Are the Airwaves copyrighted?

[mdmint]

Recent decisions have been made based on believing all network programs available freely to the public over the airwaves are copyrighted. Some show broadcasts include copyright statements, most as I reccall do not. (like NFL games do come to mind) It seems digital content like DirectTV, satelite and digital cable a different issue.

I'm not a Lawyer so don't really know for sure. But it seems to me that if you can pick it off the airwaves, and a show does not air with copyright disclaimers, it's free for any kind of personal use or personal not for gain sharing.

I will abide by Frey's decision not to use the open Forum for such matters even though I don't believe it's totally justified when it comes to airwave shows.

[Opus4]

Originally Posted by mdmint

Some show broadcasts include copyright statements, most as I reccall do not.

You should check more closely, since most DO state the copyright.

Almost every show I am aware of on TV has a copyright statement at some point in the credits. It may be small print, but it is there. That is precisely what it means when the show lists something like: "Copyright (c) 2005 <some name> All rights reserved" <-- note the word "Copyright" and/or the circle-c copyright symbol. Even PBS shows usually have that.

- Andy

[stanger89]

The short answer is yes they are copyrighted, technically anything created anywhere and put on paper or whatever is copyrighted. I think (not 100% sure) that even this post is (C) me 2005.

That said, personal use, is protected and as such you can do whatever you want with copyrighted work, so long as it's personal use.

Originally Posted by mdmint

But it seems to me that if you can pick it off the airwaves, and a show does not air with copyright disclaimers, it's free for any kind of personal use or personal not for gain sharing.

The sharing part is where you run into trouble, sharing, whether for gain or not, is a breach of copyright, and is why it's not permitted on the more upstanding forums.

That's the way it is, at least from a technical perspective. Of course nobody's going to come knocking down your door if you burn a show your friend missed to DVD.

[nielm]

The programs broadcast are copyrighted... Copyright is the default state, not an exception. This post is copyright even though it does say so...

The programs are not free for *any* kind of personal use. Timeshifting is only permitted because there was a massive lawsuit attempting to ban the sale of VCRs when they first came out (which the studios lost), leading to the doctrine of 'Fair use'.

Public file sharing of broadcast shows is simply not legal (whether for gain or not) as it is equivalent to rebroadcasting.
Limited sharing of recorded shows among friends is border-line (Tivo have some kind of built-in limited sharing system which the syudios tried to block, but got FCC approval).

Anyway, the way the studios come down with a ton of lawers on any site that advertises/publicises shares of files (the original Napster for music, and more recently SuprNova for bittorrent movies), I can perfectly understand why Frey don't want any hint of using these forums as a filesharing source.

(IANAL)

[mdmint]

Originally Posted by Opus4

You should check more closely, since most DO state the copyright.

Almost every show I am aware of on TV has a copyright statement at some point in the credits. It may be small print, but it is there. That is precisely what it means when the show lists something like: "Copyright (c) 2005 <some name> All rights reserved" <-- note the word "Copyright" and/or the circle-c copyright symbol. Even PBS shows usually have that.

- Andy

You're right of course. For instance a show like 24 has copyright all rights reserved in the credits after the show has ended after the commercials after the show has ended have aired down at the bottom during previews of the next episode. (Obvious they care about it being noticed.) I was thinking of the annoucements made during NFL Broadcasts about reproduction for personal use ok but not for commercial uses etc.

[dkardatzke]

To put this one to bed for now, this will be our official forum policy on the following:

1) Any discussion around violation of copyrights will be immediately closed and deleted. This includes TV, Music, Software, etc and the sharing of those files with other users.

2) Any discussion around using technology that is illegal here in the United States to break CSS encryption for DVDs. Discussion on CD and DVD ripping will be allowed as long as it's in reference to unecrypted discs that are being ripped for personal fair use as allowed by the law.

If anyone has any questions about a specific topic, please direct them to Opus4 (Forum Moderator) for clarification.

Thanks,
Dan

[korben_dallas]

I had a teacher who used to say "This classroom is not a democracy".

[bebanovich]

Originally Posted by dkardatzke

1) Any discussion around violation of copyrights will be immediately closed and deleted. This includes TV, Music, Software, etc and the sharing of those files with other users.

I hope that this ban only includes discussion that promotes or facilitates violation of copyrights and does not include threads like this. I have found clarification of the law in this thread to be quite helpful and illuminating.

I understand and support the caution but I just hope that the battlefield has not become so toxic that meaningful discussion - and even appropriate dissention - becomes hazardous.

The fact that this thread is still open pretty much answers my question . . . please consider this rhetorical

[nielm]

Coincidentally, shortly after Dan posted, the MPAA filed lawsuits against more file swapping sites

[silkshadow]

Its a connundrum for our times. The wave of lawsuits is definately enabled by the current, big business friendly small guy unfriendly, US Administration (no matter what Karl Rove shoved down your throats). Consider however, that its only really Americans who are suffering under this yoke. Where I am, full awsome quality DTS DVDs can be had almost anywhere for ~$USD1.80. There is no restiction on how one uses the internet access they are paying for and dhcp logs are kept only 7 days (for my provider anyway). I can't even imagine how a lawsuit against some guy using bittorrent would even be possible here. I understand in Europe its also no way near as crazy as in the US and you have tons of Russian sites selling website subscriptions where you can get MP3s/movies/tv shows for $USD0.10. I moved here and shows are 2-7 seasons behind what I was watching in the US if its even being broadcasted here. How am I supposed to keep up with those shows?

Seriously though, how can anyone own the air? Is water next? Will Americans be unable to share the fish they catch in a river? They have to eat it themselves or be sued by the huge fishing consortium. "Sorry kids you can't eat tonight because I caught this fish myself and I am not allowed to share it".

[Crazedz]

Limited fish sharing is allowed under fair use though more than 5 to 7 people would be stretching the bounds of fair use any more than that and the fishing consortium would have the right to bring you down as a fish pirate Arrr!

Seriously though some have started waking up to what their overzelous pursuit of copyright has cost them just recently sony came out and stated they just relized that their beating heavily on the copyright drum caused them to miss out on profits from tech they could have made big money on stuff like MP3 players and other media devices but didn't because they were to afraid how it would impact their copyrighted material.

Not in thoughs exact words of course but think how many others have lost out on making money on the new tech because they were to preoccupied with beating the same drum. Below is a link to the press release.

Sony admits mistakes

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if others wake up to what it's costing them and change their minds as well or not either way it's like the war on drugs it'll keep costing them more and more to try and win the question though really is is it worth it in the end.

Guess not so much in sonys case.

[silkshadow]

Limited fish sharing is allowed under fair use though more than 5 to 7 people would be stretching the bounds of fair use any more than that and the fishing consortium would have the right to bring you down as a fish pirate Arrr!

Now that is funny!

[Crazedz]

Originally Posted by silkshadow

Now that is funny!

Every once in a while i pull a jem out of the air or water so to speak not often enough but sometimes.

[broderp]

I find this topic interesting as there seems to be so many loop holes that the big guys want patched up to protect thier copy rights

The line is really blurred IMO as to what is legal and what is not. Whats the difference if I burn a copy of "(insert copy right show here)" and burn to disc. Then I pass the single copy areound to 10 friends to watch and get it back. To some this is a violation because it is technically re-braodcasting. And I suppose I can see that.

But what about if I have these same people over and we watch it on my TV? Is it still technically re-broadcasting? What if its not on a DVD, but on my hard drive? The legalities seem a bit more blurred IMO.

Technically speaking,,if you pause SAGE for 30 seconds.....then restart it, you are watching a re-broadcast and this could be illegal! Have a few friends over, and you could be in big trouble!

I think these laws are meant to be confusing.

[stanger89]

Originally Posted by broderp

I find this topic interesting as there seems to be so many loop holes that the big guys want patched up to protect thier copy rights

The line is really blurred IMO as to what is legal and what is not. Whats the difference if I burn a copy of "(insert copy right show here)" and burn to disc. Then I pass the single copy areound to 10 friends to watch and get it back. To some this is a violation because it is technically re-braodcasting. And I suppose I can see that.

Actually it's a copyright violation because you are infringing on the Copyright holders right to exclusive distribution.

But what about if I have these same people over and we watch it on my TV? Is it still technically re-broadcasting? What if its not on a DVD, but on my hard drive? The legalities seem a bit more blurred IMO.

Nope, that's a private/personal showing, and Copyright offers the rights holder no protection against that.

Technically speaking,,if you pause SAGE for 30 seconds.....then restart it, you are watching a re-broadcast and this could be illegal! Have a few friends over, and you could be in big trouble!

Actually that's timeshifting and was held to be fair use in several cases IIRC.

I think these laws are meant to be confusing.

As long as you aren't distributing content, you're pretty much fine.

[broderp]

Thats much clearer now, thanks.

One last "what if":

Based on what you said, as long as I'm WITH the material, it cant be deemed "distributing". So if I copy and record to DVD a copyrighted show, but I also sit with my friends at thier house to watch it, it's considered a private/personal veiwing....right?

Makes sense.

[stanger89]

I'd say so, but then IANAL

Reality and technicality are not always the same thing. From a practical perspective, you can get away with anything pretty much as long as you don't draw attention to yourself. EG while it's infringement to copy a CD and give it to a friend, or even on the extreme side, to copy your whole CD collection and give it to your friend, it's not going to get you in trouble because it's not very high profile and going after you isn't worth the trouble. However sharing your whole CD collection on Kazaa could easilly get you in trouble because you're drawing attention to yourself.

FWIW, these are rights granted to the copyright holder:

§ 106. Exclusive rights in copyrighted works36

Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:

(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;

(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;

(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;

(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;

(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and

(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.

Fair Use:

§ 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use38

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Section 111 is also rather interesting

Here's the link (see Chapter 1, Chapter 10 has some interesting things too, like 1009):
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/