POLL: Are downloaded TV shows warez ?

[RabidDog]

one point .. the laws of the land override any agreement the shop may display. Eg dry cleaners say no refunds whatsoever, the laws of the land say yes you may be entitled to a refund.
point two I notice that dvd retailers must have advance notice of the Tv schedules as when they realise the Matrix is goin to be aired on the BBC they will try to sell it off at a reduced price for a few weeks beforehand. However they will NOT stop selling it afterwards..I suppose some people will still want to buy it
lawrence Lessig is right .. If they float they are witches.

[duhmez]

so when you time-shift you MUST include the ads...obviously unenforceable today but who knows about the future.

This supports my argument that the ads are the drivers with TV shows. The more exposure they get, the happier the sponsors are and, for that reason, the producers/owners/ .....

You dont have to save the comercials when you time shift. (You personally do not, the hoops hardware manufacturers have to jump through i dont know.

As for keeping the commercials in on p2p sites is not adequate. They have the right to determine which commercials are seen by which demographic. Me smnatching a p2p show and having ads for florida or something are not relevant commercials. Hence the distribution protection they are afforded.

I know a guy, who knows a guy, no names, had a p2p show downloaded with comercials intact, and the comercials were so way off base to here it wasn't funny.

[rhegedus]

What ever happened to the old adage that "if I can't afford it then I don't need it" ? People today, it is starting to appear, are becoming nothing more than petty crooks. No integrity at all. I mean look at the poll numbers, more people say it isn't warez to DL a file that is being illegally distributed, then think it is illegal.

I agree with the old adage you quoted, but these programs were broadcast FREE of charge into the 'public domain'.

We've already established that capturing for personal use is OK, so isn't it easier for a small group of people to capture and distribute these free programs rather than everyone making their own capture? The result is the same - everyone who wants one gets a copy but the method is different.

Supposing there are two programs on at the same time that you'd like to record - according to the 'rules' you can't get a friend to record one program for you because the recording needs to be made by you in your own house etc.

[crane9999]

What ever happened to the old adage that "if I can't afford it then I don't need it" ? People today, it is starting to appear, are becoming nothing more than petty crooks. No integrity at all. I mean look at the poll numbers, more people say it isn't warez to DL a file that is being illegally distributed, then think it is illegal.

How can I afford something that is not legally avaible? If I want to see a TV show (not a series that might come on DVD) which features my fave artists for example and I'm not living in that country where it's on TV, what else can I do then download it, if I want to see it. If it was coming out on DVD I wouldn't have a problem but a talkshow or a gameshow will never come out on DVD therefore I could only download it. What would be your suggestion?

[adam]

I agree with the old adage you quoted, but these programs were broadcast FREE of charge into the 'public domain'.

No they most certainly were not. Obviously just broadcasting something on tv does not put it in the public domain and rob the copyright holder of all of their interest in it. They were broadcast on tv via a contract. If the copyright holder didn't agree to it, it wouldn't have happened. The same goes for distributing the material via a P2P. Just get the copyright holder's permission and go for it. I really don't see how anyone can complain about this.

[rhegedus]

OK, I mis-phrased it in that I meant 'public domain' in a different sense.

When a program is broadcast, it is available to anyone that can get the signal i.e. the viewing public.

What's the difference between 10 of these recording it to VHS or one of these recording it to VHS and the other 9 watching a copy? The result is the same.

[jimmalenko]

What's the difference between 10 of these recording it to VHS or one of these recording it to VHS and the other 9 watching a copy? The result is the same.

I agree that the overall outcome is that 10 people watch the same show.

The difference is that if all 10 record it to VHS they are doing it for timeshifting purposes and for their own personal use (or so we will assume anyway). The one person recording to VHS is still timeshifting but as soon as he distributes it via P2P it becomes warez because it is copyrighted material and he does not have rights to distribute.

[rhegedus]

So what we are saying is that if two people have the same file on their HD but A captured it from TV and B watched it on TV but got it from a p2p site because he didn't have a capture card, then B is a criminal.

All B has to do is buy a cheap capture card and suddenly no one can tell if his pre-existing files were obtained legitimately or not.

Does anyone else think that this is absurd?

[medievil]

So what we are saying is that if two people have the same file on their HD but A captured it from TV and B watched it on TV but got it from a p2p site because he didn't have a capture card, then B is a criminal.

All B has to do is buy a cheap capture card and suddenly no one can tell if his pre-existing files were obtained legitimately or not.

Does anyone else think that this is absurd?

Basically yes, But it is more complicated than that. The reason B is a criminal is not the program but the method of obtaining such program.
Let me see if I can put in more easy to understand way. Do you not agree that by both law and morally it is illegal for someone to distribute copyrighted material? This includes software, mp3's, Movies, Tv shows, etc...Do you also not agree that any person knowingly downloading such illegally distributed material is knowingly committing a crime?
Say Joe Blow has umm, the matrix Revolutions on his Fserve site in full blown dvd quality for DL. Do you not think he is committing a crime? Tv shows have the exact same copyright as movies. You can't say, just because it is broadcast on a network, that the copyright is any less binding or that there is any kind of exception. I mean if you want to get down to the real nitty gritty, ALL Movies, tv shows, mp3's, even some software is broadcast. With the inception of Satellite almost everything is broadcast. That DOESN"T mean you all of a sudden have the right to freely download it.
And I can assure you, that even though A and b may have the same show on their HD, they are not identical unless they live in the very same region/town, and even then, I'm betting they don't stop and start the recording at the same instances....

I really do not know and can not see why people have trouble understanding this concept. It's illegal to distribute and if you Dl it knowing that, you are commiting a crime. it is no different than going into Wal-mart and stealing lets say, season 5 of Friends on DVD.

crane9999 Wrote:

How can I afford something that is not legally avaible? If I want to see a TV show (not a series that might come on DVD) which features my fave artists for example and I'm not living in that country where it's on TV, what else can I do then download it, if I want to see it. If it was coming out on DVD I wouldn't have a problem but a talkshow or a gameshow will never come out on DVD therefore I could only download it. What would be your suggestion?

There is no answer for you other than sorry. Just because it isn't avalible to you in your country does not give you the right to steal it. The owners of the copyright get to determine what areas see there product, not the consumers..
Honestly, who in there right mind wants to watch a game show???I mean all the popular ones, (Wheele of fortune , etc..) are broadcast in virtually every country to begin with. And normal Television shows, if they are popular enough, usually make it to almost every country, given enough time....
Bottom line is, you can't use the line "But I want it/Wanna see it" to justify stealing it....

[rhegedus]

you not agree that by both law and morally it is illegal for someone to distribute copyrighted material? This includes software, mp3's, Movies, Tv shows, etc...Do you also not agree that any person knowingly downloading such illegally distributed material is knowingly committing a crime?

In theory, yes - in reality, it depends. By your definition, everyone who lends a friend a CD, VHS tape or DVD is a criminal because they knowingly commit a crime. If that is the case then I'd bet that 100% of this site's users have committed such a crime, and anyone who says that they've never lent or borrowed such an item is being economical with the truth.

Joe Blow has umm, the matrix Revolutions on his Fserve site in full blown dvd quality for DL. Do you not think he is committing a crime?

Yes, because the DVD has been purchased. TV shows are broadcast free (with the exception of subscription channels, but I'm not talking about these.).

Tv shows have the exact same copyright as movies. You can't say, just because it is broadcast on a network, that the copyright is any less binding or that there is any kind of exception. I mean if you want to get down to the real nitty gritty, ALL Movies, tv shows, mp3's, even some software is broadcast. With the inception of Satellite almost everything is broadcast. That DOESN"T mean you all of a sudden have the right to freely download it.

So I can watch it on TV, record it on VCR or DVD, capture it to HD all fine and dandy, but the moment I give a copy of the item to anyone else who has the same viewing rights as me but does not have recording or capture facilities, we're both criminals.

And I can assure you, that even though A and b may have the same show on their HD, they are not identical unless they live in the very same region/town, and even then, I'm betting they don't stop and start the recording at the same instances....

Suppose two people capture a program as avi and then use a bit-rate calculator to make a 100% full VCD?

I really do not know and can not see why people have trouble understanding this concept.

Does anyone else think that this is absurd?

Basically yes.

We both agree it is absurd and we both appreciate the law. We just look upon it in a differnt light.

[RabidDog]

TV shows are broadcast free

Nothing is broadcast free .. ven on the BBC..you still have to pay your licence.. SO all those viewers in Belgium who are watching Fools and Horses on the BBC are committing a crime..albeit undetectable..

[freebutterflyx]

TV shows are broadcast free

Nothing is broadcast free .. ven on the BBC..you still have to pay your licence.. SO all those viewers in Belgium who are watching Fools and Horses on the BBC are committing a crime..albeit undetectable..

I'm from belgium and we also pay a TV-licence. Our cable company has to pay the channels. We pay the cablecompany so they can provide us with foreign channels like the BBC. Channels that are to expensive aren't distributed anymore. So we have all the rights to watch BBC and other foreign channels. And TV shows aren't broadcast free in most countrys.

[medievil]

TV shows are broadcast free

Nothing is broadcast free .. ven on the BBC..you still have to pay your licence.. SO all those viewers in Belgium who are watching Fools and Horses on the BBC are committing a crime..albeit undetectable..

Exactly, I think that is maybe why people have trouble understanding... Even Network affiliates have to pay to rebroadcast that network.
Just because you don't have to pay to watch a station over your local antenna, doesn't mean it is free. They just recover costs through the ads. It does not mean you can do what you want with it....

[RabidDog]

I'm from belgium and we also pay a TV-licence.

I was trying to indicate people who watch broadcast Tv that they have no legal right to watch (maybe the irish would be a better example) But I always imagine Belgians, lounging on their plush sofas, scoffing chips (with mayonnaise!!) followed by some waffles and a bit of chocolate and laughing at the "Office" .

[jimmalenko]

So what we are saying is that if two people have the same file on their HD but A captured it from TV and B watched it on TV but got it from a p2p site because he didn't have a capture card, then B is a criminal.

All B has to do is buy a cheap capture card and suddenly no one can tell if his pre-existing files were obtained legitimately or not.

Does anyone else think that this is absurd?

I agree - it is absurd. But that's the way it is.

[Supreme2k]

In theory, yes - in reality, it depends. By your definition, everyone who lends a friend a CD, VHS tape or DVD is a criminal because they knowingly commit a crime. If that is the case then I'd bet that 100% of this site's users have committed such a crime, and anyone who says that they've never lent or borrowed such an item is being economical with the truth.

Lending is not the crime, since you are giving your copy of the material for a fixed amount of time. Just like a library. If you willingly gave it over to your friend so that he could make a copy for himself, then it would be illegal.

So I can watch it on TV, record it on VCR or DVD, capture it to HD all fine and dandy, but the moment I give a copy of the item to anyone else who has the same viewing rights as me but does not have recording or capture facilities, we're both criminals.

Yes, since you don't have distribution rights. They may have the same viewing rights, but since they don't have the equipment, it's "tough shit". Just like I have a right (some say privilege) to a driver's licence, but it doesn't mean that someone must give or lend me a car. If a person wants to timeshift, they have to have the equipment. If they want to drive, they must get access to a car (on their own).

Also, that is not to say that a willing person can make the shows available, just as someone may be willing to loan a driver their car. To be fair (and legal) they must let them use the equipment to do it themselves (vcr, capture card, etc.)

[rhegedus]

Lending is not the crime, since you are giving your copy of the material for a fixed amount of time. Just like a library. If you willingly gave it over to your friend so that he could make a copy for himself, then it would be illegal.

Heres what it says on the back of my Goodfellas DVD:

..... Any unauthorised copying, editing, exhibition, renting, exchanging, hiring, lending, public performance, diffusion/and/or broadcast of this DVD or any part thereof is strictly prohibited and any such action establishes liability for a civil action and may give rise to criminal prosecution....

Still think that lending is OK???

So I can watch it on TV, record it on VCR or DVD, capture it to HD all fine and dandy, but the moment I give a copy of the item to anyone else who has the same viewing rights as me but does not have recording or capture facilities, we're both criminals.

Yes, since you don't have distribution rights. They may have the same viewing rights, but since they don't have the equipment, it's "tough shit". Just like I have a right (some say privilege) to a driver's licence, but it doesn't mean that someone must give or lend me a car. If a person wants to timeshift, they have to have the equipment. If they want to drive, they must get access to a car (on their own).

You've lost me. A car is a physical possession belonging to a person, the broadcast was made available to everyone with an antennae.

[Defcon]

I have not read all the posts on this thread but here is my nickel's worth of thought.

When I was a kid I remember taping episodes of the A-Team. I would sit there with the remote and actually pause the recording during commercials and and resume recording when the show came back on.

If a friend of mine copied my tape I certainly do not view that as a "Manual P2P" or warez. The same goes for P2P network's that do exist today.

I am not saying it's legal or illegal (could really care less) but I personally think it's no big deal considering I pay for digital cable anyway and could edit the commercials.

[adam]

Yes rhegedus lending or giving away copyrighted material is still perfectly legal. Check your country's copyright laws. I guarantee you that under the section titled limitations it has a specific clause for lending.

When you see "no lending" in a copyright agreement it refers to no unauthorized lending, which just means that you can't charge money for it.

I think the main problem that people are having with this issue is that they still don't understand exactly what they are purchasing. You do not have any rights whatsoever in the movie or tv program that appears on your tv. You have the right to receive the signal and to watch it as it appears on your screen. Basically your only real right is to be able to watch it...period. If that signal is passing through your vcr or your capture card, you can hit the record button so that you can watch it later. That's really all that time-shifting allows you to do.

Your neighbor does not have the present right to watch YOUR signal, so why should they have the right to your time-shifted signal? You cannot time-shift for anyone else. That is completely contrary to the very definition of the word.

Think about it. Say you and your neighbor both qualify for medicinal marijuana. You are both qualifying for an exception to the otherwise general rule that marijuana is not legal. Say your friend loses his stash and needs some for valid medical reasons. Are you gonna lend him some? You both have the right to use the marijuana, but that doesn't grant you the right to distribute it or him the right to receive it from anyone unless they are a licensed distributer. It doesn't matter than he can go and get the exact same stuff from his doctor the next day. The ends do not justify the means when dealing with EXCEPTIONS to laws, which is what time-shifting is. Exceptions are by definition intended to be limited. The Government has decided that the only legal means for you to receive the "medicine" is through individuals licensed to give it to you. This is no different than with copyrighted material. You have the right to WATCH it, period. The copyright holder did not allow you the right to give a backup copy to anyone else, even if they also have the right to watch it. The copyright holder also did not give you the right to copy their product. But if YOU fall under the very limited Fair Use exception of time-shifting, then you cannot be punished for using the means necessary to watch YOUR signal at a later time. The same applies to your neighbor, but neither of you have a present or future right to watch the other's signal that they are receiving. So you are both on your own.

There is nothing absurd about this.

[andkiich]

I think that Supreme2k's example would have been better if he had stated that hat the people were lending drivers licenses to others to use, and not the car itself.

[adam]

You've lost me. A car is a physical possession belonging to a person, the broadcast was made available to everyone with an antennae.

No it was not. Just because you personally don't have to pay to receive that signal doesn't mean no one else does. The copyright holder sells the distributor the rights to broadcast their material. The distributor sells their air time to advertisers. You essentially buy the right to view the broadcast by allowing yourself to be exposed to the ads.

You did say something very significant though. You are able to receive this broadcast solely becase you have the antennae necessary to receive it. This is how the material was intended to be distributed. The copyright holder and/or distributor made the conscious decision to broadcast this copyrighted material not just to people with antennae, not just to people with antennae in your demographic, but only to people with anntennae in your demographic who also happened to be watching at that specific target time. THAT is the exclusive means to receive the broadcast, because that is the method that the distributor must use in order to make the transaction profitable. Therefore it really is quite different if you just lend your copy of the signal to someone else who also has an antennae, or to someone who has an internet connection and Kazaa installed. It is a direct interference with the contract between the distributor and the copyright holder, and it is a direct violation of both the duplication and distribution clauses of the copyright.

[Supreme2k]

I think that Supreme2k's example would have been better if he had stated that hat the people were lending drivers licenses to others to use, and not the car itself.

I do apreciate your help, but...

You've lost me. A car is a physical possession belonging to a person, the broadcast was made available to everyone with an antennae.

The tape which was used to timeshift is also a physical possession belonging to a person. The broadcast isn't "made available to everyone with an antennae" via your VCR, DVD or tape (especially not P2P).

But, yeah, the lending of the actual license was a better analogy

[wildo2ne]

the answer is yes they are considered warez, I recently got into trouble with the mpaa and my internet provider for downloading stargate sg1 seasons, the way it was explained to me by my internet provider was that they did not have a problem with me downloading it but as you all know almost all p2p programs require you to share what you are downloading and that was the problem the mpaa had, was the sharing of the files.

wildo2ne

btw they had cut off my service because of this, so anyone looking to do so, be careful and do so at your own ristk

[rhegedus]

When you see "no lending" in a copyright agreement it refers to no unauthorized lending, which just means that you can't charge money for it.

Unless I am mistaken, that would be rental and not lending - which is also against what is said on the back of my DVD case. Copyright laws or not, I'm pretty sure that if I bought a DVD and decided to lend it to the whole of my streeet and the makers of the DVD were to find out, I'd be appearing in court pretty quickly. No? Let's take it to the extreme - one copy per neighbourhood, or city, or county etc.....

I think the main problem that people are having with this issue is that they still don't understand exactly what they are purchasing. You do not have any rights whatsoever in the movie or tv program that appears on your tv. You have the right to receive the signal and to watch it as it appears on your screen. Basically your only real right is to be able to watch it...period. If that signal is passing through your vcr or your capture card, you can hit the record button so that you can watch it later. That's really all that time-shifting allows you to do.

.

There is no problem with understanding here. I am against piracy - period. In fact, I even posted a threat about reporting an e-bay pirate and most people were indifferent about reporting it. What I don't think is right is that something which is publicly aired and that which we have rights to watch, record or capture suddenly becomes off limits to anyone else with the same rights.

Your neighbor does not have the present right to watch YOUR signal, so why should they have the right to your time-shifted signal? You cannot time-shift for anyone else. That is completely contrary to the very definition of the word.

I thought there was a 'specific provision in copyright law which allows public viewing at your home'. Person B comes round to my house, watches the program and would also like a copy - are you saying that if we link up two VCRs or capture cards to the signal, it's OK but we cant do it after?

Think about it. Say you and your neighbor both qualify for medicinal marijuana. You are both qualifying for an exception to the otherwise general rule that marijuana is not legal. Say your friend loses his stash and needs some for valid medical reasons. Are you gonna lend him some? You both have the right to use the marijuana, but that doesn't grant you the right to distribute it or him the right to receive it from anyone unless they are a licensed distributer. It doesn't matter than he can go and get the exact same stuff from his doctor the next day. The ends do not justify the means when dealing with EXCEPTIONS to laws, which is what time-shifting is. Exceptions are by definition intended to be limited. The Government has decided that the only legal means for you to receive the "medicine" is through individuals licensed to give it to you.

Not to be side-tracked here, but if I am patient A and roll up a 'fat one', light it and pass it round to patient B, do I become a dealer? There isn't a court in the land that would prosecute me. If I 'time-shifted' patient B my spliff for later use, am I going to jail? No. A lawyer might think that what I am doing is illegal, but 'offences' such as this are overlooked every day. To quote Shakespear, it is 'more honoured in the breach than the observance'.

This is no different than with copyrighted material. You have the right to WATCH it, period. The copyright holder did not allow you the right to give a backup copy to anyone else, even if they also have the right to watch it. The copyright holder also did not give you the right to copy their product. But if YOU fall under the very limited Fair Use exception of time-shifting, then you cannot be punished for using the means necessary to watch YOUR signal at a later time. The same applies to your neighbor, but neither of you have a present or future right to watch the other's signal that they are receiving. So you are both on your own.

We can go on repeating what we think ad nauseum. But if we're going down the avenue of person A and person B's signal (even though it is the same), at what point is it thought separate: supposing my girlfriend who lives with me also wants a copy - does she also need to buy a VCR/DVDR/capture card?

However, just to throw a spanner in the works, how does the law relate to the use of screen shots from copyrighted material?

Happy Easter everyone!

[rhegedus]

You did say something very significant though. You are able to receive this broadcast solely becase you have the antennae necessary to receive it. This is how the material was intended to be distributed. The copyright holder and/or distributor made the conscious decision to broadcast this copyrighted material not just to people with antennae, not just to people with antennae in your demographic, but only to people with anntennae in your demographic who also happened to be watching at that specific target time. THAT is the exclusive means to receive the broadcast, because that is the method that the distributor must use in order to make the transaction profitable. Therefore it really is quite different if you just lend your copy of the signal to someone else who also has an antennae, or to someone who has an internet connection and Kazaa installed. It is a direct interference with the contract between the distributor and the copyright holder, and it is a direct violation of both the duplication and distribution clauses of the copyright.

So I can give my neighbour a copy?

[dafoe]

I will always hold the opinion that if an officer gives a ticket for going 63 mph in a 60 mph zone, he is an *******.

You are missing two important points:

Traffic violations are an important source if revenue for local government. And most officers are assigned quotas. They are not going to waste thier time giving you ticket for three miles over when they can write a $300 ticket to some moron doing 19 over. Furthermore, if an officer does give you a ticket for going three miles an hour over the speed limit it's probably because you have a history of traffic violations and/or you were being a jerk.

More importantly, it really doesn't matter what you think the purpose of the law is. The law is the law. If you chose to drive 61 then you are breaking the law. You decided the reward was greater than the risk. You have nothing to complain about if you are caught.

[Rookie64]

the answer is yes they are considered warez, I recently got into trouble with the mpaa and my internet provider for downloading stargate sg1 seasons, the way it was explained to me by my internet provider was that they did not have a problem with me downloading it but as you all know almost all p2p programs require you to share what you are downloading and that was the problem the mpaa had, was the sharing of the files.

wildo2ne

btw they had cut off my service because of this, so anyone looking to do so, be careful and do so at your own ristk

SG 1 is commercially available on DVD - you can either purchase or rent the episodes.

More TV shows are being released on DVD now that there is an increasing market for it, so it might not be that long that more of your favorite shows will become available.


To the person asking about Yogi Bear - the show is owned by Hanna-Barbera Productions Inc. (a subsidiary of Great American Broadcasting)

3400 Cahuenga Blvd.
Los Angeles, CA 90068-1376
Phone # (213) 851-5000
FAX: (213) 969-1201

A couple things you can do - one, you can write or call them and tell them you are interested in obtaining the show.
Your vote counts in getting it released as soon as possible on DVD.
Some companies will sell or lend out screeners that you can view in your home, for non-comercial use or even commercial use at an extra fee and terms.
Students, film historians and documentary makers obtain many films and televison shows this way.
You can also try various libriaries, that specialize in film and TV.

Another thing you can do, is call your cable provider and ask them to carry the Boomerang channel.

You can also try half.com for out of print episodes on VHS...some older episodes were available a while back.
One of your local video rental outlets may still carry some as well, and you can also try Ebay or similar auction sites.


Or try Usnet - marketplace groups and video trading groups.


There are many legal options you can take.


Not all TV broadcasts are copyrighted - there are some things in the public domain, and it's legal to share such things.
You do, however, need to know if what you're downloading is in fact in the public domain.
You can also dispute allegations made by the MPAA and/or your ISP if you feel you are in the right.

"The Berne Act" and fairuse, if you can provide a defense can clear you of such charges.

There are many cases where the judge ruled in favor of the defendant.
That someone may be the owner or copyright holder doesn't necessarily mean they'll automatically win their case.

It's a bit complex to sum it up in a post - you'll need to do some further research on it if you really want to know more about copyright and the legalities of it.

There are some exceptions and things left in broad terms, so it's not aslways a clear (or fair) law.
You'll find loopholes along the way.

And it's that way for fair enough reasons.

I'm far from being a lawyer, but have read some things published from entertainment lawyers.


Take it for whatever it's worth 8)

[rhegedus]

....lending or giving away copyrighted material is still perfectly legal. Check your country's copyright laws. I guarantee you that under the section titled limitations it has a specific clause for lending.

From The UK Copyright Sertvice

Acts that do not infringe copyright
'Fair dealing? is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree (normally copies of parts of a work) without infringing copyright, these acts are; Private and research study purposes. Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes. Criticism and news reporting. Incidental inclusion. Copies and lending by librarians. Acts for the purposes of Royal Commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes. Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as ?time shifting?. Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program. Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society. [Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a licence from the Performing Rights Society.]

It doesn't appear that lending a DVD to a friend falls under any of these acts, unless you want to call it 'private and research study purposes'

However, this is very interesting:

UK copyright law reignites piracy row

A spokesman for the UK Patent Office said the law is not designed to imprison or fine individual who share files.

"This law is aimed at the most dangerous activity: the organised crime gangs with warehouses of pirated materials," patent office spokesman Jeremy Philpott said. "It is not meant to bring criminal charges to individual downloaders."

He added that individual downloaders would still be subject to civil penalties, which would include injunctions and/or a demand of payment for damages. They would not be hit with prison term or fines, he said.

In light of the first two paragraphs, the last one sems like a non-existent threat.

[adam]

rhegedus you are not looking where I told you to. That "fair dealing" section is analgous to the US's Fair Use exceptions. They are almost identical and most countries will have similar provisions in their copyright laws. These are exceptions to copyright law. Lending is not an exception for the consumer, it is a direct limitation on the copyright holder. You need to find the specific section on limitations.

For instance in US copyright law under the section titled Limitations it states that:

the owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord

Lending for non-commercial purposes clearly falls under such disposal of possession. There are plenty of cases cited in this section which deal with personal lending.

It then goes on to specify what DOES constitute unauthorized disposition.

dispose of, or authorize the disposal of, the possession of that phonorecord or computer program (including any tape, disk, or other medium embodying such program) by rental, lease, or lending, for the purposes of direct or indirect commercial advantage.

Renting, leasing, or lending are only a violation of the copyright if you do so for commercial gain. There is nothing preventing you from lending out your DVDs to your entire neighborhood. Ask the MPAA yourself, they will tell you the same thing.

Also unauthorized renting, leasing, and lending are all used pretty much either interchangeably or as a single group. Its because people have tried to get around copyrights by arguing semantics like lending is only a one time transaction ($1 for one day) and renting is by terms ($1 per every day renewable each day.) I do not think there is a single country in the world which makes it a violation of copyright to lend someone a copyrighted material which you own. Otherwise it would be illegal for you to lend them a pair of socks.

As far as the rest of this thread is concerned, I don't think I'm going to be able to change your mind so I'm not going to bother trying, but I do think you are still looking at this all wrong. Broadcasting something on tv is no different than playing it in a theatre. If you have the right to view it (subscribe to the channel or bought a ticket) then you can WATCH it. That is all you are allowed to do.

[h8sh8]

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?

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)

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?