Ripping small, short clips from a DVD (legitimately)

[John Pale]

assuming you have all the legal issues squared away, just convert what you ripped with Mac The Ripper to something FCP can use (a Quicktime movie in the codec of your choice)….

you can do this with MPEG Streamclip

https://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/video/mpegstreamclip.html

[Peter Ralph]

in the US the DMCA (1998) makes it an offense to circumvent any copy protection mechanism wether or not the material you are seeking to access is copyrighted

strange but true

[13]

Video on a DVD has already been compresed and re- editing previously compressed video will produce lower quality results.

if the origonal owner of the footage has given is permission for it to be used he will porbably also be williing go loan you his master or make a copy of it on tape for you, That way there is no loss in quality

[Bruce Greene]

I have done this before for my sample reel, though I can’t remember which ripper software I used.

I do remember that I had to rip a large portion of the dvd to find the clips I wanted.

I then rendered them into the dv codec, cut them into my reel, and made my dvds. The digital artifacts from the dvd material becomes pretty severe by uncompressing, compressing to dv, and recompressing to mpeg2 for the dvd. A better way might be to capture the dvd to dv via analog, but you may need a macro vision defeating box (also not legal), though a professional dv deck might not be affected by the macrovision at all.

Oh for the days of the laser disc which had no copy protection!

Trying to get copies on tape through a studio legal department can be very difficult. I once had to pay thousands of dollars to copy a master tape of a feature I shot by having a copy made in an online suite at their laboratory and they insisted on printing “for screening purposes only” inside the 1:85 frame even though it was a full frame transfer. I had to battle to get the type down to 50% white from 100% white.

Perhaps you can get ok quality by placing your dvd clips (and the rest of your reel) in an uncompressed timeline and rendering your dvd sample reel from there, avoiding the compression to dv. I now try to become friendly with the editorial department when I will need clips and try to get them while the project is pre mpeg2, but this is not always possible.

Good Luck!

-bruce
DP/Steadicam
Los Angeles

[John Davidson]

I have an agency that is a client, and seems to think that DVD is a great storage material for their work. I really, really, really, really hate when somebody comes into session and says “I have my stuff on DVD, that’ll work, right?”. Anyway, my tried and true process is this.

1. rip the dvd with Handbrake (you can select chapters if you don’t want to rip the whole thing) into an MP4 format at best quality, full screen resolution.

2. use compressor to create an 8bit uncompressed sequence (or DV, or whatever codec you want to use) of that mp4 file. Quicktime will export an 8bit file, but for some reason it’s unrecognized by FCP – so use compressor.

3. import that huge file into the sequence. Create crappy resolution cut.

Disclaimer: If you rip a DVD that you don’t have rights to, or a copyright permission slip, or whatever ridiculous crap is required so that you can watch it on your tv, federal agents will storm into your house,, burn it, enforce the right of prima nocte on your wife, force you to watch all the Jar Jar Binks scenes from Star Wars 1, and lastly, baby Jesus will cry.

“Copyright infringement Laws, a new fun and easy way to remove your freedoms of speech and press in one simple swoop”.

[Boyd Mccollum]

Caveat: I’m not a lawyer…. (nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express, but I did read Wikipedia)

Laws are a little more complex than what is actually written and often require lawsuits to help clarify the meaning and scope of laws. This is especially true when you have laws that come into conflict with each other. In this case, you have the DMCA (Digital Mellenium Copyright Act) on the one hand and you have Copyright/Fair Use on the other (I know, not a single law, but a series of established rights).

A couple of cases that have helped to clarify the DMCA have happened. The first is Universal v. Reimerdes where the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) sought to prevent the distribution of DeCSS which allowed for the circumvention of the encryption on DVDs. In this case, the MPAA won. But the First Amendment ramifications really weren’t addressed.

Another case was Chamberlain v. Skylink, dealing with automated door and gate openers. The issue was that Skylink reversed engineered the rolling code system that Chamberlain used for their garage doors so that Skylink’s universal remote would work on Chamberlain’s system. Chamberlain invoked the DMCA and alleged that Skylink circumvented the technical measures Chamberlain implemented. This time, the plaintiff lost (Chamberlain).

Part of the ruling in the Chamberlain case seems apropos to this issue of copying a DVD:

“The plain language of the statute … requires a plaintiff alleging circumvention (or trafficking) to prove that the defendant’s access was unauthorized-a significant burden where, as here, the copyright laws authorize consumers to use the copy of Chamberlain’s software embedded in the GDOs that they purchased. ”

“The DMCA does not create a new property right for copyright owners. Nor, for that matter, does it divest the public of the property rights that the Copyright Act has long granted to the public. The anticircumvention and anti-trafficking provisions of the DMCA create new grounds of liability. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused circumventor must demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the circumvention at issue and a use relating to a property right for which the Copyright Act permits the copyright owner to withhold authorization-as well as notice that authorization was withheld. A copyright owner seeking to impose liability on an accused trafficker must demonstrate that the trafficker’s device enables either copyright infringement or a prohibited circumvention.”

The first case impacts the actual creation of technology that can be used to circumvent the encryption that movie companies have on their DVDs. So even an academic person working on the technology could be in violation of the law. I don’t think the court really addressed that issue. This case really applies more to the creators of Mac The Ripper, DVDxDV, etc. The case was brought a fews ago, so I’m not sure what the current legal thinking is on these matters, as there are companies making apps to rip DVDs.

One reason that I think the ruling in the Universal case is too broad is that the MPAA isn’t the only organization (or rather it’s members) that makes encrypted DVDs, and piracy isn’t the only reason encryption on DVDs is circumvented. Down the line, another case (or additional laws by Congress) may need to be brought to address these issues.

The second case seems to say that the DMCA doesn’t take away my legal right, under the Copyright Act/Fair Use, to make a back up copy of a movie or software that I own. In addition, if I rip a DVD that I’m the copyright owner of, or where the copyright owner gave me permission to use, then there is really no violation of the DMCA, unless I sue myself.

As for the situation with the original poster, the director and producer, more than likey, do not own the copyright to the actual film(s), and are probably not in a position to grant permission. OTOH, I don’t think the actual copyright holder, on the off chance that they actually notice or care, will make any effort to stop this practice. It’s like no one gets pulled over for jaywalking in a private Cul de Sac. Everyone – directors, editors, producers, DPs, camera operators, etc – in this industry has a reel. Productions usually promise copies to members of the crew for their reels (though delivery is another matter), so permission from the copyright holder is implied.

REMEMBER: If in doubt, talk with a lawyer. I’m not a lawyer, and the above is not intended to be legal advice (and could be incredibly flawed in its reasoning 🙂 If anyone with a better understanding of these issues would like to chime in, that would be great!