HEY! Am I reading this Right?

[BigLou50]

Im a student of law and I was wondering if I am reading this right.
From this statute, I gather it is legal, or at least not punishable in a federal court of law, to copy movies until you reach a value of $1000 every 6 months (180 days) so long as you don't delete the FBI warning or copyright info, fake a warning or pass it off as your own work; and that you freely admit that they are copies of anothers work. And, of course, that you don't profit from it or publicly display it.
Im just curious. I didn't think copyright laws were this wide open. If Im missing something, someone please educate me.

Im not talking about civil liability; that's a whole 'nother ballgame.
*************************************
FROM: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#501

Copyright Law of the United States of America
and Related Laws Contained in Title 17 of the United States Code

§ 506. Criminal offenses5
(a) Criminal Infringement. — Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either —

(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or

(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000,

shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, United States Code. For purposes of this subsection, evidence of reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work, by itself, shall not be sufficient to establish willful infringement.

(b) Forfeiture and Destruction. — When any person is convicted of any violation of subsection (a), the court in its judgment of conviction shall, in addition to the penalty therein prescribed, order the forfeiture and destruction or other disposition of all infringing copies or phonorecords and all implements, devices, or equipment used in the manufacture of such infringing copies or phonorecords.

(c) Fraudulent Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, places on any article a notice of copyright or words of the same purport that such person knows to be false, or who, with fraudulent intent, publicly distributes or imports for public distribution any article bearing such notice or words that such person knows to be false, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(d) Fraudulent Removal of Copyright Notice. — Any person who, with fraudulent intent, removes or alters any notice of copyright appearing on a copy of a copyrighted work shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(e) False Representation. — Any person who knowingly makes a false representation of a material fact in the application for copyright registration provided for by section 409, or in any written statement filed in connection with the application, shall be fined not more than $2,500.

(f) Rights of Attribution and Integrity. — Nothing in this section applies to infringement of the rights conferred by section 106A(a).
****************************

[setarip]

Unfortunately, in the U.S., The Copyright Law is not the only law being applied to DVD and/or software copying.

Do a little more research regarding lawsuits brought by the MPAA and similar organizations...

[BigLou50]

Good input, but all I could find were civil lawsuits. No real jailtime for making a single duplicate of discs without mass/moderate distribution (inlcuding sharing) or profit. Under any law regarding property, the burden of proof is on the accuser to show that they lost actual property or that intellectual property was distributed/displayed without permission (proving that there was a possible monetary loss).
I skimmed the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the 'No Electronic Theft' Act, but they say nothing (that I can see) that include those that will not distribute or profit (I don't think possession itself is considered "profit" in criminal copyright law). I went to the MPAAs website, but that was no help. All they talk about is how wrong it is and how they fund a grassroots effort to strengthen legislation. All other avenues, that I can think of anyway, is through the civil courts. If anyone knows of a criminal case where someone did jail time for making single copies of discs for personal use, please mention it. This is all very interesting.

I personally dont download movies, nor do I copy discs I dont already own; so my question and the modest amount of research Ive done should not suggest I condone this. But to the MPAA, we're all in the same boat. So I was just curious on what the criminal ramifications of this is.

[setarip]

"If anyone knows of a criminal case where someone did jail time for making single copies of discs for personal use"

No such event has occurred to-date.


(Keep up your studies)

[DrinkOrDie]

"If anyone knows of a criminal case where someone did jail time for making single copies of discs for personal use, please mention it."

You will find no such case because it is not a crime to make copies for personal use. This falls under "fair use" laws. Under the law, you cannot be prosecuted for copyright infringement simply for making a backup of a disk you paid for. If it were a crime, like downloading unauthorized copies of a movie you didn't pay for is, I don't think we'd be allowed to talk about DVD copying in the forum.

You may have heard about experimental audio CD's with copy protection. After numberous consumer complaints (court cases?), the recording industry defended itself by stating the "fair use" law. While the law allows single copies for personal use, or copying to computer of material YOU OWN (purchased) the law does NOT state that the recording industry has to make it possible to copy the material. That was their argument to justify copy protected CD's. This situation resulted in at least one amendment to the law regarding what I call "fair warning" when you purchase a copy protected CD, it must be clearly labeled as such.

The law further protects consumers who "crack" copyright protection in the interest of making a copy that falls under fair use exemption.

****Section 1201(c) of title 17, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting before the period at the end the following: `and it is not a violation of this section to circumvent a technological measure in connection with access to, or the use of, a work if such circumvention does not result in an infringement of the copyright in the work'*****

The purpose and character of your intended use of the material involved is the single most important factor in determining whether a particular use is a fair use. That's where it gets a little tricky.

Bottom line is, let's say you bought a DVD and want to make a copy for the purpose of personal use to avoid damaging the original. Or you make a copy just in case the original becomes unplayable. That would be considered fair use. Afterall, why should you have to repurchase a disk you already bought?

Violations often occur when the use is motivated primarily by a desire for commercial gain or when the use (in this case copying) results, or is likely to result in a loss of revenue for the copyright holder, such as making a copy for a friend or uploading to strangers. You might have noticed certain MPEG-4 codecs that are "hacked" fall under fair use exeption by claiming educational purposes and by not making a profit. (the product is free)

So, even though you see a "unauthorized copying" warning on the disk you bought, under certain conditions, copying can fall under a fair use exemption.

So, in the unlikely event that the F.B.I. comes in with a warrant to search your home, it is unlikely you will be prosecuted for making a single copy for yourself, of a DVD that you paid for. As far a civil matters are concerned, It's not economically viable or good for public relations, for the industry to seek settlement for a single or few copies of a DVD you own. Besides, how would they find out unless you are violating the terms under fair use?

[BigLou50]

Good input Thanks.

[DrinkOrDie]

See this thread, and you will see what I mean. People talk all the time about copying DVD's they own. That's OK. They copy them to AVI, they copy and burn them to VCD, they copy them to DVD. It's OK if the copies are for themselves, not someone else. There's nothing wrong with that.

It's not OK, morally or legally to copy a rented DVD. If you rent it, and like it, then buy it!!!. It's also not OK to talk about what amounts to theft in this forum. See the first few entrys in this thread:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24008&highlight=baby

In my mind, it's not immoral to copy a DVD movie you own, as long as the copy is for your own use. Under the law, it's not illegal.

I might ad that I have downloaded a movie or two and watched it on my computer. In every case, my motivation was to preview the movie before I decided to invest USD $ 25 + for the DVD. If I decided the movie sucks, I delete the downloaded copy. If the movie is good in my opinion, the downloaded copy only motivates me to buy the DVD, when I might have otherwise passed it up. Bottom line is, my actions result in profits for the movie owners, not a loss.

In my case, "pirated" movies actually contributed to legitemate profits for the owners of the movie. To me, this is the "right" thing to do. If I see a movie I like, I make it a moral and personal priority to purchase the disk so I can view it as many times as I like, with no guilt. At the same time, I believe I have a right to copy the movie as long as I keep the copy for my own use, and do not let others have it. They can buy their own if they like it.

[DrinkOrDie]

OK, DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON HERE BUT MY REPLY HAS BEEN DUPLICATED AND I CANNOT DELETE THE DUPLICATE. DISREGARD THE FIRST ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE THIS POST. THIS IS THE ONE I INTENDED TO BE VIEWED

See this thread, and you will see what I mean. People talk all the time about copying DVD's they own. That's OK. They copy them to AVI, they copy and burn them to VCD, they copy them to DVD. It's OK if the copies are for themselves, not someone else. There's nothing wrong with that.

It's not OK, morally or legally to copy a rented DVD. If you rent it, and like it, then buy it!!!. It's also not OK to talk about what amounts to theft in this forum. See the first few entrys in this thread:

http://forum.digital-digest.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=24008&highlight=baby

In my mind, it's not immoral to copy a DVD movie you own, (purchased and possess the original) as long as the copy is for your own use. Under the (U.S.) law, it's also not illegal to make copies for yourself.

I might ad that I have downloaded a movie or two and watched it on my computer. (illegal? not under canadian law) In every case, my motivation was to preview the movie before I decided to invest USD $ 25 + for the DVD. If I decided the movie sucks, I delete the downloaded copy. If the movie is good in my opinion, the downloaded copy only motivates me to buy the DVD, when I might have otherwise passed it up. Bottom line is, my actions result in profits for the movie owners, not a loss.

In my case, "pirated" movies actually contributed to legitamete profits for the owners of the movie. To me, this is the "right" thing to do. If I see a movie I like, I make it a moral and personal priority to purchase the disk so I can view it as many times as I like, with no guilt. At the same time, I believe I have a right to copy the movie as long as I keep the copy for my own use, and do not let others have it. They can buy their own if they like it.

This issue is as complicated as the abortion issue. Is it right, or wrong? It's up to you to decide. It's up to the lawmakers to decide if it's contrary to the law. Personally, I hold no guilt. I hold no files I didn't pay for, fair and square.