I can't find the right clip on YouTube or Vimeo.

Do you subscribe to Netflix? If not, no. And even if you subscribe, the films are streamed and not downloaded. You do not retain possession.

Note that just because it streams does not preclude the possibility of keeping it. I've seen examples of streaming services captured. Happens with live audio/radio streaming all the time.

Netflix is a hard nut to crack. Their streaming downloads are encrypted and the encryption is pretty robust. If there were a way to download Netflix files, Netflix would make BitTorrent obsolete (and distributors and movie studios would not use them).

I don't subscribe to Netfix but I can and do download 6 and more movies at a time from youtube with iSkysoft iMedia Converter Deluxe. Perhaps it would be cheaper to cancel Netfix and use software. jaybass

There are movies and there are movies. None of the films available on Netflix are pirated, nor should they be on YouTube. However, you will also not find on YouTube (with rare exception?) what you find on Netflix. Netflix is catering more towards cinema-type movies and TV series, closer in time to first run or classics. I haven't scoured YouTube lately, but I don't think what they have available is comparable. That's not to say it isn't good or interesting, just different.

I just checked youtube for just about all genres and there were from the 40's and onwards to 2015. I realize that in the US downloading is an offence as opposed to here in Ontario...not yet anyway. As you imply, not all are of good quality but some of the great movies of yesteryear are available. jaybass

I regularly torrent movies that look interesting. I watch them as I have time, and if it's good I keep it and I usually buy the bluray. (I have a stack still in the shrink-wrap in the living room, I don't use my TV much) But if it's bad, the file just gets thrown away and I don't waste my money on it. Anyone that whines about my doing that, I tell them I'll quit doing that the day I can return a movie that turns out to be crap with false-advertisements and bait-n-switch for trailers. You wouldn't buy a car from someone that told you that you couldn't return it AND you couldn't test drive it. The movie industry wants their cake and eat it too.

(somewhat OT: my poster child example, Bridge to Terrebithia, 90% of the trailer was made using close to 100% of the CGI in the movie, leading you to believe it was going to be another Narnia - instead we got a slow, depressing drama)

But that's my acting by my beliefs, and that doesn't work well with people with uncommon opinions, like wingnuts that don't believe they should have to pay taxes because they live in an independent compound out in the desert. ;P

I'm not a lawyer but I'd guess that downloading and recording (you download six at a time so I assume at least 5 are recorded) is essentially copying. All movies have the international warning about illegal copying which, again I assume, applies in Ontario.

…..which means you have paid the royalties and that's likely all the movie industry cares about.

It is not illegal to download movies in Ontario. I don't know about BC. Here Bell warn their clients if they download movies but that's all it is, a warning. I hear that the UK now gives out hefty fines for violation. And you're right, it is copying but so far without penalty. jaybass

Unfortunately, that's probably not what's on their minds most of the time. Their stated goal is to "Make their shareholders as much money as possible, by any means necessary." Everything after that is the means to that end. They would MUCH rather me go watch the movie ten times, and then buy everything they release, whether it be good or be crap. Then buy it again when they publish the extended cut. Then again when they sell the director's cut with bloopers. Then again when they re-release it on a different media.

Anything I (or you) do that costs them a sale they don't like. Some things they just like less than others, some things aren't as bad for PR than others, and some things they just have more laws on their side to encourage.

It's not greed. It's more like the natural order of things. Like you don't call a wolf "mean". They're not mean, they just eat cute furry things from time to time because that's just what they do. There's no malice in it. But that doesn't mean you have to like it or cooperate with them

I just wish I had a more direct way to support the artists. It's a lot more clear-cut with the RIAA because there's less involved, and it's possible for artists to release directly to consumers now. You can't really do that with movies. So all I can do is buy the movie if it's good, that's the fairest way for me to "vote with my wallet". They just don't like that because (A) I'm not being forced to pay and might stiff them even if I liked it, and (B) they can't rip me off as easily so they make less money on the average - see above.

All kind of a moot point since the original poster is in New York, USA.

Well, the only thing I could think of is a QuickTime screen capture but if that could be done I'm certain someone would be doing it. It probably does what happens with iTunes movies, nada.

I believe the FBI warning against copying a movie only applies to financially profiting by doing so. It does not cover personal use, so I wouldn't worry about heavily armed guys in body armour breaking down the door.

(Note: Sometimes I forget to click to add a thread I post to my watched topics. Would be nice if that was automatic.)

Don't even want the whole movie, just a clip.

I did get so angry about that once I asked an actual movie theater for a refund after about 20 minutes of the film, the first plot point. Got it. Would help if more people did that.

On what do you base that opinion?

The moment you duplicate a copyrighted work (movies, recordings, books, et cetera) you are stealing someone else's intellectual property. The warning is quite clear: "The unauthorized reproduction or distribution of a copyrighted work is illegal."

It does not add: "However, it's okay to steal something as long as you only use the stolen property in your own home"

A few years ago The Times sold WQXR, NYC's classical music station, to a non-profit, and it's now funded by contributions, memberships, legacy giving, and anything else you can be dunned for, and along with that unpleasant change their playlists went from prospective to retrospective.

When I questioned the change I was told that the ASCAP (and/or BMI?) license was cheaper that way, and I've always assumed it's because much less material will be copied when people don't know what's coming, and when, in advance but must be listening, ready to record, and alert when it comes.

I don't think if I copy a few pages in a book and take them home to read I am breaking the law. Are VCRs illegal? I can't get that material copied or distribute it, but I can record it.

I know I've seen slolerner's


or something similar somewhere, but I can't for the life of me remember where or with respect to what. (Something to do with sports, maybe?)

Edit: "Unauthorized reproduction for commercial use is prohibited", maybe?

As a technical trainer, I had to deal with copyright issues almost every working day and I sometimes think the intellectual property laws were written to keep intellectual property lawyers in business. Copying even a "few" pages may not be legal.

For example the copyright notice in my copy of The New Oxford Annotated Bible, New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha states…

Further down the copyright notice it says…

Not only can the rules be different for each specific document they are different for different kinds of material. The general rule for written material the limits you to copying ten pages of a published document that you DO NOT OWN. That allows teachers to distribute a limited amount of material excerpted from copyright documents. However, the copyright holder may impose conditions that are either more or less strict.
No copies of sheet music are allowed without specific written permission of the copyright owner. (That cost a small church I know of a $10,000 fine because they were under the mistaken impression ASCAP would not come after a church making copies for the use of their choir.)

Performance material, such as VCRs, CDs, etc. fall under a different category that permits a limited number of copies (I forget whether it is five or eight) "for [i]personal]/i] use" and may be given away so long as it is free and there is no financial gain from the copies. Of course all of that is subject to individual copyright provisions granted by the copyright owner and specified in writing. It is that limit on the number of copies where music sharing services get into trouble.

Where software is involved, even Open Source, is tricky as different Open Source communities have different provisions allowing the use of the software and, in fact, developers often choose which open source license to operate under because of variations in the agreements.

So whether or not you can make legal copies of any copyright material requires you to read, and understand, the specific copyright notice for the specific item. And yes copyright owners can and will enforce their copyright. Otherwise they risk losing it and their source of income.

An e-law expert Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-Commerce Law at the University of Ottawa has a somewhat different opinion.

I second that motion. Geist is the go-to guy in this arena; his opinions and advice are generally spot on.

Good question....so I checked.

The use of video recorders was tested in the U.S. Supreme Court in 1984. (Keep in mind that 1984 was well before internet downloading and the industry complaint related to recording television signals).The decision was 5-4 and concluded that "time shifting" (record now to watch later) fell within the copyright exception known as "fair use".

Essentially, the viewer already had a right to view the program free of charge, however the scheduled broadcast time was not convenient. Time shift recording enabled the viewer to watch when convenient.

This narrow decision, I would assume (reiterating that I am not a lawyer), could hardly be applicable now to downloading movies that the individual does not have a right to view - i.e. they have not paid for it.

I assume the VCR question is moot anyway as few in 2015 would record important material on a device as low tech as a VCR.

I wonder if it's the pre-iPod and pre-iTunes downloading and distribution of music that used to occur, and which generated huge fines (in the 100's of 1,000's of dollars) levied against the people who did it.

I don't think it's that.

Your cited Supreme Court ruling has got me thinking that it probably relates to sporting events that are free to view, same as the TV shows that inspired the ruling.

Geist's opinions notwithstanding, this all may be moot. It appears that Canadians may be pirates at heart.

Shiver me timbers!