I say copying rentals is legal. Tell me where I'm wrong.Originally Posted by wwjd
Try StreamFab Downloader and download from Netflix, Amazon, Youtube! Or Try DVDFab and copy Blu-rays! or rip iTunes movies!
Closed Thread
Results 61 to 88 of 88
Thread
-
Originally Posted by Swanick
There are express exemptions for personal copying of computer software under section 117 and musical recordings under 1008 provided you meet the requirements of the statute. Additionally libraries can make archival copies of most of their materials under section 104 as specified in the House Committee Notes.
That is it. I'm sorry but what you say is not true under US law.
-
Originally Posted by adam
But there is an exception made for time shifting. You can record broadcasts and keep them for a reasonable time to watch them ONCE at a later date. There is no exact time frame but you are strictly limited to a single viewing. If you go beyond this its library building and you no longer fall within the exception. There is no Fair Use exception for library-buliding. If your infringement turned on how long you kept the material, not whether you watched it multiple times, then the question would be presented to a jury and they would decide whether you acted reasonably.
It all turns on intent. Are you really just recording it because you couldn't watch it at its scheduled time? Are you really only interested in getting in that viewing that you missed? If so its time shifting. If you are recording things and putting them on your shelf to keep or are watching them repeatedly, then you are no longer time shifting.
-
Originally Posted by Swanick
it doesn't make sense. If you rent a video 6 times at 4 dollars a time, you've paid 24 dollars to the copyright owners(minus fees to the retailer and sales taxes). So in essence, you've bought the video and should be able to copy it for indefinite use, unfortunately that's not the way broadcast or rental agreements work.
Read the application for video membership and you will see why it's illegal to do so. It's in the fine print why and what you can expect to pay in litigation cost and jail time if you do this illegal action.
-
Originally Posted by adam
-
Everything he has said thus far has been wrong actually.
Swanick, please cite a case where a court ruled that there is a right to make personal copies under Fair Use. Otherwise, I'm not going to argue with you because I already cited the case where the US Supreme Court expressly said that there is NOT such a right.
Could it be that maybe, just maybe you are mixing up Canadian and US law? You guys do have more liberal laws regarding personal copying, and you do pay royalties/taxes on additional (all?) types of recording media.
-
Originally Posted by adam
-
Originally Posted by adam
The AHRA does authorize copying of personal musical recordings only, and there are restrictions too. You have to use an actual certified digital audio recording device like a DAT recorder.
Let's say I have a CD collection containing music my friends like. They have a CD collection containing music I like. Whenever we get together, we like to play our music in the car. But it's such a hassle carrying around a big stack, and having to constantly swap the discs in the player. So one of my friends gets an idea: make a mix CD. So we get everyone's CD's together, rip 10 or 15 songs to my computer, and burn the disc. But at the end of the night, one of us has to hold onto the disc. By keeping it for more than one second, any of us could be guilty of infringement, by your logic. In fact, your logic implies that I have infringed copyright law just by copying it to my computer, simply because of the fact that I don't own it. By exercising my fair use rights, I am an infringer. You are full of crap.
Under Fair Use copying, like what you'd do with the library's photocopier, you can only copy excerts not the entire book. If you copy everything it can never be Fair Use.
You also have to fall within one of the specific types of Fair Use copying, but if the copying is being done in a library its safe to say it falls under the general educational purpose.
-
Originally Posted by adam
Time shifting is strictly applied only to let you watch something later because you couldn't watch it when it was aired and had no control over when you received that broadcast.
-
Originally Posted by adam
You are in breach of the forum rules and are being issued with a formal warning. Keep your political comments to yourself.
/ Moderator lordsmurf
-
Swanick the only thing ridiculous here is your attitude.
I am an attorney and I specialized in Copyrights in law school and I am currently pursuing an LLM specifically in intellectual property. I deal with copyright questions everyday as it is the main focus of my practice. I have done my research and I stand behind it. You obviously have not done yours and yet you just won't drop this even though you are clearly talking out of your ass. I already pointed you to the the relevant portions of Title 17 that answer your questions and to the Sup. Ct. case that breaks the whole time shifting concept down. It is blatantly obvious from your questions and contentions that you have not even bothered to look at these sources yet so there's nothing more I can help you with.
-
Originally Posted by ROF
it doesn't make sense. If you rent a video 6 times at 4 dollars a time, you've paid 24 dollars to the copyright owners(minus fees to the retailer and sales taxes). So in essence, you've bought the video and should be able to copy it for indefinite use, unfortunately that's not the way broadcast or rental agreements work.
Read the application for video membership and you will see why it's illegal to do so. It's in the fine print why and what you can expect to pay in litigation cost and jail time if you do this illegal action.
-
I stand by the opinion that quite a few people thing "Fair Use" means "my use". I'm no lawyer but common sense tells me that copying programs for later multiple viewings while they are available for purchase is illegal. Some people just can't wrap their brain around that concept. They think that fair use entitles them to record and copy whatever they wish so long as they do not personally profit from said copying.
-
Originally Posted by adam
Swanick, please cite a case where a court ruled that there is a right to make personal copies under Fair Use.
Otherwise, I'm not going to argue with you because I already cited the case where the US Supreme Court expressly said that there is NOT such a right.
Could it be that maybe, just maybe you are mixing up Canadian and US law?
You guys do have more liberal laws regarding personal copying, and you do pay royalties/taxes on additional (all?) types of recording media.
-
Originally Posted by Swanick
BTW, Broadcasting a movie with your friends is illegal too. You did not pay the fee to do so.
-
Originally Posted by ROF
Some people get confused when they think about fair use. They interpret it to mean "My Use".
-
Originally Posted by ROF
-
The Audio Home Recording Act is an express statute which grants the right to copy music recordings, its authority does not come from Fair Use. Do you not see the nail in your own coffin? If all personal copies were authorized under the Fair Use provisions of section 107, which was enacted in 1976, then why did Congress later add section 1008 in 1992 to grant the right to backup audio?
And why is there also an express exemption for computer software?
The reason is that Fair Use has nothing to do with archival copies. Fair Use has never even been applied to archival copying. The DMCA has been tested hundreds of times in court and it isn't even the authority that makes archival copying an infringement, the very first damn section of Title 17 is.
You have single handedly turned this thread into cornucopia of misinformation.
-
Originally Posted by ROF
BTW, Broadcasting a movie with your friends is illegal too. You did not pay the fee to do so.
-
I think this thread has run it's course.
For those that missed it, the original poster got his answer:
Originally Posted by wwjd
THREAD OVER.Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS
Similar Threads
-
Question about "legally" converting itunes drm video
By jimdagys in forum Newbie / General discussionsReplies: 9Last Post: 17th Nov 2008, 10:12 -
Can YOU Tell the Difference ?
By Seeker47 in forum DVB / IPTVReplies: 14Last Post: 19th Nov 2007, 12:59 -
Download the Latest Harry Potter Movie: Legally!
By dvd3500 in forum Latest Video NewsReplies: 14Last Post: 26th Oct 2007, 12:53 -
Strange problem with wmv-files (recorded from mlb.com - legally)
By Abrus in forum Video ConversionReplies: 2Last Post: 10th Jul 2007, 16:43