Prepare to get screwed by digital rights management

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Geronimo, Oct 24, 2004.

  1. Geronimo

    Geronimo Guest

    Geronimo, Oct 24, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Geronimo

    thing Guest

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


    "...Here it is again: "Why would a consumer want to buy something that
    has more restrictions and less functionality for more money than current
    solutions?....."

    DSE told me a while back when I went to buy a DVD player (in anser to my
    Q) no one sells a zoned DVD player in NZ, no one wnats to buy one.

    DVD players are now generic and cheap "non-discrim terms for IP" means
    the cheap players from Tiawan and China will be replaced with expensive
    licenced models if anyone will buy.

    Dual plane DVD burners are hitting the $150 mark.....down from $600+ 3
    months back and there is room to go on this....sub $100? Why do we need
    these new toys at all?

    One exec was quoted as saying the TIVO(?) gets around forcing you to
    watch the adverts, that means your stealing the content, your a criminal
    in their eyes and dont forget it.

    The hopefully saving grace I can see is these execs still only think in
    terms of the domestic US and 1st world markets, Asia, China etc will
    make and sell non-locked kit and being the biggest market this will win.
    They also have a substantial own market in terms of their own content,
    not evryone buys US drivel.

    I hope so anyway...

    And as for "fair use", I believe it is a US term, not a NZ one (in terms
    of legalese) we enjoy fewer rights than a US consumer.

    Our big dangers are

    1) Helen Clark selling our souls to get a US trade agreement, we get to
    sell a piddling amount of lamb to the US, while domestically we continue
    to be raped by the US. At what point does our Government see our future
    is wthin Asia as that's where we are?

    2) OZ selling its soul first, then it becomes very hard for us not to
    follow suit, if not impossible.


    For me, I do not buy CD's anymore, because I object to paying 30+ for a
    few tracks on a CD the rest I do not want. And I still have my vinyl
    collection so why pay twice?

    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.

    So how do execs get to sell to me? why try and screw the Internet, but
    so far its proving bigger than them, I just want Asia on line soon so
    its stays to big for them.

    </rant>

    regards

    Thing
    thing, Oct 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Geronimo

    Clarity Guest

    "thing" <> wrote in message
    news:ujWed.22898$...
    > Geronimo wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > > Will this happen here..?
    > >
    > >
    > > http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=19246
    > >
    > >
    > >

    >
    > "...Here it is again: "Why would a consumer want to buy something that
    > has more restrictions and less functionality for more money than current
    > solutions?....."
    >
    > DSE told me a while back when I went to buy a DVD player (in anser to my
    > Q) no one sells a zoned DVD player in NZ, no one wnats to buy one.
    >
    > DVD players are now generic and cheap "non-discrim terms for IP" means
    > the cheap players from Tiawan and China will be replaced with expensive
    > licenced models if anyone will buy.
    >
    > Dual plane DVD burners are hitting the $150 mark.....down from $600+ 3
    > months back and there is room to go on this....sub $100? Why do we need
    > these new toys at all?
    >
    > One exec was quoted as saying the TIVO(?) gets around forcing you to
    > watch the adverts, that means your stealing the content, your a criminal
    > in their eyes and dont forget it.
    >
    > The hopefully saving grace I can see is these execs still only think in
    > terms of the domestic US and 1st world markets, Asia, China etc will
    > make and sell non-locked kit and being the biggest market this will win.
    > They also have a substantial own market in terms of their own content,
    > not evryone buys US drivel.
    >
    > I hope so anyway...
    >
    > And as for "fair use", I believe it is a US term, not a NZ one (in terms
    > of legalese) we enjoy fewer rights than a US consumer.


    We do have an equivalent of "fair use" in New Zealand, with a similar
    sounding term of "fair dealing" used in the Copyright Act 1994. Whilst you
    wouldn't be able to claim defence to large scale copying of entire works,
    there is sufficient provision to uphold fair and reasonable use.

    From http://www.legislation.govt.nz/browse_vw.asp?content-set=pal_statutes

    41.Incidental copying of copyright work-

    (1)Copyright in a work is not infringed by-

    (a)The incidental copying of the work in an artistic work, a sound
    recording, a film, a broadcast, or a cable programme; or

    (b)The issue to the public of copies of an artistic work, the playing of a
    sound recording, the showing of a film, the making of a broadcast, or the
    inclusion of a cable programme in a cable programme service, in which a
    copyright work has been incidentally copied; or

    (c)The issue to the public of copies of a sound recording, film, broadcast,
    or cable programme to which paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) of this
    subsection applies.

    (2)For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, a musical work,
    words spoken or sung with music, or so much of a sound recording, broadcast,
    or cable programme as includes a musical work or such words, shall not be
    regarded as incidentally copied in another work if the musical work or, as
    the case requires, such words or that sound recording, broadcast, or cable
    programme is deliberately copied.


    42.Criticism, review, and news reporting-

    (1)Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of criticism or review, of
    that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe
    copyright in the work if such fair dealing is accompanied by a sufficient
    acknowledgement.

    (2)Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of reporting current events by
    means of a sound recording, film, broadcast, or cable programme does not
    infringe copyright in the work.

    (3)Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purposes of
    reporting current events by any means other than those referred to in
    subsection (2) of this section does not infringe copyright in the work if
    such fair dealing is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.


    43.Research or private study-

    (1)Fair dealing with a work for the purposes of research or private study
    does not infringe copyright in the work.

    (2)For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that fair dealing with
    a published edition for the purposes of research or private study does not
    infringe copyright in either the typographical arrangement of the edition or
    any literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work or part of a work in the
    edition.

    (3)In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section,
    whether copying, by means of a reprographic process or by any other means,
    constitutes fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, a
    court shall have regard to-

    (a)The purpose of the copying; and

    (b)The nature of the work copied; and

    (c)Whether the work could have been obtained within a reasonable time at an
    ordinary commercial price; and

    (d)The effect of the copying on the potential market for, or value of, the
    work; and

    (e)Where part of a work is copied, the amount and substantiality of the
    part copied taken in relation to the whole work.

    (4)Nothing in this section authorises the making of more than one copy of
    the same work, or the same part of a work, on any one occasion.
    Clarity, Oct 25, 2004
    #3
  4. In article <ujWed.22898$>, thing <> wrote:
    >Geronimo wrote:

    *SNIP*
    >And as for "fair use", I believe it is a US term, not a NZ one (in terms
    >of legalese) we enjoy fewer rights than a US consumer.
    >

    Not for long. Changes to the Copyright Act are on paper, and just have
    to pass through Parliament. Unless Labour loses a snap election before
    the Bill passes, it's a slam dunk.

    >Our big dangers are
    >
    >1) Helen Clark selling our souls to get a US trade agreement, we get to
    >sell a piddling amount of lamb to the US, while domestically we continue
    >to be raped by the US. At what point does our Government see our future
    >is wthin Asia as that's where we are?
    >

    I'd be more concerned that National will sell out. Helen's told the US
    where to stick it before, and will do so again. Don, particularly if he
    has to keep Rodders sweet to stay in power, is far more likely to accede
    to Yank demands.
    They're also more likely to scrap the fair use provisions in the Bill if
    they were to win a snap election before the Bill passes. Make no
    mistake about it, National/ACT will sell out to corporate interests if
    it will help them, and **** the consumer.
    Consider, also, that the Bill is a Labour initiative. If they were
    planning to sell out to the US over IP, why bother?

    >2) OZ selling its soul first, then it becomes very hard for us not to
    >follow suit, if not impossible.
    >

    Too late. They already sold out, and with Howard's increased majority
    it seems fairly certain that the enabling legislation (bringing, amongst
    other things, alignment of copyright laws with the DMCA, and recognition
    of US software patents) will pass. This despite much anger from the
    Aussie public, who see the entire agreement as the rogering of West
    Island that it is.

    >For me, I do not buy CD's anymore, because I object to paying 30+ for a
    >few tracks on a CD the rest I do not want. And I still have my vinyl
    >collection so why pay twice?
    >

    *SNIP*
    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!

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

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Oct 25, 2004
    #4
  5. Geronimo

    Peter Guest

    thing wrote:
    > Our big dangers are
    > 1) Helen Clark selling our souls to get a US trade agreement, we get to
    > sell a piddling amount of lamb to the US, while domestically we continue
    > to be raped by the US. At what point does our Government see our future
    > is wthin Asia as that's where we are?
    >
    > 2) OZ selling its soul first, then it becomes very hard for us not to
    > follow suit, if not impossible.


    It's already happened. Aust has signed up a "free" trade agreement with
    USA, which has the opposite effect to what most people would think of as
    free. Apparently, the agreement extends USA copyright and patent laws to
    Aust which will be good for the big USA corporates, but bad for Aust
    consumers and artists.

    Luckily for us, Helen and her mob have resisted succoming to USA demands.
    Historically, I have voted National but I'm not so sure now as they seem to
    be showing signs of becoming puppets like Blair and Howard.

    > 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.


    I find that National Radio is quite good. News items are more factual than
    the infotainment that is dished up on TV. The opinion stuff on Saturday
    and Sunday mornings can be interesting, too.


    Peter
    Peter, Oct 25, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <lXWed.969$>, "Clarity" <> wrote:
    >"thing" <> wrote in message
    >news:ujWed.22898$...

    *SNIP*
    >We do have an equivalent of "fair use" in New Zealand, with a similar
    >sounding term of "fair dealing" used in the Copyright Act 1994. Whilst you
    >wouldn't be able to claim defence to large scale copying of entire works,
    >there is sufficient provision to uphold fair and reasonable use.
    >

    *SNIP*

    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.
    And don't even think about ripping CDs to MP3 to play in your car.
    Absolutely, totally verboten. Even copying CDs so that you don't have
    to keep the originals in your car is illegal. You seem to know so
    much about the Copyright Act, I don't have to tell you that, though.

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

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Oct 25, 2004
    #6
  7. Geronimo

    Clarity Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:clhfsp$ekl$...
    > In article <lXWed.969$>, "Clarity"

    <> wrote:
    > >"thing" <> wrote in message
    > >news:ujWed.22898$...

    > *SNIP*
    > >We do have an equivalent of "fair use" in New Zealand, with a similar
    > >sounding term of "fair dealing" used in the Copyright Act 1994. Whilst

    you
    > >wouldn't be able to claim defence to large scale copying of entire works,
    > >there is sufficient provision to uphold fair and reasonable use.
    > >

    > *SNIP*
    >
    > 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.

    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.

    (2)For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby declared that fair dealing with
    a published edition for the purposes of research or private study does not
    infringe copyright in either the typographical arrangement of the edition or
    any literary, dramatic, musical, or artistic work or part of a work in the
    edition.

    (3)In determining, for the purposes of subsection (1) of this section,
    whether copying, by means of a reprographic process or by any other means,
    constitutes fair dealing for the purposes of research or private study, a
    court shall have regard to-

    (a)The purpose of the copying; and
    (b)The nature of the work copied; and
    (c)Whether the work could have been obtained within a reasonable time at an
    ordinary commercial price; and
    (d)The effect of the copying on the potential market for, or value of, the
    work; and
    (e)Where part of a work is copied, the amount and substantiality of the
    part copied taken in relation to the whole work.

    (4)Nothing in this section authorises the making of more than one copy of
    the same work, or the same part of a work, on any one occasion.
    Clarity, Oct 25, 2004
    #7
  8. Geronimo

    BTMO Guest

    "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.

    > 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.
    BTMO, Oct 25, 2004
    #8
  9. In article <9CXed.982$>, "Clarity" <> wrote:
    >"Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    >news:clhfsp$ekl$...

    *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.

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

    My real e-mail is mattATp00leDOTnet
    Matthew Poole, Oct 25, 2004
    #9
  10. Geronimo

    Clarity Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:clhjm7$hej$...
    > In article <9CXed.982$>, "Clarity"

    <> wrote:
    > >"Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    > >news:clhfsp$ekl$...

    > *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.


    Let us look at a theoretical (and potentially likely) example of someone who
    may have recorded onto video/TIVO/HDD footage of the 911 events.

    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, without infringing copyright
    in the broadcast or programme or in any work included in the broadcast or
    programme.
    (2)A body shall not be prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) of
    this section if it is established or conducted for profit.

    50 ``Archive''-

    (a)Means-

    (vi)Any collection of documents (within the meaning of
    section 2 of the Official Information Act 1982) of historical significance
    or public interest that is in the custody of and being maintained by a body,
    whether incorporated or unincorporated, that does not keep and maintain the
    collection for the purpose of deriving a profit;
    Clarity, Oct 25, 2004
    #10
  11. In article <NXYed.1013$>, "Clarity" <> wrote:
    >"Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    >news:clhjm7$hej$...

    *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
    Matthew Poole, Oct 25, 2004
    #11
  12. Geronimo

    Clarity Guest

    "BTMO" <> wrote in message
    news:FkYed.992$...
    >
    > "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.
    Clarity, Oct 25, 2004
    #12
  13. Geronimo

    Clarity Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:clhmus$jsv$...
    > In article <NXYed.1013$>, "Clarity"

    <> wrote:
    > >"Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    > >news:clhjm7$hej$...

    > *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?
    Clarity, Oct 25, 2004
    #13
  14. In article <1DZed.1025$>, "Clarity" <> wrote:
    >"Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    >news:clhmus$jsv$...

    *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
    Matthew Poole, Oct 25, 2004
    #14
  15. Geronimo

    Clarity Guest

    "Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    news:clhpc2$m2u$...
    > In article <1DZed.1025$>, "Clarity"

    <> wrote:
    > >"Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    > >news:clhmus$jsv$...

    > *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.
    Clarity, Oct 25, 2004
    #15
  16. Geronimo

    Warwick Guest

    On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:08:23 GMT, Matthew Poole wrote:

    > In article <9CXed.982$>, "Clarity" <> wrote:
    >>"Matthew Poole" <> wrote in message
    >>news:clhfsp$ekl$...

    > *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
    Warwick, Oct 25, 2004
    #16
  17. Geronimo

    Gordon Guest

    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?
    Gordon, Oct 25, 2004
    #17
  18. Geronimo

    Gordon Guest

    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.
    Gordon, Oct 25, 2004
    #18
  19. Geronimo

    Gordon Guest

    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.
    Gordon, Oct 25, 2004
    #19
  20. In article <22iypkua5bw$.1j9qkui3m1bkd$>, Warwick <> 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
    Matthew Poole, Oct 25, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Martin Bilgrav
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    952
    Martin Bilgrav
    Dec 20, 2003
  2. SwingingSi

    Update for Windows Rights Management client 1.0

    SwingingSi, Dec 1, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    422
    SwingingSi
    Dec 1, 2003
  3. Luke O'Malley

    DRM Digital Rights Management

    Luke O'Malley, Aug 12, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    435
    Luke O'Malley
    Aug 13, 2004
  4. Viper
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    523
    elaich
    Nov 18, 2006
  5. Raúl Gatón Miguelsanz

    management rights for account.

    Raúl Gatón Miguelsanz, Aug 23, 2007, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    399
Loading...

Share This Page