Can I copy VHS to DVD legally?

[dalej42]

Can I copy legally recorded television broadcasts to DVD legally? I know I can legally record a program to my VCR and watch it later. Am I able to take that VHS recording to a professional and have one DVD copy made for my own use? I have no interest in selling any of these.

[rfgdxm]

IANAL, but probably no. The Betamax case centered on using VCRs for time shifting. You are clearly archiving.

[1010011010]

On the other hand, if you had an older movie on VHS (Say, the older versions of Star Wars) and wished to transfer that to DVD for personal use, that would be legal, AFAIK.

[Punoqllads]

“Media shifting” for personal use falls into the category of fair use, I believe. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.

EFF Fair Use FAQ

@EFF Fair Use FAQ

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe…[s]pace-shifting or format-shifting [is fair use]

Note that the cite says “many lawyers believe” rather than “is”.

[Ms2001]

@rfgdxm

IANAL, but probably no. The Betamax case centered on using VCRs for time shifting. You are clearly archiving.

Has archiving ever been found to be illegal? I mean, if you keep a show on tape after you’ve watched it once, you’re archiving. If you save something from TiVo onto a tape, you’re archiving, and TiVo has a feature just for that purpose. I’d be surprised if such common, openly encouraged actions were illegal.

[ronald33]

If the original is on an obsolete format (such as VHS) and not available currently elsewhere, it MUST be Fair Use. As you’re not depriving the copyright owner of opportunity to market their product.

[KneadToKnow]

@ronald33

If the original is on an obsolete format (such as VHS) and not available currently elsewhere, it MUST be Fair Use.

Can you provide a cite for that assertion?

[Duckster]

Other than the Betamax case which involves time-shifting as already stated, any other use is subject to licensing. If you don’t have a license to copy, for whatever reason, including archiving (and subject to an existing court decision otherwise), it’s my understanding it would be illegal. Having the technical capability to do something does not mean nor imply the legal authority to actually do it.

[Punoqllads]

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia that space-shifting fell under fair use. That’s pretty close to format-shifting, in my opinion.

From the decision:

In fact, the Rio’s operation is entirely consistent with the Act’s main purpose-the facilitation of personal use.   As the Senate Report explains, “[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use.”   S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added).   The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. § 1008, which “protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings,” H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59.   The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or “space-shift,” those files that already reside on a user’s hard drive.   Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455, 104 S.Ct. 774, 78 L.Ed.2d 574 (1984) (holding that “time-shifting” of copyrighted television shows with VCR’s constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement).   Such copying is paradigmatic noncommercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.

As noted in that quote, this case was about audio recordings, not video recordings, I Am Not A Lawer, You Are Not My Client, etc.

[MuleSkinner]

@Punoqllads

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia that space-shifting fell under fair use. That’s pretty close to format-shifting, in my opinion.

That’s in regard to music that was legally bought. Archiving recorded television shows is another matter.

[Punoqllads]

Recording a television show (time-shifting) for personal use has been known legal since the Betamax trial, so as in the Diamond case, is lawfully obtained.

[Great_Antibob]

@Punoqllads

Recording a television show (time-shifting) for personal use has been known legal since the Betamax trial, so as in the Diamond case, is lawfully obtained.

Context matters.

Fair use policies are NOT additive. Just because time-shifting is legal and media shifting is likely ok doesn’t mean you can necessarily media-shift AND time-shift anything you want from TV.

For example, transferring an MLB baseball game first recorded on VHS in 1998 (for purposes of time-shifting) to a DVD in 2012 (media shifting) is probably not ok. Maybe you can argue you are still just basically time-shifting, but that would be a gross stretching of the intent of it.

[MuleSkinner]

@Punoqllads

Recording a television show (time-shifting) for personal use has been known legal since the Betamax trial, so as in the Diamond case, is lawfully obtained.

Of course it’s lawfully obtained in both cases. In one case it’s recordings that were bought. It’s been found that in that case you can shift the recording to another medium. You haven’t bought a TV show when you record it. You can record it for time shifting, but archiving it as you would paid recordings is another matter.

[Punoqllads]

@Great_Antibob

Context matters.

Fair use policies are NOT additive. Just because time-shifting is legal and media shifting is likely ok doesn’t mean you can necessarily media-shift AND time-shift anything you want from TV.

I strongly agree with these statements.

For example, transferring an MLB baseball game first recorded on VHS in 1998 (for purposes of time-shifting) to a DVD in 2012 (media shifting) is probably not ok.

I do not know of any case law in support of this statement, however.

[Punoqllads]

@MuleSkinner

You can record it for time shifting, but archiving it as you would paid recordings is another matter.

Oh, good point. We often think nothing of recording a TV show and watching it more than once, but only one viewing is definitely fair use.