Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Prepare to get screwed by digital rights management

Reply
Thread Tools

Prepare to get screwed by digital rights management

 
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
In article <NXYed.1013$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Clarity" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Matthew Poole" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:clhjm7$hej$(E-Mail Removed)...

*SNIP*
>Time-limited format shifting is specificly allowed for as detailed in
>Section 84. It would also appear that there are certain limited exemptions
>based on particular sets of circumstances.
>
>Based upon the following, and in your opinion, would it be reasonable to
>assume (in conjunction with Section 43 - particularly 3d) that such a
>recording would be legal to retain?
>
>90 Recording for archival purposes-
>
> (1)A recording of a broadcast or cable programme of a class prescribed by
>regulations made under this Act, or a copy of such a recording, may be made
>for the purpose of being placed in an archive maintained by a body
>prescribed by regulations made under this Act

*SNIP*

Obviously not, unless you are an archival body prescribed by regulations
made under the Act. Which I'm not, and I doubt you are either.
The archival purposes clause is for organisations such as the National
Library or the Television Archives, and even states as much. It's not
for every Jo(e) Public who wants to build their own film library by
recording stuff off TV.

--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Clarity
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
"BTMO" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:FkYed.992$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Clarity" <> wrote
>
> >> I suggest you look a little more closely.
> >> The US doctrine of "fair use" allows for format shifting. NZ law
> >> specifically DENIES that right to the consumer. Even recording a TV
> >> show is illegal in this country if you store that recording. You are
> >> allowed ONLY to store it for as long as it takes you to watch it,

unless
> >> you wish to make a complaint.

> >
> > Could you please refer me to the section of legislation that

"specifically
> > DENIES" such a process, as I would be interested in doing a bit more
> > research on the issue.

>
> The Copyright Act.


Which in regard to format shifting does not specificly deny such a process.

> > I am aware the US definition of "fair use" is quite extensive, but there
> > are
> > similar existing provisions in NZ as mentioned previously.
> >
> > Specificly looking at Section 43, determination is made based upon a
> > number
> > of criteria when considered in light of research or private study. I
> > would
> > be interested in your comments on the points raised in this section and
> > whether you consider them relevant to matters of copyright in general...
> >
> > (1)Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of research or private

study
> > does not infringe copyright in the work.

>
> Does this include copy of the complete work for your convenience? aka -
> format shifting.


An interesting question. The only area specificly addressed on this issue
is with broadcasts/cable (which I would assume would include streamed
content broadcast via the internet) and mentions "time shifting".

Another interesting question is with regard to whether some or all Music
CD's could be categorised as "computer programs" with regard to provisions
made for back-up copies, particularly in cases where the "CD's" make use of
computer interfaces and/or copy protection, provide additional
computer-specific content, and where the "CD player" or "entertainment
centre" is actually a computer. I'm sure many are familiar with the term
"convergence" that has been bandied around for at least a decade.

Your perspective or comments on some of these issues would be welcome.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Clarity
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
"Matthew Poole" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:clhmus$jsv$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <NXYed.1013$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Clarity"

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >"Matthew Poole" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:clhjm7$hej$(E-Mail Removed)...

> *SNIP*
> >Time-limited format shifting is specificly allowed for as detailed in
> >Section 84. It would also appear that there are certain limited

exemptions
> >based on particular sets of circumstances.
> >
> >Based upon the following, and in your opinion, would it be reasonable to
> >assume (in conjunction with Section 43 - particularly 3d) that such a
> >recording would be legal to retain?
> >
> >90 Recording for archival purposes-
> >
> > (1)A recording of a broadcast or cable programme of a class prescribed

by
> >regulations made under this Act, or a copy of such a recording, may be

made
> >for the purpose of being placed in an archive maintained by a body
> >prescribed by regulations made under this Act

> *SNIP*
>
> Obviously not, unless you are an archival body prescribed by regulations
> made under the Act. Which I'm not, and I doubt you are either.
> The archival purposes clause is for organisations such as the National
> Library or the Television Archives, and even states as much. It's not
> for every Jo(e) Public who wants to build their own film library by
> recording stuff off TV.


I had included the information from Section 50 because it (in addition to a
number of specified named organisations, some of which you have mentioned
above) made specific mention of "a body, whether incorporated or
unincorporated, that does not keep and maintain the collection for the
purpose of deriving a profit".

My understanding of a "body" is that it can apply to an individual. Do you
have a different opinion on what defines a "body", or do you believe that
one must have some formal standing to be considered a "body".

Am I correct in my summation that you view anyone currently holding any
broadcast material on Video/TIVO/HDD of the 911 events as being in illegal
possession of contraband?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
In article <1DZed.1025$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Clarity" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>"Matthew Poole" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:clhmus$jsv$(E-Mail Removed)...

*SNIP*
>My understanding of a "body" is that it can apply to an individual. Do you
>have a different opinion on what defines a "body", or do you believe that
>one must have some formal standing to be considered a "body".
>

That particular piece of legislation designates archival bodies as
having been given the status of an archive by regulation.
I'm sure it doesn't preclude an individual from gaining the status of an
archivist, but it does mean that you can't just claim to be archiving
the footage.

>Am I correct in my summation that you view anyone currently holding any
>broadcast material on Video/TIVO/HDD of the 911 events as being in illegal
>possession of contraband?
>

Whether I do or not, and I happen to think that the Copyright Act is a
total arse when it comes to balancing the rights of consumers, the law
says what the law says.

--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
 
Reply With Quote
 
Clarity
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
"Matthew Poole" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:clhpc2$m2u$(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <1DZed.1025$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Clarity"

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >"Matthew Poole" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> >news:clhmus$jsv$(E-Mail Removed)...

> *SNIP*
> >My understanding of a "body" is that it can apply to an individual. Do

you
> >have a different opinion on what defines a "body", or do you believe that
> >one must have some formal standing to be considered a "body".
> >

> That particular piece of legislation designates archival bodies as
> having been given the status of an archive by regulation.
> I'm sure it doesn't preclude an individual from gaining the status of an
> archivist, but it does mean that you can't just claim to be archiving
> the footage.
>
> >Am I correct in my summation that you view anyone currently holding any
> >broadcast material on Video/TIVO/HDD of the 911 events as being in

illegal
> >possession of contraband?
> >

> Whether I do or not, and I happen to think that the Copyright Act is a
> total arse when it comes to balancing the rights of consumers, the law
> says what the law says.


There are a number of balances provided within the legislation, but I think
that these examples show why some clarifications are intended to be made on
some specific aspects of "fair use" in the update to the Copyright Act, as
you mentioned previously. Ultimately, I think that Section 43 (particularly
subs 3 and 4) would determine the Court view with regard to most normal
legitimate cases of private personal "fair use". I wouldn't recommend that
people try their luck though.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Warwick
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:08:23 GMT, Matthew Poole wrote:

> In article <9CXed.982$(E-Mail Removed)>, "Clarity" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>"Matthew Poole" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:clhfsp$ekl$(E-Mail Removed)...

> *SNIP*
>>Could you please refer me to the section of legislation that "specifically
>>DENIES" such a process, as I would be interested in doing a bit more
>>research on the issue.
>>

> Section 84, Copyright Act 1994.
> Summarised, you may time-shift a TV, roadio or cable broadcast for as
> long as it takes you to watch it at a more convenient time or forward a
> copy with a complaint. Storage beyond the time taken to view or listen
> to the recording is infringement.
>
>>I am aware the US definition of "fair use" is quite extensive, but there are
>>similar existing provisions in NZ as mentioned previously.
>>

> *SNIP*
>
> There are provisions for study, critique or educational review. There
> are no provisions for format shifting, no provisions for taking copies
> of anything other than a single backup copy of computer software for
> which you own the originals - You're not even allowed to take a copy of
> your mate's WinXP CD to use instead of those crap "System Recovery"
> disks that ship with most laptops and store-bought computers.


That might be true, but it is also true that abuse of those laws is rife,
and convictions for that abuse non existent.

When the police and RIANZ can figure out a way to turn convictions into
revenue, (a la speed cameras) it will be time to panic.


cheers
 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:46:03 +1300, Geronimo wrote:

>
>
>
> Will this happen here..?
>
>
> http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19246


from the link above

This got me thinking, and reading, and the more I researched, the more I
realised that the record companies, and all content providers for that
matter, are greedy, arrogant and stupid. They don't care about anything
other than squeezing the most money they can possibly get out of you,
everything else be damned. If your rights have to be trampled through the
use of large bribes (called political contributions nowadays) to get laws
changed in their favor, so be it.

Ends

See gentle people how thaey have one very large weak spot. Attack it
collectively {how do you spell that?] and they will fall.

Great, huge depression or not, its is a case of the amny united against
the few.

Bugger. Where else in history has this happened?




 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 11:48:36 +1300, thing wrote:

> I watch virtually no TV because the adverts have ruined films, the
> remainder of the TV content is 99% garbage only fit for the morons
> amongst us. I do not listen to the radio anymore because of the
> frequency and length of the adverts.


Yeah! Thing I am right behind you on this. Given time, no doubt I shall
catch up.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Gordon
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
On Sun, 24 Oct 2004 23:56:52 +0000, Matthew Poole wrote:

> Why do you think RIAA are so anti music sharing? They want to sell you
> the packaged crap, with two good singles and 16 tracks of dross, and the
> only way they can do that is by denying you the ability to hear an album
> without paying for it. Think I'm exaggerating? Consider this: The
> music industry was against the idea of listening stations in music
> stores!


So singles have gone from the music stores?

I am thinking seriously of buying them since before the first CD was
pressed.

Read I agree wit the dross.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Matthew Poole
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      10-25-2004
In article <22iypkua5bw$.1j9qkui3m1bkd$(E-Mail Removed)>, Warwick <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:08:23 GMT, Matthew Poole wrote:

*SNIP*
>That might be true, but it is also true that abuse of those laws is rife,
>and convictions for that abuse non existent.
>

Then the law should be removed. If it's not enforced, regularly
ignored, then it's not necessary.

>When the police and RIANZ can figure out a way to turn convictions into
>revenue, (a la speed cameras) it will be time to panic.
>

I'm sure RIANZ have some ideas. They're not too happy about the format
shifting changes, despite acknowledging that the law at present is
excessive. Thankfully we have a government who aren't in the thrall of
the media industry, and are thus prepared to take a chance and change
the law to give consumers some rights.

--
Matthew Poole Auckland, New Zealand
"Veni, vidi, velcro...
I came, I saw, I stuck around"

My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Get all certifications latest dumps to prepare your IT certification exam Angila C Programming 0 03-22-2011 03:10 PM
management rights for account. Raúl Gatón Miguelsanz MCSE 1 08-24-2007 02:03 AM
Digital Rights Management DRM - Downloaded songs Viper Computer Support 8 11-18-2006 02:40 AM
DRM Digital Rights Management Luke O'Malley Computer Support 3 08-12-2004 11:08 PM
Update for Windows Rights Management client 1.0 SwingingSi Computer Support 0 12-01-2003 09:42 AM



Advertisments