4 ms·
Copyright law (and not just US copyright law, but international law) is pretty consistent that people have the right to make copies for archival purposes, for p
by URSpider94 11y ago
Copyright law (and not just US copyright law, but international law) is pretty consistent that people have the right to make copies for archival purposes, for personal use -- but that they have no right to share those copies with anyone else.
When you buy a book, you are actually buying a copy. When you videotape a TV show, you're not buying anything, you are MAKING a copy. That is the critical difference here. It would be more like if you borrowed a book from the library and made a photocopy, and then tried to sell that copy to someone else.
I'm not making a moral judgment here, just explaining my understanding of the law.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- garrettgrimsley 11y agoThe father didn't drive to the stadium with a camera, he made a copy of the broadcast. The NFL owns the rights to the broadcast, and does not allow others to create a copy of it. He essentially wants to sell a copy of a TV show.
- Lawtonfogle 11y agoI realized that and went back and deleted my comment, but I seem to have been a bit too slow.
- adekok 11y agoThat's why it's also different from him buying a tape of the game from the NFL, and then re-selling it. When you buy a tape, CD, book, etc., you have the right to re-sell it. As-is, without making a copy. If his father had been at the game, and recorded it himself on his own video camera, he would be able to sell that tape. No one else could broadcast it, as that involves making another copy.
- mcherm 11y agoThank you - the existing copy falling into the category of "archival copy" makes some sense to me. I realize that probably isn't the exact way the law works (at least in some country).