Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ

55016 readers

485 users here now

⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.

Rules • Full Version

1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy

2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote

3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs

4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others

Loot, Pillage, & Plunder

📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):

💰 Please help cover server costs.


Ko-fi	Liberapay

founded 2 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

144

Was this considered 'piracy' back in the day? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 6 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

54 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Back when we would record onto VHS, is that considered piracy? Found a super bowl XXXI tape from my Uncle circa 1997. I'm curious lol.

Also side note, have any of you dabbled in digitizing old VHS? Have quite a few home videos on VHS and I'm wanting to preserve them for the future. I've done a bit of research and have come across a wide array of information. I know that doesn't really qualify as piracy, if there's a better comm for this, please direct me there!

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 131 points 6 months ago (4 children)

In 1984, this issue made it all the way to the US Supreme Court, which ultimately decided that recording television to tape using a VCR for personal use (“timeshifting”) is fair use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.

[–] [email protected] 24 points 6 months ago

To the top with you! I see some opinions quoted, but yours is the right answer.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago

Came here to say "Time shifting".

[–] Kecessa 4 points 6 months ago (1 children)

For personal use, so not for distribution and a copy made on your own, not procured from someone else, right?

[–] [email protected] 8 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The Wikipedia article has these relevant quotes from the court opinion:

The question is thus whether the Betamax is capable of commercially significant noninfringing uses ... one potential use of the Betamax plainly satisfies this standard, however it is understood: private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home.[7] [...] [W]hen one considers the nature of a televised copyrighted audiovisual work... and that time-shifting merely enables a viewer to see such a work which he had been invited to witness in its entirety free of charge, the fact... that the entire work is reproduced... does not have its ordinary effect of militating against a finding of fair use.[8]

[–] Kecessa 6 points 6 months ago

So yeah, private, non commercial, in the home, for content you would have otherwise been able to see for yourself in the past by the "regular" means available to you.

Which is vastly different from going on the internet and downloading a movie with your favorite torrent program when you wouldn't have otherwise been able to see it...

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Of course it was Sony filing the suit. Of course.