How do you feel about recording programs and fair use. - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
post #1 of 41 Old 02-24-2002, 02:38 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Please check how you feel about the statements listed. Be as honest as you can and you don't need to identify yourself or your position on your choice. Answer even if you don't have recording equipment but have an opinion one way or another.
Don Landis is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 41 Old 02-24-2002, 10:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tluxon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Kirkland, WA
Posts: 2,675
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Call me ingnorant, but this explains why there's such a strong effort to implement copy protection on future HD programming.

I'm sure you realize this, but illegal copying and sharing (even among friends) drives the cost up for those of us who want to abide by the law.

Copy protection will make it very inconvenient (or much more expensive) for those of us who want to record HD programming in the future (not yet, but that's what's being fought over right now (i.e. DVI)).

If you think the price is too high, don't buy it - but don't steal it. Would you steal a car that you cant' afford just because you really want it?

Thanks for viewing,

Tim L

(send ugly responses to honest_abe@slavefree.com)
tluxon is offline  
post #3 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 04:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Edgewater, nj, usa
Posts: 3,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I agree with you on a product that is being SOLD, however I don't see a reason why recording OTA transmissions that were legitimately being shown for free can't be distributed. If they plan to sell it in the future I can see why they might be upset, but I highly doubt NBC plans to start selling leno episodes in HD.

chap is offline  
post #4 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 08:18 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 106
The whole point of the intellectual property copyright law is to preserve control over those copyrights for the owner.

In your example, Chap, please explain what gives you the right to decide whether a company like NBC will sell the boxed media of their shows later on? ie, seize upon the opportunity to supply in the interim, that media without their say in the matter? What gives you the right to distribute their product on another media format without their permission? You don't have the right to decide whether they will or will not produce a nostalgia product in the future.

Obviously you have the (fair use) right to record and keep a copy to watch, modify and do what ever you wish, except distribute it to others. The question here (this thread/poll) is what do people believe is their right to other's copyrights? It would appear that by the results so far indicate that people believe if you have a product but choose not to sell it, or choose to sell it but not in the manner that some want, then this makes the product in the public domain for that format.

Would this, then give me the right to take video of stage performances and distribute the tapes without the performer's stage company's permission? by reason that they don't make the videos available?
Don Landis is offline  
post #5 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 09:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
dt_dc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 3,333
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
A distinction that exists in my mind ... but wasn't addressed in the poll:

In my mind there is a big difference between giving a tape to a friend for a program they originally had access to vs. a program they didn't. Hypothetical example:

Friend: "Hey, did you tape [some OTA sit-com] this week? I forgot about the State Of The Union and ended up getting 1/2 hour of Bush talking about evil-doers."

Me: "Sure, here ya go."

Friend: "Cool, thanks. Now what about the new Sopranos episode?"

Me: "Oh, I didn't know you started subscribing to HBO."

Friend: "Well, I don't ... that's why I want that tape."

I have no problem lending out the first tape ... the second, I do have problems with.
dt_dc is offline  
post #6 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 10:00 AM
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:
If you think the price is too high, don't buy it - but don't steal it. Would you steal a car that you cant' afford just because you really want it?
You are comparing apples and oranges here.

We're not talking about "affording HD content", because there is NO HD content that can be purchased on an archive format (tape, disc, etc.)

If you can't buy a legitimate copy, it's not stealing. but the fact that no HD content is available for purchase. No revenue is being lost by distributing the content. Color it anyway you want but if you can't buy it legitimately, it's hard even for the content holder to allege theft. Especially when it is broadcast for free.

In regards to content on pay channels, what dt_dc discusses, trading of HBO content is questionable because there is a charge for that service. But again, you can't buy the content otherwise.

At the end of the day, as long as someone isn't profiting from it (and I mean $$$$$ profiting), I don't think it's as big of an issue for now.

I won't get into my feelings about it, but I won't be trading content with anyone if there is a legitimate version that can be bought anywhere. It doesn't even have to be at a brick-and-mortar.

Quote:
Call me ingnorant, but this explains why there's such a strong effort to implement copy protection on future HD programming
There would have always been this initiative. Everyone wants to protect their investment, and that's completely justified. When they implement copy protection on HD content I can buy (insert format), I have no problem with it.

I maybe going to far, but I interpret your comment as "sssshhhh, keep it quiet, if they don't know, then maybe they won't implement CP."

-BrianNO

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

(I buried that format finally)

www.16cylinder.com
Jet-X is offline  
post #7 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 10:41 AM
Member
 
Scott A. Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
In the long run, after we have invented things
to manufacture goods on the spot from digital
descriptions (we are already pretty close to
that), then virtually every occupation on this
planet can have their work "shared" by users
who did nothing to create that work. This is
not about copyright and big bad Hollywood.
Its about nothing less than survival of our
economic system. If you LIKE movies BUY THEM.
They are cheaper than dinner, and they last
longer.
Scott A. Moore is offline  
post #8 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 11:11 AM
AVS Special Member
 
chap's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Edgewater, nj, usa
Posts: 3,765
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
Quote:
Originally posted by Don Landis
The whole point of the intellectual property copyright law is to preserve control over those copyrights for the owner.

In your example, Chap, please explain what gives you the right to decide whether a company like NBC will sell the boxed media of their shows later on? ie, seize upon the opportunity to supply in the interim, that media without their say in the matter? What gives you the right to distribute their product on another media format without their permission? You don't have the right to decide whether they will or will not produce a nostalgia product in the future.
You know something. . . your right. I dont' have the right to decide what NBC does and doesn't do (though I am pretty sure they never will distribute leno). If I do distribute (which I haven't yet) a OTA program (not a movie but a tv show) then I may be illegal, but I admit that I don't care. I realize fully that it would probably be against the law, but I disagree with that part of the law.

Granted I haven't done any of this yet. I think that I should be able to hand my friend (not a large group of people) a copy of last nights leno and let him keep the tape as long as

A) I'm not charging for it, and
B) I didn't edit it in any way shape or form, which includes leaving the commercials in because the advertisers paid to have the program showed.

But that is my oppion. I realize that it is an unpopular oppinion, and it is an illegal oppion (though I didn't break the lawy yet), but its mine.

chap is offline  
post #9 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 11:24 AM
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
Would this, then give me the right to take video of stage performances and distribute the tapes without the performer's stage company's permission? by reason that they don't make the videos available?
No it wouldn't give you the right.

However, the stage company (and any other IP owner) would have to prove economic damages in a court of law. Worst case, you'd get a slap on the hand and an injunction preventing you from distributing it in the future.

But, in the case of Leno (using Chaps example), NBC would have to prove economic damages, which in all probability they could not.

None of this is a justification to trade content, but let's be realistic about it which leads me to throw another log on the fire (possible second poll?):

If a broadcast network or movie studio released commercially available HD content that you had previously recorded, would you buy it and throw out the 'copy'

My answer: Yes.

-Brian

P.S. Couldn't resist this : http://www.virtuallandmedia.com/flags4/pirate2.gif

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

(I buried that format finally)

www.16cylinder.com
Jet-X is offline  
post #10 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 02:04 PM
Senior Member
 
Jordan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Blacksburg, VA, USA
Posts: 219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I just gotta say, I generally don't swap tapes. I would swap tapes/files if I could get them easily. Why? Nothing more insidious than I'm a lazy timeshifter or the broadcast wasn't in my area (no HD-anything, no WB). If they were made available on DVD/HD-DVD I'd buy them instead of trading. Of course, I'd probably buy them used and then re-sell them after I'd watched them, just like I do with DVDs right now. Either way, the "creative talent" isn't getting my money, and I'm not making anything off of them. The producers still get my product-placement-watching-eyeballs, although they probably don't get counted so they don't even generate revenue for the "creative talent" that way!

I suppose in an "ideal" world, I'd either watch TV realtime/timeshifted and never get up during the commercials, or I'd buy the discs retail and hold onto them forever. It just doesn't work that way - not for me.

FWIW, I chose the "would swap with personal friends," cause I think that sums up my views the closest.
Jordan is offline  
post #11 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 02:41 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
Quote:
Originally posted by chap


But that is my oppion. I realize that it is an unpopular oppinion, and it is an illegal oppion (though I didn't break the lawy yet), but its mine.
Hey Chap,

I don't think that your opinion is necessarily unpopular.

I personally have little sympathy for the content providers fi they do not bother to release stuff officially.

On one hand I have made DVD's from Married with Children, Malcolm in the Middle and Ren and Stimpy because the owner of the content are not providing them. I also made a DVD of an obsure film off Sundance.

On the other hand I have stopped efforts to make X-Files DVD's because Fox is releasing them in widescreen (from Series 5) and I will be buying them in preference to making my own :) If someone releases the obscure film on DVD, I will most likely buy it and throw my copy away.

Probably what I have done is covered in 'fair use' but if I loan my obscure film to others I am probably breaking the law. Do I care? Not really...

Cheers!
DAve.
Phloyd is offline  
post #12 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 06:42 PM
Member
 
Scott A. Moore's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: San Jose
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Ahhh, in retrospect this is a very flawed poll.
I would think HBO would be included as "off the
air broadcasts", but clearly here giving to
a friend implies you are shortchanging HBO
subscription fees. Commercial paid broadcasts
are a 'nother animal, since you are essentially
rescheduling what they could have got free themselves. Irregardless, both illegal.

Quite a few of these type issues are like the
"illegal to own a yak" type laws. Find a small
town that has this law, chances are good if you
do some research you will find the law was designed to get rid of a neighbor who decided to
start a yak farm. Ie., yes, it is illegal, but
the intent of the law lies elsewhere.
Scott A. Moore is offline  
post #13 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 09:59 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cwilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Ben Lomond CA USA
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I'd be very happy for someone to invent a solid copy protection scheme that didn't result in delay of technology or impairment of reproduction for some of the public. That appears unlikely.

Let's assume that it were possible technically to record and distribute HDTV, as it is for 480i material with current VCRs. Occasionally in the past I've recorded programs or asked someone else to record programs for me, for convenience reasons. What we're talking about here really isn't a bit different except for better reproduction. The truth is that this kind of recording and distribution has such an incredibly trivial impact on the bottom line of the source material that it's ridiculous to worry about it, and about as morally significant as jaywalking when there's no traffic. Unless I'm missing something, what the studios are concerned about, I guess, is that somebody in China will be able to make high def tapes or DVDs and sell them for $8. That could cause a real loss of revenue, all right, but again, no different from the situation with our current technology. I think this is a desperate attempt, at a time of changing formats, to find a new way to prevent worldwide pirating, which they can't stop at present.

My opinion is that it's up to the government to put restrictions on what the studios or anybody else can do to muck up the advance of technology. I've sent email messages to my senators and suggest that others do the same.

Craig
cwilson is offline  
post #14 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 10:40 PM
Senior Member
 
tammes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Posts: 234
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Agree with above post. It will be forgein counterfeit rings that
make any real money of bootlegged copies. It will be only
a matter of time ( if it hasn't happened already!) before
the current and proposed anti-copy schemes will be broken.
Maybe the studios could make DVD's ( and hopefully )
HD material a bit cheaper, after all , the audio CD has been
around about 20 years, but has not come down in price much.
And how much does a DVD cost to make??? I buy the $5/ a piece
Apple DVD-R's and I'll bet it cost the makers less in bulk.
So why do DVD's cost over 20$$$ ?????
tammes is offline  
post #15 of 41 Old 02-25-2002, 11:35 PM
Member
 
zenjentbnyc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NYC
Posts: 19
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This is very similar to the Napster controversy in the music industry although that was a global filesharing and here, with a few exceptions, it's about sharing video on a much smaller scale like one episode af a particular show, etc.

While I am probably not the "typical" Napster demographic I did take note of how the ability to search an enormous cyber collection at will effected my personal music buying habits. I downloaded and uploaded an enormous amount of media via Napster and other similar sites. However even with the ability to then convert the MP2 files to Wav or CDA I burned very few CDs from these sources.

In fact the opposite occured, I found myself buying more CDs than I had since the late 80s/early 90s when I got my first CD player and marveled at the technology of is. The only tracks I kept and took the time to convert and remaster and burn were those which were unattainable by any other means. For every record that I couldn't find at any retail outlet I contacted both the label and the artist's representative for purchase information only to be told consistently that the item I wanted was out of print and to try Ebay or some other reseller with exorbitant markups which provide no monetary gain to the artist or the label.

I bought more than my fair share of $50+ singles sent in poor packaging from overseas that had to be set atop the dishwasher for weeks with enough weight on top to flatten the record enough that I could play it into my computer and digitally edit out all of the pops and cracks the previous owners misuse put in that I honestly feel as if I did have certain rights to share that music. If I have the right to sell it as used then why can't I share it for free? Just the same there were songs I couldn't buy at any price that I was able to get for free but given the coice I would have bought it rather than borrow it but I wasn't given the choice.

In my opinion which I believe is supported by industry sales figures for music since the file sharing craze began, the music industry has benefitted and not been hurt as they tried to portray themselves the poor victims. The artists have most likely benefitted as well both financially and also in having an easy method of free exposure to millions of potential fans who might otherwise never have heard their music.

Now Hollywood is attempting to make their longstanding feud with real bootleggers (if you come to New York they are on almost any corner) who copy and sell illigal tapes, CDs, and DVDs as their main source of income. They will try to use those of us who pay for the media as their disciples, attempting to convince us that by distributing copies of their programs that we have made on our expensive equiptment to our friends and family that we are hurting ourselves and we are to blame for the rising costs of "clean" media. That is simply not true. If I can buy it I will and my personal policy that I will lend something copyable to a friend with their agreement not to copy that item will still hold true. As well I will continue to make and distribute a few free copies of media I have paid for and which is no longer available for purchase.

If you look carefully at this debate you'll see quite clearly that the only winners are the studios who own the property rights to the film sources. Just them up there in the Hollywood Hills sitting by the pool while we argue with eachother about intellectual property rights and who's getting hurt. In the end it's really just the beginning of the next wave of technology which will be developed by hackers and marketed by multi national corporporations. Think of it as the circle of techno-life...

zenjen
~ necessity is the mother of invention but passion is the mother of perfection
zenjentbnyc is offline  
post #16 of 41 Old 02-26-2002, 06:40 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
trbarry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Gainesville FL USA
Posts: 10,138
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I think the poll points out a wide divide between the legal/moral beliefs stated by Hollywood supporters and those of the consumer.

This might be due to moral degeneration of most everyone in the world or it might reflect unrealistic Hollywood expectations. The answer is left as an exercise to the reader.

- Tom

Why don't we power our electric cars from greener, cheaper Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors?

Tom Barry - Find my video filters at www.trbarry.com
trbarry is offline  
post #17 of 41 Old 02-27-2002, 08:58 PM
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
You know, copyright isn't a fundamental human right.

Could there be a world without copyright? Sure. Distribution costs remain with the consumer; duplication houses could compete and end up charging not much more than the actual duplication costs. Broadcast could continue to be funded by advertising. Production costs could be borne by people wanting to see the program in question. Instead of paying an inflated price for recorded programming, or a massive cable/satellite bill, would you donate that money to see the next episode(s) of your favorite program(s) produced, which you could then acquire for free or at minimal cost? I would. Then, advertising (quite a significant amount of money) would be unnecessary, as production would already be paid for, and there's little (if any) profit in distribution.

There might be flaws in my specifics, and it's certainly a new way of thinking, but I think that a world without copyright would be quite plausible and a lot more interesting for all.

Alex
Alexander is offline  
post #18 of 41 Old 02-28-2002, 11:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
vruiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn. NY
Posts: 4,534
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by Alexander
You know, copyright isn't a fundamental human right
No, but it is a fundamental constitutional right. However, the original purpose of copyright was to benefit society at large and promote creativity by giving authors limited control of their works, with the ultimate goal being the benefit of society. The rights of authors to their creations were never supposed to be absolute. Unfortunately in modern times, by measure of political lobbying, it has been perverted in order to profit big business instead of the society it was supposed to benefit. I think Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens said it best:

Quote:
Article I, 8, of the Constitution provides:

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." [464 U.S. 417, 429]

The monopoly privileges that Congress may authorize are neither unlimited nor primarily designed to provide a special private benefit. Rather, the limited grant is a means by which an important public purpose may be achieved. It is intended to motivate the creative activity of authors and inventors by the provision of a special reward, and to allow the public access to the products of their genius after the limited period of exclusive control has expired.

"The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration. In Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127 , Chief Justice Hughes spoke as follows respecting the copyright monopoly granted by Congress, `The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' It is said that reward to the author or artist serves to induce release to the public of the products of his creative genius." United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 334 U.S. 131, 158 (1948).

As the text of the Constitution makes plain, it is Congress that has been assigned the task of defining the scope of the limited monopoly that should be granted to authors or to inventors in order to give the public appropriate access to their work product. Because this task involves a difficult balance between the interests of authors and inventors in the control and exploitation of their writings and discoveries on the one hand, and society's competing interest in the free flow of ideas, information, and commerce on the other hand, our patent and copyright statutes have been amended repeatedly. 10 [464 U.S. 417, 430]

"The limited scope of the copyright holder's statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be [464 U.S. 417, 432] encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an `author's' creative labor. But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. `The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly,' this Court has said, `lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.' Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U.S. 123, 127 . See Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322, 327-328; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 241-242. When technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose." Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken, 422 U.S. 151, 156 (1975)

Sony v. Universal Studios, 1984
Basically what Justice Stevens said is that the things that benefit the public at large, like the Fair Use and First Sale doctrines, must take precedence over the copyright holder's monetary gain. Hollywood has never accepted that, and it has never stopped trying to turn it on its head. The latest avalanche of copy-protection and digital copyright laws are just the latest salvos in a long-running war.
vruiz is offline  
post #19 of 41 Old 02-28-2002, 01:51 PM
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 vruiz
No, but it is a fundamental constitutional right.

...

Article I, 8, of the Constitution provides:

"The Congress shall have Power . . . To Promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries." [464 U.S. 417, 429]
Minor correction: It says "Congress shall have Power", not "Congress shall exercise Power". It also says that Congress shall have power to borrow money on the credit of the United States, but I certainly hope that doesn't mean they must do so.

So it's not even a Constitutional right, the Constitution just provides the authority to establish and enforce copyright, if we so choose.

So...let's take music as an example, because it's easy. I think it's clear that the vast majority of the musicians out there make music because they want to and love to, not for monetary gain. (Sure, they hope to make money, and we'll get to that, but the point is that they'd do it anyway.) Copyright infringement in the music world is rampant, and provides an excellent example of how distribution would work in a non-music-copyright world. Most people would download music for free or get it from their friends, and you would probably also be able to walk down to a music store and buy a CD for $1-$1.50. (Or whatever price level would be sustainable for the convenience of not having to download it for free through a legal system.)

Now, even if you bought the (now ultra-cheap) CD, you wouldn't be "supporting the artist". But a lot of people seem to WANT to support the artist -- those who buy CDs today for that reason. So those people could donate the cost differential directly to the artist through a more formal and "accepted" donation system. Donating when you like something would be the norm. I think a lot of people other than those who currently buy lots of CDs would also donate, if they knew that their contributions were going DIRECTLY to the artist, and they could donate whatever they felt the music was worth. I know that my favorite artists would get more than the price of a CD, and artists that I like but might not have bought before might get a little something too.

Popular musicians (the only ones probably making any money under the current system) could continue to supplement their revenue through touring, paid appearances, etc.

Cut out the middlemen, and everything becomes more efficient. We'd probably also get a larger base of popular music, since most of those middleman dollars are getting spent on promoting Britney Spears and the like.

I think a similar setup would work for books and most printed material. Big-budget movies and TV are more difficult, as a significant initial cash outlay is required, but I don't think the problem is insurmountable. I'd certainly pay for a ticket to the next Star Trek movie in advance, especially if I could then go and buy a $2 DVD the moment the movie is released anywhere.

The problem is that copyright is so ingrained in most people by now that it's difficult to think of an alternate setup.

Alex
Alexander is offline  
post #20 of 41 Old 03-01-2002, 05:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
MichaelZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Posts: 1,478
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 6 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Alexander, Stephen King put a book on the internet (or pieces of it) to test if going around the middle man (as you stated) would work. I believe he charged a small amount of money, 1$, per section. Guess what? It didn't work. There were a couple of mini-movie released for the internet (for a very small charge), once again to cut out the middle man and guess what? It didn't work. How do I know they didn't work, you don't see anyone else trying to do it anymore. Writers, artists, etc. get money UPFRONT from the publishers and studios. Why do you think they do it? Who is going to front the money for the next great band? You going to do it - if so, how much return do you want for that investment. This goes for software as well. Microsoft spends hundreds of millions, up front, for the next version of windows or whatever. They have no idea if it is going to sell or not. Remember Bob (Earlier M$ program that had millions spent on it only to see it fail). Lord of the Rings is costing somewhere near $200 Million to produce - who would front that kind of money knowing every person was going to copy and distribute it? I see and hear these silly liberal arguments all the time about how the middle man, the studio, the artist, etc. are gouging US the viewing public (you can also include software). The problem is, there would be ZERO content if no one pays for it or someone doesn't own the rights to do with it what they wish!
How many of you would like to go to work each day and find at the end of the day some others came in and made "copies" of your work and distributed it freely to the masses? And to add insult to injury you found you got a big fat ZERO in your paycheck because no one paid anything for it. That is what we are talking about here!
MichaelZ is offline  
post #21 of 41 Old 03-01-2002, 08:27 PM
AVS Special Member
 
rlsmith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 5,618
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 11
I have copied things for friends for years but very seldom.

Almost always, if something is available FOR SALE, I don't bother, and frankly my friend doesn't want to bother either.

When something is hard to come by, then you are more likely to copy it.

You also have to ask--which the studios never do--how many of the "bootleg" copies would have been converted to real sales anyway.

I personally believe that if the studios were to make high-quality copies available on a broader scale at cheaper prices, they would have lose very little real money.

There will always be copying. The studios best defense is to meet customer demands.
rlsmith is offline  
post #22 of 41 Old 03-02-2002, 06:10 PM
Advanced Member
 
MikeKO's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: San Jose CA
Posts: 989
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I really do love these topics, but, the bottom line is, it doesn't matter what we think, feel, or believe on the topic. The music and video industries had better figure out how to deal with internet music, video etc. because they CANNOT stop it. It's a real simple thing. Figure out a business model that makes product MUCH cheaper, so you can compete on convience. If they don't do that, they will die.

Personally, I think the days of huge budget movies, $20 million dollar actors etc is very short, but my tea leaves aren't any better than anyone elses on that subject. However, I am sure of one thing. The genie is out of the bottle, and there is no way in hell that the movie and record companies are going to put it back in the bottle.

Mike
MikeKO is offline  
post #23 of 41 Old 03-03-2002, 08:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Maynard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: The Center
Posts: 254
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally posted by MichaelZ
Microsoft spends hundreds of millions, up front, for the next version of windows or whatever. They have no idea if it is going to sell or not. Remember Bob (Earlier M$ program that had millions spent on it only to see it fail [/b]
Michael,

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....


-maynard
Maynard is offline  
post #24 of 41 Old 03-03-2002, 08:57 AM
Member
 
hdtvme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Cedar Rapids, IA
Posts: 132
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
What about this-

Given:
I subscribe to HBO. I own and do not intend to sell a DVD copy of Titanic. I didn't have HD record capability when HBO ran Titanic in HD.

Now that I have HD playback capability, I want to obtain a DVHS "copy" of Titanic. Since the movie is not scheduled to run on any HD feed I can receive, why should anyone have a problem with my request to a 3rd party who could copy the movie in HD for me?

I didn't answer the poll because there was no choice that read "Once I have already purchased the personal use rights to a work, I should be able to obtain higher quality reproductions for my personal use"

Anyone know where on the internet HD tape trading is conducted WITHOUT the automatic assumption that you are up to something illegal?
hdtvme is offline  
post #25 of 41 Old 03-03-2002, 10:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 106
I suppose I could have put in a statement of choice such as:

"I believe that when someone else owns somthing I want they must give that something to me at the price I wish to pay for it or it is within my given right to steal it or expect someone else to steal it for me especially if I once purchased something similar earlier in my life."

Well the reason I did not put this statement or something similar in the poll was simply because the concept of this was just too ridiculous.

Yes, there are those who wish to make their goods and services available free for the taking but that does not mean that everybody needs to work and supply their products and services for free. It also does not give everyone the right to have everything for free either. But, if you really believe this then, I have a house that needs painting so come over and paint it for free, OK?

What some of fail to understand is that you don't have an argument about a movie like the Titanic not being available, because it could be made available as long as you pay the right price. So, the argument is really about the fact that you refuse to pay the current price for that Titanic movie to be available to you when YOU want to record it, not for the lower price of when the suppliers made it available. IT is a given that these movies are available for your personal archive, the real problem is you refuse to pay the asking price. Back when I recorded it it was for the price of subscription to HBO. Now you want it for free. But, the reality is that it may cost you thousands to buy a contract to air it now that YOU are ready or you can pirate a copy. I do believe those choices are in the poll.
Don Landis is offline  
post #26 of 41 Old 03-03-2002, 05:11 PM
AVS Special Member
 
cwilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Ben Lomond CA USA
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Don:

I believe that most of us have a sense of right and wrong that comes down to this: Whatever helps people (including ourselves) is good; whatever hurts people (including ourselves) is bad. The problem you are having in convincing people that we shouldn't make copies of HDTV movies when it isn't strictly legal is that our perception is that the people potentially hurt by that - studio owners, executives, and bean counters - aren't especially moral people. Specifically, they are guilty of the sin of greed. More specifically, they are willing to slow progress, hinder innovation, and inconvenience all of us just so they can grab a few more bucks. Our perception is that the movies most affected by this are the successful ones, where the studios have already made a lot of money and want to squeeze more from us. So that inner voice just isn't telling us that we are doing anything wrong. Therefore taking a high moral tone and trying to convince us that we are bad for taping shows where it isn't 100% legal isn't going to work, because for most of us - including many to whom doing the right thing is important - such an action is not immoral.

Craig
cwilson is offline  
post #27 of 41 Old 03-03-2002, 06:52 PM
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 MichaelZ
Alexander, Stephen King put a book on the internet (or pieces of it) to test if going around the middle man (as you stated) would work. I believe he charged a small amount of money, 1$, per section. Guess what? It didn't work. There were a couple of mini-movie released for the internet (for a very small charge), once again to cut out the middle man and guess what? It didn't work. How do I know they didn't work, you don't see anyone else trying to do it anymore.
This is not at all what I am talking about. He/they were selling content that they owned the copyright to. Period.

Still not exactly, but more along the lines of what I'm talking about is an experiment by a British cult band (Momus) using the patronage system -- he asked fans to "sponsor" the creation of songs at $1000 per song. He quickly sold all 30 songs that he wanted to do, and had a lengthy waiting list.

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaelZ
Writers, artists, etc. get money UPFRONT from the publishers and studios.
Only the very-well-known authors/artists. The same kind that shouldn't have any trouble collecting advance donations.

Also, almost all the time, the upfront money is RECOUPABLE by the record company out of the band's royalties. (Excellent article about this by Courtney Love here.)

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaelZ
Why do you think they do it? Who is going to front the money for the next great band?
The band. This is the way it has always worked. If you want to start a band, you buy the instruments and start making music. You don't go to a record label and say "Hi, I've never played in a band before, but I want you to buy me $5,000 worth of equipment so that I can get started."

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaelZ
You going to do it - if so, how much return do you want for that investment. This goes for software as well. Microsoft spends hundreds of millions, up front, for the next version of windows or whatever. They have no idea if it is going to sell or not. Remember Bob (Earlier M$ program that had millions spent on it only to see it fail). Lord of the Rings is costing somewhere near $200 Million to produce - who would front that kind of money knowing every person was going to copy and distribute it?
First of all, the actual cost for LotR is estimated to be about $270 million for ALL THREE movies in the trilogy, or about $90 million per movie. Indeed a figure of $93 million is quoted for production costs of the first movie. (BTW, an additional $50 million was spent on advertising.)

Back to who's fronting the money -- the very same people who want to copy, distribute and view it. If you told Lord of the Rings fans worldwide that you were going to make a movie (listing the producer, director, cast, etc., maybe even the script, so you know it'll be high quality), that would be freely available after production (including at movie theaters for half price tickets), it wouldn't surprise me if they could raise the majority of the money through donations. ("Donate $1000 or more, and your name will be in the credits for all time! Corporations welcome!") Contracts are involved, so if the movie is not produced, the donators can get their money back.

This will also become more natural as people become more used to it.

Also, again, this is a little trickier with the big-budget stuff you mention. But consider music, which NEVER costs that kind of money to produce, and is almost always actually produced by the artist before it's financed by anyone else. (Think indie bands.)

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaelZ
I see and hear these silly liberal arguments all the time about how the middle man, the studio, the artist, etc. are gouging US the viewing public (you can also include software). The problem is, there would be ZERO content if no one pays for it or someone doesn't own the rights to do with it what they wish!
This is, of course, nonsense. The example of free software mentioned earlier is good, as are the plethora of independent bands who put their music up on their websites (or MP3.com, or Napster) for free.

Quote:
Originally posted by MichaelZ
How many of you would like to go to work each day and find at the end of the day some others came in and made "copies" of your work and distributed it freely to the masses? And to add insult to injury you found you got a big fat ZERO in your paycheck because no one paid anything for it. That is what we are talking about here!
If the masses already paid you for your work, you wouldn't mind. And your paycheck wouldn't be zero.

And if you made a physical product or provided a service, nothing at all would change.

Alex
Alexander is offline  
post #28 of 41 Old 03-04-2002, 02:25 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Craig-

This is the crux of the issue. That those like yourself who are self rightous are never wrong when it comes to what you want. Instead, you feel that those who have the copyrights and are protected by the law are wrong because they have already made too much money according to YOUR standards. I think the survey definitly shows that people are divided into two basic categories. Those that refuse to distribute copies of a copyrighted work and those that justify it for what ever reason that makes them feel right.

The clear majoriety here is in favor of allowing anyone to distribute coyrighted works as they see fit. In other words, the rule for distribution is in the hands of the posessor, not the copyright holder. While this popular(here) belief is not in accordance with the law, by this small sampling, I do think that this group, which is composed primarily of copyright consumers rather than copyright producers is a fairly accurate statement of attitude on distribution.
The statement makeup also shows a good division between those who will justify their conscience in violating the law based on whether they turn a profit in cash(trade or sell for whatever the market will bear) or favors(trade, favor to a friend, basic "costs" of the dub, etc.), for distribution.
I set up these statements to try to show this spread.

I doubt this group's distribution attitude will change with the next several hundred respondants so the under 200 sampling is probably accurate. I would be really surprised if the same attitude would be if this same poll were posted in a forum of copyright producers.

And, BTW- I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'll let the results of the poll speak for itself. I believe this poll clearly shows that those who feel they are right in thinking they can distribute copyrighted videos as they see fit, regardless of what the law says are in similar company on this forum. Those who believe it is wrong are clearly in the minority.
Don Landis is offline  
post #29 of 41 Old 03-04-2002, 09:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
cwilson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Ben Lomond CA USA
Posts: 1,785
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Don:

Your attitude on the subject does come through. Could I ask whether you are involved in the production end somehow? I think the majority is against allowing distribution for profit but is okay with making copies for our own use and occasionally for friends. To me that seems reasonable. Laws are whatever our legislators and courts decide and are not necessarily always perfect, so blindly following their rules is not a virtue in every instance.

Craig
cwilson is offline  
post #30 of 41 Old 03-04-2002, 12:09 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Club Gold
 
Don Landis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 10,772
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 41 Post(s)
Liked: 106
Craig- There's no secret to this- I am a TV producer and make my living producing and selling copyrighted product both for air and for boxed media. I have been involved in copyright infringement suits and have won, including an out of court settlement for a claim of Fair Use that was just not so. This violator just thought his distribution of my copyrighted product to his students was fair use, that is until his lawyer educated him and suggested accepting my settlement offer. Interestingly, you may learn that some of the biggest violators of the copyright laws are video producers. I have been on the other side too, as I have been accused of copyright violations and won both times because I have kept a very clean ship here with respect to honoring other's copyrights to the letter of the law. Additionally, I pay good money out each month for blanket and specific rights to use others copyrights in my business. For me, practicing fair use and licensing use properly is a matter of good prudent business.

In part many people do what they do because they are ignorant of the law. This is why I worded some of the statements the way I did, so as to separate the "ignorant" from the cavalier.

From my perspective, I see this distribution issue one that is difficult to regulate should it be left to the possessor of original work. eg. Say I have a video that I sell to a tightly vertical market. I price my production costs to the client based on his contract promise to allow me the exclusive duplication rights for 3 years. The first order comes through and I recoup most of my costs. The second order comes through and I recoup the remainder of my costs. Then I wait for a third order so I can see some profit to my investment. I wait and nothing happens. I do some detective work and discover that the client that hired me is now duplicating his own tapes in violation of our agreement. He feels he has a right to do this because he paid me up front for some production costs. But what he doesn't realize is that I offered a reduced production cost charge for the duplication rights. In other words, I have moved my profit to the back end of this project. He is in violation of the contract and will most likely be ordered by a judge to pay me anyway, assuming my contract was squeaky clean and clear on this exclusive. Taking this another step, one of the recipients of the video decides to help out a few friends, about 60 of them, and duplicates from his copy, 60 sub copies and distributes these to his "friends" His friends advertise for him and tell their friends where they can get the copies for "tape cost" or a fair trade in something else. So where does the distribution stop? Must we producers recover all out costs and profits up front because the product will become public domain with first publication? This would be a radical change indeed.

You see, from another perspective, regulating the distribution could be a nightmare. Where do you set the limit? The law already does. It says you can make as many copies you want for personal use but as soon as you distribute any of these copies you are in violation and outside the bounds of fair use.

I don't expect anyone here to change their views on this issue. Maybe it would be nice for them to at least see that there IS another side to this that makes sense. What I hoped to achieve with the poll was to show everyone where the majority of AVS members stand on this and by proper survey design show that some are ignorant of the law, others have a cavalier attitude about it and still others simply make a habit of working a duplication and distribution operation as part of their hobby. We have not shown any respondents admit that they do it as a pirate business, even though I know about two members of AVS forum that do.


Initially in the poll, I hoped to just get a spread of the attitudes toward this issue, but, now that many have responded to the poll, I believe that it may also have been an education for some and these who may have been ignorant of the law will now have to place themselves in that cavalier category or change their ways.

I don't judge anyone who chooses to distribute copyrighted works. I am practical on this. However, I will promise that anyone I find distributing MY video products without my permission and outside of fair use will be hearing from me, my attorney, and the FBI. Been there done that! I wear the T shirt.
Don Landis 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