To rip contents is also different from grabbing an analog signal and re-encoding it, as it was done with early day CD-ROM drives not capable of digital audio extraction (DAE).
Sometimes even encoding, i.e. digitizing audio and video originally stored on analog formats, such as vinyl records is incorrectly referred to as ripping.
However, commercial DVDs are often encrypted (for example, using Content Scramble System/ARccOS protection), preventing access to the files without using the ripping software's decryption ability, which may not be legal to distribute or use.
A directive of the European Union allows its member nations to instate in their legal framework a private copy exception to the authors and editors rights.
In all but a few of these countries (exceptions include the UK and Malta), the levy is excised on all machines and blank materials capable of copying copyrighted works.
[2][3] In 2010, the UK government sought input on modernizing copyright exceptions for the digital age, and commissioned the Hargreaves Review of Intellectual Property and Growth.
Other EU member states chose to implement the exception paired with a tax on music purchases or widely varying levies on copying equipment and blank media.
[4][5] However, the Review reasoned that no such collections are necessary when implementing a copyright exception for format-shifting: The UK has a thriving market for personal media devices which rely on private copying.
We are not aware of strong evidence of harm to rights holders done by this kind of private copying in the normal course of using digital equipment to play works.
A limited private copying exception which corresponds to the expectations of buyers and sellers of copyright content, and is therefore already priced into the purchase, will by definition not entail a loss for right holders.
However, the actual legislation to implement the changes is not yet in force; the Intellectual Property Office had only begun seeking review of draft legislation in June 2013,[4][8] and the resulting Statutory Instruments (SIs) were not laid out for Parliamentary approval until March 27, 2014, and were not actually approved until July 14 (Commons)[9] and July 27 (Lords);[10] with an effective date of October 1, 2014.
[11] Anticipating approval, the Intellectual Property Office published a guide for consumers to explain the forthcoming changes and to clarify what would remain illegal.
[20] In oral arguments before the Supreme Court in MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., MGM attorney Don Verrilli (later appointed United States Solicitor General by the Obama administration), stated: "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod.
"[21] Nevertheless, in lawsuits against individuals accused of copyright infringement for making files available via file-sharing networks, RIAA lawyers and PR officials have characterized CD ripping as "illegal" and "stealing".
Statements made by the court in that case, and by both the House and Senate in committee reports about the AHRA, do interpret the legislation as being intended to permit private, noncommercial copying with any digital technology.
Specifically, in response to the Sony BMG copy protection rootkit scandal, the FTC declared that the marketing and sale of audio CDs which surreptitiously installed digital rights management (DRM) software constituted deceptive and unfair trade practices, in part because the record company "represented, expressly or by implication, that consumers will be able to use the CDs as they are commonly used on a computer: to listen to, transfer to playback devices, and copy the audio files contained on the CD for personal use.
In the 2009 case RealNetworks v. DVD CCA,[26] the final injunction reads, "while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual's computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies.
The Library of Congress periodically issues rulings to exempt certain classes of works from the DMCA's prohibition on the circumvention of copy protection for non-infringing purposes.
[28] The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) hailed the ruling as enabling DVD excerpts to be used for the well-established fair-use activities of criticism and commentary, and for the creation of derivative works by video remix artists.