Backed up a few DVDs...

[Zak33]

this thread will close within the hour, cos Funkstar's told me it's ok to close it (thanks bud) and cos I don't want to walk this line any futher

[IBM]

Surely he was just backing up 465 home movies which he stored inside existing movie cases for convenience?

Just 'cause it sounds like piracy, looks like piracy and plays back like piracy...

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by Disturbedguy

I have just been told by someone that it is legal to make ONE copy of CD's or DVD's etc, is this true?

No, it isn't .... well, almost certainly not.

There is an exception made in the case of computer programs that allows authorised users to make one necessary copy. But there's remarkably little case law to show how words like "necessary" would be interpreted. But in any event, it applies to computer programs, not films. There is NO exception (unless it's been added very recently) in UK law to permit copying either films or audio material (for general backup purposes). Whether it's on CD, DVD, tape, vinyl or whatever is largely beside the point.

However, there's an argument raised that the content of a DVD is also a computer program. Even if true, it's a tenuous argument at best and until case law reinforces it, is quite likely to fail to hold up. There's also a counter-argument that points out that copyright law relates to the copying of copyright material, not the entire contents of the media on which it's distributed. That being the case, even if the "necessary backup" exemption were to be deemed to be relevant to DVDs because there's an element of computer software on them, and IF it can be shown that the backup is "necessary" (and it's far from clear that it could be) it's entirely plausible that a court would respond by permitting the backup of the software, but NOT the film element, that being protected in it's own right and outside the scope of the software exemption.

Then, to complicate matters even further, despite the provision allowing a necessary backup of computer software, there's a separate provision in copyright law that makes it illegal to bypass copy protection methods. This, on the surface, leaves us with the apparently contradictory situation that it might well be illegal to make a backup of computer software, but once made, the copy itself might be legal.

Huh !

[Saracen]

Originally Posted by ibm

Surely he was just backing up 465 home movies which he stored inside existing movie cases for convenience?

Just 'cause it sounds like piracy, looks like piracy and plays back like piracy...

The thing is, regardless of how much sense it makes (or we think it makes) the situation with copyright is that if material is protected (and these DVDs will be, unless it's his home movies, and that's a LOT of home movies .... not to mention a lot of CDs of Funk singing in the bath ) making copies is illegal unless you EITHER have permission of the copyright holder (and we can assume he doesn't) OR the copying falls into one of the statutory exemptions ... and it's hard to see how it does.

It may be perfectly sensible, it may (and in my view is) fully morally justifiable as long as Funkstar holds the originals (and there's nothing here to suggest he doesn't).

Part of the problem is that because what the law appears to say, in statute, and the lack of it being pursued through courts to defining precedents, is that there's the possibility of legal action being taken, not necessarily just against the person doing the copying but against other parties, such as publishers.

And many copyright infringements that are purely civil matters for the home user become criminal offences if done as part of a trade. HEXUS has no particular wish to end up as a test case, because the costs associated with defending itself could be significant.

Is it likely that legal action would be taken against HEXUS over this? Nope. Could it be? Maybe. Maybe not.

But it's a risk that we don't need to carry.


What people do with their personal media collections is up to them, and we certainly don't seek to criticise, judge or condemn. But as soon as it's talked about on here, it starts to get interesting from a legal perspective. Apart from anything else, these threads have a habit of starting out in one place, and ending up somewhere very different, as other people "expand" the scope of the thread.


From my perspective, any discussion of warez, illicit copying tools or techniques will get deleted straight away, and the poster warned.

Any generic discussion of copyright, such as whether this or that is legal, or should be legal, or is illegal but moral, ...well, that's fine. I've got a pointed view or two on that myself.

This thread is borderline. The subject matter certainly appears to be illegal acts, subject to limited court interpretation of what the statutes actually mean, but it cuts a little close to the quick for us to be comfortable with it.

[Zak33]

closed by moi

[Saracen]

Phew. Got in just before the bar came down, so I didn't post in a closed thread. Phew.





Oh ...... ooops.