There is a cd that I have wanted for my collection for some time. And for a long time I was no able to locate it. What I did find was a DVD of the same concert. The sound track as far as I can tell is identical to the CD.
Now that I have bought the DVD, I find that there are times when I want to play the soundtrack on my stereo. More specifically, I don’t want to fire up the computer (which is where I play DVDs) in order to listen to it.
What I wish to know is, is it legal for me to burn the soundtrack to a CD for my own use? It seems reasonable to me given that I have purchased both the video footage and the soundtrack when I bought the DVD. OTOH, this kind of practice is obviously open to a lot of abuse and is exactly the kind of thing that music distributors wish to avoid – which is why they have copyrights in the first place.
A second question – If this soundtrack copying proves to be a legitimate exercise, is there some suitable software available to do the operation?
I’ll let the law types chime in on the legal aspects.
It can be done. I’ve used smartripper and vob2audio together and have ripped the audio track of a DVD into a wav file. You can then use any wav editor to break up the file into separate tracks if you wish.
I am not a lawyer and I cannot speak for any legal technicalities on this matter, but I would figure (and I could be wrong) that if it’s legal to make a tape of a CD or LP so that you can play the tape in your car, (which I believe it is legal), then this should be legal as well.
If it’s just for your own use, (just like playing a tape copied from your CD), then I don’t see what the problem would be. If there is any law that prohibits this, then it’s a sucky, anal law.
It’s one thing to make a lot of copies for other people to have (so they can avoid buying the DVD themselves), but I cannot think of one particle of harm that comes from buying a DVD, keeping that DVD to yourself, but just listening to the music part of it.
Copyright law explicitly allows for individuals to make personal copies of copyrighted material they own for the purposes of “format shifting” or convenience. It’s called Fair Use. So, for example, you could make a copy of a CD so that you could keep one copy at work and one copy at home.
But when DVDs enter the picture, the Digital Millenium Copyright Act comes into play. DVDs are encrypted to prevent piracy. The DMCA declares that therefore any tool that lets you copy that DVD is a circumvention device, and makes it illegal.
The DMCA is beyond sucky and anal – it’s downright nefarious. It takes away your fair use rights in practice by making any means by which you might exercise them illegal.
I think it’s perfectly legal. Joools’s post was informative, but (a) you aren’t trying to copy the DVD, you’re trying to transfer part of it (the audio) to a different format for your own listening convenience and (b) you aren’t trying to deprive the copyright owner of rightful profits or allow anyone else to do so. You have paid the market price for the right to enjoy the work. Making it easier for you yourself to enjoy part of that work is not a copyright offence as far as I’m aware.
Copyright laws are about protecting an artist’s right to profit from their creative talents and publishable works. Copying activity damages this right when it means the artist is deprived of money he or she would otherwise rightfully enjoy, such as if you copy a DVD and give that copy to your friend (they get to enjoy the work without paying) or, even worse, sell it to someone (it’s not yours to sell).
So far this is as confusing as I thought it might be. Applying Joool’s reasoning, it is legal for me to copy to tape since I don’t have to bypass a circumvention device. That doesn’t make a whole lot of sense to me. Then again, it wouldn’t be the first legal situation which I thought didn’t make sense.
Ah, but unless he’s caught in the act of copying, who is going to prove that he used a tool to circumvent the copy protection? Any outside party pursueing this case - which is unlikely to begin with - can only see that there exists a perfectly legal copy. Proving that illegal means were used to manufacture that copy is difficult, I’d imagine.
Thanks for the cites Banquet Bear. (Nice to meet another kiwi doper.) It appears that Australian and New Zealand copyright laws are tougher than the US when it comes to fair use or* fair dealing*. It seems that copyinng a CD to tape for use in your car is not allowed – contrary to popular belief.
In this particular case, the copyright holders are all in the US. Which would suggest that the matter would come under US law.
Of course, I could contact the NZ distributors and apply for an exemption, but I would rather not go through that hassle.
It’s not that I have any concern about getting caught, but just a desire to do the right thing.
My understanding of the DMCA is that Joools is correct, which makes ianzin wrong in every statement. If transferring isn’t copying under the meaning of the Act, then it has no meaning at all.
But the DMCA can’t apply in New Zealand, no matter where the copyright owners reside. Local laws prevail.
As for Optihut, are you seriously saying that any investigative force in the world could fail to make the distinction between a home-burned CD and a legal store-bought copy? You’d think just looking at the side where the label should be but isn’t would be enough even before they tested the digital stream.
