Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm using a Dazzle DV Bridge to capture home recorded VHS tapes. I'm
trying to capture a tape of a sporting event broadcast on ABC about
twenty years ago. I successfully captured from another tape, but on
this one I keep getting an error message from Ulead VideoStudio that
says "cannot capture file because it is copyright protected".

How is this possible and is there a workaround?

TIA

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Registered User" wrote...
> I'm using a Dazzle DV Bridge to capture home recorded
> VHS tapes. I'm trying to capture a tape of a sporting event
> broadcast on ABC about twenty years ago. I successfully
> captured from another tape, but on this one I keep getting
> an error message from Ulead VideoStudio that says "cannot
> capture file because it is copyright protected".

Sometimes an old, crummy tape has artifacts that make
equipment *think* the tape is Macrovision protected.
Most people use a device called a "timebase corrector"
(TBC) to "clean up" the video and allow decent capture.

Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>
> Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
> you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
>

20 year time shifting is protected under fair use.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:55:19 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
<richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote:

>"Registered User" wrote...
>> I'm using a Dazzle DV Bridge to capture home recorded
>> VHS tapes. I'm trying to capture a tape of a sporting event
>> broadcast on ABC about twenty years ago. I successfully
>> captured from another tape, but on this one I keep getting
>> an error message from Ulead VideoStudio that says "cannot
>> capture file because it is copyright protected".
>
>Sometimes an old, crummy tape has artifacts that make
>equipment *think* the tape is Macrovision protected.
>Most people use a device called a "timebase corrector"
>(TBC) to "clean up" the video and allow decent capture.
>
>Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
>you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
>

Thanks for the info. The tape doesn't look too bad on playback, but
that must be what's happening. ABC didn't complain when I recorded the
show twenty years ago, so I think they're cool with it. Besides, it's
for personal veiwing, not for profit. And I was only guessing at which
network it was.

I can't afford a TBC, so I'll have to forget that tape, I suppose.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:11gnbbviu7fcu2a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>
>> Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
>> you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
>>
>
> 20 year time shifting is protected under fair use.

Viewing the original tape is "time-shifting" and is allowed.

Making a copy of the tape is NOT "time-shifting" and is
NOT protected.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.

Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal use for
another 20 years IS fair use.

Cheers...

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 16:54:55 -0400, Registered User <not@today.com>
wrote:

>I'm using a Dazzle DV Bridge to capture home recorded VHS tapes. I'm
>trying to capture a tape of a sporting event broadcast on ABC about
>twenty years ago. I successfully captured from another tape, but on
>this one I keep getting an error message from Ulead VideoStudio that
>says "cannot capture file because it is copyright protected".
>
>How is this possible and is there a workaround?
>
>TIA

digital video stabilizer
http://tinyurl.com/dkkba

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark Burns" wrote ...
> You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.
>
> Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal
> use for another 20 years IS fair use.

Prove it. Cite chapter and verse that exempts personal
copying of copyright-protected video from the copyright
law. It is no more legal than copying DVDs.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
newsegeeq$hdn$1@news01.intel.com...
>
> "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> news:11gnbbviu7fcu2a@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>>>
>>> Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
>>> you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
>>>
>>
>> 20 year time shifting is protected under fair use.
>
> Viewing the original tape is "time-shifting" and is allowed.
>
> Making a copy of the tape is NOT "time-shifting" and is
> NOT protected.
>

It is protected if the original tape was not viewed. Further, the original
copyright law has provisions for backup.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11gnpmsth4go86@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mark Burns" wrote ...
>> You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.
>>
>> Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal use for
>> another 20 years IS fair use.
>
> Prove it. Cite chapter and verse that exempts personal
> copying of copyright-protected video from the copyright
> law. It is no more legal than copying DVDs.

You are wrong. Please read carefully at www.eff.org. YOU prove that it is
illegal!

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:11go2f1ebbsd31e@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "Richard Crowley" <richard.7.crowley@intel.com> wrote in message
> newsegeeq$hdn$1@news01.intel.com...
> >
> > "Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
> > news:11gnbbviu7fcu2a@corp.supernews.com...
> >>
> >>>
> >>> Of course the TBC does not solve the legal issue of whether
> >>> you have permission to use ABC's intellectual property.
> >>>
> >>
> >> 20 year time shifting is protected under fair use.
> >
> > Viewing the original tape is "time-shifting" and is allowed.
> >
> > Making a copy of the tape is NOT "time-shifting" and is
> > NOT protected.
> >
>
> It is protected if the original tape was not viewed. Further, the
original
> copyright law has provisions for backup.

I don't know where people get this stuff.

Wrong, on both counts.


>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124847408.217395.265680@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.
>
> Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal use for
> another 20 years IS fair use.

1. He's not time-shifting.
2. The fact that it's for personal use doesn't mean it's fair use.


>
> Cheers...
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net> wrote in message
news:11gnpmsth4go86@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mark Burns" wrote ...
> > You could probably use a SIMA CT-2. They are about $80.
> >
> > Ad making a copy of the tape to time shift it for personal
> > use for another 20 years IS fair use.
>
> Prove it. Cite chapter and verse that exempts personal
> copying of copyright-protected video from the copyright
> law. It is no more legal than copying DVDs.

You're right on the money, Richard. This "if it's personal use it's legal"
urban myth needs to die a quick death.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

You are the attorney.

Please cite a case where someone was prosecuted for copying their OTA
tape to another tape, CD, or DVD for their private viewing. I have
read and seen many cases where people have been charged with illegal
distribution. I don't doubt that one could be sued, but I doubt that
even a conservative Supreme Court would condone the invasion of a man's
castle to wrest a marginal personel memory based upon vague copyright
claims. And they are just that, claims.

Fair Use is an affirmitive defense. There are countless reasons to
want to maintain a copy of that broadcast. It might be the last
football game that he and his father watched together. It may be that
there was someone in the broadcast that he knew. These are personal
reasons. I have no reason why the OP would want to keep an old ABC
broadcast, and would never pry. Nor would I condemn.

Historicaly, copyright is not the exclusive right to copy material, it
is the exclusive right to distribute material. This goes back to the
days of the first printing presses. School children used to learn to
read and write by hand copying copyrighted material from books that
they could not legally distribute.

Copyright laws were made to serve the public good, not to serve the
private greed. Certainly greed can be a postitive influence on the
marketplace, but the laws were never meant to create intellectual
property or condone the hoarding of material from the public. As I
recall, when "Laurence Of Arabia" was remastered by David Lean back in
the late 80's, many of the frames used in the mastering process came
from private copies, and some were unauthorized copies that had been
released to theatres and never picked back up. The studio had let
their copies rot in tin cans on the shelf. No one prosecuted those
private owners, and they had less claim on their material than someone
who copied an ABC broadcast 20 years ago onto their own video tape.

Personaly, I wish that everyone was an archivest, at least of those
things that they found the most dear, for whatever silly human
sentimental reason. History and posterity are both served by this. I
sincerely hope that the OP successfully trasfers his tape for whatever
historical or personal purpose that he has.

Transporting ones legally obtained memories from ones own property to
ones own property is nothing more than ones own business. This is not
anarchism, it is simply liberty.

Cheers...

P.S. Isn't there some Latin phrase that says that the law does not
trifle with trifles?

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1124936524.278309.171520@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> You are the attorney.
>
> Please cite a case where someone was prosecuted for copying their OTA
> tape to another tape, CD, or DVD for their private viewing.

You're talking apples and oranges. Whether someone has been sued has
nothing to do with whether the law permits the kind of conduct you've
described.

> I have
> read and seen many cases where people have been charged with illegal
> distribution. I don't doubt that one could be sued, but I doubt that
> even a conservative Supreme Court would condone the invasion of a man's
> castle to wrest a marginal personel memory based upon vague copyright
> claims. And they are just that, claims.

The prohibition on illegal search and seizure contained in the 4th amendment
is a restriction on GOVERNMENT action, not on private action. You most
certainly can be sued for what you do in your home.

Again, you're talking about whether someone would be caught, or whether
someone would be sued -- entirely different questions than whether what
you've advocated is legal. It is not. Period.

>
> Fair Use is an affirmitive defense.

That's right. So?

> There are countless reasons to
> want to maintain a copy of that broadcast. It might be the last
> football game that he and his father watched together. It may be that
> there was someone in the broadcast that he knew. These are personal
> reasons.

None of which are relevant to a fair use defense. Fair use does not
consider why a person wanted to make an unauthorized copy, but how the copy
was used.

> I have no reason why the OP would want to keep an old ABC
> broadcast, and would never pry. Nor would I condemn.

I don't condemn. I merely corrected your erroneous contention, i.e. that
personal use was fair use.

>
> Historicaly, copyright is not the exclusive right to copy material, it
> is the exclusive right to distribute material.

No, historically, it was the exclusive right copy, at in the tradition of US
law which began with the Statute of Anne.

> This goes back to the
> days of the first printing presses.

No, it goes back to the Statute of Anne in 1710, which was a long time after
the invention of printing presses.

> School children used to learn to
> read and write by hand copying copyrighted material from books that
> they could not legally distribute.

You can make up whatever you like, just as you've made up your "personal use
= fair use" doctrine -- it's still incorrect.

>
> Copyright laws were made to serve the public good, not to serve the
> private greed.

Copyright laws were made as an incentive to creation -- it allows authors to
keep the fruits of their intellectual labors, and therefore encourages them
to produce more. In the U.S., copyright is authorized by Article I, Section
8 of the Constitution, which permits Congress, "To promote the progress of
science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and
inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries."

As I said, you can make up whatever you want, but you're simply incorrect.


> Certainly greed can be a postitive influence on the
> marketplace, but the laws were never meant to create intellectual
> property or condone the hoarding of material from the public.

Completely wrong. What do you think, "exclusive right to their respective
writings" means? An author has an absolute right to withhold material from
the public -- if you think I'm wrong, go down to Blockbusters and try to
rent the film version of Catcher in the Rye. Hint: there's never been one.

> As I
> recall, when "Laurence Of Arabia" was remastered by David Lean back in
> the late 80's, many of the frames used in the mastering process came
> from private copies, and some were unauthorized copies that had been
> released to theatres and never picked back up. The studio had let
> their copies rot in tin cans on the shelf. No one prosecuted those
> private owners, and they had less claim on their material than someone
> who copied an ABC broadcast 20 years ago onto their own video tape.

Ownership of unauthorized copies isn't illegal. Copyright, in the US,
secures for a copyright owner protection against unauthorized copying,
distribution, preparation of derivative works and public performance. See
17 U.S.C. Sec. 106. It is perfectly legal to own unauthorized copies.

>
> Personaly, I wish that everyone was an archivest, at least of those
> things that they found the most dear, for whatever silly human
> sentimental reason. History and posterity are both served by this. I
> sincerely hope that the OP successfully trasfers his tape for whatever
> historical or personal purpose that he has.

Personally, I wish people would stop pretending that their personal biases
and preferences are the law. You can wish whatever you want. Your wishes,
however, are not the law and you really need to stop telling people that
they are.


>
> Transporting ones legally obtained memories from ones own property to
> ones own property is nothing more than ones own business. This is not
> anarchism, it is simply liberty.

And ignoring the law is simply anarchy. And ignorance of the law is . . .
well . . . simply ignorance.

>
> Cheers...
>
> P.S. Isn't there some Latin phrase that says that the law does not
> trifle with trifles?

There are legal maxims for just about everything. How about this one (from
Marbury v. Madison): For every right there is a remedy.

>