No, it is not illegal. The Supreme Court of the United States said that recording broadcasted signal for home use is a LEGAL time shifting and copyright owner can do nothing about it. Technically, it is a copyright infringement but it is a justifiable infringement.

"So you are saying that you never lied to anyone or never thought of cheating on your wife?"

I have lied in my life, and it was wrong. I do not defend it and claim that it is a moral act. I am not married, but I have never cheated on any woman with whom I was involved. By the way, my personal sins have nothing to do with what is right and what is wrong. You are the one defending theft.

"What does that have to do with piracy?
Can you pirate women now?"

If you have to ask this, then you have said all that needs to be said about your values.

"I'd be curious to know how many people who consider copying to be theft (and immoral) are posting their thoughts from their work computer."

I am. I am the office Manager. I am also an independent contractor. This is one of my perks. What is your point? Are you posting when you should be working or are you just not working?

Before you start spouting nonsense do some research. Check the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Sony v. Universal City Studios, 1984 and the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 1999. Recording programming from TV for personal use is perfectly legal.

Unfortunately, the author's right you are speaking of exists only in Europe and not in the US. Once a copyrighted work passes the first distribution, the owner can do nothing about how the copied-work is further distributed.

I think my problem is generally with the current copyright system. It is beginning to look like tax law in that people with lobbying power are taking away the fair use rights and gaining unfair advantage over the ordinary citizens. Do you know that you cannot even make a copy of your legally bought DVD because it is technically an infringement? I do not say that piracy is right but I am a proponent of an expanded fair use. And I do think that the right to sample works should be included as a fair use.

Maybe you should be a bit more specific in your question: "How many of you are posting your thoughts from their work computer, and are payed hourly to do a specific job from shift start to shift end, or work for a company that has a policy prohibiting you from using your computer for personal use?"

A salaried employee is not necessarily paid to work set hours, they are paid to do a job.

Now an hourly employee or is a different story, but even then they are generally entitled to take coffee breaks, restroom breaks, and surf breaks may constitute a legitimate use of break time. Unless, of course, an explicit policy prohibiting personal use of computer equipment exists...

The point is that the owner has contracted with the cable company that his work can be "performed" publicly (through the wire) and accepted the risk that his work might be legally copied by the home users and obliterate their need to buy VHS or DVD copy of the work. The counter argument might be that people who rent DVD should also be able to time-shift their viewing experience.

Which is fine, but not the intended focus of this thread.

This is so ridiculously irrelevant that it borderlines on threadcrapping.

Another incredibly ridiculous (and perverted) analogy which I wouldn't normally bother with, except I think the poster needs to be informed the difference between copying a DVD and Invasion of Privacy.

I wasn't going to post but this thread has just gotten to the point where I must throw my two cents in:

Puddytay and all the other pirates: I can't help it that you don't understand the laws, Me, Jim Cook and the others who have been posting actual legal citations can only do our best to try to explain them to you. Just because YOU don't see the difference between taping off TV for private use and burning the DVDs, doesn't mean the law is the way you claim it to be. In fact things are quite the opposite. I will not post further legal citations that I doubt you will read anyway, but sometimes in an argument, it is ok just to step back and say, "I'm sorry, I was wrong on "X" issue."

However, for your continued education, the origins of the decisions related to timeshifting, taping for private use and taping CDs for use in the car all stem from a time when the copies were not as good as the originals and would degrade through repetitive use (otherwise known as the the pre-digital era). Admittedly, the arguments have flaws when we talk about an era with exact duplicates, TIVO, etc, but that is the whole problem with piracy.

People who are to sell pirated material will do it no matter what the format. There were copies of Pulp Fiction selling on VHS on the street corner a day after it opened in the theater. Some people would buy it and some recognized the quality sucked so bad, that they didn't want to bother with it.

The modern day difference is that the technology makes it easier for the honest members of society to cross the moral line. If one can now get a digital copy of "Return of the King" even before it opens,in the theater it is harder to stay honest and not buy the bootlegged copy


For the record, I am a 28 years old and yes I make a decent living. I don't pirate for numerous reasons that include moral, legal, financial and risk to benefit considerations.

I, for one, actually believe that piraters will ruin movie production long term. If a movie studio won't make their money back, they will stop greenlighting expensive yet risky ventures. Movie production budgets will be scaled back and movie quality will suffer because of it.

Funny. Typical. Boring. I had to check the dates to see if I accidentally pulled up the thread on piracy from last month, or September, or August, or July, or.....

Why don't we discuss something else? You guys will never convince pirates they are thieves, they just don't get it.

I love these threads...they are always so enlightening.

bootlegging is a crime, you can get fined and if it is big enough you can go to jail. Just because the government doesn't send people who copy X2 to jail does not make it any less of a crime

Personally, I wouldn't bootleg because
(a) Its a crime
(b) Its not worth it - if I like a movie enough, I will buy it. If I don't like it, I won't buy it. Maybe I'll rent it, maybe I won't.
(c) Looking at purely financial reasoning, it would cost you anywhere from $4-$7 dollars to make a reference style copy of a movie. Not worth it when movies are $14 during release week.

You're concerned about privacy but not concerned about violating another persons rights to control the use of their work?

The pro-piracy arguments here have been littered with utter disregard for the rights of the copyright holder, partially on the basis that it is not stealing. Invasion of privacy involves no theft (using the definition that has been tossed around in this thread.) So why are you concerned about your right to privacy but not the rights of a copyright holder to control their thoughts, ideas, and work?

Privacy and copyright protection provide some very valid points of comparison as the violation concerns an individuals non-physical personal property (thoughts, deeds, and ideas) and a persons rights regarding those less tangible possessions. If you find the idea of your privacy being invaded so abhorrent, then ask yourself why you can justify a similar type of "theft" from people who willingly put there thoughts and ideas out in public in exchange for the income that copyright protection is designed to afford them...

They did not put their private thoughts, ideas, and works out via a movie studio/major distributor because they wanted to give away their personal work, or because they wanted people to freely distribute the work without them benefitting. They did it because they expected the viewers to adhere to the laws and afford them an income.

Maybe this will point to the validity of my previous analogy. Say you have a photograph of yourself au naturel, you show it to your significant other. You tell your significant other that this photo is not to leave the house, it is for their own personal use only. Later, your significant other brings over their laptop and scanner and scans the photo, then begins to distribute it. The photograph never physically left the house, and your SO says "I was just showing it to my friends, for personal reasons..." That's the argument you are making in support of piracy...

The copyright owner said "Here's a movie, you are allowed to use it in this way only (insert copyright information and law.)" You are using it in a way other than was intended by the owner of the movie's copyright, much like your SO misused the right to your personal photo.

hoyalawya said:
I find this point interesting. What besides the ability to make personal backups would you like to see expanded and included as a fair use? How much of a sample would you need to see to help justify a purchase? What kind of sampe are you looking for. You can already see the trailer for any movie and decide if it's worth your time and money.

When it comes to music CDs there are many online stores who now have a few seconds of song samples from each song on the CD. With movie DVDs should they have a minute of viewing from each chapter? Should you be able to view a few minutes from the bonus materials?

Again this is an argument my friend and I have regarding seeing movies in the theater. Many times his justification for downloading movies is that going to the theater is too expensive and most movies aren't worth it. So he downloads the movie and watches it on a computer monitor. If he likes it enough he'll burn it to disc but if he feels it sucked he can just delete the file. Now I think most of us can agree that the theater prices are high in many cases but how many things are you able to try or sample before you decide to purchase? Sure you can test drive a car and try on clothes to see if they fit. You can also shop for a TV and see the picture even if it doesn't look the same in your home. But try and go to a restaurant, order a meal and then don't pay the check or only pay a percentage because you didn't like it or felt it wasn't worth what they charged. Some things just don't work that way. Sometimes you need to understand that the right and the privilege for some things needs to be payed for ahead of time and not after you've determined if it meets your standards of what is worth your money.

You still don't get it.....DVDR drvies aren't illegal.....I am free to copy home movies of my kids to my heart's content and I am not breaking any laws.


Also, under your hypothetical, while I wouldn't have a problem under that situation, the law says differently.

Good. I hope that DOES happen. I hope that studios WILL start concentrating on stories and not getting the highest-priced actors and the biggest explosions. I think movies would be improved if the budgets were cut back by about 50 to 75 percent.

How much is the copyright holder getting from the new person who is buying the 500 "original" DVD's? Zip? Since now two people are enjoying the movies shouldn't the content producers be entitled to get paid from both?

Come on think before you write. With that logic, Lord of the Rings would have never been made. Spending money and spending money in the right places are two different things.

What are yout talking about? A reduced budget will not neccessarily mean better stories....studios release movies that will make money and are geared at people that go to the theater - teenagers. So be prepared for "3z Fast 3 Furious" or "Timeline 2: Back to the Middle Ages"

How'd I get lumped in with puddytay? The last time I checked, I was disagreeing with him!

When you cite actual laws or court decisions supporting your belief, as was done by the people who say that recording TV shows is legal, then we'll believe you.

Sorry Static..My apologies for incorrectly luumping.....looked at the wrong post when I put your name in....will correct it.

I think you missed the point, hihg priced actors and biggest explosions etc are the movies that make the money. Story based films are not the big box office draws. What would happen if studios started losing enough money from piracy, bootlegging and such they would only start making the films that are a sure sell (Die Hard 15).

When you buy a DVD you have given the studio the money to own that item. If you sell it off you are transferring ownership to someone else, and getting the money (in theory) that you are owed for not owning this item anymore (sometimes more, sometimes less). If you make copies of the movies and then sell your original then YOU are making money off of someone else's COPYRIGHTED material, while still keeping a version of the item you originally paid for.

So yes, it is hurting the studio who has lost out on another sale.

Quality is only an issue with recent (i.e. theatrical) releases; a sizeable portion of the DVD-R scene focuses on screener or retail rips.