Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: The Phazer <phazernet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 Apr 2008 02:44:10 -0700 (PDT)
On 23 Apr, 20:32, "Agamemnon" <agamem...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"ThePhazer" <phazer...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
<<<This is not remotely true. The case you have cited has no effect on UK
law (or indeed anywhere else outside the UK).>>>
"Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988
Part I, Chapter III, Paragraph 70:
Recording for purposes of time-shifting
The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast or
cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or
listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any copyright in
the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included in it."
Yes, this is an Act of Parliament. It is nothing to do with any
"common law precident" set in another country, and was set up entirely
because this countries Parliament wanted to, not because of the ruling
of any foreign court.
So you were wrong.
Yes they do. That's why UK law was updated in 1988.
If a precident was set then the UK law wouldn’t need to be updated in
1988 - the precident would have done so. The only reason the law had
to be changed in 1988 was because there was no legal allowance at all
for timeshifting at that point.
If there is no limit then the is no fall back.
The limit is "reasonable". There are precidents for what a court would
consider reasonable.
WROING! The law says nothing of the kind. You are free to make recordings
for your friends. Domestic use means not for profit, you doums and your
friends doumus are not differentiated.
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. The well established legal defintion
of the word "domestic" is "within your own home". Not anyone's home,
but yours. And only yours.
There are a great many cases dealing with breach of confidence and
data protection that establish this, and their precident on the
meaning of the word (because they were within the UK and not the US)
DOES apply to copyright law.
Also, see - http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-copyrightexceptions.pdf
"The majority of countries in Europe have far wider private copying
exceptions than the format shifting exception proposed here. Some
allow unlimited
numbers of copies to be made for any private purpose, which could then
be circulated to friends and family."
One would note that even the proposed UK relaxation of the law is said
*by the government* to not go as far as to allow private copies to be
circulated to friends and family. Which would mean to current do so is
illegal, wouldn't it.
Twaddle. There loads of EU directives. The UK does not have to abide by
them.
Don't we? The UK is bound by the Maastricht Treaty to implement any
and all EU directives to UK law, and there is a court ruling that if
the UK fails to do in time then a party can sue the government (or
anyone else) in the European court despite it's failure to ratify.
See - http://info.hktdc.com/euguide/1-5.htm
"Directives are binding as to the end to be achieved while leaving
some choice as to form and method of implementation open to the Member
States.
The European Court of Justice has held that even if Directives are not
implemented, individuals may nonetheless rely on them, at least in
actions against the State. The Court has also held that a Member State
can be liable for damages for non-implementation of a Directive."
Page 10 of the government's own paper on the issue (http://
www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-copyrightexceptions.pdf) also states "Our
exceptions must comply with the relevant provisions of the World Trade
Organisation Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual
Property Rights (“TRIPS”), the Berne Convention for the Protection of
Literary and Artistic Works (“Berne”), the Rome Convention for the
Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting
Organisations (“Rome”) and European directives, including most
importantly, the European Directive on the Harmonisation of Certain
Aspects of Copyright and Related Rights in the Information Society
(2001/29/EC) (“the Copyright Directive”)"
What? Do you mean already legal? It is already legal. The new legislation is
to protect the consumer form the record and movie company mafia rings from
taking that right from you by paying for the verdict they want.
No, it isn't. http://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-copyrightexceptions.pdf
Page 19 - "Many consumers simply do not understand why the act of
transferring music from CDs they own to their MP3 players is illegal."
It is illegal for them to prevent copying and if DRM is being used they must
at their own expense circumvent it. That's what the act states.
No, it doesn't. That's why DVDs have DRM on them. It's been broken,
but they have CSS, which is DRM. Again, from the government paper on
this -
"The exception would not affect right holders’ ability to incorporate
DRM or technological protection measures into their work."
And again, this is only the *proposed* exemption. At the moment we
don’t even have that.
If they put a tax and blank media then that licences mass copying and
distribution of recordings for profit.
<<<<Again, actually read thishttp://www.ipo.gov.uk/consult-copyrightexceptions.pdf.
It does not.>>>
Which page? There are 96 of them.
What I have stated is correct.
While I suggest you read all of them as it may inform you a bit better
on a section of law you clearly have no idea about, the relevant
section is on page 23
"110. The exception would apply only to limit copying, by private
individuals for non-commercial purposes."
And again, this is only on the proposed legalisation of format
shifting for private personal use - IT DOES NOT CURRENTLY APPLY.
WRONG!
All copies are timeshifted copies and domestic use means not for profit or
non-industrial, non-educational use etc. Domestic applies to anyone's domus
or home not just that of the person who made the copy.
Demonstrated to be wrong above. "Domestic" does NOT apply to anyone's
home.
Blah, blah, blah.... If no one is making a profit from it the law states you
can copy it and theBBCcan't do anything to stop you as long as you've paid
your licence fee to watch it.
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/editorialguidelines/onguide/thelaw/
intellectualpro.shtml"
"Action may also be considered where a site is non-commercial but
contains a large amount of BBC copyright material or uses the BBC
logo"
DRM oniPlayerencourages people to download the torrents since you can't
burn it to DVD to watch on your TV. In any case torrents of TV shows
broadcast in the UK are 100% legal in the UK since they comply with the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 Part I, Chapter III, Paragraph 70.
As has been demonstrated above, this is not even remotely true.
Phazer
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- References:
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: The Real Zarbiface
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: Bazza
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: Stephen Wilson
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: Stephen Wilson
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: The Face of Po
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: The Phazer
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- From: Agamemnon
- Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- Prev by Date: Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- Next by Date: Re: Harry Sullivan Dead?
- Previous by thread: Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- Next by thread: Re: REQ: Please Repost Confidential 1 & 2
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|