Legal questions

[shawnii]

So I have a question. I have 9 children (yes 9 all mine) and our DVD's get scratched so fast. It was nice to have a back up copy so that if my kids scrated it I didn't have to buy a new one all the time, I would just burn them another one. I would just put the one I bought up in my closet and I had a book of DVD's for the kids to choose and watch from. With 9 kids you know they are going to get scratched some day. Any way so Is that illegal to have a copy for my kids? I was always told that it was not illegal.
It stinks that the forums are gone that helped me out because I was clueless on how to make back up's and with all the protections they put on them these days I can't do it on my own. Do I now have to go buy the same movie every time one of my kids scratch them because I don't know how to get through all the security crap? Is this the idea that the movie industy wants, Is for you to go buy copy after copy of the same movie if the first one get's scratched?
If so I guess I will not be buying any movies at all because what is the use when you have kid's scratching them every second? I liked having the comfort of a back up. Is there any place out there on the internet were you can buy the movie and burn it on your own DVD then have it on a account or something to reburn it when the kids scratch or break the first one?
Thanks,
Shawnii

[shawnii]

P.S.
I hope I am not doing any thing illegal by asking these kind of questions on my last post. I feel like I am walking on a tight rope here and scared to get any one in any kind of trouble.
Thanks again
shawnii

[blutach]

I guess that's exactly what they want (I'm sure they also want to stop piracy, but this doesn't apply to you).

As you mention, you could consider not buying the DVD at all and renting it. If enough people did that, signals would be sent to an industry gone crazy.

And to answer your original question, in some jurisdictions, it is illegal to back up your DVD, while in others, it is quite legal to even copy a rental. You will need to consult a lawyer skilled in intellectual property law to see what applies to you.

However, if you are in the USA, there is a condumdrum. The DMCA says you can't do it (except that you have something called fair use rights - which seem to have been swept under the table anyway).

Regards

[drfsupercenter]

There is a law saying you can, and one saying you can't.
Whose idea was that?

So if you're in America... it's really not known, but last I checked they weren't raiding people's houses looking for backups.

[Chewy]

but last I checked they weren't raiding people's houses looking for backups.

the last thing the industry would do, since that would precipitate a legal crisis and take the case to a higher federal court where present protection laws might be overturned

not too mention the possibilty of turning public opinion even more against their present policy

[rago88]

All good points and advice...

my answer, since you have small ones would be to
rent video's.
Netflix/Blockbuster members can buy used dvd movies dirt cheap when they are listed..

btw: the internet is a wealth of information for someone who wants to learn how to do pretty much anything legal or otherwise..

[change9]

I have a question,now less and less people buy DVDs,so the company make less money and then less company will make films and movies,is it right?

[Chewy]

more people are using premium cable to watch movies, online rentals have taken off, but I am not sure that overall dvd sales have decreased that much, they are putting out a lot of crud on dvd that I am sure noone much wants to buy unless it hits the bargain bin at walmart

[pfloyd]

You are, by law, allowed to make one archival copy of any dvd you personally own.

[blutach]

You are not!

At least in many jurisdictions and even in the USA the situation is VERY unclear.

Regards

[locoeng]

You are, by law, allowed to make one archival copy of any dvd you personally own.

IN the US Fair Use says you are allowed an archival copy, but DMCA says it is illegal to bypass any copy protection.

[Chewy]

dcma and drm seem to focus on software or hardware that defeats/bypasses copy protection, not on the use of those illegal products

hence it's quasi-legal for you to backup for personal use but illegal to create or support these products

we won't go downunder with this, since it's(or was) illegal to tape a show on a vcr there?
talk about overloading the judicial system

edit

[blutach]

@Chewy

With respect, section 1201 refers to "no person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access ..."

It does not limit this to creating or supporting products.

Yes, there is a line in there about fair use (section 1201(c)), but fair use has a very bloody nose compared to the restirctions and limitations. Therefore, it is not right to espouse that you can make a backup legally in the US - the case law does not support it and to the best of my knowledge, all cases have been won by the studios.

Having said that, I suppose if a person was prosecuted for backing up a DVD he owns, he could plead 1201(c) as a defence. Of course, his money would run out long before the case ever got to trial and so if Fair Use was to be tested, the defendant would need the help of someone very financial who wanted to see a test case. However, organisations like the EFF have been like tiny minnows compared to the MPAA in assisting people defend their rights.

Sadly, the framers of your laws decided to keep this ambiguity in. Instead of saying outright, "it is not illegal to backup a DVD/CD that you own for archival purposes", it plays around the edges with namby-pamby crap like the wording in 1201(c).

IMHO, the safer view on this - especially given we are not IP lawyers - is to err on the side of caution and frame answers to questions like this as I did in post 3 above. Saying categorically what you said in post 12 is tantamount to giving legal advice (and in my view incorrect advice) - something we do not do.

Regards

[Chewy]

I added the word quasi, afaik no cases have gone to the supreme court yet where "fair use" vs dcma have been decided in a circumstance like this, so we have the precedence of an old ruling in contrast to newer laws. Some companies are now challenging these laws and interpretations in the lower courts.

Has there ever been a case against an individual for backing up a movie?

Sadly, the framers of your laws decided to keep this ambiguity in.

This was intentional, they could not overrule the supreme court, the new law would force a decision that
might go against it's backers.

[blutach]

And, in so doing, they have ridden roughshod over US citizen's rights.

Regards