1981 this is a digital version of an article from The Times Print Archive, before it starts online in 1996.
To keep these articles as they appear initially, the Times will not change, edit, or update them.
There are occasional copywriting errors or other problems during the digitization process.
Please send a report of such issues to archid_feedback @ nytimes. com.
We never thought that recording an important episode of \"Dallas\" in another hour to facilitate viewing could violate copyright laws.
After all, tape recorders and tapes are sold publicly.
When we can, the sponsor of the program should welcome our viewing.
However, the US Court of Appeal has identified piracy issues, even in terms of family privacy.
In general, better broadcast producers may lose some of the benefits of reselling via tape or disk, if too many of us catch the show for the first time.
It is clear that technology goes beyond the law again.
These new devices are not explicitly covered by federal copyright regulations.
They will sooner or later.
Copyright law promotes science and art by allowing creative people to be compensated for the repeated use of their work.
As Congress has written, they also acknowledge that absolute control is neither possible nor desirable;
Too tight the law will inhibit the knowledge and cultural experience of the public.
Each technology has its own version of the problem.
Pencils don\'t usually pose a threat to the author, but the copiers change the likelihood.
The recorder changed them more like any teenager
The collection of popular music from Agger will prove this.
This law is adjusted to photocopier by allowing schools and libraries to copy some of the books.
It only records music at home, perhaps because the industry feels it gains as much in new fans as it loses in business.
But Universal Studios and Walt Disney Studios refuse to take the video recorder as one thing.
They sued Sony and several appliance stores, saying the devices violated the copyright of the producers.
The district court and the Court of Appeal disagree on whether the Copyright Act applies.
But both believe that the regulation is unclear, suggesting that it is better for Congress to start thinking about a policy.
Please click on the box to verify that you are not a robot.
The email address is invalid. Please re-enter.
You must select the newsletter you want to subscribe.
View all New York Times newsletters.
Even if the theoretical question is answered, what does it mean to \"ban\" recording at home?
Of course, the society does not want to prohibit the knitting machine;
Not only do they \"steal\" good shows, but they also personalize their viewing time to show private films.
Cable and juke box have also raised similar questions.
Congress\'s answer is that a modest royalty payment is required depending on the total income or the number of units sold.
Today\'s simulation is to collect royalties from video recorders and cassette tape manufacturers, raise prices slightly and pay to producers of tapes and discs that may be injured.
It is true that advertising is a very rough remedy.
But it points to the future.
Despite their difficulties, it makes no sense to pretend they don\'t exist.
A version of the editorial was printed on page A00026 of the National edition on October 28, 1981, titled: subway thieves.