Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > NZ Computing > Re: copyright amendment bill

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: copyright amendment bill

 
 
Colin B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007

"Barry Lennox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:39:47 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Barry Lennox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>news:(E-Mail Removed). ..
>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:45:00 +1300, "Geopelia" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>We record films on TV, especially those played in the middle of the
>>>>night,
>>>>for later viewing.
>>>>I wonder if this is legal now?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, see s.84 of the Copyright Act:
>>>
>>>
>>> (1) The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a
>>> broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling the
>>> recording to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does
>>> not infringe copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any
>>> work included in the broadcast or cable
>>> programme.
>>>
>>> However, it is not to be retained for any longer than is necessary,
>>> to enable the recording to be viewed or listened to at a more
>>> convenient time, or to make a complaint
>>>
>>> So, as soon as you have watched it,you must delete it. I wonder how
>>> the public is served by an act that potentially makes about 99% of the
>>> population criminals. Maybe it just proves that our elected polys are
>>> total ****wits.
>>>

>>
>>I'm not sure why 99% of the population would want to keep their recordings
>>after they have watched them? Viewing a film or TV programme once is more
>>than enough for most people I would think.

>
> In many cases yes, but there's a lot of classics that are good to
> keep. Esp over the Xmas period when normal programmers go off
> somewhere.
>
> However, I gather the new bill will not allow any format shifting of
> video. Does that mean that I cannot record it at all. As to do so, I
> would have to format-shift from a real-time video transmission to a
> tape, DVD or HDD.
>
>
>>To give credit to our "polys", our legislation can't be too different from
>>that enacted in other countries, such as the USA.

>
> So that makes nothing right. all that means is the all-powerful media
> moguls have captured polys world-wide.
>


Clause 84 of the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers' Rights)
Amendment Bill says this:

"84 Recording for purposes of time shifting

"(1) A person (A) does not infringe copyright in a programme included in
a
communication work, or in any work included in it, by recording it, if A---

"(a) makes the recording solely for A's private and domestic use; and

"(b) makes the recording solely for the purpose of viewing or
listening
to the recording at a more convenient time; and

"(c) is not able lawfully to access the communication work on demand;
and

"(d) has lawful access to the communication work at the time of
making
the recording.

"(2) However, subsection (1) does not apply, and A does infringe copyright
in
the communication work recorded and in any work included in the
communication
work, if---

"(a) A retains the recording for any longer than is reasonably
necessary
for viewing or listening to the recording at a more convenient time; or

"(b) in the event that the person who views or listens to the
recording
wishes to make a complaint to a complaint authority, A retains the recording
for any longer than is reasonably necessary to prepare and despatch the
complaint.

"(3) If a person infringes copyright under subsection (2), the recording
is
treated as an infringing copy.

Example

A records a movie to be screened on television because she will be at work
when
it screens. She watches the movie on the weekend and then later tapes over
it.
Provided the conditions in s 84(1) are met, the copy that A makes is not an
infringing copy.

B copies music from a streamed Internet audio service and keeps the copy as
part of B's music collection, in order to listen to it multiple times on
demand. Copies made for the home library or collection in this way are
infringing copies."

You might also find this to be of interest:

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/ViewDocum...cumentID=28179

The appendix to these questions and answers gives international comparisons
of key aspects of the law, such as format shifting.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Documents....21dec2006.doc

Note that I am not a lawyer or "internet wannabe lawyer", so I will leave
you to draw your own conclusions from the material I have referred to above.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Barry Lennox
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007
On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:51:14 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
>"Barry Lennox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>news:(E-Mail Removed).. .
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:39:47 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Barry Lennox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:45:00 +1300, "Geopelia" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>We record films on TV, especially those played in the middle of the
>>>>>night,
>>>>>for later viewing.
>>>>>I wonder if this is legal now?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, see s.84 of the Copyright Act:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (1) The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a
>>>> broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling the
>>>> recording to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does
>>>> not infringe copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any
>>>> work included in the broadcast or cable
>>>> programme.
>>>>
>>>> However, it is not to be retained for any longer than is necessary,
>>>> to enable the recording to be viewed or listened to at a more
>>>> convenient time, or to make a complaint
>>>>
>>>> So, as soon as you have watched it,you must delete it. I wonder how
>>>> the public is served by an act that potentially makes about 99% of the
>>>> population criminals. Maybe it just proves that our elected polys are
>>>> total ****wits.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I'm not sure why 99% of the population would want to keep their recordings
>>>after they have watched them? Viewing a film or TV programme once is more
>>>than enough for most people I would think.

>>
>> In many cases yes, but there's a lot of classics that are good to
>> keep. Esp over the Xmas period when normal programmers go off
>> somewhere.
>>
>> However, I gather the new bill will not allow any format shifting of
>> video. Does that mean that I cannot record it at all. As to do so, I
>> would have to format-shift from a real-time video transmission to a
>> tape, DVD or HDD.
>>
>>
>>>To give credit to our "polys", our legislation can't be too different from
>>>that enacted in other countries, such as the USA.

>>
>> So that makes nothing right. all that means is the all-powerful media
>> moguls have captured polys world-wide.
>>

>
>Clause 84 of the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers' Rights)
>Amendment Bill says this:


Thanks, interesting, really there is no change. You still have to get
rid of the recording after a period "reasonably necessary for
viewing or listening" Whatever that is,

I'm sure the idiots at Sony or whatever, will say next day. Others
will say 25 years. Whatever, I'm willing to bet that it will be one
of the most abused Acts in NZ. So what is the purpose, or advantage,
in drafting and passing legislation that is ignored by all and sundry,
including the law enforcers.

Presumably, if you only have a DVD recorder, you must destroy the DVD

The original conclusion stands, our elected polys are
total ****wits.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Earl Grey
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007
Barry Lennox wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:51:14 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> "Barry Lennox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:39:47 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Barry Lennox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:45:00 +1300, "Geopelia" <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> We record films on TV, especially those played in the middle of the
>>>>>> night,
>>>>>> for later viewing.
>>>>>> I wonder if this is legal now?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, see s.84 of the Copyright Act:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a
>>>>> broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling the
>>>>> recording to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does
>>>>> not infringe copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any
>>>>> work included in the broadcast or cable
>>>>> programme.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it is not to be retained for any longer than is necessary,
>>>>> to enable the recording to be viewed or listened to at a more
>>>>> convenient time, or to make a complaint
>>>>>
>>>>> So, as soon as you have watched it,you must delete it. I wonder how
>>>>> the public is served by an act that potentially makes about 99% of the
>>>>> population criminals. Maybe it just proves that our elected polys are
>>>>> total ****wits.
>>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure why 99% of the population would want to keep their recordings
>>>> after they have watched them? Viewing a film or TV programme once is more
>>>> than enough for most people I would think.
>>> In many cases yes, but there's a lot of classics that are good to
>>> keep. Esp over the Xmas period when normal programmers go off
>>> somewhere.
>>>
>>> However, I gather the new bill will not allow any format shifting of
>>> video. Does that mean that I cannot record it at all. As to do so, I
>>> would have to format-shift from a real-time video transmission to a
>>> tape, DVD or HDD.
>>>
>>>
>>>> To give credit to our "polys", our legislation can't be too different from
>>>> that enacted in other countries, such as the USA.
>>> So that makes nothing right. all that means is the all-powerful media
>>> moguls have captured polys world-wide.
>>>

>> Clause 84 of the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers' Rights)
>> Amendment Bill says this:

>
> Thanks, interesting, really there is no change. You still have to get
> rid of the recording after a period "reasonably necessary for
> viewing or listening" Whatever that is,
>
> I'm sure the idiots at Sony or whatever, will say next day. Others
> will say 25 years. Whatever, I'm willing to bet that it will be one
> of the most abused Acts in NZ. So what is the purpose, or advantage,
> in drafting and passing legislation that is ignored by all and sundry,
> including the law enforcers.
>
> Presumably, if you only have a DVD recorder, you must destroy the DVD
>
> The original conclusion stands, our elected polys are
> total ****wits.
>

Nah, its civil law, it means the copyright holder has reserved the right
to take some action against anyone they believe is abusing that
provision in the act. They have to take action on their own initiative,
get a court to decide that a breach has been committed then assess
damages. Catch 22, any action that gets chucked out sets a precedent.
Copyright is about commercial rights, not criminal acts that the state
needs to protect you from.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin B
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2007

"Barry Lennox" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:51:14 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin (E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>Clause 84 of the Copyright (New Technologies and Performers' Rights)
>>Amendment Bill says this:


Correction: it's actually Part 1 Clause 45 of the Copyright (New
Technologies and Performers' Rights) Amendment Bill that proposes to
substitute new sections 82 to 84 in the Copyright Act 1994.
>
> Thanks, interesting, really there is no change. You still have to get
> rid of the recording after a period "reasonably necessary for
> viewing or listening" Whatever that is,
>
> I'm sure the idiots at Sony or whatever, will say next day. Others
> will say 25 years. Whatever, I'm willing to bet that it will be one
> of the most abused Acts in NZ. So what is the purpose, or advantage,
> in drafting and passing legislation that is ignored by all and sundry,
> including the law enforcers.


I agree there is room for argument over what time period is reasonably
necessary for viewing or listening to the recording at a more convenient
time. However, I doubt whether anyone would say a reasonable time period is
the next day, or on the other extreme, 25 years. But I guess a year or two
might be adequate for most people?
>


> Presumably, if you only have a DVD recorder, you must destroy the DVD.


No, if you record on a rewriteable DVD (such as DVD+RW or DVD-RW or
DVD-RAM), you just erase the recording and use the disk again. However, if
you use the cheaper non-rewriteable disks (DVD+R or DVD-R), then after the
elapse of a reasonable length of time, I guess you would be obliged to
destroy the DVD. So it might pay to always use rewriteable DVDs or hard
drives to do your "time shifting" on, it would be cheaper in the long run!


 
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
Re: copyright amendment bill Philip NZ Computing 10 02-12-2007 07:23 AM
Youtube copyright infringements are not all bad for the copyright holders? Colin B Digital Photography 195 01-19-2007 09:00 AM
Congress readies broad new digital copyright bill Imhotep Computer Security 45 05-29-2006 01:33 AM
USA Congress readies new digital copyright bill that extends DMCA Have A Nice Cup of Tea NZ Computing 6 04-30-2006 11:37 PM
Yet another new "copyright enforcement" bill in Congress Modemac DVD Video 24 11-20-2004 07:07 PM



Advertisments