DVD Copyright Laws
Authored by H. Clare Callow in Legal
Published on 07-04-2009
Like every law, DVD copyright law varies from country to country and region to region. This particular area of copyright law has evolved as the vulnerabilities of DVD technology have come to light, with existing copyright law being added to and amended as each loophole is found. Most countries follow the international standards found in the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, tweaking the convention’s guidelines to create their own laws.
When it comes to copying DVDs, a common sense approach will cover most situations. It is illegal in every country to copy a DVD and sell the copy (this applies only to copyrighted DVDs, obviously). As time goes by, however, and more laws are introduced worldwide, it is becoming apparent that making any copy whatsoever could place you in hot water. This is true even if it is for your own personal use.
In the US, it is illegal to make any copy of digital media for any reason. The 1998 US Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides guidelines on DVD copyright within the US. This sets out that any copying of DVDs is illegal. This is a harsher reworking of the No Electronic Theft Act, a federal law that came into play in 1997. Under the 1997 Act, people who break DVD copyright can be prosecuted in criminal court, even if they have made no money from the act. The maximum penalty, if convicted, can be up to five years in jail and up to $250,000 in fines.
This law covers the loophole in the former act, under which non-commercial copyright infringement was not criminal. In 1994, Massachusetts Institute of Technology student David LaMacchia was prosecuted for allegedly altering a computer to allow users to illegally download copyrighted software. As he had done this as a hobby, and was not making any money from his act, the case fell apart. This became known as the ‘LaMacchia Loophole’ but was covered by the 1997 change of law.
The European Union Copyright Directive came into force on 31 October 2003 and made uploading of DVDs to person-to-person sites illegal. The law follows the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act fairly closely and is also known as the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003. It amended the EU’s Copyright Designs and Patents Act of 1988 and means that anyone making a copy of a copyrighted DVD, CD or music file, even as back-up or to move tracks onto their MP3 player, is committing a crime.
It is also illegal for anyone to publish how to crack any anti-copying technology. However, the most famous European test of this portion of the law, the trial against Norwegian ‘DVD Jon’ Lech Johanson, ended in an acquittal.
It is still not clear how the British Phonographic Industry will implement the law within the UK. The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, and the amendment of the Copyright and Trade Marks (Offences and Enforcement) Act 2002, sets out that people who distribute or download copyrighted recordings without permission can face civil actions for damages and penalties, but in general copyright infringement for personal use is overlooked by the authorities.
There is an ongoing problem with people generally not understanding DVD copyright law. A survey carried out in 2006 in the UK showed that over half of those surveyed believed that copying for personal use was legal. This is an indication of the general lack of understanding worldwide. Luckily, most governments are reluctant to prosecute over copyright infringement on a small or personal scale.
| If you enjoyed this post, subscribe to: |
 Legal Articles |
- Rate Article:
Loading ...
Wow, I never knew that there was a law for simply making a copy and not even using it! I guess it is really meant to deter people altogether.
[Reply]
Wrong dip wad. This is the revision made to that Act. Read Section 3 Subparagraph (G) Amendment (vi). In Section 108(a)(2) there are provisions for a home library.
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Freedom and Innovation Revitalizing U.S. Entrepreneurship Act of 2007′.
SEC. 2. COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.
(a) Statutory Damages Adjustment- Section 504(c)(2) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following: `The court shall remit statutory damages for secondary infringement, except in a case in which the copyright owner sustains the burden of proving, and the court finds, that the act or acts constituting such secondary infringement were done under circumstances in which no reasonable person could have believed such conduct to be lawful.’
(b) Codification of Supreme Court Precedent Applicable to Hardware Devices- Section 501 of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`(g) Certain Hardware Devices- No person shall be liable for copyright infringement based on the design, manufacture, or distribution of a hardware device or of a component of the device if the device is capable of substantial, commercially significant noninfringing use.’.
SEC. 3. DMCA AMENDMENTS.
(a) Codification of Determination of Librarian of Congress- Section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(F) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to a person by reason of that person’s engaging in a noninfringing use of any of the 6 classes of copyrighted works set forth in the determination of the Librarian of Congress in Docket No. RM 2005-11, as published as a final rule by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress, effective November 27, 2006 (71 FR 68472 (Nov. 27, 2006)).’.
(b) Extension of Determinations of Librarian of Congress- Section 1201(a)(1) of title 17, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
`(G) The prohibition contained in subparagraph (A) shall not apply to–
`(i) an act of circumvention that is carried out solely for the purpose of making a compilation of portions of audiovisual works in the collection of a library or archives for educational use in a classroom by an instructor;
`(ii) an act of circumvention that is carried out solely for the purpose of enabling a person to skip past or to avoid commercial or personally objectionable content in an audiovisual work;
`(iii) an act of circumvention that is carried out solely for the purpose of enabling a person to transmit a work over a home or personal network, except that this exemption does not apply to the circumvention of a technological measure to the extent that it prevents uploading of the work to the Internet for mass, indiscriminate redistribution;
`(iv) an act of circumvention that is carried out solely for the purpose of gaining access to one or more works in the public domain that are included in a compilation consisting primarily of works in the public domain;
`(v) an act of circumvention that is carried out to gain access to a work of substantial public interest solely for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, scholarship, or research; or
`(vi) an act of circumvention that is carried out solely for the purpose of enabling a library or archives meeting the requirements of section 108(a)(2), with respect to works included in its collection, to preserve or secure a copy or to replace a copy that is damaged, deteriorating, lost, or stolen.’.
[Reply]