Backup for personal use - is it legal?

[Whatts]

After reading the 'Shrek' thread I decided to start this new thread.

To cut a long story short, in the Shrek thread member Matts asked if anyone had any idea why a copy of his Shrek DVD (taped onto VHS from his macrovision disabled player) was of pretty poor quality.
Moderator PoochJD then stated all copies are illegal.
Then Matts explained he took this copy so his kids could watch the movie on their VCR without destroying either Matts's DVD ('small shiny round object' :grin: ) or expensive DVD player.
To which PoochJD replied he still thought ALL copies were illegal.

I personally thought it was legal to have just one 'backup' copy as long as you are the owner of the original.
For DVDs as wel as CDs and all other software.
For instance, I have a MiniDisc player in my car, so I have a copy of most of the CDs in my collection.
If I were to sell the original, I should also dispose of the backup...

To the moderators of this forum: I know piracy is a delicate topic because of possible legal consequences but I hope you understand I'm not trying to 'promote' piracy, I just want to figure out what is legally allowed and what isn't...

Can anyone set the record straight on this issue?

- Tom -

[bh]

Can anyone set the record straight on this issue?

Simple,

Go to the copyright notice on the DVD (not the packaging version but the one played to the display device). If this copyright notice explicityly states that you may make a back-up copy, then there is not a problem.

However, I've never seen this on a DVD.


P.S. The 'back-up copy' for software is a bit a misnomer these days. The default is that you may not make a back up copy unless the license permits you to do so.

[Stuart Wright]

Apart from anything else, copying to VHS is not a backup since you can't restore from the backup and over half the information on the DVD is lost when transferring to VHS.

[stevegreen]

I seem to remember that in the really old days of the Vic 20 and CBM 64 that software was available to copy games. The only reason that companies could actually market these products was to state in the adverts that they were for making 'personal back-up copies' only, which i assume was therefore legal.

As far as making a copy of a DVD onto VHS for personal use goes, i would also assume that the same rules apply. The warnings at the start of the films are usually pretty standard and prohibit the use of the DVD for public showing and similar.

At the end of the day, making a copy for your own personal use isn't exactly going to hurt anyone as it's not being done for profit or personal gain. And it's not as if the police are going to bother you when there is mass piracy going on.

[SILVERBACK]

so im guessing if they make multi region machines illegal this forum will hand over or destroy all there pricey an expensive dvd players ??????????? lol.but on a serious note who cares if he makes a copy of shrek for his kids an dont tell every one you have either mate.you will be unindated with requests lol

[bh]

Silverback,

You're missing the 'subtlety' :rolleyes: of the discussion:

1. Question - is it legal?
2. Answer - forum members offer varying opinions including 'no'

The answer " no it is not legal" does not mean "and I agree wholeheartedly".

Don't worry too much, we won't dump our multi-region players on the basis of your point.....

[Ron240]

This whole issue is in danger of getting blown out of proportion. Duplicating any form of copyrighted media can technically be illegal but the main point here is - for personal use.I remember a campaign by the music industry years ago that said,"home taping is killing music",well that turned out to be completely false.The fact is that the vast majority of people do or have done this,just look at all the home equipment that is specifically designed to allow you to do this. I agree with stevegreen in that as long as you are not making money out of it then you can rest assured that no legal action will be taken against you. Apart from anything else it just wouldnt be worth their time,money or effort to pursue the private individual when there are much bigger fish to fry.

[stevegreen]

ooooooooooo thanks :grin:

[SILVERBACK]

oh know BH i already dumped my player an all my copy pc games. i wish i had read your reply earlier but i thought the poilce where on there way round.

[bh]

Oh no, BH, I have already dumped my player and all my copied PC games. I wish I had read your reply earlier, but I thought the police were on their way around.

:p

oh know BH i already dumped my player an all my copy pc games. i wish i had read your reply earlier but i thought the poilce where on there way round

:rolleyes:

[SILVERBACK]

you really do love them faces dont you lmao

[DavidMalone]

Kind of on topic :) ....

I have just bought a pioneer dvd-rw A103 drive and to test it out I backed up my copy of "Darrow" (The only dvd i have that weighs in at less than 4.7GB).

The problem is with the menu screen, I can browse the menu fine from within PowerDVD on the PC, but when I am presented with the menu on my DVD player I am unable to browse the menu (all i see is the static screen, with the menu options greyed out).

It's not too much of a pain, as i can skip the menu, and go directly into the movie.

Has anyone else had a similar problem? if so could you please share the remedy?

DISC LAMER :) The above text describes the duplication of DVD media for personal backup, if I spend £20 on a DVD your damn right I own it and would like to preserve a copy if anything were to happen to the original!

P.s. UK DVD Prices SUCK, import delays SUCK.

[Lex]

Originally posted by DavidMalone
if I spend £20 on a DVD your damn right I own it and would like to preserve a copy if anything were to happen to the original!


Its all very confusing this copyright business isn't it!

David, unfortunately, and believe it or not, what you said is actually not true. When you spend £20 on your DVD (CD, game etc) what you are actually buying is a plastic disc - you have no rights to do anything with the material on it. You are in fact literally only paying for permission to watch it/listen to it, you do not own it!

People might find some answers on this DVDFAQ (particularly 1.11):

http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#1.11

[Kramer]

As far as I know, making a backup of purchased material is legal, as long as it's for personal use.

That was the case for CDs, but with regard to DVDs I don't know.

DVDs are overpriced anyway. It costs the industry pennies to produce a DVD - VHS was far more expensive & hence less profitable.

[LV426]

There is no doubt about this. It is ILLEGAL to make a copy of copyright material, irrespective of the purpose of the copy, without the express consent of the copyright owner.

This applies equally to films, music, games, software, etc.

Limited express consent may be given in the licence terms, and often is for computer software. It never is for music and movies.

As to whether "most people" consider this to be the case, or whether they consider it reasonable, that is a different question and quite irrelevant.

As to whether the law is enforceable, or whether copyright owners are likely to take action against private individuals making copies for their own purposes, that is also a different question.

But, the fact remains that, taping a CD for use in the car IS ILLEGAL. Taping a DVD for use in "the other room" IS ILLEGAL.

[JohnAd]

Looks like there aren't many exceptions after all.

http://www.intellectual-property.gov.uk/std/faq/copyright/ex_private_use.htm

Also remember that copyright is primarily a civil matter so saying things are illegal is a bit string.

John

[Der_Pobman]

If you already own a film on VHS and have thus already 'paid for the right to view the film' then why do you have to pay full price to buy that 'right' again when you want to see it on DVD?

Regards

Der Pobman

[PoochJD]

Hi,

John - you said that using the word "illegal" is a bit strong. Um, no offence, but the word illegal means "against the law". Seeing as duplicating a product is "against the law", then I can only presume that it is also illegal, is it not?!

Der Pobman - You're question is interesting, but a little bit silly, as well. When you buy a video or audio cassette, you are buying the right to use that product on one format. If you then decide to upgrade, to a DVD or CD, then you are buying the right to use that product on a different format. What you are really asking is, why should I pay twice? And the answer to that is, you don't have to pay twice. However, you have a choice as to stick with videotapes, or pay the price and upgrade to DVD. I think it's also known as "evolution".

If we applied your question to any other item, we'd be made a fool of. After all, if I buy a Ford Granada 2.0i car, and then decide I want to upgrade to the Ford Granade 2.6i EX (or whatever), I can't just upgrade for free. I am paying to buy one product, not one product and all future upgrades! The same goes for food, computers, paperback books, CD's, telephones, etc, etc, etc.

If you don't like the idea, then you'll have to stick with what you have. However, if you do want to upgrade, then be prepared to pay for it. Why should all the people who helped create, design and realise the latest upgrade of a product, not be paid for their hard-work?! When you look at it like that, then hopefully it will seem more sensible, and you'll understand why we have to pay to upgrade.

Pooch

[Der_Pobman]

PoochJD - we have software upgrades dont we, Adobe dont expect me to pay £400 each time they make a little update to there software. Small updates are free, and large ones are sold at a discount. And even with your car Ford will give you discount if you trade in your old car for a new one. Will Warner Bros give me a discount if I trade in my Leathal Weapon tapes for DVDs? NO, an independant store might do so completely off their own backs, but Warner Bros certainly will not.

With food you are buying the food, not just the right to view the food... you own it and everything about it, so i dont see why you mentioned that one?

I never said we should be able to upgrade for Free! However I dont see why we should pay the same price as somebody who only owns the DVD. A simple rebate scheme would be easy enough. Of course it is not really in the studios interest, so of course they are not going to do it!

Thankfully I live in Russia and thus none of this applies :-)

Der Pobman

[JohnAd]

Pooch

This is I agree a fine line, but my personal definition of illegal is stuff people phone the police and get you arrested for. Copying a dvd for personal backup purposes is not illegal by that definition, the DVD producer would have to sue you in the civil courts and show damages. The police wouldn't even put down thier doughnuts for this so by my personal definition it is not illegal. The law that applies to bootlegging etc requires you to gain money from the copying, making a backup for personal use isn't really covered by any non-civil law that I'm aware of.

In many ways copyright is a bit like slander, if you slag me off to your wife, there's not much I can do. If you take up a full page ad in a paper and slag me off I might have a case.

It is a different matter as to what it "right", copying someone elses work is wrong but this is not very wrong in this example IMHO.

On the formats question the matter I think is morally more complex. In most people's heads they are buying the movie or the music or whatever not the thing. The artist(s) get paid for their work out of the price of the physical media you buy. So if you have a film on VHS then you've done your bit and made the people who made it richer and can watch it as often as you like. If the DVD comes out then you need to pay the artists again for the same content which strikes some as against the sprit of the original transaction. In law it couldn't be clearer you have to keep on paying....

I think everybody will agree with you that DVD is better than VHS and there are all the extras and menus and stuff to pay for. However when you break it down and look at who gets what it's not as much as it should be going to the creative people who actually make the movie.

I would be much happier buying a licence to watch a film forever and then being allowed to buy any format of that film at the cost of production of the media. Sadly Hollywood seem to want to move to a model where we pay every time we view something and where we don't really own anything when we buy a DVD. But that is a different discussion.

To get back on topic.

Is it legal - I think you are not breaking any criminal law by doing a home backup, you are breaking copyright though but there is very little they could do if they found out since this is civil law and they would have to show damages. To me this is borderline some will say this is illegal, I say grey area long live the British legal system.

Selling your copy onto someone else is illegal though.

John

[juboy]

I think we're getting a little confused with the technicalities of theory and the actualities of life here.

Maybe making a backup copy of a DVD for your own use is technically 'against the law' but then so is driving at 75mph on a motorway, yet I doubt anyone can honestly say they've never done that.

It's also illegal (and far more damaging to film companies) for you to lend or swap your DVDs with friends and family... and who's *never* done that?

Who's never taped a vinyl record or CD onto tape to listen to in the car (other than those with no tape player!)? If you buy a vinyl record are you suggesting that the *only* place you can then listen to that recording is on your turntable at home?

The realities of this relate to the true bootleggers and pirates. The people that run off 10s, 100s and 1000s of copies with the *sole* objective of making money commercially.

As I would assume nobody on this forum engages in such practices, the whole thread is merely academic.

[JohnAd]

Originally posted by juboy
It's also illegal (and far more damaging to film companies) for you to lend or swap your DVDs with friends and family... and who's *never* done that?


Actually I that is fully within the law. Once own a thing you can do what you like with it, sell it, lend it to mates, hit it with a hammer, swap it for other things.

John

[juboy]

Nope. Have a look at the copyright details on the back of any DVD or CD. It'll say something like 'No unauthorised LENDING, etc. etc.'

If lending was legal there would be no need for video/dvd hire shops which pay additional sums of money in order to legally lend/hire out material.

I'm pretty sure you are allowed to hit your possessions with a hammer though...

[JohnAd]

But all the stuff put on the back of CD's like that is basically unenforceable, you haven't signed a contract, the terms are not made clear etc etc. Those things don't legally apply in most countries.

Even if lending is suspect, resale or swapping is not prohibited.

John

[JohnAd]

The restriction on lending is a slightly different one to the example of lending it to your mates. Lending in this context means setting up as a DVD hire shop or something.

If you start charging your mates then you're in trouble otherwise you're in the clear.

John

[bh]

Originally posted by Der_Pobman
If you already own a film on VHS and have thus already 'paid for the right to view the film' then why do you have to pay full price to buy that 'right' again when you want to see it on DVD?

Regards

Der Pobman

As happens at the cinema?

:confused: :confused: :confused:

[juboy]

"But all the stuff put on the back of CD's like that is basically unenforceable"

As are any laws... until you're caught and your transgression proved beyond reasonable doubt.

It doesn't mean they're not laws to start with.

[JohnAd]

juboy

I meant that even if they put on CD's that you couldn't lend it to your mates and caught you and took you in front of a judge they would find they were not enforcable, not that they couldn't catch you. Anyway I'm pretty sure lending in this (legal) context means lending to the public and not your mates/family/neighbours and that type of lending is already covered by law.

John

[juboy]

JohnAd: I'm totally with you on this... my point is that loads of things are 'technically' illegal but in reality they go on all the time and there's not a hell of a lot anyone can do about it.

Ff I lend you a DVD and someone takes me to court I'd just get you to agree that in fact you were buying it off me but had yet to give me the money for it :)

You are right of course, although an unenforceable law *is* still a law, it may as well not be.

[JohnAd]

juboy

I think in this case there is no law to stop you doing that. With lovely old english law we can do what we like unless there is a law against it. And while there are laws against commercial and public distribution of copyrighted material there is nothing to cover any lending transaction between the two of us on a physical object that doesn't require it to be additionally copied.

The owner of the copyright can try as hard as they like to put extra restrictions on that but I think under UK law none of them apply unless you sign something. When you buy something under UK law you can do what you like with it unless there is a law against it which would rule out sharpning the edges and thowing it into a crowd but not lending it to someone you knew.

So the lending to mates is in my mind not illegal at all.

Sorry to be a pedant.....

John

[PoochJD]

Hi Again,

Okay, okay. I think it is fair to say that we ALL agree on the following, do we not:

1) It is ILLEGAL and/or UNLAWFUL to duplicate a copyrighted item, regardless of what use it is for.

2) Being caught and prosecuted for duplicating a product or lending the original product to your friends, are different matters however, as whilst it may be illegal to duplicate a CD to tape, to listen in your car, being prosecuted for doing so is almost nill. However, it still doesn't make it legitimate! Ditto with driving at 75 mph down a motorway. If you do it, you do so at your own risk of being caught! If you get away with it, then you're lucky. Yet it's still illegal!

3) Unauthorised Lending PROBABLY refers to "hiring out" DVD's, CD's et al in the way your local video rental store does. I doubt it means letting your brother, best mate, girlfriend et al borrow "Shrek" over the weekend! However, I could be wrong!

4) Computer software upgrades are not the same as upgrading a video of "Seven" to the double-disc edition on DVD! Computer software upgrades allow extra functionality in your original program purchase. A film on DVD is not an upgrade over the same film on VHS. It's still the same movie, but on a different format! You are not upgrading it, in the sense of computer software upgrades. Buying the DVD version will not allow you to obtain more functionality (in the general sense of the word). And, more often than not, the DVD contains extra material than a VHS does. Hence, companies like Fox, Universal, etc could say that this is what you are paying for, rather than just the movie.

5) Ultimately, if you don't like paying twice for something, then don't pay up! No one is forcing you to!

Pooch


P.S. Der Pobman - you said that because you live in Russia, none of this applies. Are you saying that Russia is exempt from copyright infringement? I doubt it. The government and law may turn a blind eye to illegal duplications of films and music, but I'm still certain that under Russian law, it's probably illegal! Unless you can tell me otherwise...?!

[juboy]

"3) Unauthorised Lending PROBABLY refers to "hiring out" DVD's, CD's et al in the way your local video rental store does. I doubt it means letting your brother, best mate, girlfriend et al borrow "Shrek" over the weekend! However, I could be wrong!"

This highlights the whole problem here... people tend to *think* something can't really be illegal if they're comfortable with the idea and think it's 'only fair'.

Does anyone *really* believe driving a modern car in good condition down an empty, dry motorway with good visibility at 75mph makes the driver a 'criminal'?

Probably not, because common sense dictates that we would generally feel that it was acceptable. As with lending DVDs to mates/family. It IS still illegal though!

If you 'lend' a DVD to a friend, the chances are that they will not then rent it for a price elsewhere or buy it... that's why film co's hate it and why it is as illegal to lend a DVD to your friends as it is to hire it out to strangers.

[JohnAd]

Originally posted by juboy
If you 'lend' a DVD to a friend, the chances are that they will not then rent it for a price elsewhere or buy it... that's why film co's hate it and why it is as illegal to lend a DVD to your friends as it is to hire it out to strangers. [/B]

One last time, no it isn't illegal :rolleyes:

If you think it is tell me under what law because it is not illegal to do that under UK copyright law.

Joh

[LV426]

Originally posted by PoochJD
4) Computer software upgrades are not the same as upgrading a video of "Seven" to the double-disc edition on DVD! Computer software upgrades allow extra functionality in your original program purchase. A film on DVD is not an upgrade over the same film on VHS. It's still the same movie, but on a different format! You are not upgrading it, in the sense of computer software upgrades. Buying the DVD version will not allow you to obtain more functionality (in the general sense of the word). And, more often than not, the DVD contains extra material than a VHS does. Hence, companies like Fox, Universal, etc could say that this is what you are paying for, rather than just the movie.
Indeed. If you have a game, formatted for a PC, and you then decide you want to play it on your Playstation2 or whatever, you have to buy it again......

[juboy]

OK, this is taken directly from the back of a current UK Universal Pictures Region 2 disc:

"WARNING: This Digital Video Disc, including sound-track, is protected by copyright. All rights reserved. Unauthorised copying, hiring, LENDING, public performance, radio or TV broadcasting of this video is prohibited."

I'm not entirely sure how they could make it much clearer.

From the UK Copyright Service website:

"Acts restricted by copyright:
It is an offence to perform any of the following acts without the consent of the copyright owner:
copy the work, rent, LEND or issue copies of the work to the public, perform, broadcast or show the work in public,
adapt the work. "

"Acts that do not infringe copyright:
'Fair dealing’ is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree (normally copies of parts of a work) without infringing copyright, these acts are;
Private and research study purposes.
Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
Criticism and news reporting.
Incidental inclusion.
Copies and lending by librarians.
Acts for the purposes of Royal Commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as ‘time shifting’
Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.
[Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a licence from the Performing Rights Society.]"

So, unless you're lending somebody your copy of 'New York Ripper' for 'educational' purposes... it IS illegal to lend DVDs!!

[Der_Pobman]

Pooch - Yeah of course to the full extent of the law they copyright exists here, it has to so as to stop sanctions being inforced by the US (as has happened in the Ukraine since December last year). However Russia is on the list of countries known to disregard international copyright conventions. However the shear cost of software, DVDs etc. just means people genuinely cant buy real software here. Consider that WinXP is 2-3 months salary. So yes it is just a case that it is completely ignored here.

In the UK it is ignored when it is for your own use. However you cant setup a shop selling the stuff. Here you can. In fact even the biggest computer chains here in Moscow sell pirate software allongside the real stuff. The same for DVDs, you can get real ones for 30 dollars, or fake ones for 5.

Regards

Der Pobman

[JohnAd]

One more time: the thing on the back of the CD is irrelevant and the use of the term lend requires that the service is availiable to the public not to your mates. Learn to read like a lawyer.

John

[bh]

Originally posted by JohnAd


One last time, no it isn't illegal :rolleyes:

If you think it is tell me under what law because it is not illegal to do that under UK copyright law.

Joh

It is not the law that prohibits this, it is the Copyright owner. If the owner explicitly states that you can freely disctibute the Copyrighted materials then you may do so. Otherwise, you will fall foul of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.

So, if on the splash screen of software, the inside cover of a book or on the intro to a DVD you read something such as:


This work may not be reproduced in any form or for any purpose without the prior knowledge and consent of the authors of the copyrighted work.

You can't do what you please.

If it explicitly states:

This work may be reproduced in any form or for any purpose without the prior knowledge and consent of the authors of the copyrighted work.

.... copy away.

In the absence of encyption there is nothing to stop you.

Morals and legality are two different issues entirely.

[bh]

Originally posted by JohnAd
One more time: the thing on the back of the CD is irrelevant and the use of the term lend requires that the service is availiable to the public not to your mates. Learn to read like a lawyer (never mind like a lawyer, carefully will do).

John

.... and it requires that consideration exists in the exchange ......

:p

[CWB]

If I lend you a DVD and someone takes me to court I'd just get you to agree that in fact you were buying it off me but had yet to give me the money for it

This may in fact be a significant mistake, since you are now trying to cover up a relatively minor crime with a major one - conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

Remember Jonathan Aitken who went to gaol for getting his family to lie on oath on his behalf in a libel trial.

I reckon that the Unfair Contract Terms Act would come into operation anyway with regard to lending a DVD to your friends and family.

JohnAd is correct when he says that lending in this context is lending to the public for gain (ie DVD rental).

[juboy]

So, what you are saying is that your mates aren't members of the 'public'?

Interesting.

"the thing on the back of the CD is irrelevant"

That'd go down well in court.

Anyway, as I said before, it's all academic. If I want to lend, copy, borrow, burn or make flower pots out of my DVDs, I will.

Neither you nor your mates or any members of public (which I believe would include the Police, although I'm not sure about Poicemen that are your mates) will stop me or anyone else doing so.

Another thought, what happens if you walk into HMV and take a DVD home to view it without paying for it but then return it to the shelf the next day?

You can prove you had no 'intent to deprive' (a legal term John, so I probably read it wrong) so is it theft?

[JohnAd]

Originally posted by bh
It is not the law that prohibits this, it is the Copyright owner. If the owner explicitly states that you can freely disctibute the Copyrighted materials then you may do so. Otherwise, you will fall foul of the 1988 Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.


The thing we were arguing here is the lending to your mates scenario. I think everybody agrees that any form of copying can be and is restricted on DVD. I'm not aware of how having allowed me to buy a copy they can restrict what I want to do with it. the law does prevent me from certain things but not this particular scenario.

John

[juboy]

"This may in fact be a significant mistake, since you are now trying to cover up a relatively minor crime with a major one - conspiracy to pervert the course of justice. "

You are, of course, correct. So, what I'd really need to do is smoke the arresting officer and make sure it's done without witnesses.

That way it'd never get to court in the first place.

I'm not sure which are the genuine comments and which are the tongue in cheek posts in this thread anymore...

[JohnAd]

Juboy

If you read the law again you will see
you cant:
1) Copy it
2) rent lend or issue it to the public
3) Show it to the public

If you can show it to you mates then you can lend it to your mates too is my reading of this othewise you would have to charge your wife to watch it too which seems silly.

John

[JohnAd]

Originally posted by juboy
You can prove you had no 'intent to deprive' (a legal term John, so I probably read it wrong) so is it theft?

Errr yes, you did deprive them of the oppurtunity to sell it while you had nicked it so that is theft.

John

[juboy]

"If you can show it to you mates then you can lend it to your mates too is my reading of this othewise you would have to charge your wife to watch it too which seems silly."

Charging your wife to watch a DVD would almost certainly involve breaking copyright law. Allowing her to watch it free is presumably acceptable.

I'm sorry though, I think you'll find the legal definition of the 'public' does include you, your friends, work colleagues and general acquaintances.

[Lex]

Originally posted by juboy
Charging your wife to watch a DVD would almost certainly involve breaking copyright law. Allowing her to watch it free is presumably acceptable.

What if she offered sexual favours? :grin: :grin:

[juboy]

"Errr yes, you did deprive them of the oppurtunity to sell it while you had nicked it so that is theft."

Explain to me then how a joyrider is not charged with theft but with the charge of taking and driving away because it's impossible to prove 'intent to deprive'?

Surely they deprived the registered owner of the ability to drive their car for the time they were using it?

Seriously John, you may think it sounds daft but UK law as applies to theft HAS to include proof of intent to deprive and that means of an item or possession, not something you may or may not be able to do with that item.

[bh]

I'm not aware of how having allowed me to buy a copy they can restrict what I want to do with it.

Because the copyright holder (Authorship and Ownership) owns the artistic work, whether this is music, literature, art, text and (for the purposes of the Act) software.

Restrict not necessarily - recourse to remedy yes .



Will the real IPR lawyer please stand up?

[bh]

Originally posted by Lex


What if she offered sexual favours? :grin: :grin:

:rolleyes:

Your reasoned opinion Lex?

[Lex]

Originally posted by bh


Your reasoned opinion Lex?



Sorry, but can no-one else see the humorous absurdity of debating whether or not you can charge your wife for watching your DVDs? :rolleyes:

[bh]

Not since 5.25pm!!

Here's lookin' at you kid!

:grin:

[juboy]

I can 100% see the absurdity of it, just like someone actually speculating that we may consider doing 75mph on a motorway as being of concern...

[PoochJD]

Evening Folks,

I think that, (aside from the occasionally obvious wise-cracks and sly jokes), we're getting off of the beaten track.

1) Copyright law means that any film, book, piece of art, etc, etc is owned by one person or company. When they decide to release it to the public to purchase, it does NOT allow one person to buy it, and then lend it to friends, family, neighbours or Cousin Jane from Vancouver! The law and copyright notice specifically state NO UNAUTHORISED LENDING.

2) It IS STILL illegal to travel along any road above the speed limit, regardless of the conditions, and your reasons. Hence, if someone is doing 34mph in a 30mph area, then that driver IS STILL breaking the law.

Whether a court of law would actually prosecute someone for driving 4mph above the speed limit, or whether 20th Century Fox would prosecute you for showing Aunt Helen and Uncle Frank, your copy of "The Abyss: Special Ediiton" when they visited you last weekend, is another matter.

Laws are laws! They may seem stupid, or archaic, or designed only to annoy the public, but they are laws! Laws which we all have to abide by. Regardless of whether or not you or anyone else thinks it's okay to break the law, you shouldn't do so! And just because many of us do break the laws, over what may appear to be trivial things, that doesn't make it any less of a crime, or the person committing a crime, any less of a criminal!

Let's not get confused here folks. Morality and what we all think is right and wrong, is one issue. Laws, however, are laws, and as such, we have to abide by them, regardless of what we may otherwise think.

Anyone who flouts the law, does so at their own risk. If you get caught, don't go trying to say "I had no idea I was breaking the law", because it won't wash! There is no grey area here, people!

Pooch

[bishman]

Interesting thread.

I think at the end of the day wether it is illegal to copy or not, no one is going to care if you copy a DVD/CD/whatever, to use yourself as a backup. Yes it may be illegal, but no one will ever be prosecuted for this.

A couple of other things I found interesting...

1. Someone said that the no lending bit on the CD/DVD cannot be enforced because no contract has been signed. Well....

I haven't signed a contract to say that I will not murder anyone, does that mean it is now not illegal?

2. On the subject of not paying full fees for an upgrade from VHS to DVD or whatever...

Does anybody fancy working out how much money George Lucas would have lost, had he had to give free upgrades to everyone each time he re-issued the Star Wars films?

[Lex]

Originally posted by bishman

Does anybody fancy working out how much money George Lucas would have lost, had he had to give free upgrades to everyone each time he re-issued the Star Wars films?

1/2 a Billion Dollars.

What do I win? :grin:

[Ignatious]

This has been the best thread for ages and the one that finally convinced me to join in. Well done to all those concerned.

I would just like to add that the reason nobody actually seems to know is that no-one (to the best of my knowledge) has ever beeb prosecuted for lending a film to their mates. This probably speaks for itself.

[MarkTaylor]

Most of the confusion in this and similar threads regarding PC software, music etc seems to come from a basic misunderstanding about what has been paid for.

People keep making the basic mistake of assuming that they have 'bought' the software/movie/music when in fact they have purchased a license.

The terms of the license determine what you can do with the product and can and do legally restrict what you may do with it, a signature is not required, merely offer and acceptance. If you believe that you need a signature to form a contract you are ignoring some very old and well established English legal precedent, check out the old and well known 'Carbolic Smoke Ball Company' case if you are in doubt.

When you buy an orange you have traded your money for a physical object that is then yours to do with as you will, when you buy a DVD you have traded your money for a limited license, the terms of which are clearly displayed in the small print on the back of the case and are there to allow you to see what you are actually buying and what limitations there are. The offer of the license is made by displaying the terms on the product package, you accept those terms when you exchange your money for the package.

As long as you keep believing you have bought the DVD rather than the DVD being merely a vehicle to deliver the licensed rights that you have purchased the mind set will be wrong.

So, yes the terms are legally enforcable as long as they are displayed on the back of the case, if they are displayed inside the case and not visible at the point of purchase then they are much less easy to enforce.

Computer software suffers a lot from this problem since the licenses are complex and rarely displayed in full on the packaging, but they seek to get around this by indicating on the package that use of the software is subject to a license and allowing the product to be returned if you do not accept the terms of the license once you have read it, but before you have used the software.

All of this is of little import though since the likelyhood of an individual ever being brought to court over this alone is very low, but if you are looking for someone to say 'this is OK, it is not a breach of copyright to make a personal copy or lend it to a friend' then you're going to be disapointed.

You are in breach of the license you purchased if you make a copy or lend it, live with it, if you want to make copies nothing said here is going to stop you but no matter how hard to try and wriggle around it, the license does not permit this sort of activity.

Mark

[Whatts]

Hi all,

you may remember me as the one that started this thread a while back.
I think I've now got a very complete answer to my question...
Thanks to everyone that participated!

- Tom -

[juboy]

Question for moderators:

Can I print out this thread in hard copy and 'lend' it to my mates to read please? :)

[JohnAd]

Mark

Actually there is no licence on the back of a DVD, CD or whatever there is only a shortened version of the copyright law which says that certain things are illegal not that there are additional restrictions like on a software licence.

Anyway if we are now saying that all this stuff is illegal will the DVD Sales and wants forum now be closed down.....

John

[MarkTaylor]

It is a license.

I picked a DVD at random from my collection, Starship Troopers in this instance and the warning in the small print clearly states that the content has been licensed by the copyright owner for private home use only, then follws with the usual exclusions about renting lending, etc., the restrictions and the description of what is allowed constitute the terms of the license.

I can't see anything there that prevents selling the DVD to someone else as long as it is not by way of a trade so the DVD sales and want ads look OK to me.

Mark

[JohnAd]

Is that an R1 or an R2? I checked a few R2 ones and they just has the blah, blah is illegal.

All i meant was that the wording isn't like a licence, they are just telling me that this is copyright material and that there is some stuff I can't do with it that is covered by law. They are not new restrictions they are just saying that it is the law.

John

[MarkTaylor]

Yep, fair point.

Just did a more detailed search of my collection, grabbed 10 titles, all Region 2.

7 of them had a similar 'the content has been licensed by the copyright owner for private home use only ...etc.' printed on the cover. In some cases it was included in the more general copyright paragraph so if you gave up reading two sentences in you'd have missed it :)

With the other 3, 2 merely had a general 'all rights reserved' style statement, the third did not have anything legible to the naked eye, but I may take a microscope to that one later *laughs*

I would doubt that a general 'all rights reserved' style statement would be sufficient to establish that it is a licensed product and hence control lending and personal copying for back-up purposes. If you try and rely on copyright law alone then the concept of 'Fair Dealing' comes into effect and while it would certainly preclude copying of the entire DVD and passing that on to someone else to watch, there is nothing I am aware of in UK Copyright law that automatically precludes lending the original material to a friend for no charge.

Mark

[juboy]

I think we should all come to an agreement on this. Take one or other of the three sides:

1. Lending DVDs is OK because it's my house, my DVDs and I make the law.

2. Lending DVDs is OK but technically against the law but, as with many laws we don't really think are laws and aren't really likely to be enforced, we'll ignore it.

3. Lending DVDs is illegal. I am not a criminal therefore I won't ever do it.

Seem reasonable?

[JohnAd]

Juboy

This is where I'm coming from...

Private lending of copyright material is perfectly legal and appears not to be additionally restricted by a valid licence on some if not all DVDs.

What they do say on the back is that "legal definition" lending is illegal but the legal definition of lending includes public access.

John

[MarkTaylor]

We probably need to drop words like 'against the law' and 'illegal' when talking about lending.

For the majority of DVD's that I have in my collection, lending them would be a breach of license, not a crimnal offence, not an illegal or unlawful act but a civil breach of contract.

Copying them would be a different matter, but lending in a non-commercial context isn't covered by my understanding of UK copyright laws, it is a license issue so 'illegal' isn't the right word.

Mark

[JohnAd]

Mark

I don't know where I remeber this from but I was under the impression that additional restrictions over and and above copyright law were declared invalid for books some time ago. I think there used to be a clause prohibiting resale on books. This was taken to court and they ruled that the restriction wasn't valid.

I had thought similar things apply to DVDs, CD's etc

Am I making this up or was this some other country.

John

[MarkTaylor]

In this country there was something called the 'Net Book Agreement' which made it impossible for retailers to sell books at a discount in the UK.

This agreement was overturned a few years back and opened the way for discounted book stores to sell current titles and for stores like Dillons and others to discount new titles and compete on price.

Until recently there were similar agreements and exemptions in place protecting various medicinal products and other similar things sold by Chemists shops. These products and books were the only goods exempted from the various provisons of the Retail Price Maintenance rules which prevented producers from dictating retail prices to stores.

I think this is probably what you are thinking of.

There may have been a specific case relating to book resale, but I don't recall it.

In fact, I'm not actually aware that the concept of licensing a product sold in a retail environment has ever really been tested in a court either.

The costs involved make it unlikely that it ever will be, but it is arguable that there is no obligation for a consumer to read the small print on the packaging before purchasing the item. In most cases, as far as the consumer is concerned he has 'bought' the DVD so issues of licensing limiting his rights beyond copyright law should not apply unless it is clearly brought to his attention before purchase and the messages on the packaging are as we all know anything but clear.

Mark

[JohnAd]

Mark

Thanks a lot for your help here :)

This seems to be a whole lot more complicated than I thought.

Very interesting stuff, especially as I have to send mails to software companies who are breaking my copyright fairly regularly it is nice to know what the story really is.

Thanks

John

[Ignatious]

Don't know about this Mark, but, copyright law aside, I don't know if it would be a breach of contract on my part if I lent, resold etc a dvd as, as far as I am aware, if I buy a DVD from, say, Woolies, my contract is with Woolies, not, say Warner Brothers? They would have to bring to my attention the fact that I was not allowed to do this, no?

I wonder how long this thread will run?

[juboy]

When you buy from, say Woolies, your contract with them is only that the goods they supply you with are 'fit for the purpose'. That basically means as long as the disc isn't faulty (which, to complicate matters further, doesn't necessarily mean you can exchange it just because YOUR particular player can't play it correctly) you have no actual rights to exchange it.

Of course, many stores do operate a very relaxed rerturns policy but this is more to do with their customer care/marketing strategy than any legal obligation on their part.

The copyright over the film, extras and it's score remain firmly with the film company at all times.

Think of it this way: if you bought a book from W H Smiths and then copied it and re-sold it, it would be the book's publisher (who in turn pay the author in return for the copyrights to his/her work) that bring a case against you, not Smiths.

[Ron240]

Originally posted by Ignatious

I wonder how long this thread will run?
I was wondering the same thing myself!
I said near the beginning (seems like such a long time ago now) that this issue was in danger of getting blown out of proportion.
Without meaning to cause offence,the same points are more or less being repeated by different people(and even the same people!). Im sure Whatts who started this thread could not have imagined it would provoke this much response. I think Whatts should delete his original post and therefore delete the entire thread :grin:
Seriously though guys,enough is enough,lets put this one to bed:)

[Ignatious]

The copyright over the film, extras and it's score remain firmly with the film company at all times.

Think of it this way: if you bought a book from W H Smiths and then copied it and re-sold it, it would be the book's publisher (who in turn pay the author in return for the copyrights to his/her work) that bring a case against you, not Smiths.

Yes, Thats what I was saying? But the action would be under copyright law and nothing to do with any 'breach of contract' as mentioned by Mark Taylor? As I said "copyright law aside".

The contract with Woolies would be the standard 'sale of goods' possibly, but if they drew my attention any other terms, then this would also form part of it as well? However, they do not. Could, I, though possibly be covered under the contract between woolies and the suppliers contract by virtue of the rights of 3rd parties act? I am just rambling now. I say let this thread die!

[juboy]

Yeah, and that's what I've been saying all along.

I think pretty much everyone, apart from JohnAd, has a good idea of what copyright is and what it means.

Whether you choose to accept or carry out your actions by that is another matter.

Just like any law, civil or criminal, it's there to either be abided by or broken... otherwise it wouldn't need to be there in the first place.

End of story.