[POLL] In your opinion is it stealing to back up licensed material for personal use?

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: PliotronX
I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe just backing up *unprotected content is stealing, but after skimming through the flamefest in that thread, I think I know why that member had that viewpoint. DVDs, by their standard, are encoded with copy protection (Content Scrambling System) developed collaboratively with Macrovision to deter copying from the source to a device like a VCR (the signal messes with the color gain and whatnot, resulting in unviewable recordings) but it is also encrypted to thwart digital computer copies (you guys probably already know this). Now, under the DMCA, circumventing any copy protection is deemed less-than-legal, and this is probably that person's beef. The DMCA supercedes the fair use doctrine, thanks to heavy lobbying by large corporations. So even if one is backing up, circumventing the CSS protection is illegal under the DMCA, but it is infringement and still not stealing. However, the software called DVD-X-Copy can back up content without circumventing the CSS protection, so it is legal to use it for backing up, and I'm not sure that person understood this. That's how I see it..

We learn nothing it seems. When the 55 MPH speed limit was imposed on the states all that changed was the speed limit signs. The vast majority of the driving public continued to drive at the speeds the interstates were designed for. The Feds grew so frustrated with this they instituted penalties for states that were not vigorously enforcing the 55 MPH limit. Many states discovered there was a nice revenue stream in this and round and round we went with the driving public becoming accustomed to being minor lawbreakers because they ignored a law imposed with little popular support. Prohibition is another good example of a law that was unenforceable because it had no public support and should never have been imposed in the first place.

Fair use was a concept that had been settled in the publics mind in the 1970's with cassette recordings of records. The media companies were not happy about it but there was little they could do at that time. Then along came VCRs and another round of litigating with once again the ultimate winners being the public with the acknowledgment that taping TV shows and movies was not a copyright violation. The fact that the media conglomerates managed to purchase themselves a bill that went under the public radar at the time it was passed does not mean they have a chance in hell of stopping people from transfering copies of music or video from one medium to another. People do not perceive this as stealing and suddenly passing a law saying it is will have no more effect than any other type of law of this nature.

 

[Kadarin]

If it's considered stealing, who are you stealing from? The artist/developer/producer/distributor you paid a fair price for that data?

 

[Lestan]

I really hope RightHere comes to this thread from Hot Deals, so that maybe now we can have a civilized debate. The one thing I would want to remind him of is the difference between personal private property and piracy.

If I buy a DVD burner, the courts generally do not care what I do with it, as long as I keep it private. This is an established precedent. Tape recorders have been legal for half a century, even though it was common knowledge that people recorded radio broadcasts and owned unlicensed versions of music. Today we use different media and medium, but it's still the same concept.

If I use the burner to mass-produce illegal copies of DVDs and sell them to other people, then my private activities cross-over into the public realm, and that's when the law has to step in. The reason RIAA is cracking down on common people now is not because there are music file download programs, it is because there are music file SHARING programs. The law and the industry don't give a damn what we do in privacy, but the minute we start distributing illegal content is when it becomes piracy.

 

[EyeMWing]

Heh, I DO NOT use my original media anymore. Everything is on a backup. Movies, music, games, Windows. I don't restrict myself to a 'single' backup copy either. Oneof my brother's friends dropping a lighter that he 'tweaked' taught me a whole lot about that - I had 3 binders full of melted CDs after I got the flames extinguished.

The first thing I do when I get a new game or movie is drop it in the Lite-On/Pioneer and make a copy. Then I play/watch. Anyone wanting to challenge my rights to do this without using the piece of scrap paper known as the DMCA can feel free to do so. I don't recognize the DMCA as law, because it's totally asinine and, in my opinion, has questionable constitutionality.

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: PliotronX
I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe just backing up *unprotected content is stealing, but after skimming through the flamefest in that thread, I think I know why that member had that viewpoint. DVDs, by their standard, are encoded with copy protection (Content Scrambling System) developed collaboratively with Macrovision to deter copying from the source to a device like a VCR (the signal messes with the color gain and whatnot, resulting in unviewable recordings) but it is also encrypted to thwart digital computer copies (you guys probably already know this). Now, under the DMCA, circumventing any copy protection is deemed less-than-legal, and this is probably that person's beef. The DMCA supercedes the fair use doctrine, thanks to heavy lobbying by large corporations. So even if one is backing up, circumventing the CSS protection is illegal under the DMCA, but it is infringement and still not stealing. However, the software called DVD-X-Copy can back up content without circumventing the CSS protection, so it is legal to use it for backing up, and I'm not sure that person understood this. That's how I see it..

We learn nothing it seems. When the 55 MPH speed limit was imposed on the states all that changed was the speed limit signs. The vast majority of the driving public continued to drive at the speeds the interstates were designed for. The Feds grew so frustrated with this they instituted penalties for states that were not vigorously enforcing the 55 MPH limit. Many states discovered there was a nice revenue stream in this and round and round we went with the driving public becoming accustomed to being minor lawbreakers because they ignored a law imposed with little popular support. Prohibition is another good example of a law that was unenforceable because it had no public support and should never have been imposed in the first place.

Fair use was a concept that had been settled in the publics mind in the 1970's with cassette recordings of records. The media companies were not happy about it but there was little they could do at that time. Then along came VCRs and another round of litigating with once again the ultimate winners being the public with the acknowledgment that taping TV shows and movies was not a copyright violation. The fact that the media conglomerates managed to purchase themselves a bill that went under the public radar at the time it was passed does not mean they have a chance in hell of stopping people from transfering copies of music or video from one medium to another. People do not perceive this as stealing and suddenly passing a law saying it is will have no more effect than any other type of law of this nature.

Well said. I think you captured the spirit of our argument. Is it really a law if no one obeys it or enforces it?

 

[Apathetic]

It is absolutely NOT stealing. You payed for it, you are allowed to make a backup copy of any material so long as you only use one of them at a time.

Dave

 

[The Sauce]

Hmm...Righthere has not chimed in yet. I even PM'ed him to let him know I was moving the discussion. Probably feels outnumbered.

 

[RightHere]

The 115+ of you that have stated that this is not immoral really sicken me.

The question you asked in the poll is biased in your favor. It's like asking the following question: "Do you think it's wrong to kill someone when they aren't even trying to defend themselves?" and then leading the news with the story "100% of Americans polled today do not support the death penalty".

This boils down to two basic issues: licensing and "fair use". Per the discussion in the other thread, most software includes some specific provisions for backup copies. So you never actually purchase the data as your poll states. You only purchase a limited license that allows you to use it. However, the primary topic under discussion was "backup" (wink wink) of DVD movies. You can claim it's a fair use issue if you want, but I don't believe this issue has been entirely settled yet wrt DVD's. Because it requires a DVD decryption program to make this possible, and the courts have ruled this software to be illegal and/or in violation of various copyrights, you likely will NOT see a "fair use" provision for backup of DVD media.

As for people that refer to me as an "idiot", you should go review the law. US Copyright Law on some of these topics was originally set in 1974.

PliotronX - thank you. I would argue that a copyright violation is indeed the same as stealing. The people responsible for the content are not being compensated. The articles I read about the dvdxcopy lawsuit seemed to lump them into the same bucket as the DeCSS folks.

Linflas - UNDER the public radar? As I recall, it was *huge* news at the time. And I don't just mean on the net...I mean tv and newspaper too.

 

[RightHere]

Originally posted by: Lestan
I really hope RightHere comes to this thread from Hot Deals, so that maybe now we can have a civilized debate. The one thing I would want to remind him of is the difference between personal private property and piracy.

If I buy a DVD burner, the courts generally do not care what I do with it, as long as I keep it private. This is an established precedent. Tape recorders have been legal for half a century, even though it was common knowledge that people recorded radio broadcasts and owned unlicensed versions of music. Today we use different media and medium, but it's still the same concept.

See my latest post regarding fair use and licensing. It's important to define what we're discussing here. The topic was someone making "backup" copies of movies and loaning them to friends. That crosses the line.

If I use the burner to mass-produce illegal copies of DVDs and sell them to other people, then my private activities cross-over into the public realm, and that's when the law has to step in. The reason RIAA is cracking down on common people now is not because there are music file download programs, it is because there are music file SHARING programs. The law and the industry don't give a damn what we do in privacy, but the minute we start distributing illegal content is when it becomes piracy.

That's not quite true actually. Industry cares a LOT about what we do in private. Some companies don't want users to have the ability to make any sorts of copies of their media at all.

 

[RightHere]

Originally posted by: EyeMWing
The first thing I do when I get a new game or movie is drop it in the Lite-On/Pioneer and make a copy. Then I play/watch. Anyone wanting to challenge my rights to do this without using the piece of scrap paper known as the DMCA can feel free to do so. I don't recognize the DMCA as law, because it's totally asinine and, in my opinion, has questionable constitutionality.

So any law that you don't like you just break then? Why bother creating laws then? Let's go back to living in caves. Survival of the fittest.

As suggested in the earlier thread: Work to change the law if you don't like it or get out of the country.

 

[RightHere]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Well said. I think you captured the spirit of our argument. Is it really a law if no one obeys it or enforces it?

I obey it. The vast majority of Americans obey it. The movie/music industry is making sure that it is enforced.

 

[RightHere]

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Hmm...Righthere has not chimed in yet. I even PM'ed him to let him know I was moving the discussion. Probably feels outnumbered.

I don't mind being outnumbered, especially when I'm right. I just didn't have a chance to get over here earlier.

 

[Hossenfeffer]

There's no way in hell that I consider backing up my cd's (dvd's eventually) stealing. My backups don't find their way into anyone elses hands. A second backup doesn't get made unless the first one is damaged beyond repair. They go to my portable cd player that I take with me in the car. If I pay for the thing, I'm going to want to protect that investment. If I've made a copy and have it playing in two places, yeah, it would be stealing in my eyes.

If there is an implied "expiration date" on cd's/dvd's, then that had better come to light and be an open part of the pricing structure. I'm confident that the laws will continue to allow the "Fair Use" even given the issue of CSS copy protection.

All that being said, RightHere's pretty much right on the money.

 

[ReiAyanami]

*this thread has been reported to the RIAA.

You are all terrorist be.

Make your time.

:Q

 

[LeStEr]

Originally posted by: Amused
So long as you do not distribute it among your friends or sell it, I say it's morally fine.

 

[ReiAyanami]

So wait, let me get this straight.

Making files available for download (you are the uploader) is illegal. From what I've read, dowloading the files is not, only uploading them is.

1) RIAA claims to be going after people who are uploading.

2) BUT then RIAA would have to be the one downloading, but the RIAA holds the copyright (as a representative body) and therefore have the right to download the copyrighted file in question, just as anybody who had bought a CD would have the right to download under fair use terms. Hence if the RIAA downloads a file they have copyright access to, technically no law was broken.

3) However, RIAA doesn't actually even download files, mostly just grabbing MP3 lists (off *kazaa lite* for bonus irony) which means the files themselves have not been verified.

3b) In theory, the "uploader" could have just a bunch of dummy files, the exact same tactic the RIAA uses to flood Kazaa with dummy files, hence with just a list they cannot prove the Uploader had copyrighted files, just files with those names. (on top of that, whose to say the uploader does not have a legitimate copy of each CD corresponding to their MP3 collection)

4) And what about multi-occupant housing who share broadband? A 3 college roomates sharing an apt, how can the RIAA prove specifically which one of them did it? You can't throw a person in jail for murder if there's a 2/3rds chance they didn't do it.

But hey, the RIAA paid well for their congressmen, so they can do anything they want.
All your civil liberties are belong to us.

 

[ReiAyanami]

not even their own artists can sell their own music....

 

[tcsenter]

Of course its not 'stealing', since you own use rights. It can be copyright infringement, but not of a nature that would deprive the holder of money since you have already purchased the rights to use it.

Hell, I don't even lose any sleep because I borrowed some CDs and copied them, which I also used to own but they were stolen out of my car. I'm not buying them twice when the choice to part with them was not mine.

Otherwise, I don't help myself to things that don't belong to me. I don't go to work for free, I don't know how it is that people can rationalize in their own selfish minds that other people should be made to work for nothing.

 

[The Sauce]

I have edited the title of the thread to acknowledge Justright's reasonable protest about licensing.

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: RightHere

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Well said. I think you captured the spirit of our argument. Is it really a law if no one obeys it or enforces it?

I obey it. The vast majority of Americans obey it. The movie/music industry is making sure that it is enforced.

This is the argument you are failing to make, IMO. As you can see there is a virtual concensus (almost unhead of on AT) regarding people's perception about the eticality of making personal backups. The industry would like us to think that we are buying a "license," but clearly they have failed to do so. Most people still perceive of the transaction as having "purchased" a cd/dvd. Most people obey it, but only because most people are not tech saavy enough to know how to make copies, or do not feel the need to have a backup copy - not because of the "law." As this poll has proven, if you ask most people whether they need to obey it (morally), the answer is overwhelmingly, no! And a law which does not conform to the beliefs of 98+% (current poll results) of the population is not a law - in the societal sense.

Clearly you are in that <1% who believes in the law and/or is served by it in some way. Notwithstanding the media giants and the 1% outliers we, as a society, are collectively saying "no way." And that, is the real law.

 

[her209]

the riaa can suck my ballsack

 

[aircooled]

If, when buying music, you are buying the right to Intellectual Property, then the media it's delivered on is of no consequence.

 

[thawolfman]

Hellz nah y0.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

RightHere, you and people like you are, seemingly, brainwashed by a socio-economic system which puts profit above anything else.

The philosophy you are using is the perfect embodiment of Marshall McLuhan's "The Media Is The Message" concept, taken to extreme by postmodern capitalists, who see everything as a product - i.e. films are considered a product, like furniture.

Well, I got news for you. Films are also ART. And so is music. Art is more than a product. Art needs to be disseminated among the masses, because the masses need culture and education. And these things, my friend, should always be free and accessible by everyone.

These laws you frantically defend are crooked and in any case (like the DMCA,) resumed to your country's political system, and are a by-product of the industry lobbying the politicians. You ever hang a reproduction of a painting on your wall? If the artist is still alive, you are, actually, breaching copyright. If your dog eats the cover of a CD, and you want to photocopy the cover from a friend, the people at Kinko's will give you hell, because you're violating copyright. As absurd at it seems, that's the case. So why is backing up a DVD or CD any "more" illegal? If you have a rare book, out of print and very expensive, do you still read it, or prefer to make a copy and read it instead? These "degrees" of law applicability are just as morally vague and disgusting as the practices they pretend to fight against.

And remember one more thing: the argument according to which "artists lose money and are not encoraged to produce anymore" is a fallacy. In the States, movies cover their expenses and make nice profits during the theatrical run. There are very few cases when they don't break even, at least, and that's extreme (when they are really crappy). Home video is a mere afterthought, and it's pure profit, icing on the cake. It's Europe and the rest of the world who should be worried about not making enough profits, and yet these countries are not adopting laws as stupid as the DMCA.

*edit* DeCSS was a response to DVD copy protection's inability to work on Linux, open-source and freeware - which, in the end, amounts to a nice case of double-standards, when competition and creativity are stifled by big money. I'm sure Microsoft was very happy with the whole affair.

 

[RightHere]

Originally posted by: Snatchface

Originally posted by: RightHere

Originally posted by: Snatchface
Well said. I think you captured the spirit of our argument. Is it really a law if no one obeys it or enforces it?

I obey it. The vast majority of Americans obey it. The movie/music industry is making sure that it is enforced.

This is the argument you are failing to make, IMO. As you can see there is a virtual concensus (almost unhead of on AT) regarding people's perception about the eticality of making personal backups.

How am I failing to make this argument? *I* obey the law. Others here agree that making "backup" (wink wink) copies of DVD's is illegal. There are numerous people on the thread that have supported my arguments. Of COURSE this poll is gonna go the way it did!!! You knew it when you posted it. People are commenting on CD's. My beef is on DVD's. Fair use does indeed seem to cover CD's, though that hasn't stopped record companies from trying to come out w/ better copy protection schemes.

The industry would like us to think that we are buying a "license," but clearly they have failed to do so. Most people still perceive of the transaction as having "purchased" a cd/dvd.

Let's keep this on DVD's. There is a huge difference. Also, ignorance of the law is no excuse. All DVD's have detailed warnings right at the start of them.

Most people obey it, but only because most people are not tech saavy enough to know how to make copies, or do not feel the need to have a backup copy - not because of the "law."

AH HA!!! So you ADMIT that most people obey it!! Sounds like I have indeed gotten through to you.

As this poll has proven, if you ask most people whether they need to obey it (morally), the answer is overwhelmingly, no! And a law which does not conform to the beliefs of 98+% (current poll results) of the population is not a law - in the societal sense.

I don't know where you get this BS from. There is no such thing as a "law in the societal sense". There's a federal law preventing copyright infringement. This poll doesn't prove jack squat. Less than one tenth of one percent of the people on AT have voiced their opinion. That hardly constitutes a wide cross section of society. A bunch of geeks on an internet site are opposed to laws preventing them from copying things they think they should own or already do own. You'd see similar numbers (but not as big of a landslide) if you just asked if they thought downloading movies/music from the net is stealing.

Clearly you are in that <1% who believes in the law and/or is served by it in some way. Notwithstanding the media giants and the 1% outliers we, as a society, are collectively saying "no way." And that, is the real law.

Yeah, that's a great quote for a speech. But it is meaningless. You don't like the law, so you're going to break it. Fine. You're just as bad as a drug dealer or a murderer then. They often don't see what's wrong with their crimes either.

Don't take AT down with you.