DX, sorry--I thought you were writing a canned reminder to use any time it pops up, not just one for this circumstance (since it was already deleted prior to posting the friendly reminder). If this were a canned warning, I would just want to see that second paragraph go away. I don't like us telling people how else they can do something illegal. It feels nearly as wrong as allowing the links here.

I'm sorry if I sounded abrupt, DX. I think what you wrote was fine; I'm just unbelievably paranoid about b.org being linked to anything that could lead to a C&D.

I also may have had my morning cranky on, too.

...but we don't want the board to be a vehicle for something that is undoubtedly illegal...

The lawyer in me would suggest that "undoubtedly illegal" should be changed to "possibly illegal" or "of questionable legality" or something similar. Either way, I'm in full agreement with the board's position on linking to downloads.

"of questionable legality"

Hee! Lawyers. Glad we've got some on our side.

FTR I had the same thought as Wolfram when I read that...

What is the difference in legality between torrents/downloads of television shows and the tape thread (which sometimes includes episodes burned on DVD)? Not that I want to shut down the tape thread, but...well, TWoP eventually put the kibosh on that sort of exchange as well, so I thought there had to be issues.

I remember this subject came up at least once before in Minearverse:

Narrator - Mar 11, 2004 9:08:10 am PST #3651 of 10012
The evil is this way?

WARNING -- Lawgeeker stuff.

Again, this is not my field, and I will look some more tonight when I get home on this.

Basic background: TV programs, movies, books, records, etc. are protected by copyright law. Meaning, that others cannot appropriate that property without permission (and paying a fee, usually). Movie and tv studios argued that viewers had no right to make a copy of their products when they were broadcast on tv (or at any other time) without the studios’ express permission. They sued Sony (and other companies) which made/sold videotape machines for contributory copyright infringement in selling those machines, because they enabled others to violate the studios’ copyrights by making unauthorized copies. In 1984, when the US Supreme Court ruled in the Sony case that taping a television program to watch later in the privacy of one's own home fell within the “fair use" exception to copyright law. (“Fair use” permits folks to use another’s ‘property’ for certain purposes without permission or paying a royalty. For example, a critic can quote dialogue from a play or show or show excerpts of a program.) The court noted that the person was merely watching the show supplied by the owner, just at a different time. (The homeowner cannot sell those tapes for his/her profit.)

The Supremes (Diana Ross, presiding (Sorry, lawyer humor)) did not, IIRC, sanction folks creating their own video collection, or doing "tape trees", etc. These issues weren’t before the court.

There has been litigation over some copyright issues since then in which the owners of the copyrights have sued contributors for facilitating consumers to gain copies of copyrighted materials without paying a royalty (Napster, for example). Rarely have studios/owners sued the consumers, although recently there have been several publicized cases in which this has taken place, usually involving downloaded music. THis may be because -- if IIRC -- one factor courts look to in determining if a copyright has been violated is whether the consumer can otherwise purchase the book, record, etc. from the owner. In other words, if you can go to your local record store and get the latest Britney Spears album, then the courts will likely not look favorably on you downloading it. (You have no taste, too, but that’s a different issue.)) This is why record studios are suing folks who are downloading songs. On the other hand, if the item is not commercially available, then a court may conclude that obtaining a copy through other means is not a copyright violation. Also, the owner of the copyright is less likely to claim a violation. One of the reasons for copyright law is to protect the right of the owner to benefit commercially (financially) from the property. If the owner has no interest in selling something in a particular market, then it will not likely pursue a suit against someone in that market who has an unpurchased copy of that product.

What caught my attention at the time was the part about " if the item is not commercially available, then a court may conclude that obtaining a copy through other means is not a copyright violation." because my so-unlike-Wolfram-and-bon bon-lawyerly-minds thread of thought interpreted it as meaning that a dubbed-tape is OK. Then I was told not to jump so fast to conclusions. Then "Wonderfalls" started, and the discussion went on to more interesting things.

Sharing a tape with a friend has generally fallen under fair use. The tape thread is just an avenue for facilitating that. Also, the actual transfer of the tape takes place off the board.

Even if something is out of print a copyright holder can still sue. The likelyhood is extremely low, but it is still a copyright violation.

FTR I had the same thought as Wolfram when I read that...

We're programmed to avoid absolutes. Sometimes.

What is the difference in legality between torrents/downloads of television shows and the tape thread (which sometimes includes episodes burned on DVD)?

There are many ways to skin that cat, and as long as most of them are legal I'd say the tape tree is fine. I'd get nervous if folks were specifically asking other folks to download shows or burn copies of DVDs for them.