On 11/08/2010 08:58 PM, David Bovill wrote:
In most countries this is what you would call legally defensible under faire
use or the equivalent in your jurisdiction. There is no case I know of where
someone has been prosecuted for copyright infringement by making a backup
copy for personal use, given that they own a legal copy in another medium.
However there is nothing to stop a copyright holder taking you to court, in
which case it would be down to you to make a faire use or equivalent defence
- and you could then have the privilege of being (as far as I know), the
first person to loose such a case :)
In the real world, you are extremely unlikely to be taken to court over this
issue, as the industry has plenty to do taking clear cut cases of
downloading pirated DVD's to court, and the last thing they want is to loose
a faire use case and so set a precedent.
A related issue is the obtaining and use of the software to actually do the
decryption (which is why it can be hard to get a copy from a mainstream site
- as Macrovision does its best to take action against distributers). A good
account here is taken from the wikipedia
article<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Decrypter>
:
Under United States' Federal law, making a backup copy of a
DVD-Video<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD-Video>or an audio
Oddly enough, I JUST opened a Terminal emulator in Ubuntu 10.10 and typed:
sudo apt-get install k9copy
not all that hidden . . . :)
CD<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Book_%28audio_CD_standard%29> by a
consumer is legal under fair
use<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use>protection. However, this provision
of United States law conflicts with the Digital
Millennium Copyright
Act<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act>prohibition of
so-called "circumvention measures" of copy
protections<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copy_protection>.
In the noted "321" case, Federal District Judge Susan Illston of the Northern
District of
California<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Northern_District_of_California>
,[5]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD_Decrypter#cite_note-4> ruled that
the backup copies made with software such as DVD Decrypter are in fact legal
but that distribution of the software used to make them is illegal. As of
the date of this revision, neither the US Supreme
Court<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Supreme_Court>nor the US
Congress<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Congress> has taken definitive
action on the matter.
As ever - non of the above is legal advice, and I am not a lawyer.
Well; have a book in my shelves called "The MicroBiblion" published in
London in 1625 when
copyright had not even been heard of; now, from time to time, I have
found it apposite to copy
fairly large chunks of this book elsewhere (admittedly not for profit);
as I own a copy of the MicroBiblion
I cannot see any real problems there: the author got his money, as did
the printer and the publisher.
Why there should be any difference between that and my copying parts of
a DVD elsewhere for my convenience (and NOT for profit) I just DO NOT KNOW.
On 8 November 2010 18:40, stephen barncard
<[email protected]>wrote:
What you described is 'fair use' in the US. It means 'backup copy for
personal use'.
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
_______________________________________________
use-revolution mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
