DVD ripping ruled legal in US Court

[baggss]

DVD ripping ruled legal in US Court...sort of...

Kaleidescape Prevails in DVD Ripping Case

Kaleidescape argued, first and foremost, that nothing in the DVD CCA licensing agreement prohibits the development of products that allow users to copy their DVDs. (For the full background, see "Copy Protection Group Sues Kaleidescape.")

Indeed, that's exactly what Judge Leslie C. Nichols ruled today in the non-jury trial at the Downtown Superior Court of Santa Clara in San Jose, Calif.: There was no breach of contract.

As Kaleidescape CEO Michael Malcolm explains, "The DVD CCA went on a fishing expedition for three years, trying to find a breach." In the end, he says, Judge Nichols agreed that "nothing in the agreement prevents you from making copies of DVDs. Nothing requires that a DVD be present during playback."

In essence the judge said it was not illegal to break the CSS protection but did not rule on copyright violations.

 

[Annihilator]

can i make a favour then?

 

[Kash]

Good, this means programs can't be bullied out of the market because of cracking CSS encryption, as was the case with DVD X Copy (which I thought was a very good DVD backup program for the inexperienced user).

 

[trpnmonkey41]

The next paragraph after what you posted says

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.

 

[Kash]

The next paragraph after what you posted says

Because of this ruling, the Judge did not have to get into copyright issues, so the Kaleidescape ruling has no copyright implications. It is not a statement on the legality of ripping DVDs.

If you continue reading the article, the "legality" aspect is in regard to copyright infringement. The simple act of backing up a DVD for personal use is the issue at hand. Since cracking CSS encryption is not considered a crime, companies that produce software that do just that are no longer liable for violating the law.

Specifically, the document indicates that CSS is meant to keep "casual users from making unauthorized copies of DVDs," Malcolm explains. "We would have argued that users are authorized under U.S. law," specifically the doctrine of fair use.

 

[TheCustomer99]

It's one thing if you're copying DVDs to redistribute copies of them (which is already illegal), but it's another if you just want to rip it so you can watch it on your iPod Video. The latter poses no threat, IMHO, and should be legal if it isn't already.

 

[Kash]

It's one thing if you're copying DVDs to redistribute copies of them (which is already illegal), but it's another if you just want to rip it so you can watch it on your iPod Video. The latter poses no threat, IMHO, and should be legal if it isn't already.

The thing is that the actual act of ripping a DVD is not illegal as it falls under fair use. But the companies tried to be sneaky and make it so that breaking the CSS encryption was illegal. So you can do whatever you want in the room, but you couldn't get past the lock on the door.

With this latest ruling, breaking the "lock" is now allowed, which is a big forward leap in fair use. Now more programs like Handbrake and DVD Shrink can show up in the market because developers won't have to worry about legal ramifications.

 

[D3v1L80Y]

Myths about US fair use

Myth 1: “Personal use = fair use”

In the US, not all personal uses are fair use, and some public uses are fair use.
The US Copyright Act lists purposes for which a fair use may be made. These include criticism, comment, news
reporting and research. Unlike the position in Australia, however, the list is not “closed”, so a person can make a
fair use for other purposes. US courts have held the following to be purposes for which a fair use can be made:
parody, recording a television program for “time-shifting” purposes (TiVo), and “intermediate” copying of a computer
program to produce an interoperable product.
Whether or not a use is fair depends on four factors, listed in the US Copyright Act:
•the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit
educational purposes;
•the nature of the copyright work;
•the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyright work as a whole; and
•the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

In particular, note that recording a television program to keep may not be fair use in the US.


Myth 2: “Personal use = free use”

Many countries – including the US – allow private copying, but have levies on recording media and/or equipment
to compensate copyright owners.
Copying music for personal use may in some cases be fair use under US law, but is more likely to be covered by
the home recording provisions. These provisions require the payment of a levy on digital recording media and
equipment, which is paid to copyright owners. In some cases, some personal copying using media or equipment
which is not subject to the levy is allowed: where it is analogue rather than digital, and where it isn’t covered by
the complex definitions in the legislation.


More misconceptions and misinterpretations of "Fair Use"