Copying & Transferring movies you bought now illegal

Raees is gonna have a hard time with his porn collection now.

I rarely download a movie. My biggest sin is the DVR for a later watch. {recording Pride and Prejudice as we speak)
I have a ton of resources to watch movies or programs on my IPAD or phone. I just don't see copying and transferring video to be that big an issue.
Music is another ballgame though.

One thing I really like about Netflix is the ability to watch a streaming movie on many devices and have it pick up from where I stopped watching when I switch. I can watch part of a movie on my flatscreen, switch to my iPad and end up on my phone with no hassle and no searching around for where I was on the last device.

As for the music....there is always Pandora, Iheart radio or Sirrius

Science Chic wrote: Despite the fact that music and movie companies say it is perfectly alright to upload a CD or movie to your computer so you can play it on your iPod or other such device, the US Copyright Office just ruled that that is illegal.

So any guesses as to how many millions of Americans are suddenly criminals? :faint:

United States Copyright Office: Ripping is Illegal
By Michael Weinberg | October 25, 2012
This time around, Public Knowledge requested an exemption that would allow people to rip DVDs they already own in order to transfer the movie to a device that cannot play DVDs (like a tablet).

That request was rejected. Furthermore, the Register and the Librarian explained that they were unconvinced that space shifting was fair use at all. That has huge implications well beyond people who want to watch the movies they own on DVD on their iPad.

“Space Shifting” is what you do any time to take a file and move it from one medium to another. The best known example of this is probably ripping CDs to move the songs on to digital music devices like iPods. If you think it is ridiculous that such activity is illegal, you are right. And the RIAA and the MPAA agree with you.

First, the vast majority of movies are not owned by the purchasers of DVDs. You merely own the the copy of the movie on that DVD. Thus, all you own is that one copy.

Second, motion picture companies do not give you permission to rip your copy onto an Ipod. In fact, they try to get you to purchase a copy through Itunes.

Third, no court has ever held space shifting to be a legal noninfringing use. Time shifting was held to be a private non infringing use since the Supremes were of the opinion that those who recorded a show onto a VCR tape would view it once and then erase it to make space for another show.

Fourth, exemptions are only granted when there would not be harm to the copyright owner. For example, in this same opinion, the Registar allowed an exemption for converting books to audio or movies to captioned movies for the very limited market for the blind or hearing disabled to serve a market currently not being exploited by the copyright owner. In the instance under current discussion, users are wanting to convert their copy purchased for use in one medium or use in another medium without purchasing the copy intended for that medium. The Registar was of the opinion that would have an impact on the copyright owner as they would have sold different copies for distribution in the different mediums, usually at different price points depending on the distribution rights. For example, the DVD rights of distribution are probably sold to a DVD distributor, while the online rights are sold to another distributor. You are cheating the the second distributor to the revenue that have a right to by ripping the DVD to another medium. This is what copyright laws are about.

This would be analogous to claiming that since you bought a book at a hardback price, you then have the right to copy that single copy into paperback, ebooks, and audio formats as well without paying any additional fees (assuming that the technology would enable you to do that inexpensively).

Currently you have the right to make single archival copies of software, and to time shift recorded programs with the expectation that you will view it only once. Beyond that, you need to have a fair use defense from infringement to make copies of copyrighted materials.

If you desire to watch a movie on DVD, then purchase a copy intended for that medium. If you desire to watch that same program on an Ipad, then buy a copy of that version. You are only buying the single copy, not the rights to that movie.

Sounds like this ruling would needlessly burden our courts with millions of misdemeanors.

FredHayek wrote: Sounds like this ruling would needlessly burden our courts with millions of misdemeanors.

It is worth noticing that these burdened courts will be full of burdened citizens, should we not be concerned about them first.

But thanks to digital technology and the fact that nothing is anonymous, these folks will be convicted pretty easily and likely have to pay the courts for their time.

Lawyers will do well with this though.

FredHayek wrote: Sounds like this ruling would needlessly burden our courts with millions of misdemeanors.

No such thing as misdemeanors in civil cases. Under copyright law, infringer are liable for the attorney's fees of the copyright owner.