Be careful man, woods are full of them trolls, and they love tender newbie hams
Darius
Darius
Title 17 (Copyrights)
Okay, I admit it, I'm restarting a locked thread, and to a degree I apologize for being a thorn in the moderators' collective sides. KenH, though you may believe that foobar104 is correct on the subject of Fair Use, that may not actually be true (or there may be further information he can give), and I'd like the opportunity to discuss it further.
While all this is more or less armchair lawyering, I'd do have some further questions, and I don't see the harm in them being asked. Clearly no one's actually suggesting or coordinating anything illegal, and IMO the better understood Fair Use is the better we can be informed advocates against (or for, I suppose) things like the DMCA.
With that out of the way, foobar104, you mentioned that recordings of broadcast material are treated differently under Title 17 -- and I've been reading through it, and haven't come across any distinctions. Could you cite them?
Most notably, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 109 has to do with the transfer of a particular copy or phonorecord -- and it specifically says that those that have obtained a particular instance of a copyrighted work are able, without the permission of the copyright holder, to give (or sell!) that copy to another person.
Obviously, this is more intended for individuals to have the right to sell a book or movie that they've bought -- but since Section 107 doesn't specifically address timeshifting/personal copies, it's unclear to me why a copy legally obtained via Fair Use wouldn't then be subject to Section 109, in which particular instances may be given/sold to others.
While all this is more or less armchair lawyering, I'd do have some further questions, and I don't see the harm in them being asked. Clearly no one's actually suggesting or coordinating anything illegal, and IMO the better understood Fair Use is the better we can be informed advocates against (or for, I suppose) things like the DMCA.
With that out of the way, foobar104, you mentioned that recordings of broadcast material are treated differently under Title 17 -- and I've been reading through it, and haven't come across any distinctions. Could you cite them?
Most notably, Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 109 has to do with the transfer of a particular copy or phonorecord -- and it specifically says that those that have obtained a particular instance of a copyrighted work are able, without the permission of the copyright holder, to give (or sell!) that copy to another person.
Obviously, this is more intended for individuals to have the right to sell a book or movie that they've bought -- but since Section 107 doesn't specifically address timeshifting/personal copies, it's unclear to me why a copy legally obtained via Fair Use wouldn't then be subject to Section 109, in which particular instances may be given/sold to others.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
alright, so you're not a newbie, but still, we just fought a war on this...
Darius
Darius
I have no problem with the discussion of Fair Use definition. As a matter of fact, it's probably a good idea. The problem comes in when discussing specific material and what one would like to do with it.
This discussion may touch on some of the recording that I do.
While my sister and her family are overseas, I record some of their favorite programs that don't air over there and send the tapes over to them -- extreme time-shifting, you could say. I'm acting as their proxy, performing a service they would do for themselves if they could. I've done this before for them. and I'd do it again if the occasion arose.
To me, this would appear to be a fair use matter. Any technology that would limit the portability of those recordings (i.e., they could only be played on the equipment that originally recorded them) would eliminate this service, and I would oppose this.
While my sister and her family are overseas, I record some of their favorite programs that don't air over there and send the tapes over to them -- extreme time-shifting, you could say. I'm acting as their proxy, performing a service they would do for themselves if they could. I've done this before for them. and I'd do it again if the occasion arose.
To me, this would appear to be a fair use matter. Any technology that would limit the portability of those recordings (i.e., they could only be played on the equipment that originally recorded them) would eliminate this service, and I would oppose this.
Cool, thanks Ken -- there were just a couple things that foobar104 said that I found interesting, and I had a few more questions.
I'll do my best to keep it as much a discussion of the law as possible.
I'll do my best to keep it as much a discussion of the law as possible.
Okay, I think I have to publicly eat a little humble pie here. I have spent the past several hours surfing WestLaw and Lexis reading opinion after opinion related to matter at hand. And this on my day off, too. The result: I'm changing my opinion from "clearly unlawful" to "possibly unlawful, due to changing circumstances." Let me explain.
The best source on this, I think, is still Justice Stevens's majority opinion in Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984. In it, the justice wrote:
"Moreover, when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work, see 17 U.S.C. s 107(2), and that timeshifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact that the entire work is reproduced, see id., at s 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.
"This is not, however, the end of the inquiry because Congress has also directed us to consider 'the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.' Id., at s 107(4)."
On the subject of harm from noncommercial use, he then goes on to say,
"A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists."
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. In 1984, the respondents were found to have failed to carry their burden to demonstrate actual or potential harm. Instead, they relied on the idea that home recording crossed an "invisible boundary," and that "the copyright owner has lost control over his program." In the absence of any reasonable expectation of potential harm, the Court had no choice but to find for the petitioner, overturning the lower court's decision.
The situation today, however, has changed. More and more television programs are now being released on DVD, to profitable sales. At the same time, technology has progressed to the point where the average consumer has, or has ready access to, equipment to make perfect recordings of digital broadcasts (where "perfect" is in the sense of being an exact replica of the digital broadcast, not a replica of the original master recording). If you gave me a copy of your entire collection of "Alias" episodes, digitally recorded straight from the antenna, you would be eliminating my desire to buy "Alias" on DVD, or a similar subsequent medium. The actual harm to the copyright holder of your sharing with me is nil, but the potential harm is measurable. Multiply that by the number of users of such technology, and you've got a problem.
However, 17 USC s 1008 specifically states that no action can be brought over the use of a digital recording device. In other words, you can make all the in-home recordings or copies of recordings you want. Whereas Sony v. Universal established the legality of time-shifting, the Audio Home Recording Act of '92 (which became Title 17 chapter 10) established the legality of space-shifting.
The problem arises when you provide a friend with a digital copy of a digital recording of a television broadcast that could, potentially, have market value at some future time. If I were to record "Alias" on a D-VHS deck and then loan or give you the tape, everybody would be happy, because there could be no potential harm from future sales by the copyright holder; it is effectively "time-shifting by proxy," as somebody else in the thread has said. But if you email me a copy, then you are distributing not the lawful recording itself, but a copy of that recording, and there's a good argument there to be made that that sort of thing causes harm to the copyright holder.
This is an open question; the advent of digital TV and digital recordings of digital TV, and the recent popularity of re-releasing old television programs on prerecorded media have changed the landscape a bit. Because the potential harm to copyright holders is small-- if it's present at all-- chances seem good that this will never go to trial. But if it does, I'm not entirely sure which way the Court will go.
If I were deciding it, I would have to say that sharing copies of home recordings does, in fact, present a potential harm to the copyright holder, and is therefore infringing. Sorry to say it, but there it is.
If we want to avoid having a court tell us that this is illegal, though, the best way to do it is to refrain from the practice. If you want to share digital recordings, burn them to DVD and erase them from your computer, then pass the DVDs around. That should be entirely lawful. Sort of... um... contrary... er... to what I said a few hours ago. Ahem. Oops.
The main point of my original post still applies, though: even if the act is technically unlawful, the damage done to the copyright holder would be so trivial as to hardly justify the cost of pursuing an action against you. That's not advice, just a little reality-check.
I think the real point here, though, is that everybody here wants to obey the law-- if for no other reason than to simply avoid unpleasant or inconvenient consequences. So it's just a question of determining exactly what the law says with respect to this sort of activity, so we can be sure to say on the right side of it.
The best source on this, I think, is still Justice Stevens's majority opinion in Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984. In it, the justice wrote:
"Moreover, when one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work, see 17 U.S.C. s 107(2), and that timeshifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact that the entire work is reproduced, see id., at s 107(3), does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.
"This is not, however, the end of the inquiry because Congress has also directed us to consider 'the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.' Id., at s 107(4)."
On the subject of harm from noncommercial use, he then goes on to say,
"A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists."
Now we're getting to the heart of the matter. In 1984, the respondents were found to have failed to carry their burden to demonstrate actual or potential harm. Instead, they relied on the idea that home recording crossed an "invisible boundary," and that "the copyright owner has lost control over his program." In the absence of any reasonable expectation of potential harm, the Court had no choice but to find for the petitioner, overturning the lower court's decision.
The situation today, however, has changed. More and more television programs are now being released on DVD, to profitable sales. At the same time, technology has progressed to the point where the average consumer has, or has ready access to, equipment to make perfect recordings of digital broadcasts (where "perfect" is in the sense of being an exact replica of the digital broadcast, not a replica of the original master recording). If you gave me a copy of your entire collection of "Alias" episodes, digitally recorded straight from the antenna, you would be eliminating my desire to buy "Alias" on DVD, or a similar subsequent medium. The actual harm to the copyright holder of your sharing with me is nil, but the potential harm is measurable. Multiply that by the number of users of such technology, and you've got a problem.
However, 17 USC s 1008 specifically states that no action can be brought over the use of a digital recording device. In other words, you can make all the in-home recordings or copies of recordings you want. Whereas Sony v. Universal established the legality of time-shifting, the Audio Home Recording Act of '92 (which became Title 17 chapter 10) established the legality of space-shifting.
The problem arises when you provide a friend with a digital copy of a digital recording of a television broadcast that could, potentially, have market value at some future time. If I were to record "Alias" on a D-VHS deck and then loan or give you the tape, everybody would be happy, because there could be no potential harm from future sales by the copyright holder; it is effectively "time-shifting by proxy," as somebody else in the thread has said. But if you email me a copy, then you are distributing not the lawful recording itself, but a copy of that recording, and there's a good argument there to be made that that sort of thing causes harm to the copyright holder.
This is an open question; the advent of digital TV and digital recordings of digital TV, and the recent popularity of re-releasing old television programs on prerecorded media have changed the landscape a bit. Because the potential harm to copyright holders is small-- if it's present at all-- chances seem good that this will never go to trial. But if it does, I'm not entirely sure which way the Court will go.
If I were deciding it, I would have to say that sharing copies of home recordings does, in fact, present a potential harm to the copyright holder, and is therefore infringing. Sorry to say it, but there it is.
If we want to avoid having a court tell us that this is illegal, though, the best way to do it is to refrain from the practice. If you want to share digital recordings, burn them to DVD and erase them from your computer, then pass the DVDs around. That should be entirely lawful. Sort of... um... contrary... er... to what I said a few hours ago. Ahem. Oops.
The main point of my original post still applies, though: even if the act is technically unlawful, the damage done to the copyright holder would be so trivial as to hardly justify the cost of pursuing an action against you. That's not advice, just a little reality-check.
I think the real point here, though, is that everybody here wants to obey the law-- if for no other reason than to simply avoid unpleasant or inconvenient consequences. So it's just a question of determining exactly what the law says with respect to this sort of activity, so we can be sure to say on the right side of it.
Quote:
Since that section refers specifically to "digital audio recording", and video recording has always been treated separately, I wonder if that would apply.
| Originally posted by foobar104 However, 17 USC s 1008 specifically states that no action can be brought over the use of a digital recording device. In other words, you can make all the in-home recordings or copies of recordings you want. |
If I were to record "Alias" on a D-VHS deck and then loan or give you the tape, everybody would be happy, because there could be no potential harm from future sales by the copyright holder; it is effectively "time-shifting by proxy," as somebody else in the thread has said. ""
hmm tho in teh end you would not allow the sharing of recordings?
That is interesting.
I thought part of the premise behind fair use was that the recording and timeshift was for ones own personal use; one has teh right to record for him or herself.
I must be missing something I found nothing in your post that would permit proxy timeshifting, our exercising of someone else's potential rights. actually I would love that to be legal.. ( sorry if that crosses teh line ken)
I am not sure the law does or would let us be a time shifting proxy, for someone else and our selves at the same time, or even just for someone else; as both would be beyond our personal / private use. It is distribution, and if enough people did it, it mite be arguable as a potential harm, to future sales of programing -- as people mite not buy what they have seen. For instance I bought the sex and city dvds because I missed a season and the replay, if I could have borrowed them I would not have.
I am not sure if put to a test the courts would allow you to extend or transfer your fair use / time shifting to others or exercise theirs. But I agree don't ever think such a matter would like ever be pursued legally.
thanks
hmm tho in teh end you would not allow the sharing of recordings?
That is interesting.
I thought part of the premise behind fair use was that the recording and timeshift was for ones own personal use; one has teh right to record for him or herself.
I must be missing something I found nothing in your post that would permit proxy timeshifting, our exercising of someone else's potential rights. actually I would love that to be legal.. ( sorry if that crosses teh line ken)
I am not sure the law does or would let us be a time shifting proxy, for someone else and our selves at the same time, or even just for someone else; as both would be beyond our personal / private use. It is distribution, and if enough people did it, it mite be arguable as a potential harm, to future sales of programing -- as people mite not buy what they have seen. For instance I bought the sex and city dvds because I missed a season and the replay, if I could have borrowed them I would not have.
I am not sure if put to a test the courts would allow you to extend or transfer your fair use / time shifting to others or exercise theirs. But I agree don't ever think such a matter would like ever be pursued legally.
thanks
Quote:
Note, please, that what I said is that, if I were making the call, I would have to say that the sharing of copies of home recordings would be an infringement. I'm talking about your making a recording (lawful), making a copy of that recording (lawful), and then giving that copy to someone else (probably unlawful).
Quote:
Well, it's kinda complicated, see. The real question, in this situation, is what kind of economic impact will the sharing of a single videotape (or digital recording, or what have you) between friends have on the copyright holder? Given that the high court has ruled that the economic impact of home recording for private use is effectively nil, it's not too much of a leap to conclude that the sharing of that one recording (not copies of it, but the original) would also have negligible economic impact. At any given time, one person has one recording of the program, which is the same situation, economically, as if the recording had never been traded or whatever.
But remember that all of the case law for this topic was set down before the current trend of "air it for free, then sell copies of it later" was established. It's not hard to imagine the courts deciding that persistent home recording does, after all, have an economic impact to copyright holders, because a person who records his own library of episodes is considerably less likely to buy the DVD box set when it goes on sale next year. This line of reasoning leads to a pretty good argument for the broadcast flag, but finding a way to implement it that doesn't prevent legitimate home recording is tough. For example, the flag might tell recording equipment to record the broadcast, but to only play it back one time; but that would be unacceptably restrictive because, for instance, I want to watch last week's "Law & Order" on Friday night, but my girlfriend wants to watch it on Saturday afternoon, and we should be permitted to do that even though we share a TiVo. It's a tough nut to crack.
(Hmm. I think I'm on to something here. Government-mandated personal TiVos for every man, woman, and child in America. Time to call my campaign manager!)
| Originally posted by tonyb100 hmm tho in teh end you would not allow the sharing of recordings? |
Quote:
| I thought part of the premise behind fair use was that the recording and timeshift was for ones own personal use; one has teh right to record for him or herself. |
But remember that all of the case law for this topic was set down before the current trend of "air it for free, then sell copies of it later" was established. It's not hard to imagine the courts deciding that persistent home recording does, after all, have an economic impact to copyright holders, because a person who records his own library of episodes is considerably less likely to buy the DVD box set when it goes on sale next year. This line of reasoning leads to a pretty good argument for the broadcast flag, but finding a way to implement it that doesn't prevent legitimate home recording is tough. For example, the flag might tell recording equipment to record the broadcast, but to only play it back one time; but that would be unacceptably restrictive because, for instance, I want to watch last week's "Law & Order" on Friday night, but my girlfriend wants to watch it on Saturday afternoon, and we should be permitted to do that even though we share a TiVo. It's a tough nut to crack.
(Hmm. I think I'm on to something here. Government-mandated personal TiVos for every man, woman, and child in America. Time to call my campaign manager!)
I think we can safely say that the potential harm thing applies to stuff that is not broadcast (CDs, DVDs, software), or which is broadcast to a paying audience, i.e. HBO or Showtime.
Quote:
Two years ago I would have agreed with you. But now production companies are turning their TV shows into DVD box sets and selling them with great success. Surely the fact that a program has been broadcast once on free television doesn't mean the copyright holder waives their right to sell it in the future.
Also, there's the issue of movies on television, that I hadn't before considered. Some unscrupulous soul somewhere could have recorded Saving Private Ryan off of ABC a few weeks ago, edited out the commercials, and had a perfect digital copy of a 720p transfer of the movie, with which he could have made all the bootleg DVDs or DVHSs he wanted. Surely Dreamworks must not be too happy about that; I can't say I would be, in their shoes.
Ack. I'm starting to frighten myself. I say bring on the hard-core DRM as soon as possible, so we can stop worrying about all this stuff!
(Oh, incidentally, before somebody flames me, "DRM" means "digital rights management," which means a complete implementation will enforce not only the rights of the licensor, but also the rights of the licensee. The right DRM implementation will make it impossible for anybody to prevent you from exercising your fair use rights, for example. That's what I'm talking about here, not just simple copy protection. Alas, companies like InterTrust that were trying to do that very thing appear to be in commercial trouble.)
| Originally posted by Dean Roddey I think we can safely say that the potential harm thing applies to stuff that is not broadcast (CDs, DVDs, software), or which is broadcast to a paying audience, i.e. HBO or Showtime. |
Also, there's the issue of movies on television, that I hadn't before considered. Some unscrupulous soul somewhere could have recorded Saving Private Ryan off of ABC a few weeks ago, edited out the commercials, and had a perfect digital copy of a 720p transfer of the movie, with which he could have made all the bootleg DVDs or DVHSs he wanted. Surely Dreamworks must not be too happy about that; I can't say I would be, in their shoes.
Ack. I'm starting to frighten myself. I say bring on the hard-core DRM as soon as possible, so we can stop worrying about all this stuff!
(Oh, incidentally, before somebody flames me, "DRM" means "digital rights management," which means a complete implementation will enforce not only the rights of the licensor, but also the rights of the licensee. The right DRM implementation will make it impossible for anybody to prevent you from exercising your fair use rights, for example. That's what I'm talking about here, not just simple copy protection. Alas, companies like InterTrust that were trying to do that very thing appear to be in commercial trouble.)
First off, thanks for the additional posts on this topic Foobar... I have a great deal of respect for someone who is willing to modify a position based on new information. That does match my perception that loaning or giving away a copy of a copy is probably illegal, while loaning or giving away your only copy of an off-air recording is probably legal.
It is interesting to note that none of this discussion really applies to any sort of pay or cable programming -- the original Betamax decision was only based on the matter of recording broadcast television programming off-air. So it seems like recording "Smallville" or "Enterprise" for a friend would be legal, whereas recording "Six Feet Under" or "Queer as Folk" might not be.
> While my sister and her family are overseas, I record some of their favorite programs that don't air over there and send the tapes over to them -- extreme time-shifting, you could say. I'm acting as their proxy, performing a service they would do for themselves if they could. I've done this before for them. and I'd do it again if the occasion arose.
It's interesting that you would mention doing this -- I'm currently recording episodes of several television programs from broadcast televisin for a friend in Italy, and sending him those recordings so that he can keep up with his favorite shows in the original English language versions. Since I am not keeping any copies of these programs for myself, I think that this would qualify as a legal use.
> Any technology that would limit the portability of those recordings (i.e., they could only be played on the equipment that originally recorded them) would eliminate this service, and I would oppose this.
I would feel the same way -- although the implications of only being able to play back recordings on the original equipment goes far beyond "space shifting" programs for overseas friends or family. Because such a technological limitation could prevent me from recording a program on my downstairs DVD recorder and playing it back on the DVD player upstairs in my bedroom. Even worse, it could put all of us in a position where our home recordings become worthless when we replace equipment.
It is interesting to note that none of this discussion really applies to any sort of pay or cable programming -- the original Betamax decision was only based on the matter of recording broadcast television programming off-air. So it seems like recording "Smallville" or "Enterprise" for a friend would be legal, whereas recording "Six Feet Under" or "Queer as Folk" might not be.
> While my sister and her family are overseas, I record some of their favorite programs that don't air over there and send the tapes over to them -- extreme time-shifting, you could say. I'm acting as their proxy, performing a service they would do for themselves if they could. I've done this before for them. and I'd do it again if the occasion arose.
It's interesting that you would mention doing this -- I'm currently recording episodes of several television programs from broadcast televisin for a friend in Italy, and sending him those recordings so that he can keep up with his favorite shows in the original English language versions. Since I am not keeping any copies of these programs for myself, I think that this would qualify as a legal use.
> Any technology that would limit the portability of those recordings (i.e., they could only be played on the equipment that originally recorded them) would eliminate this service, and I would oppose this.
I would feel the same way -- although the implications of only being able to play back recordings on the original equipment goes far beyond "space shifting" programs for overseas friends or family. Because such a technological limitation could prevent me from recording a program on my downstairs DVD recorder and playing it back on the DVD player upstairs in my bedroom. Even worse, it could put all of us in a position where our home recordings become worthless when we replace equipment.
> But now production companies are turning their TV shows into DVD box sets and selling them with great success. Surely the fact that a program has been broadcast once on free television doesn't mean the copyright holder waives their right to sell it in the future.
I'm not sure that this will prove to be a huge issue -- although it depends on the age of the programs. The incentive for viewers to buy sets of older shows (Star Trek, Outer Limits, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, All In the Family, etc) is that the broadcasts are heavily edited for additional commercials whereas the DVDs present the intact versions of the shows. Even for some newer shows (Farscape, Friends), the DVDs include material that was edited from the North American broadcasts as an incentive to buy the DVD instead of just recording the shows off-air to save.
> Also, there's the issue of movies on television, that I hadn't before considered. Some unscrupulous soul somewhere could have recorded Saving Private Ryan off of ABC a few weeks ago, edited out the commercials, and had a perfect digital copy of a 720p transfer of the movie, with which he could have made all the bootleg DVDs or DVHSs he wanted. Surely Dreamworks must not be too happy about that; I can't say I would be, in their shoes.
I would presume that those bootleg copies would all have the ABC logo in the lower right corner, which ought to substantially degrade their value. I would certainly be pissed off if I bought what I thought was a pre-recorded DVD only to find a network logo in the corner of the screen, telling me that the movie was a pirated copy.
I think that if I were the owner of a particular motion picture, I might be very inclined to mandate that HD broadcasts include a network logo in the corner of the screen for a significant portion of the broadcast for just this reason -- and that would include runs on pay services such as Showtime & HBO. While this hardly prevents us from making personal copies off the air (which is legal, anyway), it should do much to stop any would-be commercial pirates.
I'm not sure that this will prove to be a huge issue -- although it depends on the age of the programs. The incentive for viewers to buy sets of older shows (Star Trek, Outer Limits, MASH, Mary Tyler Moore, All In the Family, etc) is that the broadcasts are heavily edited for additional commercials whereas the DVDs present the intact versions of the shows. Even for some newer shows (Farscape, Friends), the DVDs include material that was edited from the North American broadcasts as an incentive to buy the DVD instead of just recording the shows off-air to save.
> Also, there's the issue of movies on television, that I hadn't before considered. Some unscrupulous soul somewhere could have recorded Saving Private Ryan off of ABC a few weeks ago, edited out the commercials, and had a perfect digital copy of a 720p transfer of the movie, with which he could have made all the bootleg DVDs or DVHSs he wanted. Surely Dreamworks must not be too happy about that; I can't say I would be, in their shoes.
I would presume that those bootleg copies would all have the ABC logo in the lower right corner, which ought to substantially degrade their value. I would certainly be pissed off if I bought what I thought was a pre-recorded DVD only to find a network logo in the corner of the screen, telling me that the movie was a pirated copy.
I think that if I were the owner of a particular motion picture, I might be very inclined to mandate that HD broadcasts include a network logo in the corner of the screen for a significant portion of the broadcast for just this reason -- and that would include runs on pay services such as Showtime & HBO. While this hardly prevents us from making personal copies off the air (which is legal, anyway), it should do much to stop any would-be commercial pirates.
Quote:
Ooh, excellent point. Recording shows off of HBO would be kinda similar to trying to "time-shift by proxy" in a movie theater. I don't know about you guys, but around here people get kicked out of theaters for that. 
Quote:
Hmm. I wonder if the fact that you're sending these recordings out of the country has any bearing. But I'll be damned if I'm going to climb back into Lexis-Nexis tonight. Ugh.
Quote:
Yeah, you know at some point it's possible that the courts (or the legislature, if they catch it early enough) may simply say, "Copyright holders, that's it. Under the current system, it's technologically possible for people to pirate your content, but implementing any more sophisticated system to limit that would infringe on the fair use exemption. We're sorry, but you guys are just going to have to live with a minimal level of piracy."
Then again... (sorry for the stream-of-consciousness, but I'm literally thinking this as I write it). It seems that copyright holders-- or, more specifically, distributors-- have no legal obligation to guarantee that people can make fair use of their works. I'm thinking about the law now, and the way it's worded, fair use is allowed, but it's not mandatory or anything. For example, MacroVision copy protection on analog videotapes prevents teachers from making multiple copies of a video for classroom use. That's a case that's explicitly called out in the statute as an example of a non-infringing use. But the fact that MacroVision prevents it doesn't mean the distributor is breaking the law by selling it. If a distributor wants to sell uncopyable DVDs or CDs, or if they want to make every TV broadcast encrypted and unrecordable (forget how, just go with me), they would be totally within their rights to do so. I think.
In fact, I dare say it would be an unreasonable burden on copyright holders if it were the other way around. If they were required to guarantee that every piece of media-- from books to software-- they sold was compatible with every known (or even potential) fair use, that would put the distributors right out of business.
My head's swimming. I wish I'd never brought it up. Okay, not really, but I'm definitely done with this topic for a little while, to give me time to recover.
| Originally posted by Thomas Desmond It is interesting to note that none of this discussion really applies to any sort of pay or cable programming -- the original Betamax decision was only based on the matter of recording broadcast television programming off-air. So it seems like recording "Smallville" or "Enterprise" for a friend would be legal, whereas recording "Six Feet Under" or "Queer as Folk" might not be. |
Quote:
| I'm currently recording episodes of several television programs from broadcast televisin for a friend in Italy |
Quote:
| I would feel the same way -- although the implications of only being able to play back recordings on the original equipment goes far beyond "space shifting" programs for overseas friends or family. |
Then again... (sorry for the stream-of-consciousness, but I'm literally thinking this as I write it). It seems that copyright holders-- or, more specifically, distributors-- have no legal obligation to guarantee that people can make fair use of their works. I'm thinking about the law now, and the way it's worded, fair use is allowed, but it's not mandatory or anything. For example, MacroVision copy protection on analog videotapes prevents teachers from making multiple copies of a video for classroom use. That's a case that's explicitly called out in the statute as an example of a non-infringing use. But the fact that MacroVision prevents it doesn't mean the distributor is breaking the law by selling it. If a distributor wants to sell uncopyable DVDs or CDs, or if they want to make every TV broadcast encrypted and unrecordable (forget how, just go with me), they would be totally within their rights to do so. I think.
In fact, I dare say it would be an unreasonable burden on copyright holders if it were the other way around. If they were required to guarantee that every piece of media-- from books to software-- they sold was compatible with every known (or even potential) fair use, that would put the distributors right out of business.
My head's swimming. I wish I'd never brought it up. Okay, not really, but I'm definitely done with this topic for a little while, to give me time to recover.
Quote:
Why stop there? I'd imagine you could require that the broadcaster or head-end embed a unique digital signature in the vertical interval of the picture area, or maybe in some unused part of the MPEG bitstream, that identifies the broadcast source of the movie. For instance, in our town, the broadcast itself would include some data somewhere that would identify the movie as having been broadcast by WFAA-DT. That might not help a lot, but it would make it possible to identify at least the region of the country from which a bootleg originated.
Just a random thought.
(Okay, that's it. I'm definitely done for the night.)
| Originally posted by Thomas Desmond I think that if I were the owner of a particular motion picture, I might be very inclined to mandate that HD broadcasts include a network logo in the corner of the screen for a significant portion of the broadcast for just this reason -- and that would include runs on pay services such as Showtime & HBO. |
Just a random thought.
(Okay, that's it. I'm definitely done for the night.)
Quote:
This already happens.
If I take my recordings made using the MyHD card to a machine that doesn't have the card (and thus cannot know anything about what stations exist) and use HDTVToMPEG2 to edit them, I can see what station it came from. For example, my local NBC station embeds "WRC-DT 4.1" in the stream.
| Originally posted by foobar104 Why stop there? I'd imagine you could require that the broadcaster or head-end embed a unique digital signature in the vertical interval of the picture area, or maybe in some unused part of the MPEG bitstream, that identifies the broadcast source of the movie. For instance, in our town, the broadcast itself would include some data somewhere that would identify the movie as having been broadcast by WFAA-DT. That might not help a lot, but it would make it possible to identify at least the region of the country from which a bootleg originated. |
If I take my recordings made using the MyHD card to a machine that doesn't have the card (and thus cannot know anything about what stations exist) and use HDTVToMPEG2 to edit them, I can see what station it came from. For example, my local NBC station embeds "WRC-DT 4.1" in the stream.
I'd like to point out a couple of things:
First, while I strongly respect the rights of copyright holders to profit from their works I don't detect benign motivations behind these latest Hollywood moves. It seems pretty simple they are designed to extract more revenue. Consider the stellar growth of Microsoft in the face of rampant piracy. They (Microsoft) were, and still are, very dilligent about attacking profiteering pirates. Not once did I hear them suggest that floppy makers build in security measures, or that computer makers discontinue a particular interface. I'll just point out the DivX fiasco as proof of the real motivation behind Hollywoods copyright initiatives.
Second, when one receives a broadcasting license (or satellite slot licenses for that matter) are these not government granted monopolies over the use of a valuable, limited PUBLIC resource? I think an argument can be made that broadcasting programming is materially different from selling DVDs or videotapes. I can choose were I buy my DVDs or from what studio but I cannot "choose" a different purveyor of "channel 2" or transponder 3 from 110°. Aren't monopolies usually regulated and restrained from consumer-harmful behaviour?
Just something to think about.
First, while I strongly respect the rights of copyright holders to profit from their works I don't detect benign motivations behind these latest Hollywood moves. It seems pretty simple they are designed to extract more revenue. Consider the stellar growth of Microsoft in the face of rampant piracy. They (Microsoft) were, and still are, very dilligent about attacking profiteering pirates. Not once did I hear them suggest that floppy makers build in security measures, or that computer makers discontinue a particular interface. I'll just point out the DivX fiasco as proof of the real motivation behind Hollywoods copyright initiatives.
Second, when one receives a broadcasting license (or satellite slot licenses for that matter) are these not government granted monopolies over the use of a valuable, limited PUBLIC resource? I think an argument can be made that broadcasting programming is materially different from selling DVDs or videotapes. I can choose were I buy my DVDs or from what studio but I cannot "choose" a different purveyor of "channel 2" or transponder 3 from 110°. Aren't monopolies usually regulated and restrained from consumer-harmful behaviour?
Just something to think about.
Quote:
They could afford to ignore a certain amount of it, because they were growing rapidly into a new market. When that market becomes more saturated, as it becoming in this country anyway, they will become more concerned, as witnessed by the new mechanisms in XP to prevent casual sharing.
| They (Microsoft) were, and still are, very dilligent about attacking profiteering pirates. Not once did I hear them suggest that floppy makers build in security measures, or that computer makers discontinue a particular interface. |
Dean- took the words right out of my head!
I now am in possession of a Office2000 I paid over $600 for 2 years ago and because I upgraded my computer I run it on twice, MS now says I must buy it all over again because my decision to install it on a new computer has expired the 2 upgrade license. First I added more RAM and need to call in, second I replaced the MB and needed to call in. Now I added more HD capacity and MS refuses to give me a new KEY. Fortunately, I found another older copy of Office2000 that is open, no keys required and otherwise is exactly the same features. I do understand that this same procedure is now used in XP but I have not yet run into it as I am still working in older applications.
I now am in possession of a Office2000 I paid over $600 for 2 years ago and because I upgraded my computer I run it on twice, MS now says I must buy it all over again because my decision to install it on a new computer has expired the 2 upgrade license. First I added more RAM and need to call in, second I replaced the MB and needed to call in. Now I added more HD capacity and MS refuses to give me a new KEY. Fortunately, I found another older copy of Office2000 that is open, no keys required and otherwise is exactly the same features. I do understand that this same procedure is now used in XP but I have not yet run into it as I am still working in older applications.
1 - 20 of 42 Posts
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
AVS Forum
A forum community dedicated to home theater owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about home audio/video, TVs, projectors, screens, receivers, speakers, projects, DIY’s, product reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Recommended Communities
