Re: copyright amendment bill

Discussion in 'NZ Computing' started by Colin B, Feb 11, 2007.

  1. Colin B

    Colin B Guest

    "Barry Lennox" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:39:47 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin > wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>"Barry Lennox" <> wrote in message
    >>news:...
    >>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:45:00 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    >>> 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 fuckwits.
    >>>

    >>
    >>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/ViewDocument.aspx?DocumentID=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/Files/Appendix.Copyright Amendment bill.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.
     
    Colin B, Feb 11, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Colin B

    Barry Lennox Guest

    On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:51:14 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin > wrote:

    >
    >"Barry Lennox" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:39:47 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin > wrote:
    >>
    >>>
    >>>"Barry Lennox" <> wrote in message
    >>>news:...
    >>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:45:00 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    >>>> 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 fuckwits.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>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 fuckwits.
     
    Barry Lennox, Feb 11, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Colin B

    Earl Grey Guest

    Barry Lennox wrote:
    > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:51:14 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin > wrote:
    >
    >> "Barry Lennox" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 19:39:47 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin > wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> "Barry Lennox" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2007 10:45:00 +1300, "Geopelia" <>
    >>>>> 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 fuckwits.
    >>>>>
    >>>> 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 fuckwits.
    >

    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.
     
    Earl Grey, Feb 11, 2007
    #3
  4. Colin B

    Colin B Guest

    "Barry Lennox" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:51:14 +1300, "Colin B" <Colin > 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!
     
    Colin B, Feb 11, 2007
    #4
    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. Modemac
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    759
    jayembee
    Nov 20, 2004
  2. Imhotep

    Congress readies broad new digital copyright bill

    Imhotep, Apr 26, 2006, in forum: Computer Security
    Replies:
    45
    Views:
    1,687
  3. Colin B
    Replies:
    195
    Views:
    3,179
    Colin B
    Jan 19, 2007
  4. Have A Nice Cup of Tea
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    399
  5. Philip

    Re: copyright amendment bill

    Philip, Feb 10, 2007, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    550
    jasen
    Feb 12, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page