|
|
Josh Chaikin Inner circle Kansas City 1430 Posts |
I posted this in another one of the threads, the attention to it seems to have died down leaving my question unanswered. Like many on this forum, I still have a sizable collection of magic tapes on VHS (all legally purchased, naturally). I'm in the process of putting them on DVD, which is a lengthy process. Certainly there's nothing wrong with that, I legally own the tapes and putting them on DVD constitutes making an archival copy.
Suppose, however, a friend of mine also legally owns the same videos, on DVD, however. Is it wrong to cut out the intermediary step of recording them onto my computer, splitting the video into chapters and making a DVD by simply copying his? (Bear in mind that this is spoken purely as a hypothetical, I have not done this, nor do I plan to. I would just like to hear opinions on it). The immediate and most obvious response is, "No. It's not okay." L&L, and other publishers efforts to sell DVDs at a lower rate if the VHS counterparts are traded in seems to indicate this. I think the issue should go, or at least be discussed, deeper, rather than being dismissed at the surface. If I convert my VHS to DVD, a publisher or artist is not out any money, I already own it and am just putting it into a more usable format (much akin to putting your record on cassette in the 80s, or putting a CD onto your iPod now). By copying the DVD, all one really saves is time. You're buying the secrets and other information, not the ability to skip directly to explanations with pretty graphics. |
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
It is illegal for you to copy your friend's DVD without permission from the copyright holder. Owning it in another form does not change this.
Copyright law allows you to copy your actual purchased product, for your own personal use. Anything beyond that legally requires the permission of the copyright holder. |
Josh Chaikin Inner circle Kansas City 1430 Posts |
I don't dispute the legality of this, copyright laws are very clear on it. Things that are immoral are not necessarily illegal and the corollary holds true as well. There are shades of grey in everything, especially the law, which is how jury nullification occurs.
I was hoping that this discussion could address the ethical portion moreso than the legal components. Thank you for your input, however. |
Fitz Elite user Phoenix, AZ 476 Posts |
" You're buying the secrets and other information, not the ability to skip directly to explanations with pretty graphics."
I have bought DVDs that I have already owned because I wanted the publishers "skipping abilities", and "pretty graphics". Personally I feel if I own the VHS it is okay for me to put it on DVD as long as I keep the original VHS tape. I think that the people who put the VHS onto DVD and sell the VHS when they are done, they are actually selling the rights to that material with the original VHS. I don't personally feel right copying the publisher's DVD if I own the VHS version. Often times the publisher, in addition to making chapters, includes more material, or enhances the DVD in some way, like color correction... I feel I should pay for that effort on their part. I do feel however if I own the VHS and I copy it to DVD, (keeping the original myself) and my friend also owns the VHS; (and keeps it himself) I feel it is okay for me to give him a copy of my archived DVD, because I did the work and it didn't really effect the publisher. Am I right in feeling this way? Who knows, but I can sleep at knight knowing I do own and payed for the original published work. Fitz
I have a daily web show all about magic at http://FitzMagic.info
|
tomterm8 Regular user 163 Posts |
Quote:
I was hoping that this discussion could address the ethical portion moreso than the legal components. I think it is unlikely to be ethical. In almost all cases, a DVD isn't exactly the same as a vhs... it has different content, different menu schemes etc which actually make it a derivitive work. Copying it involves "stealing" the extra bonus material and menu features. If the VHS and DVD are exactly the same, then I would not have a problem with it ethically. Remember, if you make an archive copy, and sell the original material, you are legally and ethically required to either destroy the archive OR to pass it onto the new owner. |
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
Quote: Are you looking for validation for what you'd like to do? The only one who can decide your ethics is you. It doesn't matter how many people feel this way or that way. Every person's ethic is personal to them.
On 2010-04-30 13:03, Josh Chaikin wrote: I believe if you are violating copyright law, you are violating the agreement and intention of the person(s) who produced the product, unless said copyright holder has informed you otherwise. For me that would be unethical. For you, it is up to you to decide. |
Josh Chaikin Inner circle Kansas City 1430 Posts |
Tom,
I'm not looking for validation of any kind, as I mentioned in my initial post, it's only a hypothetical. I bring it up because, although I've already put roughly a dozen of my VHS tapes onto DVD, I have about 20 more to go, and those will be a chore to do well (I'm not looking forward to splitting Daryl's Encyclopedia of Card Sleights into chapters ). Fitz and tomterm8 do bring up good points about them not being on even keel; more work is done in the professional remastering of a tape to put it on DVD, plus the work that is done in post production. I think that sufficient points have been made for my initial question (and I still don't plan on burning a professional DVD, even if I own the original VHS). I'll bring up one more question, though. Part of the hinge on one of my tapes has broken, rendering it unwatchable, which is a shame because it was one of my favorites. It's already been discussed that copying it from DVD is wrong (and I tend to agree, in spite of bringing up this hypothetical), is it still wrong to seek out and copy a VHS source from elsewhere? I did purchase, and still own the original, it's just not watchable in its current state. |
Jeff Corn Inner circle Las Vegas 1190 Posts |
Personally, I don't buy magic DVDs for the menus or color correctness. I buy them to learn from them, regardless of whether some of the color isn't as blue as it was in real life. If I've bought and paid for the material on the video, I don't see the ethical issue with making a copy for DVD, especially if you're already going to do it for yourself. It's not costing the creator a dime, because you're going to get it on DVD anyways and you're not planning on buying the DVD copy just to pay for the information again.
Yes, that is my real name. Yes, I am a real person. No, you probably won't agree with me.
|
rottenmagic New user 51 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-05-01 19:56, Jeff Corn wrote: your missing what's already been said. Definition In the United States, the Copyright Act defines "derivative work" in 17 U.S.C. A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. So just because you have paid for the vhs rights, doesn't mean you have paid for the dvd rights. The stuff you don't care about (and I don't either, unless picture or sound quality effects my ability to learn the material) was created by additional people. therefore, it's a new copyright. If you take a copy of your friends dvd, then you are technically stealing a totally different product. |
TheCigarPhysic New user 15 Posts |
Rottenmagic, That is only partially right.
17 U.S.C. § 103(b) provides: The copyright in a compilation or derivative work extends only to the material contributed by the author of such work, as distinguished from the pre-existing material employed in the work, and does not imply any exclusive right in the pre-existing material. The copyright in such work is independent of, and does not affect or enlarge the scope, duration, ownership, or subsistence of, any copyright protection in the preexisting material. Add to this that In Durham Industries, Inc. v. Tomy Corp. and earlier in L. Batlin & Son, Inc. v. Snyder,. the Second Circuit held that a derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work on which it is based. Otherwise, it cannot enjoy copyright protection and copying it will not be copyright infringement. The other question that comes to mind would be "Is the addition even copyrightable?" Contrary to popular belief not everything is copyrightable. For example, you can not copyright Ideas, procedures, methods, systems, processes, Titles, names, short phrases, slogans, acts, news, research, works that are not fixed in a tangible medium, and works in the public domain. So the addition of menus and a scene selection would not qualify as a derivative work. Adding a few scenes or directors commentary may not even qualify because a derivative work has to "represent an original work of authorship" and "derivative work must be original relative to the underlying work"
Remember, when you are a psychic It is not what you say that matters, it is what you dont say and how you dont say it.
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. -- Groucho Marx |
rottenmagic New user 51 Posts |
Thanks for the info
|
Tom Cutts Staff Northern CA 5925 Posts |
The derivative work issue makes for an interesting angle, but I think it is not applicable to a situation where the original copyright holder is the person putting out the new "version". Then again, lawyers can challenge and argue anything these days... as long as someone is payin for that argument.
Josh, you broke your tape. That is a drawback to the medium of video casette. Honestly, most VHS tapes are going for $5 or even less these days. And I will once again simply yell at the top of my lungs, "WHY DON"T YOU JUST CONTACT THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER AND ASK FOR PERMISSION?" That would give you a direct answer, and just maybe they would "replace" your video for free or offer you a deal on a DVD upgrade. |
Starrpower Inner circle 4070 Posts |
I do not know the lagality, but ethically I don't see a problem It's not the MEDIUM you purchased, but the material recorded within.
I would love to see someone take this to court some day. Being an old guy (approaching 50) in my life I have actually purchased the same audio recordings on vinyl, 8 track, cassette, and cd. Now I am exepcted to pay for a download onto my iPod? How many times am I expected to buy the same recording? I really think that the laws need to be updated to differentiate better between CONTENT and MEDIA. I'd copy that material, which you already paid for, with a clear conscience. And I'd happily boycott any magic dealer who took someone to task for doing so. |
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27297 Posts |
Quote:
On 2010-05-09 15:00, Starrpower wrote: I agree with what you are exploring and some software companies used to have a "per user" license instead of a "per install" license when you bought their software for just that purpose- so you could use it wherever you go.
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
AGMagic Special user Cailf. 775 Posts |
Gee, wouldn't it be nice if magic dealers/distributors offered a trade in on VHS tapes. I would gladly pay the cost of a new (unformatted) DVD plus a few bucks instead of having to copy them for my own use. It is difficult to justify (to myself, or my wife) that I am spending $29.95 to buy a DVD of a tape that I originally spent $19.95 to purchase when it was new. Protecting the artist's rights is of upmost importance, but what about my rights as a consumer? It won't be long before VHS players will be totally obsolete!
Tim Silver - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Magic-Woodshop/122578214436546
I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. Visualize Whirled Peas! |
TheCigarPhysic New user 15 Posts |
Josh, what you are asking about is called space shifting.
From Wikipedia: "Space shifting is a concept that has been argued in copyright law to permit owners of some form of media, such as a song or movie, to convert that media from one format to another, generally by converting an audiotape, videotape, compact disc, or DVD into an electronic file stored on a computer In Recording Indus. Ass’n of Am. v. Diamond Multimedia Sys., Inc., 180 F.3d 1072, 1079 (9th Cir. 1999), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals applied the "space shifting" argument in the context of the Rio device (a portable MP3 player). "Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or 'space-shift,' those files that already reside on a user’s hard drive. . . . Such copying is a paradigmatic noncommercial personal use." For noncommercial personal use it is allowed under the fair use clause of the copyright act.
Remember, when you are a psychic It is not what you say that matters, it is what you dont say and how you dont say it.
I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member. -- Groucho Marx |
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Right or Wrong? » » Another Ethical Quandry (0 Likes) |
[ Top of Page ] |
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2024 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.03 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < |