[Legal Question] is it ok to download/share TV shows?

[milldakill]

Not to say I have, will or would even like to but I was wondering if it is against the law to download/share TV shows?

[Doom9]

define share.. that's what it all comes down to.

Sharing as in what's allowed by your country's copyright law is always okay, be it a TV show, a DVD, a CD or whatnot. Anything else is illegal.

Now, morally, I think you should be allowed to do more with TV shows than with DVDs as long as we're not talking about Pay TV... after all everybody who pays the reception tax (or whatever it's called in your country) is allowed by law to watch those shows on their own TV, so it should not matter who does the recording. But laws have very little to do with moral rights and wrongs. The problem with "how much more you should be allowed to do" starts when sharing reaches those who are not entitled to watch those TV broadcasts in the first place.. and the laws are usually crafted to benefit the creators, not the consumers, so I doubt uploading captured TV shows would be okay in most countries.

As for downloading, the same arguments apply. It's legal if your country's copyright law says it is, or if it does not specifically rule it out. Here, generally if you have a copyright law crafted after the latest round of WIPO treaties (World Intellectual Property Organization if I'm not mistaken... or the probably most evil organization in the world), your copyright law might make downloading stuff illegal.. if you still have pre-DMCA copyright law, downloading is usually in a gray area. But as many popular P2P tools make downloaded stuff available to other people, you have to be really careful if one is allowed and the other isn't in your country.

[Neo Neko]

It is and it isn't. If you share material publicly broadcast in your area with someone else in the area capable of recieving the public broadcast that is legal. At least here it is. But politicians are being paid by lobying groups to construct laws so that it will be illegal in the future. OTOH sharing material from something like cable or satelite with someone who does not have cable or satelite is not strictly legal. You are sharring the content with someone who technically has no right to view it. The same might go fo sharing public broadcast content outside it's broadcast area. Again the media cartels are lobying politicians to construct laws to make it illegal to do things like have friends over who don't have cable to even watch the movie on cable.

The best advice someone could give at this point is don't make yourself a high profile target. There is not going to be clear cut legality when dealing with the Internet in this instance. The only thing you can be sure of is that your public representatives are working hard and being actively paid/lobbied to reduce your rights as a consumer.

[ppera2]

The answer is simple by some 'pay/adwert' logic:
it's legal if it's from free channel (not pay sat or cable) and if you not cut away any advertisement.
But it's only my try to be fair. Law is maybe not so fair :)

[Doobie]

Of course, it's illegal. You can't go through a normal day without breaking a dozen laws. Fortuantly, most of those laws you break are either not enforced or there's no one around to enforce them. And, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, who am I to care?

But, I don't think show producers should have much objection. Downloading shows creates and holds show loyalty. I suspect most people who download shows do so because they were unable to watch it when it was broadcast.

Most copyright holders don't object to "piracy" as much as the RIAA does. For example, if someone could make software protection that would absolutely prevent piracy, no software company would use it (at least not without providing an unprotected version to float around for the pirates). Piracy is good for software. Piracy is good for TV shows. Piracy is good for music (you wouldn't buy someone's music you hadn't already heard for free. Music companies even bribe radio stations to pass around music).

[shevegen]

Its definitely legal to use material from free TV for archiving, cutting editing etc if you do it as a non commercial for instance, archive about historical events etc..
You can record whatever you want to, and so far at least here in CET this law is still in effect. I would be surprised if someone could point me to a currently existing law in the USA saying otherwise about free tv channels + recording for personal usage by the way.

[Angelus]

And remember it's not illegal if you don't get caught :D (just kidding)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by shevegen
Its definitely legal to use material from free TV for archiving, cutting editing etc if you do it as a non commercial for instance, archive about historical events etc..
You can record whatever you want to, and so far at least here in CET this law is still in effect. I would be surprised if someone could point me to a currently existing law in the USA saying otherwise about free tv channels + recording for personal usage by the way.

You are missing the core of the issue here. The intent os to download or share. Not specifically archive personally. And to be honest the ability for personal archiving is also under attack here in the land of the free by our protectors. They are seeking to overturn one of the last sane rulings in that area that arose from the betamax ruling years ago. It is anything but clear what your rights are here. Either someone is going to have to put it in solid legal terms soon or we are going to loose it.

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Doobie
Of course, it's illegal. You can't go through a normal day without breaking a dozen laws. Fortuantly, most of those laws you break are either not enforced or there's no one around to enforce them. And, as long as you aren't hurting anyone, who am I to care?

But, I don't think show producers should have much objection. Downloading shows creates and holds show loyalty. I suspect most people who download shows do so because they were unable to watch it when it was broadcast.


Producers don't care as long as you watch the commercials as well. But usually when you download a broadcast the commercials have been removed. No commercials = no advertising revenue = nobody buying television shows. Its a very long interwoven string with a business model that obviously cannot transfer into the next century.


Most copyright holders don't object to "piracy" as much as the RIAA does. For example, if someone could make software protection that would absolutely prevent piracy, no software company would use it (at least not without providing an unprotected version to float around for the pirates). Piracy is good for software. Piracy is good for TV shows. Piracy is good for music (you wouldn't buy someone's music you hadn't already heard for free. Music companies even bribe radio stations to pass around music).

This is a very uneducated argument, completely ignoring the established economics around these 4 different market areas. Come back when you've worked in any of the above industries and tell us that piracy is good.

[Doobie]

Originally posted by int 21h This is a very uneducated argument, completely ignoring the established economics around these 4 different market areas. Come back when you've worked in any of the above industries and tell us that piracy is good.

Calling me ignorant is not at all refuting what I said. And, if I would have to work in those market areas to know better, then you'll have to forgive me for not knowing better. And, I'll have to forgive you for not being able to tell me better.

[Neo Neko]

Alright you two. Lets keep it civil. Doobie I am afraid I am gonna have to side with int on this. You seem overly optimistic about what the MPAA/RIAA have mistakenly applied the lable "piracy" to. I think they make allowances for this. But their perfect world would be devoid of such activity. And the oppinion on this even varries from producer to producer. Artist to artist. You get the idea. Some of them are often quite ignorant of technology outside their craft and fall for the FUD the suits are feeding them. There are however noticable exceptions where either extremely tech savvy or politically activist people get it right. Michael More for instance with "Farenheight 9/11" is a recent example. I can often find points with which I can agree with him. Just as many that I don't. He goes for sensationalism or propaganda. But make no mistake he understands this technology. I bet the film publisher wanted to fight his stance rabbidly. :D In any event it could stand to show just how usefull the technology could be.

Frankly this whole crusade against P2P is absurd. It is tantamount to what would have happened if Guttenburg and all his moveable type presses were hunted down and destroyed by the royals to keep the plebs illiterate and ignorant. The advent of the Internet and P2P is easily as momentus as the invention of moveable type. There is going to be turmoil ahead. But the only logical result is that P2P will be found legal and that DRM would be found illogical. What enlightened person would want to destroy all printing presses or create books that only those you aproove of can read.

PS: If studios and networks are getting their panties in a bind over shows being exchanged sans add space, they should set up their own networks for their own content with the commercials cut out. Then force you to watch adds while the videos download. Even over a typical broadband connection that would be about a solid hour or more of adds for an hour long video. That is much more ad space than they get when they broadcast in the first place. If you minimise the add or hide it in some way the DL stops. That would be heaven to someone like myself. Free legal downloads. They would not even have to be DVD rez and quality. Encode for lower rez to leave some incentive to go out and buy the DVD. When HDTV becomes the norm encode for DVD rez etc. Who wants to join me and set up a group to pitch this to a major network. "Excuse me guy in suit. How would you like a new method of legally delivering an ass-load of direct advertising in exchange for decent quality downloadable non DRM coppies of your program library? Oh and did I mention it could cost you almost nothing to do?" Use a moddified bittorrent tracker/client with clips in theora/vorbis or dirac/vorbis. No licensing costs what so ever. Just a little hosting, staffing, and storrage. Chaching!

[Doobie]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
[B]Alright you two. Lets keep it civil. Doobie I am afraid I am gonna have to side with int on this.

If M$ figured out a way to stop "piracy" 100%, then 90% of the people with pirated copies of Windows would switch to Linux. With the boom in Linux, many people who would have bought future versions of Windows would be buying Linux instead. Even many people who buy Windows would be sufficiently annoyed to switch to Linux (or something else). This reasoning is solid and it's plenty easy to show that M$ agrees with me (as proven by their distribution of unprotected Windows versions). So, I don't have much patients for someone who can't tell me why I'm wrong, they just insist I am and would know why if I worked in the industry.

Music is the same way. The Music industry wants people to hear the music. As far as I know, it's still perfectly legal to broadcast someone's music to millions of people, without paying the performer. (I know the recording industry provides a pay service to radio stations that supposedly covers royalty costs) If you can't broadcast CDs for free, it's only because the recording industry has managed to suck money from radio stations. But, if they couldn't get any money from the radio stations, they'd would still want the radio stations to broadcast music to millions of people. This reasoning is solid and it's plenty easy to show that the recording companies agree with me (as proven by bribes to radio stations to play music, as well as the distribution to radio stations of free CDs).

The content owners want piracy (defined as free distribution) to stimulate markets and to maintain loyalty. They just don't want so much piracy that it starts to cut down on their profits rather than increase their profits.

The producers of TV shows would much prefer you to download their shows than for you to lose interest in their shows.

Why cut the commercials out? TV studios could provide downloads with the commercials. Sure, many people would skip the commercials, just as they do on TV... but, by distributing shows with commercials, they would put a huge dent in the distribution of shows without commericals. Which would you prefer to download for free: a show of guaranteed quality with commericals or a show without commericals which could land you in legal trouble?

[int 21h]

Originally posted by Doobie
If M$ figured out a way to stop "piracy" 100%, then 90% of the people with pirated copies of Windows would switch to Linux. With the boom in Linux, many people who would have bought future versions of Windows would be buying Linux instead. Even many people who buy Windows would be sufficiently annoyed to switch to Linux (or something else). This reasoning is solid and it's plenty easy to show that M$ agrees with me (as proven by their distribution of unprotected Windows versions). So, I don't have much patients for someone who can't tell me why I'm wrong, they just insist I am and would know why if I worked in the industry.

I can tell you why you're wrong, because your views on this subject are entirely one dimensional. My patience is infinite though, and I will humor you with another reply.

First of all, you overestimate Microsoft's revenue from retail sales of Windows. Do you honestly believe that the majority of their sales is to Joe Consumer when he walks down to the local computer store to buy a box of Windows XP? Or do you think is it when they sell 5500 Windows XP licenses to a major University? Or perhaps when they sell a license for Windows Data Center & Microsoft SQL Server with the extended support contract to a large enterprise. How about when they sell the $250,000 Systems Management Server bundle? How about the wonderful Windows 2003 cluster + Microsoft Exchange solutions they push? Or... Maybe its when they sell hundreds & hundreds of thousands of copies of Windows to PC manufacturers for inclusion with equipment (Dell, Gateway, IBM, etc.)

Secondly, you underestimate the endusers desire to run Windows based programs. Until Linux has seamless Windows compatibility (obviously with such API support as DirectX), adoption of Linux will remain an exercise for the geek elite, the geek elite's close family members (Grandma with an email station), and niche support solutions (cheap MySQL solution, embedded firewall, embedded devices).

Finally, Microsoft has taken a big step towards stopping piracy 100%. Its called Windows Update. Sure, right now Windows Update only checks against well known, blacklisted serials that have been shared throughout the 'warez' world. (This can easily be circumvented with keygeneration processes OR with a corporate multiseat image deployment VLK) But how long until Microsoft actually queries against the database of actual pressed / generated keys? Given its not required to connect to Windows Update, but even dismissing the rampant security problems in Windows, Microsoft always releases new, innovative, and user attracting features with Service Packs. Who honestly would install Windows XP today and not update it at all? (again besides the geek elite or some niche reason)

The bottom line with Microsoft is that they've seen the writing on the wall. They've shifted a substantial amount of resources into consulting and extended support contracts. While at the same time, they have moved a more watchful, nearly Orwellian, stance over how they verify consumer use of their software.


Music is the same way. The Music industry wants people to hear the music. As far as I know, it's still perfectly legal to broadcast someone's music to millions of people, without paying the performer. (I know the recording industry provides a pay service to radio stations that supposedly covers royalty costs) If you can't broadcast CDs for free, it's only because the recording industry has managed to suck money from radio stations. But, if they couldn't get any money from the radio stations, they'd would still want the radio stations to broadcast music to millions of people. This reasoning is solid and it's plenty easy to show that the recording companies agree with me (as proven by bribes to radio stations to play music, as well as the distribution to radio stations of free CDs).

Lets look for one second at the economics of Radio. So we start a radio station, we pay the FCC for the frequency, we grab a bunch of CDs and start broadcasting to 100,000 people. But how do we make money? Joe User isn't going to pay us to listen to our radio station, they could just listen to another radio station. The music consortium (Sony, BMI, etc.) isn't going to pay us to play their music, they want us to play it for free to get people to buy it in stores! Oh, I know, we can sell the fact that we have a direct line into 100,000 cars/houses/workplaces. Lets sell airtime to advertisers! Now I make money, I get free music to play on my station, and Joe User gets to listen to music for free before he buys it.

Now, this is an abberviated demonstration of the current radio business model in the United States. Now tell me, where does piracy seamlessly fit into this as you suggest? In your original post you stated that piracy is good for music because people can hear the music before they buy it, but via radio they already can.

Further, you said that the music consortium was already endorsing piracy by handing out free copies of cds to radio stations. To address this argument, I think we need to look at your definition of piracy. You define piracy as 'free distribution'. But what do other people say? Dictionary.com says

1.

a. Robbery committed at sea.
b. A similar act of robbery, as the hijacking of an airplane.


Hmm.. that doesn't sound right.. how about the next one..



2. The unauthorized use or reproduction of copyrighted or patented material: software piracy.

Ah, that sounds right, and the keyword to note here is unauthorized. No matter what the RIAA does, no matter what the artists do, if they tell you not to do the same, that makes it unauthorized. If the music consortium shares their entire catalogue online via a P2P application, but still insists that you cannot share it, that is well within their rights. If you go ahead and share it against their insistance, that makes it piracy. Of course, it also makes them a hypocrite :rolleyes: but in our current form of copyright law, it is their right (and yours if you so choose to exercise it by copyrighting or patenting something)

...
The producers of TV shows would much prefer you to download their shows than for you to lose interest in their shows.

Yes, download their show instead of watching it on television or even better, buying the DVD that many shows later produce (giving the producers, actors, etc. another chance at royalties), I'm sure that is what the producers want you to do.


Why cut the commercials out? TV studios could provide downloads with the commercials. Sure, many people would skip the commercials, just as they do on TV... but, by distributing shows with commercials, they would put a huge dent in the distribution of shows without commericals. Which would you prefer to download for free: a show of guaranteed quality with commericals or a show without commericals which could land you in legal trouble?

You know what the industry thinks of skipping commercials? Lets take the amazing internet time machine back a little over one year ago and read: http://home.att.net/~mrmorse/nytimes20030721repl.html


"When things become too easy to do, that changes the legal argument," said Mike Fricklas, executive vice president, general counsel and secretary of the board at Viacom, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against Sonicblue. "These people are then taking a free ride on the existing economic model."

Geez, that Viacom guy doesn't sound too happy, he even refers to some sort of 'economic model'... imagine that.

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Doobie
If M$ figured out a way to stop "piracy" 100%, then 90% of the people with pirated copies of Windows would switch to Linux.

That is nothing. 90% of < 10% is nothing. Frankly most of the people who run pirate coppies of xpeee et all probaly run Linux already. :D Or would at least be fully capable of it. ;) Microsoft would not loose much sleep over their loss. Who actually in consumer space goes out and buys a copy of MS Windows? Almost no one. And guess what. That does not make them pirates. I have run basically every version of MS Windows released. And guess what! I only ever purchased one copy. A crappy copy of MS Windows 95 Upgrade. I learned my lesson after that. But I am not the average consumer. Where was I. Oh yes. People "get" MS Windows when they purchase a PC. Kind of like an epidemic virus. People as a general rule don't purchase MS Windows at all.

Business users are a whole nother kettle-o-fish. They do purchase MS Windows. But they are even more apt to opt for something like linux. Further they are one of the groups least likely to be pirating these days. At least any sizeable business. So they can't be used to support your clams either.

Originally posted by Doobie
With the boom in Linux, many people who would have bought future versions of Windows would be buying Linux instead. Even many people who buy Windows would be sufficiently annoyed to switch to Linux (or something else). This reasoning is solid and it's plenty easy to show that M$ agrees with me (as proven by their distribution of unprotected Windows versions).

In what way does Microsoft agree with you. Distribution of unprotected MS Windows versions can't be used to support your claim. Scenario: You are the head of IT for Megacorp X. Your job is to upgrade/install the latest MS Windows version on 10000 client PCs. Everything of the install can be automated save for the product ID entry. So are you gonna enter that product ID 10000 times? A bit simplistic I know but illustrative. If you want to make it more complex there are software that will refuse to function if it detects duplicate product IDs connecting to it. So guess what. Even if you were to enter it manually 10000 times you would need basically 10000 different product ID keys. Further you would have to track them all and the PCs using them. That is a huge increase in workload! Ludicrous might be the word for it. Just keeping track is a job unto itself. It does not make business sense. So that is why for business Microsoft releases unprotected versions that can be used on unlimited numbers of systems trusting that the business was responsible enough to puchase seats for all the coppies. And when the business has shown that they can not be trusted Microsoft can/has/does prosecute them. China and friends being a grey area not because Microsoft wants it to be but simply due to politics.

[i]Originally posted by Doobie
Music is the same way. The Music industry wants people to hear the music. As far as I know, it's still perfectly legal to broadcast someone's music to millions of people, without paying the performer.

I can recycle my previous argument for this topic to an extent! <special ed>Yaaaaaaaay!</special ed> When was the last time any one ever paid a performer a fee to play a copy of their performance. It is truly a rare if not almost non-existant event. You pay the copyright holder and hope that they compensate the performer. And in order to broadcast legally in any way shape or form requires a license not just with the FCC but the copyright holders as well. Trust me. I have dealt alot with radio and even more with internet radio. I have reviewed alot of this at length. They have the outlets they want. They don't need you. It is your privelage to be their legal outlet and not viceversa. Take it from someone who got a caese and decist at one time for not showing them what a privelage they were. :p

Originally posted by Doobie
(I know the recording industry provides a pay service to radio stations that supposedly covers royalty costs) If you can't broadcast CDs for free, it's only because the recording industry has managed to suck money from radio stations. But, if they couldn't get any money from the radio stations, they'd would still want the radio stations to broadcast music to millions of people. This reasoning is solid and it's plenty easy to show that the recording companies agree with me (as proven by bribes to radio stations to play music, as well as the distribution to radio stations of free CDs).

An argument as solid as chicken wire mesh. If you can't broadcast CDs for free it is due to the public contract of copyright of which you are a party to. If there were not radio stations to pay for the privelage then the companies would own their own broadcast systems. And still no free legal broadcasting of copyrighted content.

Originally posted by Doobie
The content owners want piracy (defined as free distribution) to stimulate markets and to maintain loyalty. They just don't want so much piracy that it starts to cut down on their profits rather than increase their profits.

Then how do you explain the mass delusion of DRM that they are all suffering from. A dream of absolute control from start to end that will never be. Sony is as much a tech company as it is a media company. And all you have to do is look at their recently released Net Walkman to see just how delusional they are. It was billed as iPod killer but all it was is just filler. Proprietary crappy format and crappy support encumbered with DRM out the wazoo. Hell they don't even want plain MP3 anymore. Now they are developing DRMed MP3. Digital broadcast flag anyone? In what way do all these sings of them not wanting us to have free use of our media indicates that they want us to have free use of our media?

Originally posted by Doobie
The producers of TV shows would much prefer you to download their shows than for you to lose interest in their shows.

Name one and show me proof. Then I will name 10 that have a different oppinion and show proof. 10 for every 1 should be an easy goal.

Originally posted by Doobie
Why cut the commercials out? TV studios could provide downloads with the commercials. Sure, many people would skip the commercials, just as they do on TV... but, by distributing shows with commercials, they would put a huge dent in the distribution of shows without commericals.

Commercials have temporal relevance. Past some date and time they caese to be proffitable and at best serve only as nostalgia or more likely a shere annoyance. How interested would you be in buying an Edsle today if you saw the commercial just now. Keep in mind that vehicle was only made for a short time durring the late 50s or early 60s and was a huge flop. How about a Yugo. Does that car company still exist? See what I am getting at? Why distribute a show with worthless comercials interwoven. That would only annoy consumers. Just show them fresh current commercials/ads as they download. It would be much more profitable. ;)

Originally posted by Doobie
Which would you prefer to download for free: a show of guaranteed quality with commericals or a show without commericals which could land you in legal trouble?

A free show of guaronteed quality without commercials that is perfectly legal.

[stoppots]

there ain't no law untill the lawman is standing there, beside when your like 80 years old are you really gonna give a damn as to wat you do now

[JohnnyMalaria]

Not to say I have, will or would even like to but I was wondering if it is against the law to download/share TV shows?

What country do you live in???

Until we know that, all the advice/suggestions/theories mean diddly...

[kempodragon]

This thread is similar to the fansubbers debate. Anime companies generally allow groups to post the latest episodes online with subtitles, simply because it creates a larger audience. Many shows that are huge sellers on DVD got their start in the U.S. as fansubs. I currently buy the majority of my anime on DVD, since they are shows that are off the air. However, I download the latest episodes of shows that are still being aired, and then buy the DVD when they come out. Same principle as watching TV shows in the U.S.. Look at how fast the new version of "Battlestar Galactica" comes out on DVD after the season ends.

[HyperHacker]

Did anyone ever get busted for taping a TV show, and lending the tape to a friend or letting them come watch because they missed the broadcast? Or for recording the show with their computer, cutting out the ads, and saving it? Last I checked, these are legal, because you're paying for the cable/satellite subscription. The only difference with downloading is the uploader can't be sure you do have cable. That makes them wrong, not you.
PS: If studios and networks are getting their panties in a bind over shows being exchanged sans add space, they should set up their own networks for their own content with the commercials cut out. Then force you to watch adds while the videos download. Even over a typical broadband connection that would be about a solid hour or more of adds for an hour long video. That is much more ad space than they get when they broadcast in the first place. If you minimise the add or hide it in some way the DL stops. That would be heaven to someone like myself. Free legal downloads. They would not even have to be DVD rez and quality. Encode for lower rez to leave some incentive to go out and buy the DVD. When HDTV becomes the norm encode for DVD rez etc.
Well there are a few problems:
1) I sure as hell am not going to watch an hour of ads to get a 22-minute TV show, especially a low-quality encode.
2) Even if it was possible to stop the download whenever the window is not visible, what stops me from just turning off the monitor and playing Nintendo for a while, or doing the download on another computer with the speakers unplugged and monitor facing the wall, or taking a nap? There are dozens of ways I could leave a window on the screen for an hour or two without actually looking at it.
3) People would still prefer to fire up BitTorrent and download in the background without sitting through ads. Or a hacked client could be used, etc.
4) This is still DRM, restricting what I can do during the download.

[adam]

Its definitely legal to use material from free TV for archiving, cutting editing etc if you do it as a non commercial for instance, archive about historical events etc..
You can record whatever you want to, and so far at least here in CET this law is still in effect. I would be surprised if someone could point me to a currently existing law in the USA saying otherwise about free tv channels + recording for personal usage by the way.

From SONY CORPORATION OF AMERICA ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS (The Betamax case.)

The practice, known as "time-shifting,"... is using a VTR to record a program he cannot view as it is being televised and then to watch it once at a later time.

Plaintiffs may fear that the Betamax owners will keep the tapes long enough to satisfy all their interest in the program. This suggestion lacks merit. By definition, time-shift recording entails viewing and erasing.

Per this case, and many others, time-shifting under Fair Use is limited to a one time later viewing for your family (you can let each member watch it separately, but legally no one gets repeated viewings.) That was one of the major discussions in the case; that is that most VTR users did not use the machines for librarying (archiving) but rather that they only used them for time-shifting.

Two kinds of Betamax usage are at issue here. The first is "time-shifting," whereby the user records a program in order to watch it at a later time, and then records over it, and thereby erases the program, after a single viewing. The second is "library-building," [464 U.S. 417, 459] in which the user records a program in order to keep it for repeated viewing over a longer term.

You don't have free reign to archive, edit, whatever, copyrighted material just because it was broadcast ota and your use is non-commercial. If your use doesn't qualify as time-shifting, than it would have to quality as Fair Use some other way, otherwise it is an infringement....in the US that is.

More to the point of this particular thread, I think the answer to the original poster's question lies in the famous case of A&M RECORDS V NAPSTER.

Napster maintains that space-shifting is a fair use. Space-shifting occurs when a Napster user downloads MP3 music files in order to listen to music he already owns on audio CD. Napster asserts that we have already held that space-shifting of musical compositions and sound recordings is a fair use. See Sony, 464 U.S. at 423 (The Betamax ruling - holding that “time-shifting,” where a video tape recorder owner records a television show for a later viewing, is a fair use). Sony is inapposite because the methods of shifting in this case did not also simultaneously involve distribution of the copyrighted material to the general public; the time or space-shifting of copyrighted material exposed the material only to the original user. In Sony, the majority of VCR purchasers did not distribute taped television broadcasts, but merely enjoyed them at home. Conversely, it is obvious that once a user lists a copy of music he already owns on the Napster system in order to access the music from another location, the song becomes “available to millions of other individuals,” not just the original CD owner. See UMG Recordings, 92 F. Supp. 2d at 351-52 (finding space-shifting of MP3 files not a fair use even when previous ownership is demonstrated before a download is allowed); cf. Religious Tech. Ctr. v. Lerma, No. 95-1107A, 1996 WL 633131, at *6 (E.D. Va. Oct. 4, 1996) (suggesting that storing copyrighted material on computer disk for later review is not a fair use).

In summary, owning a copy of a copyrighted work or having lawful access to that work (ex: ota broadcast or cable/satelite subscription) does not entitle you to distribute a copy elsewhere nor does it allow you to download a copy...even though you could have made that exact copy yourself (ex: copy a music CD.)