|
Is it legal to have back ups?
|
|
|
CKY_2084
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. January 2005 @ 08:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have a really nice DVD Collection, but a old friend came over and stole like 15 of my DVDs and I didnt even realise it for about a week. Anyways I keep 1 backup of all my movies in my safe. So is it legal to use those back ups or do I still have to have the original in my posession and if so then why even bother making backups? So do I have to throw all my backups away now?
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
bazilla
Member
|
29. January 2005 @ 09:30 |
Link to this message
|
|
There is law, and there is ethics.
Legally, you didn't have a right to the backups even when you owned the originals. Under the DMCA, it is not legal to create a backup if you have to decrypt or hack and protection scheme to create the backup. Well, may of us do it anyway, because we believe that we are "ethically" allowed to do so under any reasonable concept of "fair use" and that the DMCA is wrong to forbid such fair use. Realistically, the MPAA is not going to come after people who only make a single backup for personal use, like you did. They go after the people sharing out their copies via P2P, and I have no problem with their doing that. Unfortunately, it is the prevalence of such misuse that gives rise to such bad laws as the DMCA, which then hurt those of us who only want fair use of what we rightly own.
So you are an outlaw already. If you could live with yourself before, can you continue to live with yourself if you use the backups you never had the right to in the first place? I can imagine a rationalization that would let me use the backups. But you've got to let your own conscience be your guide.
Okay, that was the long-winded answer to your question. The short-winded answer:
Legally? No.
Ethically? That's for you to decide.
|
|
Gringle
Suspended due to non-functional email address
|
29. January 2005 @ 10:19 |
Link to this message
|
|
LoL this sounds to me like one of those lateral thinking problems so popular back in the 70s'.
(and yes I am that old)
Logic reason and ethics all agree one should always (with the proviso there is no harm physically or financially to a third party) protect ones investment.
{Lateral thoughts}
You should have saved the originals in the safe.. then at worst the thief would have stole a copy.
and should the originals prove faulty with time; you would have had redress.
well that's my Saturday night puzzle solved. LOL
regards
gringle
El gringle..
|
Moderator
|
29. January 2005 @ 13:01 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Legally, you didn't have a right to the backups even when you owned the originals.
I respectfully disagree. Fair Use laws that were on the books before DMCA have assured us of our right to back up our legally purchased media. The DMCA made it illegal to bypass copy protection, not own the backups.
http://www.eff.org/cafe/gross1.html
My killer sig came courtesy of bb "El Jefe" mayo.
The Forum Rules You Agreed To! http://forums.afterdawn.com/thread_view.cfm/2487
"And there we saw the giants, and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" - Numbers 13:33 |
|
bassnut
Member
|
29. January 2005 @ 13:14 |
Link to this message
|
|
Copywrite laws also differ a little from country to country. The music industry lost big time here because we pay a tax on all blank media which does to the music industry. The same can be said about the movie industry. I don't know all about the law here but from reading the paper we are allowed to make a backup and the law does not state where that backup has to come from. One of these days I will look a little deeper but for now I have a little too much on my plate.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. January 2005 @ 13:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. January 2005 @ 14:01 |
Link to this message
|
|
No one is going to kick down your door if you make another backup.
|
|
deadcat
Senior Member
|
29. January 2005 @ 16:31 |
Link to this message
|
|
wouldnt it be easier to catch up with your "old friend" ??
if you knew he has them, get them back ??
Antec Plus View Case w 5 fans, Asus A8N Sli, Athlon 64 3500, 2gig PC3200, 7600GS x 2 graphics, 2x 120gb Sata2 Raid0, 2x 320gb Sata 2, 2x 250gb USB External, Aopen Com4824,Pioneer A08, Polyview 17' lcd x2
|
|
Hallywood
Member
|
29. January 2005 @ 18:38 |
Link to this message
|
|
First of all I would track down "Old Buddy", kick the livin shit outta him and take back my DVD's. You would have your DVD's and Old Buddy would be X Buddy and everything would be great again.
|
|
bazilla
Member
|
30. January 2005 @ 04:16 |
Link to this message
|
Big guy (er, Nephilim),
If you could clarify something for me, then.
Are you referring to copies made before the DMCA was enacted? If not, then how do we make copies today without bypassing the copy protection?
OTHO, colw's link to a concurrent thread pointed me to a discussion of the DMCA by the US Copyright Office that contains a distinction I may have overlooked: Quote:
Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category (italics supplied) of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.
This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.
The way I'd like to read this is that we can circumvent copy protection for purposes of making fair use backups. We just cannot own the techology to do that unless we develop it ourselves, because no one is allowed to market or distribute (?) the technology required to circumvent copy protection. Talk about a "Catch-22"!
Unless, of course, we take free circumvention tools to be exempt from: Quote:
Section 1201 proscribes devices or services that fall within any one of the following three categories:
! they are primarily designed or produced to circumvent;
! they have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or
! they are marketed for use in circumventing.
But I don't think anybody is reading the law that expansively yet. That is why there are moves afoot, if not to abolish the DMCA, at least clarify consumer fair use rights under it.
|
Junior Member
|
30. January 2005 @ 04:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
Answer was already gave but my .02 are: the ONLY people I know that were busted for making backups was because they used them to sell them NONE for having or using them for personal use.
Windows XP Profetional SP2, Intel P4 CPU, 2.6GHz, 640MB of RAM. BenQ DVD Burner DW1620, DVD+/-RW/R, 8.5GB Double Layer, 16x Max speed.
DVD Shrink, DVD Decrypter, UnderCoverXP, Epson R200
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. January 2005 @ 07:29 |
Link to this message
|
|
Thats the point exactly. Legal or not, you can make dvd copies in your home all day long and no one will bust your door down to get you. Once you start to sell those copies and the word gets out that you are selling copies then the axe will fall. It would just be a matter of time until they get you.
Jerry
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
ScubaBud
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. January 2005 @ 07:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Are there any Countries that are not affected by this? Maybe I could Edit my info to reflect it! :) J/K
|
