Is it unethical/illegal to burn Blockbuster dvds?

[holmes]

@cosmosdan

You’re kidding right…at least you’re kidding yourself.

People justify…and as more people justify…more and more people justify.

Stores have changed their return policies because of a gradual increase in the rent for free scam that these most honest people do. I just encountered this yesterday from a church. When the guy realized he was busted he backed down and accepted an in store credit.

The same principle for DVD copies. Copying may be simple for folks who are somewhat computer savy but for lots of folks it’s still more trouble than buying the DVD. If it became less trouble then more and more, and then more and more, people would rent and copy, rather than buy. It’s just how people are.

There’s a difference between jusifying and seeing a situation as it really is. There are always going to be people who want something for nothing, and nothing is really going to stop them. The goal is to reduce the number of people who just want a copy of their software from becoming habitual copiers. We know that most average users don’t upgrade or add software unless they need to or have a problem. Therefor if I have a easy to use software, with build-in protections whose main userbase will be average users looking to make back-ups of legally purchased DVDs, I have a pretty good means to control piracy…too bad the MPAA killed it.

321

321 Studios has several anti-piracy measures built into its DVDXCOPY series of software, including:

• An eight-second, indelible video warning, similar to the FBI warning found at the beginning of many DVD movies, alerting viewers of the backup copy that the DVD is not an original and is to be only used for non-commercial, personal use.

• An electronic watermark that can trace any backup copy made with DVDXCOPY back to the original point of purchase allowing 321 Studios to remotely de-activate the software and prevent further misuse.

• An embedded bit flag that prevents making a copy of a copy using DVDXCOPY.

• A $10,000 reward for information leading to the arrest and conviction of any person using 321’s software to pirate movies.

There’s two types of copying. There’s the I don’t want to pay for this, copying and there’s the I just paid $69.99 for this DVD set and I don’t want my originals damaged, coping. The I don’t want my DVD damaged, is a different beast and that’s who your easy to use copying software is going to be used by. The goal of the MPAA should’ve been to prevent those people from using software that’s designed to circumvent any protection, instead the MPAA killed the only software that was designed to deter such use out of the box.

There are degrees of ease in the software that remains, most are easy to use. What separates them is the ability to control the quality of the reproduction, which can require a certain level of savvy. Most Dell’s come with a DVD-burner, all it takes is one damaged DVD, to turn Ma and Pa into copiers. The real question is in what direction do you wish to point them into? Right now, Ma will call a more savvy user who will turn her on to one the untraceable software. Now she may never use it for anything else, however the supply of such software is still being increased. Previously they may have just had her buy one of 321 products, because they were easy to use and did what she wanted it to do AND as part of the program detered piracy. So when Ma, told Mrs. Smith who also just lost a DVD about the program, she’ll buy it too and so on.

This isn’t a matter of ease of use, but of ease of producing illegal copies from ANY source. I can have a one button piece of copying software, that recognizes rental DVD’s and refuses to copy them. That doesn’t stop me from making copies of my legal DVDs, but discourages me from being tempted.

Once you make it easy to replace a damaged DVD or 15 year old video tape, then you reduce the need to have the software at all. My first dvd burning was done as a result of losing a brand new DVD damaged by the kids, having to purchase another and swearing never again. Had the company said, “give us $5.00 and we’ll send you a replacement”, I wouldn’t have purchased the software. Now this was many years ago, before dvd-burners were common and as inexpensive as they are now, but IMO, that was the time that the industry should have nipped this in the bud.

Sell the content at a premium, not the medium…it’s too late now.

[brickbacon]

@Hamlet

None of the links I saw dealt with copying of movies that you had rented, not bought. Coping a movie that you own for personal use, could very well be legal; copying a movie that you rented from Blockbuster, is a violation of the copyright.

Which I acknowledged very early on.

@JThunder

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.

The use of software to circumvent encryption technology is illegal. The copying of a movie itself is not illegal. Even the former is resting on shaky legal grounds and will likely be overturned.

@Hamlet

Which shows your fundamental misconception about copyrights law and the reasons behind it. You are not merely renting a digital video disc, but the ideas, characters, story, physical depictions all the things that go into a movie. I guess that distinction, as well the difference between renting and owning, the ethics of abiding by your agreements, and respecting the rights of the copyright holder, are of no consequence to you or your ethics.

I disagree with your assessment of the fundamentals of copyright law. Allow me to quote this article which states the following:

The fundamental problem with intellectual property as an ethical category is that it is purely individualistic. It focuses on the creator/developer of the intellectual work and what he or she is entitled to. There is truth in this, but not the whole truth. It ignores the social role of the creator and of the work itself, thus overlooking their ethically significant relationships with the rest of society. The balance is lost.

There must be a balance, and I don’t think copying movies you own/rent is an absolute breech of that commitment to balance.

[Hamlet]

@brickbacon

There must be a balance, and I don’t think copying movies you own/rent is an absolute breech of that commitment to balance.

Of course there is a balance, which is why copyright law allows for fair use, as well as use for criticism, research and study, parody, etc. Those kinds of uses are well recognized in copyright law, and not one of them applies to copying a movie you rented. It is not a service to the Arts or Sciences, it is not commentary, and it is not furthering research and study. Whether you subscribe to the Lockean labor theory, or the Hegelian personality theory, even if you take your author’s view, it still doesn’t cover some selfish, rationalizing jag-off trying to save himself a few bucks.

[brickbacon]

@Hamlet

Of course there is a balance, which is why copyright law allows for fair use, as well as use for criticism, research and study, parody, etc. Those kinds of uses are well recognized in copyright law, and not one of them applies to copying a movie you rented. It is not a service to the Arts or Sciences, it is not commentary, and it is not furthering research and study. Whether you subscribe to the Lockean labor theory, or the Hegelian personality theory, even if you take your author’s view, it still doesn’t cover some selfish, rationalizing jag-off trying to save himself a few bucks.

Actually, current law does not allow for fair use because of the encryption technology found on discs. There is no balance in current law. Ideally, minimal copying can still exist while maintaining balance. Art is meant to be seen, and the greater good can be defined within a framework that permits copying so long as it remains profitable to produce art. Ethical considerations must be made when new technology is introduced. Just as it was when the VHS came around. Few would contend that it is unethical to tape a TV show for personal use. I don’t see much difference between that, and burning a DVD.

[JThunder]

@brickbacon

The use of software to circumvent encryption technology is illegal. The copying of a movie itself is not illegal.

And if I had claimed that copying a movie was always illegal, you would have a point. I made no such claim, however.

Are there certain circumstances wherein one can legally copy a movie? Certainly so. However, this does not mean that one can arbitrarily choose to reproduce these copyrighted works – such as, for example, renting a film from Blockbuster and then making your own pirated copy.

[brickbacon]

@JThunder

And if I had claimed that copying a movie was always illegal, you would have a point. I made no such claim, however.

Are there certain circumstances wherein one can legally copy a movie? Certainly so. However, this does not mean that one can arbitrarily choose to reproduce these copyrighted works – such as, for example, renting a film from Blockbuster and then making your own pirated copy.

Did you not say this?

@JThunder

Unauthorized reproduction IS copyright infringement, regardless of whether it’s for personal use or not.

If you didn’t mean that copying a movie is illegal, what did you mean by this? You wrote this in response to this comment:

@Diogenes the Cynic

IMO. making copies for personal use does not violate any intent of the law.

It, in fact, does not violate the law if you are not bypassing encryption methods used by major studios. How exactly did I misinterpret what you said? You were making black and white claims about a legal gray area.

[Hamlet]

@brickbacon

Actually, current law does not allow for fair use because of the encryption technology found on discs.

Cite?

@brickbacon

There is no balance in current law. Ideally, minimal copying can still exist while maintaining balance. Art is meant to be seen, and the greater good can be defined within a framework that permits copying so long as it remains profitable to produce art. Ethical considerations must be made when new technology is introduced. Just as it was when the VHS came around.

And you have yet to show how your copying of a rented DVD in any way, shape, or purpose, balances for the good. It’s one person being selfish and miserly, while trying to convince themselves it’s O.K.

One other thing you have consistently ignored is your status as renter of the property. We’re not talking about a movie you bought that you want to backup, or time-shift or even space shift. We’re talking about a movie you rented, which significantly lessens your claim to personal use.

[Ravenman]

@brickbacon

I disagree with your assessment of the fundamentals of copyright law. Allow me to quote this article which states the following:

I missed the part in which the author is talking about intellectual property created for profit and entertainment. The article seems to focus on the tension between ownership of IP and a general societal interest of allowing people to access knowledge in order to improve upon it.

What on earth does that have to do with copying movies?

[brickbacon]

@Hamlet

Cite?

I already provided a cite, read the thread.

@Hamlet

And you have yet to show how your copying of a rented DVD in any way, shape, or purpose, balances for the good. It’s one person being selfish and miserly, while trying to convince themselves it’s O.K.

The purpose of information is to be shared, and that sharing should not be limited to people who have purchased a commercial copy. By exposing as many people as possible to art, you will be able inspire and influence a greater number of people. It’s the equivalent of having a museum that charges $20 for entry, and one that is free. As long as the artists are compensated, and the endeavor is profitable, copying can be part of the greater good. Surely there are movies you think everyone would benefit from seeing? Wouldn’t you agree that more people should see movies like Shindler’s List, or And The Band Played On? If access to these works is unnecessarily hindered by economic concerns, everyone is poorer.

@Hamlet

One other thing you have consistently ignored is your status as renter of the property. We’re not talking about a movie you bought that you want to backup, or time-shift or even space shift. We’re talking about a movie you rented, which significantly lessens your claim to personal use.

Legally it does, but I don’t think it matters ethically.

[brickbacon]

@Ravenman

I missed the part in which the author is talking about intellectual property created for profit and entertainment. The article seems to focus on the tension between ownership of IP and a general societal interest of allowing people to access knowledge in order to improve upon it.

What on earth does that have to do with copying movies?

Did you read the whole article? He talks about piracy of works created for profit and entertainment. I didn’t cite it to make a legal claim, just to explain a legitimate ethical position.

[JThunder]

@brickbacon

Did you not say this?

@JThunder

Unauthorized reproduction IS copyright infringement, regardless of whether it’s for personal use or not.

Of course. Unauthorized copying of movies is illegal. Authorized copying is not.

If you didn’t mean that copying a movie is illegal, what did you mean by this? You wrote this in response to this comment:

@Diogenes the Cynic

IMO. making copies for personal use does not violate any intent of the law.

I meant exactly what I said. Unauthorized copying of movies is illegal. At no point did I claim that that all movie duplication is illegal.

“Making copies for personal use” is not necessarily legal. If you own a legal, tangible copy of the movie in question, then its reproduction may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances. Duplicating a DVD that you rented from Blockbuster, however, is not.

It, in fact, does not violate the law if you are not bypassing encryption methods used by major studios.

Not true. It may still be piracy, depending on the circumstances.

Here’s a hint. "It is illegal to bypass movie encryption methods " does not logically imply, “It is therefor legal to copy movies, as long as you don’t bypass the encryption methods.” This is the fallacy known as denying the antecedent. It’s like saying, “It’s illegal to steal from a locked house; therefore, if the house is not locked, stealing is legal.”

[QUOTEHow exactly did I misinterpret what you said? You were making black and white claims about a legal gray area.[/QUOTE]

Quite the contrary. You accused me of saying that it’s always illegal to copy movies. I never made such a claim, nor is it relevant to the subject at hand, for reasons that I have already explained at length.

[Hamlet]

@brickbacon

I already provided a cite, read the thread.

Some DVD’s have security measures that can thwart those who only wish to copy something they own, which may interfere with “personal use”. Those are done by the moviemakers, not copyright law. Which, once again, has nothing to do with copying a rented movie.

@brickbacon

The purpose of information is to be shared, and that sharing should not be limited to people who have purchased a commercial copy. By exposing as many people as possible to art, you will be able inspire and influence a greater number of people. It’s the equivalent of having a museum that charges $20 for entry, and one that is free. As long as the artists are compensated, and the endeavor is profitable, copying can be part of the greater good. Surely there are movies you think everyone would benefit from seeing? Wouldn’t you agree that more people should see movies like Shindler’s List, or And The Band Played On? If access to these works is unnecessarily hindered by economic concerns, everyone is poorer.

Which is served by your copying a movie for “personal use”, exactly how? Thousands of schools show movies to students without violating the law. Thousands of libraries allow people to rent movies for free. Which, again, has nothing to do with copying a rented movie.

@brickbacon

Legally it does, but I don’t think it matters ethically.

Why not? You’re still infringing upon the rights of the copyright holder.

[Ravenman]

@brickbacon

Did you read the whole article? He talks about piracy of works created for profit and entertainment. I didn’t cite it to make a legal claim, just to explain a legitimate ethical position.

I don’t see it. Tell me where it is. I’ve read the whole thing twice and I see nothing more than a single passing reference to each of the subjects of entertainment, movies, and videos. By my reading, 99% of the article has nothing to do with movies. I hope you’re not hanging your hat on nothing more than a fleeting reference to the subject at hand.

The purpose of information is to be shared, and that sharing should not be limited to people who have purchased a commercial copy.

Unfortunately, this sentiment doesn’t have a sound grounding in either law or the operation of a market economy. I might think that everyone should have a chance to visit Paris in the spring, but that doesn’t mean that people should be allowed to stow away on American Airlines. (Hey! everyone else paid for the tickets, what does it matter if someone catches a lift in the wheel wells!)

The fairest means that our society has come up with to balance the desires of consumers with the profit motive is to use a market economy. People have to pay a price to enjoy the fruits of someone else’s labor. Producers go so far as to make IP like movies available to consumers in several ways: theaters, rentals, purchases, HBO, and even free TV. Consumers should not simply be allowed to override the business decisions made by the creators of entertainment works simply on the vague notion that “they must be making money even if I steal the product,” no more than I should be able to compell a car dealership to sell a car to me at a cost that I accept, but they have no option to reject.

These sorts of transactions, in which one party is not afforded any opportunity to object to the manner in which their products are distributed, just cannot possibly pass any kind of test on business ethics.

[brickbacon]

@JThunder

Of course. Unauthorized copying of movies is illegal. Authorized copying is not.

No, the distinction is not solely made by the copyright holder. The use of “authorized/unauthorized” does not ultimately shed light to the legality of copying moves. As explained here:

But if they try, they might run into a little thing called fair use. It’s an affirmative defense for copyright infringement, meaning that when someone accuses you of illegally copying a piece of copyrighted material, you can use the fact that you are making a copy only for yourself as your legal defense. Such a limited, not-for-profit personal copy is permitted under fair-use laws, but protected CDs infringe on that right. If only we consumers had as many lobbying dollars as the recording industry, we might actually see our right to fair use survive the digital age. But I fear that because of the unjust DMCA and this new anticonsumer technology, record companies are going to be able to break the cycle of fair use.

The only thing stopping people from legally copying media they own is encryption software, not copyright law. Your distictions are meaningless. The speicifics of the copying are important, but the law does not exist as you’ve presented it. Here is another cite:

Do I have the right to make a copy of my CD for my own personal use?
Yes. The fair use doctrine allows an individual to make a copy of their lawfully obtained copyrighted work for their own personal use. Allowing people to make a copy of copyrighted music for their personal use provides for enhanced consumer convenience through legitimate and lawful copying. It can also enlarge the exploitable market for the rights holders. The fair use privilege’s personal use right is what allows an individual to make a backup copy of their computer software as an essential defense against future media failure.

Personal use also permits music fans to make “mix tapes” or compilations of their favorite songs from their own personal music collection or the radio for their own personal enjoyment in a more convenient format, or “format shifting.” Another example of acceptable personal use copying of a copyrighted work is “time-shifting,” or the recording of a copyrighted program to enjoy at a later and more convenient time.

Will provide more cites if needed. Bottom line is that the legal standard is not clearly defined, and the authorization of the copyright holder is only a small part of the determination.

@JThunder

I meant exactly what I said. Unauthorized copying of movies is illegal. At no point did I claim that that all movie duplication is illegal.

And what you said is wrong. Despite your attempts to redefine legal terminology.

@JThunder

“Making copies for personal use” is not necessarily legal. If you own a legal, tangible copy of the movie in question, then its reproduction may or may not be legal, depending on the circumstances. Duplicating a DVD that you rented from Blockbuster, however, is not.

See above. I never made a claim that copying a rented movie was legal. In fact, I specifically went out of my way to state that it isn’t in post #12. Please pay attention.

@JThunder

Here’s a hint. "It is illegal to bypass movie encryption methods " does not logically imply, “It is therefor legal to copy movies, as long as you don’t bypass the encryption methods.” This is the fallacy known as denying the antecedent. It’s like saying, “It’s illegal to steal from a locked house; therefore, if the house is not locked, stealing is legal.”

Here’s another hint, read the cites people provide. This wasn’t a matter of deduction, it was a matter of reading the text of the law. I appreciate the lesson on logical fallacies, but I don’t need it.

@JThunder

Quite the contrary. You accused me of saying that it’s always illegal to copy movies. I never made such a claim, nor is it relevant to the subject at hand, for reasons that I have already explained at length.

Which I believe was your initial intention. Either way, you are wrong so let’s just move on.

[brickbacon]

@Hamlet

Some DVD’s have security measures that can thwart those who only wish to copy something they own, which may interfere with “personal use”. Those are done by the moviemakers, not copyright law. Which, once again, has nothing to do with copying a rented movie.

Read post #12. I know rented movie copying is illegal.

@Hamlet

Which is served by your copying a movie for “personal use”, exactly how? Thousands of schools show movies to students without violating the law. Thousands of libraries allow people to rent movies for free. Which, again, has nothing to do with copying a rented movie.

Why not? You’re still infringing upon the rights of the copyright holder.

Infringing upon a copyright holder is not the only measure of ethical behavior in my opinion.

[Hamlet]

@brickbacon

Read post #12. I know rented movie copying is illegal.

And the ethics of violating the law? You going to start with the unjust law/civil disobedience/fight the power rhetoric now?

@brickbacon

Infringing upon a copyright holder is not the only measure of ethical behavior in my opinion.

I suppose if you rented a DVD the latest documentary on medical treatment and prevention of bacterial infection, copied it onto your computer, which happened to be attached to your time machine, and then went back to the Middle Ages to show it to the medical profession, thereby saving millions of lives, before returning to the future, where you immediately destroy the copy, the copying would be ethical. But, 95 posts into this thread and numerous requests on my part, you have yet to indicate how copying a rented DVD for “personal use” is ethically good.

[Dead_Badger]

@brickbacon

Infringing upon a copyright holder is not the only measure of ethical behavior in my opinion.

Could you perhaps explain what measure you are using to justify your behaviour, then? So far it appears to me that you have acknowledged that making copies of rentals is neither legal, nor a part of the intended agreement that you voluntarily enter into with the people renting you the DVD. So you seem to accept that you’re violating both the law and your own personal word; in what way, then, do you believe you are being ethical? Presumably you must be able to detail some standard you believe is generally applicable on whose grounds your behaviour passes muster. DtC made an attempt by claiming that he believed that such copying is victimless; sadly this claim is patently false as proved by the very fact that the copy is even being made, in preference to the more expensive act of full purchase. I presume you have some similar justification for your actions. Are you going to share it, rather than simply denying that legality or voluntary contracts are any basis for ethics?

[brickbacon]

@Hamlet

and the ethics of violating the law? You going to start with the unjust law/civil disobedience/fight the power rhetoric now?

How many times must we go over the fact that the law and ethics are not one and the same?

@Hamlet

I suppose if you rented a DVD the latest documentary on medical treatment and prevention of bacterial infection, copied it onto your computer, which happened to be attached to your time machine, and then went back to the Middle Ages to show it to the medical profession, thereby saving millions of lives, before returning to the future, where you immediately destroy the copy, the copying would be ethical. But, 95 posts into this thread and numerous requests on my part, you have yet to indicate how copying a rented DVD for “personal use” is ethically good.

What the hell are you babbling about. I have already explained how a copy of a DVD can be ethically good.

[Dead_Badger]

@brickbacon

What the hell are you babbling about. I have already explained how a copy of a DVD can be ethically good.

No, you’ve given two examples of what might be movies that it would be nice to show people. You haven’t remotely justified the idea that breaking the law to do so would be an ethical thing to do, given that both movies are available for quite reasonable prices (indeed are shown not infrequently on free-to-air television). If you think more people should see the movies, could you not pay for them to do so, rather than declaring yourself the arbiter of ethics, and arrogating the rights to all works you deem beneficial to the masses? I assume also that it would be out of the question for you to consider whether either work would have been created in the first place, were it not in the expectation of some form of profit.

In any case, as Hamlet quite reasonably pointed out despite your accusation of babbling, this is irrelevant. You asked whether it was unethical/illegal to burn rented DVDs, not whether it was unethical/illegal given ridiculous and contrived extenuating circumstances. You didn’t mention burning DVDs to give to the starving children in your OP whatsoever. The entire debate has hinged on the perceived common case of such copying, namely so that you can watch it at your leisure, rather than in the agreed rental period. You keep repeating that you don’t feel that either the law or your own word bind you ethically to avoid such behaviour, but have yet to offer any justification for such a position whatsoever. Are you about to?

[JThunder]

@brickbacon

No, the distinction is not solely made by the copyright holder. The use of “authorized/unauthorized” does not ultimately shed light to the legality of copying moves. As explained here:

Irrelevant distinction. I never said that the authorization has to come from the copyright holder. If anything, the webpage that you cited provides guidelines on what is implicitly authorized and what is not.

The only thing stopping people from legally copying media they own is encryption software, not copyright law. Your distictions are meaningless.

Not true. Even if the software encryption did not exist, the copyright restrictions would… just as it’s still illegal to trespass in an unlocked house.

See above. I never made a claim that copying a rented movie was legal. In fact, I specifically went out of my way to state that it isn’t in post #12. Please pay attention.

So you did. However, my point remains… Even if you are not bypassing the manufacturer’s encryption methods, that doesn’t make it legal.

Here’s another hint, read the cites people provide. This wasn’t a matter of deduction, it was a matter of reading the text of the law.

As pointed out by Ravenman, the text that you cited says no such thing.

Which I believe was your initial intention.

You can believe it all you want. Belief is not the same as correctness.

Either way, you are wrong so let’s just move on.

“You are wrong.” What brilliance!