# Is it legal to rip DVDs I own?



## Holly3278 (Jan 29, 2003)

Hey everyone. I own some DVDs. Is it legal to rip them to my computer so I can play them directly from the computer?  I have absolutely no intentions whatsoever of sharing them. I rip my CDs to my computer because from what I understand, that is legal but I don't know about DVDs.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Since you'll have to break the encryption to rip them to your drive, the answer is no, see the DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998 for more info.


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

JohnWill is right. If you know how to do it and don't share them I doubt anybody would kick your door in though. The space they would take would be my main concern. Video is a hard drive hog.


----------



## Holly3278 (Jan 29, 2003)

Oh great. That's a bunch of ****. UGH!


----------



## tdi_veedub (Jan 29, 2004)

Legality depends on the country you live in. I know that in Canada and France you are safe, USA and UK you are not. I don't know about others ...


----------



## Mr Broly (Oct 23, 2004)

who will find out anyways if you backup your dvds onto your computer?


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

tdi_veedub said:


> Legality depends on the country you live in. I know that in Canada and France you are safe, USA and UK you are not. I don't know about others ...


Since his profile says he's in the US...


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

Mr Broly said:


> who will find out anyways if you backup your dvds onto your computer?


There are ways...


----------



## jjb (Dec 9, 2001)

Until recently I was always under the impression that what you are trying to do was legal.................I always thought that as long as you legally purchased the product you could copy for your personal use......................after doing some research I now realize I have been wrong.............
Technically even copying your music CD's to your hard drive is illegal in the U.S, if I now understand the law correctly.
Like was pointed out earlier, I really don't think anyone will break down your door if you are doing it for yourself and you are not distributing it or profiting from it.

I do have to ask though...................in reality what are you trying to accomplish? If you have the ability to rip them then you have a DVD rom/writer....................so other then eating up all that drive space mentioned earlier and saving some wear and tear on your DVDs....................what are you gaining???

jjb


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

jjb said:


> Technically even copying your music CD's to your hard drive is illegal in the U.S, if I now understand the law correctly.


We were having another discussion about this in another thread ("problems copying live CDs") and as far as I can tell ripping CDs to a hard-drive is ok. The problem with DVDs isn't really the copying (which is not prohibited) but the fact that to copy a DVD you need to break copy-protection, which is prohibited, at least thats my understanding.


----------



## jjb (Dec 9, 2001)

*Dugg* I will review the other thread when I have more time. After reviewing the very long and complicated U.S. copyright laws I have to stand by my interpretation of the law.......................and that is that copying any copyrighted material for any purpose and on any media is technically illegal.
This is from the U.S. copyright laws:

106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords

Whether it is music, poetry, movies or pictures transfering it to a hard drive or any other storage device is still a form of reproducing it. I can not find anything in the laws that makes an exception for personal use except it is ok to copy computer software that you own for "archival purposes".

I do believe however that the industry and most copyright holders look the other way when it comes to this practice because they do not want to infringe upon what has become a long standing practice.
The recording industry knows a person is not going to buy a second copy of the same CD just so they have a copy for their car and one for their home. As long as they purchased the original they don't seem to have a problem with a practice of this nature......................and why should I not be able to copy something I have purchased in case of theft, loss or damage???

The list of available devices these days for copying different forms of media is endless....................the entertainment industry does not seem to point their finger heavily at the manufacturers of these devices, and in my opinion that is because they know they can do little about what a person does with a product for their own personal use. It would be as futile as the auto industry trying to say you could not alter a vehicle in any way after you take possession without facing prosecution.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

jjb


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

jjb said:


> *Dugg* I will review the other thread when I have more time. After reviewing the very long and complicated U.S. copyright laws I have to stand by my interpretation of the law.......................and that is that copying any copyrighted material for any purpose and on any media is technically illegal.


You must have skipped a little section called *FAIR USE* 
Or maybe I've been comitting copyright infringement all these years of reading books out loud.


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

brendandohu said:


> Or maybe I've been comitting copyright infringement all these years of reading books out loud.


Well there is a first for everything  Especially in the US where they sue for pretty much anything these days


----------



## jjb (Dec 9, 2001)

*brendan*I will review the statutes further. I would consider personal use without any further gain a fair use and I believe that to be reasonable. I hope you are correct because as I stated, until recently I always thought that was the case................as am sure most people do.

But now........................as far as all this reading out of books out loud they have forced upon you in your 15 years..........................that would hardly qualify as copying, now would it????? But you do bring up a very good point of argument................the brain is a media storage device among other things.................so if you retain anything to memory that you see, read or hear..................is that copyright infringement 

jjb


----------



## Deathblow (Oct 7, 2003)

Yes, and we want you to destroy all your memory now. I can recommend several good drinks for this.


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

jjb, have a look at the Audio Home recording act and RIAA v Diamond ( the latter is specific to mp3 and hard-drive)


----------



## jjb (Dec 9, 2001)

brendandonhu said:


> You must have skipped a little section called *FAIR USE*
> Or maybe I've been comitting copyright infringement all these years of reading books out loud.


The topic of copyrights and how the law is interpreted in various recent threads here has intrigued me and I have to admit in the past week or some of my thoughts and beliefs on the subject have changed several times. Most notably my beliefs on what is legal or acceptable for personal use has gone from believing it is ok, to it is not ok, to my belief now that in most cases it is ok and it seems most court rulings have ruled in favor of that. It is however still a very grey area of the copyright laws and one that has yet(and maybe never will) to be completely resolved. After reviewing information here and from other sources I have formed my own opinion that making a copy for your personal use of something you have purchased in most cases would not be considered infringement. I do believe though that however minimal they may be, there are still certain risks involved. It appears to me that a claim of infringement has to come from the copyright holder or their designees. Just as it is here, no ones interpretation of the law seems to be the same so it is thrown in the laps of the courts to decide. The courts then weigh such factors as if it was intentional, if it falls under fair use, or if there was profit or distribution. We can argue individual interpretation here until we are blue in the face, but the truth is that until either language is added to the copyright laws or the section on fair use that specifically addresses copying for personal use it will continue to be a grey area that is decided on a case by case basis. I have yet to find language that specifically talks about personal use, court cases that support it yes, but nothing specific in the U.S. codes.

*brendandonhu* upon reading your post I knew I had not "skipped" over the fair use section, however I did review it and attempt to research it further thinking perhaps I had missed something. Below is the section I believe you are referring to. Please feel free to point out to me where you believe this section applies to copying in the areas of personal use we have been discussing.

_107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include 
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; 
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work; 
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and 
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. 
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. 
_

Below are some of the links I found some of my information at. The first link addresses the "fair use" issue and many other internet related copyright issues. I also found some information that was new to me and I found very interesting in regards to the use of "links" which is a common practice at this website. It seems that at times and under certain circumstances even the use of web links can be considered copyright infringement.
This is the opening quote on that discussion


> Might it be a violation just to link to a web page? That's not a myth, it's undecided, but I have written some discussion of linking rights issues.


I just found it highly interesting and ironic that P2P is not condoned here because of legality issues and then finding out there are also legality issues regarding linking which is common practice here. The information at that site seems to be up to date so I am assuming the linking issue has not been completely resolved either.

Hope I am not breaking the law  

In any case, it makes for interesting reading.

jjb

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html#dmca 
http://www.whatiscopyright.org/
http://fairuse.stanford.edu/


----------



## jjb (Dec 9, 2001)

I have to correct myself in my previous post on information I provided on hyperlinks and the possibility of copyright infringement. The article I qouted is a somewhat old article that was revised in 2004. I thought the information was more current but it seems the info on hyperlinks is an issue that has been pretty much resolved thru the years. My apologies for that  

I still find it interesting that the use of links was also a controversey of copyright infringement. 

Ohhhhhhhh well, I eat some crow, now let the debate rage on  

jjb


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

Hi,

To answer the question about fair use, I would imagine that the 1st and 4th points would relate to copying a CD for personal use, because it is non-commercial, and not likely to have a detrimental effect on the industry. It was this that won the Betamax case for Sony (Sony Corp. v. Universal Studios) which allowed "time-shifting" of copy-righted material.

However, another important statute in this regard is Audio Home Recording Act (AHRA) of 1992, which sets out the rules for copying, and in section 1008 states



> "No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings."


According to the relevant senate report



> "[t]he purpose of[the Act] is to
> ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio
> recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncom-
> mercial use."


Now, an interesting thing I discovered is that this does *not* apply to computer hard-drives, or CD-R, since these are general purpose devices rather than a "digital audio recording device". In other words, if you copy a CD on s stand-alone CD-copier then, providing it is for non-commercial use, then you are safe under the AHRA. No question. If, on the other hand, you copy a CD on you computer, then the AHRA does not apply. This is why SCMS appied to stand alone copiers, but not to CD-R (SCMS has to be added to all non-commercial use covered in the AHRA)

However, the decision which stated that hard-drives and computers are not covered under the AHRA, (Recording Industry ***'n of America v. Diamond Multimedia Systems, Inc), accepted that the MP3 player was able to operate without SCMS, because although it wasn't covered by the AHRA



> In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with
> the Act's main purpose -- the facilitation of personal use... The
> Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C.
> S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by con-
> ...


In other words, hard-drives, are not officially covered by the ARHA, so do not need to include SCMS in any copies they make, but due to the purpose of the ARHA, as indicated by the Senate report, copying using hard-drives is protected under the ARHA.

(I think I've got this right, although I am open to corrections, its all very confusing)


----------



## Space Cowboy (Apr 19, 2005)

What about this aspect? 

My VCR broke and I have oh maybe 2 dozen store bought movies on tape.

Some I bought on Ebay cause they are out of print.

Can I take them somewhere and have them put on DVD's?

I'd hate to have to buy a VCR for 20 tapes or so.  

Thanks
Cowboy


----------



## Deathblow (Oct 7, 2003)

Don't see why not, especially if you destroy the tapes when your done.


----------



## improverects (May 12, 2005)

Holly3278 said:


> Hey everyone. I own some DVDs. Is it legal to rip them to my computer so I can play them directly from the computer?  I have absolutely no intentions whatsoever of sharing them. I rip my CDs to my computer because from what I understand, that is legal but I don't know about DVDs.





> do I quote dubidubido IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII|??????


 I can't find it...where is it?


----------



## jjb (Dec 9, 2001)

> Can I take them somewhere and have them put on DVD's?


*Space Cowboy-*I myself doubt if you will find a reputable business that will perform this task for you. I believe it would be similar to posts I have seen here where as an example someone takes a school or wedding photo of a relative to have it enlarged or copied to a photo processer. They generally will not do it because the photos contain the copyright of the photographer. I don't see where the difference would be with copyrighted vcr tapes.
You could however purchase a combo vcr/dvd recorder or perhaps know of a friend or relative that has one.

jjb


----------



## Skivvywaver (Mar 18, 2001)

I have apps that will do anything I want done, I will not mention them because it is against the forum rules. These apps are sold in the USA but the legality of them makes me wonder??

I "can" rip a protected DVD which is why I wonder about the legality? I figure if they sell the software to do this there has to be a legal line they haven't crossed. This whole subject is sticky.

Crazy world we live in, you can buy the software but you can't use it.  Shakes head, walks away.


----------



## jjb (Dec 9, 2001)

*dugg-* Thanks for the input and the info. I agree, it is all *VERY* confusing  
In all honesty, if a person did unknowingly commit copyright infringement I think their best defense may be to gather as much of the information that has been discussed here, lay it before the judge and simply ask, " what average person can really be expected to make heads or tails of this mess"?
The laws of the country you reside in, the laws of the country of origin, treaties, conventions, court decisions...................my goodness. Like that Stossel guy from 20/20 says, "give me a break".

As far as the fair use defense, well, from the things I have read that is one of the most misunderstood and misused laws of all. People look for loopholes in the laws all the time and it is apparent the laws are interpreted differently by everyone. Personally, I don't believe brendandonhu's interpretation of fair use or the 1st and 4th points of fair use from my earlier post apply at all.

This excerpt is from the 2nd link I posted earlier.

_Fair use or fair practice is utilization of a portion of a copyrighted work "as is" for purposes of *parody, news reporting, research and education* about such copyrighted work without the permission of the author. Use of copyrighted works, or portions thereof, for any other purpose is not deemed fair use , so be careful! _

Note that it is specific to 4 areas of use and those areas are highlighted in bold and it goes on to say *any other purpose is not deemed fair use*

Now wouldn't it clear a lot of things up if they would simply add a line to the fair use section that read something like...........................
The use or reproduction of legally obtained copyrighted works, or portions thereof, used for non commercial personal use shall also be deemed fair use.

jjb


----------



## jjb (Dec 9, 2001)

> I figure if they sell the software to do this there has to be a legal line they haven't crossed.


In that case I believe the DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998 that John Will mentioned and gave the link to earlier would apply.

Yes, crazy world we live in. Spend millions to protect your product only to have others spend millions to find a way around your protection..........................and I think a good point to make is that as long as there is a market to obtain products for free that were not intended to be free it will continue to be profitable for those seeking ways around the protections. 
Sad truth of this is that in the end the consumer pays in higher prices to make up what the company feels it has lost. Not to mention the fact that all the legal fees that are spent to protect their interests are also passed on to the consumer  

jjb


----------



## dugq (Jul 16, 2004)

jjb said:


> *dugg-* Thanks for the input and the info. I agree, it is all *VERY* confusing
> In all honesty, if a person did unknowingly commit copyright infringement I think their best defense may be to gather as much of the information that has been discussed here, lay it before the judge and simply ask, " what average person can really be expected to make heads or tails of this mess"?
> The laws of the country you reside in, the laws of the country of origin, treaties, conventions, court decisions...................my goodness. Like that Stossel guy from 20/20 says, "give me a break".


I can't be certain, but I think that in cases of copyright infringement there is a defence much like this one, unlike other areas of law where ignorance of the law is no excuse. I remember coming across it when I was researching the other posts, but I can't be bothered looking for it now, I've had enough of researching copyright



jjb said:


> As far as the fair use defense, well, from the things I have read that is one of the most misunderstood and misused laws of all. People look for loopholes in the laws all the time and it is apparent the laws are interpreted differently by everyone. Personally, I don't believe brendandonhu's interpretation of fair use or the 1st and 4th points of fair use from my earlier post apply at all.
> 
> This excerpt is from the 2nd link I posted earlier.
> 
> ...


I think if you look at the courts rulings on fair use , the "copying is ok" argument is valid. Acts of Congress are only one part of the law, another are the precedents set by the interpretation of those laws by the courts. Effectively, an act means whatever the court says it means. 
As for a law which cleared everything up, I think that was what the AHRA was meant to do, unfortunately, it was meant to deal with DAT recorders, which were the big scare at the time (much like P2P is now, or Video was in the 80's). Technology has moved on and the language of the AHRA, which specifically does not apply to any computer copying, is mostly irrelevant.


----------



## sudo (May 12, 2005)

brendandonhu said:


> You must have skipped a little section called *FAIR USE*
> *Or maybe I've been comitting copyright infringement all these years of reading books out loud.[/*QUOTE]
> thats funny


----------



## jjb (Dec 9, 2001)

> I've had enough of researching copyright


 :up: I couldn't agree more 

jjb


----------



## Chelsey (Jun 12, 2005)

I find it hard to believe that even our (US) government would make it illegal to rip cds considering you need to do so in order to put that music on your mp3 player. Especially when such huge, reputable companies such as apple provide software to perform this function. I have always been told (though I haven't actually tortured myself by reading the legislation) that making copies of music cds for that you own for your won personal use is perfectly legal. I hope this is true and assume it to be.


----------



## brendandonhu (Jul 8, 2002)

It is, provided you don't circumvent copyright protection to do so.


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

The whole reason that the music industry is madly trying to come up with some copy protection scheme for CD's is to get them under the umbrella of the DMCA of 1998, since then you'll have to break the copy protection to make a copy. As others have stated, there's no question the encryption of current DVD's is weak, it's the law behind it that gives it teeth. The currently envisoned copy protection schemes for CD's has already been broken, however it'll accomplish it's basic goal of making any copying of CD's illegal, at least in the US.


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

off topic but whats so funny is that on the right where the ads are, it's showing links to DVD copying software lol


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

Well, I don't see the ads, so it's a moot point for me.


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

lol


----------



## CouchMaster (May 26, 2003)

Tidus4Yuna said:


> off topic but whats so funny is that on the right where the ads are, it's showing links to DVD copying software lol


Here it is...


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

lol and teh top one is - copy PS2 games!!! lol


----------



## CouchMaster (May 26, 2003)

Yeah, this happens all of the time. The other day I was 'debating' about (for) bittorrent while the mods were saying that its against policy, and all of the while bittorrent ads were showing on the side...


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

I think Mike (Techguy) needs to have a word with Googleads. It's hard to try and tell people what not legal and they (googleads) plaster programs that help people show what to get to do those illegal things...


----------



## CouchMaster (May 26, 2003)

That was the point I was trying to make - they argue so hard against something while advertising for it at the same time.
They said they didn't really have any control over it.


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

They as in Google ads? surely they can filter out some words...


----------



## CouchMaster (May 26, 2003)

Tidus4Yuna said:


> They as in Google ads? surely they can filter out some words...


Yep, they as in Google Ads. Actually my experience was about 6 months ago and TSG might be able to do that now. It is just ironic as all get out though!


----------



## TechGuy (Feb 12, 1999)

Actually, we can't... Google allows you to filter a particular URL, but there are hundreds of illegal ads. I'm going to be talking to someone from Google on Thursday and will ask, but I'm sure I'll hear the same thing... (our site is too small for them to care much, I think).


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

that's a shame... Hope you do well with them!


----------



## JohnWill (Oct 19, 2002)

I see Mike beat me to it, I was going to tell you what he told me.


----------



## TechGuy (Feb 12, 1999)

> We understand your concern regarding the advertisements on your site.
> 
> All AdWords ads are held to the AdWords Editorial Guidelines
> (https://adwords.google.com/select/guidelines.html) and Terms and Conditions (https://adwords.google.com/select/TranslatedTermsAndConditions.html). I have forwarded your finding to our team of specialists for further investigation. If any of these ads are found to be in violation of any of these policies, we will remove them immediately.
> ...


----------



## HouseMDFan (Jan 10, 2009)

jjb said:


> Until recently I was always under the impression that what you are trying to do was legal.................I always thought that as long as you legally purchased the product you could copy for your personal use......................after doing some research I now realize I have been wrong.............
> Technically even copying your music CD's to your hard drive is illegal in the U.S, if I now understand the law correctly.
> Like was pointed out earlier, I really don't think anyone will break down your door if you are doing it for yourself and you are not distributing it or profiting from it.
> 
> ...


If you are ripping DVDs to your computer, you are then gaining the ability to sinc the software to your iPod or MP3 Player. It's not about having the convenience of having the DVD on your computer, it's so you can watch the DVD anywhere you go, on your iPod/MP3 Player.


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

HouseMDFan said:


> If you are ripping DVDs to your computer, you are then gaining the ability to sinc the software to your iPod or MP3 Player. It's not about having the convenience of having the DVD on your computer, it's so you can watch the DVD anywhere you go, on your iPod/MP3 Player.


i have seen more and more dvds that give you a second disc that has a digital download to be played on a portable device and/or PC. As to ripping, AFAIK is still not legal.


----------



## HouseMDFan (Jan 10, 2009)

That doesnt mean that people arent going to rip DVDs, anyway.

Does iTunes have the rights to the songs and videos they have available for purchase/rent?


----------



## Couriant (Mar 26, 2002)

HouseMDFan said:


> That doesnt mean that people arent going to rip DVDs, anyway.
> 
> Does iTunes have the rights to the songs and videos they have available for purchase/rent?


yes. they pay a percentage to the companies that own it.

when you purchase the media, you will be bound to the 'contract' of iTunes though.


----------



## HouseMDFan (Jan 10, 2009)

What does that mean?


----------



## valis (Sep 24, 2004)

it means it's time to close this one up. Surprised it was still open.

thanks, 

v


----------

