Do you own a HTPC and rip Bluray? The government likely thinks you are a criminal... - Page 2

Just as a reminder, when you buy a movie, you are not buying the rights to the movie, you are buying the rights to WATCH the movie from the specific media you purchased.

If you actually bought the rights to the movie (you now own the movie), then you could do whatever you wanted with it, but that would be very expensive.

If you buy the rights to watch the movie via the media you purcased (what everyone actually does, far cheaper than trying to buy Star Wars away from Lucas), then you can only watch it from the media you purchased.

At least that is how it is viewed from a legal standpoint. Personally, I make archival backup copies for safe keeping of my movies, which is legal to do. Anyone in the industry will tell you that you must occasionally test your backup to ensure it is still valid, and I do so now and again. I store these archival backups on my HTPC.

..pulled from the original article.

That kinda sounds like it says " You can not make backups of any kind ". So where does the line get drawn? I understand I don't own the rights to the movie but if i payed for the rights to view the movie shouldn't I be able to view it the way I want? Like on my HTPC ....

I don't get why the movie/media industry doesn't see the parallel's in the recording industry in the 90's and 00's. They tried to fight back the digital tide and couldn't, so the resorted to legal battles and suing, which only drove more people to less than legal means to get the music they wanted.

I don't steal content, but when you make things difficult with DRM and lawsuits, you just drive more and more users to illegal methods of obtaining the song or movie they want. I am thoroughly convinced that a majority of Americans want to do the right thing, so long as they aren't told how and when they are allowed to use it.

I think once Hollywood fully gets on board with digital media without DRM (and that includes HDCP) and let's the user decide how to watch it, people will happily purchase content legally. I know I will be one of the first people in line.

ripping movies to server is no different than ripping cds to PC to use on Ipod and other mp3 devices.

the music on that cd is no longer being listened to on its intended media...same for movies...not using the Disc.

Not to be overly political, but legislation like the DMCA, SOPA, Healthcare bill, Stimulus bill, etc are great examples of what happens when lobbyists are the ones who actually write them. Too many Americans don't realize that the people who are writing this stuff are lawyers, activists, and lobbyists who donate to politicians.

Think back to 1996. Nobody was ripping anything. The extent any lawmaker did was copying an article in the library or maybe using two VCRs to copy a tape.

They sure weren't copying CDs. What would a large hard drive have been considered in 1996, 5GB? MP3 wasn't widely known, so anyone copying a CD would have dragged and dropped the wav files (and filled up the entire hard drive in the process).

So when some lobbyist representing "Big Entertainment" wrote the part about not being allowed to circumvent encryption, none of the politicians voting on it would have understood what it meant let alone what the implications of it would be 15 years later. That is assuming they actually read the bill, which many of them have admitted in the last few years that they don't do.

the issue in the Kaliedescape case is whether or not the CSS key (copy protection) that Kaliedescape licensed from the DVD group was valid for the way that they used it.

it had nothing to do with the wider issue of whether or not there is a legal problem between copyright fair use laws and the DMCA's "you can make a back up, but you can't break encryption to do so" provision.

When someone uses Any DVD to copy a movie to their hard drive, it strips away the copy protection. Someone with an htpc but not valid dvd software like Arcsoft or PowerDVD could use open source players to play the video files on the disc once the copy protections are gone.

Kaliedescape copied the copy protection too but the difference was that their networked players had valid decryption keys and were able to play the movies just as if they had put a disc in a dvd player.

The DVD group said that the licensed keys were not to be used in that way (for copied digital content) but for hard copies only (the actual discs).

Yup, if you remember the guy who cracked DVD encryption did it because he wanted a way to watch DVD's on linux. Media companies block people from enjoying media they purchased the way the want and it forces people to get around the protections. If it was up to the media companies we wouldn't be able to enjoy our music on ipod's, iphones, smart phones, etc.

Actually, I believe the free music is mostly gone beacuse of iTunes without DRM and $0.99 downloads. People don't want to break the law when there is a way to get a digical copy for your enjoynment perfectly legally, and at a fair price.

If the MIAA opened its eyes and realized that if they sell movies for $2 per download without DRM, people won't rip DVD's or BD's. But, when you have executives who still think that a computer is some majical box and is fully powered by voodoo, and I don't mean the video card, but the black majic, i.e. they are too old to even understand, and are still thinking in the business terms of 1960's and 1970's, you will get this stifling effect.

I sure would love to pay $2 to get a movie in good quality and legally, rather than download ot from who knows who, and possibly get infected.

Exactly how I feel. If I could download high quality movies & store locally, I'd gladly pay a range of up to $8 for most decent movies, but there are ZERO legal options for doing that. Such a service would be a pretty good return to the seller since the cost of disk manufacturing, transport & retailer markup is eliminated.

What it takes to rip a CD vs. ripping a DVD/Blu-ray is very different. A CD (normally) doesn't employ copy-protection or encryption. A DVD/Blu-ray however does.

That difference is the essence of the legal technicality here because what the law makes illegal is circumventing that copy-protection/breaking that encryption.

Yet, this doesn't have anything to do with this case. The company being sued was found in breach of their CSS licensing agreement. That's it.

Well, let's separate a few concepts here.

First, there are lots of copyrighted things that you OWN, but which you still cant "do with as you please." You can't copy copyrighted works unless a license to do so has been granted to you, or it qualifies as a fair use under the Copyright Act.

Well, the bizarre thing here, is that seems to be pretty well accepted that backing up digital media, and transferring that media to a different form for personal use (such as copying LPs to cassettes as we did in the old days, or ripping CDs to an iPod today) is a fair use. BUT, and this is the big issue, DVDs and BDs are encrypted, and the DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent that encryption, even for copying that would otherwise be a totally legal fair use. (Heck, it's even illegal to circumvent the encryption just to play the disk on a non-HDCP system without any copying at all).

So your backups are illegal NOT because creating a backup violates the Copyright Act, but because in order to create that backup you had to illegally circumvent the encryption. If they weren't encrypted, there wouldn't be a problem.

Oh, and the industry knew exactly what it was doing and exactly that they were creating this backdoor method of restricting the fair use doctrine when they bought and paid for the DMCA.

But, the notion that you're not free to do whatever you want to do with a copyrighted work that you own is hardly a novel concept. For example, does it offend you that you can't legally scan a copy of John Grisham's latest novel that you own and post it on the internet or email it to 500 friends? Does it bother you that if you buy a CD, you still have to pay a licence fee if your band learns the songs and then performs those songs for pay at the local bar? Does it bother you that you can't pay $10 for a DVD and then charge admission to people to come watch the movie? You own the book and the CD and DVD but that doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. You own the physical object of the book or digital media, not the song or the script or the video on that physical media. Just like when you buy a new CPU or a new car, you own the physical CPU or car, but you don't own the design and technology that went into producing that CPU or car. You're not entitled to build copies of it.

EDIT - as others have noted, the Kaleidescape case was NOT about the DMCA. It was a simple contract case. Kaleidescape signed a contract that said how the CSS could be used, that contract explicitly says not only that a physical disk must be in the device, but also apparently states that CSS is “intended to prevent casual users from unauthorized copying of copyrighted materials recorded in [DVDs].” So the contract says that the copy protection is not only directed at commercial piracy, but at preventing "casual users" from making copies. Obviously, none of us (I presume) has a CSS license, so the contract issue is pretty irrelevant to us (except that it prevents us from using new products like Kaleidescape) but we're still stuck with the DMCA problem.

There are some/part of the laws are unethical or immoral. In this case, I should be able to do whatever I want to with the movie I bought inside my house. Copy it, break the disk, bleep it etc. That part of the law is immoral.

Just like If a particular Country by majority vote made a law to discrimate people based on color, sex or Religion doesn't make that law ethical or moral. It is there on the books enacted by legal means. One has the right to disobey it.

This is how I see the so called law of not allowing us to copy the legally bought copies and I don't think my self a criminal. It is the part of the law which is criminal.

I am against piraycy and stealing however I have the right to do whatever I want with my blu-rays in the sanctity of my home.

It is just ridiculous.

Now, we're talking.. Actually it's more complicated than that.


No, it doesn't offend me at all. But there is nothing illegal in me scanning that novel and putting those images on my laptop and reading the "novel" that way. You added "distribution", which would be illegal.


Again..that's about "copying" someone else's copyrighted work and using it for commercial purposes. If you/your band "learned" those songs, and jammed away in your basement all day, there is absolutely nothing illegal in that. The moment you start performing for "non-personal" use....


This is actually quite a grey area. If I had a better than IMAX theater in my basement, and I charged people for enjoying my basement, "while" a movie is playing, is that displaying the movie publicly??


But you should be able to, as long as it stays within "personal use". You paid for it...


And I'm copying the "disc", not the artist. The "video" on the disc is not a property of the artist, it's mine, if I buy it. The "contents" of that video may be the artist's IP, but not the video itself.


Yes, but I'm free to modify/change/break/use that car however I see fit, and legally.


Actually.....that is still a grey area. What will happen to physical objects and IP issues, if (hypothetically speaking) you had a magical 3D printer that could create a clone of a physical object??

Seriously, you see these two things as remotely the same? Seriously?

Where is there anything anywhere in natural law or philosophy or ethics that gives you some "right", moral or otherwise, to do whatever you want with a DVD inside your house? Please explain that one for us.

You bought and you own the disk. You can even sell or rent the disk if you want. But you didn't buy the movie itself. You don't own the screenplay. You don't own the music. You're not entitled to turn it into a play, or open a theater in your barn and exhibit the movie for a fee. You can't learn the songs and perform the music on stage for pay. You can't hire your own actors and director and make a remake of the movie. That is all copyrighted, and that has absolutely nothing to do with your ownership of a physical disk.

You're missing what the "it" is that you bought.

Your first paragraph is largely correct, but I think your conclusion is not correct. At the oral argument before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios v. Grokster, Donald Verrilli, the industry's lawyer (and now the Soliciter General of the United States) stated to the Supreme Court:

"From the moment that device [the iPod] was introduced, it was obvious that there were very significant lawful commercial uses for it. And let me clarify something I think is unclear from the amicus briefs. The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward."

So the problem is not with the ripping it to another format for personal use on another device, and the problem is not that it is not the "intended media". The one and only problem with respect to ripping movies to a server is that they are encrypted and the only way to rip them is to circumvent that encryption, which violates the DMCA. If, like CDs, they weren't encrypted, they would be entirely the same and there wouldn't be a problem.

You didn't mention the one thing that all of this is about... Making a backup of the disc for PERSONAL use. Every other use case is valid...but THIS cannot and should not and must not be illegal. It is my disc, and I should damn well be able to make a copy of it for my own PERSONAL use.

It's not remotely a grey area. If you could clone that CPU, you'd be violating both the copyright on the chip layout design and the patent on the chip.

And no, you don't own the video itself, you own the disk.

Indeed, this gets very sticky with respect to unique, even commissioned, works of art (paintings, sculptures, photographs and the like) because in general when you buy the painting, you buy the physycial work only, and the artist retains all right in the work of art itself. So, for example, you can't go out and sell reproductions of the painting, or use it for commercial purposes, or make a sculpture based on someone else's painting or photograph.

You might want to read this http://www.asopa.com/publications/2000winter/law.htm

I agree completely you SHOULD be able to. But this is entirely a political issue. As long as we keep electing the same morons who pass this stuff and tolerate a system that has become all about campaign contributions, then normal folks like us will continue to get screwed.

Elect better representatives and change the law. That's how the system is supposed to work. But the fact remains that (1) circumventing encryption is today illegal, and (2) there's nothing about "morality" involved in it.

I'm not sure I agree with that conclusion that free music is almost all but gone. Maybe I'm just showing my age, but to me, there are a whole heck of a lot more opportunities for perfectly legal and free music today then there ever has been ever in history. It may not be the format you want it to be, but things like Pandora and Slacker and Spotify and Accuradio and Tune In and 365, and all the rest of the free music streaming sites provide an incredible and virtually limitless array of high-quality free music almost anywhere you happen to be.

There are things like Crackle with movies. Hopefully more of those will develop.

Besides, why should it all be free? Don't the artists and technicians writing and creating all that music and video deserve to get paid for their efforts?



Your PS is almost certainly true. Although I wonder whether one of these days the Govt is going to cut off bank and credit card access to Slysoft and DVDfab the way they did with Megaupload and Wikileaks.

Not true, at least since the early 1970s, people were routinely copying ("ripping" if you will) their records to cassette tapes for playing in their cars and Walkmen portable tape players. Even with the dawn of the CD, people copied their CDs to tapes until CD players became common in cars, and until the iPod/MP3 player was introduced (it wasn't feasible to use a portable CD player while jogging or for most outdoor uses, so you still had to use portable cassette players until the iPod/MP3 took over. The iPod wasn't introduced until the very end of 2001, so it's only been 10 years. There's an 18 year or longer period between introduction of the CD around 1983 and introduction of the iPod in 2001 during which the cassette was still the primary "portable" format. But ripping has commonplace for over 40 years.

There is no difference between ripping a record to cassette and ripping a CD to an MP3.

I never said it should be free . FYI , I pay for a Zune account every month. I was mearly making a "general" point that what you are seeing with video content as it relates to the law has already happened to music a long time ago. Why the shock and awe from people? I wonder if I query all those sites you listed that they are truly 100% free d/l content providers ?

Your point is well taken though !

Well, there is usually minimal advertising, which you can avoid by upgrading to some monthly subscription plan. But I'm not really too bothered by a 30 second ad every 5 songs or so on Pandora.

Hmm. Time to dig out the old SVHS deck. Or better yet:

Sell my HDTV,

Sell the Blu-Ray player,

Sell the HTPC's,

Sell and get rid of all the DVD/BD movies that I purchased over the years and,

Get rid of all AVR equipment and just go back to listening to the radio like folks did back in the 40's.

And oh yeah...anyone remember the Sony CD rootkit fiasco several years ago?


Don't get me wrong, I understand where content creators want to protect their product, I do. If I was to create my own content for DVD/BD distribution, I personally would have no problem for those to make a copy to say, their own server and keep the original in a safe place. Wouldn't even bother putting any restrictive protections on it. But it seems nowadays that copyright and who can do what really kills creativity among other things. So unless you have the brain and money to write, direct and make a film that no peon in Hollywood can ever think of, then virtually we have no right to anything. I really hate that kind of control.

"Control. It's all about control." "The One was never meant to stop anything, its just another system of control"--Neo

If digital media enters my home by legal means in some format or another, what happens to said media while in my possession is nobody's business but my own, as long as I do not make any attempt to distribute it. I sincerely doubt that anyone would ever get prosecuted for making copies of DVDs or Blu-Ray movies as long as it is strictly for personal use, regardless of what the law says.

Not only are AVS users criminals, but by having a very active HTPC forum, AVS itself is also facilitating a criminal act. I mean, if the logic has worked for sites that just link to streams, files, etc and not actually host them, then a how-to site lending assistance on how to rip or watch ripped content surely must also be illegal.

If you recall, the computer software industry at one time had all kinds of crazy copy protection stuff, including things that forced you to put in the disk even after you had installed the software on your hard disk. But Microsoft and the rest of the industry concluded that they could make more money and diminish piracy by dramatically reducing the cost of the software and removing the copy protection. Now in recent years with the growth of the internet, copy protection has come back in the form of registration numbers, but it's still not in a way that really interferes with your use and most companies are pretty good about re-authorizing use when you replace a hard disk or even move the software to a new computer.

It's been interesting that the entertainment history learned nothing from the software industry's experience.

I think he is saying that just because a special interest group is able to get some legislation through, it doesn't make it right or moral. Legislation is not passed by ethics its passed by influence.

Not to mention that the pirates always get around these hurdles anyways. What percent of copies of win7 do you think are legit in China.

I feel bad for the people that invested in Kaleidescape servers, they are the ones paying the big price.