> The copyright holder has all the rights to the work, and you are granted none beyond "fair use" rights (quoting small portions for critique, backup, resale, etc) defined in copyright law.
So how do you work the DMCA in there? It's legal for me to make a backup of a copyrighted work... but if the copyrighted work is 'protected' then I can still make a backup copy... but no one is allowed to sell or distribute the means to make that copy?
Couldn't the argument be made that the copyright holder is actively trying to take away my fair use rights by using DRM?
My understanding is that the "backup" of a DVD isn't really illegal. However, reverse engineering, or circumventing a DVD's copy protection scheme is. You're guilty of hacking, not copyright violation. IANAL.
The 'technicality' is that you're allowed to create a way to circumvent the DVD's copy protection scheme, but you're not allowed to sell or distribute it. Therefore, anyone that wants to make a backup of their DVDs has to crack the DVD copy protection scheme on their own. They can't (legally) get a product to do it for them.
They are part of the Code, but courts test what the code means all the time. Example: before the Sony Betamax case, there were the statutory provisions of fair use, but it was unclear how it applied to home taping.
So how do you work the DMCA in there? It's legal for me to make a backup of a copyrighted work... but if the copyrighted work is 'protected' then I can still make a backup copy... but no one is allowed to sell or distribute the means to make that copy?
Couldn't the argument be made that the copyright holder is actively trying to take away my fair use rights by using DRM?