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

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!

Ilandar , (edited )

Not in Australia. Relevant section of the Copyright Act 1968 as it would have existed back then, for those interested:

Click to view

COPYRIGHT ACT 1968

  • SECT 111
    Filming or recording broadcasts for private and domestic use

(1)
The copyright in a television broadcast in so far as it consists of visual images is not infringed by the making of a cinematograph film of the broadcast, or a copy of such a film, for the private and domestic use of the person by whom it is made.

(2)
The copyright in a sound broadcast, or in a television broadcast in so far as it consists of sounds, is not infringed by the making of a sound recording of the broadcast, or a copy of such a sound recording, for the private and domestic use of the person by whom it is made.

(3)
For the purposes of this section, a cinematograph film or a copy of such a film, or a sound recording or a copy of such a sound recording, shall be deemed to be made otherwise than for the private and domestic use of the person by whom it is made if it is made for the purpose of:

(a) selling a copy of the film or sound recording, letting it for hire, or by way of trade offering or exposing it for sale or hire;
(b) distributing a copy of the film or sound recording, whether for the purpose of trade or otherwise;
(c) by way of trade exhibiting a copy of the film or sound recording in public;
(d) broadcasting the film or recording; or
(e) causing the film or recording to be seen or heard in public.

The same laws still apply today, just reworded. By the way, this practice of recording live TV is known as time shifting.

oktux ,

I did a lot of research on digitizing old VHS tapes and ended up going with a local, professional service to have mine converted.

If you want to do it yourself, this site and its associated forum are a great starting place to learn how: https://www.digitalfaq.com/editorials/digital-video/professional-analog-workflow.htm

KingThrillgore ,
@KingThrillgore@lemmy.ml avatar

You know what I think is funny? The NFL doesn't have any footage of Super Bowl 1, the only known tape of the game is held by a private collector, but he can't watch it due to the NFL copyright. So its sitting in an Iron Mountain facility in the Poconos. And its deteriorating.

SoleInvictus , (edited )

That's actually an urban legend. Most of it was shown again by the NFL back in 2016 after they used various incomplete sources to patch the majority of the material back together.

The bit about the tape has a grain of truth to it. A man found a copy of most of the show in his father's attic, had it restored, and wanted to sell it to the NFL but the two parties couldn't agree on a price. The man and the curator of the organization which restored it both had watched it. It was then kept in a vault due to its value.

It was recently shown to the public by the organization that restored it, so I'm assuming it was never purchased by the NFL. Bummer for the finder.

Edit: I haven't watched all of this, but it appears to be on YouTube. Grab a copy before the NFL finds out!

adhocfungus ,

It was definitely considered piracy by the public at the time. Everyone I knew called it a "legal grey area", but as far as I know it was legally permissable.

The media companies tried their hardest to make it sound like you were destroying the entire industry and you'd go to jail for life as soon as they caught you.

What makes me mad is the boomers I watched copy rentals and NFL games are the same ones telling me I'm stealing by using an ad blocker.

FigMcLargeHuge ,

So the 1997 Superbowl was "back in the day...?" Holy fuck.

Wahots ,
@Wahots@pawb.social avatar

1997 was at least 15 years ago. ;)

root ,

"about 10 years ago" in our house 🤣

Kolanaki , (edited )
@Kolanaki@yiffit.net avatar

Did you have express, written consent from both the NFL and 20th Century FOX? 🫠

Banzai51 , (edited )
@Banzai51@midwest.social avatar

Only if you sold it. Back when cassette tapes first came out, the mystic music industry sued, and the Supreme Court ruled it fair use. So VHS tapes were under the same umbrella. We wouldn't get that same ruling now.

Holy hell, that was one hell of an autocorrect on mobile.

TankieTanuki ,
@TankieTanuki@hexbear.net avatar

the mystic industry sued

They considered video recording to be black magic and they're very protective of their turf.

0x0 ,

The implications of "magic is data" are fun. It leads to stories like Unsong where you can brute-force enumerate incantations until you find a good one. I also like the concept of Wizard's Bane. I haven't read it, but my understanding is that magic turns out to be Turing-complete, and the protagonist creates a LISP evaluator in magic, which enables them to outcast their enemies who are still doing the magical equivalent of writing assembly.

Strayce , (edited )

You'd probably also enjoy The Laundry Files. Math is magic, and while you -can- do it in your head, using computers is a lot safer and more efficient. Includes such gems as a basilisk gun integrated into CCTV camera systems.

chatokun ,

My brother and I (mostly him, just helped a small bit) used to distribute Anime this way. He'd buy laserdiscs of Anime like Rurouni Kenshin (OVA/Prequel)and Yu Yu Hakushou, then download translations for subtitles and time them on the computer, using a bluescreen pass through and onto some SVHS VCRs. From those two SVHS VCRs, he'd use 9 others to copy them onto VHS tapes for distribution via mail. He'd charge cost iirc, not making profit on it.

I'm 100% sure it would be considered piracy if the companies had a way to find out. Plus VHS tapes had piracy warnings on them back then anyway.

Teknikal ,
@Teknikal@lemm.ee avatar

I had a friend whose family owned a video store, while it wasn't exactly legal he could get me copies of everything and they were completely perfect Pirates.

I mean covers, labels and the actual tapes. They had specialised machines for all of it and they did it pretty perfectly.

Ive tried doing it myself by linking two machines together and the results were watchable but not on the same level as the machines he was using.

Banzai51 ,
@Banzai51@midwest.social avatar

Way back in the day, my best friend had a family friend that owned a computer software store. He rented games and gave us copies of the latest and greatest copy programs with a wink-wink and a nudge-nudge.

Atelopus-zeteki ,
@Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run avatar

It's only Piracy if it comes from one of the Seven Seas, yar!

catloaf ,

Otherwise it's just sparkling copyright infringement.

synthsalad ,

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.

ringwraithfish ,

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

Melatonin ,

Came here to say "Time shifting".

Kecessa ,

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

synthsalad ,

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 ,

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...

ultratiem ,
@ultratiem@lemmy.ca avatar

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

BolexForSoup ,

Recording home videos for personal use within your immediate family was protected. Screening for people beyond that was not. Mr. Rogers famously gave us what little protection we had and insured that we could even have home VHS recorders. Testified before a congressional committee that was on the verge of banning it, changed one critical mind and that stopped it.

GeekFTW ,
@GeekFTW@lemmy.zip avatar

Partially off-topic but I rarely get the chance to tell this story:

My old man was a porn hound. Talking wall of VHS tapes. You know what I'm picturing, that was his living room. Had 4 VCR's hooked up at once with several switches, a few switchboards for colour and audio correction, whole 9 yards. Lost an eye when I was a kid so always wanted to make his viewing 'optimal' for him.

What he'd end up doing was go down to the local Variety Video, rent 5-6 tapes, come home, and dub em over the weekend. Then once dubbed, remove the label with some heat, open the cassettes (the og and the copy he made) and swap the reels so he'd have the original one (which would be ever-so-slightly better quality than the copy he made, again, cause of his sight). Then seal em up, return the copy and no one was the wiser. Did this for close to 15 years before the place closed down (for unrelated reasons) and had his huge wall of big titty wank material for years to come lmao.

Nougat ,

That's dedication.

GeekFTW ,
@GeekFTW@lemmy.zip avatar

Loved him some tiddy.

RootBeerGuy ,
@RootBeerGuy@discuss.tchncs.de avatar

Unrelated reasons, of course.

kakes ,

80s Goon Cave.

420blazeit69 ,

The ur-gooner

Neato ,
@Neato@ttrpg.network avatar

The VCR was invented, marketed, and sold to do this very thing. When the VCR first came out (same for betamax) they didn't sell pre-recorded tapes because the only way they had to make those was to manually record them individually in real-time which was prohibitively expensive. That's also why movie rental places caught on: early VHS movies were too expensive for most to afford. But not too expensive for a business to rent hundreds of times.

Suffice to say: if recording TV was piracy, it wasn't illegal and the people bitching had no way to enforce their will.

DarkThoughts , (edited )

People did end up copying rentals too. Not just for videos but also games.

cmnybo ,

Pre-recorded tapes usually had a primitive form of copy protection called macrovision. It would make the copy pretty much unwatchable, but it was fairly simple to remove. You could build or buy a device that would strip it out.

bobs_monkey ,

Yup, those little inline filters. Even building the circuit for $5-10 in RadioShack parts was pretty simple.

Flyberius ,
@Flyberius@hexbear.net avatar

Yeah pretty much. Pretty sure recordings were for personal use.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • kbinchat
  • All magazines
    •