CHR1S Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I dont want to go into a full on P2P is illegal rantathon, but I would like someone in the know to clarify a few points for me. I know that its illegal to - Download copyright music Download copyright films Download copyrigh software But What are the legalities on Broadcast TV recorded by others including those from other countries? (Not DVD rips of TV shows either, but true watermarked broadcast shows) For instance, if I missed Top Gear or House or whatever (i.e My V+ was full) am I perfectly within my right to download a copy? What if a series isnt relesed in the UK but is airing in the US, It will be shown here eventually on sky etc so is it illegal? Thanks 1
OutToLunch Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 No to the first, yes to the second... There's no provision in law for "I forgot to set the video"/"It will be on here eventually so I'm just watching it in advance".. 1
CHR1S Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 No to the first, yes to the second... There's no provision in law for "I forgot to set the video"/"It will be on here eventually so I'm just watching it in advance".. So unless I have recorded it through my own Cable or DVB then its illegal? How draconian
tmcd35 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I haven't kept up with the laws in this area, but I'm sure I heard/read somewhere back when I had a VCR, that you can only keep TV recordings for a limited amount of time - I think 6 months. There is an old maxim that applies here thou - "Any law that is unenforceable may as well not be law". How much police time would it take to track these recording and prove their illegality? Not that I'm in any way suggesting or condoning breaking the law.
Geoff Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 As per the Copyright and Relegated Rights Regulations 2003. The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 Provisions relating to recording for the purposes of time-shifting 19. - (1) What is now section 70 shall become subsection (1) of section 70. (2) In the new section 70(1) after the words "The making" there shall be inserted " in domestic premises" and after that subsection there shall be inserted - " (2) Where a copy which would otherwise be an infringing copy is made in accordance with this section but is subsequently dealt with - (a) it shall be treated as an infringing copy for the purposes of that dealing; and (b) if that dealing infringes copyright, it shall be treated as an infringing copy for all subsequent purposes. (3) In subsection (2), "dealt with" means sold or let for hire, offered or exposed for sale or hire or communicated to the public.". (3) After paragraph 17 of Schedule 2 there shall be inserted - " Recording for the purposes of time-shifting 17A. - (1) The making in domestic premises for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any right conferred by Part 2 in relation to a performance or recording included in the broadcast. (2) Where a recording which would otherwise be an illicit recording is made in accordance with this paragraph but is subsequently dealt with - (a) it shall be treated as an illicit recording for the purposes of that dealing; and (b) if that dealing infringes any right conferred by Part 2, it shall be treated as an illicit recording for all subsequent purposes. (3) In sub-paragraph (2), "dealt with" means sold or let for hire, offered or exposed for sale or hire or communicated to the public. (4) Expressions used in this paragraph have the same meaning as in section 70.". 1
srochford Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I think that enforcing the law re: videotapes is pretty unlikely. Enforcing the law regarding P2P downloads of video is much easier - it's happening now and for what might be thought of as legal videos (programme is shown on TV; someone records it using their TV card and shares it)
somabc Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Does the law make any distinction between simply downloading copyrighted material or sharing (uploading)?
tmcd35 Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Does the law make any distinction between simply downloading copyrighted material or sharing (uploading)? No, copyright theft is copyright theft either way. The majority (if not all) of these cases are dealt with through the civil courts rather than criminal. It would normally be the copyright holders solicitors who'll be contacting you regarding infringement. Generally speaking, the copyright holders (record companies, movie studios, etc) have targeted file sharers rather than those only downloading the content.
fafster Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 I dont want to go into a full on P2P is illegal rantathon, but I would like someone in the know to clarify a few points for me. I know that its illegal to - Download copyright music Download copyright films Download copyrigh software Technically speaking, it's not illegal to download the content, only to upload (share) it. The law only says that it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material for any gain (financial or otherwise).
powdarrmonkey Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Does the law make any distinction between simply downloading copyrighted material or sharing (uploading)? Not as far as I am aware (Geoff will know) but the companies and the RIAA who are going after people are generally concentrating on the sharers.
OutToLunch Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Technically speaking, it's not illegal to download the content, only to upload (share) it. The law only says that it's illegal to distribute copyrighted material for any gain (financial or otherwise). Pretty sure that's an urban myth in the same ball court as the "You can only download this ROM if you own it otherwise you must delete it in 24 hours" disclaimer - unless you're from Canada?
somabc Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Pretty sure that's an urban myth in the same ball court as the "You can only download this ROM if you own it otherwise you must delete it in 24 hours" disclaimer - unless you're from Canada? I thought it could be true in the US?
LeMarchand Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 Not as far as I am aware (Geoff will know) but the companies and the RIAA who are going after people are generally concentrating on the sharers. That was my understanding, but anyone who is using P2P will be sharing by the very nature of the beast. I have always wondered why the RIAA etc don't go after those "streaming" sites, though.
browolf Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 what about news binaries, plenty of illegal stuff on there but no 'sharing issues', and yet they dont seem to be targeting those kinds of places...
OutToLunch Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 what about news binaries, plenty of illegal stuff on there but no 'sharing issues', and yet they dont seem to be targeting those kinds of places... That's down to difficulty and the design of the system. It's so easy to make an anonymised posting that they'd have to go after the providers, many don't keep logs for long - some not at all depending on the country they're in. They'd have to go after taking down the hosts rather than the users and there are too many non infringing uses for usenet acccess. It would be like shutting down hotmail because people may email each other an MP3 file. Compare that to just trawling a torrent/P2P network for IP addresses to fire off John Doe letters to and you have your answer.
CHR1S Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 So, sharing a publicly broadcasted show after it has aired is illegal?
LeMarchand Posted January 22, 2009 Posted January 22, 2009 So, sharing a publicly broadcasted show after it has aired is illegal? Yep - there was a website that got shut down fairly quickly where users used the site as a kind of communal DVR. Of course, limited sharing is allowed through "official channels" such as the P2P elements of iPlayer and 4OD.
CHR1S Posted January 22, 2009 Author Posted January 22, 2009 Thanks for all the info guys (and galls?) It just seems really stupid to me, you can PVR MOTD or News at 10 to your PC and its legal but download the exact same show off a P2P of your choice and your breaking the law. ho hum lol
LeMarchand Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 I think it's more to do with protecting the value of the broadcasts. The networks have no control over P2P, whereas with their own solutions include time limits and mean that they can only offer media when they want to - so people can "catch up" but not watch the DVD for free, for instance.
CHR1S Posted January 23, 2009 Author Posted January 23, 2009 I think it's more to do with protecting the value of the broadcasts. The networks have no control over P2P, whereas with their own solutions include time limits and mean that they can only offer media when they want to - so people can "catch up" but not watch the DVD for free, for instance. So this is my point im trying to make, how is watching a downloaded broadcast any different to one recorded onto a DVD to be watched some time after the show has aired? They have no control over my DVD/PVR remote in the same way as they do over P2P and I can skip the adverts in just the same way. Im starting to come to a conclusion that its manufactured demand, so that subsequent DVD or PPV sales are minimaly afected. So heres a new angle, I record every episode of a series on my DVDR from a broadcast off BBC1. I then edit the DVD to remove the padding before and after the show and then reburn it. In effect making myself a DVD compilation. I have supposedly not broken any laws and saved myself £30+
LeMarchand Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 You've probably broken the "length of storage" of recorded programs law (I assume it still exists) and probably infringed the copyright . I've never heard of either being prosecuted on, but that doesn't mean that the laws won't be brought into use if/when it suits nor make the acts legal. Yes a lot of people do it, and I'm not criticising them, merely pointing out that it is tolerated rather than approved of. As my previous post - I agree that a lot of it is to protect DVD sales, but also to protect copyright. As for what's the difference about using P2P; it's that if you keep your "own" copies they're used by you - use of a P2P network distributes the work to thousands/millions. Even using newsgroups (where you're only downloading rather than sharing) encourages the posting of copyrighted works for free distribution to large numbers of people. 1
srochford Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 So here's a new angle, I record every episode of a series on my DVDR from a broadcast off BBC1. I then edit the DVD to remove the padding before and after the show and then reburn it. In effect making myself a DVD compilation. I have supposedly not broken any laws and saved myself £30+ Strictly speaking that's probably OK (with provisos on how long you keep it). I suspect that in reality a tiny number of people will do that so no-one really loses money (and ultimately it all comes down to money) What you can't do is lend out that DVD compilation to anyone else (I think even for free) and that's the key difference from P2P (which is easy so lots of people do it and money is possibly lost) 1
Butters Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 That's down to difficulty and the design of the system. It's so easy to make an anonymised posting that they'd have to go after the providers, many don't keep logs for long - some not at all depending on the country they're in. They'd have to go after taking down the hosts rather than the users and there are too many non infringing uses for usenet acccess. It would be like shutting down hotmail because people may email each other an MP3 file. Compare that to just trawling a torrent/P2P network for IP addresses to fire off John Doe letters to and you have your answer. Also most providers now offer SSL so even if they did find out what you were downloading you could counter sue saying they infilitrated your PC to find out what your downloading.
LeMarchand Posted January 23, 2009 Posted January 23, 2009 Also most providers now offer SSL so even if they did find out what you were downloading you could counter sue saying they infilitrated your PC to find out what your downloading. But how many customers use it? Anyway, I don't think the OP is asking how to get away with copyright infringement - just expressing his confusion/frustration over what is/isn't allowed.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now