If you own a hard copy is it still illegal to DL a copy?

[TomCray]

Sorry if this is discussed before.

 

I just downloaded a live DVD, I actually own a hard copy of it, but its in storage far away from where I'm at right now.

Then I got in a discussion with my friend saying its still illegal even if you own the real copy. I've always been under the assumption that its fine, I mean I could have easily ripped it and I would have been in the exact same position I'm in right now.

 

So whats the legality behind this?

[satannica]

Technically, I don't believe it is legal, no.

 

But the argument exists and I doubt anyone's going to be coming knocking soon. I've done the same myself for my gym MP3 player. I don't want to install some random shonky software on my PC and then waste a whole evening ripping what I want. I do own (a few times in some cases) anything I download for my mp3 player.

[ZombieCat]

No it is not legal. When you buy a DVD or CD you are actually buying a license to use THAT DVD/CD for personal use. Software can be a bit different according to the EULA.

[slight-return]

In the method you describethat you describe - no,probably not legal

 

"In re : aimster" [334 F.3d 643] Posner explores this question in an advisory capacity and it seems to leverage mainly in the UMG v MP3 in terms of analysis of a "space shifting" defense (which is what we are talking abt here)

The strongest "pro-space-shifting" case is probably RIAA v Diamond (RIO)...and it's one that the other cases try to leverage (but it's a question of how far you can stretch the context - which was addressed in re : Aimster and UMG v MP3

 

As far as license v sale - nterestingly, last year in UMG . Augusto determined the transaction of buying, say, a record or film is sale as opposed to license -- (so you are able to divest yourself of that copy as per first sale doctrine) -- so it's going to be interesting how that plays out in the future in terms of legal positioning via claims of license

That does NOT mean, though you can necessarilly copy it (because you own copy does not mean you own copy right, literally Right of Copy)

 

depending on the type of arrangement(if, for instance, there is a finite period of time, etc), more common in SW, there can be license or sale -- in the case of sale, some EULA terms may simply not be enforceable (as it isn't truly license)

Novell, Inc. v. CPU and Vernor v. Autodesk come to immediate mind, but there are prob others

[chadd]

Case law on this particular point is still not fully determined.

[slight-return]

There's always a chance to throw a fair use defense (which is what you'll be throwing to) which is a case by case affirmative defense, so those can so so often be more a risk assessment (hence probably)

 

but OTOH one of the big ones is context and method (context...which is where the leveraging comes in -- one side is going to be "it's the same as" and the other is going to be "it's different" ) as opposed to just the copying itself

 

- now with "aimster" there is a discussion of this very context (hypothetical case 5 in the text para 6 I think) and relied on the UMG v MP3 grounds that the online copy was unauthorized derivative work

so we'd better be ready to show something substantially different than those (to disarm that riposte) and find some other grounds (it's affirmative after all)

[diablosrising]

What I know for sure is that whether or not it was legal for you to download, it was definitely illegal for the uploader to distribute it, as they have no way to verify that you owned a hard copy. Either way, I wouldn't worry about it. I've never heard of someone getting in trouble for downloading, and if what you say is true you already paid for it. Just my opinion. I'm not a lawyer, nor was that legal advice!

[slight-return]

 

I've never heard of someone getting in trouble for downloading,

 

 

Gonzales

[chadd]

 

There's always a chance to throw a fair use defense (which is what you'll be throwing to) which is a case by case affirmative defense, so those can so so often be more a risk assessment (hence probably) but OTOH one of the big ones is context and method (context...which is where the leveraging comes in -- one side is going to be "it's the same as" and the other is going to be "it's different" ) as opposed to just the copying itself - now with "aimster" there is a discussion of this very context (hypothetical case 5 in the text para 6 I think) and relied on the UMG v MP3 grounds that the online copy was unauthorized derivative work so we'd better be ready to show something substantially different than those (to disarm that riposte) and find some other grounds (it's affirmative after all)

 

There is no harm in this case though as it is obvious that the OP would not have purchased a new copy. The plaintiff would have to have to prove damage and if the OP can produce the original DVD, there really is no case against him.

[slight-return]

 

The plaintiff would have to have to prove damage and if the OP can produce the original DVD, there really is no case against him.

 

 

 

the damages would be about determining remedy , not standing

 

While US copyright tends to be skewed to the financial (much moreso than other countries) it isn't the sole motivator (so called 'moral rights' for instance) nor is it a requirement to prove actual damages (we have, for instance, statutory damages - and do bear in mind that remedy does not have to be financial, it can also be injunctive or compel performance)

Worldwide Church of God v Philly Church of God is an that is not based on financial concerns

 

 

 

while commercial impact is PART of the classic 4 part test for a fair use defense, none of the 4 parts is overarching

[diablosrising]

 

Gonzales

 

 

Can I get a link to this story please? I'm interested.

[slight-return]

Sorry for the misspelling (it's actually with a terminal Z) - such is my gin soaked memory

 

BMG v Gonzolez

 

 

you can find the decision on the 7th cir website [yup, it went to appeal]

 

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/P80JWVTO.pdf

 

I'm sure there are all kinds of popular news stories, but I suggest reading the actual court's opinions -- poor legal reporting, esp on the web, is kind of a pet peeve of mine

 

often the "news report" is really an op-ed piece

a HUGE amt of the time they don't even cite the case

and good deal of the time I suspect the pop-news reporters don't even read the actual court documents

 

Edit : ADDITIONAL : Reviewing A&M v Napster is probably wise too as the court determines that (in that context*) "downloading" is a reproduction infringement [ 17USC106(1) ] and "uploading" is a distribution infringement [ 17USC106(3) ]

 

SECOND EDIT : hey, just checked in and noticed the "tmp" in the link I provided, it's an active site, so the link expires --

 

PDF sourced from the 7th cir in next post

 

*keep in mind that we're talking about a general case here, so it's not a direct comment on the OP rather on "unauthroized downloading" in general and Gonzalez was going for a 'sampling' fair use defense -- so it's an example of "download only", but isn't intended to comment, specifically, on the OP. The aforementioned "aimster" and "mp3" would probably be more relevant to the specifics of the OP's situation - but it builds from and is informed by Napster and Napster is a good read

 

[slight-return]

oh, I was able to upload the PDFs (orig decision and appeal) here

[diablosrising]

Thank you very much, slight. Interesting read.

[slight-return]

hey my pleasure - glad I could be of assistance

[Brad S.]

Very interesting. I never realized that it was illegal to download a 'copy' of a DVD, music, etc., even if you purchased a hard copy. But is it ok to make copies of the work you purchased if you're not intending to 'sell' the item?

[slight-return]

 

Very interesting. I never realized that it was illegal to download a 'copy' of a DVD, music, etc., even if you purchased a hard copy. But is it ok to make copies of the work you purchased if you're not intending to 'sell' the item?

 

 

I'm not clear on the 'sell' part - do you mean distribute (even without cost)?

 

in RIAA v Diamond Multimedia -- "space shifting" to a device such as a personal music player was held to be a valid fair use

[elsongs]

I've wondered about this. I own various LPs purchased in the 80s, and I want those songs on my iPod. I have downloaded MP3s from those records. But I did legally purchased the record, and the label, publishers, artist and anyone else making their money off my purchase have long gotten paid. I'm sure the RIAA will consider this activity illegal regardless, but, hey, I bought the record!

[ak50324]

It's not illegal because YOU'VE ALREADY BOUGHT THE ITEM.

 

If you didn't buy something loaded with DRM, there were NO LICENSING AGREEMENT WHAT SO EVER.

 

.I hate how record companies insist that you NEED to buy your music again on a new format, and that you are simply paying for the "materials/rent fee" when you buy a cd.

[satannica]

lol.

 

So my old and (now useless) VHS needs upgrading to Blu Ray.

 

Can I walk into HMV and demand a severe reduction on account of me buying it 15 years ago on VHS?

 

Don't think so.

[ermghoti II]

 

It's not illegal because YOU'VE ALREADY BOUGHT THE ITEM. If you didn't buy something loaded with DRM, there were NO LICENSING AGREEMENT WHAT SO EVER. .I hate how record companies insist that you NEED to buy your music again on a new format, and that you are simply paying for the "materials/rent fee" when you buy a cd.

 

 

Welcome to Completelywrongland. Population: you.