Copyrights are supposed to protect people from having other people profit from their own work. If you aren’t selling it then you aren’t taking anything away from anybody. The laws against duplicating music or movies for personal use are a perversion of what the law was intended for.
Sure, but that’s just one of the reasons for copyright law. “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries” is how the Constitution put it. It also allows for the copyright holder to control the use and dissemination of his work.
I disagree that the only intent of copyright law is to protect monetary interests of rich music executives, and I also disagree that the act of selling is the only point where there becomes a victim. Using the OP’s example, the copying of a DVD that you rented for $5, denies the copyright holder of the 14.99 you would have paid to actually own it. You have your movie, and the copyright holder is out money.
There is a middle ground in this debate, and that is the “fair use” exception. And copying rented movies is not fair use.
I disagree. The copyrighter already sold his copies to the video purveyers. In my opinion, they don’t have any moral right to profit twice from the same copy. That’s like saying that everytime someone sells a used car, they should have to kick up some money to the manufacturer.
No, they didn’t. The copyright holder (or its distribution company) licenses to Blockbuster “homevideo distribution rights to all Rental Pictures in the VHS (DVD) format for rental (i) only to consumers for home use and (ii) only from Stores in the Territory during the Term, subject to the terms hereunder.” My understanding is that Blockbuster never gains any copyright interest in the DVD. If you have a different understanding, I’d be interested to see it.
Again, I believe you misunderstand the nature of Blockbuster, et al. They do not obtain any rights to violate the original copyright.
I’d agree with this. In fact, I used to get on pretty well (before we moved) with the owner of a local Video Library franchise (I won’t name it), who told me that they KNOW everyone copies the DVDs, and they didn’t care as long as they got paid for the film’s rental. The prices factored in the royalties to the film companies, the price of actually getting the DVD in the first place, and, of course, enough of a profit to pay the staff, overheads, and so on, with a bit left over.
In short, no harm is done by people burning rented DVDS for their own, private use. Naturally, flogging them off for $5 each a flea market IS unethical and illegal, and so it should be, but the appropriate people have received money for a DVD that John Smith rents and then burns a copy of so he can watch it later. As others have said, there’s no “Guarantee” that John Smith was going to actually buy the DVD when it comes out for $30 or so- but how is burning a copy he’s paid for any different from watching the film on TV? Cable? The “Artists” have been paid, and John Smith has a DVD he can watch, albeit one without a fancy box or cover.
I find all these comparisons to “Going to the Library and photocopying a book” rather odd.
Firstly, Libraries here don’t charge membership fees or borrowing fees- it’s all totally free. It also takes a LOT longer to read a book than watch a film or TV show, and most importantly, books, by their very nature, haven’t had major cinematic releases where people already paid a lot of money to watch or see it first time around.
Books are also considerably cheaper to make than films… Unless the Author has a major Hookers, Blow, and Gambling problem there is no way a Novel could possibly cost more than $150,000 or so to write, whereas the going rate on even a low-budget film these days is a couple of million dollars.
Finally, the Book format has been with us (as we know it) since late antiquity/early Middle Ages (and even earlier), really coming into it’s own in the mid-15th Century once a Mr. Gutenberg got involved (no, not THAT Gutenberg, the Bible one. Geez, kids these days…), whereas films have only been around for a little over a century and a quarter (and didn’t have sound or colour until the 1920s)- and even now, the format changes. VHS had 20 years of being the dominant format for home viewing, and now that’s gone, don’t all the complaints about Video Piracy seem not only moot, but more than a little silly? DVDs won’t be around forever, and once they’ve been replaced, all this jumping up and down about DVD piracy will no doubt be viewed with the same contempt we reserve for people who complained Elvis’ “indecent” pelvic gyrations in the 1950s…
On preview, I see that last paragraph is missing a point, so I’ll try and crowbar one in: Books have an aura of the Academic and the Scholarly about them. If you visit someone who’s house is overflowing with books, you’re most likely to think “Wow, smart guy/gal!”- Movies are seen as being pure entertainment (and less face it, everyone loves entertainment). Make of that what you will, but I just can’t agree with anyone who sees a problem with copying DVDs (which provide plenty of entertainment) that they’ve rented. As long as the “artist” has received some form of remuneration from the video library for each time the film was rented, I’d say there’s no problem. Besides, how many Actors from big-budget films are what you’d call impoverished? (Not counting those with drug problems or who made a choice to renounce material wealth, of course…)
It’s my position that whatever deal the distributor makes with Blockbuster is the only deal they’re entitled to. What happens to the copies after that is none of their business as long as no one is making any more copies for profit. Just to be clear, I’m not making a legal argument. I won’t argue that it’s not illegal. I’m just expressing a personal opinion that burning a copy for personal use victimizes nobody since that original copy had to be paid for in the first place.
And no (moral) copyrights are being violated when the consumer makes a copy for personal use. You might as well say I don’t have the right to memorize a poem.
Once again, unless I completely misunderstand the licensing agreement between Blockbuster and the copyright holder, you’re wrong. The local “Video Library” store may not care if they rent to people who burn the DVD’s, but they’re not the copyright holders, who are “appropriate people” who haven’t received their money.
But they have received their money when they sold the copies to Blockbuster.
Not true. Copyright laws are designed to protect the creator’s right to determine how his or her work is used. This includes financial remuneration, but is by no means limited to that.
In other words, copyright protection applies even when the creator does not take any financial hit.
I completely understand your argument isn’t a legal one. The idea that, since someone along the chain paid the copyright holder some money for a limited use of the product, it’s OK to violate the copyright, is most certainly not a legal argument. I also think it’s a very weak ethical argument. Further, I think it’s a rationalization that a great many people use to avoid coming to the conclusion that they are violating a copyright holder’s rights. And it’s so much easier when the copyright holder is a major, faceless corporation too.
If it’s fair use, its fair use. If it’s not, and copying a DVD from Blockbuster isn’t, it’s illegal and unethical.
Onve again. I don’t care about the law. I’m saying no one is victimized if I burn a copy of a movie for my own personal use. My personal use is EXACTLY how my rentals are supposed to be used and making a copy is just an extension of that.
Did you miss the part where I said: “I completely understand your argument isn’t a legal one. The idea that, since someone along the chain paid the copyright holder some money for a limited use of the product, it’s OK to violate the copyright, is most certainly not a legal argument. I also think it’s a very weak ethical argument.”
You would have a point if you burn a copy for personal use, and use it only during the time called for by the rental agreement. If you go beyond that, it’s not the same thing, no matter what you tell yourself to feel better about it.
I don’t believe anyone has a right to dictate a “time limit” for my personal use.
Do you think it is alright for people to bring movie cameras into movie theaters to record the film as long as they have paid their $10.75? Seems to me the same arguments would apply: the movie theater already got its money, etc etc.
Then you shouldn’t have made that pronouncement about what copyright law says, as well as its intent. To wit:
“Copyrights are supposed to protect people from having other people profit from their own work. If you aren’t selling it then you aren’t taking anything away from anybody. The laws against duplicating music or movies for personal use are a perversion of what the law was intended for.”
Yes. As long as they don’t try to profit from it.
IMO. making copies for personal use does not violate any intent of the law.
That’s exactly what rental entails… temporary, time-limited use. If there is no time limit on its usage, then it’s not a rental.
And you are incorrect, for reasons that have already been given in this thread… and as explained in the legal article that I cited earlier.
Here is what Wikipedia says on copyright infringement. The article is quite explicit. Unauthorized reproduction IS copyright infringement, regardless of whether it’s for personal use or not.
I don’t care if it’s a legal infringement. I’m saying it’s not unethical and that it doesn’t hurt anybody.