Transferring VHS to DVD

[Luvchefmic]

Move on. You're being ridiculous.

Try looking up Passive Agressive and Narcissism...YOU move on can't handle being made to face facts about YOU for a change...really !

 

[SplashMtnCrew]

 

[Luvchefmic]

No Splash...I'm moving on because I want to...not because I was told too...however do go back & read the whole thread to enjoy with your if yiou would like a true perspective on things it started out sooo innocently

 

[bicker]

 

[declansdad]

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.

Here is another view, this one from a judge. It seems it isn't as cut and dry as you make it out to be. I bolded the part that leaves this open to interpretation.

SAN FRANCISCO — A federal judge ruled here late Tuesday that it was unlawful to traffic in goods to copy DVDs.

U.S. District Judge Marilyn Hall Patel’s ruling came in a decision in which she declared RealNetworks’ DVD copying software was illegal. She barred it from being distributed.


Patel said the RealDVD software violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998 that prohibits the circumvention of encryption technology. DVDs are encrypted with what is known as the Content Scramble System, and DVD players must secure a license to play discs. RealDVD, she ruled, circumvents technology designed to prevent copying.


But the decision, although mixed, left open the door that copying DVD’s for personal use “may well be” lawful under the fair use doctrine of the Copyright Act, although trafficking in such goods was illegal.


“Because RealDVD makes a permanent copy of copyrighted DVD content, there is no exemption from DMCA liability, statutory or otherwise, that applies here. Whatever application the fair use doctrine may have for individual consumers making backup copies of their own DVDs, it does not portend to save Real from liability under the DMCA in this action,” Patel wrote (.pdf) in a lawsuit brought by Hollywood. However, she stopped short of sanctioning personal use copies, and gave a conflicting message on whether it was legal. “So while it may well be fair use for an individual consumer to store a backup copy of a personally owned DVD on that individual’s computer, a federal law has nonetheless made it illegal to manufacture or traffic in a device or tool that permits a consumer to make such copies,” Patel said. She added, “fair use can never be an affirmative defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access” — a simple way of saying it was illegal to hack into the encryption to make a copy.


“These seem to be contradicting points,” said Fred von Lohmann, a copyright attorney for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group based in San Francisco.


The decision, minus the fair use language, mirrored the 2004 decision by another federal judge declaring as illegal DVD copying software from 321 Studios. The difference was that RealNetworks secured a Content Scramble System license, and claimed a loophole in the license allowed its RealDVD software to make hard-drive or thumb-drive backup copies of movies.
The lawsuit represented Hollywood’s worries that RealDVD and other fledgling DVD-copying services might ruin the market for DVDs if Patel legalized RealNetworks’ product. Even with Tuesday’s decision, the U.S. courts have not squarely ruled on whether it is legal to copy an encrypted DVD for personal use.


The studios were fighting to keep from going the way of the music industry, which years ago lost much control of the unencrypted CD to peer-to-peer file-sharing services. Consumers may place their CDs into their iPods, but the decision leaves unsettled whether the same is true for the DVD.
The motion picture studios, which brought the case, argued to Patel that copying a DVD was illegal, even if was for personal use. RealNetworks claimed consumers could make personal copies of their DVDs. To be sure, Hollywood lobbied hard for the DMCA, which helped give rise to the encrypted DVD.


“This is a victory for the creators and producers of motion pictures and television shows and for the rule of law in our digital economy,” said Dan Glickman, chief executive of the Motion Picture Association of America.
RealNetworks of Seattle introduced the software last fall, and Judge Patel ordered it off the market after only a few thousand copies were sold. Because of procedural rules in federal court, RealNetworks got another chance to try to convince Patel to allow the software onto the market.
RealNetworks could still pursue a jury trial, a move that likely would not change the result and would not be settled into late next year or 2011 at the earliest.


“We are disappointed that a preliminary injunction has been placed on the sale of RealDVD. We have just received the judge’s detailed ruling and are reviewing it. After we have done so fully, we’ll determine our course of action and will have more to say at that time,” RealNetworks said in a statement.
Patel, the judge in the original Napster case, said her decision was supported by the legislative history of the DMCA, which was aimed at outlawing so-called ‘black boxes’ “that are expressly intended to facilitate circumvention of technological protection measures for purposes of gaining access to a work.”


Still, Hollywood is already reeling from illicit, open-source DVD decryption software that is free on the internet and remains illegal in the United States under Patel’s ruling. But Patel’s ruling might make the studios think twice before suing an individual for making backup copies of their DVDs for personal use.


Hollywood, meanwhile, claims it loses billions in sales because of BitTorrent tracking services like The Pirate Bay and others that allow consumers to locate decrypted movies and other online content for free.

​

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/judge-copying-dvds-is-illegal/

 

[doxdogy]

Now who is the one that is being rude and lowering themselves to name calling? You have to admit you do not have the best delivery when answering a question or "sharing" your wealth of knowledge on a subject. It was simply pointed out to you that you are not qualified to decide who knows or doesn't know a subject on this board.

Just because YOU decide that your 35 years of management experience makes you an expert on the field of copyright law, doesn't mean you are an expert.

Move on. You're being ridiculous.

 

[bicker]

The problem is that some people react with hostility to information they don't like. There's nothing I can do about that. There is no way to get some folks to accept that breaking copy protection to copy a copyrighted work is a violation of the law and that they shouldn't do it. No matter how the information is relayed, no matter how you point out that the copyright owners deserve their rights to be respected, people who don't like that fact and are beholden to their transgressive perspective will perceive it negatively.

 

[doxdogy]

By the same token, some people can't accept the fact that they might just be wrong. It takes the bigger person to admit that they are not the end all and be all of knowledge. Others have posted over and over again that you are incorrect and yet you continue to beat the proverbial dead horse. The law is not always black and white, there can be gray areas to the law.

 

[Squirlz]

Subscribing because it is so funny when he is wrong!

 

[FireDancer]

I have several Disney films on VHS and want to transfer them to DVD. Any recommendations on how best to do that but keep the quality of the picture and sound? Also, I no longer have a VCR. Any help is appreciated!

The best way? BitTorrent. Of course then the terrorists win.

Anyone should be allowed to make a copy of anything they own as a form of backup for personal use, even on a different form of media (VHS to DVD, DVD to ISO image on a server, etc). If my doing so is breaking a copywrite I really don't care. It is just part of the greed of movie studios wanting you to pay again for something you already bought. It was their lobbying that got congress to pass terrible legislation like the DMCA.

Ok, back to your regularly scheduled Community Board arguing.

 

[bicker]

The law is not always black and white, there can be gray areas to the law.

It sure is conveeeeeeeeeeenient that those gray areas seem to be where the people claiming that it is there get to not pay for things.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

Bicker, this should be an easy debate for you to put to rest. Just show a single reference to a court case for someone being convicted of illegally copying their own video tape to a DVD. That would be a much more satisfying argument then your repeated appeal to authority, which is weakened by your not even clarifying why you should be considered an authority. I'm sure that you're right. Just show us. Where is the ruling by "a controlling legal authority".

 

[Guy Incognito]

not a court case, but on the topic:

http://hometheater.about.com/od/hometheatervideobasics/qt/qtvideocopy.htm


and from the 'supreme court' link the in article above:

======
Supreme Court Ruling May Jeopardize Home Audio and Video Recording

Monday June 27, 2005

"We hold that one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement." --Justice David Souter, U.S. Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous landmark decision, has sided with the RIAA (Recording Industry Association Of America) and the MPAA (Motion Picture Association of America), via MGM, in their battle against audio and video file sharing networks and makers of the video copying devices that can bypass anti-copy codes.

Instead of having to sue individual audio and video "pirates", the Supreme Court has rulled that the RIAA and the MPAA can now legally sue software and hardware makers that manufacture devices that can be used for such purposes, even if they are not advocating their use for illegal audio and video filesharing or copying.

Although the main target of the ruling are internet-based filesharing networks, this ruling will also affect home copying of DVDs, as the makers of devices, such as video stabilizers and macrovision killers can now also be targeted for legal action, as such devices can also be used for illegal purposes. "

=====


like the top article says, you probably aren't going to find law enforcement agents knocking on your door for transferring vhs tapes to dvd; but that doesn't mean it's legal/right.

 

[Geoff_M]

It sure is conveeeeeeeeeeenient that those gray areas seem to be where the people claiming that it is there get to not pay for things.

bicker, sorry, but the fact that there are not clear and clean-cut legal parameters in all aspects of copyright law does not mean that people are automatically just being selective about the laws and legal precedents only when it suits them.

Your rather unique personal interpretation of the statutes aside, there are plenty of expressed legal opinions from the guys and gals wearing the robes (at different levels of our judicial system) that has stated both explicitly and implicitly that the making a personal copy of copyrighted material for something like "media-shifting" is within the realm of fair use. This is where the legal "rubber meets the road" and trumps any legal extrapolations you may make here. From a legally purchased CD to a personal iPod, from a VHS tape to a DVD for someone who's about to retire their VHS player, etc. As Mark stated, if you've found judicial opinions that holds otherwise, then let's see it as they would at least at some weight to your pronouncements.

However, I do think (warning, here comes that "gray area" again!) that such Fair Use isn't unlimited. It seems pretty clear cut that make "a" personal copy is legally permissible (or copies that would only be used by me), particularly when "media-shifting", but I think that things get cloudy when you move beyond that. I think it is likely that I might be at risk if I were to make copies of a DVD for the family entertainment center in the basement, plus more copies for each of our vehicles, plus copies for the DVD players in the kids' rooms. Likewise, I don't think it would automatically pass muster if I were to take an audio CD and rip it to my iPod, as well as my wife's, and each of my kids'.

I also don't think that cteddiesgirl's statement that such copying doesn't harm publishers because it isn't realistic that a family will buy more than one copy of a DVD or CD is valid either. That's not a legally recognized defense in copyright cases. If that were the case, then the argument that most people aren't willing to cough up $660 for a full copy of Photoshop CS5 could be used as a defense of pirating a copy myself since there would be no harm to Adobe because there is no way an average family would buy a copy for anything anywhere close to that figure. Likewise, in the case of older works, the fact that the work may not be currently for sale on the market by the publisher isn't a "no harm" defense to make a copy of a copyrighted film or audio recording.

As for your Fair Use vs. DMCA copy protection clause redirection, sorry, but that doesn't logically follow. As has been pointed out the DMCA clearly states that is does not abridge one's Fair Use rights as granted by law and upheld in the courts. The DMCA clause is clearly designed to add additional teeth against those that actively defeat copy protection schemes in the act of piracy and (as in the case of RealDVD) prohibit the sale and distribution of tools that indiscriminately allow such protections to be defeated. Even Judge Patel's ruling lays out the Catch-22 situation that a private person may have the right to make a personal copy of a legally obtained DVD but the tools needed to do so effectively aren't legal for sale.

And none of this doesn't mean that I don't take copyrights seriously, I do. I've had photographic works of my father's misappropriated on the Web and I've tried to combat that. I also spoken out against people here attempting to sell, or even give away (for S&H), pirated resorted area music.

like the top article says, you probably aren't going to find law enforcement agents knocking on your door for transferring vhs tapes to dvd; but that doesn't mean it's legal/right.

Guy, that article has nothing to do with individuals. It refers to the Patel "Catch-22" and the only parties in legal peril are those that try to sell software and other tools for cracking copyright protections.

 

[cteddiesgirl]

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.

As I stated, if I were to buy a second copy, it would be used. Meaning that no one will be getting any money except for the person selling it. I also never said that everything had to be or were to be copied from vhs to dvd. In your words here, that would make it fine to copy from vhs to vhs or dvd to dvd.
Actually, the expectation of people buying dvds was because of the higher quality. If a person wanted a higher quality picture and sound, then they had to buy the dvd. Today, the expectation of people choosing to buy or re-buy blu-ray discs over dvds is because of the better quality of sound and picture. I remember this clearly because I was an assisstant manager of a video store at the time and read all the magazines and articles about dvds. I also made the switch to dvd before most people did. But for me it was partyly due to the fact that most films were available in their original format and not cut down versions like 99% of vhs releases were.
As for being right and fair, is it right and fair to force a person buy something they already own over and over again?

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

You didn't get my meaning. Your words said that the reason that we couldn't make copies was that the copyright holder wouldn't get paid for it. Well, if people sold off their copies second hand, then only the person (the seller) gets the money. Wouldn't it make more sense (according to your words) if it were illegal and that buyers could only buy brand new, thereby the companys (generally the copyright holder) would be getting their cut?
It does represent another person wanting a copy that represents added revenue.
After all, this copyright law is all about getting paid again and again and again and again, etc. for the same body of work.
Wish I got paid like that. If I did, then maybe I could buy all these extra copies they're wanting me to buy.

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

Yes. Per your words:

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.

In other words, you think that everyone on this thread right now couldn't manage to understand your explanation. So we're stupid to you.

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

It is being sought. I still want to know. How do you know if someone is not really wanting the answer when they ask the question? Oh. Right. You're smarter than everyone else.

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.

You provide citations where someone has been arrested and convicted of making personal copies of movies they own. Ask yourself why there aren't any.

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

Didn't answer my question. I'm perfectly aware of what public domain is.
Home video has not been around for 75 years. Movies themselves have only been around slightly over 100 years. You know that. So please don't be pretend to be obtuse.
What about a movie that has not been available to buy in 20 years? Meaning, a movie that was released on video 20 years ago and has never been released again?

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.

Hmmm...Yeah. I can see everyone who is interested in say, Song of the South, would be buying the copyright to it. I'm certain Disney would gladly sell off the copyright to any of their films.
If a copyright holder was so interested in making money off of copies of their films, then they would be making them available for people to buy.
Obviously, Disney isn't too interested in releasing such titles to dvd as Trenchcoat, The Waltz King, The Horsemasters, A Friendship in Vienna, Almost Angels, Justin Morgan Had a Horse and many others I could name. Not to mention the amount of other studio's films that haven't been available on dvd or now on blu-ray.
In the meantime, you still have yet to prove, without any doubt, that some judge somewhere has fined or jailed someone for making personal copies somewhere in this country.
Once companies finally release titles or release vhs only titles to dvd, then I'll probably go out and buy them. Until then, I will preserve titles I already own in anyway I can.

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

How does it hurt someone who is obviously not interested enough in making money off the films to release them for people to buy?

Again. If they want the money from these films so badly, then they need to release them to the public to be able to buy.
If they don't, then they have to deal with people who will get copies however they can. It's a fact of human nature. If someone can get their hands on something that they want, whether it's legal or not, most of the time, they will get it.

Personally, I would prefer a high quality retail copy over a poor copy and I never advocate buying bootleg copies.

I also don't think that cteddiesgirl's statement that such copying doesn't harm publishers because it isn't realistic that a family will buy more than one copy of a DVD or CD is valid either. That's not a legally recognized defense in copyright cases. If that were the case, then the argument that most people aren't willing to cough up $660 for a full copy of Photoshop CS5 could be used as a defense of pirating a copy myself since there would be no harm to Adobe because there is no way an average family would buy a copy for anything anywhere close to that figure. Likewise, in the case of older works, the fact that the work may not be currently for sale on the market by the publisher isn't a "no harm" defense to make a copy of a copyrighted film or audio recording.

I said nothing about making copies for family. I was stating me making copies for myself. No one else. If I want to make a copy, for myself only to change the media form, it hurts no one.

 

[Geoff_M]

I said nothing about making copies for family. I was stating me making copies for myself. No one else. If I want to make a copy, for myself only to change the media form, it hurts no one.

You are correct that you said "you". You may make such copies, as the Courts have generally acknowledged, under Fair Use statutes. But that doesn't mean that there's zero loss to publishers from people doing so. If copying weren't available, no doubt you, and most others, wouldn't be likely to purchase a duplicate copy of works, but a small number of times people would do so for convenience. The loss of those sales due to the easy availability of copying would be... a loss. That was my point.

I was speaking to a wider generality that you often hear when it comes to discussion of the copying of works: the "I wouldn't have bought a copy anyway, so there's no harm" defense. I wasn't implying that what you personally were doing was "wrong".

 

[bicker]

Even Judge Patel's ruling lays out the Catch-22 situation that a private person may have the right to make a personal copy of a legally obtained DVD but the tools needed to do so effectively aren't legal for sale.

Sale is not necessary for there to be a crime. If someone was handing out vials of crack (the parallel between how people justify their addiction to that and how people justify copying copyrighted material without license is not lost on me) on the street, it would be illegal to possess the crack provided that way. Software to break copy protection is illegal, regardless if money changes hands.

 

[MIGrandma]

Sale is not necessary for there to be a crime. If someone was handing out vials of crack (the parallel between how people justify their addiction to that and how people justify copying copyrighted material without license is not lost on me) on the street, it would be illegal to possess the crack provided that way. Software to break copy protection is illegal, regardless if money changes hands.

Seriously? You're comparing vials of crack to copying videos for your own personal use? Really. Do you always have to have the last word in any discussion?

 

[Geoff_M]

Sale is not necessary for there to be a crime. ... Software to break copy protection is illegal, regardless if money changes hands.

bicker, I am afraid that your analysis is incorrect again. Per the DMCA, Section 1204, in order for violation of the Act to be a criminal offense, one must violate Section 1201 (Circumvention of copyright protection systems) "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". Otherwise it is only a civil infraction, and only then if a rights holder can demonstrate harm as a result.

In addition, Section 1201 does not universally declare any tool that may allow circumvention of copy protection schemes to be prohibited by law. Here's is a section from the US Copyright Office's summary of the DMCA (with some added lingo about Fair Use protections and the DMCA, to boot):

Section 1201 divides technological measures into two categories: measures that prevent unauthorized access to a copyrighted work and measures that prevent unauthorized copying of a copyrighted work. Making or selling devices or services that are used to circumvent either category of technological measure is prohibited in certain circumstances, described below. As to the act of circumvention in itself, the provision prohibits circumventing the first category of technological measures, but not the second.

This distinction was employed to assure that the public will have the continued ability to make fair use of copyrighted works. Since copying of a work may be a fair use under appropriate circumstances, section 1201 does not prohibit the act of circumventing a technological measure that prevents copying. By contrast, since the fair use doctrine is not a defense to the act of gaining unauthorized access to a work, the act of circumventing a technological measure in order to gain access is prohibited.

Section 1201 proscribes devices or services that fall within any one of the following three categories:
- they are primarily designed or produced to circumvent;
- they have only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent; or
- they are marketed for use in circumventing.

http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

 

[mill4023]

It is no different from a chef saying that s/he knows more about how to cook than most people.

Yes, that analogy would make perfect sense........if you were a lawyer who practiced copyright law.

But since you aren't and don't, it actually makes no sense at all.

Hey, I've watched a lot of cooking shows on TV, so I know more about how to cook than almost anyone.