Is this Piracy?
 

I realize first that this IS piracy but lately a friend of mine (and no its not me) has done a bit of bit torrent stuff. Now niether one of us is big on piracy and our entire DVD collections are real stuff we bought with one exception. Stuff that is either A: not yet available on DVD or B: stuff that will most likely NOT be available on DVD. Stuff I am talking about mostly is TV shows. Recently he was able to find a very old show I rememebered from my childhood that someone apparently had VHS transfered to DVD. Both of us will gladly toss the stuff as soon as the DVD sets arrive on shelfs but in the meantime we have it. As far as movies go, if you have already seen it in the movies as many times as you will and DO NOT give it to anyone and again will gladly toss it as soon as the DVD comes out is this bad. The way we look at it we already put as much money into it as we can possibly and its just a way to check something out in the meantime. Neither of us are big advocates of pirate stuff but we all know that sometimes studios wont give us everything we want. Case in point why Warner Bros has to release all these best of volumes before they release season sets is beyond me. They would have already had my money with The Batman if they had released a season set instead of volumes! Finally although I enjoy being able to view some of this stuff I will never put any bit torrent programs on any of my PC's and have gladly transfered to legit music sites such as Music Match for songs I want. $1 for a song is ok in my book.

Do you really need to ask? You already know the answer. Tell us yourself whatever you like if it helps you sleep at night.

DJ

Well that's pretty much the same thing as having TV shows from television on a VHS tape. That's not illegal really. And taping shows off of television for your own personal collection I think is alright as well. All that was done here was probably having commercials removed, and then transferred to DVD. If there's laws against doing that, then I don't see the problem. But you never know. Some company may see potential in eventually releasing this on DVD and may be all bothered that distribution of the shows episodes may conflict with their sales. Some people buy the DVD for the collection, some don't. It's always a gamble. As long as you're not distributing this amongst people freely after you make the burned copies, as long as you're not selling it, I don't see what the difference is between having that, and having old VHS tapes. It may not be the 'official' answer you're looking for but that's just my take on it.

Yarrr...you be havin' a steering wheel in yer pants.

That is pretty much what it is I guess, the shows that I have and mind you we are really only talking two or three I will GLADLY but in season sets when they come out much like I did replace all those old VHS tapes. Movies are really a non issue since I have so much on DVD not yet watched that I dont care to even have them. Plus I dont think I have ever watched a copied or pirated movie beginning to end ever becuase quality means alot to me.

Yes I know the easy answer as I stated in my first post, my only question was if its temporary is it really bad. And NO I do not copy or sell or even let anyone borrow anything I have (which sometimes gets people really mad at me), becuase I cant knowingly let someone borrow a movie which will then stop them from going to the theater to see it. I guess people do the same with DVD's, someone has a DVD and they let someone else borrow it for free and then they dont go to the video store to rent it.

You belong in jail.

Thats the biggest crock of shit..He belongs in Jail? what did he do..kill someone? Rape some one? Im glad you have never done anything bad in your life.

No... he's.. raping the studios! :rolleyes:


I'd agree that this isn't much different than copying a show to VHS. Only, better quality. Only downside, as was mentioned, is the studios becoming perturbed by the torrents being out there. But who knows, maybe they see it as potential sales. Sadly, in my case, some of the shows I really want on DVD just aren't available online anyway (Action comes to mind. So does Bakersfield PD. Many others)

Recording onto VHS [or even DVD] from television broadcasts, for personal use, is legal, and has been found such.
Mass transferring copyrighted material, through a venue it was not meant to travel [ie P2P], and making multiple copies of that material, is illegal and technically piracy and probably copyright violation.
It can be argued that 'they' will NEVER release an official dvd release for stuff that millions of people already have via Bittorrent or whatever, because the target market already has it.
Lending a dvd is entirely different. So is reselling or trading. That media is yours, you bought one copy of it, as long as you don't copy it, allow it to be copied, or profit off of it, you can do to an extent whatever you want with it.

Well chances are if it's an old show from his childhood, somebody has taken VHS rips and put them on DVD. That's not enhancing quality, it's just changing format for conveniance, also it's not a bad way to guarantee that you get to keep that show around a lot longer than your VHS tape would.

All very true. Makes me wish I took more care with my VHS recording/labeling. I was referencing new shows that can be directly digitized, though I suppose if you take a digital version and a VHS to compare 5 years down the line, the quality would indeed be better.

wow, finally a thread I started get attention.

Well technically I am not raping anyone and I hope this is not why I belong in jail.

And let me be clear, I am not bit torrenting anything. I am simply being given something that is not available. NOTHING and I mean NOTHING I have (which isnt alot) is available (yet). And since I am VERY willing to dump what I have upon "official" release I am not taking money away.

I am simply taking advantage of something available to me right now. Short of sitting at home and HOPING The studio will release something. I dont send them money to support maybe they will do it.

I have already been burned twice at least. NYPD Blue after season 2 was abandoned, now this isnt something I will bit torrent or anything but what do you do when a studio says the hell with it and you still want more. Also GI JOE I have season 2 part 1, and will probably never see part 2, is that fair? Thats at least $150 I spent for an incomplette set!

What about all this talk of double dips/ triple dips, is that fair to the consumer? I think its the studios that are raping us.

I said it above. I think the music industry finally got it right. They stopped complainign and started acting. $1 for songs on legit sites, dual CD/ DVD and CD's that come with DVD's as extras. Now I dont buy alot of music but when I do, thats where my money goes. No more CD coping or Napster type downloading. Plus I like that much more becuase it keeps my music on my media center sortable.

Hell if there was a site to download shows thay may not have enough demand for mass distribution that would be cool!

I second that. I'd pay too. The studios who made these shows and have troubles getting them out on DVD should consider something like this. With a rabid enough fanbase on some shows they could probably pull in some profit.

(and, incidentally, I was kidding when I said you were raping the studios :P)

Zenigata, I see that now as I reread your post.

My show by the way is "Misfits of Science" and it was copied long ago and even has some of that TV broadcast flair (in the first episode the score of the Oakland/ KC game pops up).

Young Courtney Cox FTW!!!!

The record or dvd release companies aren't "raping" ANYONE. Last I heard, "rape" implied force. No one is FORCING anyone to buy double or triple dips, hell, even the initial release. I certainly think they could improve their business, and make much better use of current technologies, but it's their right to run their business and handle their IP how they want [legally and within contracts of course].

If you had a taped episode of Great Space Coaster from twenty years ago, and watched it, that's fine. If you converted that VHS to DVD, then destroyed the VHS, and kept the DVD, I'm not sure where that legally stands, but I don't see anything wrong with it. Copying the VHS to DVD, then copying the DVD for a friend or posting it for download, unless the content is now in 'public domain', technically is piracy. Obviously burning one copy for a friend is different in quantity from having Torrentors leech it from you, but it's still piracy.

If someone else 'owns' the content, and they decide not to release it, you're not getting 'burned.' You aren't owed nor are you entitled to that content in any way.

I think this was a joke.... :rolleyes:

I think Mojo should taser him.

But I don't want to be a pirate!
http://www.npr.org/movies/images/puffy200.jpg

This is one of those philosophical questions that has always puzzled and frustrated me. How can anyone with any semblance of intelligence consider it piracy when a program that was brodacast over public airways is shared in a not-for-profit setting with other people who also had access to the same publica airways? Maybe if I use my favorite example, someone can help me understand how this constitutes piracy...

Scenario A:

Bob and Jim both own DVD recorders. The latest episode of their favorite program is shown on Thursday evening, and both men record it onto DVDs and add it to their collections. On Friday, as they usually do, they discuss the previous night's episode.

NO CRIME COMMITTED

Scenario B:

Bob and Jim both own DVD recorders. The latest episode of their favorite program is shown on Thursday evening, and Bob is able to record it to DVD, but in Jim's neighborhood the cable is out, so he is unable to record it. During their Friday lunch conversation, Jim mentions this, to which Bob replies, "No problem! I got it on DVD, so we'll just make you a copy of mine." They do this, and the result is that both now have the episode added to their collections.

BOB AND JIM ARE NOW "PIRATES"

Someone, anyone, please explain why this is the case.

Because having your cable go out doesn't give you an entitlement to make copies of copyrighted material without permission. Tough luck.

DJ

So that makes it ok? :hscratch:

Do you produce anything in your line of work that could be stolen? How would you feel?

Thanks for completely not answering my question. Let me put it more bluntly for you. How does scenario B "steal" anything from the studio that scenario A does not?

Recording it in the first place is "making a copy". There's no difference. Tough luck yourself.

It's about distribution. You can't distribute something you dont own the copyrights to. While you can copy something you don't own the rights to for your own use. The moment you distribute it to someone else, it's stepping on toes and going stepping outside of the fair use rights you have for recording the copy righted material.

You have a right to make a personal copy, but only the copy right owners have the rights to distribute the material in the manner they feel in doing so.

Example A has no distribution going on. each person records their own. Example B has someone distributing something that isn't in there rights to distribute.

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.

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.

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

:confused:

What type of comments am I throwing around, exactly?

DJ

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

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

DJ

"Tough luck."

"Try again."

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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?