copyright infringement question?

[flitzanu]

its my understanding that we are legally allowed to own a copy of material (dvd, vhs) that we own, correct? and based on that being true, would it be copyright infringement if one person was to convert a copyrighted vhs movie to dvd for a fee of the transfer process since the money would not be a charge for the product and only the service itself?

i hope that makes sense.

what i'm asking, is it illegal to charge a fee to transfer a vhs copyrighted movie to dvd? the charge is for the process of transferring, not for the material.

thanks

[Marco33]

Fee=Money

and as soon as money comes into the picture you are over the line.

[MOVIEGEEK]

It is legal to make one copy as long as they own a pressed(original) DVD.You cannot make a copy for yourself and if they sell or give the original away they must destroy the copy.
Charging a fee is probably not legal but you might PM adam(moderator) since he is the legal expert.

[CloudBurst]

It all depends on where you live...in the US I believe it is legal for you to have a copy of a DVD you own but then again it is illegal to decrypt the DVD to make that copy....


Damned if you do, Damned if you don't,

CloudBurst

[vitualis]

what i'm asking, is it illegal to charge a fee to transfer a vhs copyrighted movie to dvd? the charge is for the process of transferring, not for the material.

thanks

Yes, it is a breach of copyright unless you have permission / a license to redistribute the material in that fashion.

Regards.

[flitzanu]

thanks for the quick responses folks, so aside from transferring said vhs to dvd for someone else, is it still against copyright if you as an owner transfer the vhs to dvd as a copy for yourself? i know it isn't like someone is going to CATCH you if you make your own backup copy, just curious what the "law" was on this.

thanks

[Greg12]

this was an issue for anime distro's.

people would re-sell anime on tapes subtitled, so eventually a pricing system based on 8 came out.


i tape was 8 dollars n so on.

it's supposed to be the equipment, the tape and the time u put into it.

[vitualis]

s it still against copyright if you as an owner transfer the vhs to dvd as a copy for yourself? i know it isn't like someone is going to CATCH you if you make your own backup copy, just curious what the "law" was on this.

Yes, this breaches copyright too BUT (and this is a big BUT), this falls under the "fair use" provisions so you can do this with immunity.

Regards.

[flitzanu]

ok, another notion i forgot

what about the sale of free-domain video, such as television shows and such, is it "illegal" to say, rip a show from tv and then sell that dvd with that show on it?

[vitualis]

Yes, it is illegal.

Just because a television show is "free to air" doesn't mean that it is public domain... usually, far from it.

Regards.

[pbhalerao]

I guess what 'flitzanu' is asking -

a) we can legally own a copy of the DVD/VHS material
b) the owner does not have the equipment or expertise to do the task
c) the owner is asking someone else to do the job for him

In the above scenario, can this 'someone else' charge a fee for the service?

My answer is (and I am no legal expert): as long as this 'service provider' is not making a copy for herself/himself, and (s)he reports this income in the tax returns, then, this should be all right.

Any comments, txpharoah?

[vitualis]

I guess what 'flitzanu' is asking -

a) we can legally own a copy of the DVD/VHS material
b) the owner does not have the equipment or expertise to do the task
c) the owner is asking someone else to do the job for him

In the above scenario, can this 'someone else' charge a fee for the service?

No they cannot. Making a backup for yourself is still a copyright infringement though it is protected by fair use.

Providing a service in copying copyrighted content that you don't have a license for (regardless it is for you or not) would not be protected by fair use. It would be illegal.

For example, I may have a CD-burner. If I charge a nominal fee to "backup" other people's CDs (because they don't own the equipment) this would still be illegal. Actually, it would probably be illegal even if I charged nothing.

Regards.

[heretic422]

s it still against copyright if you as an owner transfer the vhs to dvd as a copy for yourself? i know it isn't like someone is going to CATCH you if you make your own backup copy, just curious what the "law" was on this.

Yes, this breaches copyright too BUT (and this is a big BUT), this falls under the "fair use" provisions so you can do this with immunity.

Regards.

So you can be guilty of copyright infringement in the process of committing a legal act? I don't think you can have it both ways. Who has the explicit definition of Fair Use? Has this definition been accepted? If so then 32* Studios shouldn't really have been in court, right? Their package intercepts the video stream after it's been decoded by a software DVD decoder for playing purposes and re-encodes it. The copyright holders of the DVDs everyone is backing up expressly forbid copying the DVD in the introductory warning screens - isn't that what a "back-up" is - another copy of the original? If it was protected under fair-use, wouldn't that be in the disclaimer? Or is the same government that is covering up Roswell, also not giving us the info and rights that are inherently ours?

Immunity is a big word, Vitualis, and the cavalier manner in which it's used around here may lead those who read on the surface to go out with a head half full of info and get into trouble.

Just because a television show is "free to air" doesn't mean that it is public domain... usually, far from it.

Does the freedom of information act apply?

Making a backup for yourself is still a copyright infringement though it is protected by fair use.

can you clarify this? I don't see how you can break the law and not be guilty of breaking the law. A crime cannot be protected under the umbrella of an entitlement - I am entitled to a copy of this DVD but because the method I use to extract that copy is illegal I am not breaking the law?

Regards

[thayne]

So you can be guilty of copyright infringement in the process of committing a legal act? I don't think you can have it both ways.

I see you have no experience with US laws LOL!

Freedom of information act has nothing to do with this, so no it doesn't apply. FIA is so that you can get public information like a change of address your neigbor filed with the post office, or un-classified government documents.

[vitualis]

s it still against copyright if you as an owner transfer the vhs to dvd as a copy for yourself? i know it isn't like someone is going to CATCH you if you make your own backup copy, just curious what the "law" was on this.

Yes, this breaches copyright too BUT (and this is a big BUT), this falls under the "fair use" provisions so you can do this with immunity.

Regards.

So you can be guilty of copyright infringement in the process of committing a legal act? I don't think you can have it both ways. Who has the explicit definition of Fair Use? Has this definition been accepted? If so then 32* Studios shouldn't really have been in court, right? Their package intercepts the video stream after it's been decoded by a software DVD decoder for playing purposes and re-encodes it. The copyright holders of the DVDs everyone is backing up expressly forbid copying the DVD in the introductory warning screens - isn't that what a "back-up" is - another copy of the original? If it was protected under fair-use, wouldn't that be in the disclaimer? Or is the same government that is covering up Roswell, also not giving us the info and rights that are inherently ours?

Fair use from my understanding only protects you from prosecution. You have still breached copyright but the law turns a legal "blind eye".

For example, photocopying text without permission from the copyright owner is a breach of copyright in every spirit of the meaning. You have copied something that the owner of the right to copy (i.e., the "copyright owner") has not given you permission for. However, the law states under fair use provisions that these breaches in copyright is "acceptable" (e.g., for educational use).

For for 321 studios, I personally don't believe their bollucks technical story. The issue anyway is the circumvention of CSS which is illegal under the DMCA.

As for movie warnings, they don't have any real legal standing. They can scare you as much as they like. For example, look at the signs that say "trespassers will be prosecuted". Technical, you can't get prosecuted for trespass (in Oz anyway) as it isn't a crime. The owner of the property can only bring civil claims against you.

This is why fair use provisions in most countries are relatively weak... This is why it has been argued that "fair use" isn't a right by the record and motion picture companies. I personally don't agree with this, but this is one interpretation of it.

Immunity is a big word, Vitualis, and the cavalier manner in which it's used around here may lead those who read on the surface to go out with a head half full of info and get into trouble.

What are you talking about? Backing up a commercial VHS tape onto DVD is fine if you do so under the provisions of Fair Use (e.g., for the purpose of ONE back-up for PRIVATE use only).

Just because a television show is "free to air" doesn't mean that it is public domain... usually, far from it.

Does the freedom of information act apply?

What are you talking about? This concept doesn't even apply. The freedom of information act usually means (around the world) that the public person has a certain right to access information generated by the government/public sector. For example, a person is allowed access to his or her hospital medical records under the freedom of information act.

Making a backup for yourself is still a copyright infringement though it is protected by fair use.

can you clarify this? I don't see how you can break the law and not be guilty of breaking the law.

You can technically be in breach of a law/legal concept but the law can that certain activities are not/should not be prosecutable.

For example, a person can be breaking a law by swearing in a public place, but they may not be prosecuted if they were suffering from a mental illness at the time (for example, responding to hallucinations). The law isn't black and white... That's why we have lawyers!

Regards.