Is capturing from DTV and burning to DVD illegal?

[Werble]

With all this controversy of fair use and the RIAA, what about capturing DTV movies. I mean, DVD recorders are a big thing now and I would hate it to find out that recording movies from DTV is considered illegal as well. Is it illegal?

[Werble]

People please, don't all answer at once...lol.

[andkiich]

For purposes of timeshifting, no.

Anything else is considered illegal.

And the definition of time shifting as I understand it, is that you can make a copy of what was played on TV for viewing at a later time, but once you have completed viewing the program, then you must delete/erase it.

[SatStorm]

It is like recording to a VCR.
Unfortunatelly, the big ones wish to change that.

[vcdforme]

I don't see how it could be considered illegal.
Especially since you're not getting the complete, unaltered movie.
On DTV the audio is usually out of sync, often delayed by around
150 milliseconds. I'd call that corrupted.
Also, they always stick those stupid logo's in the lower corner.
That's an advertisement.
Screw 'em, copy all you like, and give them to your friends,
is how I feel about it.
It just pisses me off that I pay a premium price for that
crap. Swooshes, logo's, and out of sync audio. Who wants to
watch it, much less record it?


Satstorm:
Have a good vacation.
I've enjoyed your posts.
hurry back.

[adam]

andkiich gave you the correct answer. You can hold onto the backup for as long as you want, but once you do watch it you are legally supposed to erase/destroy it.

There's actually multiple bills pending right now that affect this issue. One is trying to remove this right and another is trying to extend this right (among other things), and meanwhile broadcasters everywhere are ignoring the law and just trying to encrypt/secure the hell out of the content. Basically, the answer to your question could change sometime in the near future, so you'll just have to wait and see.

[yoda313]

Hello,
Or as many say on this forum "don't ask, don't tell"

Kevin
P.S. Not meant to be political in any way whatsoever. Just saying if we don't know we won't pull the alarm on you

[Supreme2k]

Also, you may want to wait at least a day before bumping your topic. This isn't a chat room.

[raffie]

Also, you may want to wait at least a day before bumping your topic. This isn't a chat room.

that's exactly what he did isn't it?

[Cyrax9]

The way I've always understood it is like this:

Early "Fair Use" laws: You can record it,as long as you record over it as soon as you finish viewng it and don't make/sell addition copies AKA Warez/Pirated Videos.

Current "Fair Use" Laws: You can make up to THREE (Discrepencies say two orthree due to media problems, for music, some companies such as iTunes allow up to six) BACK-UP copies under the fair use doctrine, BUT only under the conditions that A) You will NOT Distribute/Sell/Pirate said copies of any shows, B) You will not Distribute/Publicly Perform said back-ups, and C) YOu will Delete/Erase all back-ups once you obtain a legal (proffessional) copy of said video.

MPAA's "wanted" Fair Use Laws: You will be able to PURCHASE the "right" to view a program at a later date, at which point you will have 24 hours to do so a la Video On-Demand before the content cripples/erases/self-destructs a la "MISSION: Impossible" to prevent piracy, the other half of the MPAA/Fair Use argument wants a bill that would essentially let you "Distribute" your "Fair USe" copies under the CONDITION that you DO NOT keep a back-up of said Fair Use copies, how this plays out is up in the air, I don't have a time machine.

How people treat the "Current" Fair Use Laws: Back-up the video, save it, watch it over and over until offical copy come sout give it to their friends, (not SELL, GIVE) and essntially run it into the ground and yes, even pirate it (ILLEGALLY) to the point where movie studios either A) Whine about profit loss, or B) Release DVD Box Sets and THEN whine about profit loss because nobody is paying $100 per set but rather, buying bootlegs from the TV! Personally as far as I'm concerned selling these copies is illegal and a back-up is made for personal use only.

In truth, they won't come after you unless you start selling pirate copies aka WAREZ which are illegal (and not even supposed to be mentioned here so I'm not saying much), or publicly sharing your videos from the TV. Don't forget that many people (Did I mention I HATE these people?) wind up buying HK Knock-off DVD's at half the price of the "Real" DVD's, a friend gave me a couple of his HK "Engrish" bootlegs once, I now know why Japanese TV Shows cost $100USD on Region-2 DVD's! My point: if a legal copy is available, buy it.

Here's my take though, if a video company, such as Disney, and I'm using Disney because they are the ONLY STUDIO that has been lazy about DVD's of a particular show I enjoy, whines about their IP wihtout offeirng a Legal alternative their "complaint" is a moot point, they aren't offering a legal DVD Copy that you can go to the store and buy, if it's presented in an edited, oir otherwise "trimmed" form (Power Rangers Time Force was HORRENDOUSLY cut to pieces after 9/11) and no legal DVD alternative is ofered, again whining about profit loss is a moot point. HOWEVER, If a video is available and on shelves than BUY IT! The way I see it all shows are bugged anyway and if your friend across the street wants to watch your videos (NOT YOUR FIREND ON THE INTERTNET!! -- BIG DIFFERANCE!!) and has the same set-up as you or the samechanels, than they should be able too, they're paying for the same service and rtheir tax dollars go to the same basic channels as yours do. I buy legit copies whenever theyr'e available, some studios really try to make it hard to do (Read: PARAMOUNT) with $100+ DVD Boxes, while others make it impossible by not offering the content, and others (Read: FOX) offer so manyeditions that if you buy oneof them they're content. (ALien Quadrilogy anyone?) Also all stations are overzealously bugged/watermarked in the USA (Whatever happend to the days of "You're watching CBS: Welcome Home" with the eye and thena progrma wiht commericals and NO BUGS!?) and have clear commerical points, ratings bugs, and cut up credits, they are in essance, the same as taping a radio broadcast, most people don't want the lousy sound, so they buy the CD, likewise most people don't want to "Follow the bouncing logo" so they buy the DVD's!

Finally, I have LOUSY Digital Cable, with the cr*p-quality DVB I'm recieving I should be able to make quntuplicate back-ups in the vein hope that one copy won't have a SEVERE drop/heavy pixelation/soft video or some other random problem while I wait two years for the studio to put a DVD together ina box set, if at all! Do I advocate priacy? No. But I amfor "True" fair use, whereyou can record avideo, keep it ona shelf, and rewatch it as much as you want if no legal alternative is available, and I buy Legit SDVD's the moment they come out, I'min the proccess of purchasing ST: TNG -VOY and will buy TOS when available and ENT if/when it comes out on DVD, but for now I record my DVB's to VHS or DVD and watch them waiting for paramount, is it legal to hold onto your abck-ups? In theory yes & no, if you don't share them than from what I understand (and I know about six lawyers, none in litigation however but they did have to study this) than yes, if you're knocking out 12 copies an hour, than no. I see DVB that has't been given a liscence for DVD Distribution the same as anime fansubs, once the official copy comes out don't share it anymore, and don't sell them, trade only if you have to do something and that's borderline piracy even.

I keep one or two back-ups of everything I don't have on DVD (Exceptions are ironcally shows like "Star Trek: Voyager" with well done DVD's) and when an offical release comes out I buy it. Case in point: Mobile Suit Gundam SEED -- while I have fansubs of Episodes 1-16,I have DVD's on pre-order, my box set should ahve been in on the tenth but BanDai wa lazy about shipping it, it's paid for though, and I bought it. Fair use is such a mess now though that it'd take the mind of a20 rodent rat-king to decipher what is and isn't a total misconception, and what has and hasn't been changed, I miss the days of the Commadore 64, you mad e a back-up, ANYBODY could use it, as long as it was ONE PERSON at a time, video "Fair Use" should be that easy!

[yoda313]

Hello,


Cyrax9 - Wow, you like type don't you????

Kevin

P.S. We need a better Fair Use in the US. Let us have it so we can make a backup and USE it like we use our real copies - so we can use the copies to preserve our REAL versions.

[adam]

The way I've always understood it is like this:

Early "Fair Use" laws: You can record it,as long as you record over it as soon as you finish viewng it and don't make/sell addition copies AKA Warez/Pirated Videos.

Current "Fair Use" Laws: You can make up to THREE (Discrepencies say two orthree due to media problems, for music, some companies such as iTunes allow up to six) BACK-UP copies under the fair use doctrine, BUT only under the conditions that A) You will NOT Distribute/Sell/Pirate said copies of any shows, B) You will not Distribute/Publicly Perform said back-ups, and C) YOu will Delete/Erase all back-ups once you obtain a legal (proffessional) copy of said video.

That is completely incorrect. Fair Use has never allowed you to make a backup of any physical media that you own. In regards to video, Fair Use has been held to allow you to time shift. This only applies to broadcasts, and as you said once you watch it you are supposed to erase it.

As for pc software there is a specific copyright provision that allows you to make backups, but it has nothing to do with Fair Use.

For movies of any kind (VHS, DVD, Laserdisk etc...) and music (audio tapes, cds) you are not allowed to make backups under any existing law. The argument is that one should be able to do this under Fair Use, but no court has ever decided this issue and the codified Fair Use provisions don't even come close to allowing backups.

Don't confuse copyright law with specific licenses. Copyright law specifies what rights the copyright holder and the consumer have in any copyrighted product. The copyright holder can always choose to grant the consumer more rights under the product's license, but this is completely separate from the law. Itunes allows their customers to make a certain number of copies. Its written in the license agreement. But they are not required to do this and if they didn't grant this specific permission then you wouldn't be allowed to make copies at all. This has nothing to do with Fair Use.

[pyscrow]

For Australians - see this link for your rights.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ca1968133/s111.html

Basically You can copy anything publically broadcast, be-it video, video and sound or just sound.
As long as it is only for personal use.

I DO so enjoy my DVD quality video and studio quality music I LEGALLY capture from the free to air digital TV broadcast

Be Quick, this is likely to change with the USA free trade agreement enforcing USA style copyright changes on us!

[ktnwin]

The answer is obvious. Just consider what we are doing with the VCR and recently with the stand alone DVD recorder.

[PC Master]

According to supreme court rulings, you can tape anything you've subscribed to on your VCR (except for PPV and such) and keep it for your own personal use. You don't have to destroy it -- ever.

You know, I don't see these PVRs, which supposedly are all legit, forcibly deleting shows from the HDD after you've completed viewing them once.

As for what fair use should be -- you should be able to back up any music, software, video, etc that you have in order to be able to store your originals in a safe place so they don't get damaged. You should also be able to record a copy of anything you've paid a subscription for, like regular cable/satellite TV, etc, and keep it for your personal use. People have been doing this for years with VCRs and the supreme court says it's okay. Not that I think they should have the right to make such a decision, being as this is supposed to be a democracy, but that's another discussion altogether.

Also bear in mind that these DVD box sets cost possibly on the order of $10/set to produce and manufacture, etc. Charging $80/set is rediculous, especially when they've already made plenty of money on the shows airing on TV.

[adam]

According to supreme court rulings, you can tape anything you've subscribed to on your VCR (except for PPV and such) and keep it for your own personal use. You don't have to destroy it -- ever.

The seminol case on the matter is Sony v. Betamax. Read it. You are wrong. You can keep it as long as you want but once you watch it then you must destroy or erase the medium. The right to tape broadcasts, which the court held was implicitly provided for under the existing Copyright Act's Fair Use exceptions, was labeled "time shifting." The court defined "time shifting" as:

the process whereby the user records a program in order to watch it at a later time, and then records over it, and thereby erases the program, after a single viewing.

The whole case revolved around whether VTR's had a substantial non-infringing use (aka time-shifting use) to counter their admitted infringing use of "library-building" which the court defined as:

The process in which the user records a program in order to keep it for repeated viewing over a longer term

[Supreme2k]

Do you know anything about the "you" implied? This may be kind of silly, but what if the television show is taped for a couple (or more), then one person views it. Is right to keep it extended until all interested parties have viewed it?

Just a thought. Probably no real practical application.

[adam]

Yeah I don't think the court outlined any hard and fast rules on this, but basically its one view per each person who has a right to view it. The husband could watch the tape and then let it sit until his wife watched it. He's not required to erase it immediately after watching it, he's just not supposed to watch it a second time.

As for other parties, like friends and neighbors. They could sit in and watch it with the husband or the wife during either of their viewings. But they couldn't borrow the tape or just come in and watch it themselves.

[Supreme2k]

Yeah, I assumed the last part. Kind of like it doesn't extend to your "friends" on kazaa

[dowa]

if you are doing only for yourself it is totally legal.

if you are doing copies and selling or giving away it is totally illegal.


that is it . and that is all.

[adam]

if you are doing only for yourself it is totally legal.

if you are doing copies and selling or giving away it is totally illegal.


that is it . and that is all.

No that is not all, and what you say could not be further from the truth. Exlusive right to distribution and exclusive right to copying are completely separate rights granted under copyright law. Either one can be a violation of copyright without the existence of the other.

Even though viewing a time-shifted signal a second time has zero monetary effect on anyone, it is nevertheless a blatant violation of copyright. There is no such "personal use" exception in American copyright law.

[MickeyMouse]

Simple as this... anything broadcast over public ariways or cable/sat TV is leagle for recording. I've even asked both my Cable and Sat providers and they have said if it is braodcast over public airways, it's ok to record for your "PRIVATE" use. This means, no selling or duping copies for others.

[Gristle McThornbody]

The seminol case on the matter is Sony v. Betamax. Read it. You are wrong. You can keep it as long as you want but once you watch it then you must destroy or erase the medium. The right to tape broadcasts, which the court held was implicitly provided for under the existing Copyright Act's Fair Use exceptions, was labeled "time shifting." The court defined "time shifting" as:

Sony sued itself over it's own Betamax machines? Wow, that's interesting.

Little tip from your uncle Larr: Before you tell other people they are "completely incorrect," or "wrong" maybe you should check you OWN facts. That way you can tell people they're wrong and not look like a big dummy.

Anyway, if anyone likes reading legal documents here is a site the briefs that case.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html

[adam]

Forget about 'private" or "personal" use. The cases on time-shifting do not create such ambiguous labels. You have a right to backup broadcasted signals, which you are legally entitled to receive, for a single viewing at a later date. That's it. That's what time-shifting is and that is all you are entitled to do with broadcasts besides viewing them as they are aired.

[adam]

Sony sued itself over it's own Betamax machines? Wow, that's interesting.

Little tip from your uncle Larr: Before you tell other people they are "completely incorrect," or "wrong" maybe you should check you OWN facts. That way you can tell people they're wrong and not look like a big dummy.

Anyway, if anyone likes reading legal documents here is a site the briefs that case.

http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/sony_v_universal_decision.html

Oh give me a break. Its Sony v. Universal Studios, AKA the Betamax case. It was a typo and if you read the link you posted you will see that my analysis of the case is accurate. Most of what others have said in this thread has been "completely incorrect", regardless of how incorrectly I may have cited the controlling case-law.

So many people on this forum think that Fair Use allows them to do whatever they want as long as its for personal or private use. I don't mean to come off as a jerk, but its simply not true and I don't think I'm a "big dummy" for correcting them.

[Supreme2k]

Good thing there's only a couple of days left in "Bash The Mods Month".

[oldfart13]

"Even though viewing a time-shifted signal a second time has zero monetary effect on anyone, it is nevertheless a blatant violation of copyright. There is no such "personal use" exception in American copyright law"

...and if you're not in America? Your laws and cases will be rendered inadmissable in CANADIAN courts...

[adam]

" ...and if you're not in America? Your laws and cases will be rendered inadmissable in CANADIAN courts...

Yes of course. I think I made it clear that I was only speaking of US law.

Canada has a unique way of handling these sorts of infringements. They grant a legal exception and force the consumer to subsidize the industry through various taxes on things like blank media. Some people like it and some don't.

[oldfart13]

Maybe that's true on tape. Last VHS tapes I bought cost $2.50CAD each. I just bought 200 DVD-R for $.50CAD each, so they haven't caught up with DVD-+R yet (thank goodness).

[PC Master]

adam> You are wrong. What you've said cannot be farther from the truth. Oh, whoops, that could be construed as offensive and needlessly derogatory. Yes, that was sarcasm, and yes it was mean, but I believe my point is made.

This is all still quite a grey area, and everyone has their own opinions. Expressing anything as fact without a law to back it up is incorrect, even if there are court cases to back it up. Remember, it's up to the legislative branch of the government to decide such matters and create and/or ammend laws to reflect these decisions.

As for using the Betamax case as proof of what fair use is, there are some things to consider...

1) The case was not to decide whether there was infringement on the copyrights of the plantiffs. Instead, the case was to suggest that, since the VTR could possibly be used to infringe copyrights, Sony should be held liable. The analogy made in the link given to a photocopier is quite valid here. Just because something can be used in an infringing matter doesn't mean that there aren't substantial non-infringing uses.

2) Time-shifting was indeed defined in the case, but no ruling was made which said that doing anything other than time-shifting is illegal. I believe there was another case which made the judgement stating that you can record and use stuff from TV as much as you like, but I don't know the name of it. Regardless, that time-shifting was defined has no bearing on other uses or the definition of fair use.

3) The case was speaking solely of over-the-air recording, and did not pertain to cable (or satellite, by reasonable extension) broadcasting. Hence, it doesn't really even directly apply to the issue at hand.

4) Copyright laws were created for two main reasons. First and foremost is to promote freedom of information to the general public by rewarding authors for releasing said content. The second (and mentioned intentionally as a secondary goal) reason is to fairly reward authors for their creations and discoveries. If recording of stuff off of your satellite TV service (which you've paid for) doesn't decrease your viewing of said service, then no harm is done to the copyright holders. By that reasoning, at least from a moral perspective, there's nothing wrong with it. In fact, since the advent of the VCR and similar technologies, the movie and television industry has only continued to grow, so I fail to see how people recording and keeping of a library of tapes has harmed the industry in any noticable or even measurable way.

5) Also regarding the copyright laws and their purpose being to provide fair reward to authors -- do you really believe it's fair for them to sell $75 - $100 boxed DVD sets of TV shows on which they've already profitted more than enough? The DVD sets are just lots of gravy for them. That, in my opinion, is abuse of the intent of the law in order to further capitalism.


Please find another case which specifically talks about 'fair use' and the legality of recording for any purposes other than time-shifting, purposes which were not addressed at all in the Betamax link posted here.

Also, as I said before, I don't see any court rulings forcing PVR makers to make their machines delete the program after being viewed once. Of course, since Dish Network and DirecTV both sell such items and charge service fees for using them, that would mean that hollywood needs to sue them too, right?