Is this a pirate site?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

You just noticed?

Some are quicker studies than others.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

It certainly is in the US.

Is that actually a legal ruling by a court, or is US copyright law sufficient clear on the matter as to leave no possible doubt?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Is that actually a legal ruling by a court, or is US copyright law sufficient clear on the matter as to leave no possible doubt?

I have never seen a ruling that said space/format shifting or backups for personal use were NOT fair use (and it has been ruled fair use before). The RIAA even says that ripping CDs is legal, and they don't admit that anything is legal unless they absolutely have to.

I assume we're talking about personal use, right?

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

...

I assume we're talking about personal use, right?

Which is really a different thing than "Fair Use" which is intended to cover public publication/quoting/usage of copyrighted material.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

I have never seen a ruling that said space/format shifting or backups for personal use were NOT fair use (and it has been ruled fair use before). The RIAA even says that ripping CDs is legal, and they don't admit that anything is legal unless they absolutely have to.

But on the other hand, the judge in the "RealDVD" lawsuit ruled that the "right" to make a personal backup copy of your DVDs didn't exist, so presumably that is equally true for other forms of media?

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Which is really a different thing than "Fair Use" which is intended to cover public publication/quoting/usage of copyrighted material.

No, personal use infringement falls under fair use too.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But on the other hand, the judge in the "RealDVD" lawsuit ruled that the "right" to make a personal backup copy of your DVDs didn't exist, so presumably that is equally true for other forms of media?

That is because in order to make a personal backup of a DVD you have to strip the DRM. It's not a copyright fair use issue, it's a DMCA issue. The same is not true for books.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

That is because in order to make a personal backup of a DVD you have to strip the DRM. It's not a copyright fair use issue, it's a DMCA issue. The same is not true for books.

Sorry, you may perhaps misunderstand me.

RealMedia had argued that people had a legal right to make personal backups of their DVDs, and that right justified the removal of the DRM. The judge ruled that there was no right to make a backup, and that therefore it fell foul of the DMCA. It's the "you don't have a legal right to make a backup" point that I was making.

You are, of course absolutely right in saying that the RealDVD lawsuit was a DMCA issue, not a copyright one, but I've seem people here argue that you have a right to make a backup of a book that you've bought, and the RealDVD ruling appears to throw some doubt on whether such a right exists.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by Shaggy

No, personal use infringement falls under fair use too.

Please provide a link to the section of the Fair Use law that supports your claim.

Please define "Personal Use Infringement" while you are at it.

Thanks.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by HarryT

RealMedia had argued that people had a legal right to make personal backups of their DVDs, and that right justified the removal of the DRM. The judge ruled that there was no right to make a backup, and that therefore it fell foul of the DMCA. It's the "you don't have a legal right to make a backup" point that I was making.

What that means is if you are able to backup copyrighted material without violating any other laws, then you can do so. However, content producers do NOT have to guarantee that you are able to backup their material.

By arguing it as a legal right (which it is not), RealMedia was attempting to justify the DRM removal by saying that the MPAA had to allow people to make backups. Backups are legal, but there is no "right" to make a backup. That's not a contradiction.

As stated previously though, this doesn't apply to books.

[Elfwreck]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Sorry, you may perhaps misunderstand me.

RealMedia had argued that people had a legal right to make personal backups of their DVDs, and that right justified the removal of the DRM. The judge ruled that there was no right to make a backup, and that therefore it fell foul of the DMCA. It's the "you don't have a legal right to make a backup" point that I was making.

I'd have to look up the details. It's very possible that "no right to make a backup" doesn't mean "not really legal to make a backup."

You have no "right" to hide your face from view (barring some religious or odd medical reasons); a store or school can demand a person remove his hat/veil/mask/whatever. However, you have a legal right to wear a hat or veil if it's not specifically forbidden by other conditions.

The right to format-shift might be limited by the DMCA, but it's been upheld (indirectly, possibly) by other rulings. The right to record what's displayed onscreen for free to view later has been upheld, and most people would consider that a bigger change than the right to make a copy of something you purchased.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Elfwreck

I'd have to look up the details. It's very possible that "no right to make a backup" doesn't mean "not really legal to make a backup."

No, it clearly doesn't mean "you're never allowed to make a backup". It means "you can make a backup, unless you'd be breaking some other law (such as the DMCA) by doing so."

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by HarryT

RealMedia had argued that people had a legal right to make personal backups of their DVDs, and that right justified the removal of the DRM. The judge ruled that there was no right to make a backup, and that therefore it fell foul of the DMCA. It's the "you don't have a legal right to make a backup" point that I was making.

You have the right to buy a house. That does not mean anyone is obliged to sell you a house, you cannot sue anyone for not wanting to sell you his house. Yet there is nothing wrong in you buying a house if you can pay what the owner asks.

There are at least these two kinds of rights (I heard the word some time, but I don't remember it... besides, I heard it in Spanish). The rights you have because it's not "wrong" to do it, and the rights you can ask and demand to be fulfilled. The personal copy would be in the first group.

[Harmon]

Originally Posted by HarryT

But that's the big "if", isn't it? Do you have a "right" to format-shift a book? You might like to do it, but is it a right? As you know, it certainly isn't here in the UK.

Yes, in the US you have the right to format-shift a book, from pcopy to ecopy, and from one version of ecopy to another, so long as (1) you own the original version and (2) the shifted version is for your own personal use.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by kennyc

Please provide a link to the section of the Fair Use law that supports your claim.

Please define "Personal Use Infringement" while you are at it.

Copyright law grants the holder exclusive rights to reproduce the work in copies. It says nothing about the use of those copies and whether they are personal/public/commercial/etc.

Something has to allow people to make personal use copies... what exactly did you think it was, if not fair use? Two of the tests for fair use are the purpose and character of the use, and the effect of the use on the potential market.

If you would rather argue that the Audio Home Recording Act is what defines personal use, rather than the Sony/Universal case, then fine. But they're really all branches of the same thing, and stem from successful use of the "fair use" affirmative defense.