Why is ripping DVDs for your own use against the law?

[Saracen]

At the end of the day I look at it like this and most likely so will a judge or jury if it ever went that far.

I bought the DVD I still have the DVD even though Ive ripped it I now have two copies.

Im not giving the DVD away and I haven't uploaded the ripped version to anyone both copies are in my possession and always will if I sell a DVD I delete the ripped version simple, yes im aware the DVD licence is for the actual DVD and theres no grounds to the ripped version.

But Id be more than happy to step into a court room with my DVD collection and ripped collection and say look there both the same and then show the receipts and broadband history showing I haven't uploaded anything then we'll see what happens.

Now same goes for a copyrighted book what if I photocopy it for safe keeping


At the end of the day rip it Im sure the law system has far more important things to do but keep the dvds aswell just to be nice.

I find it hard to imagine that such a situation ever would go to court. If it did and you did what you say, I imagine it'd ensure you lost. But I can't see it happening.

As you say, the law has better things to do. But in civil cases, it's about one party that considers it's suffered at the hands of the other seeking redress through the courts. It's conceivable then, that it could happen, but in my opinion, VERY unlikely.

You also, of course, would have a decent argument for how what you did in making backup of your own collection was morally justifiable. The court might well find against you, but how much damages were awarded, and whether costs were or not .... that's for the court.

[Saracen]

I still prefer the sentiment exuded by the quote in your signature.

And ditto your user title.

[Jay]

If they took me to court I would ask them to provide one of their own DVDs, put jam on it and say "now if you had brought your backup, this wouldn't have made you cry like that would it?"



Saracen, if I could thank you twice for your post I would.

I think I will just carry on using DVDs until the law changes to be honest.

[Saracen]

....

I think I will just carry on using DVDs until the law changes to be honest.

Sounds like a good idea if you want to be honest. Or rather, if you want to be legal.

Where''s the difference between "honest" and "legal" (and yes, I know I'm taking that rather more literally than you meant it ) :-

A quick look (Chambers) provides these two (and more) definitions :-

1. not inclined to steal, cheat or lie; truthful and trustworthy.
2. fair or justified

Personally, in this situation, I'd choose to use definition 2, because this issue is one where I feel the law is an ass. And many people would have more respect for it if it wasn't an ass.

And it's an ass in at least two respects, in my opinion.

Firstly, the law is an ass if it declares something to be illegal that is, to all practical intents and purposes, pretty much impossible to detect or prevent, and even if it does, is of such minor consequence as to not be worth enforcing. If someone were to write to a copyright owner (say, Sony BMG) and confess that they have bought 50 Sony CDs, and then copied them to their MP3 player for their personal use, would Sony sue? I doubt it, because the damages they'd be likely to get would be trivial, and the attendant PR horrible.

The second reason is that it's so blatantly unreasonable for all personal copies to be considered illegal.

Buying something, copying it and giving that copy to someone else should be illegal. Obviously, selling it is even worse. I've no sympathy at all for someone caught doing the latter, and personally, not much for someone caught doing the former .... though I've been given copies of stuff in the past. If I liked it, I've bought it. If I didn't, I've either given it back or destroyed it, because the object of the exercise was to give it a fair listen. Is that actually against the copyright holder's interests? Nope, because after listening, I might buy. Before, I wouldn't have. At the worst, they've lost nothing - and they may gain a sale.

The law as it stands simply doesn't reflect the availability of technology and how people listen to music. Another example of what's "reasonable" :-

- suppose I have 100 music CDs. I want to listen to music in the car, so I keep them in it. And they get stolen. Good luck with the insurance claim on that one. I certainly had an extensive argument with an insurer about it a few years ago. On the other hand, if you keep copies in the car, you can always recopy if they get nicked. You can also dump the copy and redo it if it gets damaged by being bumped and thumped about in a car player. And that doesn't even take account of the slow but sure progression towards solid-state players in cars.


It's ridiculous for the law to outlaw what not only obviously is going to happen, but already does, and on a very large scale, when it also seems to me to be perfectly fair, reasonable, ethical and justifiable for the owner of a CD to be able to put it on his or her own MP3 portable or car player. Or PC. It's going to happen, and for the law to pretend it's viable for that to be illegal is, in my opinion, morally unjustifiable and in practice, moronic. It's akin to farting against a hurricane, and about as practical as Canute and his legendary commands to the tide.

The law will catch up, though. Eventually.

[[GSV]Myocardial]

It's ridiculous for the law to outlaw what not only obviously is going to happen, but already does, and on a very large scale, when it also seems to me to be perfectly fair, reasonable, ethical and justifiable for the owner of a CD to be able to put it on his or her own MP3 portable or car player. Or PC. It's going to happen, and for the law to pretend it's viable for that to be illegal is, in my opinion, morally unjustifiable and in practice, moronic. It's akin to farting against a hurricane, and about as practical as Canute and his legendary commands to the tide.

The law will catch up, though. Eventually.

Saracen, do you think it would be possible to use the fact that manufacturers sell products such as mp3 players alongside their released cd music etc aswell as endorsing/selling software legally sold in the UK to allow the ripping of their copyrighted material?

If you for instance used a sony computer to rip a sony released cd onto a sony mp3 player, would you think that they would get a judgement in their favour when the products which they are releasing are promoting the illegal use of the music media which they are releasing?

Do they offer a viable alternative to buying their CD in order that you can use their released hardware and if not how would it be perceived as reasonable if they are themselves promoting breaking the law in order to use their products in the manner that they advertise them?

[Gunbuster]

How does the law effect digital copies created from Television streams?

Take for example Humax or Toppfield Freeview PVRs, the Mvision FTA Sat tuners or the up comming PlayTV for the PS3. They all record unprotected files (usually .ts) that can be tranfered to other devices.

How legal is this? how far from the original recording can these move? say after re-encoding or stripping of adverts?

[Saracen]

Saracen, do you think it would be possible to use the fact that manufacturers sell products such as mp3 players alongside their released cd music etc aswell as endorsing/selling software legally sold in the UK to allow the ripping of their copyrighted material?

If you for instance used a sony computer to rip a sony released cd onto a sony mp3 player, would you think that they would get a judgement in their favour when the products which they are releasing are promoting the illegal use of the music media which they are releasing?

Do they offer a viable alternative to buying their CD in order that you can use their released hardware and if not how would it be perceived as reasonable if they are themselves promoting breaking the law in order to use their products in the manner that they advertise them?

I take your point, but no, I don't think that would work. The argument was tried decades ago, and the response was that the equipment can be used for legitimate purposes. Not all music is copyright-protected. For some, it may have expired. Other material has been released into the public domain. Or they could be used to record material other than music. It's not the hardware that causes the problem, but the copying of protected material unless the copy is either with the permission of the copyright owner, or falls into one of the statutory exceptions I mentioned.

Of course, we all know that while it is possible to use, for example, MP3 players in that type of legitimate way, it's merely the rather rare exception that proves the rule, and that most people have downloaded files or CD rips on them..

[Saracen]

How does the law effect digital copies created from Television streams?

Take for example Humax or Toppfield Freeview PVRs, the Mvision FTA Sat tuners or the up comming PlayTV for the PS3. They all record unprotected files (usually .ts) that can be tranfered to other devices.

How legal is this? how far from the original recording can these move? say after re-encoding or stripping of adverts?

One of those statutory exceptions is "timeshifting". This applies to recording broadcast material, for later viewing at a more convenient time, in a private and domestic context.

I'm not familiar with any of the devices you mention, but if the material recorded is broadcast (and that definition gets a bit confusing), then as far as I know, you're okay to record for what boils down to delayed viewing, but the intent is that the copy is short-term. It's supposed to allow you to watch a few days later, not to archive material for years.

As for transferring to other devices, I'm not aware of anything that precludes it, providing you stay within the time-sharing reason. Can you copy an off-air broadcast, then convert it to your MP4 portable? As far as I know, yes - providing you're timeshifting.

[[GSV]Myocardial]

I take your point, but no, I don't think that would work. The argument was tried decades ago, and the response was that the equipment can be used for legitimate purposes. Not all music is copyright-protected. For some, it may have expired. Other material has been released into the public domain. Or they could be used to record material other than music. It's not the hardware that causes the problem, but the copying of protected material unless the copy is either with the permission of the copyright owner, or falls into one of the statutory exceptions I mentioned.

Of course, we all know that while it is possible to use, for example, MP3 players in that type of legitimate way, it's merely the rather rare exception that proves the rule, and that most people have downloaded files or CD rips on them..

That's what I thought would be the case. I took a quick look at the Sony Ericsson website for their walkman phones and they even state the following:

"Disc2Phone software

Transfer tracks straight from a music CD to your mobile phone - just drag and drop. Disc2Phone CD-ripping software lets you fill your phone with your favourite songs, no fuss."

Makes their attacks on people with ripped music collections look rather stupid when they even promote it openly in a country where it is illegal