Legally, Is there a difference?

[Noahtuck]

Taken directly out of the Betamax ruling:

Two kinds of Betamax usage are at issue here. 2 The first is "time-shifting," whereby the user records a program in order to watch it at a later time, and then records over it, and thereby erases the program, after a single viewing. The second is "library-building," [464 U.S. 417, 459] in which the user records a program in order to keep it for repeated viewing over a longer term.

A "single viewing" would still allow you to watch it a few times, if for example each member of your family watched it separately. But if you go beyond that then it is no longer permissible time-shifting.

Okay, now that seem's more like your interpritation because if i was to read the part about "library-building" i would never get what your defanition seem's to be of it or in someway saying the "library-building" is a nonacceptable practice ? but i don't really see where it say's it is not allowed ?

Well, I still think the question is dumb But only because I think it should be obvious that it is illegal to rent and copy.

[adam]

Noahtuck just read the case, it is possibly the most widely published copyright case ever. I just quoted the relevent part where they clarified that time shifting only applies to single viewings, since it was stated by others that I was just assuming that fact.

Yes the court makes it very clear that "library-building" is an infringement and they go into tremendous detail explaining what the term means and how it differs from lawful time-shifting. That's why they broke down the activity into two parts; to separate that which is lawful and that which is not so that they could determine whether Betamax recorders were used for the lawful purpose frequently enough that they had a "substantially non-infringing purpose."

I am not assuming or just interpreting anything. The case is actually very explicit. It was one of those cases where the Supreme Court could see the confusion in the law and so they used it as an opportunity to break everything down.

[Teutatis]

In fact my primary motive is to be able watch it at a later date WITHOUT the bloody commercials! Is that illegal or not?

Highly illegal in the US. You can timeshift but you cannot edit out the commercials. Would you get caught and sued? No way, but by the letter of the law it is illegal. The advertisements are what enables the broadcast to be free in the first place.

Free?? Last time I looked I get sent a bill for close to $100 a month for these broadcast feeds to reach my home. I think I've more than paid my fair share for the limited broadcasts that I may decide to record without commercials.

Very well said. I remember when cable was commercial free. That is why we had to pay. Then they slowly started to sneak in commercials on a few channels at a time. Right now there are commercials blasting on almost every channel. If it is the advertisements which make the broadcast possible, then commecial cable channels should be free.

The same thing will happen to satellite radio. Just give it a little time.

[ROF]

Even HBO has commercials now. Remember a time when one movie ran into the other with only a brief intermission? There are now almost 15 to 20 minutes of movies, previews, and other nonsense.

Of course, some might even claim MTV still stands for Music TeleVision.

[lordsmurf]

Was "library building" ever defined? I don't think it was! What exactly is a "library" by definition?

[Noahtuck]

Yes the court makes it very clear that "library-building" is an infringement and they go into tremendous detail explaining what the term means and how it differs from lawful time-shifting. That's why they broke down the activity into two parts; to separate that which is lawful and that which is not so that they could determine whether Betamax recorders were used for the lawful purpose frequently enough that they had a "substantially non-infringing purpose."

Okay, that's what i was wondering because in the part you quoted, it seemed like it was allowed right in there with "timeshifting" and the way i think is if you are allowed "library-Building" or keeping recorded items for long periods of time to view again & again, which anyone know's the majority of the population that has owned vcr's over the last 30+ years, is guilty of it

but then thought well, it said this was 2 issues, but didn't say that is was, one legal, two illegal, they just seemed to be lumped together as both being legal.

Was "library building" ever defined? I don't think it was! What exactly is a "library" by definition?

I know this, my 400+ store bought cd's, backups of said cd's, i don't even wanna try and count my dvd/ld collection but i know they are not availible to the public for viewing, listening to or signing out for any period of time

In fact my primary motive is to be able watch it at a later date WITHOUT the bloody commercials! Is that illegal or not?

Highly illegal in the US. You can timeshift but you cannot edit out the commercials. Would you get caught and sued? No way, but by the letter of the law it is illegal. The advertisements are what enables the broadcast to be free in the first place.

Free?? Last time I looked I get sent a bill for close to $100 a month for these broadcast feeds to reach my home. I think I've more than paid my fair share for the limited broadcasts that I may decide to record without commercials.

Yeah, that's a funny line there huh.... can't take out commercials because that's how they get paid for the "free" TV you pay $$ for to get it into your home and even when i dont record something off tv, i get up and leave for the ad's or channel surf till they are done anyways so i never really see them, and what i do record, i still sure don't watch them.

[Swanick]

Really, how is it any different from photocopying stuff out of a library?

[adam]

A library is any collection. As the court said, library building is when you keep the material for a longer period of time (than time shifting) or when you watch it multiple times. Its just the classification given when your previously time shifted material ceases to be that anymore.

Forget about library-building, its a general term for whenever time shifting is abused. Its very simple. Copyright prevents you from copying without authorization, period. 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.

[trialsofg]

It all seems like a bit too much of a headache just to keep us from looking up and realizing how filthy, disgustingly rich the heads of the MPAA member "nations" are and will continue to be as long as we are willing to pay their obscene prices for what used to be "free" or at least, reasonable (anyone remember $1 or less matinees for the kiddies?
If there was only a way to boycott their b/s products and make them feel our pain...
But I am too weak and need my video fix.

[thevoelk]

Adam, going by your statement "the question would be presented to a jury and they would decide whether you acted reasonably" (I'm not disputing and I'm not a lawyer), would the jury be required to take into account they have personal libraries of their own and they? Or is that something a (good) attorney would have to bring up, along with the fact they if they do it, why can't the person on trial?

Also, didn't the Betamx case bring about the levy/tax/price hike of blank tapes, to the fact the RIAA/MPAA know this was going to happen regardless of a court decision? I mean, the record/movie studios are charging me for "pirating" their content on every blank I've ever bought, but not all of them have been used to build a library from HBO. I'm not sure if this was law or just an agreement between the studios, manufacturers, and retailers, but in my Computer Ethics class in college we spent a week discussing this.

[junkmalle]

Heheh! I'm willing to bet even Adam has a few infringing video tapes, audio tapes, or photocopies of copyrighted material stashed away somewhere!

[adam]

thevoelk, the jury members will always bring their own morals to the courtroom but what they do in their personal lives has no bearing on the case. All juries are given a charge where they are presented with specific questions that they have to answer. How they personally come to their conclusions is something left up to them in most cases.

There is no tax other then the usual sales tax on blank tapes. The only media tax I know of in the United States applies to the Music Cdrs and it is provided for under the Digital Audio Recording Act and the right to backup audio cds does not come under Fair Use it comes under an express provision of copyright law. That was the deal. We pay taxes on music cdrs, we get the right to backup music, and hardware manufacturers of recorders get immunity from contributory copyright infringement liability.

[junkmalle]

There is no tax other then the usual sales tax on blank tapes. The only media tax I know of in the United States applies to the Music Cdrs and it is provided for under the Digital Audio Recording Act and the right to backup audio cds does not come under Fair Use it comes under an express provision of copyright law. That was the deal. We pay taxes on music cdrs, we get the right to backup music, and hardware manufacturers of recorders get immunity from contributory copyright infringement liability.

So this site is wrong then?

http://www.brouhaha.com/~eric/bad_laws/dat_tax.html

" ( The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 )... imposes a "royalty" tax on blank DAT media (section 1004(b))"

I thought cassette tapes also had a "royalty tax" but I don't have any references... Oh wait, here's one:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/music/inside/cron.html

Speaking about the '70s and '80s: "The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), the record industry's lobbying and trade organization, continues its fight for taxes on blank tapes into the 1980s and legislators eventually grant the music labels a portion of every blank tape sale."

[adam]

No the first link is right, I admit I was generalizing. The AHR Act imposes royalties on all digital audio recording devices and media. The media this would refer to would be DAT tapes and music cdrs.

The second link is either flat out wrong or is supposed to be referring to DAT tapes. There is no royalty on audio cassette tapes. The AHR does cover analogue sources but it only covers digital recordings and digital media.

But none of this has anything to do with Video Cassette Tapes which is what we are talking about.

[junkmalle]

The second link is either flat out wrong or is supposed to be referring to DAT tapes. There is no royalty on audio cassette tapes. The AHR does cover analogue sources but it only covers digital recordings and digital media.

I was buying lots of cassette tapes back in the '70s and '80s and I thought I remembered the royalty tax issue. But I don't have any more definitive references.

But none of this has anything to do with Video Cassette Tapes which is what we are talking about.

You started it with the mention of Audio CD-R!

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your input in these forums. It's nice to see legal opinions from someone who knows what he's talking bout. I just don't think most people care about what's technically legal when they're copying stuff in the privacy of their own homes.

[adam]

I am pretty well certain that there has never been a royalty tax on audio cassettes in the US, and there's definitely none on any type of video recording media which was all I was getting at in referencing the AHR and the royalties on music CDRs.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate your input in these forums. It's nice to see legal opinions from someone who knows what he's talking bout. I just don't think most people care about what's technically legal when they're copying stuff in the privacy of their own homes.

I don't think most people care either and its also pretty much a non-issue since this is an arena that is wholly and entirely unenforceable as a matter of practicality. No one has ever been sued because they time shifted and kept on watching it. There's no way to monitor the activity and there's no incentive to bring suit.

All of these restrictions on time shifting are imposed under an analysis to determine whether 3rd party hardware manufacturers can be held liable for contributory copyright infringement.

[junkmalle]

All of these restrictions on time shifting are imposed under an analysis to determine whether 3rd party hardware manufacturers can be held liable for contributory copyright infringement.

I see. So it's all just tools for the lawyers and corporations with no real expectation that consumers care about the letter of the law.

[adam]

I think its more accurate to say these are the classifications that the courts have used to label the activities that people are already engaging in. Neverthless it is binding law, and a consumer friendly one at that, and if someone were sued for this type of activity they would be held to it though probably loosely.

You have to realize that time shifting comes under Fair Use which is an affirmative defense. Its not like a statute saying, thou shalt not watch this more than one time, where you rely on people knowing, understanding, and following the law and rely on a court to strictly construe it. Fair Use is just a test used to excuse people who have infringed but who did so in good faith and with no significant effect on the copyright holder. As such, it is meant to be very limited, but the point is that it is used to analyze the defendant's actions once they have been sued, not to dictate them beforehand. The whole idea is specifically because you can act in good faith and still violate the letter of the law. So Fair Use gives you an out. I seriously doubt any court would find it an infringement if you just watched that tape a second time. But that's still the definition and standard applied to time shifting for purposes of analyzing someone's allegedly infringing copying habits. Its all a means to an end. The whole idea is that if you truly are acting in good faith and reasonably then even if you do not follow the letter of the law, you still follow its spirit, and thus will not be punished.

[rkr1958]

(anyone remember $1 or less matinees for the kiddies?

I remeber 25 cents matinees and 50 cents regular prices for children under 12. I remember going to see Elvis matinee movies during the summer for 6 RC bottle caps.

[ROF]

Really, how is it any different from photocopying stuff out of a library?

That's something called fair use. photocopying an entire document can still be technically illegal, unless you are using it for comment, criticism, or parody.

In order to remain legal, you must consider four things:

- the purpose of your use in photocopying
- the nature of the copyrighted work your photocopying
- the amount and substantiality of the portion photocopied for your review purposes
- the effect of the photocopying within the potential market for the copyrighted work

How is recording from the TV different from photocopying from the library?

It depends on how you plan to use and/or display this "ripped" copyrighted material. Keeping the above factors in mind.

[wwjd]

Thanks to all who have posted and a special thanks to Adam!

[Swanick]

Really, how is it any different from photocopying stuff out of a library?

That's something called fair use. photocopying an entire document can still be technically illegal, unless you are using it for comment, criticism, or parody.

In order to remain legal, you must consider four things:

- the purpose of your use in photocopying
- the nature of the copyrighted work your photocopying
- the amount and substantiality of the portion photocopied for your review purposes
- the effect of the photocopying within the potential market for the copyrighted work

How is recording from the TV different from photocopying from the library?

It depends on how you plan to use and/or display this "ripped" copyrighted material. Keeping the above factors in mind.

Does it say anywhere in your country's copyright law that copying something you don't own for personal use is illegal? It's certainly illegal to distribute copies, but if you copy it for yourself, it doesn't matter if you own it or not.

And besides, the AHRA does allow private copying.

[adam]

In the US, yes copyright law does say that any copying not exempted is an infringement and that includes personal copying. Also in the Betamax case the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had implicitly rejected any personal copying right.

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.

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.

[ROF]

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.

What about copying for distribution in a classroom setting. let's say your putting together a report about the AIDS epidemic and you happen to find a small 20 page pamphlet at the library. Your deadline for your oral and written report is in 5 days and you don't have time to write to the printer of this pamphlet asking for permission to distribute or have the time for them to send you 30 copies. Instead, you pull out your scanner and scan the pamphlet into your laptop and print out 30 copies (1 for each person in your class).

Since you copied the entire pamphlet without permission would you be in violation of copyright law for doing so?

I say you would be in violation, but others seem to think you wouldn't be violating any law since it was used and distributed for an academic/lecture purpose.

[Swanick]

In fact my primary motive is to be able watch it at a later date WITHOUT the bloody commercials! Is that illegal or not?

Highly illegal in the US. You can timeshift but you cannot edit out the commercials. Would you get caught and sued? No way, but by the letter of the law it is illegal. The advertisements are what enables the broadcast to be free in the first place.

But they have already been payed for. It's not "stealing" or "infringement" if someone chooses not to watch the ads. Using that logic, it's illegal to use an ad blocker when browsing the web. When an advertiser buys ads, he's trying to advertise his product to as many viewers as possible. If some of those viewers choose not to watch, but they do want to watch the program that the product or service is being advertised on. Nobody loses money from people not watching the commercials, and it's not freeloading either. It's a chance you have to take, and if people choose not to watch, you can't hold it against them. If I'm watching a show, the commercials come on, and I go to the bathroom or get a snack, and miss the commercials, but come back to my program just in time, is that illegal? If you tape the whole thing and fast-forward, is that illegal?

[Swanick]

so if i buy a movie off pay per view record it to blank dvd. thats ok but if i rent a movie and record it a blank dvd its not ok. i really don't see a difference.

No time-shifting does not apply to PPV. As the Supreme Court explained in the Betamax ruling the purpose of time-shifting is solely to allow you to watch that which you have paid to watch. You need the ability to time-shift because no one can watch every channel all the time, and there is no way to control regularly scheduled programs. But since you have the ability to plan out and choose when to watch PPV, there is no need to time-shift.

But if you wanted to, you would be within your rights. You paid for it, you should be able to do what you want.

[adam]

ROF: If that pamphlet is less than 2,500 words then yes you can copy the entire thing provided you comply with certain restrictions. This would be an exception because of the brevity of the work.

When section 107 (Fair Use) was passed they included in the Committee Report a guideline for educators.

Guidelines.
I. Single Copying for Teachers.
A single copy may be made of any of the following by or for a teacher at his or her individual request for his or her scholarly research or use in teaching or preparation to teach a class:
A. A chapter from a book;
B. An article from a periodical or newspaper;
C. A short story, short essay or short poem, whether or not from a collective work;
D. A chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture from a book, periodical, or newspaper;
II. Multiple Copies for Classroom Use.
Multiple copies (not to exceed in any event more than one copy per pupil in a course) may be made by or for the teacher giving the course for classroom use or discussion; provided that:
A. The copying meets the tests of brevity and spontaneity as defined below; and,
B. Meets the cumulative effect test as defined below; if and,
C. Each copy includes a notice of copyright.
Definitions.
Brevity.
(i) Poetry: (a) A complete poem if less than 250 words and if printed on not more than two pages or, (b) from a longer poem, an excerpt of not more than 250 words.
(ii) Prose: (a) Either a complete article, story or essay of less than 2,500 words, or (b) an excerpt from any prose work of not more than 1,000 words or 10% of the work, whichever is less, but in any event a minimum of 500 words. [Each of the numerical limits stated in "i" and "ii" above may be expanded to permit the completion of an unfinished line of a poem or of an unfinished prose paragraph.]
(iii) Illustration: One chart, graph, diagram, drawing, cartoon or picture per book or per periodical issue.
(iv) "Special" works: Certain works in poetry, prose or in "poetic prose" which often combine language with illustrations and which are intended sometimes for children and at other times for a more general audience fall short of 2,500 words in their entirety. Paragraph "ii" above notwithstanding such "special works" may not be reproduced in their entirety; however, an excerpt comprising not more than two of the published pages of such special work and containing not more than 10% of the words found in the text thereof, may be reproduced.
Spontaneity.
(i) The copying is at the instance and inspiration of the individual teacher, and
(ii) The inspiration and decision to use the work and the moment of its use for maximum teaching effectiveness are so close in time that it would be unreasonable to expect a timely reply to a request for permission.
Cumulative Effect.
(i) The copying of the material is for only one course in the school in which the copies are made.
(ii) Not more than one short poem, article, story, essay or two excerpts may be copied from the same author, nor more than three from the same collective work or periodical volume during one class term.
(iii) There shall not be more than nine instances of such multiple copying for one course during one class term.
[The limitations stated in "ii" and "iii" above shall not apply to current news periodicals and newspapers and current news sections of other periodicals.]
III. Prohibitions as to I and II Above.
Notwithstanding any of the above, the following shall be prohibited:
(A) Copying shall not be used to create or to replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works. Such replacement or substitution may occur whether copies of various works or excerpts therefrom are accumulated or reproduced and used separately.
(B) There shall be no copying of or from works intended to be "consumable" in the course of study or of teaching. These include workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and test booklets and answer sheets and like consumable material.
(C) Copying shall not:
(a) substitute for the purchase of books, publishers' reprints or periodicals;
(b) be directed by higher authority;
(c) be repeated with respect to the same item by the same teacher from term to term.
(D) No charge shall be made to the student beyond the actual cost of the photocopying.
Agreed March 19, 1976.
Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision:
By Sheldon Elliott Steinbach.
Author-Publisher Group:
Authors League of America:
By Irwin Karp, Counsel.
Association of American Publishers, Inc.:
By Alexander C. Hoffman,
Chairman, Copyright Committee.
In a joint letter dated April 30, 1976, representatives of the Music Publishers' Association of the United States, Inc., the National Music Publishers' Association, Inc., the Music Teachers National Association, the Music Educators National Conference, the National Association of Schools of Music, and the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision, wrote to Chairman Kastenmeier as follows:
'During the hearings on H.R. 2223 in June 1975, you and several of your subcommittee members suggested that concerned groups should work together in developing guidelines which would be helpful to clarify Section 107 of the bill.
'Representatives of music educators and music publishers delayed their meetings until guidelines had been developed relative to books and periodicals. Shortly after that work was completed and those guidelines were forwarded to your subcommittee, representatives of the undersigned music organizations met together with representatives of the Ad Hoc Committee on Copyright Law Revision to draft guidelines relative to music.
'We are very pleased to inform you that the discussions thus have been fruitful on the guidelines which have been developed. Since private music teachers are an important factor in music education, due consideration has been given to the concerns of that group.
'We trust that this will be helpful in the report on the bill to clarify Fair Use as it applies to music.'
The text of the guidelines accompanying this letter is as follows:
Guidelines for educational uses of music. The purpose of the following guidelines is to state the minimum and not the maximum standards of educational fair use under Section 107 of HR 2223. The parties agree that the conditions determining the extent of permissible copying for educational purposes may change in the future; that certain types of copying permitted under these guidelines may not be permissible in the future, and conversely that in the future other types of copying not permitted under these guidelines may be permissible under revised guidelines.
Moreover, the following statement of guidelines is not intended to limit the types of copying permitted under the standards of fair use under judicial decision and which are stated in Section 107 of the Copyright Revision Bill. There [71] may be instances in which copying which does not fall within the guidelines stated below may nonetheless be permitted under the criteria of fair use.
(A) Permissible Uses.
(1) Emergency copying to replace purchased copies which for any reason are not available for an imminent performance provided purchased replacement copies shall be substituted in due course.
(2)
(a) For academic purposes other than performance, multiple copies of excerpts of works may be made, provided that the excerpts do not comprise a part of the whole which would constitute a performable unit such as a section, movement or aria, but in no case more than (10% of the whole work. The number of copies shall not exceed one copy per pupil.
(b) For academic purposes other than performance, a single copy of an entire performable unit (section, movement, aria, etc.) that is, (1) confirmed by the copyright proprietor to be out of print or (2) unavailable except in a larger work, may be made by or for a teacher solely for the purpose of his or her scholarly research or in preparation to teach a class.
(3) Printed copies which have been purchased may be edited or simplified provided that the fundamental character of the work is not distorted or the lyrics, if any, altered or lyrics added if none exist.
(4) A single copy of recordings of performances by students may be made for evaluation or rehearsal purposes and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher.
(5) A single copy of a sound recording (such as a tape, disc or cassette) of copyrighted music may be made from sound recordings owned by an educational institution or an individual teacher for the purpose of constructing aural exercises or examinations and may be retained by the educational institution or individual teacher. (This pertains only to the copyright of the music itself and not to any copyright which may exist in the sound recording.)
(B) Prohibitions
(1) Copying to create or replace or substitute for anthologies, compilations or collective works.
(2) Copying of or from works intended to be "consumable" in the course of study or of teaching such as workbooks, exercises, standardized tests and answer sheets and like material.
(3) Copying for the purpose of performance, except as in A(1) above.
(4) Copying for the purpose of substituting for the purchase of music, except as in A(1) and A(2) above.
(5) Copying without inclusion of the copyright notice which appears on the printed copy.

[Swanick]

Well, I still think the question is dumb But only because I think it should be obvious that it is illegal to rent and copy. The time shifting aspect appears to be a topic of debate though.

The MPAA has no authority to raid private homes. They would have to file a criminal complaint and have the police execute a search warrant...just like everyone else in America has to do. But the MPAA has stated that they are going after people who distribute either physically or through the internet.

But that was not even what disturbed1 suggested. He said if for some reason the police searched your premises for other reasons, like maybe a drug bust, and discovered infringing material as well. The MPAA probably would be notified and they could file a complaint if they wanted. I still doubt they'd bother but they'd have that right.

No they don't. As long as it's for personal use, it's perfectly legal, even if you didn't own it in the first place.

[adam]

But if you wanted to, you would be within your rights. You paid for it, you should be able to do what you want.

No you would not. You did not purchase the material, you never do you only purchased a license to watch it. 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. Since you sign up for PPV and choose when you view it, time shifting is wholly inapplicable and can never be applied to this type of on demand content. The court expressly says this in the Betamax ruling where the right to time shift was created.

[Swanick]

I don't think anyone could claim that copying rented material is legal. the illegal issue of that is printed on the box cover, displayed whenever you start the video, and there is even a reminder inside most stores where you rent this material.

No. The FBI warning or little disclaimer prohibits "unauthorized copying or distribution." Now, their unauthorized copying claim is void, because anyone could always copy it for fair use. They only say that to sidetrack the uninformed. So really, the only thing that isn't legal is distribution of pirated copies. But it doesn't say anything about borrowing it and copying it for yourself.

The problem with TV broadcasts is, especially now that a new law has been passed, how do you market Tivo, VCR, DVD-Recorder, etc. without stating that you can store up to x amount of hours for later viewing? Does the marketer now need to state that after watching these shows you must delete them, you can not view them more then once, and that after a certain length of time you can not watch the show?

How many VCRs would have been sold if that was on the packaging?

The broadcast recording devices are, at best, used legally about 3% of the time, while the rest is done illegally.

Under current law, recently passed, the VCR is now illegal to own and use.

It's a device that is mostly used for infringing purposes.

Hey, they call it "Idiot Nation" for a reason. No offense.