From: greeny@top.cis.syr.edu (J. S. Greenfield)
Subject: Re: Copyrights and piracy...
Organization: Syracuse University, CIS Dept.
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 92 15:05:46 EDT

In article <mwalker-240792101130@mwalker1.npd.provo.novell.com.> mwalker@novell.com (Mel Walker) writes:

>> > 
>> > However, if you had a Quicktime movie that was a whole episode, with
>> > the same resolution as the TV show (if possible), then, yeah, Groening
>> > would mind.  As would SAG, WGA, DGA, AFTRA, etc.
>> 
>> How is this different from having a video tape with an episode of the
>> Simpsons or some othe TV program?  I imagine that 95% of all VCR's have been
>> used to do
>
>Because you are only using the videotape for your own enjoyment, not
>selling it to others or charging others to watch it. The Supreme Court
>ruled on this some time ago.
>
>> just this.  In fact many people keep them.  I personally taped ever episode
>> of Twin Peaks off the TV.  They are now available on VCR tapes.  Am I a
>> pirate?  Yet this is just what VCR are DESIGNED to do.  That is how they are
>> marketed.  Many pay TV stations specifically market their movies to be
>> taped.
>> 
>> Likewise many people tape songs off the radio.
>
>Similar to the TV/VCR ruling.

As I seem to recall (from a while back when I hit the law library to get some
references regarding the legality of unauthorized reception of satellite
signals), the SC case regarding videotaping actually found that it was legal
and reasonable (i.e., not a copyright infringement) to tape copyrighted
television programs for the purpose of "time-shifting."  Since the court
found that videotapes (remember--the case was over whether or not the
film companies could get royalties from sales of blank videotapes) had a
significant, non-copyright-infringing use, the film companies could not collect
royalties on the blank tape sales.

This would seem to leave a (not explicitly ruled-upon) hole regarding the
legality of taping copyrighted materials, and then holding onto the tapes
for extended periods of time in order to (privately) watch them again and
again.

My guess is that, legally, such an extended use of the tapes *would* constitute
a copyright infringement.  However, the film companies were left with no
broad-based technique to collect royalties, and it is simply impractical to
sue for royalties from each individual.  So, in practice, you could get away
with it.

I would further guess that the likelihood that somebody would digitize
copyrighted material, such as the Simpsons, for the legal purpose of "time
shifting" is so small as to be negligible.  In any other case, it should be
expected that we are talking about a clear copyright infringement.

Of course, no one is going to take any legal action against you unless you
are using the copyrighted material in a manner that attracts the attention
of the copyright-holders.


The short answer is--the legality of viewing a QuickTime film of the Simpsons
is probably the same as that of a videotape--it is legal if you are just
time-shifting.  If not, it is probably a copyright infringement.

The main difference is that none of us *believe* that anybody uses QT like
a vcr for "time-shifting."

-- 
J. S. Greenfield                                         greeny@top.cis.syr.edu
(I like to put 'greeny' here, 
but my d*mn system wants a 
*real* name!)                        "What's the difference between an orange?"
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.apps