Is capturing from DTV and burning to DVD illegal?

[BobK]

> 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?

I'd have to answer yes to that one. If you own something you should be free to sell it for whatever price you want to set on it. If the buyer thinks the price is too high or unfair then don't buy it.

Do you think it's fair that an automobile can sell for $50,000, or $100,000, or more? If you don't think it's fair do you refuse to buy it or do you steal it?

[adam]

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.

How is that offensive or derogatory? Everything you have said up until this point has been factually incorrect. I simply pointed this out hoping you would either actually go read Title 17 (it is obvious you have not) or stop arguing. What is so offensive is that you would rather argue blindly then just admit you are wrong, or at least just walk away.

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.

If there are mandatory pursuasive cases (supreme court in this instance) to back something up then it IS law and it IS fact.

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.

Bullshit! I've already explained the various types of law to you. Title 17 already had a Fair Use provision. The supreme court ruled that time-shifting qualified under this existing provision, even though it wasn't necessarily contemplated by the Legislature at the time Title 17 was written. This is considered MANDATORY pursuasive authority on the matter. All lower courts are required to follow this holding and it has full force and effect of law as if it were a statute. It doesn't matter if law is created by statute or by court ruling, it is still law for all those in the affected jurisdiction. Furthermore, no new law was created. The Court held that time-shifting qualified under the Fair Use provisions of Title 17 as they were written. (its a totally generic clause, the whole point is to allow the courts to go through and carve out the exceptions.)

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.

That is the most ill-informed statement I have ever read. The Court couldn't make a ruling that (insert action here) violated a copyright because there is already an express law saying exactly which acts are a violation of copyright, and it is pervasive. You are arguing that copying is legal until a law is passed, or a court rules, otherwise. What I keep explaining to you is that this already happened. Title 17 makes ALL copying the express right of the copyright holder. I can't spell it any other way. It is a violation to copy...period! In this case the court clarified that Fair Use definitively included time-shifting. It doesn't change the fact that Title 17 itself still expressly prohibits all other forms of copying not exempted.

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.

As I've already explained, there is no such case. It shows an incredible lack of accountability to come in here saying "you are wrong" based soley on some case that you think might exist, but which you have no proof of. The USCS Reporters cite all major holdings for each provision. You can look through all of Title 17, and all of Fair Use specifically, and you can clearly see that there is no case which even comes close to what you are suggesting. I can say with absolute certainty that there is no such case.

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.

Do you not think that a "library builder" would be less likely to purchase the VHS or DVD of that content which they already backed up from their broadcast?

It doesn't matter anyway. An infringement does not have to have a monetary effect on the copyright holder. Also, the Court was very clear in the Betamax case that "library building" is an infringement.

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.

Are you kidding me? That is exactly what I challenged you to do! Give me a break. My whole point is that there is no such case. Title 17 grants an exclusive copy right. That is all there is to it. All copying is a violation unless exempted. I asked you to provide this supposed case which makes the exception for personal non-commercial copying. You can't do it so you ask me to?

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.

And I don't see VHS tapes that self destruct after a single use either. As already explained, an entire family can watch the time-shifted material one at a time, thus there would not be any reason for the PVR to force deletion. I also think you missed the entire point of the Betamax case. PVR's have a substantial non-infriging use. They do not have to police the user into using the machine legally, just as crowbar manufacturers do not have to ensure their products aren't used to break into cars. If the device has a substantially non-infringing use, then they cannot be held liable for contributory infringement.

So once again, please show me this supposed case which makes an exception for personal copying, since Title 17 clearly and expressly prohibits all copying not exempted. Until you can provide that exception, I don't want to discuss this with you anymore. You've made it clear that you don't actually believe that what you say represents the current law, you've just pushed this so far that now you can't admit you're wrong..

I'm tired of people jumping into these threads telling me I'm wrong and then making ridiculous arguments like, "DVD boxsets are overpriced."

[proxyx99]

I guess as technology progresses it will be even more difficult for an average Joe to make out what is legal and what is not. Just a few years ago "backing up" a DVD was a "science" in itself. The tools were scarce and primitive, it just felt like brewing a "moonshine". Nowadays new devices arrive on the shelves that make the whole process automatic and trivial. This gives a perception that whatever the technical capabilities of such devices are must be legal just as the device itself. Especially, if the names on both sides of the fence are the same (like Sony). They produce movies and at the same time equip you with whatever you need to copy them. But don't you dare. If you do they'll be all over your ass. They want all the benefits of addressing all your needs, whatever they might be, catering to your most intimate wishes...
Some will see it as the ultimate hypocrisy. some not.
More discussions are coming, companies will never be happy with the level of protection they enjoy just as the public will feel that it is being robbed of the essential freedoms. This principal is quite old and well known. Show me the area where governing body (whatever it might be) is satisfied with their circle of influence and public (or individuals) doesn't desire to broaden their freedoms.