Legal DVD backup?

[rondocap]

Is it still legal to backup one's DVDs strictly for personal use? (Even encrypted ones?) If so, what program/programs are the most recommended? (I would prefer to use open-source or freeware, if possible.)

 

[Malogato]

Is it still legal to backup one's DVDs strictly for personal use? (Even encrypted ones?) If so, what program/programs are the most recommended? (I would prefer to use open-source or freeware, if possible.)

This is an "age old question" - and.. "The Jury is still out" - depends on who you ask. It's a very grey area.

Some will say that the actual process of backing one up is fine, however, the decrypting is illegal. (Which makes programs such as dvd-copy-x which don't decrypt, and "tag" the video according, closer to legal)

the AHRA and the DMCA differ on the legality.

The MPAA (motion picture associate of america) will have you believe that anything you do is illegal (just like the riaa) but that is because they want you to keep spending money on unreliable, non permanent storage mediums such as cd's and dvd's.

There is even question as to "what" you are actually even 'purchasing' when you buy a cd or dvd. Are you paying for the right to view/listen? Are you paying for a defect free piece of media?

Fair Use also weighs in on this.

My *advice* to you is this.

If you have a large collection of original, store bought DVDs...

Rip them all with something like DVDShrink
burn them to DVD+R
file the originals away in a secure location. - My DVD shelf held over $4,000 worth of movies..

Now it holds about $200-$300 worth of formerly blank media.

When you've done all that.. Don't tell anyone.
Never sell one of your originals
and DEFINATELY don't sell one of your copies.
Don't loan out the copies to friends.
Don't loan out the originals to friends.
Never let a friend watch a copied disk at your house when there is ANY money being changed hands..

 

[rondocap]

When you've done all that.. Don't tell anyone.
Never sell one of your originals
and DEFINATELY don't sell one of your copies.
Don't loan out the copies to friends.
Don't loan out the originals to friends.
Never let a friend watch a copied disk at your house when there is ANY money being changed hands..

And that's when the FBI rushes in!

But seriously, thanks for the response.

A question- I have a DVD that seems to have the audio material in a separate folder than the video when I look at the disc contents within windows. I've never seen an option in a program like DVD shrink that allows me to locate the audio to include it as well.

Am I missing something, or is this a security-like feature to keep the sound out and thus rendering any copies useless?

 

[Malogato]

And that's when the FBI rushes in!

But seriously, thanks for the response.

A question- I have a DVD that seems to have the audio material in a separate folder than the video when I look at the disc contents within windows. I've never seen an option in a program like DVD shrink that allows me to locate the audio to include it as well.

Am I missing something, or is this a security-like feature to keep the sound out and thus rendering any copies useless?

audo_ts
video_ts

--- doesn't matter at all
Just use Dvdshrink. It just takes all of it.. I've never seen it "not" include the audio.

 

[rondocap]

I did try DVD shrink and for some reason it is not taking all of it. Is there an option somewhere? Another DVD worked fine..

 

[svet-am]

Is it still legal to backup one's DVDs strictly for personal use? (Even encrypted ones?) If so, what program/programs are the most recommended? (I would prefer to use open-source or freeware, if possible.)

the letter of the law is quite clear on this, actually (but of course, nothing is that simple). according to the law, an archival backup is protected under American fair use laws (assuming you're an American).

however, the software that one would need to use to make such an archival backup has been ruled to be illegal according to the DMCA. so, while you technically have a right to the backup, you're likely to find yourself in hot water if you actually attempt to exercise said right.

additionally, here's another weird anecdote. so far as i can tell, the "illegality" of using a DVD archival method really only applies when the DVD is protected with some form of CSS or other encryption. if you got a plain jane DVD that had no protection on it whatsoever (i've run into several anime that are like this -- no CSS and no region locking), you should completely within the letter of the law.

i am not a lawyer, so these observations are entirely anecdotal, but i think they're a fairly good summary of what you're likely to find on groklaw.

 

[Tiny]

I did try DVD shrink and for some reason it is not taking all of it. Is there an option somewhere? Another DVD worked fine..

When backing up in SHRINK...look under the compressions tab to see what audio is checked to be included. Maybe for some reason it isn't checked by default.

 

[Sunni_Phono]

How the hell would you get caught doing this anyways?

 

[Tiny]

shhhh....they are watching.

 

[Clockworks]

How the hell would you get caught doing this anyways?

You tell people and people tell on you.

This is too much into the grey for me, I prefer to keep these people from destroying dorm if at all possible.

"Crap, I've said too much. I will be punished" - Some dude from some movie.

 

[mrgstiffler]

I did try DVD shrink and for some reason it is not taking all of it. Is there an option somewhere? Another DVD worked fine..

I've never seen a movie with something in the audio_ts directory. Is it possibly a mixed audio/movie DVD like from a music group?

 

[Ice Czar]

in here discussing legitimate backups is allowed
specifically discussing breaking copy protections isnt
a very fine line, an ap that as a matter of course circumevents copy protections being one thing, getting into the nuts and bolts of DeCSS another


cut and paste
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

correct BUT the context of the DCMA applies only in the USA and has NEVER applied to outside of US soil. So you are stating the obvious As for conflict, it might be but there is no grandfather clause. As soon as the DCMA v. fair use gets put into a court battle. Then we will see. But until that time. the DCMA stands and has not lost a court battle as of yet.

against it? Right the moron politicians that passed this craptacular law.

http://www.aldermanlawoffice.com/321StudiosDVDCopyingProductsViolateDMCA.shtml

Earlier this year, a California federal district court held, in 321 Studios v. Metro Goldwyn Mayer Studios, Inc. et al., that the making and selling of products that permit users to reproduce motion picture DVDs violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”). It is important to note that this case addresses the vicarious liability of manufacturers of copying products, rather than the fair use and other rights of purchasers of DVDs. Under the Copyright Act, legitimate owners of DVDs possess the right to make backup copies and other fair uses of their DVDs; manufacturers and sellers of products that assist these DVD owners in exercising their rights do not themselves possess such rights. Since suing home users is bad business, creators and sellers of copying and related products make safer defendants. Increasingly, then, lawsuits like this one will become the battleground between copyright owners and users, as inventive technology manufacturers produce more products, testing the parameters of the DMCA. Some would say that this decision favors the rights of copyright owners over those of legitimate users, and it remains to be seen whether the Ninth Circuit will affirm this case on appeal.

The standard for liability under the DMCA is whether an entire product or service has only limited commercially significant purposes other than to circumvent. If a single, commercially insignificant portion of either 321 product bypasses CSS, couldn’t the remainder of the product perform the commercially significant functions of, for example, making backup copies of public domain material, allowing fair uses of the DVDs, and/or permitting archival backup copies of legitimately purchased DVDs?[/B]


Section 1201(b) relates to copy control measures. 321 argued that CSS is not a copy control measure, since it controls only access to DVDs, rather than protecting rights of copyright ownership. So if 321’s products only circumvent CSS, section 1201(b)(1) is inapplicable.

The court disagreed: although CSS does control access to encrypted DVDs, the purpose of this access control is to control copying of those DVDs, since encrypted DVDs cannot be copied unless they are accessed. Thus, section 1201(b)(1) does apply.

It is a basic rule of statutory construction that Congress intends to give meaning to all provisions of a law. Thus, the court’s analysis is questionable, since it ignores the DMCA’s distinction between access and copy controls. Indeed, using the court’s logic, every case of access control will also raise copy control issues, since encrypted DVDs cannot be copied unless they are accessed.

321’s next series of arguments raised issues that concern many academics and other legitimate users of copyrighted content. Technological protection, they argue, does not have the flexibility and nuanced measures of protection contained in the fair use and related provisions of the Copyright Act and in negotiated legal agreements. 321 maintained that the primary and intended use of its software was to make copies of DVDs that are in the public domain; to make fair use of protected materials; and to provide single, archival backup copies of movies that a user has already purchased.

The court sidestepped these potential land mines by concluding that any legitimate downstream use by 321’s customers could not be imputed upstream to 321 for purposes of the DMCA. 321, therefore, violated section 1201(b)(1). The statute does not ban the act of circumventing use restrictions, the court reasoned. Rather, it addresses only the trafficking in and marketing of devices primarily designed to bypass use restriction technologies. Congress, in fact, sought to preserve the fair use rights of persons who had legally acquired a work.

Yet it is difficult to square this reasoning with the court’s prior conclusion that the purchase of a DVD does not give the purchaser the authority of the copyright owner to decrypt CSS. When confronted with an encrypted DVD, then, how does one exercise one’s fair use rights?

Moreover, ignoring the italicized language, above, is problematic. This case was decided on summary judgment, yet the court acknowledged that it was impossible to determine the factual question of the primary design of 321’s devices, since neither party produced significant evidence on the issue. Despite that fact, the court squarely held that 321 marketed its software for circumventing CSS, and was therefore in violation of the marketing provisions of sections 1201(a)(2) and (b)(1). That is, the court found that 321’s software was primarily designed and produced to bypass CSS, and marketed to the public for that use. However, if 321’s software were not primarily designed to aid in infringement, but instead created to make legitimate backup copies and permit fair use, would it still be barred by the DMCA?

while there has been finding limiting the development of products to defeat encryption by CSS
the DMCA applicability to infringe the Copyrights Act's provisions for the end user to backup a valid license hasnt been seriously challenged and would very likely not stand
in short if your an American Software company dont bother to develop a product that will do it, but if your an American End User dont worry about the legality, just continue to practice your rights as granted under the Copyright Act.

and if that is ever infringed, vote with your pocket book, the local library is free

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[Malogato]

in here discussing legitimate backups is allowed
specifically discussing breaking copy protections isnt
a very fine line, an ap that as a matter of course circumevents copy protections being one thing, getting into the nuts and bolts of DeCSS another

That's why I'm not discussing how deCSS works.. other than to say it.. well.. de-CSS'es stuff.


[opinion]I'm just saying that.. seperately from the legality of it's use (which is the point of contention) programs such as dvdshrink *are* legal in and of themselves.. but that using them to say, "backup" your netflix subscription is not...[/opinion]


wth is TDS-3?

 

[Ice Czar]

Trojan Defense Suite 3

in its day the best Trojan catcher around, and discontinued in a move that few other companies would have the balls to do

a move of profound integrity IMO

Existing anti-virus scanners improved anti-trojan performance
For a long time anti-virus scanners lagged behind when it came to trojans, but today the leading anti-virus scanners are generally doing as well as, if not better than the anti-trojan scanners, and in many ways even have the upper hand over existing anti-trojan scanners (for example some anti-virus scanners have comprehensive unpacking engines). TDS was initially created because of the poor performance of anti-virus scanners when it came to trojans (in particular remote access trojans), but as they've since 'caught up' the need for anti-trojan scanners is declining.

ProcessGuard has been a cornerstone of my security defense since its introduction
and IMO is the best investment in security software one could make

there is a limited freeware version as well, but the added ability to "lock" process access with the paidware version is well worth the investment