# Illegally copying movies



## specter13 (Feb 19, 2006)

I know this site doesn't support illegal activities, so read before you flame

--I own this movie I am talking about--

I recently downloaded a movie onto my computer and shortly thereafter recieved a letter from my ISP stating that I had infringed upon a copyright. The reason i D/Led it is because I dont have a DVD drive at the moment and wanted it on my laptop. Since I own this DVD is it still Copyright Infrigement since I D/Led it from bittorrent?


----------



## imidiot (Dec 2, 2005)

i did read and not flame. just copy and paste. 



> Is it OK to download a movie?
> 
> It is not legal to download a copyrighted (and therefore any major) movie from the Internet, even if you only keep it on your computer for an hour. It doesn't matter; it's still illegal. If you want to watch a movie, you have to go out and buy a ticket, rent it, or buy it on video or DVD. That's it. You can't just go downloading it, even if it isn't available in any of those legal ways. The only exception to the "no online movie" rule is MovieLink, where you can virtually rent movies online.


http://www.stealingisillegal.com/faqs.php


----------



## r'n'r (Nov 9, 2005)

the question of whether it is illegal or not to download a movie you allready own depends on wich country you live as all countries have different copyright laws and the info in the link given is not being given by a laywer or any official organization but by someone who runs a computer consultation business (and this site) you can check his qualifications here http://www.mikecermak.com/education/
However having said the above whatever country you are in you have probably broken the copyright laws as you used bittorrent wich uploads as it downloads


----------



## imidiot (Dec 2, 2005)

r'n'r said:


> the question of whether it is illegal or not to download a movie you allready own depends on wich country you live as all countries have different copyright





> The MPA directs anti-piracy operations to protect its member companies' copyrighted works through the enforcement of copyright and other laws in approximately 70 territories throughout the world, including in 14 countries


http://www.mpaa.org/piracy_IntLaw.asp

and the above was found here.

http://www.mpaa.org/index.asp


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

specter13 said:


> Since I own this DVD is it still Copyright Infrigement since I D/Led it from bittorrent?


Yep.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

You bet your booties! The only way you got it in that format is to break the copy protection on the DVD somewhere along the line. That's against the law.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

r'n'r said:


> the question of whether it is illegal or not to download a movie you allready own depends on wich country you live as all countries have different copyright laws and the info in the link given is not being given by a laywer or any official organization but by someone who runs a computer consultation business (and this site) you can check his qualifications here http://www.mikecermak.com/education/
> However having said the above whatever country you are in you have probably broken the copyright laws as you used bittorrent wich uploads as it downloads


He's in the US, and it's against the law here.


----------



## r'n'r (Nov 9, 2005)

As I said in my first post as you used bittorrent you have probably broken copyright law as it UPLOADS while it downloads
However there are some posts here that are confusing or misleading


imidiot said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by r'n'r
> the question of whether it is illegal or not to download a movie you allready own depends on wich country you live as all countries have different copyright
> 
> ...


Not sure what your trying to say here unless your trying to state that the 14 countries that the MPAA directs operations in have the same laws (which they don't) or that 14 countries = the world (which they don't)



JohnWill said:


> You bet your booties! The only way you got it in that format is to break the copy protection on the DVD somewhere along the line. That's against the law.


The people who download a film haven't broken the copy protection and breaking copy protection is not illegal in all countries the person who broke the copy protection may live in a country where that is perfectly legal



JohnWill said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by r'n'r
> the question of whether it is illegal or not to download a movie you allready own depends on wich country you live as all countries have different copyright laws and the info in the link given is not being given by a laywer or any official organization but by someone who runs a computer consultation business (and this site) you can check his qualifications here http://www.mikecermak.com/education/
> However having said the above whatever country you are in you have probably broken the copyright laws as you used bittorrent wich uploads as it downloads
> ...


If your saying uploading copyright material in the US is against the law your right if your saying that downloading a film that you allready own a copy of is illegal then your only guessing. Untill a court case is brought against someone who only downloads something they own and a judge rules one way or the other this may be considered fair use

Also how do you know he's Ammerican no info in his profile suggests a country and if your going by IP (being a mod you can probably see that) then take proxies into account


----------



## thecoalman (Mar 6, 2006)

r'n'r said:


> if your saying that downloading a film that you allready own a copy of is illegal then your only guessing. Untill a court case is brought against someone who only downloads something they own and a judge rules one way or the other this may be considered fair use


That's not true, whether the copy protection was broken legally or not the mere fact that it's a unlicensed copy makes it illegal in the US under copyright law. There's also the issue of the integrity of the work which is another tenent of copyright law. By converting to one of the common compressed foramts you have visually altered the original as the producer of the material inteded it to be seen.

You own the disc not the content. You're agument about court cases would only apply to exact duplicates you have made of discs you own.


----------



## imidiot (Dec 2, 2005)

r'n'r said:


> Also how do you know he's Ammerican no info in his profile suggests a country and if your going by IP (being a mod you can probably see that) then take proxies into account


i am by no means a moderator. but i do know how to search and read.



> Howdy! My name is Michael Joseph Cermak, Jr.
> 
> I was born on March 30, 1981 in Pittsburgh, PA USA and currently reside in Waynesboro, PA USA.


if that does not have AMERICAN (USA) writing all over it. i do not know what does. where i found that is below.

http://www.mikecermak.com/personal/


----------



## r'n'r (Nov 9, 2005)

imidiot said:


> i am by no means a moderator. but i do know how to search and read.
> 
> if that does not have AMERICAN (USA) writing all over it. i do not know what does. where i found that is below.
> 
> http://www.mikecermak.com/personal/


I was not refering to you I was responding to JohnWill who is quoted just above where I asked that question and who is a mod, try re-reading my last post and you see that the question is not directed at you, if JohnWill did mean Mike Cermak instead of the original poster then that question is answered



thecoalman said:


> Quote:
> Originally Posted by r'n'r
> if your saying that downloading a film that you allready own a copy of is illegal then your only guessing. Untill a court case is brought against someone who only downloads something they own and a judge rules one way or the other this may be considered fair use
> 
> ...


The only comparison I can find in law would be the case by the RIAA against Diamond Multimedia Sytems where under appeal the 9th curcuit said that putitng music you own onto a compter hard drive or MP3 player is space shifting, like recording something off of TV to watch later is time shifting, and allowable 
If your intrestead in the case there is the judges summary here http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/9th/9856727.html
Its a bit of a read but it does explain why it may not be considered to be an unliscensed copy and why my argument about court cases does not only apply to exact duplicates


----------



## smeegle (Jan 18, 2004)

So, specter13, are you still there? Did they say anything about bringing legal action against you?


----------



## thecoalman (Mar 6, 2006)

r'n'r said:


> The only comparison I can find in law would be the case by the RIAA against Diamond Multimedia Sytems where under appeal the 9th curcuit said that putitng *music*


I can stop reading right there... Music is different in that it's covered under The Home Recording Act an amendmant to copyright law specific to audio. There is no such provision for DVD's, video or the like.


----------



## r'n'r (Nov 9, 2005)

thecoalman said:


> I can stop reading right there... Music is different in that it's covered under The Home Recording Act an amendmant to copyright law specific to audio. There is no such provision for DVD's, video or the like.


You can start reading again because the case I pointed to brought about that amendment so at the time of that case there was no provision for music so as I say untill there is a court case for video this is a comparison


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

r'n'r: Why would do download something you already own? The problem is with people who DONT own them.


----------



## r'n'r (Nov 9, 2005)

Tidus4Yuna said:


> r'n'r: Why would do download something you already own? The problem is with people who DONT own them.


Read the first post, the person says he already owns it but he wants it on his laptop which doesn't have a dvd drive


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

r'n'r said:


> Read the first post, the person says he already owns it but he wants it on his laptop which doesn't have a dvd drive


then tough titties. Get a DVD drive.


----------



## thecoalman (Mar 6, 2006)

r'n'r said:


> You can start reading again because the case I pointed to brought about that amendment so at the time of that case there was no provision for music so as I say untill there is a court case for video this is a comparison


No, that case you are referring to is to whether the RIO fell under the home recording act which it does not. It's simply labeled a storage device, which is what it is.


----------



## r'n'r (Nov 9, 2005)

thecoalman said:


> No, that case you are referring to is to whether the RIO fell under the home recording act which it does not. It's simply labeled a storage device, which is what it is.


Sorry about you are right that this didn't cause an amendment to the home recording act although the provision in the audio home recording act you refered to earlier is for artsists to reclaim money from recordings that people don't have an origional copy of e.g. downloads of music, taping off the radio, etc http://ecf-guest.mit.edu/~jc/ideas/AudioHomeRecordingAct.html
but if you read the summery of the case I linked to earlier you'll see that its not just about whether the rio falls under the home recording act, but about space shifting digital media also, at the time of the case tranfering films over the net wasn't as practicle as it is now and what the judge says is now very relevant to films and the only comparison in law that I can find, if you'd care to point me to another case or a case that says that downloading a film oyu already own is breaking copyright or the applicable piece of law then I'll read them but untill I see a piece of law or a case saying otherwise I'll continue to state that it may be legal it may not and that no-one will know till there is a case brought and ajudge decides one way or the other


----------



## thecoalman (Mar 6, 2006)

r'n'r said:


> is for artsists to reclaim money from recordings that people don't have an origional copy of e.g. downloads of music,


That AHRA does not cover illegal downloads of audio, just ask the people getting convicted:
http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/showarticle.cfm?articleid=4824&CFID=17316141&CFTOKEN=29735460



> them but untill I see a piece of law or a case saying otherwise I'll continue to state that it may be legal it may not and that no-one will know till there is a case brought and ajudge decides one way or the other


You can believe what you want but everything you have referenced has to do with audio so it's irrelevant. There is no provision for copying DVD's. The fundamentals of copyright law are you can't make a copy of something you own the copyright or are licensed to do so. Just because copyright law as it pertains to DVD's you own hasn't been tested in a court of law doesn't allow you to interpret as you want.


----------



## r'n'r (Nov 9, 2005)

thecoalman said:


> That AHRA does not cover illegal downloads of audio, just ask the people getting convicted:
> http://www.soundgenerator.com/news/showarticle.cfm?articleid=4824&CFID=17316141&CFTOKEN=29735460


the ahara does cover illegal downloads http://ecf-guest.mit.edu/~jc/ideas/AudioHomeRecordingAct.html and the people getting convicted are being convicted because they were proffiting from thier activities as you will see if you read what the charges were that they pleaded to in the link you referenced.



thecoalman said:


> You can believe what you want but everything you have referenced has to do with audio so it's irrelevant. There is no provision for copying DVD's. The fundamentals of copyright law are you can't make a copy of something you own the copyright or are licensed to do so. Just because copyright law as it pertains to DVD's you own hasn't been tested in a court of law doesn't allow you to interpret as you want.


The fundamentals of copyright law are not in question here although they are more complicated than you state, what is in question is the technicalities of copyright law which change quite often according to technological advance and case law e.g. betamx. The points in the references could very easily be applied to video.
As to wether I'm interrupting copyright law I'm not I saying until a judge interprets the law its an open question, your the one interpreting copyright law by saying its illegal


----------



## thecoalman (Mar 6, 2006)

r'n'r said:


> and the people getting convicted are being convicted because they were proffiting from thier activities


These are not just people that are profiting:



> According to Beckerman, the RIAA has brought 19,000 cases against private individuals. "You have a multi-billion-dollar cartel suing all sorts of people who have no resources whatsoever to withstand these litigations,"


Take your pick: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&l...2,GGLG:en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=riaa&sa=N&start=0

The one about the dead guy makes for qiuite interesting reading. 



> As to wether I'm interrupting copyright law I'm not I saying until a judge interprets the law its an open question, your the one interpreting copyright law by saying its illegal


I'm not interpreting anything I'm twlling you what it says:



> Copyright is a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States (title 17, U. S. Code) to the authors of "original works of authorship," including literary, dramatic, musical, artistic, and certain other intellectual works. This protection is available to both published and unpublished works. Section 106 of the 1976 Copyright Act generally gives the owner of copyright the exclusive right to do and to authorize others to do the following:
> 
> To reproduce the work in copies or phonorecords;
> 
> ...


There is no exemption listed for DVD, video.... You may be interested in reading the part about fair use listed in section 107

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html


----------



## r'n'r (Nov 9, 2005)

thecoalman said:


> These are not just people that are profiting:
> 
> Take your pick: http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&l...2,GGLG:en&tab=wn&ie=UTF-8&q=riaa&sa=N&start=0
> 
> ...


----------



## thecoalman (Mar 6, 2006)

r'n'r said:


> Would you care to provide a link to where you quoted that from as there is an asterisk by the part about sound recordings that may be of relevance.
> .


Sorry the first part is the first section in Copyright basics: http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wci


----------



## gurutech (Apr 23, 2004)

In my opinion, you have an illegal copy of the movie. 

BUT - If you somehow were able to make your OWN copy of the DVD on your OWN computer (obviously not the laptop, since you have no DVD player/burner), but on another computer with the ability to burn DVD's, then you could make a copy for your own personal use, for backup purposes. And as long as you do not allow others to make copies of your original or your copy, then you should be OK.

But that's just my opinion.


----------



## thecoalman (Mar 6, 2006)

gurutech said:


> then you could make a copy for your own personal use, for backup purposes.


Most of the above back and forth between me and r'n'r is really meaningless because the DMCA prohibits the breaking of the encryption to make the copy which is on nearly every commercial DVD. The legality of the copy has become a moot point because to make the copy you have already broken the law.

Bottom line is even if you were legally entitled to a backup copy you would have to break the law to produce the backup copy.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I think we're done here. TSG does not assist in illegal copying.


----------

