9 ms·

Only Hacker News could make piracy sound so eloquent and - dare I say - romantic.

tshaddox 3y ago
Per the halting problem, it would be impossible to say if this was merely time shifting and thus fair use. (Not counting the DeCSS step, since access control circumvention is explicitly prohibited by the DMCA, although I’m not sure of the current status of that law.)
- toast0 3y ago
  Does the time shifting doctrine really apply to rentals?
  - tshaddox 3y ago
    I’m very out of date on this stuff, but I thought the more relevant thing was that you’re not supposed to keep permanent copies of stuff around. I believe the original court cases were about recording live TV to watch later, presumably under the assumption that the video tapes would be recorded over quickly (as was common in those days). In that case I don’t see why doing the same with a rental wouldn’t also be fair use.
    - saalweachter 3y ago
      The standard I used to hear for copying library materials was "lower quality reproductions for personal use".
ta1243 3y ago
Johnny Depp did a good job
SoftTalker 3y ago
DVDs pre-date my youth. I used to do it with records. There was a record store where you could “buy” a used record for like $5 and they’d take it back within a week or so and refund $4. They also sold a lot of cassette tapes. For music it makes sense to me, I’ll listen to records I like over and over. For movies, not so much. Once I watch a movie I have very little desire to watch it again.
- Macha 3y ago
  DVDs predating your youth implies DVDs were phased out before you were young. Given that you were copying records to cassette tapes, it sounds like the opposite is true?
  - SoftTalker 3y ago
    Yeah said it backwards. When I was a teen, there were no DVDs. Most people didn't even have a VCR, though they were starting to get popular.
Clubber 3y ago
It was perfectly fine when it was cassettes off the radio, or a friend's record or cassette. RIAA changed the rules when it changed to, "on a computer." https://www.soundandvision.com/content/flashback-1984-supreme-court-upholds-right-tape https://www.soundandvision.com/content/flashback-1984-suprem...
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  It wasn’t cassette vs computer, it was the scale of the sharing. With tapes, sharing wasn’t really practical beyond a handful of friends. With Napster, you could share with the whole world.
  - bombolo 3y ago
    > With tapes, sharing wasn’t really practical beyond a handful of friends. LOL. There were entire organizations doing copies.
    - Clubber 3y ago
      I think the general rule back then was you couldn't make money off it. People would charge for the cost of the cassette or something like that. There were tons of bootlegs out there too.
- zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
  https://youtu.be/81c1L8SrXcU https://youtu.be/81c1L8SrXcU
taftster 3y ago
Slashdot did a pretty good job of romanticizing this type of thing for a couple of decades before HN. Miss the old /.

Per the halting problem, it would be impossible to say if this was merely time shifting and thus fair use. (Not counting the DeCSS step, since access control circumvention is explicitly prohibited by the DMCA, although I’m not sure of the current status of that law.)

toast0 3y ago
Does the time shifting doctrine really apply to rentals?
- tshaddox 3y ago
  I’m very out of date on this stuff, but I thought the more relevant thing was that you’re not supposed to keep permanent copies of stuff around. I believe the original court cases were about recording live TV to watch later, presumably under the assumption that the video tapes would be recorded over quickly (as was common in those days). In that case I don’t see why doing the same with a rental wouldn’t also be fair use.
  - saalweachter 3y ago
    The standard I used to hear for copying library materials was "lower quality reproductions for personal use".

ta1243 3y ago

Johnny Depp did a good job

SoftTalker 3y ago

DVDs pre-date my youth. I used to do it with records. There was a record store where you could “buy” a used record for like $5 and they’d take it back within a week or so and refund $4. They also sold a lot of cassette tapes. For music it makes sense to me, I’ll listen to records I like over and over. For movies, not so much. Once I watch a movie I have very little desire to watch it again.

Macha 3y ago
DVDs predating your youth implies DVDs were phased out before you were young. Given that you were copying records to cassette tapes, it sounds like the opposite is true?
- SoftTalker 3y ago
  Yeah said it backwards. When I was a teen, there were no DVDs. Most people didn't even have a VCR, though they were starting to get popular.

Clubber 3y ago

It was perfectly fine when it was cassettes off the radio, or a friend's record or cassette. RIAA changed the rules when it changed to, "on a computer." https://www.soundandvision.com/content/flashback-1984-supreme-court-upholds-right-tape https://www.soundandvision.com/content/flashback-1984-suprem...

SoftTalker 3y ago
It wasn’t cassette vs computer, it was the scale of the sharing. With tapes, sharing wasn’t really practical beyond a handful of friends. With Napster, you could share with the whole world.
- bombolo 3y ago
  > With tapes, sharing wasn’t really practical beyond a handful of friends. LOL. There were entire organizations doing copies.
  - Clubber 3y ago
    I think the general rule back then was you couldn't make money off it. People would charge for the cost of the cassette or something like that. There were tons of bootlegs out there too.
zoklet-enjoyer 3y ago
https://youtu.be/81c1L8SrXcU https://youtu.be/81c1L8SrXcU

taftster 3y ago

Slashdot did a pretty good job of romanticizing this type of thing for a couple of decades before HN. Miss the old /.