What is the forum definition of "warez" ???

[theReal]

I just got a warning that I violated forum rule 6 ("no warez and piracy") because I said that I (quote) "got two Simpsons episodes encoded with XVid (...)"

What about that is piracy or warez? The episodes were recorded from TV, they are new episodes and not yet available on DVD or VHS.

I wasn't aware that sharing tv recordings is a crime yet...

If it is, then I apologize and... well... read my sig for my opinion on this...

[mf]

Fair Use prescribes to share recorded broadcast content in a small friend/family circle. Downloading would usually indicate public distribution, which is also illegal. Forum policy on this is to just not allow it in general because it would raise negative attention to the board and if you start with making an exception the end is far away.

[theReal]

Forum policy on this is to just not allow it in general because it would raise negative attention to the board and if you start with making an exception the end is far away.

Ok, I know what you mean.
Sorry for that, it just didn't come to my mind that recorded tv episodes were somehow "copyrighted material" (I mean, every American can watch and record Fox for free, so it can't really be copyrighted???)

But, well... I guess we better not discuss this any farther because of the forementioned reasons ;)

[Doom9]

Sorry for that, it just didn't come to my mind that recorded tv episodes were somehow "copyrighted material" (I mean, every American can watch and record Fox for free, so it can't really be copyrighted???)
You are mistaken on that. Everything you write down, record, or otherwise depict and that constitutes a creative act is protected by copyright. The fact that you can get something for free doesn't change that. For instance, my guides are copyrighted but you can access them free of charge. You can also download them and give them to your friends, but if you put them up on a website without my permission, you're in violation of copyright law.

Now you are actually raising an interesting point with the whole TV stuff. But for starters, not everybody gets Fox.. there are whole contents that don't have that TV channel (I wished we'd get Fox over our brand new satellite TV but that's just a wish... I will still have to live with late and dubbed TV series). But assuming you could restrict the distribution to the people who have access (I suppose you need to pay some kind of reception fee to get Fox, like cable bill, satellite receiver card, etc.), it would be interesting to have a court decision on whether it is legal to distribute. I'd suppose that since you cannot reasonably ensure that you only distribute to people who should get access, sharing such content with the public (for instance over P2P networks) would not be allowed. Personally I think that everybody who has access to a TV station should be allowed to get the content from anywhere, but since you cannot make sure the people you share it with are also entitled to access that content, legal distribution will never be possible.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doom9
You are mistaken on that. Everything you write down, record, or otherwise depict and that constitutes a creative act is protected by copyright. The fact that you can get something for free doesn't change that. For instance, my guides are copyrighted but you can access them free of charge. You can also download them and give them to your friends, but if you put them up on a website without my permission, you're in violation of copyright law.

Now you are actually raising an interesting point with the whole TV stuff. But for starters, not everybody gets Fox.. there are whole contents that don't have that TV channel (I wished we'd get Fox over our brand new satellite TV but that's just a wish... I will still have to live with late and dubbed TV series). But assuming you could restrict the distribution to the people who have access (I suppose you need to pay some kind of reception fee to get Fox, like cable bill, satellite receiver card, etc.), it would be interesting to have a court decision on whether it is legal to distribute. I'd suppose that since you cannot reasonably ensure that you only distribute to people who should get access, sharing such content with the public (for instance over P2P networks) would not be allowed. Personally I think that everybody who has access to a TV station should be allowed to get the content from anywhere, but since you cannot make sure the people you share it with are also entitled to access that content, legal distribution will never be possible.

In the US you are free to record and share publicly broadcast material. You can't sell it. But you can share it. So for instance your local fox station and their programming is fair game. But Fox News Channel or Fox Movie Channel being cable/sattelite only are not allowed. They are covered under copyright still. There is a slight wrinkle these days though. And alot of grey area and room for conflict. Nowadays they are selling whole TV seasons on DVD. This was something they never really did much before. But it has caught on big with DVD. This means that instead of being satisfied with revenu earned from selling ad time they now want the added revenu of the DVD sales. So they are actively trying to change the status quo at the moment. Sharring currently aired simpsons episodes is in my opinion is not illegal and not "warez". Tv capture is a topic close to my heart. If the episodes are not for sale then they are definatly fair game. Like the fansubbing sceen. It is the moment something is licensed for sale that it becomes an issue. Because then at that moment you are reducing the licencees profits by technically reducing sales. I say technically because no matter what the RIAA and MPAA say they have not shown this to be the case in any way.

For best results though to avoid conflict this is a subject best avoided. It should be possible for the sake of troubleshooting to just say I have a video. No need to name names.

[Atamido]

Of course, distributing copies for free of a TV show that was recorded from TV is not the same as a copy from a DVD. If your original came out on TV, and the DVD is released, the TV copy doesn't suddenly become illegal.

But yes, talking about specific cases of this is best avoided for the safety of the board.

[Doom9]

Sharring currently aired simpsons episodes is in my opinion is not illegal and not "warez". If you upload it to a P2P network, everybody can download it, even people who don't have that particular TV channel. I'm entitled to receiving the dubbed episodes that are shown on the TV channels I'm receiving, but the fee I pay for TV reception doesn't cover Fox and other US channels (except for MSNBC and CNN international) thus I'm not entitled to have access to the original episodes aired by Fox. I'm pretty sure a court of law would agree with me (even though personally I'd rather see these things as legal.. but with the advent of DVB and HDTV the MPAA's lawyers will make an extremely compelling case why this high quality is different from analogue sharing via VHS tapes).

You know, I even have to pay extra to be allowed to receive my countries digi Sat channels because their distribution hasn't been licensed for the entire area covered by the satellite that is airing it. Thus, if they restrict the number of people who can receive the channel in the first place, I doubt the same restrictions don't apply to sharing recorded content.

BTW, how does that work with TV in the us? Do you have a bunch of free to air channels that you can receive with a regular house antenna? Barring DVB-T (the one you can receive with a house antenna), free to air TV is very limited around here (you only get a few channels unless you live in a special area). If you want more, you have to get cable or a satellite receiver. In the former case you pay a small cable fee, and in every case you have to pay a reception fee (no matter how you receive TV.. if you can receive it you have to pay and the fee is higher than the cable fee).

[Kedirekin]

I can't speak for the entire country, but in my neck of the woods...

Near to 'downtown' (Minneapolis, MN in my case) you can get 9 or 10 channels with varying levels of reception quality over standard broadcast, even with regular old rabbit ears. Up till about a year and a half ago, that was how I watched all local channels. There are no fees or direct taxes - it is free and clear, paid for by advertising.

[Incidentally, one of those channels is a local Fox affiliate.]

Once you get away from 'downtown', the exact distance depending on terrain and direction, reception becomes much more difficult. Where I live now (just 40 miles from Minneapolis), I can only get one channel even with amplified rabbit ears, and that channel is extremely snowy. You can improve reception with a directional rooftop antenna, but reception is never as good as 'downtown'. It's better to just pop the cash for cable or satellite.

It's difficult to generalize this. If you go by population, then most of the US has access to broadcast television. If you go by geography, then most of the US has sparse broadcast coverage. In any case, I think the majority of US households use cable, and the majority of the remainder use satellite.

[Atamido]

From my location in Austin Texas I get 6 regular channels (FOX, NBC, CBS, PBS, etc) and two channels in Spanish. Those are broadcast freely and are paid for by advertising. (This is a big part of what the original VCR court trial was about. If someone records a show, then they can edit out commercials and watch it again, effectively removing part of the reason for advertisers to pay for commercial time. The courts ruled this legal.)

I don't know if I would say that more people get TV by broadcast or by cable/sat. I know a lot of people that do broadcast.

[Tom|420]

TV shows are not free. They are paid off by the commercial ads which take up 3 minutes after every 7 minutes of show (you know those minutes you take to go get another beer or to pee it). If you copy and distribute the show, it is not being paid anymore (eventhough you are not ripping out the ads, those are probably out of date and are not paying anything anymore... anyway the ad issuer paid for a certain amount of viewers at a certain time of the day in a certain area, not for those millions now having access to the show worldwide).

Copying and distributing the show is illegal and prohibited by the law. A TV show, even when aired on public broadcasting, is copyrighted material covered by the international act of copyrights. Point.

[Atamido]

Perhaps it is a little different in the US.

I would reccommend reading this (http://www.virtualrecordings.com/betamax.htm) to get a good understanding of the courts decision on copying TV shows in the US. Here are two quotes that you might find interesting in it:Although the courts have considered and ruled upon the fair use doctrine over and over again, no real definition of the concept has ever emerged. Indeed, since the doctrine is an equitable rule of reason, no generally applicable definition is possible, and each case raising the question must be decided on its own facts. . . .
And from the end of the article:
One may search the Copyright Act in vain for any sign that the elected representatives of the millions of people who watch television every day have made it unlawful to copy a program for later viewing at home, or have enacted a flat prohibition against the sale of machines that make such copying possible. In the words of Monty Burns, "Excellent".

It may well be that Congress will take a fresh look at this new technology, just as it so often has examined other innovations in the past. But it is not our job to apply laws that have not yet been written. The courts found that there was no displayed loss of revenue or creativity from the copying of TV shows and determined that it thus fell under "fair use". From this I would determine that my collection of 300+ Simpsons episodes, that were recorded from TV broadcasts, are not a violation of copyright.

I hope this doesn't turn into another one of those threads (http://forum.doom9.org/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=845907&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending) saying what people should be able to copy.

[Doom9]

The courts found that there was no displayed loss of revenue or creativity from the copying of TV shows and determined that it thus fell under "fair use". From this I would determine that my collection of 300+ Simpsons episodes, that were recorded from TV broadcasts, are not a violation of copyright.
That is correct assuming that you made those recordings on your own or that they were made by a close friend or relative. In Sony vs. Universal studio, the Supreme court found that Betamax recorders could be used for significant non copyright infringing use and hence ruled in favor of Sony. To my knowledge, the case was about whether people should be allowed to record what is being shown on TV to watch it later, or to timeshift the consumption of a TV program.

Though the content is still protected by copyright law and distribution is as limited as it is with DVD. You can make copies for your own use and distribute it in your friends circle (it's up to a court of law to decide how large that circle can be... you can take your own family for granted and as for the rest it depends on the judge, country, etc.). But Sony vs. Universal wasn't about the rights to record a TV episode and share it with the whole wide world, but about you being allowed to record and process TV broadcast content for your own use. Therefore, as we cannot ascertain if somebody is entitled to download content from an unnamed place, we're taking the "better safe than sorry" route on this board.

[trbarry]

U.S. Copyright law is murky and inconsistant. And the MPAA, RIAA, etc. will pretty much claim it is whatever they can pretend to get away with.

But as far as what can really practically be prosecuted I don't think the issue is at all whether someone else could have legally recorded a show themselves. The real issue seems to be acts of mass distribution that somehow create many extra copies that could compete with the copyright holders ability to profit from the material in the future.

- Tom

[Atamido]

Murky is less accurate than non-specific. As is stated in the Betamax ruling, these laws are left non-specific because defining every possible case would be impossible and common sense should allow an easy judgement of what is 'right'. The problem that arises is that common sense often leaves the court room shortly after the court comes in session.

As far as loss of profit due to wide distribution of freely recordable media, there simply isn't any evidence to back this up, which is what the Supreme Court was saying for the Betamax case.

It is interesting to note that the Supreme Court basically trashes both Sony's(defendant) and Universal Studio's(prosecutor) cases by saying that neither has any significant evidence to back it up. It is a fascinating read, if only for an amazing source of sanity in a land and time of copyright insanity.

[theReal]

Copying and distributing the show is illegal and prohibited by the law. A TV show, even when aired on public broadcasting, is copyrighted material covered by the international act of copyrights. Point.As I read this I remembered a discussion on this board where someone said (and I fear he/she was right...) that you are, by US law, not even allowed to watch a VHS tape that you made from a tv show more than once...

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
In the US you are free to record and share publicly broadcast material. You can't sell it. But you can share it.
A customer of mine has thought of something which I personally consider a bright idea.

He is setting up a bunch of DVRs to record all freely broadcasted nationwide TV stations. He plans to offer the service for customers with needs like this:

Consumers: "I want the last episode of my favorite show, which I missed"

Companies: "I want to see all my competitor's spots for this new product in the last two months".

He plans to encode everything with DivX at 256, 512 and 1024kbps, so customers can choose to watch a stream on their PCs or get a CD/DVD shipped ready to play on a standalone.

Since he is just buffering the last 3 months for every station, acting like a giant echo, I have real troubles to see the copyright infringment, if any.

AFAIK, things like this have "naturally" happened before, with no scientific explanation. A TV signal goes into space and comes back several years later. Noisy, but watchable at last. If it worked that way, it is unavoidable. These cases have even been associated to UFO fenomena, but setting that aside, what is the difference?

Would this business of my customer be legal in the US? Notice he is not selling the stuff. He is charging time and materials for the recording service, for the shipping and for the media.

I think it is exactly the same as if everyone would get a giant personal VCR (or enough TiVo-like units) to do the same at home, but he is taking advantage of the economies of scale.

He is planning to negotiate with the local stations in order to get their sponsorship, but I don't know if he really needs that.

What do you think?

[jggimi]

It could be easily construed that your friend intends to engage in commerce, using copyrighted content, without licensing it from the copyright holders. Regarless how this community might view it.

If he proceeds with his business plan, it is my belief your friend should expect litigation to consume most of his time and financial resources going forward, in amounts directly proportional to his visibility to the copyright holders or their agents.

[theReal]

If even downloading a recent tv episode from a p2p network is considered (kind of) illegal - when noone charges anything for it, only someone who is very nice captures the episode and shares it, then what would you expect?

I guess his business will be down before he has his first customer...

[r6d2]

I see your points. Interesting. He'd be tackled before the first yard.

And if he still offered the service, but cutomers would have to ask for the recording before it was broadcasted? Sort of "Pay per record" thing?

I think a lot less customers would be interested, because if they knew they were going to miss a show, they'd have taped it at home. But from the copyright point, would it still be "prosecuted"?

Can't I phone a friend/brother from the road and ask him to do a recording for me, and then give him a nice present as a reward? Would that be still illegal?

[ppera2]

Many good point here. But it's normal that law can't cover all possible situations. As technology developes very fast, and law is slow, it will be probably more such discutable case.

My conclusion: it's illegal to go out from living room while comercials are on in middle of the movie (show, derby or similar) - you will harm with that act intentions of sponsors. Watch your wife, father etc... and don't drink too much beer! :D

[ammer]

yeah, if it's commercializable someones going to get there share of its profits or somehow keep their hands on it (figuratively) or unless they specifically express otherwise. most of the time. copyrights a bitch isn't it. my guess is that they would probably consider it their goods your giving away and not using, which in turn is sellable in the warez market. but hey maybe that argument might hold up some federal court. might be interesting for a warez prosecution case i'd say. or, maybe someone could make a request to fox entertainment and get an inquiry of whether it would be legal to share tv recording of their shows...or something of that sort.

[Atamido]

@r6d2:

(Assuming you and your friend are in the US) Making money from someone else's copyrighted works is a big no-no in the US. So, selling shows that were recorded off of TV would definately fall in that category.

A slightly different option would be selling a 'service' where someone can pay to have a copy made of a show broadcast on TV. There is a difference in selling the shows, and selling a service to copy the shows. This is how Clean Flicks (http://www.cleanflicks.com/) is able to operate. The sell a service where they will edit out the 'bad' parts of a DVD for you. You can send them a DVD, and they will send you an edited copy back along with the original. Or, you can purchase the DVD from them directly and pay for the 'service' so that you get the DVD and the edited copy at the same time. (I purchased a DVD from them and most of the editing was mediocre, but it would qualify for G/PG rating if you need it.) From the website:Ordering options A and B
A) Send us your VHS/DVD movie to be edited. We edit it and ship it to you.

Edit a VHS movie for $14.00 plus shipping.
Edit a DVD movie for $18.50 plus shipping.

B) We buy the VHS/DVD movie for you, edit it, and ship it to you.
Buy and edit a VHS movie for $26.95 plus shipping.
Buy and edit a DVD movie for $36.95 plus shipping. I am guessing that you could provide the same type of service by following the same type of pricing scheme. This way it becomes apparent that you are charging for a 'service' instead of a copyrighted 'product' that you don't have permission to sell. But definately talk to a lawyer in a related field before attempting it.
(Things are a little more complicated than this, but this is the general idea. CleanFlicks is still in court over this, but it is a lawsuit that they started to set precedence.)

[r6d2]

Originally posted by Pamel
A slightly different option would be selling a 'service' where someone can pay to have a copy made of a show broadcast on TV. There is a difference in selling the shows, and selling a service to copy the shows.
Thanks, Pamel. Well, in fact thas was exactly what I told him. That "pay per record" idea.

However, Do you know those companies that provide the service of cutting and collecting from the newspapers those topics/industries you subscribe to beforehand?

I work in the IT business and we get all the ads/sales from our competitors, public proposals announced, executive promotions, fusion and mergers, etc.

The "service" is to read, then select and clip the papers, put the stuff into a binder an ship it daily.

They even sometimes, when a clip has another interesting news on the reverse of the page, they photocopy the second one.

This business has been running for decades. Hasn't just anybody thought of copyright ingringment, because of "low visibility"?

Notice: Sometimes when you are getting into troubled waters you have to make up a "friend" or a "partner" to give credit for the dangerous idea. ;) Just to let you know this is not the case, guys.

I really have this customer, and he is doing the setup of the solution as we speak. In fact, he was visited by a French company that has sold these DVR systems to several companies and TV stations all over the world. He is buying from me the VPN equipment to provide the streaming service over the net.

[jggimi]

Clean Flicks and similar companies are in litigation. A quick googling trip will provide lots of information. Here are two examples:

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hilden/20020903.html
http://slate.msn.com/id/2077192/

R6, your customer can expect litigation as soon as these two conditions are satisfied: One of the content owners or their representative trade groups discovers the business. Your customer's business reaches the top of the priority queue, because all larger or more visible businesses have already been sued.

[Atamido]

Originally posted by jggimi
Clean Flicks and similar companies are in litigation. As stated before, the litigation was started by Clean Flicks and associated companies as a preemptive strike to set precedence. Once the precedence is set, there won't be any worry about lawsuits.

[jggimi]

Pamel, we may just be in voilent agreement.

According to what I've read (in press reports) about their case, Clean Flicks is suing the wrong group ... the Director's Guild of America, who do not own the copyrights. But they were rightly concerned about litigation, and an offensive tack may be less expensive for them long term than a defensive one.

According to Slate, the DGA had sued ABC Broadcasting in 1976, and won their suit. But it was for trademark infringement, since ABC had truncated content that they had licensed.

It is not clear at the juncture if Clean Flick's edits would fall under the same sort of tort with the DGA, as a commercial broadcast license and a home use license are quite different in scope and coverage, and fair use law in the US is rife with confusion and ambiguity.

Unlicensed recording for non-commercial personal use has some precedents set (as in the Sony case, mentioned above). Commercial use of "home video" content is, of course, allowed, such as video rental. The licensing structure for video rental is quite different than "home use."

My point is only that r6's customer should expect to receive heat for going into business in this fashion. It doesn't matter if it's right or wrong in my opinion, or anyone else's here in this forum. It doesn't even matter if r6's customer eventually wins in court. Granted, if r6's customer stays with domestic content in Latin America, his visibility to copyright holders in North America or Europe is greatly reduced. But it isn't eliminated; a web presence is part of a global village.

[Atamido]

Completely off topic, but it seems a good point to mention this. Before and DVD videos were ever sold, and I was just reading about the idea in magazines, one of the big touted features was the ability to have multiple versions of the same movie on a single DVD. IE, a rated R and a rated PG-13 version of the same movie. They already make the 'airline' version of many movies, so it wouldn't be difficult to do. But, I have yet to see a single implementation of this. I would love to be able to show my little nieces a less fiery version of some of my movies. I don't know who's to blame for this, but somebody definately is holding this back from being done.

Insert favorite conspiracy theory here.

[Doom9]

work in the IT business and we get all the ads/sales from our competitors, public proposals announced, executive promotions, fusion and mergers, etc.

The "service" is to read, then select and clip the papers, put the stuff into a binder an ship it daily.

They even sometimes, when a clip has another interesting news on the reverse of the page, they photocopy the second one.

This business has been running for decades. Hasn't just anybody thought of copyright ingringment, because of "low visibility"?
Sounds like most of this is actually physically cutting out stuff from newspapers.. so if two customers want the same content, you have to get two papers. I think that would work from a copyright point of view because you are allowed to resell something you have bought and in the physical world we don't have the possibility to make hundreds of copies. I don't know about the photocopy thing but I presume that if this were done on a significant scale, you could be held legally responsible for copyright infringement. The same applies to selling stuff shown on TV.

As for censoring movies / DVDs (I absolutely loathe that.. in Germany they have state ordered censorship which keeps reminding me of book burning and other nasty things that a small Austrian man with a moustache is responsible for), as far as I know my countrie's copyright law, this constitutes creating a derivative work for which you both need permission from the copyright holder, and you have to give parts of your gains to the copyright holder. If you sell the movie with the cutting, the copyright holder has already been paid so I suppose this would be in a gray legal area, but a copyright holder could still sue because he did not give permission to create a derivative work.

If you have a friend do the cutting for free I don't see a problem as it falls under fair use, but when it turns commercial, the laws regarding derivative works apply. In Germany, when they censor movies (make a version rated 16 that they can officiall sell whereas the original movie has to be sold under the counter, may not be advertised in any form and can only be sold aged 18 or older), I doubt that the distributor could release the censored movie without the copyright holder's approval of the cuts (and of course the censorship board.. which by the way is of course not called anything like that though it should because that's what they're doing).

[Atamido]

Originally posted by Doom9
As for censoring movies / DVDs (I absolutely loathe that.. in Germany they have state ordered censorship I have the same loathing of forced censorship. What I refer to is the option of a censored version.

[Zazzybud]

Hello everyone,
You all can probably answer this question best, you all seem to be more knowledgeable on fair use , etc.

Two nights ago I went to see LOTRs with my friends, well like silly people they didn't look for me and the previews already started. Instead of spending 3 1/2hrs beside someone I don't know or groups of people (it was still packed) I desided I would leave and wait to see if anyone else I knew was going another day. The theater would not refund my money nor would offer me another viewing time or voucher. Already upset I decided to drop the issue and leave.
Now, if I downloaded the movie to repay my purchase that was never honored would that still be "warez" ?

I paided to view the copyrighted material once, now granted theres no way to prove if I had the file for X days.

I know most will say , tuff outa luck, but I'm looking for intelligent answers :)

Peace

[ppera2]

Originally posted by Zazzybud
.... Already upset I decided to drop the issue and leave.
Now, if I downloaded the movie to repay my purchase that was never honored would that still be "warez" ?

Of course... And forum rules, you know...

But back to 'fair use'. If we want fair use, we need also 'fair service', or how it would be called... If no fair service, people will not feel obligation for fair use. But where are we today? I see only bombastic comercials and similar for any kind of movies. Under average movies are presented as 'year's best' and similar...
I read that long time ago in US was habit that give money back to unsatisfied movie theater visitor. Today it sounds very irreal, impossible. Certainly, lot of people would try to malversate with that... Anyway, times are such, that quick money is most 'movens' :mad:

[theReal]

I think we had that discussion about a year ago that it would be fair if, when you watch a movie at the theater, you got a credit to buy the DVD for a lower price. They always claim most of the money you pay for a DVD is the credit for the work of art - now you already paid for the work of art when you went to see the movie - why pay that again for the DVD? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[r6d2]

Originally posted by theReal
now you already paid for the work of art when you went to see the movie - why pay that again for the DVD? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:
Interesting point. It would be like asking for a doggy bag to take the leftovers home. :D:D:D

Most bands offer to sell their records at special price when you attend at the concert. It would be very interesting indeed to be able to do the same with a movie.

The inverse is also true. Some credit to watch the movie at a theater might be awarded by buying the DVD.

[ppera2]

Originally posted by r6d2
Most bands offer to sell their records at special price when you attend at the concert. It would be very interesting indeed to be able to do the same with a movie.
The inverse is also true. Some credit to watch the movie at a theater might be awarded by buying the DVD.

I was on concert couple years ago. Of course there was selling of everything related, but at normal price...
Idea is good, but I'm afraid that it's too hard to 'implement'. And distributers aren't known as agile workers :(

[r6d2]

Originally posted by ppera2
Idea is good, but I'm afraid that it's too hard to 'implement'. And distributers aren't known as agile workers :(
Well, on the book industry at least it's a common practice to sell at reduced prices the day of the book presentation. ;)