How is downloading not stealing?

[CmdrAJD]

^ But that's when the laws are stupid. My dad backup some VHS tapes of something odd from the 70s, he taped it in the early 80s and redid it in the 90s. That could be considered illegal because he made copies of a copyright show.

This is the kind of thing that gets me. We also have several tapes of things that my parents recorded off of TV for me when I was a kid. If I take those tapes and transfer the contents onto my computer or burn a DVD, am I suddenly running afoul of the law? And if I am, does that mean it was illegal for me to take one of my CDs and record it to cassette so that I could listen to it in my car twenty years ago? If I own a store-bought cassette from ages ago and have the gear to record the songs in MP3 format on my computer so I can make my own CDs, am I again running afoul of the law? If I'm not, what's the real difference between that and just downloading the same songs I already own on cassette?

As for the downloading TV issue, it's something that I don't really do. Most of the shows that I watch are...shall we say "ratings challenged." I have my computer set up as my DVR, so if I record shows that way, I don't think the network and advertisers get the kind of viewing data they get from TIVO. I make a point to watch the shows I like that are available on their network websites on those sites in the futile hope that my viewing will be counted.

Does anyone know off-hand how these issues work for DVD rentals? When the public library buys a book/CD/movie, I assume they pay for it once and then it is available to the public without the library paying some kind of per lend license fee back to the intellectual property owner. Do video rental stores/sites work the same way or does Netflix/Blockbuster/etc. pay a small license fee back to the studio every time you rent a movie?

 

[chrisspringob]

^ But that's when the laws are stupid. My dad backup some VHS tapes of something odd from the 70s, he taped it in the early 80s and redid it in the 90s. That could be considered illegal because he made copies of a copyright show.

This is the kind of thing that gets me. We also have several tapes of things that my parents recorded off of TV for me when I was a kid. If I take those tapes and transfer the contents onto my computer or burn a DVD, am I suddenly running afoul of the law?

Even having tapes of things you recorded off TV when you were a kid is illegal. It's illegal to tape something off TV and then archive it, rather than just watch it once and be done with it. I wonder if the people who are so adamantly against all illegal TV downloads ever watched something they taped off TV multiple times. Why is that OK, while downloads aren't? Both are illegal, AFAIK.

 

[Misfit Toy]

In the mid '90s I was a member of the Video Software Dealers Association. Our organization was involved in many, many "raids" of pirating operations and flea market distributions.

Interesting. What did those 'raids' look like? And what type of people did you normally come across?

They were police raids. In the case of flea markets, the VSDA would get tips, usually photographic evidence, then work with the police to catch them in the act and make arrests and confiscate the tapes. Often the sellers would then roll over on their suppliers and that would lead to a sting or raid of a pirating setup - usually a business space rented and filled with dozens, sometimes hundreds of VCRs. The people that were involved were usually Asian, sometimes Latino, but occasionally others too.

 

[Roger Wilco]

Even having tapes of things you recorded off TV when you were a kid is illegal. It's illegal to tape something off TV and then archive it, rather than just watch it once and be done with it. I wonder if the people who are so adamantly against all illegal TV downloads ever watched something they taped off TV multiple times. Why is that OK, while downloads aren't? Both are illegal, AFAIK.

Yeah, stealing is stealing is stealing, right?

Obey!

 

[MyCylon]

Re. Misfit Toy:

Ah, I see. Thank you for the information. I was wondering if it was just show raids since you had put the word raid in inverted commas. But police raids are a different category, of course.

 

[CmdrAJD]

Even having tapes of things you recorded off TV when you were a kid is illegal. It's illegal to tape something off TV and then archive it, rather than just watch it once and be done with it. I wonder if the people who are so adamantly against all illegal TV downloads ever watched something they taped off TV multiple times. Why is that OK, while downloads aren't? Both are illegal, AFAIK.

I wonder if that is specific to Australian law. I started looking around concerning US law, and the only information I've found so far does not say anything about a time limit for holding onto the recorded material.

In the seminal case of Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984), the Supreme Court held that when consumers record television programming available to them at a given time for personal viewing at a later time (”time-shifting”), they are engaged in a “fair use” of copyrighted material and do not violate the Copyright Act.

From http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/06/09/recording-tv-programs-the-law/

 

[Pingfah]

In the mid '90s I was a member of the Video Software Dealers Association. Our organization was involved in many, many "raids" of pirating operations and flea market distributions.

Interesting. What did those 'raids' look like? And what type of people did you normally come across?

They were police raids. In the case of flea markets, the VSDA would get tips, usually photographic evidence, then work with the police to catch them in the act and make arrests and confiscate the tapes. Often the sellers would then roll over on their suppliers and that would lead to a sting or raid of a pirating setup - usually a business space rented and filled with dozens, sometimes hundreds of VCRs. The people that were involved were usually Asian, sometimes Latino, but occasionally others too.

I remember when I worked in a rare record shop in the late 80s and early 90s, we used to do record fairs and everyone sold a selection of live bootlegs, never bootlegs of available albums though. It was quite common for these events to be raided and the CDs confiscated. We had a good system for ferreting the illegal goods away without getting caught so we never got arrested.

In particular it was U2 who were making the biggest fuss about it at the time, they really hated bootlegged concerts being available and they were absolutely convinced that it hurt album sales of genuine studio recorded products.

Interestingly bands and record companies now recognise that having bootlegged live performances being traded is actually highly beneficial to the artists, at bands' request venues now allow recording equipment in so that fans can make these recordings, its quite common to see somebody standing in the crowd next to you, right at the front with expensive microphones attached to each shoulder in full view of the band and security.

Bands such as Pearl Jam go out of their way to ensure that high quality bootlegs of all their shows are freely traded and swapped over filesharing networks. And proshot and leaked desk recordings or even unreleased studio material are fair game as far as the artists are concerned as long as it doesn't cross over into bootlegging officially released material. There is a Queen BT tracker where you can pick up almost any unreleased song or unreleased professionally and amateur produced concert films and recordings, which is known and encouraged by both the band and Parlaphone.

I know consequentially it is not the same as bootleg albums, but I just find it interesting how much attitudes have changed just in 20 years.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Yes. Sorry if it's succinct.

Well, it isn't. Actually it's a very nice example of a non sequitur.

Actually...no. A non sequitur would be...fish.

My argument is simple: If you take something that's not yours, without permission, it's stealing.

When my mother taught me about stealing there wasn't all of this...well, it's not stealing if....it's not REALLY stealing...

If it's not yours, and you don't have permission to take it, it's stealing.

Perhaps the laws haven't caught up with the technology? I'm not a cop. The question was is it stealing? Yes. It is.

And people have been brought to court, civil court. And paid fines.

So, that's a "no", right?

It's a no in the fact that there maybe no law against it, but, it's still wrong to take something that's not yours.

Do you need laws and fines to do what's right?

It's simple ethics.

The law hasn't caught up yet? I got my first broadband connection in 1999, some of my friends had them years earlier. Illegal downloading was ubiquitous back then already. And I would guess we were several years behind the US in that regard. It's 2009 now, not even the law is that slow.

Yeah, it is.

 

[chrisspringob]

Even having tapes of things you recorded off TV when you were a kid is illegal. It's illegal to tape something off TV and then archive it, rather than just watch it once and be done with it. I wonder if the people who are so adamantly against all illegal TV downloads ever watched something they taped off TV multiple times. Why is that OK, while downloads aren't? Both are illegal, AFAIK.

I wonder if that is specific to Australian law. I started looking around concerning US law, and the only information I've found so far does not say anything about a time limit for holding onto the recorded material.

In the seminal case of Sony v. Universal City Studios (1984), the Supreme Court held that when consumers record television programming available to them at a given time for personal viewing at a later time (”time-shifting”), they are engaged in a “fair use” of copyrighted material and do not violate the Copyright Act.

From http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2006/06/09/recording-tv-programs-the-law/

No, it's not specific to Australian law, as I have no idea what Australian law is on the matter. I'm an American who only recently moved to Australia. It was my understanding that American law is that you can't "archive" videotaped shows....watch them multiple times. You can only timeshift. You may be right that there's no actual time limit....so you could hypothetically hold onto it for many years, but then once you watch it, you can't watch it again.

Or at least, that's how I think it works, based on reading comments about it over many internet discussions of this. I can't actually quote you the specific case law.

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

For years, whenever I've bought a DVD I've had to put up with this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

memorably sent up in the IT Crowd as

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

At the start of every movie, unskippable, annoying, hideous! Really fucking making me want to gouge my eyes out.

The irony is that all I have to do to avoid that is to rip a copy of that movie onto another disc and strip out the trailer. Own goal there eh FACT!?

That's the sort of thing that not only makes me condone movie piracy, it'd make me want to preach it from the rooftops.

Fortunately after driving me insane, FACT have changed the ad. Still on my DVDs though.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

For years, whenever I've bought a DVD I've had to put up with this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

memorably sent up in the IT Crowd as

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

At the start of every movie, unskippable, annoying, hideous! Really fucking making me want to gouge my eyes out.

The irony is that all I have to do to avoid that is to rip a copy of that movie onto another disc and strip out the trailer. Own goal there eh FACT!?

That's the sort of thing that not only makes me condone movie piracy, it'd make me want to preach it from the rooftops.

Fortunately after driving me insane, FACT have changed the ad. Still on my DVDs though.

Are you talking about the "Knock Off Nigel" ones, or the new "You make the movies. Thank you" ones?

 

[The Laughing Vulcan]

For years, whenever I've bought a DVD I've had to put up with this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

memorably sent up in the IT Crowd as

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

At the start of every movie, unskippable, annoying, hideous! Really fucking making me want to gouge my eyes out.

The irony is that all I have to do to avoid that is to rip a copy of that movie onto another disc and strip out the trailer. Own goal there eh FACT!?

That's the sort of thing that not only makes me condone movie piracy, it'd make me want to preach it from the rooftops.

Fortunately after driving me insane, FACT have changed the ad. Still on my DVDs though.

Are you talking about the "Knock Off Nigel" ones, or the new "You make the movies. Thank you" ones?

The new thank you ones. After years of being accused of theft by the bastards, they've finally learned to change their tone.

Actually, do you thing we in the UK are a little more tolerant of piracy and 'theft'? After all, the musical landscape in the UK was once shaped by pirate radio, and many people still have fond memories of those seasick DJs.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

For years, whenever I've bought a DVD I've had to put up with this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmZm8vNHBSU

memorably sent up in the IT Crowd as

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

At the start of every movie, unskippable, annoying, hideous! Really fucking making me want to gouge my eyes out.

The irony is that all I have to do to avoid that is to rip a copy of that movie onto another disc and strip out the trailer. Own goal there eh FACT!?

That's the sort of thing that not only makes me condone movie piracy, it'd make me want to preach it from the rooftops.

Fortunately after driving me insane, FACT have changed the ad. Still on my DVDs though.

Are you talking about the "Knock Off Nigel" ones, or the new "You make the movies. Thank you" ones?

The new thank you ones. After years of being accused of theft by the bastards, they've finally learned to change their tone.

Actually, do you thing we in the UK are a little more tolerant of piracy and 'theft'? After all, the musical landscape in the UK was once shaped by pirate radio, and many people still have fond memories of those seasick DJs.

I think that our government isn't quite as under the thumb of the corporate interests as the American's, so while we are drifting more that way we are a bit bothered by it. I also think they've realised that berating your paying customers doesn't really get you anywhere.

 

[TheArsenal]

This is the kind of thing that gets me. We also have several tapes of things that my parents recorded off of TV for me when I was a kid. If I take those tapes and transfer the contents onto my computer or burn a DVD, am I suddenly running afoul of the law?

Even having tapes of things you recorded off TV when you were a kid is illegal. It's illegal to tape something off TV and then archive it, rather than just watch it once and be done with it. I wonder if the people who are so adamantly against all illegal TV downloads ever watched something they taped off TV multiple times. Why is that OK, while downloads aren't? Both are illegal, AFAIK.

Unless I am mistaken, I don't think the law is written that way. AFAIK, taping and archiving material that was broadcast on the public air waves is not illegal. Using this material for rebroadcast, public or private showings for profit, or sale of the material is. Unlimited personal use shouldn't run afoul of the law.

 

[Roger Wilco]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

 

[CmdrAJD]

This is the kind of thing that gets me. We also have several tapes of things that my parents recorded off of TV for me when I was a kid. If I take those tapes and transfer the contents onto my computer or burn a DVD, am I suddenly running afoul of the law?

Even having tapes of things you recorded off TV when you were a kid is illegal. It's illegal to tape something off TV and then archive it, rather than just watch it once and be done with it. I wonder if the people who are so adamantly against all illegal TV downloads ever watched something they taped off TV multiple times. Why is that OK, while downloads aren't? Both are illegal, AFAIK.

Unless I am mistaken, I don't think the law is written that way. AFAIK, taping and archiving material that was broadcast on the public air waves is not illegal. Using this material for rebroadcast, public or private showings for profit, or sale of the material is. Unlimited personal use shouldn't run afoul of the law.

As far as I can tell, under US law, you're right.

 

[Nerdius Maximus]

Even having tapes of things you recorded off TV when you were a kid is illegal. It's illegal to tape something off TV and then archive it, rather than just watch it once and be done with it. I wonder if the people who are so adamantly against all illegal TV downloads ever watched something they taped off TV multiple times. Why is that OK, while downloads aren't? Both are illegal, AFAIK.

Unless I am mistaken, I don't think the law is written that way. AFAIK, taping and archiving material that was broadcast on the public air waves is not illegal. Using this material for rebroadcast, public or private showings for profit, or sale of the material is. Unlimited personal use shouldn't run afoul of the law.

As far as I can tell, under US law, you're right.

I think Major League Baseball tried to tell people they couldn't tape games at all.

 

[OmahaStar]

^ But that's when the laws are stupid. My dad backup some VHS tapes of something odd from the 70s, he taped it in the early 80s and redid it in the 90s. That could be considered illegal because he made copies of a copyright show. My grandparents have a Yule log, they made 10 copies of it to give out to people, and because they know I want to destroy them. They taped it of PBS, so does that mean they owe 2.5 million dollars in fines?

Yes, yes it does.

 

[CaptJimboJones]

This is a really interesting thread, and some very good arguments have been made on the part of folks who do some downloading as to why it's morally acceptable in their case - they typically follow up the download with a purchase, or use the download as a "trial" for short-term use only, etc.

But honestly, I think that type of behavior is in the minority when it comes to downloaders. Many, many, many folks DO download rather than purchase, and often in enormous volume. I know people (grown adults, not kids) who say with great pride that they haven't bought a new CD since they discovered Napster 10 years ago. And that's the real problem for the industry.

Now, are they handling it well? No, tactics like DRM and lawsuits against randomly chosen downloaders probably hurt more than help. But there's no question that the problem is very real, and the industry can attribute a lot of lost revenue to illegal downloading, and ultimately it has to do something in response.

 

[Amaris]

This is a really interesting thread, and some very good arguments have been made on the part of folks who do some downloading as to why it's morally acceptable in their case - they typically follow up the download with a purchase, or use the download as a "trial" for short-term use only, etc.

But honestly, I think that type of behavior is in the minority when it comes to downloaders. Many, many, many folks DO download rather than purchase, and often in enormous volume. I know people (grown adults, not kids) who say with great pride that they haven't bought a new CD since they discovered Napster 10 years ago. And that's the real problem for the industry.

Now, are they handling it well? No, tactics like DRM and lawsuits against randomly chosen downloaders probably hurt more than help. But there's no question that the problem is very real, and the industry can attribute a lot of lost revenue to illegal downloading, and ultimately it has to do something in response.

Exactly, like the aforementioned teens who pirate gospel music over file sharing. It seriously blows my mind! I've met some of these kids, and they have money, yet they download every type of gospel and Christian contemporary music there is.

J.