copyright? theft?

[2tired]

HI, I searched the forum index for a suitable place to discuss this problem but there is none, really and I didn't want to post it into that thread as it didn't really belong there; thus this post. This is from post "TV recording to DVD problems" posted by Gmichae.

it is still copyright theft at the end of the day.

did the program have a (C) on it?

Did you ask the program maker for permission?

If you read the EULA it states you may use your own material or material u have obtained permission to use.

I am just stating the legal aspects here.

By the way my name is David!

Thank you for the contribution David. Since you brought it up I thought that I might share my feelings on the matter. First of all I agree that essentially all artistic work (including some terrible blogs ) are copyrighted as soon as published. However, I own a VHS video recorder for the TV. I make good use of this in order to view the subject matter at my leisure. I believe this is called 'time shifting'. In fact I do the same with the canopus and my laptop so that I can watch where ever and when ever I wish. Millions of people do this ever day.

In this country, (US), I'll bet every Judge in the Federal, State, and Local judicial systems has a VHS just for this very purpose. So, if I had in my possession, on my shelf in the library, a DVD of some TV show which had been recorded from off the air analog signals in order to watch it over and over again, do you think that any US legal system would convict me of copyright infringement? We have what is called fair use here (which is currently being debated in our den of thieves called the congress). For example, I can make a backup copy of any DVD I want as long as I do not engage in profit making activities or pass out copies and in fact I have made backup copies of just about everything I bought from SuperCalc and MS Word version 1.0, to XP and Ulead VS8. (Until I finally figured out that DOS and the 5-1/2" floppy was probably not coming back)


(Just so you know, I respect all copyrighted software and buy it to own it.)

But I reserve the right, and believe I have the legal right, for personal use to time shift my viewing. In fact, in about three months, Starchoice, which is one of the satellite TV companies in my second home (CA) is coming out with a hard disk recording device like TIVO in the US and I'm sure they do not consider it copyright theft to 'time shift'. So, whether one records it on the hard disk for viewing later, or VHS tape for viewing later, or DVD for viewing later I personally don't see the problem nor do I suspect all those Judges in front of whom I may appear.

However, if I were in a jury and someone came before me accused of selling Digital Copies of copyrighted software or movies, I'd convict in a second as I believe most of those on this board would do.

It is all about compromise. The rights of the copyright owner and those of the user, reader, or viewer. It's about what is reasonable. Or we can end up with a society of lawyers.

Good talking to ya

[rjgeisler]

Nicely said!

[THoff]

Nicely said!

I'll second that. And yes, the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with timeshifting as well.

[kebrinton]

Or we can end up with a society of lawyers.

'Fraid we already have that. Main thing is not to give them too much to do.

[BrianCee]

Well here in the UK the satellite TV company actually encourage 'time shifting' with a package called 'Sky+' for this they supply you with a set top box with internal hard drive which in addition to allowing you to record the programme for later viewing even gives you the option to pause LIVE TV (to answer the phone say) and then re-start and watch the rest of the programme while it is still actually recording the end of the programme.

The even sell the package with the slogan 'Watch TV when YOU want to watch it"

[david reece]

Timeshifting is where you watch a program at a later date with the intention of scrubbing it as well.

Timeshifting does not whoever allow you to copy that tape to another media such as DVD or another tape.

It also prohibits you from keeping the tape after a certain period. In the Uk this is 28 days.

In the UK copyright theft can incur the following:
Confiscation of equipment
destruction of equipment
10 yrs in jail
and on top of this £5000 fine

Incitement to encourage another person to copyright theft also carries the same penalties. This also means helping another person to commit it as you are all doing here.

I am only adding the voice of reason here to make this site legit with the info given.

I also find it amazing that people have not read what the box and end user agreement states. for your own material ie camera footage. it doesnt state on the box hey guys (n gals) lets rip the movie/tv industry off! It states quite categorically you must not copy material which does not belong to you. If it is not your material you must obtain permission to do so. It also states in the EULA that your product may be terminated if you are found to have brokem its agreements.

In germany recently a DVD video recorder was classed as a threat to copy right theft that the courts imposed a levy of £8 per machine sold to combat copyright theft. As Germany is a an EU country will filter throughout the European Union.

You bunch of idiots may not like what i have to say on this. Tough!

Remember it is your actions which has added a levy on such items and discs payable to the entertianment industry through copyright theft.

I also dare the idiot in the orignal posting who has committed copyright theft to Fox to ask them their thoughts.

I have nothing else to say on this matter.

[rjgeisler]

You bunch of idiots may not like what i have to say on this. Tough!

I do not recall anyone in this forum calling you a idiot! Let's not get personal with this!

We all have read your postings about copyright infringement. Anyone in this country with a settop box that records off air broadcasts has technically broken the law. We get it!

Rhonda

[erock1]

We have what is called fair use here (which is currently being debated in our den of thieves called the congress). For example, I can make a backup copy of any DVD I want as long as I do not engage in profit making activities or pass out copies and in fact I have made backup copies of just about everything I bought from SuperCalc and MS Word version 1.0, to XP and Ulead VS8. (Until I finally figured out that DOS and the 5-1/2" floppy was probably not coming back)

2Tired,
you seem like an informed sort so I just wanted to point out that while your position as to fair use is valid but sitting on very shaky ground, you are absolutely wrong in stating that you can make a backup copy of a commercial DVD or for that matter make any kind of copy of it legally.

Most commercial DVD's are protected by an encryption process. In order for you to make a copy you would have to remove that encryption. The product or products that you would have to use would be illegal to own and use in the U.S. Just read the Calif. district courts decision regarding this in 321 Studios v. The Movie Studios. et al.. In case you don't remember, 321 Studios was the company that created and sold DVDXCopy and other products. The DMCA (digital Millenium Copyright Act) strictly forbids owning and/or using these decrypting devices.

Erock

[phd]

In his country, not this country.

As previously cited.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htm ... axcase.htm
"Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc. et al., commonly known as the Betamax case"

Handing down its decision in October 1979, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use; that copying an entire program also qualified as fair use;

Perhaps there are no VCRs there. Or hard drive recorders with built-in TiVo, TVGuide+ and DVD burner all-in-one STB. Which can record to -R media for one-time recording.
or CircuitCity
http://www.circuitcity.com/ssm/TiVo--Se ... tDetail.do
or CompUSA
http://www.compusa.com/products/product ... pfp=SEARCH

Addressing the matter of retailing of videocassettes, the court let stand the First Sale Doctrine of the 1976 Copyright Act, which stated that the first purchaser of a copyrighted work (e.g. a motion picture on videocassette) could use it in any way the purchaser saw fit as long as copyright was not violated by illegal duplication, etc. This right extended to the rental of videocassettes purchased from Hollywood studios.

Perhaps no "Blockbuster Video" either.

[THoff]

In his country, not this country.

As previously cited.
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/B/htm ... axcase.htm
"Universal City Studios, Inc. et al. v. Sony Corporation of America Inc. et al., commonly known as the Betamax case"

Handing down its decision in October 1979, the U.S. District Court ruled in favor of Sony, stating that taping off air for entertainment or time shifting constituted fair use; that copying an entire program also qualified as fair use;

More importantly, the U.S. District Court decision was overturned on appeal, but then confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court, making it once and for all legal to timeshift programs recorded for personal use, i.e. record them at the time of broadcast and watch them at a later time.

However, this does not make it legal to copy personally owned VHS tapes or DVDs, as was already pointed out.

[2tired]

Thanks everyone for the input. I'll just wind up my discussion with a couple of thoughts. First of all on the matter of time shifting - It seems that england has a pretty severe approach to the matter of which I was not aware. I can only say that my comments were and are prejudiced by my country of origin and the history of that nation's debate over this issue. If one must destroy a time shift after 28 days or face the consequences of a wrathful government I fear for other liberties taken for granted and I can only hope that we in the US find a means to stop that type of legislation here. However, if that is law in England then it is the law! Here, as shown in Mr/Ms PHD's post, we still do have the right to record off the air whether onto vhs, hard disk, or video disks.

Second, I stand corrected on the issue of Direct Copy of DVD movies as pointed out by Mr/Ms EROCK1. I had forgotten all about 321. When I made the statement, I was thinking of all the software that I had purchased. The problem here is the passage of the DMCA act by our (financially enhanced) congress.
<begin opinion> This legislation is merely one more step in the attempt of the media companies to control not only what we buy but how and when we may watch it. We started out with a copyright period of roughly 17 years. That gave the artist enough time to make his mark but then at the end society, which provided him the education and environment with which to make his mark, gets the ability to examine and improve or use this work in repayment of his debt. Due to the money flowing into our hallowed halls of legislation in the past 20 years, that time period is now up to 100 years in some cases. But for individuals? Oh no mon ami! For Disney? You bet. Which artist is here after 100 years? How does the average person benefit from this? Of course nobody benefits anymore except the monolithic media monopolies. </end opinion>
<begin reality> It has been mentioned that taxes are now being imposed on recording equipment and blank media. In addition to Germany, Canada comes to mind. So far that is not here in the US but it probably will be. The excuse is that copying is the main reason for this and that the companies are losing billions due to it, so we tax the stuff and give the money to whom? The people or the government? No, the media companies on the presumption of guilt. I just went out and looked at the financial health of a few of the media companies and there doesn't seem to be any company going broke. Quite the reverse. </end reality> <begin opinion> It is the same thing that is going on at this very minute in relation to social security here. Scream loud enough and long enough that it is a broken system and most will believe it. </end opinion>


Third, I hope that most of you really don't feel that a discussion of this type is in fact an incitement to break the law. Everything here is an opinion expressed by people from all over the world. We give ours they give theirs, and hopefully we all learn something. I know I have.

Fourth, as to - "You bunch of idiots may not like what i have to say on this. Tough!"
Actually my wife has called me an idiot a number of times so there must be some truth to what you say. Actually David I have gotten a great deal of good advice from you in the past and I look forward to getting your help in the future. I hope this discussion is looked upon as just one more small experience that we go through before we pass into that great bit bucket in the sky. What is it that the Buddhist says, "Life's a *** and then you die"? Or was that Woody Allen?

Fifth, It was an interesting digression but I'm going on far too long. Let's get on to business of VS problems. Thanks for reading!

[jchunter_2]

Managing Intellectual Property Laws

As somebody who participated in the last 40 years of computer evolution, I can confidently state that if computer companies had allowed themselves to be hobbled by copyright and patent laws, our computers would still be as big as houses and we would be using punch cards for mass storage.

Fortunately, computer companies had the good sense to agree that it was in their own best interests to "cross-license" each other’s intellectual property, (thereby legitimizing the "cross-fertilization” among engineers that was happening anyway). This proved to be a powerful and constructive alternative to quarrelling and quibbling over who had invented which of the thousands upon thousands of creative inventions that went into computer architecture.

This enabled a spectacular burst of creative energy that boosted computing productivity by a factor of about one BILLION over that time period.


Now consider the following alternative universe that might have evolved if computer companies had not pragmatically managed the intellectual property laws.

In this Orwellian setting, you don’t own your computer, you only own the right to use it. You can’t modify it because it is a creative work. You can’t return it if you don’t like it (try returning a music CD, sometime). The company that sold it to you has to send monthly royalty checks to the thousands of computer engineers who created all the intellectual property that made the computer possible. You can’t build your own computer unless you do likewise.

Moreover, there is a police force that roams around trying to catch people who have made copies of a computer (design) and a legal system that claps them in jail for violations.

I think that we would all agree that the entire world is better off because the first scenario happened.