DVD & Home Theater Gear Discuss DVD and Home Theater Equipment.

DVD Recorder Questions

Old 12-31-05, 07:32 PM
  #1  
Wag
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 200
DVD Recorder Questions

Please forgive my question, which has probably been asked a million times already. I have used the search function, and have read a good number of posts, but none seem to deal exactly with my situation. Most people seem to be using their recorder as their primary burner by editing with the recorder, adding menus, chapters, etc. My need is slightly different (though I might be thinking incorrectly as well), so I was wondering if I could ask a few questions and then get some recorder recommendations?

The recorder's primary function will be as a DVD player so it must be progressive scan (component outs), support Dolby Digital and DTS...basically primarily be a good DVD player that also happens to burn DVDs.

Secondary function will be to transfer saved programs off my Directivo onto DVD...for safe keeping, and to get it off the Tivo's HDD. Main things would be older movies that I have recorded off TCM that aren't out on DVD (or are but it was a poor release or are OOP like Double Indemnity), TV series, and anything else that might spark my interest.

A little background, I already have my PC set up to edit DVDs, as I have a Sony DCR-DVD403 DVD video camera. My basic procedure is to record to my stacks of DVD-RWs (in VR mode), transfer the video to my PC and use Nero to author the content: creating menus, chapters, text, transitions, etc. I then burn it back to DVD-R for safekeeping...erasing the -RWs for the next use. My computer isn't super fast (P3 1GhZ with 512 MB running XP), so the editing can be a little clunky at times, but it's not too big of a deal.

So my basic plan would be: use the Directivo's Save to VCR function to write the content to a rewritable media such as DVD-RW or +RW, using those to shuttle content from the burner to my PC. Once on the PC, I WILL be editing the commercials out, adding menus and chapters, etc.

1. I guess the first question should be, does that sound like the way to go, or should I go with a recorder that has good editing tools, and just skip the whole "to the PC" step, especially since my PC isn't blazing fast? Like I said, my PC is workable, but if the onboard editing tools make the process very easy, then why bother with the extra step.

2. Hard Drive yes or no? I would assume that the answer to question #1 might determine that or at least influence it? I assume that if you do the editing on the recorder itself, a HDD would make that much easier? Also, I notice that alot of HDD equipped ones seem to only write to DVD-RAM (can't use that) or DVD-R, so it would follow that if I get a HDD then I am editing on board since I am not wasting a DVD-R to take it to my PC and edit. I also thought a HDD would allow me to use it as a kind of temp storage for my Directivo...basically collecting "stuff to be burned" on there until I got ready to burn it (such as collecting a few episodes of a show) and also freeing up space on my Tivo.

3. If yes on the HDD, I also saw that most have what amounts to DVR functionality too (program guides, timer recording, etc)...would that interfere with my existing Tivo or can you disable that?

So the basic requirements of the recorder are as follows:
- good progressive scan player with component outs
- if editing on my PC would be fine then a recorder with the ability to write to single layer -RW and/or +RW
- or if editing on the recorder would be better then a HDD (probably) and ability to write to DVD-R
- I definitely don't want a built in VCR.
- ability to disable any onboard programming guide.
- I also have a few BB GCs, and while it would be nice to use those for this purchase, I am not going to buy something I don't want just because it's there. I am willing to buy elsewhere, I like B&H Photo for example.

These are recorders that seem to meet my requirements, does anyone have any recommendations, or additions to the list (or other brands):

non-HDD equipped:
Panasonic DMR-ES20
Pioneer DVR-233-S
Sony RDR-GX315 (much cheaper at B&H)

HDD equipped ones:
Sony RDR-HX715
Panasonic DMR-E85HS
Panasonic DMR-EH50S
Pioneer DVR-533H-S

Thanks
Wag is offline  
Old 01-01-06, 01:19 AM
  #2  
DVD Talk Legend
 
matome's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: NY
Posts: 12,304
I have a Panasonic HDD recorder (first gen DMR-HS2) for three years now and it works fine for me as far as editing out commercials from the hard drive. Good quality machine. The HD is definitely necessary for editing and it's great for extra storage as well, like you mentioned. No burned-disc compatibility issues. I'm sure the newer gens have added more features as well.
matome is offline  
Old 01-01-06, 02:01 AM
  #3  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
not to make the first lame buzz-kill post of the new year, but isn't this illegal? And by "isn't this illegal" i mean "this is illegal." TiVo-ing (and other forms of time-shifting) are completely different from archiving, which is not fair use under the copyright act. That being said, you do need a DVD recorder with a hard drive for your purposes.
BobDole42 is offline  
Old 01-01-06, 09:50 PM
  #4  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,831
Actually, it is perfectly legal. As long as he doesn't sell the copies. The fair use legislation in the 70s is what made it so.

If you plan on editing out commercials but not doing anything real fancy, get a HDD model. If you only archive stuff that doesn't have commercials, or don't care about recording them, you can save the cash and get the non-HDD model. If you want fancier menus and whatnot, get the non-HDD and use your PC for editing. That answers #1, #2.

#3: You can just ignore any TV Guide crap, that would only work for OTA or cable, anyway.

Pretty much all of them will be progressive scan these days. But, I have to say, pretty much none of them would be a good primary player. In comparison to some of the better players, you will see obvious differences. If you can handle that, it'll be just fine as your primary.
Spiky is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 01:57 PM
  #5  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
Originally Posted by Spiky
Actually, it is perfectly legal. As long as he doesn't sell the copies. The fair use legislation in the 70s is what made it so.

If you plan on editing out commercials but not doing anything real fancy, get a HDD model. If you only archive stuff that doesn't have commercials, or don't care about recording them, you can save the cash and get the non-HDD model. If you want fancier menus and whatnot, get the non-HDD and use your PC for editing. That answers #1, #2.

#3: You can just ignore any TV Guide crap, that would only work for OTA or cable, anyway.

Pretty much all of them will be progressive scan these days. But, I have to say, pretty much none of them would be a good primary player. In comparison to some of the better players, you will see obvious differences. If you can handle that, it'll be just fine as your primary.
Spiky,

I think this is the first time I am going to have to disagree with you

The fair use legislation is written and interpreted by the courts to cover, among other things, archival copies of copyrighted works already purchased by the end-user. It would be allowable to make a copy using a DVD recorder or a tv show that the user purchased (on dvd or, maybe vhs (format shifting rules aren't 100% defined)). However, to tape something on tv and burn it for archiving purposes is still strictly prohibited and a clear violation of the copyright laws. Sony v. Universal and its progeny have never allowed for archiving under the fair use doctrine. Even if the copying is done for personal use only and no profit is made, it is still illegal.

I don't mean to be a pain in ass (usually I do, but not this time), but it seems weird to me that asking about copying a dvd is strictly (and understandably) prohibited, but this type of discussion is fine. Breaking the copy protection on a dvd is a violation of the DMCA, which has been criticized by many as over-expansive and perhaps void (and it very well may be struck down by the courts one day). Copying tv shows with a dvd burner is a violation of the copyright laws, no way around it. Just may 2 cents. Or I guess that was more like 25 cents, sorry for the rant.
BobDole42 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 03:48 PM
  #6  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,831
Ok, so I'm wrong. Guess I never actually researched about broadcast works before. Just don't tell my wife. Every time I'm wrong about something she throws a party to mock me.

So, why hasn't this issue been raised before? Everybody I know has archived VHS movies, one guy has thousands although the quality is so bad I'd rather beat myself with the tapes than watch the movies. I think it's been ignored since the studios in the long run would only lose from such a case, ESPECIALLY if they won the case.

There is still some question, though. As long as it is not a permanent archival copy, but just so you can watch it later, it appears to be legal. That's from a quick scan of copyright.gov.
Spiky is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 03:50 PM
  #7  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,601
There is no difference under the copyright law between taping a show and burning a show. Both are legal with standalone recorders. Standalone recorders only have analog inputs so the digital provisions of the copyright act don't apply. That is a dvd recorders intended use. They wouldn't sell them otherwise. Only the more expensive ones come with hard drives that allow for watching and erasing ala tivo.
Fair use covers a lot more ground than just copying something you already own. There is no special provision within the law for music, video or any other specific media. It is a blanket law that applies equally to all media. Taping a movie off comercial tv and selling it is equal violation as copying a pre-recorded tape and selling it. The law doesn't distinguish. Having people over to watch a movie is considered fair use and not a violation underr public performance. Making a Xerox of a magazine article for a school project is fair use but making copies of your picture in the newspaper and mailing them to friends is illegal. If you are on the local news because you witnessed a robbery you can tape it for yourself but cannot make copies for friends and relatives.
The operating manuals, Sony among them, specifically instruct you how to burn tv shows to dvd.
And remember, under the law, the next time friends bring any drinks or food over with them to watch a movie on your home theater system, you are just as guilty under the law as the guy selling bootlegs of Jackson's King Kong on a strret corner.

Last edited by rw2516; 01-02-06 at 04:03 PM.
rw2516 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 04:08 PM
  #8  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
Originally Posted by rw2516
There is no difference under the copyright law between taping a show and burning a show. Both are legal with standalone recorders. Standalone recorders only have analog inputs so the digital provisions of the copyright act don't apply. That is a dvd recorders intended use. They wouldn't sell them otherwise. Only the more expensive ones come with hard drives that allow for watching and erasing ala tivo.
Fair use covers a lot more ground than just copying something you already own. There is no special provision within the law for music, video or any other specific media. It is a blanket law that applies equally to all media. Taping a movie off comercial tv and selling it is equal violation as copying a pre-recorded tape and selling it. The law doesn't distinguish. Having people over to watch a movie is considered fair use and not a violation underr public performance. Making a Xerox of a magazine article for a school project is fair use but making copies of your picture in the newspaper and mailing them to friends is illegal. If you are on the local news because you witnessed a robbery you can tape it for yourself but cannot make copies for friends and relatives.
The operating manuals, Sony among them, specifically instruct you how to burn tv shows to dvd.
And remember, under the law, the next time friends bring any drinks or food over with them to watch a movie on your home theater system, you are just as guilty under the law as the guy selling bootlegs of Jackson's King Kong on a strret corner.
While I agree with most of what you said, there is a fundamental difference between using a dvd recorder to record (time shift) a show vs. using a recorder to burn archive copies. Time shifting is fair use and is legal, archiving is not.
BobDole42 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 04:10 PM
  #9  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
Originally Posted by Spiky
Ok, so I'm wrong. Guess I never actually researched about broadcast works before. Just don't tell my wife. Every time I'm wrong about something she throws a party to mock me.

So, why hasn't this issue been raised before? Everybody I know has archived VHS movies, one guy has thousands although the quality is so bad I'd rather beat myself with the tapes than watch the movies. I think it's been ignored since the studios in the long run would only lose from such a case, ESPECIALLY if they won the case.

There is still some question, though. As long as it is not a permanent archival copy, but just so you can watch it later, it appears to be legal. That's from a quick scan of copyright.gov.
Spiky, you are correct that using a recorder to make a copy for later viewing (time shifting, like we used to do with vcrs) is perfectly legal. Using a recorder to make a library of tv shows you've recorded is archiving and is not fair use.
BobDole42 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 05:31 PM
  #10  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Talent, OR
Posts: 1,053
Copying a DVD isn't illegal every time. Not all have copy protection. If it does have protection and you circumvent it, then you are breaking the law only if you don't have permission to do so.
chemosh6969 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 06:58 PM
  #11  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,601
Originally Posted by BobDole42
Spiky,

I think this is the first time I am going to have to disagree with you

The fair use legislation is written and interpreted by the courts to cover, among other things, archival copies of copyrighted works already purchased by the end-user. It would be allowable to make a copy using a DVD recorder or a tv show that the user purchased (on dvd or, maybe vhs (format shifting rules aren't 100% defined)). However, to tape something on tv and burn it for archiving purposes is still strictly prohibited and a clear violation of the copyright laws. Sony v. Universal and its progeny have never allowed for archiving under the fair use doctrine. Even if the copying is done for personal use only and no profit is made, it is still illegal.
I just read Sony v. Universal and the case does not directly address the issue. The case centered on whether making the technology available to consumers was a violation. Whether a home consumer viewed a recording more than once came up but was dismissed as the case was about the legality of the technology not what the consumer might do with the one personal copy(view once or multiple times). The final decision included a surcharge attached to the sale of blank vhs tapes to compensate copyright holders. Until the issue is addressed directly it can be argued that the courts allowance of the technology to be made available to consumers endorses the ability of the consumer to make one personal copy which may be viewed more than once over a period of time.
If the issue were time shifting(watch one time only then erase/discard) vs archive(watch more than once) the court would have to decide at what point time shifting became archiving. If a home user records a program how long do they have to watch it before they are violating the law? How long do they have to dispose of it before the recording becomes illegal? What a home consumer does with the one allowable copy has never been addressed, only whether making the technology available to the consumer violates the law.
Sony manufactures and markets to consumers a product that allows for the recording of broadcast, cable and satellite signals to a permanent medium that can be viewed several times. Sony also gives the consumer detailed instructions as how to do this. The court would be hard pressed to decide against the consumer.
Before standalone dvd recorders went on the market the studios and electronic manufacturers decided on what the capabilities the recorders would have and not have. They all have software to block the recording of copy protected vhs and dvds. So hacking one to get around it would be illegal. The S-video inputs will not accept a digital signal. There are no digital inputs, only analog. No component, DVI, or HD inputs either. No 16x9 recording to permanent media. No recording of 5.1 audio.
Until, if ever, the courts make a decision on what a home consumer may do with his/her one allowable copy of uncopyprotected programming for personal use, fair use would fall under the the capabilities of the device. BUT, ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY OF UN-PROTECTED MATERIAL.
rw2516 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 07:18 PM
  #12  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
[QUOTE=rw2516]I just read Sony v. Universal and the case does not directly address the issue. The case centered on whether making the technology available to consumers was a violation. Whether a home consumer viewed a recording more than once came up but was dismissed as the case was about the legality of the technology not what the consumer might do with the one personal copy(view once or multiple times). The final decision included a surcharge attached to the sale of blank vhs tapes to compensate copyright holders. Until the issue is addressed directly it can be argued that the courts allowance of the technology to be made available to consumers endorses the ability of the consumer to make one personal copy which may be viewed more than once over a period of time.
If the issue were time shifting(watch one time only then erase/discard) vs archive(watch more than once) the court would have to decide at what point time shifting became archiving. If a home user records a program how long do they have to watch it before they are violating the law? How long do they have to dispose of it before the recording becomes illegal? What a home consumer does with the one allowable copy has never been addressed, only whether making the technology available to the consumer violates the law.
Sony manufactures and markets to consumers a product that allows for the recording of broadcast, cable and satellite signals to a permanent medium that can be viewed several times. Sony also gives the consumer detailed instructions as how to do this. The court would be hard pressed to decide against the consumer.
Before standalone dvd recorders went on the market the studios and electronic manufacturers decided on what the capabilities the recorders would have and not have. They all have software to block the recording of copy protected vhs and dvds. So hacking one to get around it would be illegal. The S-video inputs will not accept a digital signal. There are no digital inputs, only analog. No component, DVI, or HD inputs either. No 16x9 recording to permanent media. No recording of 5.1 audio.[/QUPTE]


I'm sorry, but that just isn't true. Yes, Sony did center of the question of the liability of a manufacturer that sells a product capable of infringing and legal uses. Sony's betamax allowed user to time-shift (fair use) as well as copy and archive (not fair use). The Supreme Court held that, where a technology has a substantial non-infringing use, the seller is not liable for the acts of the user (Grokster limited this doctrine considerably, but that doesn't really matter for this discussion). In deciding in favor of Sony, the Court noted that there were multiple uses for the recorder - one of them being a fair use (time shifting) - no court, to my knowlege, has ever said that archiving is a fair use. The reason is simple - it isn't. Violating the copyright law is as simple as making one copy, for whatever purpose, of a copyrighted work. Fair use exceptions do exist, but archiving is not one of them. No court or legislation has ever extended fair use protection to archiving. This is a fairly basic idea - copyright protection clearly applies to copyrighted works (such as broadcast televistion). Making a permanent copy (which is what we are talking about - the OP mentioned deleting commericals and others have stated that they use recorders instead of buying the shows on DVD) is a CLEAR violation of the copyright laws to which no fair use exception exists.

Until, if ever, the courts make a decision on what a home consumer may do with his/her one allowable copy of uncopyprotected programming for personal use, fair use would fall under the the capabilities of the device. BUT, ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY OF UN-PROTECTED MATERIAL.
A few problems with this statement. 1) the copy is only allowable if it is made for a fair use - archiving is not a fair use, therefore the copy is not allowable. 2) We are talking about protected material - copyrighted movies, shows, etc. 3) The phrase "personal use" doesn't mean much in this context. Just because you aren't making a profit or selling a copy doesn't make the copying legal. 4) The technological capabilities of a device, even if they were designed with the copyright laws in mind (and they weren't - they were designed with the intent to protect copyrighted works, notwithstanding the law), the capabilities or a device are not a guide for the legality of a practice.

Last edited by BobDole42; 01-02-06 at 07:23 PM.
BobDole42 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 09:15 PM
  #13  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,601
If archiving of any kind cannot be fair use than the only legal use for the DVD-R format would be home movies. The DVD-R format is non-reusable, specifically designed for archiving. There could be no legal tv to DVD-R recording. Not all recorders have hard drives for time shifting. They do record to DVD-RAM which can be re-used. True a technology can have a substantial non-infringing use even though infringing uses exist. Given any archiving is an infrigement, what is the non-infringing use of recording tv to DVD-R. There are no multiple uses for the format. If a seller/manufacturer cannot be held liable for the infringing acts of the user, and the manufacturer's instuctions of use give specific directions for recording/archiving tv shows to DVD-R, even how to dub tv shows from the hard drive(which you would use to time shift) to DVD-R, how could this not be interpeted as a non-infringing use. They even tell you how to dub the SAP from the hard drive to DVD-R. What would be any other non-infringing use for this process?
Given that any archiving is not fair use, and other types of recording other than DVD-R can be used for time shifting I'd be ready to conceed. Convince me that recording tv to DVD-R, one of the fair uses of the device, can be time shifting not archiving and I'll give up.
DVD-Rs are not meant to be disposable and thrown away. Their fair use is to keep them forever.
The point I'm trying to make is that with vcrs it is the user's idea to keep a tape forever. There is the other non-archiving use of recording over it.
With vhs tape you can remove the tab to preserve a home movie instead of a copyrighted program. It's the user's idea to remove it on it movie.
With hard drives and DVD-RAM it is left up to the user to erase.
With DVD-R the user doesn't have the choice. Keep it forever or throw it away(not reasonable or fair assumption). If the manuals didn't mention that you could record tv to DVD-R or how to burn tv shows from hard drive to DVD-R it would be left up to the user to come up with the idea. But since the manual does mention it and how to do it, this is not a case of the user inventing a way to violate fair use but rather using the product for exactly what's it's intended.

Last edited by rw2516; 01-02-06 at 09:48 PM.
rw2516 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 09:35 PM
  #14  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
Originally Posted by rw2516
If archiving of any kind cannot be fair use than the only legal use for the DVD-R format would be home movies. The DVD-R format is non-reusable, specifically designed for archiving. There could be no legal tv to DVD-R recording. Not all recorders have hard drives for time shifting. They do record to DVD-RAM which can be re-used. True a technology can have a substantial non-infringing use even though infringing uses exist. Given any archiving is an infrigement, what is the non-infringing use of recording tv to DVD-R. There are no multiple uses for the format. If a seller/manufacturer cannot be held liable for the infringing acts of the user, and the manufacturer's instuctions of use give specific directions for recording/archiving tv shows to DVD-R, even how to dub tv shows from the hard drive(which you would use to time shift) to DVD-R, how could this not be interpeted as a non-infringing use. They even tell you how to dub the SAP from the hard drive to DVD-R. What would be any other non-infringing use for this process?
Given that any archiving is not fair use, and other types of recording other than DVD-R can be used for time shifting I'd be ready to conceed. Convince me that recording tv to DVD-R, one of the fair uses of the device, can be time shifting not archiving and I'll give up.
DVD-Rs are not meant to be disposable and thrown away. Their fair use is to keep them forever.
There are plenty of non-infringing uses for dvd recorders - home movie editing is a great example. Also, recording any public domain works is perfectly legal. Time shifting is also possible with dvd recorders, it just isn't very practicle given the disposable nature of the media. I agree that dvd recorders are designed and used by many for archiving. Just because the manufacturer isn't going to be liable for any infringment doesn't make what end-users do legal. I wouldn't be surprised if, post-Grokster, copyright holders tried to go after manufacturers of dvd recorders.

Out of curiousity, are you an attorney? I know there are some IP attorneys on this board and I would be interested in their take on this.
BobDole42 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 10:03 PM
  #15  
Banned
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Talent, OR
Posts: 1,053
Can you show something that says archiving isn't legal because everything I've found says it is as long as you follow some rules and nothing says keeping a recording of a show is illegal.
chemosh6969 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 10:08 PM
  #16  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
Originally Posted by chemosh6969
Can you show something that says archiving isn't legal because everything I've found says it is as long as you follow some rules and nothing says keeping a recording of a show is illegal.
I'll check with some IP guys I know and give you the citations.

To me, the most obvious and dramatic example of illegal copying in this context is saving every episode of a season of a show instead of buying the DVDs.

What have you read that indicates archiving is legal?

ps. OP - sorry to take your thread so off topic!
BobDole42 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 10:22 PM
  #17  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,601
No. Not an attourney. About 25 years ago in college I wrote a term paper on the copyright law for a Business Law class. I'm a businerss major. It was one of those independent courses where you meet the professor the first day and then just turn the paper in at the end of the semester. I wrapped the legal aspects around the story of Siegel and Shuster who created Superman and blew it by not getting as copyright and signing the character away for pennies to DC comics. I'd be curious to hear an attourney's take on this.
Sony, oner of the manufacturer's of the recorders also owns Columbia Pictures and MGM/UA.
About three years ago I read an article about how the studios and electronics manufacturers came to an agreement on what standalone dvd recorders would be capable or not capable of. Hence, no digital inputs, 5.1, 16x9 recording, and software to block recording of copy protected signals. Recorder won't even turn on if it detects copy protection.
Although there are many non-archiving of tv signal uses of a recorder the debate is over the function of burning tv signals to DVD-R. You can't do it without archiving at the same time because nobody, not even the Supreme Court would expect consumers to throw the discs away after watching them. Then you have the function of dubbing tv from hard drive to DVD-R. If you just want to watch the show watch it on the hard drive then erase. No reason to burn unless going to archive. I just can't fault people for doing it since it's in the instructions. It's the same as if the instructions for a vcr read "after recording program remove tab from cassette to preserve recording".
Since a lot of people play recorded songs at their weddings I wonder if it is fair use to video record the wedding and distribute copys to friends and relatives containing the copyrighted song. Or even record the wedding in the first place.
rw2516 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 10:32 PM
  #18  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,601
Originally Posted by BobDole42

To me, the most obvious and dramatic example of illegal copying in this context is saving every episode of a season of a show instead of buying the DVDs.

Maybe, but I wouldn't exactly call that getting the product without buying it. Recording them yourself gives you lower quality, station logos, edits, voice overs, split screens, commercials, pop-ups, etc. It's not like you would be getting the dvds without buying them.
rw2516 is offline  
Old 01-02-06, 10:47 PM
  #19  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
Originally Posted by rw2516
Maybe, but I wouldn't exactly call that getting the product without buying it. Recording them yourself gives you lower quality, station logos, edits, voice overs, split screens, commercials, pop-ups, etc. It's not like you would be getting the dvds without buying them.
True, but making copies yourself intrudes on a very lucrative derivative market (dvd seasons). This thread has really got my interest piqued - I will be sending some emails tomorrow and will hopefully have something more concrete to post tomorrow.
BobDole42 is offline  
Old 01-03-06, 12:41 AM
  #20  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,831
Originally Posted by BobDole42
I'll check with some IP guys I know and give you the citations.

To me, the most obvious and dramatic example of illegal copying in this context is saving every episode of a season of a show instead of buying the DVDs.
Now this goes back to my thinking earlier, which I didn't mention, so now I am. Title 17 also mentions the difference between archiving in lieu of a reasonably priced copy. Until TV on DVD, there often was no way to purchase such seasons. I'm wondering if this law is going to start coming up now. With VHS, there really were no limitations. Whether absolutely legal according to the letter of the law or not, nobody cared about archived shows or movies on tape at your house. And I doubt they'd get anywhere coming after someone taking those crappy tapes and transferring them to DVD for (perhaps) a little more longevity. New recording of lots of TV might be an issue. HDCP was created to fight us in the future.

Fair Use is not a hard and fast rule, however. Read it, and you will see that.

Quote from Fair Use, Section 107: "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." When there was nothing being sold, there is no value lost. TV on DVD may have changed that.
Spiky is offline  
Old 01-03-06, 09:45 AM
  #21  
DVD Talk Special Edition
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 1,675
Originally Posted by Spiky
Now this goes back to my thinking earlier, which I didn't mention, so now I am. Title 17 also mentions the difference between archiving in lieu of a reasonably priced copy. Until TV on DVD, there often was no way to purchase such seasons. I'm wondering if this law is going to start coming up now. With VHS, there really were no limitations. Whether absolutely legal according to the letter of the law or not, nobody cared about archived shows or movies on tape at your house. And I doubt they'd get anywhere coming after someone taking those crappy tapes and transferring them to DVD for (perhaps) a little more longevity. New recording of lots of TV might be an issue. HDCP was created to fight us in the future.

Fair Use is not a hard and fast rule, however. Read it, and you will see that.

Quote from Fair Use, Section 107: "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." When there was nothing being sold, there is no value lost. TV on DVD may have changed that.
Spiky,

I think you are right on the money. The effect on potential derivitive market for a copyrighted work is a factor in the fair use test. DVD on tv has proven that there exists such a market. I would be surprised if archiving passed muster with this in mind. I'm still waiting to hear back from my IP friends.

Last edited by BobDole42; 01-03-06 at 10:47 AM.
BobDole42 is offline  
Old 01-03-06, 10:35 AM
  #22  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 7,601
Originally Posted by Spiky
Now this goes back to my thinking earlier, which I didn't mention, so now I am. Title 17 also mentions the difference between archiving in lieu of a reasonably priced copy. Until TV on DVD, there often was no way to purchase such seasons. I'm wondering if this law is going to start coming up now. With VHS, there really were no limitations. Whether absolutely legal according to the letter of the law or not, nobody cared about archived shows or movies on tape at your house. And I doubt they'd get anywhere coming after someone taking those crappy tapes and transferring them to DVD for (perhaps) a little more longevity. New recording of lots of TV might be an issue. HDCP was created to fight us in the future.

Fair Use is not a hard and fast rule, however. Read it, and you will see that.

Quote from Fair Use, Section 107: "(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work." When there was nothing being sold, there is no value lost. TV on DVD may have changed that.
This makes the most sense. If it's available for purchase you can't record it. If it's not available you can. Satisfies both arguements. It does bring up the question of the legality of an old recording if the movie/show is later released. I'm willing to bet quality of the recording plays a role. Recordings made from analog cable onto DVD-R don't look that much better than tape. This would explain the quality handicaps built into standalone recorders and all the hubbub over being able to record directly digital and HDCP. Wouldn't suprise me if there is a dividing line in the legality somewhere between analog and digital recording.
rw2516 is offline  
Old 01-03-06, 12:26 PM
  #23  
DVD Talk Limited Edition
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Mpls, MN
Posts: 6,831
On copyright.gov, the fact sheet on Fair Use gives almost no data, even though it is actually longer than Section 107 itself. At the end it says contact an attorney if you have more questions, and it didn't answer ANY non-obvious questions, so you probably will have some. So the govt doesn't even know what it will do with this issue. Neat!
Spiky is offline  
Old 01-03-06, 03:37 PM
  #24  
Wag
Member
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Colorado
Posts: 200
Originally Posted by BobDole42
ps. OP - sorry to take your thread so off topic!
Heheh Yeah I seem to have started quite the shit storm! hehe

Actually I may have overstated my intentions too, as I would rather buy a TV series release rather than save it up and burn it, if for no other reason than to get the extras. Or maybe for series that might never see the light of day in original form (Wonder Years and the whole music rights issue).

And like I said, most of the stuff I would record would be stuff that does NOT have a DVD release. I'd much rather have the commercial release.

Last edited by Wag; 01-03-06 at 03:39 PM.
Wag is offline  
Old 01-03-06, 04:15 PM
  #25  
DVD Talk Platinum Edition
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Maumee, OH, USA
Posts: 3,294
Originally Posted by Wag
Heheh Yeah I seem to have started quite the shit storm! hehe

Actually I may have overstated my intentions too, as I would rather buy a TV series release rather than save it up and burn it, if for no other reason than to get the extras. Or maybe for series that might never see the light of day in original form (Wonder Years and the whole music rights issue).

And like I said, most of the stuff I would record would be stuff that does NOT have a DVD release. I'd much rather have the commercial release.
I am interested in this topic as well, Wag, and hope your thread gets back on track. I've been looking to do the very same thing, but wasn't sure which model would be the most appropriate.
bralph is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.