Though there are lot of discussions on the DVR's ability to record movie channels, wanted to know if its legal in the US to record from such channels. Obviously these are content that has been subscribed for by consumers and they have a right to view them, but is there a restriction to record them for personal use.

I read somewhere about the DMCA where there is discussion about backing up own dvd movies as long as they are in Analog format (not sure what that means). But is there any law that protects / prohibits consumers from recording from premium channels...??

Just wanted to know if its ok?

Though there are lot of discussions on the DVR's ability to record movie channels, wanted to know if its legal in the US to record from such channels. Obviously these are content that has been subscribed for by consumers and they have a right to view them, but is there a restriction to record them for personal use.

I read somewhere about the DMCA where there is discussion about backing up own dvd movies as long as they are in Analog format (not sure what that means). But is there any law that protects / prohibits consumers from recording from premium channels...??

Just wanted to know if its ok?

Can I play with that can o' worms you just opened too? :)

Well, now you've done it. I certainly hope you're happy with yourself! :D

i think its eliott spitzer in disguise:eek:.
he's 'arisen' from his 'professional death' and returned to bust all the illicit movie copiers.
he's gonna nab 'em by entrapment.
be careful whatchu say!

jmo.:D

Just wanted to know if its ok?

It's always been my opinion that as long as you are not selling it (meaning you are not personally gaining from it) then it would be ok.

However I don't know how the law feels about the issue, so I actually don't know if it's "OK" on a legal basis or not.

:D didnt meant to open a can of worms.. but have always resorted to this forum for level headed information!

Request moderator to delete the post if its going to cause chaos!

Though there are lot of discussions on the DVR's ability to record movie channels, wanted to know if its legal in the US to record from such channels. Obviously these are content that has been subscribed for by consumers and they have a right to view them, but is there a restriction to record them for personal use.

I read somewhere about the DMCA where there is discussion about backing up own dvd movies as long as they are in Analog format (not sure what that means). But is there any law that protects / prohibits consumers from recording from premium channels...??

Well, if there is copy protection (e.g. macrovision) on the channels, then breaking that (through a "video stabilizer", whose real world use is almost certainly ONLY piracy) is violating the DMCA.

But the main point I wanted to bring up is that it has not been decided whether recording _for keeps_ is legal even from broadcast stations.

The (in)famous Columbia vs. Sony case, which legalized time shifting, did only that. They don't specify a time period as far as I know (and I read a general readership book that covered the trial), but "librarying", which is what it was called, isn't covered. That doesn't mean it's illegal, just that it's not a protected use.

BTW, I read this forum since I have several Tivos and a Toshiba hard drive/DVD recorder. Obviously I want to record 'for keeps' myself.. I was just pointing that out.

Though there are lot of discussions on the DVR's ability to record movie channels, wanted to know if its legal in the US to record from such channels. Obviously these are content that has been subscribed for by consumers and they have a right to view them, but is there a restriction to record them for personal use.

I read somewhere about the DMCA where there is discussion about backing up own dvd movies as long as they are in Analog format (not sure what that means). But is there any law that protects / prohibits consumers from recording from premium channels...??

Just wanted to know if its ok?

im no lawyer but i think its illegal as hell:eek:.
not the copying per se but breaking the copy code (like with a sima ct2, etc)-which only in the last year has been used on some prem and some hd cable tv channels-in my experience.
i read that somewhere, dont remember where.
buttchu only gotta worry if yer making tons of copies and selling them.



i think.:eek:

Yeah, it's about time for this to come up again. It's been a couple months since the last go-round. Last guy to bring it up was a school teacher, IIRC, who wanted to know about the legality of making and keeping copies to show in class.

It's not a question of "legality", but of "liability". It's definitely NOT illegal to copy ANYTHING onto your DVR. The question is whether the owner of the content that you're copying will sue you for damages. Now, do you really think that a Sony or a Disney is going to sue every individual for copying one (or even several) movies for personal use?? Maybe if you were making dozens of copies and advertising them for sale on the internet, you may cause a blip on their radar. Even then, they would first warn you to stop before taking legal action.

IOW, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT!

The "right" to record is actually a "fair use" exemption from prosecution for recording copyrighted material.

What has changed with the "No Electronic Theft Act" (1997) and the "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (1998), and regulations and agency decisions that implement these Acts, is the use of technology that prevents reproduction of copyrighted material in the same quality as the original.

The technology may allow a single "fair use" recording on DVRs provided by satellite and cable providers (where royalties are paid to copyright holders through agents or assigns); unrestricted recording, or no recording. The technology inherent in digital and HD transmission and tuning supports these restrictions and/or prevents recording to external media (a DVD) where more than one copy may be produced.

For the another take on "Fair Use," see this Wikipedia entry. Stanford Law school also has good ref. on this subject, essentially confirming what's in the Wiki entry. The Supreme-Court-defined "Fair Use," as it relates to our recording, is only the right to "time-shift" a program for watching later.

The technology inherent in digital and HD transmission and tuning supports these restrictions and/or prevents recording to external media (a DVD) where more than one copy may be produced.
It is still really a moot point, since copyright laws only provide the owner of the copyright with the right to defend their copyright in court, by filing a civil action for damages. Furthermore, they can only seek ACTUAL damages, i.e., illegal profits collected by the copyright infringer.

So, unless you plan on engaging in "Napster" type activities, I still say it can be safely ignored.

It is still really a moot point, since copyright laws only provide the owner of the copyright with the right to defend their copyright in court, by filing a civil action for damages. Furthermore, they can only seek ACTUAL damages, i.e., illegal profits collected by the copyright infringer.How does that jive with the RIAA suing P2P downloaders and asking for tens of thousands of dollars in damages per song. These are not people sharing on the net but the people caught just downloading a couple songs from whoever. Where are the "actual" damages in this case?

P.S. I agree this can all be ignored for home recording. Who is going to know what you record and when -- unless you have a bi-directional cable co DVR that tracks your usage and recording habits "to better serve you".

For the another take on "Fair Use," see this Wikipedia entry. Stanford Law school also has good ref. on this subject, essentially confirming what's in the Wiki entry. The Supreme-Court-defined "Fair Use," as it relates to our recording, is only the right to "time-shift" a program for watching later.
I can understand this, BUT has any court or legal authority specifically said that "librarying" is illegal?

[a bit off topic]
There was, at one time, a legal decision in France where the judge in the case ruled that when you purchase content, you are buying that content, not specifically the medium that the content is presented on. Someone bought a (VHS?) tape of a movie and could not play it at a friend's hous because they only had a DVD, and the tape could not be copied to DVD because of some anti-copy mechanism. The judge ruled that such anti-copy mechanisms violated the consumer's right to view the content that they had legally purchased and made such mechanisms illegal.

I might not have that all correct as I only saw a small article on the decision, and it might have been overturned quickly, but it does show just how complex an issue this is, and certainly not just in the US. Various people see it differently, and from moment to moment, something is okay, then not, then okay again.
[/a bit off topic]

I can understand this, BUT has any court or legal authority specifically said that "librarying" is illegal?
I can't find the exact piece I read that mentioned "librarying" as not being a Fair Use exemption from copyright laws,

I did find this article (http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20070419.html), which says this:

"As noted above, the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Sony paved the way, in a sense, for sites like these. There, the Court held that Betamax was not liable for copyright infringement for copies made by their machines of television shows, because its product was used solely for "time-shifting" television viewing - a "substantial noninfringing use"-- and not for librarying the materials. On this rationale, the Court found the copying to be "fair use," despite the fact that entire shows were copied."

I think where I had read this before was in something at Stanford Law, where it mentioned in a summary that "librarying" was not covered or "authorized" by anything in the the Supreme Court decision on Sony that established "Fair Use" as a litigated and adjudged concept.

They said that "timeshifting" is the only thing that's covered by that Supreme Court decision, and even today several/many sources mention that "librarying" is still not a Fair Use.

Here's a link to Stanford Law's excellent series of articles (for their people to follow) re: Copyright, Fair Use, etc. (http://library.stanford.edu/libraries_collections/copyright_reminders/index.html)

Librarying? Heck, no. I'm just timeshifting my recordings by a couple of years instead of hours...

Did the Supreme Court set an upper bound on timeshifting? How about on the number of times one can watch a timeshifted recording?

now im curious/paranoid.?
is it legal if:
1 i make backup copies of my bought dvds using a sima ct2?
2 i used to rent dvds from a local video store and copy them for personal use, same method.?
3 i used to make copies of friends bought dvds for them to use, same method.?
4 i used to make dvd copies of cableco supplied protected hd content recorded onto hd dvr and then (downrezzed) to dvd, also w ct-2.?

in all cases the copy is made from the original by the ct2 converting signal from digital to analog and back to digital (afaik). the audio is downgraded to 2.0.
the copies are slightly lower quality from the original.


opinions? comments?

thanks.

Shhhh! Just do it.

now im curious. is it legal if:
1 i make backup copies of my bought dvds using a sima ct2?
2 i used to rent dvds from a local video store and copy them for personal use, same method.?
3 i used to make copies of friends bought dvds for them to use, same method.?
4 i used to make dvd copies of protected hd content recorded onto hd dvr and then (downrezzed) to dvd, also w ct-2.?

in all cases the copy is made from the original by the ct2 converting signal from digital to analog and back to digital (afaik). the audio is downgraded to 2.0.
the copies are slightly lower quality from the original.


opinions? comments?

thanks.Is it legal if:

1. &4. - no, using sima to defeat copy guards is a violation of DMCA
2. & 3. - real big no, that is the very definition of piracy

Unless one is extremely stupid about it and do something like sell the copies or play them at a large public venue, who will know. So, you won't have any legal issues, just issues of conscience.

I bought my first VCR in February of 1979 and I have taped movies and TV programs ever since then, as have millions of other people. I remember the Disney / Betamax case and I don't recall of any homeowner getting busted for taping an HBO movie or something or even copying a tape or disc that was rented so long as it was only for home use. I have sometimes dubbed both over the years. 765 tapes alone plus dvds as of late have been used for recording television, etc. I figure that as long as I don't do something really dumb like try to peddle some of this stuff, I will be ok and the Feds aren't going to bust down the door. The machinery to record films has been around a long time and is available anywhere, in open, plain sight as is blank media. If we were all in imminent danger from copying, then why would this stuff be for sale for 30 years? Why else would a person buy a DVD recorder?

Then, you get to the recording of music. This is no less copy write protected than films are and who knows how many million record albums have been copied over the decades of audio recorders.

So, why should we be worried about copying films for our own enjoyment?
John

I bought my first VCR in February of 1979 and I have taped movies and TV programs ever since then, as have millions of other people. I remember the Disney / Betamax case and I don't recall of any homeowner getting busted for taping an HBO movie or something or even copying a tape or disc that was rented so long as it was only for home use. I have sometimes dubbed both over the years. 765 tapes alone plus dvds as of late have been used for recording television, etc. I figure that as long as I don't do something really dumb like try to peddle some of this stuff, I will be ok and the Feds aren't going to bust down the door. The machinery to record films has been around a long time and is available anywhere, in open, plain sight as is blank media. If we were all in imminent danger from copying, then why would this stuff be for sale for 30 years? Why else would a person buy a DVD recorder?

Then, you get to the recording of music. This is no less copy write protected than films are and who knows how many million record albums have been copied over the decades of audio recorders.

So, why should we be worried about copying films for our own enjoyment?
John

great points!

I can understand this, BUT has any court or legal authority specifically said that "librarying" is illegal?

No, that's exactly what I said. It hasn't been specified as legal nor illegal.

Librarying? Heck, no. I'm just timeshifting my recordings by a couple of years instead of hours...

Did the Supreme Court set an upper bound on timeshifting? How about on the number of times one can watch a timeshifted recording?


READ MY REPLY EARLIER IN THE THREAD.

I am watching, for the first time, titles I originally recorded on videotape more than twenty years ago. I copied these "time-shifted" titles to DVD last summer.

Then, you get to the recording of music. This is no less copy write protected than films are and who knows how many million record albums have been copied over the decades of audio recorders.

So, why should we be worried about copying films for our own enjoyment?
John

The dubbing of music issue was settled back in the early 1970s. The idea was that it was acceptable to take your LP and dub it to cassette for use in the car. You couldn't make two copies and give or sell the second copy, but since it was not practical to play an LP in a car, this was the reasonable solution. Of course, the record industry didn't help itself by selling such shoddy cassettes. Even a modest cassette deck could produce a better sounding cassette than the same content on a commercially recorded cassette.

I only mentioned the record industry because I believe this is the same argument for copying films for my personal use only. As for a settlement regarding the process of dubbing LPs and tapes to tape, I was not aware of an official legal ruling on that. To me, it's really the same as copying a movie - so long as you don't sell it or make a profit on it. Suppose you own a commercial vhs tape and you want to make a dvd copy of it? It's the same issue, I believe. I have no idea how many thousands - perhaps millions - of copies of films have been made for personal use over the past 30 years.

I think it's obvious that the heightened sensitivity to copying by rights-holders is due to the new world dynamics of the Internet. 20 years ago if you made a VHS copy of a TV show or a cassette copy of an LP you could share it with a handful of close friends and neighbors (until somebody's machine ate the tape). Now with the ability to record media in digital form, a single person who takes the time to compress and upload to the Internet is sharing with tens of thousands who in turn can share with tens of thousands and so on. One persons recording can easily reach the world. And, if you ever have looked at what people download and watch from their PC's, you'll know that PQ is not an important factor -- just the content.

On the other hand, if you are not a file-sharer, who will ever know what you do in the privacy of your home -- that is unless your device is connected to the Internet and transmitting your use patterns to "better serve you".

Kelson, I also believe that places like Ebay have upped the concerns over dvd copying. I am just surprised to see some of the obvious bootlegging going on over there.

I am not trying to be argumentative and I don't contest the laws expressed here on this forum, just the lack of common sense. From what I gather here - and from other forums - is that it's OK to make a back up of a movie that I have purchased, but not a rental. I cannot make a copy and give it away. So, suppose I make a copy and give away the original? I guess that's ok. Suppose I buy a cheap, used vhs movie and copy it to dvd and toss the tape? If the laws are there to protect the studio or the artist from losing money, then I don't see how they can work.

As it has been stated already, as long as I don't start selling the films I copy, the truth police aren't going to come and get me.

Hmm...my door bell is ringing. Gotta go.
John

I'm not a laywer. Other than reading the primary documents, I really don't know all the nuances of the copyright law. I just live by common sense and christian ethics. When I buy a DVD, I usually make a digital copy for myself -- for no other reason than I want the movie to play as soon as the disk is mounted. Often times the movie is larger than will fit on a single layer DVD so I shrink it -- thus the copy is really not the same quality as the original. Is this illegal? Under current DMCA provisions, yes. Do I have an ethical problem with it? No. I don't make multiple copies to give to friends, although I will lend a DVD as I would a book. I just have no tolerance for wasting my time having to fast-forward through trailers or advertising or being forced to stare at FBI nag screens in multiple languages. The last DVD I bought forced the viewer to watch a 60 second castigation on the evils of buying pirated DVD's. For me, making that "clean" copy is in the same category as editing out commercials. Sometimes it can be quite necessary. My daughter bought Casino Royal (Sony Pictures) when it came out and it wouldn't play on the DVD drive in her PC or an older Panasonic player. I had to rip and burn a "clean" copy for her on my PC in order for her to view the movie she just bought.

Sometimes, I think the MPAA makes such a big fuss about home recording and copying largely out of frustration because they can't get to the real pirates who are not in the Caribbean but in china. The software I use to make personal digital copies comes straight from beijing with frequent updates to counter any additional obstructions Sony and Disney try to add. Now that the HD format war is over they can concentrate on a BluRay crack which they are promising real-soon-now. One can just imagine the DVD pirate factories over there cranking out copies by the thousands.

For your reading enjoyment... if you like irony... Google "MPAA caught" and read 256,000 or so stories of the MPAA violating copyright itself, plus other stories about fake Torrent uploads/downloads which the MPAA places on the internet, then tracks them to your ISP and gets your account shut down for "Copyright Infringement"!

Sort of makes you wonder if they REALLY won't be concerned abut ONE person's sins!? :D :cool: :eek: