Is it legal to trade TV shows that you recorded with family or friends?

[Arkitech]

Ok here's a sample scenario, my wife and I record Lost on a DVR and sometimes we want to keep a certain episode so we burn it to disk with a DVD recorder. Is this legal?

Lets say my brother-in-law or coworker missed that episode of Lost and wants to borrow the disk, is it a violation of copyright laws to loan out the disk?

Is it against copyright laws to download an episode of a show that you missed? If so, why is it ok to copy a show with a DVR but not to download it? In both instances the video is being archived to a hard drive.

If it's against copyright laws to download TV shows, is it ok to share them among friends and associates if the show is on a disk or a hard drive?



Sorry about the numerous questions, but I'm really curious about the legalities of TV show sharing

 

[db]

Time shifting is not illegal, AFAIK. How is this different than VCR days? Especially if the commercials are still in there....

 

[tasmanian]

Your never gonna get caught if you loan out your dvds. As long as you dont try to sell burnt ones youll be fine.

 

[wetcat007]

Why do you care? If it is illegal are they going to somehow catch you trading physical copies?

 

[FoBoT]

you can't loan it out, that is illegal
just like you can't show DVD's in a "public" setting, they are only for home viewing by the owner

 

[DrPizza]

Don't even get me started on the "public" setting thing. As a teacher, that's a major headache for me... There's a DVD that just came out in June. I wanted to purchase it (out of my own pocket) to have as my emergency substitute plan for the next year or two - if I'm ever unexpectedly out sick. (You're dreaming if you think I'm going to write a lesson plan each night that a substitute can successfully follow and actually teach my kids something. When I expect to be out for a conference or something, it takes hours to prepare a detailed enough lesson that a sub can follow and the students can learn from - or I just give them a test, which is easier.)

Anyway, the DVD is $29.95. Wait a second, "this is not licensed for use in a classroom, you must purchase the educational license." Educational license: $190

 

[torpid]

Technically it's illegal, but no one is going to care if you are talking about loaning out DVDs of stuff you recorded. Downloading over the internet is a different story. If you are using bit torrent or other technology, you probably won't be bothered ever unless you are also sharing the file and not just a download leech. Studios are starting to monitor p2p sites and sending emails to your ISP.

 

[Arkitech]

hmmm interesting

The reason I posed those questions the way that I did is because I'm interested in setting up a local group of people who want to trade hidef material. Since at this time there's not a lot of hidef recordings (outside of movies) available for purchase I was thinking it would be cool to be able to trade it. But apparently doing so would be copyright infringement.

This whole issue is kinda crazy, what do you do if you want to watch something that's no longer being broadcasted and is not available in stores?

 

[Linflas]

Legal as in how the founders of this country envisioned copyrights? Yes. Legal under the current mish mash of copyright laws? Probably not. Morally I have no issue with lending a DVD I have purchased or recorded from a broadcast to a neighbor.

 

[buck]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Don't even get me started on the "public" setting thing. As a teacher, that's a major headache for me... There's a DVD that just came out in June. I wanted to purchase it (out of my own pocket) to have as my emergency substitute plan for the next year or two - if I'm ever unexpectedly out sick. (You're dreaming if you think I'm going to write a lesson plan each night that a substitute can successfully follow and actually teach my kids something. When I expect to be out for a conference or something, it takes hours to prepare a detailed enough lesson that a sub can follow and the students can learn from - or I just give them a test, which is easier.)

Anyway, the DVD is $29.95. Wait a second, "this is not licensed for use in a classroom, you must purchase the educational license." Educational license: $190

Sheesh, I didnt know that, sorry to hear that. Seems like teachers just can't win nowadays.

 

[child of wonder]

According to Hollywood, if anyone even considers recording, trading, or downloading content freely distributed over the airwaves or cable TV then they should fall into the deepest pits of hell to suffer exquisite agony, writhing in unspeakable pain until long after every star in the sky has burned out.

If there is even the slightest chance something we do prevents them from purchasing a ninth Ferrari or 5th summer home, our names will be erased from the Book of Life.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Legal as in how the founders of this country envisioned copyrights? Yes. Legal under the current mish mash of copyright laws? Probably not. Morally I have no issue with lending a DVD I have purchased or recorded from a broadcast to a neighbor.

Give me a break... the founders had no notion of copyrights in the modern age.

 

[Aikouka]

You are not allowed to distribute intellectual property under any other means unless you have written permission (contract or whatever) from the IP owner.

This is what's different between downloading it using a Tivo and downloading some HR rip online. One was acquired from a legit IP owner sponsored source. The other was acquired from a source that does not have the legal right to redistribute it.

 

[rbV5]

My Public Library loans out copywrited DVD's and VHS tapes for free all the time, I think its perfectly legal.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas
Legal as in how the founders of this country envisioned copyrights? Yes. Legal under the current mish mash of copyright laws? Probably not. Morally I have no issue with lending a DVD I have purchased or recorded from a broadcast to a neighbor.

Give me a break... the founders had no notion of copyrights in the modern age.

They didn't have to have that understanding. Copyright was never intended to be an unlimited monopoly solely controlled by the holder. It is a limited monopoly that is supposed to balance the rights of the holder of the copyright with the fair use of the public while providing incentives to the creator to create more works. That idea is constant whether we are talking about free lending libraries in 17th century Philadelphia or programs broadcast over the public airwaves in the 21st.

 

[Wheezer]

I belong to several forums that trade shows, cartoons etc. several people have been contacted by lawyers for studios because they had websites set up to list what they had for trade.

They were all told the same thing, as long as it is a "trade only" situation everything is fine...the studios are not going to waste time with going after trading....however if money exchanges hands then they would step in.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas
Legal as in how the founders of this country envisioned copyrights? Yes. Legal under the current mish mash of copyright laws? Probably not. Morally I have no issue with lending a DVD I have purchased or recorded from a broadcast to a neighbor.

Give me a break... the founders had no notion of copyrights in the modern age.

They didn't have to have that understanding. Copyright was never intended to be an unlimited monopoly solely controlled by the holder. It is a limited monopoly that is supposed to balance the rights of the holder of the copyright with the fair use of the public while providing incentives to the creator to create more works. That idea is constant whether we are talking about free lending libraries in 17th century Philadelphia or programs broadcast over the public airwaves in the 21st.

By your definition the answer is no according to what the founders intended. Fair use does not include distributing the copyrighted works to whomever you want while retaining the original product.

Lending libraries involve one physical copy. Duplicating broadcast content onto a disc and giving it out equates to hand copying a book you borrowed from the library and then giving it to someone else. Not fair use.

I never said the founders needed to have the understanding. You are the one trying to equate what people thought of 200+ years ago with the reality of today. It is irrelevant what the founders intended with copyright because they did not have all the information necessary to decide upon all copyright matters. Therefore they put into place a system where their own fallibility as imperfect humans incapable of predicting all possible future scenarios would be taken care of through a malleable government.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: Wheezer
I belong to several forums that trade shows, cartoons etc. several people have been contacted by lawyers for studios because they had websites set up to list what they had for trade.

They were all told the same thing, as long as it is a "trade only" situation everything is fine...the studios are not going to waste time with going after trading....however if money exchanges hands then they would step in.

so whats wrong with P2P then? isn't that trading?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: Wheezer
I belong to several forums that trade shows, cartoons etc. several people have been contacted by lawyers for studios because they had websites set up to list what they had for trade.

They were all told the same thing, as long as it is a "trade only" situation everything is fine...the studios are not going to waste time with going after trading....however if money exchanges hands then they would step in.

so whats wrong with P2P then? isn't that trading?

No... it's copying and distributing. Trading implies you give up your item in exchange for another.

 

[Turin39789]

Originally posted by: Aikouka
You are not allowed to distribute intellectual property under any other means unless you have written permission (contract or whatever) from the IP owner.

This is what's different between downloading it using a Tivo and downloading some HR rip online. One was acquired from a legit IP owner sponsored source. The other was acquired from a source that does not have the legal right to redistribute it.

lol. So when my grandmother made videotapes of the flooding in Missouri in the 90's and then gave them to me so that I could do a report on the floods in middle school, and I then showed some of the videos in class, I was comitting about 10 years worth of offenses?

Brilliant system!

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: torpid

Originally posted by: Linflas
Legal as in how the founders of this country envisioned copyrights? Yes. Legal under the current mish mash of copyright laws? Probably not. Morally I have no issue with lending a DVD I have purchased or recorded from a broadcast to a neighbor.

Give me a break... the founders had no notion of copyrights in the modern age.

They didn't have to have that understanding. Copyright was never intended to be an unlimited monopoly solely controlled by the holder. It is a limited monopoly that is supposed to balance the rights of the holder of the copyright with the fair use of the public while providing incentives to the creator to create more works. That idea is constant whether we are talking about free lending libraries in 17th century Philadelphia or programs broadcast over the public airwaves in the 21st.

By your definition the answer is no according to what the founders intended. Fair use does not include distributing the copyrighted works to whomever you want while retaining the original product.

Lending libraries involve one physical copy. Duplicating broadcast content onto a disc and giving it out equates to hand copying a book you borrowed from the library and then giving it to someone else. Not fair use.

I never said the founders needed to have the understanding. You are the one trying to equate what people thought of 200+ years ago with the reality of today. It is irrelevant what the founders intended with copyright because they did not have all the information necessary to decide upon all copyright matters. Therefore they put into place a system where their own fallibility as imperfect humans incapable of predicting all possible future scenarios would be taken care of through a malleable government.

Nice twist of my response, I never said make a copy and distribute it. We are talking about recording and lending which is exactly what the OP inquired about. As for malleable government do you really think the DMCA would have passed as written had the debate about it had been as open and public as the debate about the recently defeated immigration reform bill was?

 

[oogabooga]

Originally posted by: DrPizza
Don't even get me started on the "public" setting thing. As a teacher, that's a major headache for me... There's a DVD that just came out in June. I wanted to purchase it (out of my own pocket) to have as my emergency substitute plan for the next year or two - if I'm ever unexpectedly out sick. (You're dreaming if you think I'm going to write a lesson plan each night that a substitute can successfully follow and actually teach my kids something. When I expect to be out for a conference or something, it takes hours to prepare a detailed enough lesson that a sub can follow and the students can learn from - or I just give them a test, which is easier.)

Anyway, the DVD is $29.95. Wait a second, "this is not licensed for use in a classroom, you must purchase the educational license." Educational license: $190

which video? I may be poor but i'm willing to donate to you getting the educational license.

Is it 30 bucks PLUS the 190?

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Linflas
Nice twist of my response, I never said make a copy and distribute it. We are talking about recording and lending which is exactly what the OP inquired about. As for malleable government do you really think the DMCA would have passed as written had the debate about it had been as open and public as the debate about the recently defeated immigration reform bill was?

No, we are talking about recording onto a hard drive, then copying to a DVD off the hard drive, then lending the copy. If the OP were lending his DVR after recording it onto a DVR that would be the situation you described.

As for the act, yes, I think it would, because the voice of business is more powerful than the voice of individuals.

 

[FoBoT]

Originally posted by: Turin39789

lol. So when my grandmother made videotapes of the flooding in Missouri in the 90's and then gave them to me so that I could do a report on the floods in middle school, and I then showed some of the videos in class, I was comitting about 10 years worth of offenses?

Brilliant system!

if the video is her original content, then she owns it, she is the "copyright" holder
she gave you permission to use them (implicitly anyway)
so you can show them in any venue you choose

DVD/VHS tapes you buy all have a "license" disclaimer that doesn't allow for "public" showings

an example:

a youth group, like cub scouts want to do a fund raiser
so they sell tickets to watch "Lion King" in the park one evening and they sell popcorn, etc

that isn't allowed, they'd have to get permission from disney or pay royalties/get a commercial license to do that

 

[pcnerd37]

Our copyright laws are seriously screwed up, thats why I pay no attention to them.