalties on these particular goods are by definition taxes. The manufacturers were in business long before the legislation and now they are being forced to pay money to a goverment agency which distributes the funds to the industry. It is a textbook subsidy. Maybe other countries don't define this as a tax, I don't know. In the US our mandatory royalties paid (by manufacturers) on digital audio recording devices and media are collectively known as the "media tax." VAT is a sales tax, this is a subsidy tax.

As for US law regarding DVD backups, no there is currently no provision allowing it but as you said, this is not the type of thing that is cost effective to prosecute. We are getting guidance...slowly... from larger commercial activity that generally touches on backing up our media. The Grokster case goes before the Supreme Court today, and while I don't expect it to do anything for archival backups, it REALLY sends the message to our legislature that they need to pass specific legislation to clarify where we stand on all of these intellectual property issues.

[m1ckran]

Adam, I'm beginning to worry about myself. I find myself getting interested in tax and law and, even more worrying, tax law. I'd love to talk to you about it so drop me a line next time you are in the area and we'll go for a pint at the Devonshire Arms. You'd be amazed at the amount of tax we pay on a pint of beer but, before that, you'll be paying £15 airport tax just for your seat to land at Manchester airport.

Regards

[markrb]

Why don't you ask the moderator to delete your post so that you can start over with a fresh reply to my first post. This time, reply thoughtfully instead of with kneejerk gibberish.

My reply was exactly as I wanted. I refuse to get into this with someone that obviously has convinced themselves that they have rights far greater then they actually do and in my opinion far greater then they deserve.
I am no saint or pretend to be one. I have done such things as is described above, but I don't try to twist things to say it's right.

Mark

[ukb008]

"4) Be nice to each other and respect the moderator. Profanity and insults will not be tolerated. If you have a problem with another member turn to the respective moderator and if the moderator can't help you send a private message to Doom9."

Just being civil doesn't cost a dime.

Regards.

[m1ckran]

Perhaps we should all get together over a pint. Everyone's entitled to their own point of view. I still think it's wrong to copy a DVD I've not paid for, so I won't do it.

Thinking about it, if it were legal to copy rented DVD's I think the studios would head off the problem by forbidding rental of their products under their copyright provisions. I would be sorry to lose the rental option.

England are playing in the world cup tonight. Much more important!