Transferring VHS to DVD

[mill4023]

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).

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.

I'm waiting for this explanation too.

 

[Toad_Passenger]

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.

Actually, since I do enjoy your take on a lot of issues, I'd like you to expound on this idea. If I buy a CD, why is it okay for me to rip it to my PC, then my iPod, then my Zune, and, finally, my Sansa? Or, for that matter, I have some old cassettes, that I have now transferred to digital, using a product that is legally sold for just that purpose. I fail to see how that is any different than taking MY VHS tape, that I've legally purchased and putting it onto DVD.

 

[mill4023]

Even the RIAA said "it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it on to your computer, and put it on to your iPod." in the MGM vs Grokster case.
Of course, they've tried to step back from that since then, but the question is why did they say that?
Why haven't they sued Apple for distributing iTunes, which allows consumers to duplicate a copyrighted work?

 

[bicker]

How is anyone harmed by me making a personal copy (for my own use) of a movie I already bought?

By depriving the copyright owner the money associated with an additional copy that they would charge 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.

Fair Use requires some public interest be served, such as review, or other scholarly use. It also does not allow wholesale copying of copyrighted works, but rather only portions of copyrighted works, included in larger original works.

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

Please post a copy of your law degree, if you're asserting that your qualifications are better than mine. I've provided loads of information over the years about my long career interacting with these issues.

No. Most people are speaking from the standpoint of a consumer ....

Period. Not from the standpoint of what is fair, true or right, according to the law.

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.

Because it has come up repeatedly as a matter of compliance management (an aspect of business management and operations) over the course of my career.

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?

This is my post-career, career. I'm an old guy, eh? I did my time in that business, and got out before getting an ulcer, or suffering a divorce. That's a big win afaic.

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

I didn't say you wouldn't understand. Stop arguing against things I haven't said.

 

[bicker]

Actually, since I do enjoy your take on a lot of issues, I'd like you to expound on this idea. If I buy a CD, why is it okay for me to rip it to my PC, then my iPod, then my Zune, and, finally, my Sansa? Or, for that matter, I have some old cassettes, that I have now transferred to digital, using a product that is legally sold for just that purpose. I fail to see how that is any different than taking MY VHS tape, that I've legally purchased and putting it onto DVD.

I'll send you a PM.

 

[mill4023]

By depriving the copyright owner the money associated with an additional copy that they would charge you.

Fair Use requires some public interest be served, such as review, or other scholarly use. It also does not allow wholesale copying of copyrighted works, but rather only portions of copyrighted works, included in larger original works.

Please post a copy of your law degree, if you're asserting that your qualifications are better than mine. I've provided loads of information over the years about my long career interacting with these issues.

Period. Not from the standpoint of what is fair, true or right, according to the law.

Because it has come up repeatedly as a matter of compliance management (an aspect of business management and operations) over the course of my career.

This is my post-career, career. I'm an old guy, eh? I did my time in that business, and got out before getting an ulcer, or suffering a divorce. That's a big win afaic.

I didn't say you wouldn't understand. Stop arguing against things I haven't said.

Show me where Fair Use requires some public interest be served. Actions that serve the public interest may be more likely to be considered fair use, but it does not say that it is required for a use to be considered fair. In other words, the list of things that may qualify as fair use is not exclusive.

On the same topic, the fact that you only copy a portion of a work makes it more likely to be considered fair use, but it is not a requirement. In the Betamax case, the court ruled that even though it was a complete copy of an entire copyrighted work, it was still fair use because it did not negatively impact the owner of the copyrighted work. They ruled it was fair because it was simply a way of time-shifting the viewing of the broadcast. Similar logic was used in the mp3 player case, where the courts decided that it was fair use because it was simply a shifting of the format and location of the work that did not negatively impact the owner of the copyright.

Please share the explanation of the legality of ripping a CD to your iPod. I'm pretty sure that Toad_Passenger is not the only one who would like to know.

Do you consider that a fair use?
If not, is it a violation of copyright law?
Why or why not?

 

[mill4023]

From the Harvard law school's website (related to the 1999 decision in RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia):

Couch potatoes have long enjoyed the precious right to use a videocassette recorder to tape a television program so they can watch it at a more convenient time. Under a landmark 1984 Supreme Court decision in the "Betamax" case, this practice of "time-shifting" is considered "fair use" and is not an infringement on the program owner's copyright.

But do consumers have a similar right to use their computers to make personal copies of digital works they have already purchased or legitimately downloaded?

In an important decision, a Federal appeals court has partially answered that question by declaring that just as television viewers have the right to time-shift, computer users have the right to "space-shift" -- they can make additional copies of digital files they have obtained lawfully in order to listen to them in different places.

The court's pronouncement came in the closely watched case of RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, in which a panel of three judges from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena, Calif., were called upon to determine the fate of Diamond's Rio, a portable gadget which stores music in digital form and plays it back through headphones.

Rio users download songs in the form of compressed MP3 files from their computer hard drives into the player's memory. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), a trade group representing record companies, has fought the Rio, saying it encourages music piracy.

Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, writing for the unanimous panel, said that the cigarette-pack-sized player "merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user's hard drive." Such copying, as with time-shifting, "is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use," which is entirely consistent with the copyright law, the court said.

 

[bicker]

From the Fair Use Doctrine:

...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research ...

There is nothing in the demonstrative list that is even remotely akin to personal use.

I've already explained the situation with regard to my perspective on ripping CDs. Nuf sed.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

By depriving the copyright owner the money associated with an additional copy that they would charge you.

Why would I buy another copy of something I already bought? Sorry, I don't think anyone is going to go out and buy two copies of everything they buy. If I were going to buy 2 copies of everything, the second would be a used copy. I guess you go and buy two copies of everything.

Also, this would also infer that selling second hand should be illegal. Yet it's not.

Who does it hurt if I upload a movie I already own to my laptop or Ipod so I can watch it on a trip?

I'll send you a PM.

Why send only him a pm? You don't think other people would want that information? You don't think it's relevant to this conversation? I certainly do, and apparently a couple other people think so too. If you can type it out in a pm, you can type it out here. It would take the same amount of time.

Unless you think we're all idiots and can't comprehend the complexities of what you will say?

 

[mill4023]

From the Fair Use Doctrine:

...for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research ...

There is nothing in the demonstrative list that is even remotely akin to personal use.

I've already explained the situation with regard to my perspective on ripping CDs. Nuf sed.

"such as" means it is not an all-inclusive list.
If it was an all-inclusive list, it wouldn't need to continue on to describe the four factors that should be considered when determining whether a use is fair. Not to mention the fact that the fair use doctrine has basically been part of common law for several hundred years, even though it wasn't codified until about 30 years ago.

Obviously some judges disagree with your opinion (and they should really know what they are talking about), since they ruled that recording tv shows for personal viewing did qualify as fair use. I don't see anything remotely related to the partial list of things that are considered fair use.

I must have missed your explanation on ripping CD's. I don't recall seeing anything.

By the way, just so we are clear, I'm not arguing that it's legal to break copy protection and copy VHS tapes. I'm simply arguing that you are wrong when you state it as a matter of undisputed fact that it is a violation of copyright law. This issue has been a matter of disagreement for decades and continues to be a matter of disagreement. It is anything but black and white.

For anyone interested, this is the most comprehensive set of information I've found on the issue:
http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Fair_use

 

[cteddiesgirl]

Also, what about movies that haven't been available for a while?

I have bought a lot of movies used (as well as new). Many of them are out of print and cannot be bought anywhere in the normal retail market. I even have many movies on vhs that have never even seen the light of day on dvd.
How would my copying those to a dvd ever hurt anyone? I can't even think of buying another copy unless possibly finding it on the second market, which wouldn't serve anyone except the person who's selling it.

 

[Luvchefmic]

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.

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.

No, because I actually do know.

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.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.

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.

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.

This has got to be the most pompous, patronizing, and arrogant statement I have ever read on these boards. How do you have insight into what the educational or professional background is of anyone beside yourself?

 

[Poppinsme]

One question I get asked often is: "How Do You Copy VHS to DVD?". The answer - There are three ways a consumer can copy VHS tapes to DVD:


1. Connecting a VCR to a DVD Recorder (the same connections that you use to connect a camcorder to a VCR or two VCRs together). Here are some of my current suggestions for DVD recorders
2. Using a DVD Recorder/VCR Combination unit (most of these units have a cross-dubbing function). Here are some of my current suggestions for DVD recorder/VCR Combinations
3. Connecting your VCR to a PC via a analog-to-digital video transfer device, recording your VHS video to the PC's hard drive, and then writing the recorded video to DVD using the PC's DVD writer. Also, check out a VCR from Ion Audio that connects directly to a PC via the USB port without the need of an additional analog-to-digital video converter: VCRtoPC

NOTE: You can only copy non-commercial VHS tapes that you have recorded yourself to DVD. You can't make copies of most commercially made VHS movies due to copy-protecton. For more details on this aspect of copying VHS to DVD, check out my article.

From About.com: Home Theater

 

[bicker]

Why would I buy another copy of something I already bought?

Because it would be required if you were unable to violate the copyright with impunity. Not everyone would -- most of the time people would do without the copy. However, everyone who does purchase another copy represents added revenue. This was especially important with regard to the transition from VHS to DVD. What was sold to the folks who bought VHS tapes was license to view the content in that format, not the right to burn it onto DVD. The expectation was that they would buy a new copy if they wanted it on DVD, and otherwise simply continue to use the VHS tape. You don't have to like it, but it what is right and fair.

Also, this would also infer that selling second hand should be illegal.

No. Selling your only copy of something is explicitly legal. There is no copyright impact, since there is no copying involved.

Who does it hurt if I upload a movie I already own to my laptop or Ipod so I can watch it on a trip?

The copyright holder.

Why send only him a pm?

I've already indicated why I won't go into that here.

You don't think other people would want that information?

The manner in which the question was posted it seemed very unlikely that information was being sought.

"such as" means it is not an all-inclusive list.

I didn't say "all-inclusive". The word I used was "demonstrative". That means that the things on the list indicate the kinds of things that are applicable. Have you ever watched Sesame Street with your children? There is (was?) a sequence, "One of these things is not like the others?" Anyone who "graduated" Sesame Street would understand how what you're implying is covered by Fair Use is not.

Obviously some judges disagree with your opinion

Provide any citations where that is the case, other than the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. decision. Just one other where that was determined. Ask yourself why there aren't any.

By the way, just so we are clear, I'm not arguing that it's legal to break copy protection and copy VHS tapes.I'm simply arguing that you are wrong when you state it as a matter of undisputed fact that it is a violation of copyright law.

Good thing I never said it was "undisputed". Why do you choose to argue against things I haven't said?

Also, what about movies that haven't been available for a while?

75 years after the death of the original artists responsible for the copyrighted work.

Many of them are out of print and cannot be bought anywhere in the normal retail market.

Someone owns the copyright. You can purchase the copyright, outright, if it is important enough to you, or find someone with a legal (original) and purchase that. Otherwise, you can do without. Those are the legal options.

How would my copying those to a dvd ever hurt anyone?

It would deprive the copyright owner of the ability to charge you for making the copy, as is their right.

This has got to be the most pompous, patronizing, and arrogant statement I have ever read on these boards.

It isn't though. You don't like the information I'm providing, so you're taking offense to me answering the question put to me about why my background qualifies me to provide the information I'm providing.

From About.com: Home Theater

Oh gosh, a consumer-biased website on the Internet. That shouldn't surprise you.

 

[Luvchefmic]

Because it would be required if you were unable to violate the copyright with impunity. Not everyone would -- most of the time people would do without the copy. However, everyone who does purchase another copy represents added revenue. This was especially important with regard to the transition from VHS to DVD. What was sold to the folks who bought VHS tapes was license to view the content in that format, not the right to burn it onto DVD. The expectation was that they would buy a new copy if they wanted it on DVD, and otherwise simply continue to use the VHS tape. You don't have to like it, but it what is right and fair.

No. Selling your only copy of something is explicitly legal. There is no copyright impact, since there is no copying involved.

The copyright holder.

I've already indicated why I won't go into that here.

The manner in which the question was posted it seemed very unlikely that information was being sought.

I didn't say "all-inclusive". The word I used was "demonstrative". That means that the things on the list indicate the kinds of things that are applicable. Have you ever watched Sesame Street with your children? There is (was?) a sequence, "One of these things is not like the others?" Anyone who "graduated" Sesame Street would understand how what you're implying is covered by Fair Use is not.

Provide any citations where that is the case, other than the Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, Inc. decision. Just one other where that was determined. Ask yourself why there aren't any.

Good thing I never said it was "undisputed". Why do you choose to argue against things I haven't said?

75 years after the death of the original artists responsible for the copyrighted work.

Someone owns the copyright. You can purchase the copyright, outright, if it is important enough to you, or find someone with a legal (original) and purchase that. Otherwise, you can do without. Those are the legal options.

It would deprive the copyright owner of the ability to charge you for making the copy, as is their right.

It isn't though. You don't like the information I'm providing, so you're taking offense to me answering the question put to me about why my background qualifies me to provide the information I'm providing.
Oh gosh, a consumer-biased website on the Internet. That shouldn't surprise you.

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

I beg to differ, Bicker, I am not disputing the information that you are sharing...my objection is the statement bolded above. So I repeat: This is the most pompous, patronizing, and arrogant statement I have read on this Dis. You STILL do not know the educational and professional background of anyone else here. So how do you KNOW you have far more qualification to interpret the law than most anyone here?

 

[bicker]

Did you even read the part you bolded? Did you miss the word "most"? This is really a big problem I see with a lot of replies -- vicious hostility because someone doesn't like the information I'm providing, instead of reasonable support for one's own contention. I'll say it again even more clearly: Due to my specific life experience, I know this stuff better than most people. I just do. It's not boasting; it's just a fact. It is no different from a chef saying that s/he knows more about how to cook than most people.

 

[Luvchefmic]

Did you even read the part you bolded? Did you miss the word "most"? This is really a big problem I see with a lot of replies -- vicious hostility because someone doesn't like the information I'm providing, instead of reasonable support for one's own contention.

yes I read it Yes I bolded it...what part of you think you know more than MOST don't you see comes across as pompous, patronizing, and arrogant? Since you have no idea who MOST of the people on the Dis are and what their own backgrounds are? If you think its vicious hostility because someone doesn't like what you are saying I respecfully disagree with you. It is the "I know everything" stance you take....time...and time again. Seriously think about your demeanor perhaps?

 

[bicker]

Holy cow, you're really working to try to justify your attack on me. Very sad.

Yes, I know that "most" people don't have the kind of background applicable to these issues. Not pompous in the slightest. Again, just like a chef knows that s/he knows more about cooking than "most" people.

 

[Luvchefmic]

Holy cow, you're really working to try to justify your attack on me. Very sad.

Yes, I know that "most" people don't have the kind of background applicable to these issues. Not pompous in the slightest. Again, just like a chef knows that s/he knows more about cooking than "most" people.

and If I were posting on a cooking board and a "Chef" acted like you I would say the same thing...meaning how does the "Chef" know if MOST of the audience aren't also Chefs

I'm really working hard to try to make you understand that you don't know anything about "MOST" of the people here....perhaps they are more qualified than you

 

[bicker]

Move on. You're being ridiculous.