Skip to main content

Man Admits to Copying DVDs, Nothing Happens

TorrentFreak reports that Henrik Anderson was trying to have his government address contradictory laws which state it is legal to copy DVDs for personal use but illegal to remove the DRM to do so.

12.–(1) Anyone is entitled to make or have made, for private purposes, single copies of works which have been made public if this is not done for commercial purposes. Such copies must not be used for any other purpose.§ 75 c. It is not permitted without the consent of the rightholder to make circumvention of effective technological measures

According to TF, Henrik informed the Danish anti-piracy outfit Antipiratgruppen that he had broken the DRM on more than one hundred legally-purchased DVD movies and TV shows. “I’ve started this because I don’t want to be a criminal,” Henrik told TF, adding that he had asked the outfit whether or not they intended to prosecute, but so far has received no response.

However, while Henrik has heard nothing back from Antipiratgruppen, a lawyer for the group spoke to Danish press. Thomas Schlüter said that it was a political matter but add that he had reported the issue to the Association of Danish Videodistributors for consideration. Chairman of the ADV, Poul Dylov, responded, saying they would have a meeting to decide whether to report the matter to the police.

Henrik was initially promised an answer by December 1 and is frustrated that nobody has managed to come to a decision. He now says his only option is to report himself to the police. “I decided to try to see if I can report myself directly to the police, for the case must be resolved.”

Read the full story here.

Follow us on Twitter for more tech news, reviews, and exclusive updates!

  • Parrdacc
    He did not get a answer because the officials were taken off guard.

    "Oh crap, he used our own words against us. Who thought someone out there would be so smart. What do we do now?"
    Reply
  • tommysch
    Lets all use civil and more sensible actions, like DDoS attacks on those greedy record labels.
    Reply
  • JuiceJones
    Good luck to this guy. It takes action to change stupid laws, and this guy is actually doing something about it. I'd like to see a lot of people join him, line up and the police station, and flood the place with "criminals" who backup their DVDs. Civil disobedience is fun stuff.

    Reply
  • kyeana
    TommySchLets all use civil and more sensible actions, like DDoS attacks on those greedy record labels.
    Ha, that is too funny. Hats off to you good sir!
    Reply
  • It's unlikely anything will come of this, barring extraordinary measures, as the establishment would like to keep the ability to charge anyone at a whim.
    Reply
  • necronic
    I'll give him credit for taking this kind of risk, although his stated reason of contradictory laws seems bogus to me, those laws seem clear to me. The original law doesn't say anything about making personal copies of copyrighted material, its talking about materials defined as "public". I would think that putting DRM on something is a pretty clear signal that you do not consider this material to be public.
    Reply
  • Raid3r
    In the face..powerful stuff here. In fact..it would be great to have this happen on a huge scale so that the situation can no longer be denied..everything stops so us "criminals" can turn ourselves in.
    Reply
  • duzcizgi
    12.1 States that you can make copies. - Well, I take it as "identical copies" For solely own use.
    75.c States that if you circumvent copyright protection measures, you're eligible for fine and/or jail time.

    He told that he broke the DRM on the DVDs to make copies of them, which, he breaks the 75.c and he doesn't fall under the protection of 12.1, as the copies aren't identical anymore. Good luck for him. He should have copied DRM there also.
    Reply
  • pooflinger1
    The laws are not contradictory. They would only be so if the first law specifically stated that you were able to break protection schemes in doing so. Arguing that the laws are contradictory is like arguing that it is not against the law the drive on a public road, and therefore it should also not be against the law to drive on a road that is blocked or closed off. There are TONS of laws that make a general point only to be followed up by further laws that deal with more specific cases.

    Now, I'm not arguing in favor of the movie industries because I think that the whole way they go about doing business and treating customers is BS. But the way that this individual, and others, are trying to argue their case is weak and, well, stupid.
    Reply
  • deathblooms2k1
    pooflinger1The laws are not contradictory. They would only be so if the first law specifically stated that you were able to break protection schemes in doing so. Arguing that the laws are contradictory is like arguing that it is not against the law the drive on a public road, and therefore it should also not be against the law to drive on a road that is blocked or closed off. There are TONS of laws that make a general point only to be followed up by further laws that deal with more specific cases.Now, I'm not arguing in favor of the movie industries because I think that the whole way they go about doing business and treating customers is BS. But the way that this individual, and others, are trying to argue their case is weak and, well, stupid.
    Agreed. Furthermore bringing this issue to the police department does more harm to the town or city than it does to legislation and the corporations. It costs Police personnel time and subsequently the tax payers money (since their tax's pay for the municipal salary's), meanwhile it garners a little publicity that I'm sure the corporations won't even bat an eye at.

    Change has to be reflected by votes by the majority, convince enough people that your argument makes sense and then let the representatives in the area know that their election rides on these ideas. In this case I'm inclined to agree with the poster I quoted, in that the law is pretty clear cut, however that's not to say that I support DRM. Ultimately this person has a problem with DRM, he needs to clearly present his problems with it and then gain public support for those problems. It's easy to cause a ruckus for publicity, but it just seems stupid when it ultimately results in no change.
    Reply