Man Reports Self to Police for Ripping DVDs



+ Add a Comment


This exact conflict exists in the US, and I do not think it has been dealt with. It is pretty sad that the law is such that nobody knows what it means until someone is taken to court and judges decide what the law is. I am not familiar with the Danish system, but that is not how it is supposed to work in the US. Judges are not supposed to be deciding what the law is. The legislature passes the law and the courts apply it. "Case law" is a complete departure from the concept that we have a government of, by, and for the people.



The way the second paragraph is worded, the law seems to be totally clear: the owner may copy digital media for private, non-commercial uses, unless the material is protected by DRM, in which case the owner must seek permission from the copyright owner.  Seems pretty clear.


Or is there more to it than that? 



The confusion resides in the fact that it's two seperate laws coming into conflict.

One law, the older and established one, states that you have the right to make copies of anything you own for your own personal use. There is NO equivocation here. This is a RIGHT that the consumer has.

The second law, much newer, states that you can't break DRM.

So, what you have here is a pretty underhanded attempt to undermine one law with another, while still maintaining the illusion that the consumer has some rights. There have been no real tests of this law anywhere that i know of, to date, because at the moment the companies are wasting their money going after P2P file sharers. Sooner or later, however, they'll turn their focus to other avenues, I'm sure.

A legal precedent such as the one this man seems to be trying to force WILL be very interesting to see. 

One of the funny things is that some of the original wording of the DRM laws was... open to interpretation, with things like "It is unlawful to use any means to bypass protections that effectively secure a product" or some such... in which the question immediately becomes what definition of 'effective' are we using here? Where the product is secured, in effect? Or where the product is effectively secured? Cause believe me, if I can crack it, the security ain't effective.



Well said.



I agree with you - the language in that paragraph is not even remotely ambiguous or confusing. 


That said, copyright law tends to be a bit of a maze, so there is almost assuredly more to it than the article represents...



Maybe if everyone turned themselves in it would over whelm the courts


my legs oh god ...

you first.



Marytr, much?

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.