POLL: Are downloaded TV shows warez ?

[adam]

1) Availiability outside of the broadcast is irrellevent. A broadcast can only legally be viewed once. You can watch it as it airs or you can record it and watch it later. This is of course only in countires who use the concept of time-shifting. In Canada for example, where backups are legal, it may be different.

2 & 3)If it is not copyrighted then you can basically do whatever you want with it. You can put it on DVD and you can sell it. But just because it is freely available for download doesn't mean it isn't copyrighted.

If those films are copyrighted and available for download then you can put them on DVD and watch them as many times as you like as long as the copyright agreement doesn't prohibit. You may be allowed to distribute them yourself non-commercially, again, as long as the copyright agreement doesn't prohibit it. Under no circumstances will you be able to sell it without the express permission of the copyright holder.

[Supreme2k]

Just wondering where the law stands in these situations...
Hypothetically speaking of course...

What if I "time-shifted" an episode of "The Men Who Killed Kennedy", then I went to buy the dvd. I am in Australia, and the only available dvd of it worldwide is sold exclusively by the History Channel who will not post outside of North America. But then this episode has since been banned, and is no longer available on dvd or video and may never be available. Can I now put this on dvd from my vhs and/or can I download it? Or is it just bad luck if my video tape dies and I can never watch it again for the rest of my life?

Depends on what "banned" means in this situation. If it is the same as outlawed, then it is illegal in any sense. If not, you are allowed to "format-shift".

2nd situation...
The short film "Valley of the Stereos" which Peter Jackson was invloved in creating is available to download at his offical fan website. Can I put this on dvd? Can I sell this dvd (not that I would want to of course)

You can put it on DVD, but not sell it. He still owns the copyright to it, even if you may download it for free. Free does not equal loss of copyright.

3rd situation...
Sam Raimi's short film "Within The Woods" is not available anywhere in the world on dvd or vhs (to my knowledge). It can however be found to download. Can this be put onto dvd, or downloaded? So if anyone admits to having seen this film, would that mean they have broken the law?

That's even worse. If it is not available, he has not made it so. However, someone who is on "the ins" may be privy to the tape. "To your knowledge" is not (always) a viable excuse for skirting the law.

[rhegedus]

@ adam

I think I'm begining to understand the law now.

I can 'lend' my DVDs to as many people as possible even tough they will not contribute a single penny/cent towards the copyright owner because I am allowed to do so by 'fair use', 'first sale doctrine' or whatever. If they make a copy of it without my knowledge, then that's just tough sh*t for the copyright owner.

A person who has watched a TV broadcast and even recorded it to VCR cannot download a file of that broadcast because of of copyright restrictions on the distribution of such files. If they buy a capture card or a DVDR and capture/rip so that they get a file on their PC, that's OK. The copyright owner still doesn't get a singe penny/cent, but can be happy in the knowledge that their property wasn't distributed via a p2p site.

There is absolutely nothing absurd about this in anyway whatsoever. At all.

[h8sh8]

thanks fellas, yeah I thought that may be the case - that copyright still overrides availabilty no matter what the situation.

With the banned TMWKK episode, I believe the history channel have been "asked" to no longer sell the episode "The Guilty Men". The reason why all 9 episodes have been pulled from their website or are now out of print, I have no idea, they seemed to be selling quite well - maybe (or hopefully) to release a new dvd with all the episodes together instead of the first 6 as one dvd, and the new final 3 episodes as that 'exclusive to history channel' dvd (but now minus the 'banned' one). I believe they did release the Guilty Men as an edited version to what was first aired, but I assume this didn't satisfy someone enough - the episode mentioned someone very high up in US government as being involved with JFK's assasination, and one of few interviewed people all saying this same thing was a former attorney of the person he mentioned.

[adam]

rhegedus I'm sensing a little sarcasm in your post and I don't know why. What you said sounds perfectly accurate minus the sarcasm.

You can lend the disk to anyone you want because you bought the disk, just like you can lend them the shirt off your back if you want to. I don't see how lending it to them is any hardship on the copyright owner or any more incentive for the lendee to violate the copyright. If the person chooses to blatantly violate the copyright by copying your DVD that you lent them, then what would have stopped them from stealing the DVD from the store or from renting it from Blockbuster or the library? How does the fact that you paid for the DVD make it any less likely that YOU yourself will violate the copyright by making and selling a copy for example?

I mean I can lend someone a crowbar too, that doesn't mean they are going to use it to break into someone's house. The burden is on everyone to follow the law.

As for your second example,

The copyright owner still doesn't get a singe penny/cent, but can be happy in the knowledge that their property wasn't distributed via a p2p site.

This is the same fatal flaw in all of your posts. Yes the copyright holder did get an extra penny (alot more actually) because your friend used the proper channels to obtain their material. As I explained earlier, there is a reason why you can turn your tv on and receive broadcasts even without subscribing to a cable program. These shows are not solely for your benefit. You buy the right to view these by watching the ads or whatever the program station feels would benefit them to show you. If you want their content you have to follow their rules, and the desires of the copyright holder. If everyone got their "broadcasts" the following day via a P2P program then stations would not be able to sell airtime to advertisers. Without this money they wouldn't be able to pay copyright holders to get permission to broadcast their content. Then the only "free" programs on tv would be infomercials.

[rhegedus]

rhegedus I'm sensing a little sarcasm in your post and I don't know why. What you said sounds perfectly accurate minus the sarcasm.

Honestly, it is not directed at you but at the law. It just appears that in the two examples I've given, the copyright owner is no better or worse off but one of the viewers is criminalised for having a file copy and the other isn't.

You can lend the disk to anyone you want because you bought the disk, just like you can lend them the shirt off your back if you want to. I don't see how lending it to them is any hardship on the copyright owner or any more incentive for the lendee to violate the copyright. If the person chooses to blatantly violate the copyright by copying your DVD that you lent them, then what would have stopped them from stealing the DVD from the store or from renting it from Blockbuster or the library?

The chances of being caught for theft from a store are considerably higher than being caught for making a copy of the DVD in your home. Likewise, if I lend a DVD to a friend who would want to copy it, they're not spending the £/$ in Blockbusters renting it.

How does the fact that you paid for the DVD make it any less likely that YOU yourself will violate the copyright by making and selling a copy for example?

If I had wanted to make and sell copies, I'd have just rented it instead of paying full price for it. That, and the fact that I don't engage in such activities any more than you do.

I mean I can lend someone a crowbar too, that doesn't mean they are going to use it to break into someone's house. The burden is on everyone to follow the law.

I would like to know what they were planning on doing with it irrespective of their burden to follow the law. Would you feel so confident about lending a gun?

The copyright owner still doesn't get a singe penny/cent, but can be happy in the knowledge that their property wasn't distributed via a p2p site.

This is the same fatal flaw in all of your posts. Yes the copyright holder did get an extra penny (alot more actually) because your friend used the proper channels to obtain their material.

Even though both people in my argument sat and watched the program, the copyright owner received more £/$ from one of the viewers than the other?

As I explained earlier, there is a reason why you can turn your tv on and receive broadcasts even without subscribing to a cable program. These shows are not solely for your benefit. You buy the right to view these by watching the ads or whatever the program station feels would benefit them to show you. If you want their content you have to follow their rules, and the desires of the copyright holder. If everyone got their "broadcasts" the following day via a P2P program then stations would not be able to sell airtime to advertisers. Without this money they wouldn't be able to pay copyright holders to get permission to broadcast their content. Then the only "free" programs on tv would be infomercials.

Yep, I am aware of this.

From a philosophical point, people are willing to pay to watch something first rather than waiting for a copy to watch at their own convenience - hence cinemas are still open despite films being available a few months later for home viewing. The same will apply to watching broadcast quality TV at the exact time that it is aired rather than a compressed file a period of time after.

My point is that the law discriminates between two people who have watched the program legitimately (and consequently the copyright owner has received the same in royalties resulting from both viewers) in their right to hold a copy of that program on their HD. Theoretically, the only ones appearing to benefit from this discrepancy are the capture card / DVDR makers.

It would appear OK to lend a DVD of a film to someone, but not to lend the VHS/DVD recording of the same film from broadcast TV to the same person because I don't have 'distribution rights'. The same applies to the capture file.

What file swapping has done is force down the cost of CDs and DVDs for those that want to obtain them legally. I'm not saying that the end justifies the means - but you have to accept that some good has come out of it for the public. Supposing the same good can come to the TV viewers out there?

I'm not some philistine pirate advocating a free for all on someone's copyrighted property - far from it. But when many legitimate exceptions can be argued for, then I'm perplexed by the dogged adherence to law.

[adam]

Yes the law is discriminatory. Every regulatory law is discrimintory by definition. Take any law ever written in any country and there is a hypothetical which renders it illogical in that particular situation, and discriminatory against one particular action or class of people. The point is to balance the interests because no law can be perfect. The law protects the copyright holder's interest but still gives the individual user the rights to backup their signal. Basically you are complaining because one cannot give this backup to your neighbor nextdoor, or to your friend across the world via P2P. But these people still have the ability to receive the backup themselves through their own making. It seems to me that no one is completely left out, yet it prevents people from engaging in numerous activities which would have a direct and harmful result on the copyright holder.

The law has never extended a single individual's rights to their friends. That would be ridiculous. Each person has their own right to time-shift, but no one can "lend" their right to time-shift to their neighbor. Judging from the results of this poll its obvious you are in good company, which is a little depressing to be honest. I don't see how people can follow this kinda of logic, but ultimately it doesn't matter because the law is the law...which I know you were never arguing against.

[rhegedus]

OK.

Thanks for your time and patience - it's sincerely appreciated.

[Rookie64]

The chances of being caught for theft from a store are considerably higher than being caught for making a copy of the DVD in your home. Likewise, if I lend a DVD to a friend who would want to copy it, they're not spending the £/$ in Blockbusters renting it.

If I had wanted to make and sell copies, I'd have just rented it instead of paying full price for it. That, and the fact that I don't engage in such activities any more than you do.

Not to get sidetracked here but just a FYI -

When you rent movies, the movie studios and/or copyright holders do not get any percentage of the profits - it goes to the store owners and/or store employees.

The only profit they make is when the store buys a copy of the mvie directly from them (which is that cpoy or copies only), though most stores buy from video distrbutors - not from the copyright holders themselves.
The distributors buy in large quantities and earn from what they distribute to stores.

Whenever you buy a video (not rent) or pay for a ticket to see a movie in the theater, then a percentage goes to the studio that produced it.


That you lent out your video to a friend isn't making the studio lose anything. You might be causing the video store to lose money but not the copyright holder...and the stores don't hold any copyrights on the videos they sell or rent out.



Back in the silent era, some filmmakers got in hot water by taking stories without permission and adapting them to the screen.
One example of this was the 1907 version of Ben Hur -
the studio was sued and had to pay some $20,000 in royaties, and the film has since become lost among a number of other films over the years.


Some film companies used to destroy all prints of their own films after they had their run at theaters or drive-ins, just to prevent bootlegers from stealing the prints and selling them under new titles.
Tragically, destroying a part of history in the process.


The whole copyright battle has been going on for years and years and predates the 20th Century.

[rhegedus]

That you lent out your video to a friend isn't making the studio lose anything. You might be causing the video store to lose money but not the copyright holder...and the stores don't hold any copyrights on the videos they sell or rent out.

Not quite. If the rental store profits drop as a result of potential custoners obtaining their DVDs from elsewhere, then they won't have so much £/$ to offer the studios for their next purchases. Therefore, the studios do lose money as a result of lending.

[jimmalenko]

Seems an appropriate time to rebirth this one...

[mike1061]

Rookie64 wrote

When you rent movies, the movie studios and/or copyright holders do not get any percentage of the profits - it goes to the store owners and/or store employees

I knew a video rental store owner, and the price they paid for movies was very high, and they would buy new releses. So I think the studios do make more money on movies for rent. The distributer also new they were a rental store. After the movie was released to the public, I could walk in a store and pay less then he did wholesale.

I will give another example of something somewhat related.
I also know a bar owner who lives upstairs of the bar. The satalitte company wanted 2 or 2 1/2 times the mounthly fee for the bar more than the apartment upstairs. The reason is the bar is for public use, with the bar owner profiting, and the apartment is for private use with no individule profiting. Like if you were to pay for a PPV fight, and then charge your friends to watch it in your house.
Thanks Mike.

[ROF]

I want to know your thoughts on downloading TV shows that other people have capture to MPEG or AVI and made available through P2P software. Just like DVDRips of movies yet to be released, etc. I'm not talking about recording off TV to VCR.

In the United States it's a violation of the law to do such things. You are not authorized to download, record, or otherwise archive TV Shows. You are allowed to timeshift for your own private use TV Shows under an authorized broadcast. So far, no broadcasting affiliate has a P2P network and therefore any material downloaded is a violation of the law and punishable by up to 5 years in jail.

Sorry for bringing up an old topic, but I saw the poll and had to comment.

[GullyFoyle]

Pretty simple. Public airwaves. We the people own those airwaves.
The law is wrong. Just like the discrimination laws were wrong.
Same with cable. I pay for content. It is mine as soon as it hits my house.
There is a long history of illegal immoral and unethical law.
I suppose those defending the law will also defend the recent immenent domain SCOTUS decision allowing the government to claim your property for the shallowest of reasons.
Just another example of the "law" being wrong.

[ROF]

Same with cable. I pay for content. It is mine as soon as it hits my house.

That's a common misconception. You pay for the service of receiving the broadcast. You do not pay for the content. You also do not ever own the content. You only lease the right to receive the content in the approved manner by your service provider.

[TBoneit]

Human most of the examples you raise are well within the law. You have the right to time-shift and inherant in this is the right to format shift that copy. After all a broadcast is not in any actual archival format. You can record a broadcast and store it as VHS, DVD, whatever you want. The crucial point though is that, just as with the broadcast, you only have the right to view it once. You can store it on DVD so that it will last 100 years if you want, but once you finally do get around to watching it you are legally supposed to erase it or destroy it. Of course no one does this and no one really cares.

As for format shifting generally, (ie: make a cd of your SACD so you can listen to it in your car) now THERE is a grey area. I think courts have gone both ways on this.

Adam, If you had to erase after viewing would not all the DVRs out now, Tivo, Replay or from DirecTv or Dishnetwork have the capability to erase after one or more viewings rather than have that only be under the owner of the devices control in general.

Or is this totally not an enforceable thing because I may watch it tonight but other members of the household may not for months? And if this is so that we have the right to store until all members of the household have viewed the content does this not tend to interfere with the broadcast flag that most of the suppliers desire?

Thanks, you areguments are always clear and concise

[lordsmurf]

In case nobody has noticed, this topic is more than a year old and was just dredged up again.

[ROF]

Yep! I did so, but it's no less valid today than it was when originally posted. who knows, maybe opinions have changed, maybe they haven't, but it's still quite interesting, especially in light of Tivo lawsuits and such today.

[TBoneit]

I think there is an important distinction between TV shows and movies. Movies are usually commercial-free. TV shows usually have commercials and one could argue that TV shows are simply a series of commercials with material between them to draw you in and get you to watch. The commercials generate revenue for the network and sales for the sponsors.

Snipped

I'll go along with that viewpoint that TV shows are a series of ads with filler between them to entice the viewer (to paraphrase).

Anybody disgree? Just watch ad supported TV.

Obviously the important part is the part they do not interupt. You will never see storm warnings in the commercials they always seem to fall into the program itself. Where do all those annoying animated plugs for upcoming shows appear? Not commercials! Want to know how I tell if it is a commercial or not? If I see a channel logo obscuring part of the screen then it is the program, No logo showing it is a commercial, see easy to tell.
Breaking news usually appears right after the commercials end.

So to me it is obvious the defaced material is the unimportant part and the parts that are untouched are the important parts.

If we coulkd only get the networks to edit for time Sports events so that a ball game for example only shows the action, WOW I'd be able to watch it without getting bored to death, It'd probably run under an hour, and the networks would still get their commercials in to the shows that followed. Nah, never happen they'd rather bore me to death, so I just got turned off to sports, Strikes influenced me in that too. I think the last Organized sports I went to would have to be a ball game at Sheas stadium sooon after it was built and a few races at the Meadowlands soon after it was built with friends from work, after work.

Cheers

[TBoneit]

In case nobody has noticed, this topic is more than a year old and was just dredged up again.

Actually I hadn't noticed that. OTOH it is an interesting read.

Forums, the one place the dead don't stay dead.

Cheers

[adam]

Oh boy just what we need, another thread on this.

@TBoneit:3rd party manufactuers are held to a standard where their devices must have a substantially non-infringing purpose, even if they can still be used for infringing purposes. The fact that they don't mandatorily erase after one viewing does not place them below this standard for several reasons.

Time-shifting does recognize a right for repeated viewings among family members. You don't literally have to erase it after watching you personally just cannot watch it again and you are supposed to take precautions that it is not further disseminated. But if mom watches it one day and dad does the next that's fine. Also a broadcast can be made in conjunction with a public dedication of it. In other words, the broadcaster can give you permission to do with it whatever they are willing. If you read the license agreements for some stations (You'd probably have to check their internet site) they may say things like you can rewatch it 3 times or something. This probably applies mostly to news stations.

[jdizzy40]

Who started this stupid thread. Wa Wa Wa and I had to use aluminum foil on my black and white TV in 1966 to pick up Bela Lagossi movies. Its payback for what I couldn't watch as a kid. Grow up and post something worth the space on this site. Geez. Please tell the video police to come to my house. What they will find is alot of Turner Classic Movies I copied and put on DVD Media and they will find alot of weapons, all of which are loaded. Anyone else. P.S. I hope this freaking thread gets locked!

[Kingnog]

I had to use aluminum foil on my black and white TV in 1966 to pick up Bela Lagossi movies

Do you mean Bela Lugosi?

I don't understand what your problem is, or why you have this angry attitude...or how it relates to what everyone is talking about. Are you saying you couldn't watch shows as a kid, so as payback you record tv shows? I don't see how they relate.

[Mister Flonk-Flonk]

Pretty simple. Public airwaves. We the people own those airwaves.
The law is wrong. Just like the discrimination laws were wrong.
Same with cable. I pay for content. It is mine as soon as it hits my house.
There is a long history of illegal immoral and unethical law.
I suppose those defending the law will also defend the recent immenent domain SCOTUS decision allowing the government to claim your property for the shallowest of reasons.
Just another example of the "law" being wrong.

Just because people don't agree with laws doesn't make them wrong.
You still go to jail for breaking the laws.

The way you cleverly tossed the Kelo ruling into the fray to fabricate populist support for your flimsy and legless argument was an exciting and emotionally charged non-sequitur though. Even though everyone with half a brain cell and a pulse sees right through it.

Regards,

[TBoneit]

Adam, Thanks for the further clarification. When I think about it I have noticed that, I think it was the histotry channel (international)? , that they give a expiring in a period of time right for teachers to tape a show to use in a class room, only certain shows tho, I believe I noticed that in some overnight shows I DVR'd.