Background:  A friend of mine, who doesn't have cable TV and doesn't
reside with me, wants me to tape record Cable TV programs for his
private viewing.  No remuneration is involved.  Location:  California,
USA.

Question:  Is it legal to record Cable TV programs for a friend's
viewing?

Detail: I consider this practice to be unethical, at best.  However,
nowadays, protesting activities as unethical yields much laughter by
most people.  Therefore, I would like this question to be answered by
citing sources regarding its legality.  I would also like a final
statement which indicates -- in layman terms -- what your conclusion
is and specifies any penalties that may be involved in violation of
the law, if the practice is indeed illegal. This is not a request for
legal advice.

Sweetener:  Conscientious answer reaps grateful tip.

Here's some material that may be of interest:

"The final example is when I receive a copy of The New York Times, or
an article, on my computer, and decide to copy it to a floppy disc or
perhaps to download it to my computer and e-mail it to a friend or
relative. that is a more difficult problem. At the present time, and
even under these new treaties, that circumstance will be dealt with
somewhat differently from one country to another. In the United
States, we have the Doctrine of Fair Use, which means that in certain
cases when one makes a copy of a copyrighted work -- whether it's a
photocopy, or a videotape of a television program, or a digital copy
from a computer transmission of the type in this case -- in certain
circumstances where you have not fundamentally violated the principal
economic rights of the copyright owner or harmed them in any
significant way, that copying of the work can be considered a "fair
use" and can be done without permission or any compensation to the
copyright owner.

Other countries have taken different approaches. They've said yes, we
need to permit that kind of activity, partly because it's just
ridiculous to try to stomp it out everywhere, but on the other hand we
understand there is a right that the intellectual property owner has
so we will recognize that that is private copying and will grant a
right of private copying -- but then we will attach a royalty or a
levy to the equipment that is used to make the copy. To the
photocopying machine, in the case of a photocopy. To the blank tape or
video-cassette recorder, if it's a video work."

http://www.usembassy-israel.org.il/publish/press/commerce/archive/1997/april/dc20407.htm

"Once a program is broadcast, the copyright owner has already obtained
revenue from advertising or cable or satellite subscription fees. 
Copyright laws allow for copies of copyrighted material to be
considered fair use of that material if making the copies does not
affect the market value of the material or deprive the copyright
holder of sales or royalty revenue from that material.  Some TV
programs are available on prerecorded video tapes or DVDs, and making
copies of those programs, even copies of originals recorded from
television broadcast, can not be considered fair use of the material
because obtaining a copy of a recording from a broadcast instead of
purchasing the prerecorded video would deprive the copyright owner of
sales revenue.  However, if a program is not available on a
prerecorded video tape or DVD, obtaining a copy of a recording from a
broadcast does not deprive the owner of any sales revenue since a
prerecorded video tape of the program can not be purchased."

http://www.alfredsplace.com/whoarewe.htm

The United States Supreme Court has answered this one for us in SONY
CORP. v. UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC., 464 U.S. 417 (1984), available
at http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&court=US&case=/us/464/417.html.
 In that case, the Court was called upon to answer whether recording
televised content on a video tape recorder constituted copyright
infringement.  The court found that although technically the act of
recording such content did infringe copyright, it was a permissible
fair use as long as the recorded content was used for noncommercial,
PRIVATE, time-shifting, i.e., to record content otherwise legally
viewable to watch at another, more convenient time.  Note that the
court said PRIVATE time-shifting.  To record cable content for a
friend who does not have cable is clearly not a private use--moreover,
your activity deprives the cable company of revenue (they would
clearly prefer your friend to subscribe).  This is not a fair use, in
my opinion, and could subject you and your friend to claims of direct
copyright infringement by both the cable company and the owners of the
copyrights in the content broadcast on the cable system.  For relevant
penalties, see Chapter 5 of Title 17 of the U.S. Code at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/casecode/uscodes/17/chapters/5/toc.html.

My sincere thanks to pinkfreud-ga and bfrazjd_ga for providing
comments on this issue.  My thinking -- and the reason I submitted the
question in the first place -- is very much along the lines of
bfrazjd_ga, who commented that "to record cable content for a friend
who does not have cable is clearly not a private use--moreover, your
activity deprives the cable company of revenue (they would clearly
prefer your friend to subscribe).  This is not a fair use, in my
opinion, ..."

I disagree that this is not Fair Use.  There may be several reasons
why the friend does not or cannot subscribe to cable TV and perhaps
the friend only wants this particular program feed for some scholarly,
personal or collector purpose.  If the friend came over to your house
and brought his own videotape, taped the program, and took it away
with him, it would certainly be Fair Use.

The Fair Use Doctrine is exceedingly merky and undefined.  The
Register of Copyrights at the Library of Congress refuses to define
Fair Use.  The Copyright Clearance Center that helps publishers sue
infringers, refuses to define it.  A strict reading of the (c) law in
1984 made the sale of BetaMax recorders complicit in (c) infringement
until the Supremes spoke in Sony v. Universal City.  I do not accept
that such taping is a copyright violation at all.

If you want to decline your friends request for some other reason, you
are welcome to do so, but for (c) reasons, it is a poor excuse.  Even
apart from the Fair Use doctrine, every copyright owner (or licensee,
which is what the cable company is) reserves the complete right to
permit whatever copying they like.  The West Publishing Company allows
every lawyer to make unlimited copies of their copyrighted material in
case reporters and statute books all day long, every day of the week. 
You might want to call the cable company and ask them what they say,
explaining the reason or purpose that your friend cannot get the cable
feed himself.  The Fair Use Doctrine is about what is "fair" not what
is a total lock down.  Can he borrow the tape from  public library? 
If so I would argue that is despositive, especially if it is for a
scholarly, critical or collector purpose.  No matter what, no
enforcement will occur. Fair Use is ethical.
Failing all that, your friend can buy the tape from Burrelle's video
monitoring service for $40.