A Travel and vacations forum. TravelBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » TravelBanter forum » Travelling Style » Air travel
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Best way to watch "DVDs" in flight on long flights?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old September 11th, 2004, 04:57 AM
Shawn Hearn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
nospam wrote:

In article , PTravel
wrote:

U.S. copyright law does _not_ permit making a backup of DVDs if for personal
use.


..snip..

Most likely (but as yet not decided by the courts), copying a DVD to a
laptop for viewing at a different time would also come within first sale
doctrine.


but copying a dvd to a laptop is a backup, is it not?


No.
  #12  
Old September 11th, 2004, 06:01 AM
PTRAVEL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

nospam wrote in message ...
In article , PTRAVEL
wrote:

but copying a dvd to a laptop is a backup, is it not?


Not within the meaning of 17 U.S.C. 117, which only allows for backup of
_computer_programs_.


then what is the legal definition of backing up a dvd?


Copyright infringement. The legislative intent of Sec. 117 was to
allow computer users, who had invested hundreds of dollars in computer
software, to make a backup because, at the time the statute was
enacted, the primary distribution medium was unreliable floppy disks.

A DVD isn't a computer program within the meaning of the statute.



The original time-shifting case was Sony v. Universal, which dealt with the
Betamax VCR. The US Supreme Court found that it had a substantially
non-infringing use because time-shifting, taping a show to watch it later,
came within fair use. However, there were some factual predicates to the
decision which, time has shown, were wrong. Specifically, the Court assumed
that no one would use a vcr for amassing a large libarary of
copyright-protected materials. Now we all know better.


wasn't it sony v. disney or is this a different case?


No, it was Sony v. Universal.


However, Sony v. Betamax remains good law, and has been extended in a few


sony versus their own product? i suspect you meant universal or
disney...

cases which addressed media shifting, specifically creating MP3s for use on
portable MP3 players. Given that line of cases, it's quite probable that
copying DVDs to a laptop for viewing on an airplane would be considered fair
use, as both the time-shifting and media-shifting rationales apply. It is
_not_, however, for the purpose of making a backup -- no decision has found
doing such to be fair use (at least none that I'm aware of).


i am confused about how copying a dvd to a laptop is *not* a backup.


I'm confused how it is a backup. "Backup" suggests "replacement
copy," and that's how the term is used in Section 117. If, from the
copy on the laptop hard drive you then burn a new DVD, you've made a
backup.


it seems to me that if one copies a dvd to a hard drive, one has a
backup of it.


One has a copy of it within the meaning of the law. You're focused on
the word "backup" which has no legal meaning. I don't have the
statute in front of me, but my recollection is that Sec. 117 uses the
phrase "archival copy for backup purposes."


so will this decision, should it come to pass, nullify the former? i
can't see how they both can coexist.


Sorry, I'm not following -- which decisions?


you said,
Most likely (but as yet not decided by the courts), copying a DVD to a
laptop for viewing at a different time would also come within first sale
doctrine.

and i was referring to the decision not yet decided by the courts.


Right. First, as I indicated, the Betamax case was predicated on
erroneous assumptions, and also decided by a Supreme Court which was
markedly more liberal and consumer-friendly than the present court.
It was also decided before the era of George Bush Sr. and Ronald
Reagan, both of whom appointed a lot of federal judges, to the point
that, as I recall, the majority of the federal bench are either Reagan
or Bush the 1st appointees. Federal courts have exclusive
jurisdiction over copyright matters, so it is a decidedly more
conservative, business-friendly court that will determine whether Sony
v. Universal has continued viability. Next, Sony v. Universal
addressed time-shifting, not medium shifting. Finally, Sony v.
Universal involved relatively primitive analog equipment that produced
a markedly inferior copy. Copying a DVD to a laptop produces a
pristine digital copy in another medium. The point is, there are
factual differences. I still believe that traditional fair use
analysis favors a finding of fair use, plus judges are very reluctant
to disregard precedent unless there is a strong push to do so both
politically and in the legal community.
  #13  
Old September 11th, 2004, 08:35 AM
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , PTRAVEL
wrote:

wasn't it sony v. disney or is this a different case?


No, it was Sony v. Universal.


i did a little googling and it looks like both disney and universal
were plaintiffs, so we're thinking about the same case.

i am confused about how copying a dvd to a laptop is *not* a backup.


I'm confused how it is a backup. "Backup" suggests "replacement
copy," and that's how the term is used in Section 117. If, from the
copy on the laptop hard drive you then burn a new DVD, you've made a
backup.


does a backup need to be same media? my data backups certainly aren't.
if i wanted a 'replacement copy' of the hard drive, i'd need to restore
from cd/dvd or tape.

it seems to me that if one copies a dvd to a hard drive, one has a
backup of it.


One has a copy of it within the meaning of the law. You're focused on
the word "backup" which has no legal meaning. I don't have the
statute in front of me, but my recollection is that Sec. 117 uses the
phrase "archival copy for backup purposes."


what about a copy on an external hard drive, connected only on
occasion. could that be considered an 'archival copy for backup
purposes'?
  #14  
Old September 11th, 2004, 04:37 PM
PTRAVEL
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , PTRAVEL
wrote:

wasn't it sony v. disney or is this a different case?


No, it was Sony v. Universal.


i did a little googling and it looks like both disney and universal
were plaintiffs, so we're thinking about the same case.

i am confused about how copying a dvd to a laptop is *not* a backup.


I'm confused how it is a backup. "Backup" suggests "replacement
copy," and that's how the term is used in Section 117. If, from the
copy on the laptop hard drive you then burn a new DVD, you've made a
backup.


does a backup need to be same media? my data backups certainly aren't.
if i wanted a 'replacement copy' of the hard drive, i'd need to restore
from cd/dvd or tape.


I don't think the media used for a backup has ever been litigated.


it seems to me that if one copies a dvd to a hard drive, one has a
backup of it.


One has a copy of it within the meaning of the law. You're focused on
the word "backup" which has no legal meaning. I don't have the
statute in front of me, but my recollection is that Sec. 117 uses the
phrase "archival copy for backup purposes."


what about a copy on an external hard drive, connected only on
occasion. could that be considered an 'archival copy for backup
purposes'?


I suppose it could under some circumstances. Why does it matter? Sec. 117
does _not_ apply to DVDs.


  #15  
Old September 11th, 2004, 09:51 PM
Nate Edel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Charles Newman wrote:
What about copying DVDs to the local hard drive of your laptop so you


The software to do that is illegal in the United States. The MPAA and
DVDCCA recently had 3-2-1 studios shut down because their software
did just that.


While they've successfully shut down the sale of one commercial product,
there are just far too many open-source or otherwise freely-distributable
products that do that... all of which have no single identifiable source to
be shut down.

--
Nate Edel http://www.nkedel.com/

"I do have a cause though. It is obscenity. I'm for it." - Tom Lehrer
  #16  
Old September 12th, 2004, 08:21 PM
John Smith
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I found the answer here. This shoud work nicely:

http://www.g4techtv.com/screensavers...D_Jukebox.html



---

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.760 / Virus Database: 509 - Release Date: 9/10/2004


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Air Madagascar trip report (long) Vitaly Shmatikov Air travel 6 May 17th, 2004 11:25 AM
Bayonne Port named Cape Liberty and other helpful things Susette405 Cruises 2 January 29th, 2004 03:32 AM
Vietnam - The Internet Travel Guide (FAQ) (part 5/5) http://www.pmgeiser.ch, Peter M. Geiser Asia 0 December 27th, 2003 10:15 AM
Air Madagascar trip report (long) Vitaly Shmatikov Africa 7 October 7th, 2003 08:05 PM
Trip Report NCL-LHR-IAD-SEA-IAD-LHR-NCL (long) Mark Hewitt Air travel 7 September 23rd, 2003 09:15 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 TravelBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.