(Close Window)
Topic: Is this legal???
Message: Posted by: Dirko (Apr 3, 2005 03:42PM)
Can I make a dvd copy of my card magic tapes now that I have a dvd recorder. Is this lega? I am only making a copy for me.
Message: Posted by: GKurtz (Apr 3, 2005 03:44PM)
If you have the dvd already, why are you making a copy for you? And no it is not legal.
Message: Posted by: Ross W (Apr 3, 2005 03:47PM)
Dirko: I sincerely hope - for your sake - you are simply wondering about this, and are not genuinely worried that you may be breaking the law...:)
Message: Posted by: ziatro (Apr 3, 2005 03:50PM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-03 16:44, GKurtz wrote:
If you have the dvd already, why are you making a copy for you? and no it is not legal
[/quote]


If you read the post properly, he is just transferring it from tape to dvd.
I'm no expert, but surely if you are transferring one of your own video tapes, on to what is a more compact medium, and it is purely for your own consumption, I really can't see the problem.
Message: Posted by: Dirko (Apr 3, 2005 03:52PM)
You are correct I am going from tape to dvd. I am not worrying I was just wondering what other people thought about this.
Message: Posted by: migwar (Apr 3, 2005 03:54PM)
Last time I looked legitimate back up copies are perfectly legal, sounds like a good idea, if a few years time VCRs will be rare and dvd back ups will be a god send
Message: Posted by: jstone (Apr 3, 2005 03:56PM)
Actually, the copyright law states that you cannot copy it period, not for your own use or any thing else.
Message: Posted by: Dirko (Apr 3, 2005 03:59PM)
I have heard many people say that they buy a dvd to replace their tape. I thought why not just copy my own. But yes I am only doing this for MY USE!!!! With today's technology you can even make your own menu. Very convienant and a great way to ensure that my tapes will stay with me as technology changes.
Message: Posted by: ziatro (Apr 3, 2005 04:00PM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-03 16:56, jstone wrote:
Actually, the copyright law states that you cannot copy it period, not for your own use or any thing else.
[/quote]


Perhaps U.S. copyright laws differ from the U.K. ones. Anyone out there know?
Message: Posted by: Dirko (Apr 3, 2005 04:01PM)
See this is why I asked. I thought some might think this was illegal.
Message: Posted by: Niko (Apr 3, 2005 04:08PM)
If you're doing it for yourself, then who cares!

I'd have said of course you can as long as you're not selling or giving it on to anyone else, but if they say that's not true then I don't know. But I really don't think you should care if it's just for your own use.

Just go ahead and do it! :)
Message: Posted by: GKurtz (Apr 3, 2005 04:09PM)
Sorry I mis-read the post, though it is still illegal, though I'm saying you should do it, if you were going to do it, you shouldn't have asked if you can do something which is illegal, you should have just done it, but it's not right to.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 3, 2005 04:09PM)
It's only a crime if you get caught.

And it costs money to prosecute.
Message: Posted by: migwar (Apr 3, 2005 04:11PM)
Yeah it seems US copyright law doesn't make provision for back ups, but European law does.
Message: Posted by: Craig Ousterling (Apr 3, 2005 04:16PM)
Dirk, no this is not legal. The copyright statements at the begining of the videos very simply state you can NOT make ANY copies for WHATEVER reason. I know it's somewhat lame in that it prevents you from making a backup (legally) and believe me... I have a ton of VHS tapes bought 10 to 15 years ago and paid STUPID amounts of money for them. (We're talking when VHS tapes of Tannen's Stars of Magic series cost upwards of a hundred bucks a piece)

But the bottom line is simply this- the Magic police aren't coming to your house looking for you if you don't say anything about ... er what were we talking about?!? I can't remember?

~Craig
Message: Posted by: Dirko (Apr 3, 2005 04:24PM)
When they were advertising a dvd recorder on the home shopping channel they were also advertising a box called godvd that allows the user to get around copyright protection. Some dvd recorders will not allow you to record a copyrighted product. With godvd you can record ANY copyrighted product. Now the guy on the home shopping channel said "This is a great way to make back up copies for yourself!. Make sure you only make them for the videoes that you have purchased!. I know that the godvd box is legal because I saw them at BESTBUY! The clerk told me that these were made available around Xmas time then they were told to pull them from the shelves and they just got the Aok to start selling them again. So if this box is legal then how can making a backup copy be illegal? Again I am not worring I was just wondering what all of you thought and new anbout this topic. Thanks for all your help!
Message: Posted by: guten tag (Apr 3, 2005 04:28PM)
I, for one, shall be reporting you.

Which tape was it please?
Message: Posted by: Craig Ousterling (Apr 3, 2005 04:34PM)
Guten tag... if you say it more sarcastically it'll be funnier.
Message: Posted by: Dirko (Apr 3, 2005 04:34PM)
I agree Ghost!
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 3, 2005 05:00PM)
On the other side of this... I've been told it's easier to rip a DVD than to digitize the contents of a video tape. Also that most videos get hosted as avi files if they are any good. It really comes down to YOUR OWN CHOICES.
Message: Posted by: Steve Dela (Apr 3, 2005 05:01PM)
Very different in the UK.
I believe you can make coppies for personal use and as back ups.

In Magic
Steve Dela
Message: Posted by: jstone (Apr 3, 2005 05:04PM)
If you bought any of your VHS from L&L, they have a deal where they give you a discount on the DVD equivelant. All you have to do is scan or photocopy the vhs case and send it to them. You can then get the DVD for $20.

That's what I'll be doing with most of mine. THen I'll sell the VHS on eBay. So hopefully I'll come close to breaking even and not breaking laws (pun fully intended).
Message: Posted by: Daegs (Apr 3, 2005 05:25PM)
God..... Wow.... lot of mis-information being given out.

If you buy something that has a copyright on it, you are allowed to make a backup of that material in case the original is destroyed.

[quote]Section 117 authorizes "the making of another copy . . . for archival purposes only . . ." Section 117 also advises that "all archival copies" should be destroyed if possession of the original ceases to be rightful. [/quote]

This phrasing makes it clear that there could be more than one archival copy around.

SO:

You are *legally* allowed to backup your Video to DVD under fair use.

Personally I feel you could then just watch the DVD and keep the video for backup purposes, however because of the wording that might not be exactly what the law intended for.


So, if you want to follow the law exactly, make a video copy and a dvd copy, then burn the original.

You are then allowed to use the DVD archival copy in the same way as the original, and the tape would then become your archival copy.
Message: Posted by: Doomo (Apr 3, 2005 05:30PM)
Who let the Daegs out! You beat me to it!
Message: Posted by: Bizarrist (Apr 3, 2005 06:05PM)
Ingenious. This thread just keeps getting better.

My take on the whole thing falls right in line with Daegs quotes of Section 117 of the US Copyright law. I mean after all I make backup/archival copies of my DVD's with software I purchased legally to do it, DVD XCopy Platinum. It works great and asks you before the copy process if the DVD is borrowed or rented. Answering NO to this question will allow you to make the copy. The whole thing is really based on ethics and honor.

Jstone's comments about L&L's deal sounds pretty good. After you go out and spend the cash for the equipment and software to make a dvd from vhs tape, not counting the endless hours of your time to do it, you can just about replace your whole vhs tape collection cheaper and with a WHOLE lot less aggravation. And of course despite what you do the quality will always be better. And ofcourse it supports the performers and producers of these products.

I only have a problem with the whole thing when Section 117 is not adhered to. The lure of buying cheap vhs tapes and making a dvd copy then selling the vhs tape here or perhaps on ebay and keeping your secret magic "bootleg" dvd's for your personal study could be fairly strong.

At the end of the day...Let your conscience be your guide, grasshopper.

S.W.
Message: Posted by: MagicT (Apr 3, 2005 06:42PM)
Just do it and see what happens, geez...




Trini
Message: Posted by: Jaz (Apr 3, 2005 06:53PM)
Trini,
You just beat me to it.

Close the blinds, turn off the lights, lock the doors and
JUST DO IT!!
Message: Posted by: NJJ (Apr 3, 2005 06:55PM)
You have to take into account a variety of factors

1) Where was the original made?
2) Where was the original purchased?
3) What will you do with the copy?
4) What will you do with the original

UK Copyright laws says it is illegal to make a copies of materials unless

* Private and research study purposes.
* Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
* Criticism and news reporting.
* Incidental inclusion.
* Copies and lending by librarians.
* Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
* Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as time shifting.
* Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
* Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.

However, all of this only applies to items under UK copyright.

If you buy a US tape from the UK then the warning at the start of the video becomes irrelevant as you are no longer under US law. However, if you were to copy hundreds of videos and sell them then the FBI would certainly enlist the help of the British Government in bringing you to justice.

At the end of the day, it MIGHT be against the law but who really cares. Can you imagine L&L publishing hunting down some guy in the UK because he transfered his videos to DVD? Of course not!
Message: Posted by: Yiannis (Apr 3, 2005 07:15PM)
You guys, are still buying?
Message: Posted by: Joey Stalin (Apr 3, 2005 07:57PM)
Cause you know... "they" are watching you all the time. All the time! *shifty eyes*
Message: Posted by: jstone (Apr 3, 2005 09:21PM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-03 19:53, Jaz wrote:
Trini,
You just beat me to it.

Close the blinds, turn off the lights, lock the doors and
JUST DO IT!!
[/quote]

Yeah, just do it. Don't think about the Consequences. Who cares about ethics; Don't worry about trying to do the right thing; who gives a crap about morals any way. While your at it, pull some slieght of hand on the cashier at the grocery store and pay less for your groceries.

It's only a crime if you get caught. Who cares about the guy who worked his butt off to create the material and share it with his fellow magicians at a measley $30 for the price of the vhs.

Just do it. Who cares about your integrity; just do it; stopping for a moment to think about if you're doing the right thing is stupid.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I can't believe you guys. Frankly I applaud Dirko for asking the question. Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it is not illegal and that copyright laws allow you to make copies and even sell them. At least Dirko had the decency to ask the question before he did it.

Most of you responded by making fun of him for even asking. I think that's sad. He was doing a good thing by trying to protect the interest of those who created the videos, and rather than simply answering his question, many of your just basically told him (in not so many words) that he was stupid for asking, and that he should do it regardless of the laws or ethics.

To be fair, however, some of you did answer it more honorably, as was pointed out by Daegs, I was wrong about what the law was. I stand corrected on that. And at least Daegs didn't tell Dirko to ignore his concern about the ethics of the decision.

I think that Daegs's answer is what Dirko was looking for. He just wanted to know if it was legal; Daegs researched it and answered it without telling Dirko he should just ignore his conscience.

Anyway, I'll stop ranting, and this post probably sounds a lot angrier than I meant it to, so I apologize if that's the case.
Message: Posted by: Nick23 (Apr 3, 2005 09:42PM)
[quote]
Yeah, just do it. Don't think about the Consequences. Who cares about ethics; Don't worry about trying to do the right thing; who gives a crap about morals any way.
[/quote]

When it just comes down to morals and ethics, if your opinion differs from his, you opinion is no more right than his.

[quote]
While your at it, pull some slieght of hand on the cashier at the grocery store and pay less for your groceries.
[/quote]

No, this is completely different. He has already paid for the video, he isn't stealing it.

People always get so up tight on here. Almost every thread turns into a flame war as soon as someone disagrees with something you say. RELAX PEOPLE!
Message: Posted by: another guest (Apr 3, 2005 10:05PM)
There have been a heated debate in TechTV already about this topic. They say if you buy the tape, it is yours and you can do anything about it.
Message: Posted by: jstone (Apr 3, 2005 10:56PM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-03 22:42, Nick23 wrote:
When it just comes down to morals and ethics, if your opinion differs from his, you opinion is no more right than his.
[/quote]

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. In fact, you're actually supporting my point. Clearly other people had a different opinion from Dirko's, but they still chose to "make fun" of him for asking the question. I don't care if Dirko copies the videos or not... that's his call, not mine, but he was asking a question of ethics, and rather than answers, he got people telling him not to worry about ethics.
Message: Posted by: Craig Ousterling (Apr 3, 2005 11:00PM)
BTW: 3..2..1.. studios lost the war with the entertainment industry. Xcopy (exprss and platinum) are no longer legally sold. For those who are unhappy about this fact- check out *COUGHCOUGHDVDSHRINKCOUGHCOUGH* whoa... excuse me... time for more halls with menthal. I think they're on version 3.2 now?

And there is a BIG difference between copying a VHS tape for a "backup"and dumping it into your computer for creating a DVD and adding chapters so it would be easier to navigate through instead of a clunky old VCR with just PLAY REWIND and FAST FORWARD.

~Craig
Message: Posted by: jstone (Apr 3, 2005 11:08PM)
[quote]
jstone said:
While your at it, pull some slieght of hand on the cashier at the grocery store and pay less for your groceries.

Nick32 said:
No, this is completely different. He has already paid for the video, he isn't stealing it.

People always get so up tight on here. Almost every thread turns into a flame war as soon as someone disagrees with something you say. RELAX PEOPLE!
[/quote]

If it were illegal to copy the videos, then my grocery store analogy isn't different. They would both be illegal. As it turns out, it's not illegal to copy for personal archives, as I said earlier, I stand corrected. My concern wasn't about what's right or what's wrong, but rather, it was about someone who had a legitimate concern, but people, rather than helping answer is question, told him (in not so many words) that he shouldn't have even asked the question.

As far as the flame war goes, I tried to be fair by mentioning both the people who poked fun at Dirko and those who were legitimately trying to help. I also apologized in advance for sounding angry.

I again apologize. I'm not trying to start a war. I agree with you NICK32, that if someone has a different opinion that it's ok. I often have people tell me that I'm ridiculous because I follow the speed limit. I have never imposed my desire to follow the speed limit on anyone else, yet I'm constantly having the idea of breaking the speed limit imposed on me.

Same goes with Dirko's question. He asked a valid question (at least it was valid to him, and maybe a few others). He wasn't imposing his "belief" about copyright laws on anyone else, yet he recieved comments like:

Dirko: I sincerely hope - for your sake - you are simply wondering about this, and are not genuinely worried that you may be breaking the law... - by Ross Welford

If you're doing it for yourself, then who cares! - by Niko (obviously Dirko cares)

It's only a crime if you get caught. - by Jonathan Townsend

Just do it and see what happens, geez... - by MagicT

Anyway, Maybe I read more into those comments than was really intended. If so, please accept my humble apologies. I'm not trying to force anything on anyone, and I honestly have no problem with people disagreeing with me. I was just standing up for Dirko's sincere concern about the ethics involved in the magic community. Again, I applaud him for asking the question.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Apr 4, 2005 12:02AM)
Just so the moral relativists don't run away with the entire election, for what it's worth, I disagree with both of you. While one's moral intuition or intellectual acuity may fail to guide one to the correct moral position, that position nonetheless exists. The law of the excluded middle (binary propositions are either true or false; not both, and not neither) applies to moral questions as well. If two people believe incompatible things about a moral premise, then one of them is wrong.


[quote]
On 2005-04-03 23:56, jstone wrote:
[quote]
On 2005-04-03 22:42, Nick23 wrote:
When it just comes down to morals and ethics, if your opinion differs from his, you opinion is no more right than his.
[/quote]

Believe it or not, I actually agree with you. In fact, you're actually supporting my point. Clearly other people had a different opinion from Dirko's, but they still chose to "make fun" of him for asking the question. I don't care if Dirko copies the videos or not... that's his call, not mine, but he was asking a question of ethics, and rather than answers, he got people telling him not to worry about ethics.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: NealCoffey (Apr 4, 2005 12:10AM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-03 18:25, Daegs wrote:
God..... Wow.... lot of mis-information being given out.

If you buy something that has a copyright on it, you are allowed to make a backup of that material in case the original is destroyed.

[quote]Section 117 authorizes "the making of another copy . . . for archival purposes only . . ." Section 117 also advises that "all archival copies" should be destroyed if possession of the original ceases to be rightful. [/quote][/quote]

Very nice creative editing, Daegs. Your ellipses leave out quite a bit of important information, though. Emphasis mine in the following quote:

[quote]... it is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a [b]computer program[/b] to make or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation [b]of that computer program[/b] provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession of the computer program should cease to be rightful.[/quote]

So you see, that section of copyright law refers exclusively to computer programs, which a VHS tape is not.

However, if you are copying a VHS tape to DVD for your own personal, private use, and are retaining your copy of the original VHS tape, I fail to see any moral problem in making such a copy, regardless of its legality.

Remember, what's right/moral isn't always legal (and what's legal isn't always right/moral), but that's a topic for another message board.
Message: Posted by: Pants99 (Apr 4, 2005 12:10AM)
"Satan made me do it" -Always works for me!!! Hell, it's even worked for some murderers!!!
Message: Posted by: Daegs (Apr 4, 2005 12:59AM)
Ok... Don't get me off on a rant here, but let's delve into a little more the actual spirit of the copyright.

I do want to mention I am not a lawyer and that you cannot and should not use any advice here other than the quoted US code to make any legal decisions.(this is what you call a disclaimer... but I won't steer you wrong :) )

All copyright law is only ment to apply to how your actions affect the market and whether there is any finacial gain to yourself by your actions.

In simple terms, once you buy something you can do anything you want to it as long as you don't show, give, or make availible to anyone else.

You can edit something, make 200000 copies, and do whatever you want with it and it will all be perfectly LEGAL as the owner of that particular copy of the copyrighted material.

Legallity only comes into it when you show, sell or give away the material or ownership.

If you sell your ownership of a particular copy of a copyrighted material, you must destroy all copies, because since you aren't the owner all those copies are now illegal.

But as long as you remain owner of the legal copy of the material(what you bought), you can do whatever you want with it.

First off, my quote *was* incorrect but simply quoted because while it is from the section on computer, but the same basic properties hold true for all copyrighted works(only not stated implicitly for other types, making *private* copies is perfectly legal)

Here is a quote about fair use in regards to ALL types of copyrighted material:

[quote]In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include—
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors. [/quote]

You should note 1+4. Because it is for non-profit, and the purpose and character come into it, you have no problems... and the 4th is no issue because you won't affect the market AT ALL by your actions.


Here is the criminal US code in dealing with copyrights:

[quote](a) Criminal Infringement.— Any person who infringes a copyright willfully either—
(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, [/quote]

Now first off, I want to state again that copying a video from VHS to DVD for your private personal use isn't even a infringement of someone else's copyright.

However, if it was, you still would not be criminally liable because it is not for a purpose of finacial gain or commercial advantage. And you haven't reproduced or distrubuted the material at all.



The main point is that copyright law only comes into effect once you distrubute, lend, give or sell the copyrighted works to another person.

So while "what you do in your own home is your buisness" may not sound like good legal device, in the case of copyright law it is dead on.

As long as you aren't distruting any of the copyrighted works and your actions don't affect the market, you are NOT doing anything illegal.

You can read the copyright law if you want, and you should come to the same conclusion.
Message: Posted by: MagicT (Apr 4, 2005 01:19AM)
Just do it. Nike made more money, just doing it, than anyone making dvd's videos, etc.

Trini
Message: Posted by: JuanTheMan (Apr 4, 2005 03:08AM)
Interesting thread.

The majority of the comments relate to the US, but is there a Section 117 equivalent in other countries, UK, France, Germany, Canada etc.?

Another question relates to the fact that a DVD version may not have been produced. I have a number of VHS tapes which haven't been converted to DVD format. My VHS player is coming towards the end of it's life and I don't want to have to buy a new one just to play these tapes. IF it's legal (and morally acceptable), I'd like to make one copy of the tapes onto DVD for MY personal use. I realise that it wouldn't be acceptable to copy the tapes for gain.

Surely if the manufacturer of the tape has no intention (at this stage) of converting it to DVD, it will become obsolete when VHS players are eventually superseded by DVD players in the home environment?
Message: Posted by: Daegs (Apr 4, 2005 03:40AM)
In general, the spirit of copyright is there to protect creators.

Also, in general, what you do with your legally owned property is your buisness as long as you aren't selling/showing/giving/distrubting it to other people and aren't in any way damaging the market.

Here are some intresting questions:

If you go to borders and buy a book, should you be allowed to rip a page out of it?

Write a note inside the book? Black out words?

Burn it?

Scan the book into your computer, put annotations(notes) in specific places and print it out back into a book, for your own personal use?

Should you be able to read your book into an audio tape and play it in your car?


As I said, the reason for copyright law is to protect creators(and to an extent, consumers by providing protection from being proscecuted).... what you do with your legally purchased copy of that work in your own home is your own buisness and copyright law doesn't apply.
Message: Posted by: Phaedrus (Apr 4, 2005 08:10AM)
Just to put my two cents in: the issue hasn't been fully worked out in the courts yet.

Intellectual property protections are still very much a work in progress, not in the sense that there are no laws, but that there is a difference in opinion as to how those laws should be interpreted. For example, in the case of audio CDs, the record companies want to claim that when you buy a CD, the only thing that you actually own is the plastic; the music that is found on the CD still belongs to the record company, and you can't do anything with it, including copying it. Obviously, this flies in the face of common sense, at least from the perspective of the consumer, and in general the courts have tended to interpret existing laws to favor the idea that consumers own that specific instance of the music.

The problem that we are facing nowadays is that digital information has allowed consumers to make copies of the work that are exact duplicates of the original. This wasn't a problem in the past, because even with the introduction of the cassette tape, the general concensus was that a taped copy was inferior to the vinyl original (and it's worth noting that record companies were deadset against tape recorders at the time, and forecast the imminent doom of the recording industry; the truth was that most people bought the original and made tapes for their cars and personal stereos). Now, it's a simple matter to make exact duplicates of digital files, and share them with a large number of people, a fact which has created new legal problems, and regulations which are still being worked out.

The best interpretation of current intellectual property law is that you have the right to make as many copies of a given work as you want for your own personal use, but as soon as you share or sell a copy of that work, you have broken copyright protection, and therefore the law (keep in mind that this is merely the current general interpretation of the law; there are people who disagree with it, and are working to make it illegal for any kind of copying). That's why Napster was illegal, but downloading a song from iTunes is not: in the former case, the file sharing was an illegal copy of a copyrighted work, while in the latter you are in effect buying a license for the use of a particular work.

In the case of the poster who started this thread, the legal and ethical issues are pretty straightforward: he has the right to do whatever he wants with the work that he legally purchased, including copying it to other media (again, note that this is the likely interpretation the courts would make; there are companies who would want to make this actionable, although the chances of them winning any actual damages are small enough that it really wouldn't be worth their while to pursue it). However, if he ever then wanted to sell the original tape, he would be obligated to also destroy any copies he had made (the idea being that since he no longer owns the original, he has no right to the copies: you can't get something for nothing). Likewise, he can't sell or share the copies to anyone who doesn't own the original.

I've noticed that people on this forum are quick to jump on the "morality" bandwagon whenever the issue of copyright comes up, and start pointing fingers at people who are merely exercising their rights to do what they want with their own property. I think it would be helpful for people on both sides to do a little research about the issue before accusing anyone of unethical or immoral behavior. If the courts still haven't completely worked out the issues involved, how can a bunch of magicians think the issue is so black and white?
Message: Posted by: Jeff Hinchliffe (Apr 4, 2005 12:13PM)
And I wonder why women think magicians are losers... haha
Message: Posted by: Doomo (Apr 4, 2005 12:19PM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-04 13:13, Jeff Hinchliffe wrote:
And I wonder why women think magicians are losers... haha
[/quote]

I got news for ya... It aint just women...
Message: Posted by: kearen (Apr 4, 2005 12:51PM)
Issit considered illegal duplication? Piracy...
Message: Posted by: KidCrenshaw (Apr 4, 2005 12:57PM)
In plain English, what the truth is, is this:

If you OWN something, no matter what it might be, you can duplicate it for your own personal use and for backup purposes.

If you OWNED it, the law states that any backup or duplicate should be destroyed, or sold with the original.

Backing up your files, be it on the PC, disc, or VHS format, is not only legal, but encouraged by all who market and produce them.
Message: Posted by: blendobag2 (Apr 4, 2005 01:47PM)
If its an L&L video, who cares if its copied?
Message: Posted by: brokin6 (Apr 4, 2005 05:54PM)
Dirko, I had this same dillema a while ago and I was feeling kinda guilty about coying my video to tape. It was actually a disc with real player files on it but I wanted to be able to wach it at my leisure and not on a p.c. What I did was contact the creator and ask him if it was ok for me to do it and he sais it was fine as long as it was only for me. Very nice of him since his permission could have not been granted but either way someone posted about the "archive" law and it is true. I think it is commendable that you ask about it before you do it. If you can get in touch with the creator or vendor and explain I think that is great. If not, you can still do it in good conscience knowing that it is legal.
Message: Posted by: Bizarrist (Apr 4, 2005 06:03PM)
Yawn, I'm bored with all this *itching,

Scratch yourselves, grab you deck and
go practice some other moves.

Peach Out,

S.W.
Message: Posted by: MWG_T_H_O_M_A_S (Apr 4, 2005 06:08PM)
I'm fairly sure its legal to make a back up of anything as long as you don't sell it or redistribute it in anyway, just keep it for personal use to avoid your original getting damaged etc.

Saying that, I also think its ilegal to go around the copy right protection of something which makes it kinda hard to copy lol, so assuming you don't do that I think its ok.

Least this was what I last heard with UK laws.

don't go by what I say tho :)

Tom
Message: Posted by: kxxcheng (Apr 4, 2005 06:15PM)
A few examples of dumb laws in the state of Texas:
It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel.
The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a formula for making beer at home.

Some laws were just not meant to be followed. Strict copyright laws are one of them.
Burn it already. I find it very strange that you're asking for permission for something like this. Even if it is illegal, it's such a minor offence that no one will bother to prosecute you.
Message: Posted by: revlovejoy (Apr 4, 2005 08:54PM)
I'm really not trying to step into a flame war, I had one of those within my first month here already, but I have a question for Jeff Stone. Jeff, you've said a couple differing things here. On one hand, you make a case for Dirko's valid concern for ethics. And you made that case well. But previously, you posted this:

"If you bought any of your VHS from L&L, they have a deal where they give you a discount on the DVD equivelant. All you have to do is scan or photocopy the vhs case and send it to them. You can then get the DVD for $20.

That's what I'll be doing with most of mine. THen I'll sell the VHS on eBay. So hopefully I'll come close to breaking even and not breaking laws (pun fully intended)."

Now, aside from the copy-as-backup, don't you think this certainly is a questionably ethical practice? Isn't the discount on the DVD based on the premise that as an owner of the VHS, you have purchased the rights, but need only to upgrade the format? In this case, re-selling the tape after you get your deal on the DVD seems sketchy to me. The single act of reselling the tape and not keeping a backup would be another matter, and I believe, legal and ethical. But if you take advantage of the reduced-price upgrade, then sell, you've had your cake and eaten it too, I think.
Message: Posted by: jstone (Apr 5, 2005 12:11AM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-04 21:54, revlovejoy wrote:
Now, aside from the copy-as-backup, don't you think this certainly is a questionably ethical practice? Isn't the discount on the DVD based on the premise that as an owner of the VHS, you have purchased the rights, but need only to upgrade the format? In this case, re-selling the tape after you get your deal on the DVD seems sketchy to me. The single act of reselling the tape and not keeping a backup would be another matter, and I believe, legal and ethical. But if you take advantage of the reduced-price upgrade, then sell, you've had your cake and eaten it too, I think.
[/quote]

revlovejoy,

First of all, let me thank you for being reasonable about this, for taking the higher road, and for asking a legitimate question rather than poking fun at someone's beliefs or questions.

You make a good point. I hadn't even thought of that. I'm going to ask L&L what the policy is on that. If they say that it's inappropriate, then I will not sell 'em on eBay. However, if they do say that it's appropriate, my assumption is that it is ok since they own the copyright.

Again, thanks for the question; I hadn't thought of that.

Jeff
Message: Posted by: jonesc2ii (Apr 5, 2005 01:30PM)
Can I just complicate the issue further? Is that OK?

If I spend £20 on a gaffed card, I'm always being told that what I'm paying for is not just the gaffed card but the knowledge, the thinking behind it. That's fine. But for various reasons I don't use poker sized Bikes. So having bought the gaff, having paid for the knowledge, if I then make up my own gaff to fit into my own deck, is that theft? If I don't sell the original product on, if I keep it but never use it, is that morally reprehensible? I think not and I think the same applies here. If you have bought and paid for your tapes there is no reason why you shouldn't make copies of it so long as you don't profit from it. I don't know about US law and I suspect that it is slightly different here in the UK. But morally it is the same everywhere, if you own the right to watch the tape, you own the right to copy it to your hard drive, to a CD or to a DVD so long as it is entirely for your own use.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Apr 5, 2005 02:40PM)
[quote]On 2005-04-04 01:02, LobowolfXXX wrote:...The law of the excluded middle (binary propositions are either true or false; not both, and not neither) applies to moral questions as well. If two people believe incompatible things about a moral premise, then one of them is wrong...[/quote]

Reality is not so simple, nor is our moral environment so well defined as to make a purely mathematical argument.

Right and wrong are not the same as true/false. What is right for one, say breathing in water for a fish, is not right for a human, was we tend to prefer air. Moral right and wrong is likewise culturally and contextually defined. In order to establish a society wide notion of right and wrong about an issue, one has to establish (manufacture?) a consensus and reinforce that consensus with social programs like education.

As it happens, the implied fair use statements on most entertainment media explicitly prohibit any copying for any reason. When in doubt, contact the publisher. Copyright in intended to protect the acting copyright holder, usually the publisher of a work, from competition. The idea is that the author can sell the copyright to a work to a publisher for use for a certain amount of time, and for sale in a certain region. Nice idea. Does not protect the IP of the work though.
Message: Posted by: Tom Cutts (Apr 5, 2005 06:50PM)
[quote]
Section 117 also advises that "all archival copies" should be destroyed if possession of the original ceases to be rightful.
So, if you want to follow the law exactly, make a video copy and a dvd copy, then burn the original.
[/quote]
If you destroy the original you may well be destroying your proof to right of ownership of the copy.

Just because software exists to allow you to do something doesn't make doing that thing legal. There are books on how to build A-bombs but actually building one is likely to net you a visit from the Feds.

Cheers,

Tom

PS You posted here so you have reported yourself. :lol: But do not worry, backups are legal if you retain proof of your right to their posession, like owning the original.
Message: Posted by: revlovejoy (Apr 5, 2005 08:04PM)
Building the A-bomb book, where do I get such a book? Is it in the anarchist's cookbook?

Seriously though, good point. I'm a homebrewer, and in the homebrew section of my favorite kitchen shop, there was this mystical book in the corner called "the lore of home still building." Home distilling is illegal in all 50 US states, so this book was a "historical" piece of course. With full diagrams and parts lists. ;)
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Apr 5, 2005 08:32PM)
My wall of VHS tapes equal one small shelf of DVDs. The purpose of copyright laws is to rightfully give the creaters and producers their portion of the money pie for that creativity. When one copies and sells the copy or the original, you are making a profit on the creator's work of Art.

Unless one is ready to persue legal action, which is expensive and stressful, it will continue. Even giving them away, is still denying the creators a profit which could have been if they bought an original.

There are no solutions, lots of opinions, and next to impossible to prosucute and receive a just reward for that legal effort.
Message: Posted by: Dennis Michael (Apr 6, 2005 10:04PM)
Revlovejoy, No the A-Bomb is not in the "Anarchist Cookbook" pipe bombs and Gas bombs are, however if you purchase this book expect the government to watch you closely.

As a firefighter, I wanted to protect my crew and in this book there is a lot of knowledge public servants need to know in the performance of their work. There are a lot of crazy people out there.

Getting back to the topic? Is it legal to copy your VHS to DVD? In 10 years when you VHS tapes break down, and they do have a life span, you'll have nothing.

In the not to far future there will be very little VHS recorder sales, so you won't be able to play the ones you got unless you find a used recorder.

Should you protect your investment? This is an ethical decision and you must live with your beliefs.
Message: Posted by: jstone (Apr 7, 2005 10:54PM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-06 23:04, DenDowhy wrote:
In the not to far future there will be very little VHS recorder sales, so you won't be able to play the ones you got unless you find a used recorder.
[/quote]

That's a good question. The only way I can think to answer it is to compare it to any other thing that you've bought that's become obsolete. For example, It's very difficult to find "rotary-dial" phone parts. There's not a whole lot I can do about that, so when my rotary phone breaks, I'm pretty much up a creek unless I can get lucky enough to find the part... otherwise, I'll have to break down and buy a touch-tone.
Message: Posted by: cloneman (Apr 8, 2005 07:21AM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-03 18:25, Daegs wrote:
God..... Wow.... lot of mis-information being given out.

If you buy something that has a copyright on it, you are allowed to make a backup of that material in case the original is destroyed.

[quote]Section 117 authorizes "the making of another copy . . . for archival purposes only . . ." Section 117 also advises that "all archival copies" should be destroyed if possession of the original ceases to be rightful. [/quote]

This phrasing makes it clear that there could be more than one archival copy around.

SO:

You are *legally* allowed to backup your Video to DVD under fair use.

Personally I feel you could then just watch the DVD and keep the video for backup purposes, however because of the wording that might not be exactly what the law intended for.


So, if you want to follow the law exactly, make a video copy and a dvd copy, then burn the original.

You are then allowed to use the DVD archival copy in the same way as the original, and the tape would then become your archival copy.

[/quote]

Sorry, I have to take YOU to task for spreading misinformation (I'm sure accidentally). You quoted a law, but not the right one. 17 USC 117 applies only to computer programs. As the heading to that section states: "Limitations on Exclusive Rights: Computer Programs." DVDs of audiovisual works aren't included here if their primary purpose is audiovisual.
Message: Posted by: tuffnavyrn (Apr 8, 2005 11:52AM)
It's nice to learn everyone's personal opinions and legal jargon being tossed around on this subject but if Dirko had never posted this topic about what he has done none of us would ever know nor would we probably care. He's done it for personal use, not for sale, no profits involved......legal-smegal, blah, blah. Is this topic literally changing everyone's life or is everyone applying for law school now? Let's move on.
Message: Posted by: jstone (Apr 8, 2005 10:53PM)
[quote]
On 2005-04-08 12:52, tuffnavyrn wrote:
It's nice to learn everyone's personal opinions and legal jargon being tossed around on this subject but if Dirko had never posted this topic about what he has done none of us would ever know nor would we probably care. He's done it for personal use, not for sale, no profits involved......legal-smegal, blah, blah. Is this topic literally changing everyone's life or is everyone applying for law school now? Let's move on.
[/quote]

Tuffnavyrn,

Nobody's forcing you to participate in the discussion. If you don't like the content, you don't have to participate. Although there has been some "heat" between members here, I've actually found this conversation educational.

It's just people talking and giving their opinion about a subject... That's what humans do... They talk. :)

Take care.
Message: Posted by: chrisch (Apr 10, 2005 11:36AM)
Surely its only illegal if you distribute it
Message: Posted by: jonesc2ii (Apr 12, 2005 11:11PM)
Is it illegal and/or immoral to scan a book you've bought onto your hard drive for your own personal use?