Is converting youtube videos to the zune, illegal?

Unlimited Zune Videos and Musics Downloads

Downloadable Zune Movies, Tv, Songs, Music Videos, Sports Shows, Games, Software, for Zune player. Over 10 billion files Downloads!

Click to Visit Unlimited Zune Downloads Now

You can convert your own DVD and any type of video to your Zune, Try video Converter Softwarefor your Zune!

All-in-one Zune video Conversion software. It can convert almost any type of DVD to play on Microsoft Zune Video Player. Powerful Zune Video converter with fast conversion speed. You can convert any video files to your Zune video. You can enjoy your favorite movies on your Zune as a portable DVD Player. Get Zune Video Converter Now! Free Download

• 1

  Nope. As long as you don't earn any money from the video (such as public display). Not illegal at all.

  euphapple on May 15th, 2008
• 2

  I already said it was, but if you don't believe me read this and check the link I will post.
  There is a ton of good content on YouTube, but copyright infringement claims and DMCA take-down notices mean that any given video can disappear at any time. Having a local copy of the video means you won’t lose access if YouTube removes the video from their site. And if you convert the video to MP4 format, you can transfer it to your iPod as well.
  LINK: http://www.informationweek.com/news/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=191801303&subSection=Breaking+News

  D T on May 15th, 2008
• 3

  Nope it is perfetley Legal as you are not displaying them to the public and you are not distributing them for money.

  Adam | Super Gals Fan on May 15th, 2008
• 4

  This is in support of what D T said. This can also apply to downloading music and videos from other countries that are signatories to international copyright conventions. That would require us to honor their copyright clams. So if it is copyrighted then yes.

  Is it legal to download works from peer-to-peer networks and if not, what is the penalty for doing so?
  Uploading or downloading works protected by copyright without the authority of the copyright owner is an infringement of the copyright owner's exclusive rights of reproduction and/or distribution. Anyone found to have infringed a copyrighted work may be liable for statutory damages up to $30,000 for each work infringed and, if willful infringement is proven by the copyright owner, that amount may be increased up to $150,000 for each work infringed. In addition, an infringer of a work may also be liable for the attorney's fees incurred by the copyright owner to enforce his or her rights.
  Whether or not a particular work is being made available under the authority of the copyright owner is a question of fact. But since any original work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium (including a computer file) is protected by federal copyright law upon creation, in the absence of clear information to the contrary, most works may be assumed to be protected by federal copyright law.
  Since the files distributed over peer-to-peer networks are primarily copyrighted works, there is a risk of liability for downloading material from these networks. To avoid these risks, there are currently many "authorized" services on the Internet that allow consumers to purchase copyrighted works online, whether music, ebooks, or motion pictures. By purchasing works through authorized services, consumers can avoid the risks of infringement liability and can limit their exposure to other potential risks, e.g., viruses, unexpected material, or spyware.
  For more information on this issue, see the Register of Copyrights' testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

  This is part of the website of the U.S. Copyright Office.

  The other posters that tell you you can do this are referring to Fair Use. That does not apply here. Read on.

  Private Use is Fair Use
  Fair use is an exception to the rules of copyright infringement. The exception states that under certain circumstances, including self study, review, journalistic critique etc. - it is possible to use another's copyright-protected creation even without their consent.

  In the US the "fair use" exception was set in law and developed by the courts. An important case in this regard is the Sony Betamax case in which the Court held that the recording of a movie onto a video cassette in order to watch the film later at home ("time shifting") is fair use and does not constitute copyright infringement.

  The DMCA, which protects newer digital devices, including DVD's, does not include fair use exceptions and it explicitly prohibits the circumvention of technological protection. In a report published on November 17, 2006, the US Copyright Office declined to view a change of format ("Space shifting") e.g. copying from a DVD to a personal video recorder, as a fair use exception.

  Now the ball is back in the court of the judicial and legislative branches, as a bill has been tabled proposing an amendment to the DMCA allowing such exceptions.

  http://www.ibls.com/internet_law_news_portal_view.aspx?s=latestnews&id=1907

  krazeekat on May 15th, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post | TrackBack URI