|
|
Posted by Colin B on 02/08/07 02:32
<ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:1170203953.011518.323160@p10g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 30, 3:06 pm, "Steve Guidry" <steveguid...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> It just changes the form, and it's for the original viewer's use.
>>
>> How is that different from you copying a DVD or other show to your
>> computer
>> to watch on a plane ? (something I think you said probably was OK ).
>
>
> Copying a DVD to a computer to watch on a plane is _probably_ fair
> use . . .
> if you do it for your own use. In your hypothetical, you were doing
> it for someone else.
>
> Note, too, that the decisions that are the predicate for this kind of
> medium shifting, Sony v. Universal and the MP3 decision (the name of
> which escapes me at the moment), didn't consider creation of a
> replacement copy that would be, essentially permanent. For instance,
> one of the fundamental factual assumptions in the Betamax case was
> that people would _not_ compile a library of time-shifted, protected
> expression.
Now that DVD recorders are used by a lot of people to "time-shift" their TV
shows etc, how long is considered "permanent"? Who is going to know whether
you keep a copy of a TV show for 1 week or 1 decade? And if you record the
show on a non-rewriteable disk, are you supposed to throw the disk away
after you've watched the show? Or are you supposed to record only on
rewriteable disks so that you can erase the programme as soon as you have
watched it? And should I be digging through all my old VHS tapes and erasing
any that have old TV programmes on them (even though I never use my VHS
player now)?
>
> Finally, remember that one of the fair use factors is the effect on
> the market for the original. As I recall, the original question
> addressed a VHS of a television show that would be transferred to
> DVD. Given the huge numbers of old television shows that have been
> released as DVD editions, it clearly would hurt the market for the
> original (and remember, the original is the television show on video,
> not necessarily on VHS).
I have always thought that copyright law should be based on one simple
question, which is: "Is it likely that the copyright holders will lose money
as a result of the item being copied or stored permanently?" You say above
that copying a TV show from a tape to a DVD clearly would "hurt the market".
I think this would be very hard to prove in many instances, particularly
where only one episode was to be transferred to a DVD from tape (as was the
case put forward by the original poster). I certainly wouldn't bother taking
someone to Court if I was the copyright holder and I learned someone either
held on to a tape of one episode "permanently", or copied the tape to a DVD
of this one episode. If all the episodes of a TV show were being copied from
tapes to DVDs for the purpose of compiling a permanent library, then this
might be different, but I doubt even in these circumstances whether any
copyright holder would bother suing an individual over this. I don't think
I'd bother suing a commercial copying company in these circumstances either.
Are there any recorded instances of individuals being sued for keeping
recordings of TV shows for too long, or for copying them from tapes to DVDs?
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|