Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 19:11:49 -0500 (EST) From: PTemple001@aol.com To: cp@opus.hpl.hp.com Message-Id: <aabcdefg923$foo@default> Subject: Re: Videogate
Sorry but I still can't let go and I read just today that countries,
including the UK and USA, are now going to review country level laws with
regard to copyright infringement on the WEB, so this is all even more
relevant. But this will be my last reply on this subject.
I did point out that my first reply referred to UK law - indicating that laws
are different in different countries. Why then are we having problems
thinking more broadly?......
>So then why can VCR's do just this? They are made specifically
>to do just that... That is the main/only reason to get a VCR, or
>was until till video rental stores became so popular. Infact, there
>now signals being sent from the TV stations so you just type in
>a number or letter (each show gets it's own #) to facilitate the
>copying of shows. When the VCR "hears" the number, it starts
>taping until the signal ends with the end of the show.
...Yes, and as I said, the law differs in different countries. In most
countries, you are allowed to tape any TV programme as long as you only use
the recording for your own (or your family's) viewing in your private
household. Any other use is theft. And if a TV programme gives you a
special # number to facilitate easy recording, not even a USA court will find
you guilty of recording UNLESS you use the recording for public display or
profit.
And don't blame the VCR manufacturers (not that you did). They make flexible
solutions to meet the various and different needs of multiple countries.
They can't help it if countries with stupid law makers, such as the USA, ban
recording of TV programmes for private use while there is no way to prevent
it or enforce such a law!!! (Couldn't resist that swipe - over in Europe,
USA law is a laughing stock!) But just 'cause a VCR can record TV, doesn't
mean it has to. You need them to dub home movies (did you know that the
major impetus behind early sales of VCR was access to porno movies and that
porno rapidly became a significant if not major part of the home movie
scene?) And how would Disney (who are not free of including porno in tiny
portions of their films!!!) feel if the could sell you legal copies of their
films on video, but you couldn't buy a VCR to play it (try single framing
through their films to spot the bits they regret!!!). What seems to be
missing here is an understanding that all of the law is based on the
assumption that civilised communities will on the whole abide by the law and
only a few will need to be punished. Clearly you seem to be saying that
everyone in your community ignores the law, thereby declaring that you live
in an uncivilised group. You're living just one step away from anarchy.
>Yeah, but then who would want to own books printed on xerox anyway?
At photostat rates, assuming one pays for one's photostating (sic), you
might as well buy the original. But originals are often relatively expensive
compared to the buyers income. So where copyright laws are flagrantly not
protected, e.g. in Hong Kong, it is easy to find services whereby you take a
book or the photostat of it to a shop and they give you back a beautifully
bound photosat edition (plus original book if you supplied it). Now it seems
clear to me that you can't find a thriving industry unless there are loads of
customers. So Xerox copies are indeed wanted by many, and the customers
include a massive proportion of "westerners", I'm told..
>Ok, now I understand the law. But, I do not know a single person ...who
follow this law.
I recommend you choose better acquaintances. Not everyone chooses to ignore
the law.
>and this includes police
Corrupt police? Oh I'm shocked. I always thought they were all perfect.
And in America, the home of purity and self proclaimed world protector
against corruption? Next you'll be telling us that your politicians can't be
trusted. Surely Nixon didn't make illegal TV tape copies? (Now you know
where this mail's title came from)
I suggest your country chooses beter people to become police. (Feel fre to
take a swipe at UK police in revenge. I can take it.)
>Over here, we have tapes made just for copying CD's. It says so
>right on the the front of the package. Again, this is like the VCR bit.
> I feel I'm still missing something here.
You're missing understanding the free will bit that says it is up to each
individual to decide to be civilised and obey the law or uncivilised and
break the law (and ignorance of the law is no defence). You're also missing
an understanding of what a machine can do (this being relatively
uncontrollable - e.g. using a microwave to dry a cat that has just been
shampood, popular in the USA so they had to put labels on the machines to
warn against this use) as opposed to what it should do (cook food). CD
copiers are perfectly sensible machines. I need them at work to manufacture
new CD software sets for legitimate sale. You could need one to copy a CD
you buy (perfectly legal everywhere, even in the USA as far as I know) so
that damage to either copy leaves you with a backup. OK as long as only you
use the copies. If one followed your train of thought, America would ban the
sale of cooking utensils, 'cause just about every utensil has been misused to
commit a murder!!! You can't blame the tool for being misused. It's back to
the free will of the user.
>I know there is a clause which allows PC owers to dub software incase of
mishap.
>Perhaps this same law is used to loophole the taping of CD's and TV shows?
Not a loophole, it's a deliberate intention of the manufacturer/author to
allow users to record additional copies for themselves if they paid the asked
for price for their original copy.
Regards
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jan 02 2001 - 17:31:00 PST