Danish Anti-Piracy Group Tells DVD Ripper Who Turned Himself In That It Won't Sue Him
from the how-nice dept
A bunch of folks have submitted the story of Henrik Anderson, a Danish man who ripped a bunch of DVDs for personal storage, and then turned himself in, noting that even though Danish law says it's okay to make a backup copy of content for private purposes, it also forbids circumvention of DRM, such as the DRM found on DVDs. We had avoided posting anything on the story until the Danish group responded, and while it missed the original deadline, it has now stated that it will not go after Anderson, so long as he's only using the content for private use:The main purpose of the rule is to ensure against abuse of films and music being illegally copied and distributed further. The Association of Danish Videodistributors certainly have no interest in suing consumers who like you have purchased legitimate products -- quite the contrary.Of course, if that were true, then wouldn't the Danish Antipiratgruppen push to change the anti-circumvention law that makes this particular process illegal? After all, shouldn't they stand behind what they claim?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: anti-circumvention, copyright, denmark, dvds, ripping
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Okay, WTF??
Why do they bother with DRM at all then? All DRM says is "We don't trust any of you."
Change the law then, I say. It seems to me they just want to avoid the issue going to court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i'm not clear on something
I see why the Danish Antipiratgruppen choose not to file civil suit against him, but he still broke a law and the Danish government should prosecute, no?
If they choose not to prosecute, then doesn't that invalidate the law if they choose to only enforce it in certain circumstances?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i'm not clear on something
It's the amazing thing of the law, there is flexibility inherent in the system.
Actions would have been different if he was handing out copies to all his friends, or uploading the files to a torrent site.
It's amazing that everything here needs to be black and white. The real world has many colors betweeen the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: i'm not clear on something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: i'm not clear on something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: i'm not clear on something
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: i'm not clear on something
If they do not wish to press charges then the state has no say in the matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: i'm not clear on something
Still, it's more encouraging than suing the hell out of people when they're being honest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Publicity Stunt Gone bad
They chose the path that little mikee m is always complaining about here. They chose the path that would bring the least amount of publicity to the guy. Basically he will fade away until he tries to push the laws just a little further next time.
Basically if he never sees his day in court then he can never challenge the legitimacy of the Anti Circumvention laws.
Besides again in the spirit of the law the Anti Circumvention laws are not for going after individuals making personal copies, it's really there to add teeth to the copyright laws in cases of Piracy.
Think about it this way, Piracy in most cases is nothing more than a civil case, and is rarely ever a criminal case. So for someone to copy a dvd and sell the copies the only teeth the law has is civil. BUT with the Anti Circumvention laws there is both a Civil AND criminal case giving the copyright holder two different directions for punishment, one financial and the other criminal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publicity Stunt Gone bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Publicity Stunt Gone bad
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
@Michial Thompson: I didn't know that the hip new thing was to follow the "spirit of the law" and disregard the letter (actual written) part, when it's convenient. It must be the wave of the future.
I'm so behind the times....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sentencing people to jailtime, without real evidence of any crime because the judge and the prosecutor are members of the same freemason lodge as the person claiming to be a victim, is another fine tradition. Pro-copyright associations seems to have become similar to freemason lodges in this regard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
individual rights, sit down
demonstrating very clearly that individual rights ain't nothing (indeed must be stamped out) compared to protecting a collapsing business model.
and no to td's in-house content-shill a.c., selective enforcement does not excuse any assault on individual rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: individual rights, sit down
Have another swig of koolaid and try again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: individual rights, sit down
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Listen
Analog, digital, virtual; all of it.
Nothing lasts; Lasting means fewer jobs.
Recycling, reinvention and timing are the keys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, the purpose (in both letter and spirit) of the anti-circumvention law is to prevent people from making and distributing tools that can be used for infringement, even if they can also be used for making personal copies (and other fair use).
Given that the presence of DRM means such tools are absolutely needed in order for consumers to be able to exercise their fair use rights but that releasing such tools would likely lead to some people using them for piracy, there is indeed a genuine conflict here in the spirit of the law.
This is hardly the first example of someone being willing to testify against himself to test a law in court. (My personal favorite example is the famous Scopes Monkey Trial, in which the defendant was a high school football coach and the evidence was actually fairly weak that he managed to teach any evolution successfully, but the jury went along and convicted him.) The problem with this is that you need a judge and prosecutor who are sympathetic to your cause and willing to spend the time and resources needed to give you a jury trial so that you can appeal, and sadly it's not at all clear that Anderson has that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RealDVD, sued and injunction. They even "added" DRM to make it even better than a raw DVD.
Kaleidescape, I believe were sued and won, currently tied up in appeals last I heard but still able to sell products for the moment.
Handbrake, free and never been sued to my knowledge. Hmmmmm...
Of course they like this grey area because the common things people use such as iTunes, Windows Media Player etc would ALL instantly implement DVD ripping and transcoding (of course for "personal use only") if this were ever resolved in the publics favor.
Honestly, if I were this guy, I'd get with a lawyer and think about the following:
1. Work out a deal with the developers of Handbrake to package and sell it as a product. Make the price nice and low, like $5 and I'd buy it just to fund the fight.
2. Make a non-profit and all proceeds would go directly to let's say the EFF.
3. Market it as "the legal way to back up your DVD's for personal use", and of course say "because they said so".
4. Wait for the lawsuit.
The arguments in the lawsuit should be obvious from there and hopefully would lead to resolution of the conflicting laws one way or another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There is enough case law that the lawyers for the copyright holders won't have to work very hard. There is no way to control the use of the software, piracy is rampant, and it distributes to the public tools to bypass DRM. All of those things pile up and you still never get to the point that this guy was trying to get to.
The money also couldn't be used to "fund the fight" as it would probably get locked up in short order, and held until the case is resolved. An injunction against distributing or selling it would likely be a slam dunk.
Sorry, nice idea, but fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given that he stated he used X software and admitted it, tried to turn himself in etc. They basically signed off on his behavior, why can't he make a "here's how you do it legally" kit based on their response?
That seems like it should be the fight *if* you can get past the DMCA etc contradictions in the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nothing stated says that they couldn't go after him in the future, or go after someone else who did the same thing. Not the copying (which is acceptable) but rather breaking DRM to make the copies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
1) If people could break the protections legally the industry would perceive that as increasing the risks of unprotected works being spread on the internet (since the source supply would be greater). This doesn't make much sense of course, but I think it's the way they think about it.
2) If people are allowed to break the protection in order to make copies for personal use, then it's difficult to argue that the tools used to break the protection should be illegal. After all, how can a tool be illegal if it has significant legal use?
The industry will always act as to maintain as much unclearity of how the laws should be interpreted as possible (if it's to their advantage), while at the same time minimizing bad publicity. For that reason I think it's difficult to draw conclusions about how they view the laws from their behaviour.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
freeware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]