quote:

ORIGINAL: HannahLynHeather

quote:

Everything on my computer I paid for.

i didn't.

quote:

I don't feel like we're stealing anything because we're paying customers. If our satellite was rigged and we weren't paying for it, I would feel differently.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

quote:

I don't feel like we're stealing anything because we're paying customers. If our satellite was rigged and we weren't paying for it, I would feel differently.

Well i am sure people who feel entitled to other people's things when they steal things from stores and such don't "FEEL" like they are stealing either.  I mean gee after all they bought toilet paper didn't they? 

DBG, NO YOU AREN'T PAYING TO OWN THE MOVIE.  Good god are you really this ignorant?    Do you know the difference between paying for a service and paying to actually own something?  Or would understanding that mean you actually have to acknowledge you are illegally pirating movies by copying and distributing them.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean doing it is LEGAL.  As i said, you can walk out of a store with something you did not pay for even though you bought other things and it is STILL ILLEGAL especially when you do it deliberately.  You are NOT ENTITLED to pirate the movies just because you pay for a service.

If you want to copy movies and distribute them fine, it's called pirating and is illegal and a concept of stealing, no one is saying anything about that though you will be judged by many for doing so, but AT LEAST have the damn integrity to acknowledge you are doing something illegal and you just don't give a damn.  You aren't as ignorant as you are letting on in this thread.

angel

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

Well i am sure people who feel entitled to other people's things when they steal things from stores and such don't "FEEL" like they are stealing either.  I mean gee after all they bought toilet paper didn't they? 

DBG, NO YOU AREN'T PAYING TO OWN THE MOVIE.  Good god are you really this ignorant?    Do you know the difference between paying for a service and paying to actually own something?  Or would understanding that mean you actually have to acknowledge you are illegally pirating movies by copying and distributing them.

Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean doing it is LEGAL.  As i said, you can walk out of a store with something you did not pay for even though you bought other things and it is STILL ILLEGAL especially when you do it deliberately.  You are NOT ENTITLED to pirate the movies just because you pay for a service.

If you want to copy movies and distribute them fine, it's called pirating and is illegal and a concept of stealing, no one is saying anything about that though you will be judged by many for doing so, but AT LEAST have the damn integrity to acknowledge you are doing something illegal and you just don't give a damn.  You aren't as ignorant as you are letting on in this thread.

angel

quote:


[12] The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home. Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102." Id., at 454. [n8] Even when an entire copyrighted work was recorded, [p*426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no accompanying reduction in the market for plaintiff's original work." Ibid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl


I don't feel like we're stealing anything because we're paying customers. If our satellite was rigged and we weren't paying for it, I would feel differently. As it turns out, we are allowed to use hard drives for added recording space. As for buying movies, I do when I can find them. Most movies can be found online, but many websites that sell movies I want don't have phone numbers or don't accept paypal. I just paid over $100 for a series Amazon was selling for $50 because the other site had the option of ordering by phone.

Now, legally you may not record it with the intent of "librarying" it (making a permanent copy to watch over and over again), but that doesn't seem to be what you were asking about. You were simply asking about whether it is legal to record, and the answer is that it is legal. Anyone who tells you otherwise - including the twit you spoke with at your cable provider - is wrong. It's unfortunate that some of them didn't bother doing a little research before lecturing you, condescending to you, and even insulting you. You were right all along.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl


I just want to free up space without deleting movies I like to watch.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

You are NOT ENTITLED to pirate the movies just because you pay for a service.

If you want to copy movies and distribute them fine, it's called pirating and is illegal and a concept of stealing, no one is saying anything about that though you will be judged by many for doing so, but AT LEAST have the damn integrity to acknowledge you are doing something illegal and you just don't give a damn.  You aren't as ignorant as you are letting on in this thread.

angel

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

She has made a copy on her DVR.
She wishes to copy the content she really likes to make room for new content so that she can keep the stuff she likes to watch over and over again.


*dfb, I was apparently wrong and am very sorry and am especially sorry for losing my patience and saying an unkind thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda


Again, you people have absolutely no clue what you're talking about. None. It's as amazing as it is amusing, and more than a little ironic, that you would continue to throw around words like "ignorant" when you can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes doing your own basic research.  In 1984, the United States Supreme Court (in 464 US 41, the "Betamax Case") affirmed a California District Court's ruling that read, in part -

quote:


[12] The District Court concluded that noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves was a fair use of copyrighted works and did not constitute copyright infringement. It emphasized the fact that the material was broadcast free to the public at large, the noncommercial character of the use, and the private character of the activity conducted entirely within the home. Moreover, the court found that the purpose of this use served the public interest in increasing access to television programming, an interest that "is consistent with the First Amendment policy of providing the fullest possible access to information through the public airwaves. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102." Id., at 454. [n8] Even when an entire copyrighted work was recorded, [p*426] the District Court regarded the copying as fair use "because there is no accompanying reduction in the market for plaintiff's original work." Ibid.

Recording of broadcast programs for personal use is not piracy. It only becomes piracy when you distribute, or intend to distribute, the content. This is not rocket science - it only takes a few minutes to educate yourselves. You can read the entire ruling here, if you like; or, you can continue to bluster and browbeat. But the bottom line is, Defiantbadgirl is absolutely correct, and you people have no idea what you're talking about. She's owed an apology. In fact, she's probably owed a lot of apologies, but this being CollarMe, I doubt she'll get many.

quote:

ORIGINAL: defiantbadgirl

quote:

ORIGINAL: angelikaJ

She has made a copy on her DVR.
She wishes to copy the content she really likes to make room for new content so that she can keep the stuff she likes to watch over and over again.


*dfb, I was apparently wrong and am very sorry and am especially sorry for losing my patience and saying an unkind thing.

Thanks for the apology. I must disagree that librarying for my own personal use is illegal since my satellite provider suggests hard drives to increase recording space.

http://www.directv.com/DTVAPP/global/article.jsp?assetId=P5980155

quote:

I am asking for clarification of what he meant by that as I am confused.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arpig

quote:

I am asking for clarification of what he meant by that as I am confused.

Don't hold your breath. He's not likely to, because he can't. He said its only illegal if she does "B". When it was pointed out to him that she is intending to do "B", he came back with a quote about doing "A".

Draw your own conclusions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: barelynangel

Umm, last i checked material each of these company's provide in their service to paying customers are not PUBLIC airways but are privately owned company's yes?  Which is why you can't pick up their channels and you PAY for the service of having the movies provided to you.  The service you pay for is not material broadcasted to the PUBLIC, but to those who pay for it.  Therefore, it still is illegal to copy it and distribute it to yourself as you still have not actually purchased the movie.  That is why they provide you with a DVR, yes?  Otherwise, why not simply have a DVD records provided?

angel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras

I don't think Defiant actually said she wanted to keep the movies but rather to free up space. She pays a subscription to a satellite provider which includes payment of royalties for the use of programme material including many films. It doesn't strictly matter if she makes recordings on DVD or not because commercial DVD recorders also have a capacity for recording broadcasts built-in. However, if she decides to keep the films then that may go beyond fair usage rules. However, I agree with Panda that it doesn't effectively constitute piracy. The question of how many people in the US actually follow such rules and delete or erase programmes (rather than record over them with new material) after keeping them for no more than the proscribed 28 days, is relevant. Perhaps a poll should be done but I would be surprised if it was more than 0%. The reality is that fair usage in a de facto sense extends to recording for an undefined period of time, and in effect only becomes piracy as it is commonly understood when recording is used for commercial gain. When making such rules and legally allowing the sale of VCR's in the early 1980's, it would have been understood that fair usage rules limiting the period of keeping a recording would have been impossible to enforce and unlikely to be abided by with a significant portion of the populace so I feel keeping an old recording is not going against the spirit of fair usage.