I was going through my old VHS tapes the other day, and came upon a copy of an old George Carlin special. I got to thinking, how cool would it be to get that on CD so I could have it for road trips and such?
Considering that I own the tape, may I copy it onto my computer as an MP3 and make a CD out of it?
Yeah, yhat’s fine. As long as you’re not selling it or making someone else pay to listen.
IANAL of course, but i’m pretty sure you are allowed to make one copy for backup purposes and it dosen’t matter what media you copy it to. so copy it to the cd, put the tape somewhere safe as a backup and there you go.
as far as i know you are allowed to make a backup like this of alot of things: tapes, movies, cds, computer games, etc. i could be wrong (and i don’t have any cites :rolleyes: ) but i’ve heard this from alot of different places.
even if it isen’t legal i’m not sure why it would matter. you do own the tape so its not like you are stealing it and i doubt anyone would turn you in. even if someone did i really doubt anyone would care enough to do anything about it.
And don’t give it to a friend. That’s the same thing as file-sharing.
Are you sure about that Diceman? Filesharing is making it available to the masses. Making a copy of VHS tape for a friend is alot different. I’m pretty sure that’s legal. Anyone got the straight dope?
A copy is a copy is a copy. It doesn’t matter if you’re only giving it to one friend, or several hundred strangers, it’s still illegal distribution.
Cite?
There may be an explicit right to keep a backup copy of computer programs granted in EULAs, but AFAIK, there is no such right in the case of books, video tapes, DVDs, music CDs, or other forms of media.
Making the copy the OP suggests is technically illegal, but as BurntToast says, chances are very good you’ll get away with it.
All right, now for some straight dope instead of random guesses.
No. You do not have the right to make a copy of that tape. That right is only available to the copyright holder.
Now, even though you don’t have the right, you can make a copy without fear of being sued for a violation if and only if you make the copy on an approved medium. Videotapes and audiocassettes are approved, so you could make a copy and use that. CDs, however, are not (unless you get special permission; some music sites like buymusic.com lets you burn a set number of CDs once you download).
And once more:
You don’t have the right to make a backup of copyrighted material (unless you are a library – and the definition of that is quite restricted).
It doesn’t matter if you charge for the copy or not. Unless you have the copyright (i.e., the right to make a copy), you cannot make copies for any reason whatsoever.
As to the practical consquences of this, it’s obviously highly unlikely George Carlin would know about this or that he would go to the trouble of suing you over it. However, that does not mean you have any right to do so.
If you want to do this legally, make an audiocassette and play that.
Sorry, RealityChuck, but since some of what you say is flat out wrong, I’d like cites for your other claims.
This is wrong. Copyright law provides for “fair use” exceptions. See here. I grant that the OP’s use is almost certainly not a “fair use,” but there are cases in which copying is permitted, and not only to libraries.
Cite? Approved by whom?
It’s the Betamax Case.
You can make a duplicate copy of a tape you own for your own use. However, since the case was decided prior to the technology of today, it remains to be seen if you can copy a VHS tape (which you own) to a DVD (which you own) for your own use.
And the point of this is what?
Not only is the OP’s use not “fair use” but even if it were for one of the allowed purposes, it would still be unacceptable.
What tha? Why did a cut and paste cause a submit?
Once again.
Not only is the OP’s use not “fair use” but even if it were for one of the allowed purposes, it would still be unacceptable.
.A complete copy is virtually never considered to be allowable even under fair use.
Your post shows the truth of the adage that facts have meaning only in context. You posted a fact, but it was so warped out of context that it decreased the meaning of this thread rather than adding to it.
Cutting through the fiction RealityChuck deems neccesary to repeat.
Right now there is really no clear cut answer to the legality of what you want to do. The best answer is it’s very likely fairuse and legal. Diamond Rio vs RIAA sets a good precedent for it being legal.
accourding to the EFF
bolding mine
Hmm…interesting responses. Thanks all.
Sorry, Netscape, but the EFF is hardly unbiased. Nowhere in the actual law is there an indication that you can make a personal backup for archive use. “Many lawyers” may “believe” something is true, but what lawers believe are not necessarily the law (most defense lawyers, for instance, “believe” their client is innocent – but that certainly not always the case). All the EFF is doing is making a case that they’d put before a judge; it has nothing to do with the legality involved.
The law itself makes no provision for personal backups other than for computer programs. Since no court has yet overruled that law, any question about whether it is legal or not is determined by what the law says.
Similarly, nothing in the law provides for the “space-shifting” of music (and it’s quite clear that the prevention of this sort of practice is exactly the reason why copyright law came into being in the first place).
You’re only argument is that it may be possible for a court to declare this practice legal. Fair enough. But the question wasn’t “could it possibly be declared legal”; it was “Is it legal”? Since there is nothing in the law as written that permits this practice, and since the practice is precisely what the law was written to prevent, until ruled otherwise, it is illegal to make the copies.
Forgive me if I have misunderstood you here, and I’m not any high-priced lawyer and my friend who is one is in Jamaica so I can’t ask him, but I don’t think you can say anything is illegal unless the law “allows” it. You can only saw it is illegal if a law “prohibits” it. Right?
So isn’t the question whether or not the law specifically prohibits or has been interpreted by a superior court to prohibit space-shifting? This question could be tabled very quickly by a link to the Federal law or court decision that says in effect “space shifting is not allowed for these media”.
Or am I misunderstanding here?
The bias of EFF is irrelevent, their data is based on fact.
Now then
Really? I was under the impression copy right law came about to allow artists to safetly sell rights to distibuters without the risk of the distrubuter selling their work with out paying them.
Any way care to explain why then the RIAA lost in RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia then?
Anyway since Lord Ashtar wants to only copy the audio portion of the VHS it seems quite clear now that I think about that the RIAA vs Diamond Multimedia precedent makes it legal.
Pretty much by definition, the positions that an advocacy group feels the need to advocate are not current reality.
When an advocacy group says that “the legal basis is not completely settled,” it is admitting that its point of view has not yet won in a court of law. The EFF itself says this in its Copyright and Fair Use FAQ:
This also answers Una Persson’s question. Current copyright law does appear to make burning illegal.
Contrary to netscape 6’s claim, the RIAA v Diamond Rio case does not set a precedent, even though Diamond won a round in a lower court. After that decision Diamond, RIAA Settle Internet Music Lawsuit and “the parties dismissed their legal actions and said they are mutually satisfied with the resolution of outstanding legal issues.” They and the rest of the industry have, since 1999, moved towards legal pay downloads. Music piracy has not been a success in the courts.
And this is as it should be. Copyright does exist to ensure that artists will get paid for their works. Copying entire works into new formats without payment does not stand up under current copyright law, not even under any doctrine of fair use acknowledged today.
This may change with future court cases, true. I also have to say that there is not the slightest chance that Lord Ashtar will run into legal jeopardy for his act and that I personally find copying for personal use a far different moral issue than Johnny Appleseeding files out to the millions.
But on a strictly technical basis, what the EFF wishes to be true and what legislation and case law currently say are two very different things.
That’s a little harsh, Harpo. I think you may have misunderstood my intention.
Reality Chuck made a blanket statement that was erroneous. I pointed out the error because it raised doubts in my mind about the accuracy of the rest of his post. My main question was about the so-called approved media. The cite in Duckster’s reply provides the basis for the use of home video recorders, but doesn’t speak to the issue of “approved media” nor have any subsequent posts.
I want to know what these “approved media” are and what the legal basis for their “approval” is.
Or a position that groups feel is in danger. The NRA is fervent about protecting gun rights for example.
So how has Roxio avoided being sued?
Why? Granted it wont be binding in a higher court, but thats true of all precedents.
Agreed in principle, to bad the RIAA and “work for hire” ruin that goal in many cases. We’re on the same page about the point of copyright atleast though.
But with the Diamond precedent it does stand up, atleast for music CDs you own (and therefore all ready paid the artist, or in the case of RIAA music, the rich business excutive).