So the new copyright act says we're allowed to "format shift" sound -- but only sound.
We're not allowed to format shift video, or images, or text.

from the MED FAQ:

Why is there a format shifting provision and why is it limited to sound recordings?

The new format shifting provision responds to the concern that people want to transfer music they have legitimately bought onto different devices to take advantage of new technology. It also recognises this has been common practice for a long time.

The markets for audio visual works and music are evolving, they are different. There are numerous business models for audiovisual works that do not apply to music. Theatrical release, commercial rental (both physical and online models), free-to-air TV and pay TV do not have counterparts of any significant extent for music. It is also unlikely that consumption of audio visual works "on the move" using mp3 players and the like will ever be as ubiquitous as for music. It is not, therefore, possible to simply apply the conclusions reached about music to audio visual works.

the argument seems to be that something needs to be "ubiquitous", otherwise we'll make it illegal. (It also seems strange to say that people don't want to consume audio visual works on the move - have they never been on a long haul flight?)

The whole document ignores other forms that creative works take.

For me right now, i'm trying to work is if, finally, it's legal for me to slice the spine off a paperback book, feed it through my scanner and OCR it into an electronic text, so i can read it on my electronic book reader. I own the book, i paid for it. And I don't want to carry my 200 paperback books with me everywhere yet i do want to carry 200 electronic ebooks on a 1Gb flash card.

Seems to me I'm not allowed to do this. I don't understand why this activity is illegal. Perhaps because it's not "ubiquitous".