<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<TITLE>Message</TITLE>
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2800.1276" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY><!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT size=2><STRONG>Do you understand that quote???<BR>Lets break it
down<BR></STRONG><BR><EM>c) The record and the District Court's findings
show<BR>(1) that there is a significant likelihood that substantial numbers of
copyright holders who license their works for broadcast on free television would
not object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i. e.,
recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it can
be watched at a later time); and<BR></EM><STRONG>Sony is not liable because most
copyright holders don’t care if people time shift (still illegal to do so but
like j-walking they don’t care)<BR></STRONG><EM>(2) that there is no likelihood
that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the potential market for, or
the value of, respondents' copyrighted works. The VTR's are therefore capable of
substantial noninfringing uses.</EM> <STRONG>(sony not liable because the
product can be used for legal uses) </STRONG></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><EM>Private, noncommercial time-shifting in the home satisfies
this standard of noninfringing uses both because respondents have no right to
prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such time-shifting for their
program</EM><EM>s</EM><EM>, </EM><STRONG>(Disney has no right to keep people
from time shifting when the owner of the copy right allows
it)</STRONG><BR><EM>and because the District Court's findings reveal that even
the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents' programs is legitimate fair
use. </EM><STRONG>You can do legal recording of copyrighted material under the
fair use so they cant ban it across the board) </STRONG></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><STRONG>This says that VCR's cant be banned because some
companies allow time shifting and even if the company does not authorize time
shifting there are still times under the fair use (collecting data for a school
project) that it is legal in the home.</STRONG></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><STRONG>It does not say that you have the right to copy someone
else's copyrighted material for your own private use.</STRONG></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><STRONG>Tom J</STRONG></FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2><EM>Pp. 442-456.</EM><STRONG> ( </STRONG>> </FONT></P>
<P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>-----Original Message-----<BR></P></FONT>
<P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2></FONT> </P>
<P><FONT size=2>> From: mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org<BR>> [<A
href="mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org">mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Shawn Asmussen<BR>> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 7:11
PM<BR>> To: 'Discussion about mythtv'<BR>> Subject: RE: [mythtv-users]
recorded shows<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> >Please show me a govt link
that holds your case not some<BR>> website that is<BR>> >3rd party
interpretation to serve their interests.<BR>><BR>> <A
href="http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&co">http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&co</A><BR>>
urt=us&vol=464<BR>> &page=417#417<BR>><BR>><BR>> Although
findlaw is not technically a government site, all of<BR>> the
official<BR>> US government sites that archive the Supreme Court
opinions<BR>> that I could<BR>> find only had the opinions up to 1975.
However, this link is not to an<BR>> article stating a 3rd party
interpretation. It is a link to<BR>> an archive of<BR>> the actual Supreme
Court opinion.<BR>><BR>> Here is a direct quote from the Supreme Court
opinion:<BR>><BR>> (c) The record and the District Court's findings show
(1)<BR>> that there is a<BR>> significant likelihood that substantial
numbers of copyright<BR>> holders who<BR>> license their works for
broadcast on free television would<BR>> not object to<BR>> having their
broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.<BR>> e., recorded at a<BR>>
time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so that it<BR>> can be
watched<BR>> at a later time); and (2) that there is no likelihood
that<BR>> time-shifting<BR>> would cause nonminimal harm to the potential
market for, or<BR>> the value of,<BR>> respondents' copyrighted works. The
VTR's are therefore capable of<BR>> substantial noninfringing uses. Private,
noncommercial<BR>> time-shifting in the<BR>> home satisfies this standard
of noninfringing uses both<BR>> because respondents<BR>> have no right to
prevent other copyright holders from authorizing such<BR>> time-shifting for
their programs, and because the District<BR>> Court's findings<BR>> reveal
that even the unauthorized home time-shifting of respondents'<BR>> programs
is legitimate fair use. Pp. 442-456.<BR>><BR>> In particular, note the
last portion of the last sentence.<BR>> "THE DISTRICT<BR>> COURT'S
FINDINGS REVEAL THAT EVEN THE UNAUTHORIZED HOME<BR>> TIME-SHIFTING OF<BR>>
RESPONDENTS' PROGRAMS IS LEGITIMATE FAIR USE"<BR>><BR>> Now, that is not a
3rd party interpretation of anything. That<BR>> is a direct<BR>> quote
from the Supreme Court decision. Is that good enough?<BR>><BR>> Shawn
Asmussen<BR>><BR>> -----Original Message-----<BR>> From:
mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org<BR>> [<A
href="mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org">mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Tom Jaeger<BR>> Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 4:24 PM<BR>>
To: 'Discussion about mythtv'<BR>> Subject: RE: [mythtv-users] recorded
shows<BR>><BR>> <A
href="http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html">http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html</A><BR>>
This covers fair use and is straight from the source.<BR>> "Section 107
contains a list of the various purposes for which the<BR>> reproduction of a
particular work may be considered "fair," such as<BR>> criticism, comment,
news reporting, teaching, scholarship,<BR>> and research.<BR>> Section 107
also sets out four factors to be considered in determining<BR>> whether or
not a particular use is fair"<BR>><BR>> Fair use does not protect home
users from copyright infringement.<BR>><BR>> Your statement "This is
different from the "fair use" that<BR>> most people<BR>> refer to when
they talk<BR>> about this subject." Is disproved by my link above to the govt
page on<BR>> fair use and proves your statement wrong<BR>><BR>> My
previous mention of the fair use is because it was mentioned as a<BR>>
defense for making a copy ... I was saying that it does not apply<BR>>
because I/we are not using it for educational purposes. The
supreme<BR>> court was not ruling as to if it was legal for a person to
record a TV<BR>> show but they were ruling as to if a company could<BR>>
manufacture a product<BR>> that was made to record a show.<BR>><BR>>
Please show me a govt link that holds your case not some<BR>> website that
is<BR>> 3rd party interpretation to serve their interests.<BR>><BR>>
Tom J<BR>><BR>> > -----Original Message-----<BR>> > From:
mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org<BR>> > [<A
href="mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org">mailto:mythtv-users-bounces@mythtv.org</A>]
On Behalf Of Jeff Monks<BR>> > Sent: Sunday, January 04, 2004 5:03
PM<BR>> > To: Discussion about mythtv<BR>> > Subject: RE:
[mythtv-users] recorded shows<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
> > Fair use guidelines are offially known as "Guidelines for
Off-Air<BR>> > > Recording of Broadcast Programming for Educational
Purposes"<BR>> > > So fair use does not apply to you unless you are a
teacher<BR>> > and then does<BR>> > > not apply to HBO or other
special services.<BR>> > > I have included a link for info on Fair use
below.<BR>> > > Tom J<BR>> > ><BR>> > ><BR>> >
<A
href="http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/94F153">http://www.nolo.com/lawcenter/ency/article.cfm/objectID/94F153</A><BR>>
9D-B61C-41<BR>> >
5B-BE3ED4F8BFE7F1F3/catID/2EB060FE-5A4B-4D81-883B0E540CC4CB1E<BR>><BR>>
>From the page you link to:<BR>><BR>> "These guidelines (known
officially as "Guidelines for<BR>> Off-Air Recording<BR>><BR>> of
Broadcast Programming for Educational Purposes") do not have the<BR>>
force<BR>> of law and have never been tested in the courts."<BR>><BR>>
They're just guidelines for non-commercial, educational use<BR>> of
recorded<BR>> copyrighted programs, agreed to by teachers and media
companies. This<BR>> is<BR>> different from the "fair use" that most
people refer to when<BR>> they talk<BR>> about this
subject.<BR>><BR>> Generic "fair use" exemptions in the 1976 Copyright Act
were<BR>> held by the<BR>><BR>> Supreme Court to encompass personal
non-commercial recording devices<BR>> (originally the VCR, but presumably
also DVRs) in 1984. The<BR>> ruling in<BR>> that case includes the
statement:<BR>><BR>> "One may search the Copyright Act in vain for any
sign that the<BR>> elected representatives of the millions of people who
watch<BR>> television<BR>> every day have made it unlawful to copy a
program for later<BR>> viewing at<BR>> home, or have enacted a flat
prohibition against the sale of machines<BR>> that<BR>> make such copying
possible."<BR>><BR>> In other words, the Copyright Act does not make it
illegal to make or<BR>> use<BR>> such devices for noncommercial, personal
recordings.<BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>><BR>> </FONT></P></BODY></HTML>