How do you feel about recording programs and fair use. - Page 2 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #31 of 41 Old 03-04-2002, 12:31 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MichaelZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,480
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Maynard:
Quote:
While i generally agree with your post, it doesnt always have to be huge budget movies, software etc.

Look at what the free software groups are doing. Apache.org for instance. They have the most popular http server in the world, available for free. All of the development done for free.

Look at the linux movement. Arguably one of the better os's. All free.

This model could also work (and may already) in the music and movie business....
I have no disagreement with those who want to create an open software development team. I have myself written freeware as well as shareware. Trouble is end-users see this code for free and then expect all code to be free. This is why there is no descent desktop software for Linux. I do not believe there ever will be - who is to profit from it?
MichaelZ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #32 of 41 Old 03-04-2002, 12:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MichaelZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,480
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Alex, I played in bands and the way you get started is you buy your own personal gear (usually very cheap instrument and amp) and you learn how to play. If you become good enough you then try to join an already started band or you create band from scratch. The money needed to buy the real equipment you need is usually bought on borrowed money the musicans get (who usually have regular jobs) or they find a manager who can get them "front" money to purchase the needed gear. No one "donates" anything. You then make money playing live, etc. I could go on and on but most musicans want to make it big and they want the money that goes with it, else you would see alot of big named artist putting mp3s on the net for free.
As far as your concept of "someone" putting together the director, actors, up-front money for the "rights" to do a movie and then asking for donations is ludricrous at best. Who is going to put that effort into putting all the things that need to click on "hope" of someone willing to donate need cash to do the project. It would never happen.
MichaelZ is offline  
post #33 of 41 Old 03-04-2002, 03:01 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Jet-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I'm playing devils advocate here....

Part of the problem with this whole survey/poll is that we're all voting on stuff that you can't buy at any retailer and there is no guarantee it will ever be released. Yes there are legal/moral/etc. issues with recording and or trading of material. But it's material you cannot buy, period.

This argument has often carried over in the audio world. Many people wish they could be recordings of the concert(s) they went to (often times with material never available on the albums, etc.). So, does one stick to the proper legal arena and just learn to live without it, or does he/she buy an illegal recording?

This poll in my opinion would be more applicable once pre-recorded content were available for sale. I'd like to see how many approve of copying DVDs.

Remember, this isn't necessarily about buying vs. copying content, but also in many ways applies to loaning out of pre-recorded store bought content. What do you think was the issue with DiVX ? Piracy? Hell no. It was about charging you and anyone else you gave your disc to for the right to watch intellectual property.

Don, I do have admiration for you walking the straight line. I'm in the software entertainment business, and also in my field, many software engineers and others are the biggest pirates of computer/entertainment software. However your tone comes across as if you are 'better' than the rest of us because you don't copy/trade/etc. (not that I do). Maybe that's not the way you meant to come across, but it's how your post came across to me.

So I have a question for you and everyone else(and one that was never answered by anyone else): When pre-recorded content for D-VHS becomes available, even if you have a copy in your collection, will you purchase the pre-recorded version? Fair use or not, anyone who answers no in my opinion is just as guilty as a pirate who trades tapes for money. If it's worth keeping on a tape in your collection taking up space, then it's worth paying the IP rights holder for the rights to own it.

Just because I purchased a VHS copy umpteen years ago doesn't give me the right to subsequent copies on other formats as they become available.

-Brian

-> No longer looking for Hi-Vision LDs <-

(I buried that format finally)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jet-X is offline  
post #34 of 41 Old 03-04-2002, 03:54 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Brian-

I'm no psychologist, so I can't explain why you have some sort of inferior feeling or as you put it, I sound better than others because... we choose to not distribute other's copyrighted works. You should feel comfortable since 85% of the respondents are in the same camp.
Also, the fact that you may not know how to buy distribution copyrights to these things has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. You claim this stuff is not available. I'd be willing to bet that it is available but the real issue is it is not available for a price you are willing to pay. Nobody creates a work just to say it is not for sale or available. If they do, they are lying. The point is nobody has met their price. Agreed, that the price may be absurd, however. Take Mark Cuban as a perfect example, look at the price he is paying to gain access rights (legally) to all that HDTV footage. Yes, this stuff is all available, you just need to meet the price the lawful owners want for it. Many times it is not always for cash. It is all negotiable.

Just because I may posses a legal copy of a movie on DVHS and later on a commercial version is released for retail sale, why does that now make me a pirate when the commercial one is released? Have you now put yourself in the position of rewriting or reinterpreting the laws or are you just stating a personal opinion of the state of affairs. The first, I think is pretty arrogant, but I will accept you may have a personal opinion in this regard, even if I don't agree with it and might even think it is ridiculous. I also accept that you and others may feel that this whole copyright law is ridiculous and restricts their personal freedom. Don't forget, this is not about fair use recording of copyrighted programming. It is about distributing copyrighted programming to others without the copyright holder's permission.
Why don't you start an opinion poll on your ideas?


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #35 of 41 Old 03-04-2002, 05:26 PM
AVS Club Gold
 
Jet-X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Orange County, CA
Posts: 1,469
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 10
QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Landis
I'm no psychologist, so I can't explain why you have some sort of inferior feeling or as you put it, I sound better than others because... we choose to not distribute other's copyrighted works.

I don't feel inferior. You obviously do, because you've hammered it into our computer screens a bazillion times that you don't distribute copyrighted content. And the line about others in your business who actively do it but you don't because you're a saint has been made perfectly clear. You are good and do no wrong and sue those that do, and the rest of us on this board are Captain Bluebeards of the S.S. We Pirate Copyrighted Works While-U-Wait.

Quote:
Also, the fact that you may not know how to buy distribution copyrights to these things has nothing to do with whether it is right or wrong. You claim this stuff is not available. I'd be willing to bet that it is available but the real issue is it is not available for a price you are willing to pay
Ever dealt with the Olympics Committee? If you (or anyone else have) would clearly know that some stuff truely isn't available at any cost. 99% of the stuff we all want is generally owned and distributed by the copyright holders and not sub-licensed out to other companies or individuals.

Mark Cuban isn't a good example because that's broadcast and obviously a lot easier to get a hold of. We're talking pre-recorded content being available (which it isn't), and Mr. Cuban (whom I respect for trying to help the situation) still hasn't released pre-recorded content as he discussed last year. Cost isn't always the issue.


Quote:
I also accept that you and others may feel that this whole copyright law is ridiculous and restricts their personal freedom.
That's not what this is about, nor do I feel this way. Face it, you put up a poll asking how people felt. People responded, opinions and facts (then again there are no facts, only opinion - the law is an stated opinion open to interpretation). You were obviously not happy to see people are active in trading, and went so far as to post your opinion about how wrong people are about copyrights etc. for those of us who are "ignorant" of the law. You are clearly not seeking opinions, but hoping to change viewpoints. Personally, that's fine, but rather than do some poll why not just come out with it from the beginning, that's what these boards are for, discussion.

This isn't about personal freedom or restrictions, it's about what's available and what's not. Plain and simple. And this is what I base my evidence off of. No, not my interpretation to the law, but from an IP attorney who deals with this stuff everyday.

Quote:
Just because I may posses a legal copy of a movie on DVHS and later on a commercial version is released for retail sale, why does that now make me a pirate when the commercial one is released? Have you now put yourself in the position of rewriting or reinterpreting the laws or are you just stating a personal opinion of the state of affairs
I'm stating an opinion. You've made it abundantly clear in your posts that people should be paid for their work. So, Fox spends the money on a HD transfer of XYZ movie. There is no pre-recorded HD market at the moment, but when there is, they release XYZ movie. But you're not willing to buy it because you possess a copy that didn't cost you anymore than a blank tape and less than a buck to record. Now you're not only not willing to support the studio who paid X number of dollars for an HD transfer, but they've made it publicly available to buy. Do you not consider that stealing? This isn't apples and oranges, you possess a copy of a film that is sold legitimately at retail. Fair use, yeah, sure, legally you're allowed to own that. But does that make it right? Fox spends the money to bring out a piece of high quality content and you won't buy it because you already own a copy you made yourself?

Go on Don, call all of us in the HD recording session pirates, I know that's what you think of us. The poll proves that, right?

-> No longer looking for Hi-Vision LDs <-

(I buried that format finally)


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Jet-X is offline  
post #36 of 41 Old 03-05-2002, 03:42 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,929
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 129
Brian- You know where I stand on this. I'm not sure I understand you but at this point, let's just agree that we disagree on whether it is right or wrong to distribute copyrighted works without the owner's permission.
Debating whether we need to pay money to a private enterprise ( you mentioned, specifically, FOX) who commercializes legal copies of a copyrighted work in the future because we originally had these obtained and used in fair use manner is, to me an absurd concept. But you are welcome to start a thread to see if you have any support. Then if you find that most people agree that they should all send money to the private enterprises sometime in the future because they posses a fair use copy now and if they all think of me as a crook and a thief for not doing it then that's fine with me. If you want to think of me as a saint now and a crook in the future then that is your choice. This is almost like the atheist who goes to confession each week because he feels the need to be forgiven for sinning and preaching atheism.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Don Landis
Don Landis is online now  
post #37 of 41 Old 03-05-2002, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Phloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Santa Clara, CA
Posts: 2,879
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
While not wishing to get into any huge debate, I also think that there is a big difference between seeking out stuff that you can't buy vs copying stuff that someone else already bought.

Now, I don't know too much about the intricacies of fair use or any of that legal stuff (colour me a cavalier ignoramus) ... but consider this.

When I was in China I bought a bootleg DVD of Episode 1. I could not buy it in the USA from Fox. It also only cost $3.

When Episode 1 came out on DVD, I had the choice of buying it or sticking with my bootleg. Needless to say I bought the official release. I think that most people would.

Same goes with taping content - let me see, should I keep my tape of Diamonds are Forever, complete with ads and the ABC logo in the corner, not to mention the censorship - or should I buy the official release from MGM? If there was one, I would likely buy it.

What about a 'clean' tape of Trainspotting recorded off HBO? Difficult to spot any difference between my tape and the official release... Same aspect ratio, no ads.

Am I a bad person if I don't buy it and keep my taped copy because it is cheaper? Good question...

I think that the goal for the content providers should always be to make the official release more attractive than the alternative. Then I will always plonk down my money to get what I am missing. If they don't, they run the risk of me not bothering to buy it, whether my copy is legal according to fair use or not.

Cheers!
DAve.

Content is key. See the stats -
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
-
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Phloyd is offline  
post #38 of 41 Old 03-05-2002, 06:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
gridleak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Newport Beach, CA, USA
Posts: 1,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Phloyd
I think that the goal for the content providers should always be to make the official release more attractive than the alternative. Then I will always plonk down my money to get what I am missing. If they don't, they run the risk of me not bothering to buy it, whether my copy is legal according to fair use or not.
That's exactly how I feel. It would be easy for the content providers to improve on what we tape from Dish and OTA. Just some nice packaging and the correct aspect ratio, and I'd start replacing my whole collection.

-Roger
gridleak is offline  
post #39 of 41 Old 03-05-2002, 07:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
MrWigggles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Houston, TX, USA
Posts: 6,240
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Well life's a gray-area wether people want to admit it or not.

Ranging from taking two after-dinner mints at your local restaurant when you leave, all the way to out-right grand theft constitute many gray levels.

Here are my ordering for sinning from completely legit to completely shameful.

1. Recording OTA with comericials and giving it to a friend.

2. Same as 1. but to a person I know is likely to pass a recording on to others.

3. Recording premium stations and giving them to someone I know also subscribes to those premium stations.

4. Recoding OTA without comercials and giving it to a friend.

5. Recording premium or PPV and giving to someone who doesn't subscribe

6,7,8 Same as 3,4 and 5 but giving the recording to someone who is likely to further disribute.

So that's how I feel. I don't want to deprive the artist of his royality or the studio to a lesser exstent; but quite frankly I don't know if I would pay $70+ a month in cable services and not be able to a little of 1-5.

If I'm a bad customer and they don't want me, so be it. I'll play my XBOX instead. $900 a year buys a lot of games.

-Mr. Wigggles

The Mothership is now boarding.
MrWigggles is offline  
post #40 of 41 Old 03-06-2002, 03:11 AM
AVS Club Gold
 
Alexander's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
Posts: 948
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by MrWigggles
Here are my ordering for sinning from completely legit to completely shameful.
Your list is interesting, because I wouldn't think twice about (3) -- recording premium content and giving it to a friend who also subscribes. It's like you're time-shifting it for them, and the provider isn't really losing out, because the person might well have timeshifted it for themselves. (Ignoring any possibilities about them cancelling the service in the future, I assumed that it included "and are likely to remain subscribers for the foreseeable future".)

Of course, then, (1) is practically the same -- you're not giving them anything they couldn't have gotten for themselves in the past at no additional cost.

Which makes me wonder how things will work when everybody has a "Personal Video On Demand" box -- think of a super-storage TiVo that continuously records all (or at least a significant number of) channels all at once, and basically lets you go back in time for a week, month, or more. I was under the impression that this is what Moxi was really doing, and while it obviously requires substantial advances in storage technology, these advances are clearly going to come, and sooner rather than later. I give it a decade at most.

(Actually, I just did the math on this -- In 1992, the biggest hard drive you could buy was about 1GB (and 40-80MB was more typical). Today, it's about 180GB. Estimating TiVo-quality video at 1GB/hour, at the same rate of data storage growth, in 2012 you could get a 32,400 hour box -- That's enough to record 45 channels simultaneously for one straight month.)

Think about the future. What's the most plausible scenario? Technology is advancing at a tremendous rate. As is evidenced by this thread, you can't trust people to "do the right thing", and it's also clear that noone loves copy protection and the DMCA and police-state-like stuff it fosters. What will the future be like?

In a way, it's almost silly to be discussing the present-day state of copyright now, since it's going to have to change so dramatically so soon.

Alex
Alexander is offline  
post #41 of 41 Old 03-06-2002, 08:25 PM
Member
 
Photographist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 17
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Working my way backwards through this thread...

Congress does have the right and the responsibility to guard an author's rights to earn a reasonable return on his or her work. This is, as stated in the Constitution, for a "... limited..." period of time. In any dictionary that I've checked, limited implies a restriction or a "limitation" what ever the word/phrase is associated with.

Recently Congress has been giving publishers the rights permanently, by simply extending the publisher's exclusive rights over and over again! The Disney law lives!

On an earlier thought, I come from the if I buy it, I own it... not lease it, and if I want to play it at home, on the road, sell it (the original only), make a copy of it for my use (a backup to protect my investment), I WILL!

However, I do NOT have the right to copy the purchased product for re-publication, or make multiple copies for distribution. I hold this to be true for OTA broadcasts that I tape.

I travel all the time, and would like to be able to take my tapes with me. Some of the HTPC boards on the market have coding to limit me in what I watch when. Not cool.

OK.. rant done...
Photographist is offline  
Closed Thread HDTV Recorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off