我完全违反了法案第36条的规定，因为我未经Fab Four group的许可复制了该视频并将其用于个人用途。
The Fab Four group was impersonating Beatles group’s songs, a copyright material. Applying section 36 of the act here indicates that the Fab Four group is in violation of the law, since they have used the copyright material in their impersonation and have infringed the original copyright material. However, if the Fab Four has in written permission taken a prior licence from the Beatles or their manager about the reproduction, then they are not in violation, as per section 31 of the act. In addition, if the copyright held by Beatles have crossed the milestone of 70 years, then the Fab Four group are not in any violation, as per section 33 when applied.
I am in complete violation of section 36 of the act, because I have copied the video and used it for personal use without taking permission from the Fab Four group.
Don is also in violation of section 36 of the act, because he has also used it by downloading the video without taking any written permission from the one who has made the video, though he has mixed it with cats and modified it. The effect cannot exist without the cause.
As per section 31(1) of the act, Andrew could be considered the true owner of the original video, if he has made it originally after taking permission from the Beatles or their manager. If Andrew and the Fab Four group have together secured license from the Beatles, then they are the original copyright owners of the video.