Why isn't it considered stealing when you DVR a show versus downloading it?

[her209]

The end result is the same. You're watching the show and the copyright owner isn't getting compensated for it.

 

[Ichinisan]

Because you're only time-shifting. Broadcast is different. They might still be compensated by ads and product placement. There are restrictions in place that prevent you from easily sharing or redistributing your recorded content.

 

[lxskllr]

It isn't stealing either way. It may or may not be copyright infringement, but it isn't stealing.

 

[mmntech]

Actually, IIRC, there were production companies trying to get DVRs banned. I know for a fact it's in a legal grey zone in Canada.

However, in the States, it falls under fair use if you copy it for personal use, as does any copy. It's distribution and cracking DRM that are illegal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

 

[DaWhim]

it isn't if everyone is doing it.

 

[FoBoT]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
fair use

The majority opinion
The Court's 5-4 ruling to reverse the Ninth Circuit in favor of Sony hinged on the possibility that the technology in question had significant non-infringing uses, and that the plaintiffs were unable to prove otherwise.
On the question of whether Sony could be described as "contributing" to copyright infringement, the Court stated:
[There must be] a balance between a copyright holder's legitimate demand for effective - not merely symbolic - protection of the statutory monopoly, and the rights of others freely to engage in substantially unrelated areas of commerce. Accordingly, the sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes. Indeed, it need merely be capable of substantial noninfringing uses....
The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home. It does so both (A) because respondents have no right to prevent other copyright holders from authorizing it for their programs, and (B) because the District Court's factual findings reveal that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair use….
If there are millions of owners of VTR's who make copies of televised sports events, religious broadcasts, and educational programs ... and if the proprietors of those programs welcome the practice, the business of supplying the equipment that makes such copying feasible should not be stifled simply because the equipment is used by some individuals to make unauthorized reproductions of respondents' works....
When one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work ... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact ... that the entire work is reproduced ... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.
Combined with the noncommercial, nonprofit nature of time-shifting, he concluded that it was indeed a fair use.

downloading hasn't been determined by the SCOTUS as fair use

 

[WaTaGuMp]

They are being payed in the form of your monthly cable etc bill.

 

[RavenSEAL]

Because the DVR is supposed to have encryption that doesn't allow for the media to leave the device that your cable company has provided you with.

 

[IcePickFreak]

I've wondered if it's counted in the 'viewer numbers' for a show if you DVR it. Most of my TV watching is stuff I dvr'd. Even if I'm home and can watch a show when it's actually on, I'll wait 20 minutes or so before I start watching it so I can still skip commercials.

 

[Ichinisan]

I've wondered if it's counted in the 'viewer numbers' for a show if you DVR it. Most of my TV watching is stuff I dvr'd. Even if I'm home and can watch a show when it's actually on, I'll wait 20 minutes or so before I start watching it so I can still skip commercials.

I suspect that DVRs make it much easier for Nielsen to track viewers of a particular program. I work for a cableco and we once had to bill a customer for a cable box that had been opened and physically modified by the Nielsen organization. (I'm sure the customer was compensated).

 

[manimal]

protected path they call it.

 

[Wreckem]

I've wondered if it's counted in the 'viewer numbers' for a show if you DVR it. Most of my TV watching is stuff I dvr'd. Even if I'm home and can watch a show when it's actually on, I'll wait 20 minutes or so before I start watching it so I can still skip commercials.

They do, but advertisers don't allow the broadcasters to use them in determining adverstising rates.

 

[Ns1]

The end result is the same. You're watching the show and the copyright owner isn't getting compensated for it.

Uh yes they are. DVR usage is tracked.

They are being payed in the form of your monthly cable etc bill.

And this. See: retransmission fees

 

[Raduque]

Time-shifting is within fair-usage rights. I consider it also within fair-usage rights to format-shift the content I pay for and DVR.

 

[waggy]

Time-shifting is within fair-usage rights. I consider it also within fair-usage rights to format-shift the content I pay for and DVR.

agreed.

 

[Ronstang]

Because the DVR is supposed to have encryption that doesn't allow for the media to leave the device that your cable company has provided you with.

So? Build a media center PC and you can keep adding hard drives and keep any content you want in your library into perpetuity. There is also software that strips out the commercials for you. There are plenty of ways to keep the content you record and there really should be no problem since a DVR is no different that a VCR and those are legal for personal use.

There are movies that have never been available on DVD that people record from HDTV channels and then master onto a DVD-R. Now selling these is probably illegal but if the movie is not available who is going to care? The point is the technology is there to use your computer to save copies for personal use and you should be able to if you are allowed to have a VCR. I have movies that I recorded many years ago on VHS tapes that I have just recently replaced with store bought DVDs because they have just become available.

I have seen music blogs host albums for download that have been out of print for decades. The copyright holder knows they are there but do not complain. Now if they decide to reissue the album on CD they kindly contact the blogger and the content is removed.

 

[RavenSEAL]

So? Build a media center PC and you can keep adding hard drives and keep any content you want in your library into perpetuity. There is also software that strips out the commercials for you. There are plenty of ways to keep the content you record and there really should be no problem since a DVR is no different that a VCR and those are legal for personal use.

There are movies that have never been available on DVD that people record from HDTV channels and then master onto a DVD-R. Now selling these is probably illegal but if the movie is not available who is going to care? The point is the technology is there to use your computer to save copies for personal use and you should be able to if you are allowed to have a VCR. I have movies that I recorded many years ago on VHS tapes that I have just recently replaced with store bought DVDs because they have just become available.

I have seen music blogs host albums for download that have been out of print for decades. The copyright holder knows they are there but do not complain. Now if they decide to reissue the album on CD they kindly contact the blogger and the content is removed.

Like I said, DVRs are "supposed" to keep the material encrypted. Media Center PCs with Tuner cards are a whole different story.

 

[Ronstang]

Like I said, DVRs are "supposed" to keep the material encrypted. Media Center PCs with Tuner cards are a whole different story.

They are functionally the same tool, except one has more options. It is impossible to argue yopur rights to the content differ on how you view them over the same cable/satellite connection.

 

[Gunslinger08]

Everyone understands that content providers (the networks) make money from advertising. Nobody downloads shows with commercials intact. Not saying you're going to watch the commercials with a DVR, but they at least remain in the copy of the programming.

Content providers also make money from your service provider (Comcast, DirecTv, Dish Network, etc.). They charge a monthly fee per subscriber. When you download, you aren't paying a service provider at all - so the content provider sees no revenue from you, as you aren't a subscriber.

Ultimately, downloading TV shows will lead to crappier programming. Right now, there are probably enough actual subscribers to soak up the lost revenue to support big budget scripted programming. If downloading becomes a bigger thing, content providers will be forced to move to lower budget programming, like reality shows, game shows, and half hour sitcoms. Honestly, that's already happening, so maybe there aren't enough actual subscribers.

 

[CZroe]

You people who think DVRs are supposed to keep things encrypted are just ignorantly spreading misinformation. If you don't know the answer to something, STFU and learn from those who do.

You can burn all the DVDs you want from your DVR unless the content holder used the "copy protected" broadcast flag which *gasp* has nothing to do with federal copyright law or the FCC! With NO legal obligation, Microsoft and others willingly comply with the broadcast flag in order to placate potential media partners.

It's legal under the same laws that made time-shifting VCRs legal. The potential of it being legally copied off the air is why movies come to broadcast TV last after theatrical release, airplane release, home video release, premium pay channel release, etc. It's part of the agreement with the broadcasters and rights holders and advertisers. It was paid for by the ads and that potential is what matters. Removing the ads with automated software is legally no different than stepping out of the room during a commercial break.

The OP's question ignores the fact that not nearly everything available for download has been available via broadcast.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

 

[alkemyst]

If you can legally DVR content, you paid for it.

 

[Number1]

If you can legally DVR content, you paid for it.

Exactly. I don`t often agree with you but when I do...........