AVS Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 188 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The DTV rep is right, you can record all the ppv movies you want. But I think that the industry takes a very different look at analog and digital connections.


An example of this is how readily (in Chinatown) here in the SF Bay Area I can go buy a vcd movie of anything in the theaters right now. The quality stinks, some guy in Hong Kong with a video camera making lousy movies. Sure the MPAA would like to stop this but it represents a small fraction of revenue loss. Certainly recording ota or dtv signals is a step up in quality, but under fair use rules again this is not a significant loss of revenue. Case in point is all the boxed sets of tv show seasons. You can watch and record them and archive them yourself and even make dvd's of them or you can go buy the set with no hassles and better quality.


Now we're talking digital and they're (the MPAA) scared to death. Why? Because of what has happened with cd's and file sharing and billions of $$ in lost revenue. And how about how fast the dvd ciphering was cracked? So they're not willing to allow unprotected digital streams of data to be copied under fair use. This is understandable since it amounts to giving away master copies of their content.


So what I think is really happening right now is the battle over what specs will be used and how they'll be bulletproof in not allowing piracy of their content. What they're really after is universal acceptance of technology to allow fair use on the same equipment it was recorded on so that you can't start making perfect copies of movies and selling them out of your garage. Play them all you want but you can't loan 'em to your neighbors. At a minimum they want to be able to turn this on for things like PPV or first time movie showings.


So my question is what spec will accomodate this? Not Firewire for sure. HDCP, HDMI?


I think Tivo is great. I archive things once in a while. I'd like to be able to easily archive with the HD Tivo onto say a hard disk on the home LAN? I'd like to have the output of the Tivo, maybe DVI plug into a DVI input of a DVD burner and have it work. All of this is great but I'd still buy the 4 tuner setup without all this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,733 Posts
""... does anyone want to guess what percentage of Tivo users are using Save To VCR?


Answer: I have *not* seen data, but I gotta believe this is infinitesimal. The only time anyone I know with Tivo ever uses this is to share a copy of Sopranos or some other premium content. While I'd never tell them not to, I'm not really sure this is even remotely considered legal. My guess is that Tivo users that use Save to VCR constitute between 1-3% of the Tivo audience."""


totally irrelevant, no reason to not offer the feature, in fact is an argument that if done, it would not bring hollywood to it knees. again that is the old world, sd, hd is different. i know men who now watch soap operas because of it.. so i can see it causing people to possibly record to tape, movies etc... and 5c should help with the piracy.



i can't understand why people here are so willing to defend the lack of inclusion of these ports that with 5c are fair to consumers and the industry. even tho they mite not feel that way. the average person i know is much more concerned over the fact they will have tivo to record in the future possible.. i jsut do get it. is everyone here a tivo head



""I can't imagine a future where tape-based recording is used any more than now. In fact, as more and more people get PVRs, I'm sure tape-based recording will be used less and less.

"


well this is true, but pvr only replace one of tapes functions, time shifting, i know you don't believe people archive to tape, that it is rare, or as most people say record .. But, going over in my head a list of family and friends ever single one ( or family) records to tape at least afew times a month with the intention of keeping it, despite many of them having access to the genuine of tivo in their homes.

tivo is not a vcr, tape will be irrelevant as a timeshifting method someday i agree... but not in total, till cheap dvd recorders replace them


while my level of recording to tape is rare, i doubt that all my friends is, and they want the ability to do so now, and even more so with hd and in the futrure, regardless of tivo and disc based recording. which many are actually big fans of - i just got one for sd too ( this weekend) theses are just so nice for timeshifting.


""""DirecTV may or may not have a current rule against Firewire, but without a way to implement 5C/DTCP on the fly for premium content, they'd be unable to allow its use anyway. You want to blame someone? Blame the content owners and their (IMHO) appropriate paranoia."""


5c is in place in all teh dvhs machines already and directv certainly could license the technology. i have heard no one else claim 5c is unusable right now, in fact i have heard it may be put into use sooner then later; possible before these actually hit the markets depending on delivery dates. If the content owners asked for it 5c to be turned on i believe it would be, and could be tomorrow. so that is a non issue or will be soon enough for the inclusion of the feature on the products, and so cp issues are certainly not a reason not to include the feature
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
In the Sony case, the Defendants were being sued for contributory infringement (i.e., their device made it possible for others to infringe, therefore they should be responsible for the infringement of others.) The Supreme Court ruled that this is not contributory infringement, because there is another legitimate use for this device -- timeshifting. The Defendants were not responsible for creating a device which could be used to infringe, because the device had other legitimate uses. (i.e., guns don't kill people, people kill people) That does not mean that end users would not still use the device for infrining, and, in fact, VCR's have been used to make bootleg copies of videos. The bootlegger is still an infringer. The Sony case just says that the manufacture who made the VCR for the bootlegger is not an infringer.


If you record the Godfather off of HBO to teach an intro to cinema class, that is fair use. If you record the Godfather off of HBO for your own private film library, you are stealing sales from the DVD of the Godfather or other licensed broadcasts. Archiving for personal use is infringement. (Query: what is the legal difference between downloading an mp3 off the web and recording a song off the radio? Answer: nothing. They are both infringements. The quality of the infringing product does not change the nature of the infringing activity.)


A tivo unit does not need a firewire port to do timeshifting. Adding that port does not enhance the device's legitimate use (timeshifting), but it enables the device for illegitimate uses (bootlegging). Adding a firewire port to a tivo unit is very close to (and may very well be) contributory infringement, because it has very few legitimate purposes and enables piracy.


In Summary tonyb100 should be arrested. He is a criminal and all of his tapes should be impounded.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,741 Posts
tommylotto


This is crazy. We all made hundreds of VHS recordings from cable/satellite in the past. As you said there shouldn't be any difference between a low or high quality copy, right? When you record a tape , are you timeshifting or making an illegal copy and stealing sales from the DVD (or VHS) ? Who can determine that? Impossible!

The real reason why the studios are going nuts about this is the fact that now we can make copies with BETTER quality than the best media they sell (DVD). I don't think tonyb100 is a criminal neither any of us who just want to archive tv programs that we like. We have already paid for that through our cable/satellite subscription or simply watching those dreadful commercials on networks.


Sergio
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,771 Posts
Yes, you see Sergio, we are all CRIMINALS! We are THIEVES and we MUST BE STOPPED!


:rolleyes:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by tommylotto

In the Sony case, the Defendants were being sued for contributory infringement (i.e., their device made it possible for others to infringe, therefore they should be responsible for the infringement of others.) The Supreme Court ruled that this is not contributory infringement, because there is another legitimate use for this device -- timeshifting. The Defendants were not responsible for creating a device which could be used to infringe, because the device had other legitimate uses. (i.e., guns don't kill people, people kill people) That does not mean that end users would not still use the device for infrining, and, in fact, VCR's have been used to make bootleg copies of videos. The bootlegger is still an infringer. The Sony case just says that the manufacture who made the VCR for the bootlegger is not an infringer.
What exactly is your point here? If we followed your arguments to their logical conclusion, shouldn't all of the VCRs in existence at the time of the Sony decision been gathered up and destroyed simply because any ONE of them could be used by a bootlegger to make illegal copies? Well guess what: they weren't destroyed and in fact, sales of pre-recorded VHS tapes played back on those same machines made Jack Valenti and his cronies more money than they ever could have imagined possible. All of us that are advocating the inclusion of firewire on STBs simply want the same fair use functionality for making ONE personal copy of an HD program that we have enjoyed for 25 years with SD broadcasts. 5C/DTCP copy protection coupled with firewire is a robust and effective means of dealing with the bootlegging issue. Hollywood is simply using the specter of Internet video file sharing as a red herring to obscure their real motives: to make us pay EVERY time we wish to view their content. They tried it with DIVX and failed miserably, and they are trying the same shenanigans with HDTV.

Quote:
If you record the Godfather off of HBO to teach an intro to cinema class, that is fair use. If you record the Godfather off of HBO for your own private film library, you are stealing sales from the DVD of the Godfather or other licensed broadcasts. Archiving for personal use is infringement.
Please point us to one single legal opinion that states that archiving for personal use is infringement. HINT: I won't be holding my breath until you reply.

Quote:
A tivo unit does not need a firewire port to do timeshifting. Adding that port does not enhance the device's legitimate use (timeshifting), but it enables the device for illegitimate uses (bootlegging). Adding a firewire port to a tivo unit is very close to (and may very well be) contributory infringement, because it has very few legitimate purposes and enables piracy.
A Tivo having a firewire port unit with properly implemented 5C/DTCP protocols does NOT enable piracy....it prevents it! And BTW who are you to say exactly what constitutes timeshifting? I own a DISH 5000/HD modulator system which I have used to make ~ 200 HD tapes of HBO/Showtime content the past 2 years. I legitimately paid HBO/Showtime to bring those programs into my home. Who says that that content necessarily has to stay on a hard drive to remain legal? I'm simply using D-VHS media as my storage medium of choice, in order to view the content at the time of my choice (which is the very definition of timeshifting). I don't share the tapes with anyone and I don't make copies of them for others.

Quote:
In Summary tonyb100 should be arrested. He is a criminal and all of his tapes should be impounded.
Tony is no more a criminal than the millions of SD consumers who have taped SD movies off of HBO/Showtime the past 30 years. Again the MPAA et. al. is trying to make up the rules as we go along: now that we have the technological means to record their content in a format superior to their DVDs, they all of sudden feel threatened and feel the need to suppress our fair use rights with regard to HDTV. What they should be doing is figuring out creative ways to extract even more money from us using these new technologies, instead of treating their legitimate customers like criminals.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
RickD: I'm sorry that you did not understand what I wrote. I said that the Sony case tells us that manufactures are not responsible for the infringement of the end users so long as the device has another legitimate uses. That is why we all were able to get VCR's -- because they have a legitimate use (timeshifting). If the manufacture were held responsible for contributory infringement, the manufactures of VCR's would have disappeared like Napster.


If you want proof that archiving is infringement, you need to look no further than today's news:


Briana LaHara settled a case brought against her by the RIAA. She is a 12-year old girl who downloaded her favorite songs off the Internet for her personal use. He mom paid $2,000 and admitted that downloading songs is infringement. Briana was archiving for her personal use. There is no legal distinction between copying songs off the web and copying songs off the radio. Nor is there a distinction between archiving songs off the radio and archiving movies off HBO. It is just a matter of enforcement.


Just because it is difficult to enforce does not make it legal. The RIAA has filed 261 suits across the country against song downloaders. They settled with LaHara and will most likely win all of the rest. They may suffer a public relations black eye in the process, but that is besides the legal point of infringement and archiving.


Just like the RIAA can sue 12-year old girls across the country, HBO could sue each of you archivers. They just so far have chosen not to. But if they did, they would probably win. If all you are doing is timeshifting, you are innocent. But if you are keeping the tape for months and months and watching the movie over and over again, you are infringing.


The content creators will always prefer to go after the manufacturers rather than the end users. That was what they did in Sony. They lost so now we have VCR's. They sued Napster and won, so Napster disappeared only to be replaced by peer to peer file sharing services. And I'm sure the content creators are putting pressure on Tivo to not include a firewire port. I'm sure the MPAA has written Tivo a letter threatening to sue them for contributory infringement if their device has a firewire output. Based on a reading of the Sony case, there is a possibility that Tivo would loose that case, because you do not need the firewire port to timeshift with Tivo.


There are thousands and thousands (if not millions) of archivers of movies, just like there are millions of downloaders and archivers of music. There is no distinction. Both are infringers.


By the way, I have turned all of your names over to the MPAA. They will be coming to confiscate your tapes and serve you with lawsuits.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
346 Posts
I got my ballot today from GM to vote on selling GMHughes (DirecTv) to News Corp. I thind nobody at DireTv wanted to do much until they found out who was going to buy the company. I can assure you Rupert Murdoch, Chairman of News Corp does not like to lose and will do everything necessary to stay ahead of DISH.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,082 Posts
The point of the Briana story you missed was that she had over a thousand songs available for others to download. All of the 261 suits are not with people who just download for their own personal use, but with people who have massive amounts of songs available for sharing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
552 Posts
Just because they chose only to go after the people distributing music doesn't mean all the people who just downloaded the music were acting within the law.


Reading the Betamax decision it seems clear that the fact that "librarying", keeping copies rather than watching and erasing, was relatively rare, was a factor in the decision. The Supreme Court expressly declared time-shifting as legal fair use in that decision but certainly didn't make the same declaration for librarying, even if it's just for personal use. If you are building a collection of tapes off of HBO instead of buying copies, I think it's relatively easy to show harm to the value of the copyright, which is one of the factors in determining whether something is fair-use.


Just because they haven't gone after people in the past doesn't mean it was perfectly legal, or that they are obligated to make it easy for you to copy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,741 Posts
The comparison between MP3 downloading and recording a HBO movie is certainly apples and oranges. MP3 downloading is normally done from shared files available to millions for free. This is illegal because loads of people will not pay a cent to get a song, hurting everybody in the music industry. When you tape from HBO you are not distributing anything to anybody. You already PAID for the right to receive HBO signal. The studio gets paid, everybody should be happy.


What's the difference between using a VCR and a D-VHS with firewire connection? None! You can say that in the digital domain it would be much easier to distribute the contents through the Internet. That's true, but would be clearly illegal! Our Constitution says we have the right to bear arms. Does it say we have the right to kill?

You know what? I think our biggest problem is the definition of "fair use". Every time I see the words "fair" or "reasonable" any interpretation is possible. For some people "fair" doesn't exist at all.


I don't care about firewire but I really care about our freedom.


Sergio
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
605 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by slimoli


What's the difference between using a VCR and a D-VHS with firewire connection? None!


Sergio
You are right. Archiving is infringement regardless of whether it is done with a VCR or D-VHS.


A copyright is an exclusive right to make copies. There is a "fair use" exception for timeshifting. Archiving is not timeshifting. It is the making of an unauthorized copy (i.e., infringement) It doesn't matter if we are talking about music, software, or movies. You can buy a CD, you can play a CD, but if you make a copy of it for a friend you are infringing. You can watch a movie as it is broadcast on HBO. You can tape the broadcast to watch it later if it time is incovienent, but if you record it to add to your library, you are an infringer. Whether the copy you made is SD HD or with hand puppets, it is infringement. (The hand puppets would be a derivative work.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,741 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by tommylotto

[

You can buy a CD, you can play a CD, but if you make a copy of it for a friend you are infringing. You can watch a movie as it is broadcast on HBO. You can tape the broadcast to watch it later if it time is inconvenient, but if you record it to add to your library, you are an infringer. Whether the copy you made is SD HD or with hand puppets, it is infringement. (The hand puppets would be a derivative work.) [/b]
Who wants to make a copy "for a friend"? This is clearly a different case and very different than making a copy for your own use. What's the difference between making a copy to watch today or tomorrow? According to your explanation , today is timeshifting and tomorrow is librarian. Today is legal and tomorrow is a crime. It looks like your idea is that nobody should have more than one tape at home!


Who says that timeshifting means watching a tape soon and just once? Can't you watch the same movie from HBO 10 times paying the same monthly fee? Why would one harm the studios more if the tape is viewed 2 years from now? Or tomorrow? Or today?


I rest my case ,since I'm not an attorney!


Sergio
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,531 Posts
Sergio,


Archiving obviously implies long-term/permanent storage and re-use. The term timeshifting is generally associated with short-term storage (and minimal or no re-use), be it for hours, days, or possibly even a few months after the original recording was made.

Quote:
Can't you watch the same movie from HBO 10 times paying the same monthly fee? Why would one harm the studios more if the tape is viewed 2 years from now?
The premium providers pay the studios billions of dollars each year for the rights to their films. You may subscribe to HBO, and HBO may have rights to some movies you want to watch now; next year, however, Starz may own the exclusive rebroadcast rights to those same movies.


If people don't subscribe to different services to gain access to content they want to see, and instead rely on past recordings, then the value of the studios' libraries are diminished. For example, why would Showtime be willing to pay millions more for the rebroadcast rights to the Titanic, if everyone archived it from HBO the first time around and had no need to subscribe to watch it again? And if they aren't willing to pay the same amount because so many people have a copy, that means the studio libraries are worth less (fixed typo).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,733 Posts
""""There are thousands and thousands (if not millions) of archivers of movies, just like there are millions of downloaders and archivers of music. There is no distinction. Both are infringers.

""

you can not be serious


there is a huge huge difference. archivers are tmeshifting ; in a legal manner though the of a vcr, the programming we were invited to view, that is being delivered into our homes and being provided by the owner of the ip or an agaent of theirs. a downloader is going out and taking a copy from someone other then the owner; without the owners consent to the distribution.. ( tho i believe that if dvrs would have excisted at the time of the case vcrs may have been declared legal for time-shifting, but as things stand we can timeshift with them and therefore archive )



the court i am sure knew people would /may at some point keep personal copies but apperntly did not see that it rose to the level of damages worthy of the outlawing of vcr taping, or they did make the case strongly enough of damages resulting from vcr usage. the court palced no limits on teh time a person can keep a recordinmg on tape when or how often it may be viewed.

but dvd sales now changes the damage scenario, damages are more easily shown; but again till there is a challenge, or new law, vcr timeshifting; and therefore archiving is a legal activeity. i intent to take advantage of that fact as much as possible
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,733 Posts
"""""""""""If people don't subscribe to different services to gain access to content they want to see, and instead rely on past recordings, then the value of the studios' libraries are diminished. For example, why would Showtime be willing to pay millions more for the rebroadcast rights to the Titanic, if everyone archived it from HBO the first time around and had no need to subscribe to watch it again? And if they aren't willing to pay, aren't willing to pay the same amount because so many people have a copy, that means the studio libraries are worth less.

"""""

another fair point/ damage argument one they could have actually made at the time i think. or was there no hbo then?

the studios need to go into court and see if these arguments rise to the occasion of substantial damages in teh courts eyes; why they haven't may indicate the value they put in such arguments, till then to bad for them and good for us
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,733 Posts
""""""Archiving is not timeshifting. It is the making of an unauthorized copy (i.e., infringement) It doesn't matter if we are talking about music, software, or movies. You can buy a CD, you can play a CD, but if you make a copy of it for a friend you are infringing. You can watch a movie as it is broadcast on HBO. You can tape the broadcast to watch it later if it time is incovienent, but if you record it to add to your library, you are an infringer"



ok the friends part is obvious s who said we can do that. not me hmm i must have missed it were keeping recordings is illegal? and what is the legal time limit? thanks




timeshifting is the making a copy of a broadcast, the court has allowed vcrs to be used to do timeshifting of a broadcast on to a tape, this despite tapes collectible nature, and ability of users to create archives with it and vcrs. These are possibly valid distinctions to be made, but ones the law doesn't recognize currently.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,644 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by bfdtv

Archiving obviously implies long-term/permanent storage and re-use. The term timeshifting is generally associated with short-term storage (and minimal or no re-use), be it for hours, days, or possibly even a few months after the original recording was made.
It seems that there is no clear line between timeshifting and archiving in terms of an exact number of times that you can watch it and an exact amount of time that you can keep it.
 
1 - 20 of 188 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top