• AnyStream is having some DRM issues currently, Netflix is not available in HD for the time being.
    Situations like this will always happen with AnyStream: streaming providers are continuously improving their countermeasures while we try to catch up, it's an ongoing cat-and-mouse game. Please be patient and don't flood our support or forum with requests, we are working on it 24/7 to get it resolved. Thank you.

Is it legal to convert rental/library DVDs into a portable format?

Status
Not open for further replies.
When you "rent" a video you are paying for temporary ownership rights and there-to-for usage rights to that video and all rights that are attributed to that ownership.
Based on what legal precedent, exactly? You wouldn't have the right to sell the DVD, for instance - that's an "ownership right".
And the same rule that lest Blockbuster rent a video to you to take home, or play a full movie in a store
Somehow I don't think so... playing a movie in-store would be illegal without acquiring permission from the copyright holder to screen the film in a public area.
 
Based on what legal precedent, exactly? You wouldn't have the right to sell the DVD, for instance - that's an "ownership right".

Somehow I don't think so... playing a movie in-store would be illegal without acquiring permission from the copyright holder to screen the film in a public area.

It may be illegal to screen a film without permission for a customer to stand there and watch it for the full hour and a half or two, but not to see it for ten to fifteen minutes. That never stopped anyone and as far as I know, no major video rental company has been stung for it yet.

Many Blockbuster's do run them "for their [employees'] personal enjoyment". Most Hollywood Video stores had full and complete videos running at all times. Much the same way that inviting 20 people over to have a film party is still legal. Again, it's all interpretation. Film companies have a tendency to drop suits that they do file when their aware that the person they filed against is willing to fight. So for now there's very little legal precedent for that reason.
 
Prove me wrong!
Contact the FBI and tell them you are copying dvds you own. Let's see what happens............That is the simplest and best solution. Prove your point. :)
Instead of telling me I'm wrong.............prove it!

It depends on WHAT your copying! ;)
 
I see no one is taking me up on the challenge :)
Must not have much faith?

Or, maybe someone did contact them................... and that's why they've not been back?

Oh well. We'll go through this again in a couple months, when someone joins the forums, and won't search before asking the same questions.
 
JVC, I don't see you doing the original research required for such a task. I'm currently undertaking my own study of the Australian "Playstation Case", and I'll be explaining the conclusion of that landmark case in due time (at de-aacs.com) - the major noteworthy points that I've identified so far is that the court determined that Sony had failed to demonstrate that anything in PS2 hardware, or software constituted as a legal T.P.M. (Technological Protection Measure) - citing the so-called legally-restricting purpose of TMP's - which is to prevent unlawful activity, and to protect the legal rights of the right's holder. The High Court therefore concluded that a Modchip installed into a Playstation 2 game console did not circumvent any T.P.M.'s as defined and protected under the Australian copyright act - and once I've concluded studying the case, I'll be able to further explain the implications of the precedent as it relates to "similar technologies" employed in, for instance, DVDs and BDs; and therefore further assess from a spectator's point of view whether or not one would reasonably consider that CSS or AACS legally constitutes a TPM.

As far as the matter is concerned in the USA, well you should investigate this yourself, and produce your detailed results for all to see, that would be very helpful. As far as I can so far tell, the USA is happy to simply label any technology claimed by its creators to be a legally-binding TMP as such, and doesn't (or wouldn't) in court challenge whether or not a technology is a legitimate TPM or not. This distinction is important, as it relates as to whether or not a copyright holder can simply "protect their rights", or if they can impose upon your "ordinary rights". That is to say, for instance, to release on a Nintendo Wii console a game, you must license the product through Nintendo so that it can be digitally signed. However, a Modchip may allow a game, or piece of software to run on that same hardware without being digitally signed - this would mean that someone could release a piece of software, or a game that is not digitally signed ("homebrew" software); and they would not be obligated to pay a licensing fee to do this - and it would not be illegal.

Now the same can be said with Blyray and AACS - it is mandatory to include this on the disc to release it commercially as a Blyray Disc - however, you could legally release a movie without AACS encryption so long as you do not use the Blyray Disc logo or trademark, or any other associated "rights". You would basically be manufacturing a disc that you're claiming is "Blyray compatible" - like the DVD+R format - it couldn't carry the DVD or DVD-R logo, but its designers thought it to be "DVD compatible". The DVD consortium were not able to sue the DVD+R creators! Since they did not breach any of their rights.

To post back purely on-topic - in no situation do you have an inherent legal "right" to copy a movie that is licensed for private home-viewing. Some countries/jurisdictions allow certain explicit "rights", and other's don't. It is incorrect to assume that just because you don't have a legal right this makes it "illegal", and it is also incorrect to assume that just because you have a legal right to do with the format, it doesn't mean it applies on an individual basis - after all the copyright holder has rights that come first.

Copyright is covered under civil law, which means if there is not currently a law making an act illegal, then doing so is probably not illegal until such a law comes into effect; and that law would be considered to take effect "from that point on", and not make previous acts illegal. The USA's laws are pretty clear in making any act of circumventing copy protection illegal, and are the most restrictive of any of their kind anywhere in the world. They also prosecute individual offenses in a way never seen here in Australia.

That is to say, if you (as an Australian) took a trip to Asia and came back with 500 pirated DVDs that you purchased while in Asia, and you're going through Australian customs and they see the movies, they'll say something like "wow, nice collection, these are some great movies!" And you'll be allowed to keep your infringing works. However, if you purchase them online, and they are posted to you, and customs opens them, they'll say "piracy" and will seize/destroy them then and there. If they're in your possession, and you're not offering them for sale then the law doesn't particularly care. If, however, you come back with German bestiality then the DVDs will be seized, as happened to Martin Bryant (well that was before DVD). All I'm saying here is maybe if an American contacts the FBI they will come and take their copies and destroy them (you haven't supplied any evidence though) - but if an Australian contacts the AFP then they'll say "well we only want them if you want to file a report about where you bought them, and they were bought within Australia, otherwise they're not our problem".
 
The burden of proof isn't on my shoulders. It's on the shoulders of the one's that think the law doesn't apply to them, just because they don't want it to. Laws apply to everyone............

I explained that as long as you're not selling the copies, you won't be bothered about it. They don't have the money or manpower to track down everyone doing it, for themselves. I also told how the studios are now allowing a legal copy to be put on a portable device, which is what the OP wanted to do. If you don't do it the legal way, then it's illegal. Plain and simple. "Fair Use" only applies to non-copyrighted material.
 
The burden of proof isn't on my shoulders. It's on the shoulders of the one's that think the law doesn't apply to them, just because they don't want it to. Laws apply to everyone............

I explained that as long as you're not selling the copies, you won't be bothered about it. They don't have the money or manpower to track down everyone doing it, for themselves. I also told how the studios are now allowing a legal copy to be put on a portable device, which is what the OP wanted to do. If you don't do it the legal way, then it's illegal. Plain and simple. "Fair Use" only applies to non-copyrighted material.

I'm been going through the DMCA and it's dozen or so amendments over the weekend and will do my best to post full referenced quotes (and my responses/translations) tomorrow or Wednesday. That should put the issue to rest as it's obvious there are two camps here, the ones like JVC who have obviously never READ the actual text of the DMCA or any of it's title amendments; or any other of the US copyright regulations, and the others who don't care if something is legal or not. Oh, and the poor OP who hasn't gotten the real answer yet.
In the end, some things are legal, some things are not, and I'll post my best (in a new thread and a message to the OP) interpretation (both from a legal standpoint and a user standpoint). And we could put this to rest. And you can do more than JVC may think.
 
I have read it before, but a long time ago............ Your interpretation isn't going to mean much, unless you are a Judge.

If everyone is convinced it's legal to do all this stuff, why are you/they so scared to contact the FBI, and let them know what you're doing? That will put it to rest, once and for all! (But you need to prove you contacted them) You won't contact them because you're scared you'll end up in a jail cell!

If it was legal, the studios wouldn't go to the expense and bother, of creating the extra disc for the new "Digital Copy" thing I mentioned (ad on "Hitman" dvd), so you could legally make a copy for portable devices, which does answer the OP's original question, BTW. If it's already legal, why are they doing this?

Until someone goes to the FBI and says, "I'm breaking copy protection, and making copies of my dvd movies, for my own use!", the subject will not be settled here. No matter how anyone wants to interpret the law, to suit their purposes.

Save yourself a lot of time and aggrevation, trying to research this stuff...............
Doing what I said, will settle it once and for all, very easily and quick! :)
 
"Fair Use" only applies to non-copyrighted material.
What have you been smoking? Fair-Use is irrelevant to non-copyrighted material.
The burden of proof isn't on my shoulders.
Yes it is, you haven't substantiated any of your claims - you seem to "just know".
I explained that as long as you're not selling the copies, you won't be bothered about it. They don't have the money or manpower to track down everyone doing it, for themselves.
That makes sense because copyright laws are civil, not criminal.
I also told how the studios are now allowing a legal copy to be put on a portable device, which is what the OP wanted to do. If you don't do it the legal way, then it's illegal. Plain and simple.
Under Australian law I'm pretty confident that ripping a movie and removing the encryption is not illegal, as I clearly explained there is no precedent that would make me believe otherwise. Of course, I could be wrong. Thus I could say that I'm not certain on exactly what the law means here. Not so "plain and simple".
If it was legal, the studios wouldn't go to the expense and bother, of creating the extra disc for the new "Digital Copy" thing I mentioned (ad on "Hitman" dvd), so you could legally make a copy for portable devices, which does answer the OP's original question, BTW. If it's already legal, why are they doing this?
That's just bad logic. You could say the fact that they print "this disc is sold on the condition that it is not offered for sale or hire outside of [Insert Country Name Here]" means it's illegal to sell/hire the disc overseas - which is not true. Many countries allow grey market imports of movies - France for instance.

And I may not know everything about the US legal system - but how is civil law a matter for the F.B.I.? It's my understanding that the FBI investigates criminal cases only...?
 
What have you been smoking? Fair-Use is irrelevant to non-copyrighted material.
Ok, I typed the wrong word there (non-copyrighted). I meant to type "non-copy protected", such as CDs, etc. But now, they've started putting copy protection on cds. Why? Because it makes them illegal to copy, because you have to bypass or break the copy protection, in order to make the copy. The music companies want you to BUY another copy of that cd, for the car, instead of making a copy of it.

Here is some explanations and links to the info, for all of you to see for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-circumvention
Definitely check out the links to the DMCA stuff............
Enjoy the read.
 
I don't know about legality, but I've only ever burnt DVDs for personal usage. As for rentals, I once hired 15 weeklies from Blockbuster, and the only comment I got from the staff was "planning a fun weekend are you?". In a way, I was helping to pay their employees' paychecks by hiring so much.
 
I should amend my prior reply...

The DMCA and other ridiculously contradictory laws that leave grey areas cause headaches. I view the situation from a moral one.

What is OK to do with a rental or borrowed disc (SD DVD, BD, HD-DVD):

(1) Watch it in your own DVD player
(2) Watch it on your HTPC with with AnyDVD running in the background

What is not OK to do with a rental or borrowed disc (SD DVD, BD, HD-DVD):

(1) Copy it to your HDD
(2) Copy it to a blank disc to view in a standalone
(3) Copy and convert to another format to view on a portable player

The second you copy the original content that you do not own from the source to somewhere else I see it as morally wrong.

Here's what's funny. When discussing legal matters, it's grey enough. But to try to hit it morally is even harder. My rack-mount HTPC doesn't even HAVE an optical drive. That means every_single_movie_I_ rent is transferred to its HD over the network. That HD only has so much space though, you gotta delete a movie to add a movie. So I sleep like a baby.

-W
 
Here's what's funny. When discussing legal matters, it's grey enough. But to try to hit it morally is even harder. My rack-mount HTPC doesn't even HAVE an optical drive. That means every_single_movie_I_ rent is transferred to its HD over the network. That HD only has so much space though, you gotta delete a movie to add a movie. So I sleep like a baby.

-W

You make a valid point in your own specific situation. I won't waste everyone's time by posting my opinion on it, however. :)

And, no, don't try to read my mind because I don't think people really know what my reply would be even if they think they do. :p
 
You make a valid point in your own specific situation. I won't waste everyone's time by posting my opinion on it, however. :)

Ya, because if you did post your opinion, you'd have to lock the thread to get the last word. :p

But seriously, another morally OK / legally no-no is this. When we rent a low budget chick-flick that my wife wants to see, but I don't, I convince her to watch it on the living room TV to save hours on my $350 projection lamp. Only problem is that the DVD player is routed through the VCR A/V inputs. So if you play a factory DVD, the copy protection kicks in and you get the light/dark issues all through the film. The solution is to rip and burn the main movie to an el-cheapo DVD and have her watch it off that. Then throw it away when done.

We could save it you might say?? Remember we're talking about a flick that was a waste of bulb time to begin with - why the hell would I keep it? And yes we do this about 5 times a year - never saved a one - if I had my way we would not have rented it at all - let alone keep it.

-W
 
Last edited:
Question of Fair Use and Rental DVD

Hi All, I have a question to pose for intended fair use, here goes.

I subscribe to Netflix. I often adjust my membership between 1 to 3 movies at a time. I travel a lot for work and such. The only way for Netflix to deliver movies to you is at your current address. With Netflix service you may change your address anytime, but it may take a day or two to update. Planning ahead for a trip this summer I have made backup copies of a few of the animated features I own onto my laptop HDD. I also will bring the current discs I get from Netflix along and drop them in the mail wherever we are when we're done watching. I want to know if you agree (morally or legally or anyway) or disagree that fair use would include transferring a rental DVD movie to my laptop HDD for the duration of our summer trip and returning the disc prior to deleting it from the HDD.

My son and his friends watch the same movies more than once. I buy the movies that are worthy of repeated viewing. I have no interest in keeping DVD copies, I don't watch the same thing repeatedly, they take up too much data space and I just don't want the clutter especially with services like Netflix if I really want to see it again it's simple to get it the next day. Also we are not so addicted to movies that we do nothing else. We will be doing all sorts of activities and I want to have the convenience of having the movies on my laptop available anytime and anywhere while traveling instead of carrying discs around. I understand the risk that generally people may be inclined to not remove the copied content afterwards, but I certainly shall. The other option is to upgrade our monthly Netflix service to a higher level such as four at a time for a month. What do you think? Does this constitute fair use? I am paying for the service of borrowing the DVD now, but not watching the movie now, transferring it to a format that I will be able to watch then delete later.
 
Here is the issue without all the background info.
I want to know if you agree (morally or legally or anyway) or disagree that fair use would include transferring a rental DVD movie to my laptop HDD for the duration of our summer trip and returning the disc prior to deleting it from the HDD.

What do you think? Does this constitute fair use? I am paying for the service of borrowing the DVD now, but not watching the movie now, transferring it to a format that I will be able to watch then delete later.
 
That's not fair use. You can only use the movie as long as you have the disc. If you rent the disc, rip it to your notebook, go on vacation while keeping the disc at home, and after return send the disc back to Netflix plus delete any copy, that would be Fair Use.
 
Here is the issue without all the background info.
There are to parts to this, applying to Netflix, eHit, and other companies that do early returns:

Section 1:
To comply with current laws (where you are going not included, they may have their own laws that are stricter), your rental agreement with ANY video-by-mail company, on a per-disc discussion,

a) starts when your queue says Shipping, or At Home, and

b) ends when they state on your queue or in an e-mail, whichever is first, that they have received it.


So, you can rent the film, make a backup, go on vacation, rip the film., return the film in the mail, and watch the rip, legally, up until they tell you they have received the backup; at which point you are required to delete it.

Section 2:
For services that allow you to mark a disc as returned prior to them receiving it: eHit, Zippy Fast Video, NetFlix (in the case of videos out longer than 5 days, mark as returned and send the next one), BlockBuster (in store exchange of online rentals), et al
You're rental period stops when you tell them you no longer have the disc.

So once you click on whatever link or button that says 'I sent it back' you can no longer keep the rip.

Hope that helps
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top