RoboDad

Legally, perhaps. But this only demonstrates how flawed copyright laws are. It is not logical to say that someone should be prevented from giving a copy of a copy to someone, if the recipient could have freely and legally obtained a copy of equal or better quality, barring circumstances beyond their control.

My question was not about what is or is not legal. We all already know that. My question is why is it illegal. How did my scenario B step on anyone's toes? And note that I am not talking about distributing to people who could not have obtained a copy otherwise, nor am I talking about distributing for profit.

PotVsKtl

I don't think anyone is arguing that under the letter of the law Scenario B isn't prosecutable. The issue seems to be whether it's actually reprehensible and/or deserves the type of comments djtoell is throwing around.

EDIT: Well Robodad and I keep updating at the same time, think I'll leave this one in his hands.

djtoell

No, the difference is between time shifting for personal use (declared fair use by the Supreme Court of the United States) and distributing a copy to another person without permission of the copyright holder (a violation of the distribution right under the US Copyright Act and not declared fair use by any of the many, many cases I have ever come across).

Try again.

DJ

djtoell

What type of comments am I throwing around, exactly?

DJ

PotVsKtl

There's honestly no reason to be a self-righteous douche.

djtoell

Pot vs. Kettle indeed. I don't what I did to you to put such a bug up your ass, but whatever, guy.

DJ

RoboDad

"Tough luck."

"Try again."

I suspect those are the types of comments he was refering to.

RoboDad

Actually, it you who must try again. For the third time, let me repeat that I AM NOT QUESTIONING WHAT IS OR IS NOT LEGAL. I AM QUESTIONING THE LOGIC BEHIND CERTAIN ASPECTS OF THE CURRENT LAW.

None of your comments have come even close to addressing my question.

djtoell

It isn't necessarily illegal. The fair use provision of the Copyright Act allows a court to weigh certain factors to determine whether a given action isn't copyright infringement. There are almost no set rules to determine whether or not something is fair use. Congress purposely designed the law this way to allow maximum flexibility that take into account the facts of a given situation. Indeed, many Congressman probably had exactly that scenario in mind (for example, I've read transcripts of Congressional hearings where they describe copying something and giving it to a fellow Congressman as being non-infringeming). Therefore, someone would actually have to file a lawsuit over Scenario B for us to find out that whether it is copyright infringement or fair use.

Would Scenario B be found to be fair use by a court? I'd think it extremely likely. Since no one would ever actually sue anyone over that situation, however, we'll never actually find out. In the meantime, since no one will ever actually get sued over it, the theoretical illegal nature of it is pretty meaningless.

DJ

djtoell

Er...stop screaming at me. I wasn't responding to your post in what you quoted, was I? Thus, I wasn't trying to answer your question, was I? I was responding to someone else, and to what that someone else said. The post was not meant as a response to your question. The world and/or this thread do not revolve around you.

Jesus, did the clock strike Dick O'Clock? Everyone take a breath, for god's sake.

DJ

djtoell

Wow. If those type of comments are enough to set you people off like this AND MAKE YOU SCREAM AND YELL AND WHINE, it's time to step away from the internet.

DJ

Jackskeleton

Then what are you talking about. You tossed out the two examples this whole conversation is in reference to. Why is it illegal? Because it's the law. simple as that. You can argue till you are blue in the face on why Pot is illegal and how it shouldn't be. But it wont get you anywhere because these were the laws our society as a whole came up with through our representatives from resulted court cases in the past. That's Why. Will they change? more than likely. But for the time being, they were written up to be said in that way. That's why it's illegal. Because copyright holders have rights and the moment you start rubbing little parts of it away like "It's ok to distribute... aslong as it's free". then you start to

The laws were written when the person recording had to do all the work. They had to sit there or program the VCR themselves. They had to watch the entire thing. Sure you can fast forward through ads, but you still had to see them because of the technology of the time. So yeah, it really does need an update. The moment someone else does it, it's no longer something you did and even though your friend isn't being charged for it, you can argue to say that the time taken to record it for someone else is a Job of some sort and of course it's the distribution of something you dont own. You only have the right to view and make one personal copy for yourself. Give it to someone else and it's no longer your personal copy. You know that it's illegal because it's there to defend copyright holders. Distribution is the simple answer as to why.

Will I say someone should go to jail for it? No, but I think the guy was joking with that comment to begin with. Much like how it's illegal to rip the tag off a matress before it is sold.

Example B steps on toes because it is the general idea of distribution. Who has the right and doesn't have the right to distribute someone's material. I agree that copyright laws need to be looked over again and some cases are more extreme than others. But for the most part it's a general law and put there for the protection of copyright holders.

Well, the Original poster was pretty much saying that regardless of the wishes of the copyright holder, they will keep getting the copyrighted material themselves. If a better, official source of the material was to come out, they would upgrade. But that doesn't matter because that copyright holder has the rights to do whatever they want with the material they own. Simple as that. If that includes not mass producing the material, that's on them.

A lot of what the OP is doing is justifying it to himself. I'm not going to say I'm above anyone. I've dabbled myself in that field. But I call a spade a spade and don't try to sugar coat it.

YARRRR!


then ask your question better.
Q:"Hey, why is it illegal in this scenerio"
A: Because it's against the law
Q:"No no no.. Why is it illegal in this scenerio?"
A: Because it's distribution of material you don't own copyrights to.
Q: "No man, you're not listening. WHYis it illegal in this scenerio"
A: uh dude, you're asking the same god damn question.

RoboDad

You're right, and I apologize. However, comments like your second paragraph above don't exactly improve things, either.

djtoell

Gee, I'm sorry I wasn't kind WHEN YOU YELLED AT ME FOR NO REASON.

Jackskeleton

djtoell made an excellent point. Those minor rules that you bring up in the examples are cases where the parties are hardly ever going to be charged for. Much like how it's illegal in some states to have anal sex or some other minute law that is very dated. It's just not going to matter anyways till you start getting into the bigger harder cases.

In this case, distribution of copyrighted material for free to your friends that missed the show is small stuff. But distribution to millions over the methods of bittorrent is where you start to get into some serious shit. You are distributing copyrighted material to thousand of folks. see the difference?

djtoell

If we're actually discussing criminal charges, as opposed to just civil liability, then Scenario B would never result in criminal charges. Criminal copyright infringement requires that the infringement be either of the following:

"(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000..."

17 USC § 506(a).

I'm assuming that a given single episode of a given television program wouldn't have a value of $1,000.00. Enough copies of enough shows during a 180-day period could qualify, though.

DJ

RoboDad

Not quite as simple as that, because that does not answer the question. That would be akin to asking "why is the sky blue" and having someone answer "because that's what color it is."

Again, that's not why. In the case of marijuana, someone could make an argument that it is illegal because it is an addictive substance, or has potential adverse health side-effects, or is detrimental to society. Whether or not those arguments are valid, at least they can be made. My point was that I could see no rational, reasonable argument in favor of restricting someone from duplicating a copy of an over-the-air broadcast for someone who, through no fault of their own, was prevented from making their own copy.

I don't know if you've ever voted, but if you have, perhaps you are familiar with the ballot initiative process. When a proposed initiative is placed on the ballot, it is accompanied by numerous arguments in favor of, and opposed to, the initiative. That is the type of discourse I was looking for.

That may be, but what I was following on a tangential or related topic, not specifically trying to provide justification for what the OP was or was not doing.

Jackskeleton

If you want to, take a look at the post above yours. dj just showed why the simple act of recording something that is over the air broadcasting for someone else can add up and indeed cause some sort of contenssion and is why the act is illegal. Because, much like pot, if put in the wrong hands, can cause serious repercussions.

While it is free and over the air, some is still paying. If the person is not doing it themselves, then it's not their copy and like mentioned. You can not give someone else a copy of someone's copyrighted material. Simple as that.

RoboDad

Of course I see the difference. That's why I pointed out the difference several post back in this thread.

Jackskeleton

OK THEN. SO WHY ARE WE STILL GOING ON WITH THIS DISCUSSION?

RoboDad

Perhaps because, even though there is a clear difference, you keep trying to equate the two actions, and you keep falling back on the "it's illegal because it's illegal, simple as that" argument.

Jackskeleton

And you keep saying "why" which the answer to it is "because it's illegal". Ask the question better and perhaps you'll get a different answer.

You want to question all the stupid laws in our society? How much time do you got? Some are far more dumber than others. But the fact remains that at some given point, the laws were erected because of the current situation in our world.

At the time with Video Recording that brought us these fair use and time shifting laws we had VCR's come about. Studios wanted to protect their copy righted material and sony wanted to sell video tapes. Court cases resulted that we can time shift for ourselves. But to make sure you weren't stepping on the distribution and grey area there, they made it so that you had to copy it yourself. It comes down to that. A deal was struck that was fair fall all parties. Well, as fair as possible.


Feel like these laws need updating? with growing technology of course that's a given. But it still doesn't change the fact that if you TiVo something and then burn it on DVD, you can't make a copy of it for your friend. That would be again be distributing. Your personal copy has to always remain personal. So even with updated laws, it's still there to protect the copyright holders.

Dead

Personal attacks are against forum rules, please avoid posts like this in the future.

Dead

And, responses like this don't help the situation either.