why can't I make a digital recording of a DVD?

Shadorne, my post was intended to discuss copying of entire original discs, which is the one instance in which making a single copy of an album is legal. Clearly, very few people respect copyright laws when it comes to copying music, but it's precisely this disregard that adds to the cost of buying music.

I would not regard this as illegal provided you purchased and still own the the original DVD and you are copying it for your own home use and not for re-sale or to give to someone else.
Shadorne (System | Reviews | Threads | Answers)

A little sidebar perhaps, but why would anyone make a copy of a DVD if it was intended for their own home use, and not intended to be given to someone else or sold? This strikes me as a legal loophole to protect those who duplicate copyrighted material. Of what purpose are two identical versions of the same DVD in the same household?

If I'm not mistaken, the original intent of this loophole was to allow archiving of recordings that were in danger of being damaged if they were handled or played.

With the advent of CDs and DVDs, this potential for damage has largely disappeared.

Sure, there will be some examples offered: protect the original from damage, provide a second copy for the rumpus room. I'll bet all the explanations stretch credulity.

"you can record digital program sources onto a recordable CD disc to create a first generation digital copy. You cannot, however record from this recorded CD disc to another recordable CD disc."

Exactly. That language basically goes back to the copyright laws allowing a single archival copy for one's personal use.

It has never been legal to make more than one copy of any copyrighted recorded material, even though people have been doing it for decades. It wasn't until the advent of the CD, and the ensuing recordable CDs that record companies and distributors really started cracking down. In the days of cassette and reel to reel tape, the record companies weren't as concerned because they knew the best quality recording was always going to be an original pressing or tape recording, and any copies...and copies of copies were going to get progressively worse in quality each time a next generation copy was made. Of course, with CDRs, this isn't the case.

Shadorne, I know of very few people who respect copyright law and refrain from making duplicates of recorded material. Clearly, you are in the majority.

While you make the argument that changing formats by the entertainment companies is driven at least partially by their desire to re-sell back catalogs, I would argue that format change is predominantly based on other factors, such as increased storage capacity, increased playback quality, convenience and ease of use for the consumer.

Copying material has a domino effect that touches many elements in the entertainment business including songwriters and artists...not just the monolithic entertainment companies. In addition to reducing record companies' total sale, the copying of music also reduces artists' and writers' incomes, which in turn triggers their respective unions and/or management representatives to file grievances against the recording companies, which sometimes results in lawsuits, which compells the recording companies to keep expensive lawyers on the payroll, which causes the recording companies to raise the prices of discs, which causes the artists to demand a larger cut of the pie...and on and on.

Part of the response of hardware and software manufacturers to software piracy entails developing and including anti-pirating devices into players and software, which also raises the cost of the products.

Again, I'll re-emphasize that you share the opinion of the clear majority of end users, but the chain reaction created by the cumulative effect of millions of end users innocently duplicating copyrighted material contributes to the circumstances with which you take issue.