Copying DVDs...

[spoon_]

No its not gonna be yet another thread on how to do it

Mods can go away haha

Right going back to the point...


Is it legal for movie that I own to be copied?

Lets say I bought 'X' movie on DVD and wanna create a copy on my NAS to stream it across...

What UK law says about it?


Please post constructive answers as there is lots of ppl saying yes it is or no its not... Back your arguments please.

[Funkstar]

This has been covered in a multitude of previous threads.

Ripping and keeping another copy is not legal.

[b0redom]

Sorry to hijack the thread, but is this still illegal for MP3s to? I know there was an amendment to the law planned, but I don't know if it's been passed yet.

[Whiternoise]

It's a case of it's illegal, but you're unlikely to get people battering on your door to tell you off for it unless you're seeding it to other people. Ultimately it would be a large waste of money to go after people because of the sheer number of people that do it and there would be uproar if they tried.

Ripping DVDs (on the face of it) is fairly muddy ground, there are many products on the market that encourage users to rip their collections to media centre hard drives and so on. But again, it's illegal to do - the F.A.C.T stuff at the beginning of movies and so on should make that very clear. If you were allowed to copy it then there wouldn't be any need for all the video piracy informercials before each film. By copying something without the right to do so you're breaching copyright. Provided you're not doing it to flog on the black market and it's just so you can put your DVD library on your computer then who's going to care? (rhetorical).

http://www.v3.co.uk/vnunet/news/2123...hes-uk-surfers

Companies that produce dvd copying software are often blasted by media houses, i.e. http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...2/real-realdvd. They don't like people doing it because of the piracy risk, one copy can spawn thousands more online (think aXXo). There is a reason why SecuROM and DVD encryption (AACS and generally DRM) has come about - though this is more an attempt to stop widespread internet piracy than Joe Bloggs copying Top Gun to his laptop.

With MP3s it's effectively the same. It is illegal to rip CDs (always has been), but Windows Media Player practically encourages it (as does just about every other media player available) and there is no simple way short of rootkits (cough Sony) and DRM to stop it - and we know how the public reacted to that. There is no way whatsoever the UK/EU could possibly stop people from ripping CDs short of criminalising every citizen in the country (though not for want of trying and taxing). Besides the fact that there are millions of "copyable" cds in circulation, it would just be impractical.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm

Then here's the whole debate about time shifting media, it's generally accepted that you can record TV and the like - say if you missed an episode of Doctor Who - but the idea is that you watch and record over rather than build up an episode catalogue taped off the telly (known as warehousing). There was a famous ruling in the US in Sony VS Universal in which neither side really won, but the courts accepted that it would be impossible to police and that time shifting (for the odd TV show) would not harm revenue - thus they basically gave everyone there a green light to buy blank tapes.

http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php...e=timeshifting

(But, i'll leave the rest for Saracen )

[dreemteem]

It's a very muddy situation overall, which needs serious reform to even get close to sane.

Somewhat akin to the situation with Linux and proprietary codecs. Use linux to play an mp3, and you are technically infringing a copyright. Noone is getting paid. And noone will do anything about it. So, in what sense could this be considered an unlawful act? Only by the patent holders, should they choose to do anything about it.

[Saracen]

No its not gonna be yet another thread on how to do it

Mods can go away haha

Right going back to the point...


Is it legal for movie that I own to be copied?

Lets say I bought 'X' movie on DVD and wanna create a copy on my NAS to stream it across...

What UK law says about it?


Please post constructive answers as there is lots of ppl saying yes it is or no its not... Back your arguments please.

It's pretty simple actually.

Right now, and in the UK, it is illegal to copy copyright-protected material unless you either have permission from the copyright holder, or the copy you are creating is a specific exemption to copyright law.

Any original artistic work is automatically protected by copyright, and that includes music, video, photos, paintings, novels, poems, stories and many other writings (like magazine articles), computer code, and a variety of other things. So, unless the copyright owner has either put the work into the public arena, or the copyright life has expired (varies, but typically around 50-70 years), then it's protected.

Some items are explicitly placed into the public domain. If so, copy away. Some material has copy permission explicitly granted, but subject to conditions or limitations. Open source software is a good example of that, where it IS still protected by copyright, but you are given permission to copy provided you comply with the requirements of the open source licence, including making any derivative works subject to open source requirements.

Then welcome to commercial works like DVDs. If I create a work and put it on DVD, I could grant explicit permission for anyone to copy and distribute, but I have to be the one doing it. I could sell some or all of my copyright rights, and then the person I sold to would have that choice. Commercial DVDs could be released with such permission granted, but I can't think of any that have and it certainly isn't the generic condition.

So the logic for commercial DVDs run like this :-

- are they protected? Yes, because they're original artistic works.
- are they in the public domain? Almost certainly not.
- Do you have explicit permission to copy? Very unlikely for commercial works.

And finally :-

- is your copying a statutory exception?

As was mentioned earlier, timeshifting of broadcast transmissions is permitted to allow you to watch at a more convenient time. So if you record a film off a BBC (for instance) you can record it to defer watching to a more convenient time. But if you were to copy exactly the same film from a DVD, it's a breach of copyright law, even though you could have recorded it off-air. A bit daft maybe, but that the law.

There are a variety of these statutory exemption, and "time-shifting" is just one of them. Others include limited copying for academic purposes, use in news reporting and reviews, some Crown and court use, and so on.

It has been proposed that a "format-shifting" exemption, similar to time-shifting, should be introduced that would allow legitimate owners of a copy of a protected work to format-shift, such as a film onto a media player, or a CD onto a portable MP player. Such a "fair use" makes a lot of sense, and reflects what most people will do anyway, but as yet, it is not part of UK law.


Finally, all the above is written from a UK perspective. Much of copyright law is broadly international (Berne convention), yet more is EU wide (amended by implementation of the EU copyright directive into national law) but there still are differences. Example what "fair use" or "fair dealing" provisions are varies from country to country, for instance. Ripping a DVD or CD you own to a media or MP3 player might well be legal in some countries but, right now, not in the UK.

As has already been suggested though, provided it's for your own personal use, such ripping is likely to be a civil matter not a criminal one, and there's little chance a copyright owner would seek to enforce their copyright even if they knew it was being done by a given individual. The costs would not be low, the legal remedies very limited (damages for losses suffered, injunction against doing it again and an order for the destruction of infringing copies is about it) and the negative publicity huge. And it's hard to see how you're likely ever be found out anyway.

Where it might get a bit trickier is that bypassing "technological protection" measures while illegally copying might bounce it from a civil issue to a criminal one. There's some overlap there. But even then, the authorities have got better things to do than try to pursue someone that ripped their own CDs or DVDs to another format for their own personal use. So while it's technical illegal, it's hard to see how it's much of a personal risk of action being taken even if you were caught. That, in large part, is why I think the law ought to change and when the Copyright Act is next updated, in my opinion, it probably will.

[Saracen]

It's a very muddy situation overall, which needs serious reform to even get close to sane.

Agreed.

Somewhat akin to the situation with Linux and proprietary codecs. Use linux to play an mp3, and you are technically infringing a copyright. Noone is getting paid. And noone will do anything about it.

Well, no. Whether a work is copyright or not an an MP3 are different issues. If I compose and record my own song, put it in MP3 format and place it in the public domain, then you can copy, distribute and play the MP3 to your heart's content. The format it's in doesn't affect whether copyright is breached or not. It's also not about whether anyone gets paid. Works that are protected are protected regardless of whether money is involved. However, if you were selling protected works, well, copyright infringement as part of a "business" does, theoretically at least, change it from a civil matter to a criminal one as well.

So, in what sense could this be considered an unlawful act? Only by the patent holders, should they choose to do anything about it.

Copyright holders not patent holders. Patents, while covered by the same act, are rather different and have different provisions. It would also be an unlawful act because the copyright act says it is, but I completely agree that it's almost entirely a theoretical illegality in that nothing is ever likely to happen as a result. In theory, it could, but in the real, practical world is unlikely in the extreme.

[spoon_]

Thanks Saracen, much appreciated!

[mathewlisett]

the stupid thing is that its not illegal to do backups for your personal use and then you have others sayign it is illegal... but then you have a multi million pound business which deals with dvd copying with companies like nero etc, yet they havent been sued for allowing such acts.

[Funkstar]

the stupid thing is that its not illegal to do backups for your personal use and then you have others sayign it is illegal...

It is illegal though, those that say it isn't are wrong. There is no provision for the copying of media for personal use. There is a provision in copyright law for backup up software, this comes from when you didn't install software, you just ran is from tape or floppy disk. Those disks could get worn out very quickly. DVD-Video is not classed as software.

but then you have a multi million pound business which deals with dvd copying with companies like nero etc, yet they havent been sued for allowing such acts.

Writing software or providing a service that could be used for illegal activity is not itself illegal, especially if there are numerous perfectly legal uses for that software or service. Suing someone like Nero for pirating DVDs would be like suing Smith & Wesson for getting shot.

[jim]

And the whole "uTorrent is illegal" junk.

[abaxas]

People need to know the difference between something being illegal, and something that will get you prosecuted.

The standard definition of piracy in terms of the fuzz is you mulitple copies that you can sell or no licenced copy.

Eg if you had a dvd and copy on your nas. They are going to be hard pushed to nail you with anything, as this is probably a licence issue, hence a civil matter. However if you had a dvd and two pirated copies of the same DVD, you would be swimming up poo lane with your tongue as a paddle.

Just use common sense. Use what you have paid for, and pay for what you use.

[hybry]

I always thought that it is OK to copy for personal use and I know that in many countries Europe that is the case. But in most places I presume same in UK is that it is illegal to bypass the protection software on the DVDs and commercial DVDs have it.

[Whiternoise]

Suing someone like Nero for pirating DVDs would be like suing Smith & Wesson for getting shot.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LEcsgbwBFRs#t=3m0s

[mathewlisett]

so what your saying is that , its still illegal to copy, yet not illegal to create and sell software that allows copyign of dvd's and create baclups?

well surely that would mean they are encoraging copying.

[Terbinator]

so what your saying is that , its still illegal to copy, yet not illegal to create and sell software that allows copyign of dvd's and create baclups?

well surely that would mean they are encoraging copying.

They are. but what if your jsut burning some holiday pics onto dvd for some friends/family.