OK

On Oct 22, 7:55 am, william <williamahe... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 22, 6:08 am, Calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> > Something should be done to make the copying of VHS tapes
> > to DVDs legal. Now that the VHS market is dead, making
> > DVDs from one's VHS tape collection is exactly analogous
> > to making CDs from one's LP collection.
> > We all know there are illegal ways to do this, but why
> > should they continue to be illegal in the VHS to DVD case?

> Is it really illegal to make DVDs from VHS

I think so.

> or only to sell them?

In any case I was referring to the non-selling,
non-lending case: home viewing by oneself, or non-paying
family or friends.

> Aren't we buying the rights to home viewing when we
> purchase a VHS?

Yes, but as far as I know, copying for any purpose is illegal.
I'm trying to argue that copying to DVD for the purpose of
making a more durable version, with added DVD features
such as chapters, should be legal, just as we make more
durable CDs from LPs, with tracks added.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 22, 6:08 am, Calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> Something should be done to make the copying of VHS tapes
> to DVDs legal. Now that the VHS market is dead, making
> DVDs from one's VHS tape collection is exactly analogous
> to making CDs from one's LP collection.
>
> We all know there are illegal ways to do this, but why
> should they continue to be illegal in the VHS to DVD case?

Is it really illegal to make DVDs from VHS or only to sell them?
Aren't we buying the rights to home viewing when we purchase a VHS?

William
www.williamahearn.com
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

"Calvin" <crice5.DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1193061583.081646.110680@k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 7:55 am, william <williamahe....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 22, 6:08 am, Calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
>> > Something should be done to make the copying of VHS tapes
>> > to DVDs legal. Now that the VHS market is dead, making
>> > DVDs from one's VHS tape collection is exactly analogous
>> > to making CDs from one's LP collection.
>> > We all know there are illegal ways to do this, but why
>> > should they continue to be illegal in the VHS to DVD case?
>
>> Is it really illegal to make DVDs from VHS
>
> I think so.
>
>> or only to sell them?
>
> In any case I was referring to the non-selling,
> non-lending case: home viewing by oneself, or non-paying
> family or friends.
>
>> Aren't we buying the rights to home viewing when we
>> purchase a VHS?
>
> Yes, but as far as I know, copying for any purpose is illegal.
> I'm trying to argue that copying to DVD for the purpose of
> making a more durable version, with added DVD features
> such as chapters, should be legal, just as we make more
> durable CDs from LPs, with tracks added.

There's nothing illegal whatsoever about copying your personal VHS tapes to
DVD. Nothing. Don't try marketing them, though. You can no more market
DVDs copied from your VHS tapes than you can market your VHS tapes copied
from TV.

Jim Beaver
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 22, 4:48 pm, "Jim Beaver" <jumble....DeleteThis@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> "Calvin" <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Oct 22, 7:55 am, william <williamahe....DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Oct 22, 6:08 am, Calvin <cri....DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> > Something should be done to make the copying of VHS tapes
> >> > to DVDs legal. Now that the VHS market is dead, making
> >> > DVDs from one's VHS tape collection is exactly analogous
> >> > to making CDs from one's LP collection.
> >> > We all know there are illegal ways to do this, but why
> >> > should they continue to be illegal in the VHS to DVD case?

> >> Is it really illegal to make DVDs from VHS

> > I think so.

> >> or only to sell them?

> > In any case I was referring to the non-selling,
> > non-lending case: home viewing by oneself, or non-paying
> > family or friends.

> >> Aren't we buying the rights to home viewing when we
> >> purchase a VHS?

> > Yes, but as far as I know, copying for any purpose is illegal.
> > I'm trying to argue that copying to DVD for the purpose of
> > making a more durable version, with added DVD features
> > such as chapters, should be legal, just as we make more
> > durable CDs from LPs, with tracks added.

> There's nothing illegal whatsoever about copying your personal VHS tapes to
> DVD. Nothing. Don't try marketing them, though. You can no more market
> DVDs copied from your VHS tapes than you can market your VHS tapes copied
> from TV.

As I said in what you quoted above, this is not about
selling anything. But you seem to be ignoring those
FBI warnings when you say there is nothing illegal
whatsoever. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a model
citizen. I've given away VHS and DVD copies of my
'Song of the South' laserdiscs, for example. But I'm
just curious about what the law is, or should be,
concerning copying from defunct media, not for
monetary gain. And it is not a simple issue, because
one needs a means of defeating copy-guarded VHS
tapes even if it is, or becomes, legal to copy them.
In that area I'm not a model citizen either, but the
legality of copying something is meaningless if the
hardware needed to do it is illegal.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

"Jim Beaver" <jumblejim.RemoveThis@prodigy.spam> wrote in message news:y_7Ti.47>
There's nothing illegal whatsoever about copying your personal VHS tapes to
> DVD. Nothing. Don't try marketing them, though. You can no more market
> DVDs copied from your VHS tapes than you can market your VHS tapes copied
> from TV.
>
> Jim Beaver
>

It's "legal" to copy ANYTHING, including VHS, DVD's, CD's, games, etc.
What's not legal, is to circumvent copy protection schemes. We can thank our
fearless politicians for this convoluted legal landscape. People routinely
make the leap of logic and assume that it's illegal to copy, when in fact it
is not.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 22, 5:36 pm, "DanG" <nos... RemoveThis @q.com> wrote:
> It's "legal" to copy ANYTHING, including VHS, DVD's, CD's, games, etc.
> What's not legal, is to circumvent copy protection schemes. We can thank our
> fearless politicians for this convoluted legal landscape. People routinely
> make the leap of logic and assume that it's illegal to copy, when in fact it
> is not.

It's hard to believe that the FBI warnings, continually thrust
in our faces, threatening fines and imprisonment, are only lies.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

Calvin wrote:

> Yes, but as far as I know, copying for any purpose is illegal.

As an act of civil disobedience, I just copied your statement. I give it
our freely, without charge, although out there somewhere maybe somebody
will put it up on eBay.

I have old VHS tapes of family and networking events. I'm going to
eventually convert 'em to DVD. I'd like to also bring all my old LPs
over to CD. I don't believe when I bought the old Verve Gillespie sides
of *Have Trumpet Will Excite* there was any bar to copying to any
mechanism at all. Nor did the Founders have any objection. (Interesting
that all the Rigid Constructionists, the ones who believe no right to
privacy can exist without ol' Tom explicitly spelling it out, are
onboard with Warner on busting schoolkids for sharing electronic music.)

Another base the industry always steals is when they figure losses.
Like, every CD download represents a theft of twenty bucks to them.
Piffle. Any number of folks might invest the time to download Wretched
Access tunes, but does that mean they'd pay a buck apiece for them?

Hardly.


--
'... my name is Noman; this is what my father and mother and my friends
have always called me.' - Odyssey; Book IX
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 22, 7:19 pm, No Man <woes....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Calvin wrote:
> > Yes, but as far as I know, copying for any purpose is illegal.
> As an act of civil disobedience, I just copied your statement. I give it
> our freely, without charge, although out there somewhere maybe somebody
> will put it up on eBay.
> I have old VHS tapes of family and networking events. I'm going to
> eventually convert 'em to DVD. I'd like to also bring all my old LPs
> over to CD. I don't believe when I bought the old Verve Gillespie sides
> of *Have Trumpet Will Excite* there was any bar to copying to any
> mechanism at all. Nor did the Founders have any objection. (Interesting
> that all the Rigid Constructionists, the ones who believe no right to
> privacy can exist without ol' Tom explicitly spelling it out, are
> onboard with Warner on busting schoolkids for sharing electronic music.)
> Another base the industry always steals is when they figure losses.
> Like, every CD download represents a theft of twenty bucks to them.
> Piffle. Any number of folks might invest the time to download Wretched
> Access tunes, but does that mean they'd pay a buck apiece for them?
> Hardly.
> --
> '... my name is Noman; this is what my father and mother and my friends
> have always called me.' - Odyssey; Book IX

I hope you were just kidding about copying my e-mail.
It should have been clear from the context that we were
talking about copying video and audio media, not e-mail
or anything else.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

"Calvin" <crice5.TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1193092728.926258.72150@v23g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 5:36 pm, "DanG" <nos....TakeThisOut@q.com> wrote:
>> It's "legal" to copy ANYTHING, including VHS, DVD's, CD's, games, etc.
>> What's not legal, is to circumvent copy protection schemes. We can thank
>> our
>> fearless politicians for this convoluted legal landscape. People
>> routinely
>> make the leap of logic and assume that it's illegal to copy, when in fact
>> it
>> is not.
>
> It's hard to believe that the FBI warnings, continually thrust
> in our faces, threatening fines and imprisonment, are only lies.
>

Nobody said they were lies. Sheesh. READ the damned things! "The
unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is
illegal." UNAUTHORIZED!!!! The consumer is completely authorized by
existing law to make his own copies for his personal use. It is
reproduction for UNAUTHORIZED reasons, such as remarketing, that is illegal.

U.S. Code: Title 17, Section 506 is (one of) the applicable sections of law
(as stated ON most of those FBI warnings). That section defines what is and
what is not considered infringement (and thus, what is and what is not
authorized and what is and is not punishable). Here's what the law says:
The copying/distribution must fit these criteria to be unauthorized
infringement:
(A) Be for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
(B) Be by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
(C) Be by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial
distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to
members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the
work was intended for commercial distribution.

As far as I can tell from the U.S. Code, there's no law against going around
copy-protection as long as the above definitions of infringement do not
occur. Copy-protection is not a legal matter, but a matter between the
manufacturer/distributor and the customer and is not enforceable as law.
What IS enforceable is the U.S. Code, and it says nothing about how you
manage to make a DVD from your VHS copy of the final episode of DIFFERENT
STROKES. As long as you don't sell more than one for more than a thousand
bucks, or knowingly distribute by internet a copyrighted item being prepared
for commercial distribution, or do anything for financial or commercial gain
with it, you're fine.

It took me longer to type this stuff than it did to look up the U.S. Code
printed at the bottom of those FBI warnings.

Jim Beaver
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

In article <1193061583.081646.110680 RemoveThis @k35g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Calvin <crice5 RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:

:> Aren't we buying the rights to home viewing when we
:> purchase a VHS?
:
: Yes, but as far as I know, copying for any purpose is illegal.

Are VHS tapes not covered by "fair use"? And if you're not copying them
for anyone else's use, who's to know? If you keep the curtains closed,
the guys in the black helicopters will have no way of knowing whether
you're watching from a VHS tape, a DVD, or are listening to the audio
portion after your TV's picture tube blew up.

-----
Richard Schultz schultr RemoveThis @mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Contrariwise," continued Tweedledee, "if it was so, it might be, and
if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic."
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 22, 10:54 pm, "Jim Beaver" <jumble....RemoveThis@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> "Calvin" <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > It's hard to believe that the FBI warnings, continually thrust
> > in our faces, threatening fines and imprisonment, are only lies.
>
> Nobody said they were lies. Sheesh. READ the damned things! "The
> unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this copyrighted work is
> illegal." UNAUTHORIZED!!!! The consumer is completely authorized by
> existing law to make his own copies for his personal use. It is
> reproduction for UNAUTHORIZED reasons, such as remarketing, that is illegal.
>
> U.S. Code: Title 17, Section 506 is (one of) the applicable sections of law
> (as stated ON most of those FBI warnings). That section defines what is and
> what is not considered infringement (and thus, what is and what is not
> authorized and what is and is not punishable). Here's what the law says:
> The copying/distribution must fit these criteria to be unauthorized
> infringement:
> (A) Be for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain;
> (B) Be by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
> during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or more
> copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than $1,000; or
> (C) Be by the distribution of a work being prepared for commercial
> distribution, by making it available on a computer network accessible to
> members of the public, if such person knew or should have known that the
> work was intended for commercial distribution.
>
> As far as I can tell from the U.S. Code, there's no law against going around
> copy-protection as long as the above definitions of infringement do not
> occur. Copy-protection is not a legal matter, but a matter between the
> manufacturer/distributor and the customer and is not enforceable as law.
> What IS enforceable is the U.S. Code, and it says nothing about how you
> manage to make a DVD from your VHS copy of the final episode of DIFFERENT
> STROKES. As long as you don't sell more than one for more than a thousand
> bucks, or knowingly distribute by internet a copyrighted item being prepared
> for commercial distribution, or do anything for financial or commercial gain
> with it, you're fine.
>
> It took me longer to type this stuff than it did to look up the U.S. Code
> printed at the bottom of those FBI warnings.

>From what you have said and quoted then, it looks like
both copying and getting around copy protection are
legal if one is copying one's own property, and doing it
for non-commercial gain.

Some of the more recent FBI warnings, though, include
the words, "even if not for commercial gain". It's true that
these words have to be applied to everything else that those
warnings and codes referenced say. What you have said
and painstakingly quoted is compelling, though, but even
if totally true, there is still a murky area concerning getting
around copy-protection. The devices that enable one to
do it 'legally' also enable one to do it criminally, and they
are not sold in the U.S., so the sale of them must be
illegal here. Whether buying them from another country
on the internet is also illegal in the U.S. I don't have a
clue.
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

"Calvin" <crice5.DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1193114594.892375.132990@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

>
> Some of the more recent FBI warnings, though, include
> the words, "even if not for commercial gain".

An FBI warning statement is not in itself law. What the Code says is law,
and the FBI warning is true, but only in its strictly applied essence.
Basically the warning is saying "Doing for reasons other than commercial
gain doesn't get you around the other parts of the statute." But by saying
simply "even if not for commercial gain," I'm sure they intend to frighten
off anyone who thinks that's the ONLY definition of "unauthorized."

It's true that
> these words have to be applied to everything else that those
> warnings and codes referenced say. What you have said
> and painstakingly quoted is compelling, though, but even
> if totally true, there is still a murky area concerning getting
> around copy-protection. The devices that enable one to
> do it 'legally' also enable one to do it criminally,

Sort of like guns, huh? ;-)

and they
> are not sold in the U.S., so the sale of them must be
> illegal here.

Logical fallacy here. Rocks from Jupiter aren't sold in the U.S., but that
doesn't mean "the sale of them must be illegal here."

And a reality fallacy, as well. Copy-protection work-around devices are
most definitely sold in this country, and legally so. You just have to know
where to go and what to look for. While they are not as a general rule
marketed to the normal retail consumer, most commercial and industrial film
and video production facilities have them, I'd daresay. I know of one major
department store chain that had several, purchased from major mainstream
U.S. manufacturers, in its in-house video production department. You can't
get 'em at Radio Shack, probably, but that doesn't remotely mean you can't
buy them legally in this country. Which means that buying them from another
country would be no less legal. Sorry I can't quote you chapter and verse.
It's kind of hard to find statutes that describe all the things that ARE
legal.

Jim Beaver
 >> Stay informed about: OK 

On Oct 23, 1:34 am, "Jim Beaver" <jumble....RemoveThis@prodigy.spam> wrote:
> "Calvin" <cri....RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:
> > Some of the more recent FBI warnings, though, include
> > the words, "even if not for commercial gain".
> An FBI warning statement is not in itself law. What the Code says is law,
> and the FBI warning is true, but only in its strictly applied essence.
> Basically the warning is saying "Doing for reasons other than commercial
> gain doesn't get you around the other parts of the statute." But by saying
> simply "even if not for commercial gain," I'm sure they intend to frighten
> off anyone who thinks that's the ONLY definition of "unauthorized."
> > It's true that
> > these words have to be applied to everything else that those
> > warnings and codes referenced say. What you have said
> > and painstakingly quoted is compelling, though, but even
> > if totally true, there is still a murky area concerning getting
> > around copy-protection. The devices that enable one to
> > do it 'legally' also enable one to do it criminally,
> Sort of like guns, huh? ;-)
> > and they
> > are not sold in the U.S., so the sale of them must be
> > illegal here.

> Logical fallacy here. Rocks from Jupiter aren't sold in the U.S.,
> but that doesn't mean "the sale of them must be illegal here."

No fallacy, because I left out the part that I thought everyone
would assume: If there's an obvious market for something
and it isn't sold, especially in this country dominated by
evil capitalists, then it must be illegal to sell it. If it was
legal to sell it to the ordinary 'consumer', it would be sold
at Wal-Mart.

> And a reality fallacy, as well. Copy-protection work-around devices are
> most definitely sold in this country, and legally so. You just have to know
> where to go and what to look for. While they are not as a general rule
> marketed to the normal retail consumer, most commercial and industrial film
> and video production facilities have them, I'd daresay. I know of one major
> department store chain that had several, purchased from major mainstream
> U.S. manufacturers, in its in-house video production department. You can't
> get 'em at Radio Shack, probably, but that doesn't remotely mean you can't
> buy them legally in this country. Which means that buying them from another
> country would be no less legal. Sorry I can't quote you chapter and verse.
> It's kind of hard to find statutes that describe all the things that ARE
> legal.

Well, the one I've seen was made in Japan and called a 'video
stabilizer',
and the box illustration showed two side-by-side pictures, one a
photo with slightly wavy lines, and the other with straight lines. In
the
extra directions included, not the 'official' ones, it was told how
to open it up and cut a particular wire, to defeat copy-protection.

I'm not committing the logical fallacy of saying that the laws in the
U.S. are the same as in Japan, but I think this item would be on the
shelves at Radio Shack if it was legal to sell it here.
 >> Stay informed about: OK