DVD-copying code loses free speech shield

The California Supreme Court ruled Monday that a Web publisher could be barred from posting DVD-copying code online without infringing on his free speech rights.

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5067...g=fd_lede1_hed

This is not something that was unexpected. Although it stills sucks. The big media companies seem to be winning all these battles. I dont see how DVD copying is any different from a VCR. Just because DVD are in digital format, it allows us to use our computers without much extra hardware. I see it as someone posting information on how to make a VCR.

I might not be good with legal issues but how is this illegal. What happened to 'fair use'.

r8devil.... yes it does suck.... but copying commercial videos is also illegal. Probably the ONLY reason we even have things like video recorders, CD-R/Rw and DVD-R/Rw is because it has been argued that there is a legitimate use for copying or producing media that you as an individual have created e.g. a home movie. Such things do not fall under copyright (or if they do then you as an individual are the copyright holder) so copies can be made. But this does not extend to commercial works such as movies which are protected by copyright.

Fair use clauses (if they even exist and many would argue that they don't) only extend as far as making a back up of the media. It does not extend to copying it for your friends or setting up a small copying business!

The media companies are winning these battle cos they have covered their legal asses. It's the same as software, you agree to the conditions of using the software or you don't use it - there is no other argument. Yeah it sucks but thats the way it works at the moment.

Z

but how are you sposed to make a backup now (fair use right?) for personal use without copying it??? isn't a backup a copy? i'm confused :confused:

cross... did you read the sentence

Quote:

---

Fair use clauses (if they even exist and many would argue that they don't) only extend as far as making a back up of the media

---

true a backup is a copy but you are only allowed to keep one back up in existence not make 'multiple backups'. Part of the problem is how you define 'fair use', for example fair use to you and me is to copy a song from a CD onto a HD maybe convert that to an mp3 and transfer that to a mp3 player... but effectively you have just made 2 copies of the original song. Supposing you also use P2P software... you may be letting a million people take a copy of your back up. I don't have a problem with that... but a lot of record companies do, they would argue that they have just lost out on a million potential sales. Money speaks volumes.

Software is similar but you do (usually) at least get a clause that states you can make one back up copy of the software... but you're not allowed to do anything more to the software according to the terms of the EULA. And the point is when you agree to the EULA you agree to the legally binding terms of a contract (which is what a EULA is) - hence anything you do that breaks the terms of the EULA e.g decompile, make 2 copies etc, puts you in breach of a contract you willingly agreed to. Thats when you get your ass fried by the minions of Satan i.e. lawyers. Never forget - you do not own any software you have paid for (with the exception of open source stuff), all that you do own is the right to use it.

Z

AFAIK this really has nothing to do with copying , this is about free speech. If you publish a way to get around something ,you are breaking the law. A russian fellow found a way around the protection on ebooks and when he came the states he was tossed in jail for it. DVD jon found a way to decrypt dvd's(God bless you DVD Jon) and they went after him. AFAIK technically it is illegal (in the US) to play dvds on linux/bsd because of this issue.

Ok, here is where I'm getting confused:
I have a cd, i make a backup on 1 tape. This is legal. I have a dvd, i use my VCR to make one tape backup, this is also legal (from what I have gathered I think...). So why can I not backup my dvd to a cd-r? Just because it's a different media format? I would not be making multiple backups, or more then one copy doing it, so where's the issue. I understand this thread is more about the sharing of information about "how to", but can some one please explain where my thinking is going askew?

There should be no difference what media you back up your dvd to. (personally i would rip it on to my hard drive and then convert it to DIVX and burn it on a cdr). If there is anything illegal about backing up a dvd it is decrypting it to rip it to your computer which is possibly illegal due to using the dcess(sp) code.

lumpy... yeah I know this is mainly about free speech - I was answering r8devils question about fair use and copying - slightly off topic I know but it is related to the original point. I know what you're saying... and in some ways I agree with you... but in other ways I disagree.. after all doesn't an inventor of something (in this case DVD copy protection), have the right to protect their own hard work?? The whole issue is something I've debated in my own mind for some time now and I still can't come up with a satisfactory answer.

Cross - it's a good question you raise... speaking personally, if you can legally back up DVD to a tape.... I can't see why you shouldn't be able to back up to CDR. I agree with you - I don't think your thinking is askew, the type of media you back up to shouldn't make a difference - assuming you are only making a single back up. But I ain't no legal eagle.... and clearly some of them do think it's a problem. One of the many inconsistancies of copyright and patent law I feel

Z

I think it has to be the fact that a Cdr will last years longer and not wear out as fast as a Vhs tape would and each time you play the vhs tape the quality starts going down but with a Cdr the picture and sound remains crisp and clear as the day it was made. And I feel that people should be able to make a second copy of what ever they want for backup purposes. After all they did work hard for the money to pay for it so they should be able to do what ever they want to it