Transferring VHS to DVD

[mill4023]

Note that that is the only court decision that has ever found that... and note how carefully proponents of access are very careful to avoid opening the door to have that case looked at again by the courts. The reason is that that case would almost surely be overturned, if the courts were given a chance. I do encourage folks to research the Fair Use issue. The more you research, the more you realize that that corruption of the law has not be supported by any previous nor subsequent court decisions.

Also note that that even legitimate Fair Use is not a defense for breaking copy protection. If something is copy protected, then copies are not permitted, no matter what. Even newspapers and television news services would have to get unprotected copies, or to make second-generation copies (point a video camera at a television while playing back the original) - they would not be allowed to break the copy protection, even though it is easy to do.

Yes, the DMCA prohibits circumventing copy protection.
The DMCA also says that nothing within it can restrict Fair Use.

I assume you are an attorney with experience in copyright law and fair use cases in particular, correct?

If you aren't, I find it laughable that you think you know the law and can predict exactly what would happen if an old case was revisited. There is no corruption of the law. The law itself came long after the doctrine of fair use was in place through precedence of court decisions. And even now that "fair use" is part of actual copyright law, it's so vaguely written, that you can't possibly make a logical argument that you know exactly what it means. It was clearly written with the intent of leaving the interpretation up to the courts.

If you read the actual text of the law, you can see that it leaves open a wide variety of possible interpretations. It basically comes down to a judge (or panel of judges) deciding what the word "fair" means. Neither your interpretation or mine is relevant.

 

[mill4023]

Bicker,
One question for you:

Is it a copyright violation to buy a CD and put the songs on your ipod?
Why or why not?

 

[Imzadi]

Maybe a summation of this discussion should be, it's illegal, and now that you know, it's your decision that IF you copy in the privacy of your own home you do so at your own risk.

 

[Luvchefmic]

Maybe a summation of this discussion should be, it's illegal, and now that you know, it's your decision that IF you copy in the privacy of your own home you do so at your own risk.

good call This Has Been A Public Service Announcement....beep

 

[MAH4546]

Maybe a summation of this discussion should be, it's illegal, and now that you know, it's your decision that IF you copy in the privacy of your own home you do so at your own risk.

But that summation would be wrong.

It is legal to make a copy of a video cassette that you own for personal archival purposes.

However, since the VHS tapes are otherwise fitted with copyright protection locks, its just not possible. But its legal.

 

[TwinsinCA]

Yes, the DMCA prohibits circumventing copy protection.

That's nice until their copy protection keeps me from using my VCR!!

Last fall we had to upgrade our satellite receivers if we still wanted to get NFL Sunday Ticket. On one of the TVs we joined this century and got a DVR. In the process everything we tried to tape on the VCR was subject to the copy guard. Our other TV (with a non DVR receiver) worked with a different VCR but the sound quality was poor. For months we lived with it before I finally got fed up and bought something that will allow me to use my VCR once again. The copy protection is out of control.

 

[runwad]

I initially was going to use my pc to transfer my old vhs home movies. I started by trying one using Roxio software but the video capture file was huge. This was eating up so much of my hard drive that I decided to go another route and have just bought a Panasonic DMR-EZ48V. This will let me put the VHS tape in one side and a blank DVD in the other and just hit copy. I may not get to edit the movies but this sounds so much easier.

This is what I need to get, thanx for posting!!

 

[bicker]

I assume you are an attorney with experience in copyright law and fair use cases in particular, correct?

No but I actually know what I'm talking about.

Here's another view:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

If you aren't, I find it laughable that you think you know the law and can predict exactly what would happen if an old case was revisited.

You shouldn't. Again: I know what I'm talking about.

There is no corruption of the law.

Yes there was. Provide just one other comparable citation.

You cannot.

It is illegal to break copy protection. Fair Use provides no protection against the laws against breaking copy protection. None.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

No but I actually know what I'm talking about.

Here's another view:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

You shouldn't. Again: I know what I'm talking about.

Yes there was. Provide just one other comparable citation.

You cannot.

It is illegal to break copy protection. Fair Use provides no protection against the laws against breaking copy protection. None.

Maybe because no cops are beating down people's doors to arrest them for making personal backup copies of the movies they own.

 

[Rainwater]

Please don't advocate copyright violation in the forum. Thanks.

Once you have purchased the tape or CD, it's yours to do with as you please. You just can't print it to sell or give to someone else. You also can't have people over a certain number over to your house to watch it, this is also illegal.

 

[mill4023]

No but I actually know what I'm talking about.
...
Again: I know what I'm talking about.
...
It is illegal to break copy protection. Fair Use provides no protection against the laws against breaking copy protection. None.

Oh, ok, I guess if you say you know what you're talking about, it must be true.
Nevermind the fact that you are not an attorney and are completely unqualified to interpret the law.

You are correct that Fair Use doesn't mention copy protection. But if you read my previous post, you'd know that I never claimed it did. It's the other way around. The DMCA, which prohibits breaking copy protection, specifically says it can not limit fair use.
From the DMCA:
‘‘(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED.—(1) Nothing in this
section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

Like a lot of other laws, it's pretty wide open to interpretation. But here is a very logical argument as to why breaking copy protection would be allowed in some cases:
1. Making a copy for personal use is "fair use" because it does not affect the value or marketability of the copyrighted work.
2. To make a copy of a copy protected work, you must circumvent the copy protection.
3. The law against circumventing copy protection can not apply because it would limit your fair use right to make a copy for personal use.
4. So it's legal to break copyright protection to make a copy for personal use.

Now whether or not the courts would agree with all of this would depend entirely on which courts and which judges are interpreting the laws. As of right now, due to the recent decisions in the RealDVD case, it would appear that distributing software that breaks DVD encryption is not allowed. But IMO (because I know what I'm talking about), that's an incorrect decision. Even the judge in the case, acknowledged that making personal copies is ok.

"Patel acknowledged that the DMCA does allow for a limited "fair use" exception for the individual consumer making personal copies, but that companies manufacturing software or devices to enable it are still running afoul of the law."

So again, IMO (and I know what I'm talking about, because I said so), that's a bad decision. If, as judge Patel said, an individual making personal copies, IS FAIR USE, then the DMCA shouldn't be able to limit that fair use because it specifically says it can not infringe on fair use.

I've read a lot of your posts and if there's one thing I can count on, it's that you are an expert on every topic discussed on the DIS and your opinion is always the correct one, with no room for disagreement or varying interpretations, no matter what anyone else says. It's actually incredibly offensive and comes across as a serious superiority complex.

 

[Luvchefmic]

I've read a lot of your posts and if there's one thing I can count on, it's that you are an expert on every topic discussed on the DIS and your opinion is always the correct one, with no room for disagreement or varying interpretations, no matter what anyone else says. It's actually incredibly offensive and comes across as a serious superiority complex.

I have to say I agree with this statement, perhaps the user ID name is a clue Bicker you do come across this way

 

[mill4023]

Bicker,
You didn't answer my other question.

Is it legal to buy a CD and put the songs on your iPod?
Why or why not?

 

[cteddiesgirl]

I've read a lot of your posts and if there's one thing I can count on, it's that you are an expert on every topic discussed on the DIS and your opinion is always the correct one, with no room for disagreement or varying interpretations, no matter what anyone else says. It's actually incredibly offensive and comes across as a serious superiority complex.

Agreed. It seems as if no one can be right about anything unless they agree with him. About any topic.

Sorry, Bicker, but the attitude does tick people off.

 

[bicker]

Maybe because no cops are beating down people's doors to arrest them for making personal backup copies of the movies they own.

Indeed, that's really the issue: People violate the law because they can. Society's default expectation that most people will comply with laws, without a police officer watching over them, is an artifact of a bygone era.

Once you have purchased the tape or CD, it's yours to do with as you please.:

That is not the case. You are only entitled to use the tape or CD as per the licensing agreement, the terms and conditions of the sale that you implicitly agree to when you purchase a product. Buyers have no right to unilaterally impose changes to the terms and conditions of the offer made to you.

Oh, ok, I guess if you say you know what you're talking about, it must be true.

No, because I actually do know.

Nevermind the fact that you are not an attorney and are completely unqualified to interpret the law.

Due to my professional and personal interactions with the applicable laws over the last 35 years, I have far more qualification to interpret the law than most anyone here. That's precisely why I'm posting what I'm posting: Because I know the law and what it entails, while most folks advocating violations are just speaking from the standpoint of a self-entitled consumer.

But if you read my previous post, you'd know that I never claimed it did. It's the other way around. The DMCA, which prohibits breaking copy protection, specifically says it can not limit fair use.
From the DMCA:
‘‘(c) OTHER RIGHTS, ETC., NOT AFFECTED.—(1) Nothing in this
section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to
copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title.

Correct, but all that means is that DCMA doesn't revoke Fair Use rights. That does not permit breaking copy protection. You are intepreting the law incorrect. Again, I say that because I know what I'm talking about, and you apparently don't.

I've read a lot of your posts and if there's one thing I can count on, it's that you are an expert on every topic discussed on the DIS and your opinion is always the correct one, with no room for disagreement or varying interpretations, no matter what anyone else says.

The reality is that I am an expert in business management and operations. It is what I've spent my life doing. Your antagonistic assertion that I'm an expert "on every topic" is inane. I don't inject myself as an expert on cooking, on what makes a novel interesting, on how to cure various diseases. I'm an expert on business management and operations. Period. That's where I assert my expertise.

It's actually incredibly offensive and comes across as a serious superiority complex.

Your personal attacks on my come across as a serious inferiority complex. So let's stop talking about each other and just stick to the topic.

 

[bicker]

Bicker, You didn't answer my other question. Is it legal to buy a CD and put the songs on your iPod? Why or why not?

The question you're asking requires a reply that is far more complicated than I think this thread is prepared to engage in at this point. More specifically, based on the tenor of your previous message I worry that ink you're simply looking for more opportunities to advocate copyright violation, rather than asking a serious question.

 

[bicker]

Sorry, Bicker, but the attitude does tick people off.

What ticks me off is people adocating what is essentially stealing from other people. I don't personally make my money from the value of intellectual property secured by copyright, but a lot of people I know do, and they are personally and directly harmed by the violations I've outlined, and indirectly harmed, therefore, by the casual manner in which some folks in this thread have rationalized such violations. I see some of this discussion as no different than saying it is okay to break into a grocery so someone can steal some of the food that they liked.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

What ticks me off is people adocating what is essentially stealing from other people. I don't personally make my money from the value of intellectual property secured by copyright, but a lot of people I know do, and they are personally and directly harmed by the violations I've outlined, and indirectly harmed, therefore, by the casual manner in which some folks in this thread have rationalized such violations. I see some of this discussion as no different than saying it is okay to break into a grocery so someone can steal some of the food that they liked.

How is anyone harmed by me making a personal copy (for my own use) of a movie I already bought? I don't give it away, I don't sell it, I don't make other copies to sell or give away, I don't upload it to my computer and share it with other people. Copies stay in my home and go no where until I destroy and trash them (or in the case of vhs, copy over).


To make this plain to you,

I go out to Wal-Mart. I buy some movie there. Wal-Mart get's their share. All the people involved in creating the movie, from the actors, the directors, the producers, the company, the company that transferred the movie to a medium that I can use, etc., get their cut. I take it home and I make a copy of it, whether it's to vhs, dvd or to a hard drive, and store it away somewhere. No one else ever sees it. How ever long it is before I decide I don't need or want it anymore, I then detroy it and get rid of it.

How is this hurting anyone? How is that stealing?

As I've stated before, I do not advocate making copies and distributing them. I have reported people for doing that.

 

[mill4023]

Indeed, that's really the issue: People violate the law because they can. Society's default expectation that most people will comply with laws, without a police officer watching over them, is an artifact of a bygone era.

No. People make copies because it's not been clearly determined that it is a violation of the law.

That is not the case. You are only entitled to use the tape or CD as per the licensing agreement, the terms and conditions of the sale that you implicitly agree to when you purchase a product. Buyers have no right to unilaterally impose changes to the terms and conditions of the offer made to you.

And sellers have no right to unilaterally take away a buyer's fair use rights, no matter what they put in the terms and conditions.

No, because I actually do know.

There's a solid argument if I've ever seen one.

Due to my professional and personal interactions with the applicable laws over the last 35 years, I have far more qualification to interpret the law than most anyone here. That's precisely why I'm posting what I'm posting: Because I know the law and what it entails, while most folks advocating violations are just speaking from the standpoint of a self-entitled consumer.

No. Most people are speaking from the standpoint of a consumer who has read that it is legal, based on other people's opinions.

Correct, but all that means is that DCMA doesn't revoke Fair Use rights. That does not permit breaking copy protection. You are intepreting the law incorrect. Again, I say that because I know what I'm talking about, and you apparently don't.

"Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
Sounds clear to me, but I'm not a lawyer. Oh wait, neither are you.

The reality is that I am an expert in business management and operations. It is what I've spent my life doing. Your antagonistic assertion that I'm an expert "on every topic" is inane. I don't inject myself as an expert on cooking, on what makes a novel interesting, on how to cure various diseases. I'm an expert on business management and operations. Period. That's where I assert my expertise.

How in the world does being an expert on management and operations qualify you to make a decisive legal interpretation of a law that lawyers and courts have been battling over for years.

I'm also curious why an expert in business management and operations would still be working in software development. Shouldn't you be a CEO by now with your level of expertise in business? Not to mention your expert level knowledge of the law.

 

[mill4023]

The question you're asking requires a reply that is far more complicated than I think this thread is prepared to engage in at this point. More specifically, based on the tenor of your previous message I worry that ink you're simply looking for more opportunities to advocate copyright violation, rather than asking a serious question.

I love the "I'm not going to explain because you wouldn't understand" response to a question. This is classic.

I also like the unfounded implication that I am advocating copyright violation. I've done no such thing.