I agree entirely Graham.


I don't believe I actually admitted how long I kept them for.

However, you make another good point on the purchasing.

Sorry, you're quite right. Don't want the anti-terrorism squad bashing down the door now, do we?

It's bonkers.

You could indeed keep it on tape for ages before watching, but that probably wouldn't count as timeshifting (and that's the vagueness, of course).

It is of course a mess; the law often is when it tries to cope with new technology.

Of course, the law just sets down a general case; recording something from the TV for timeshifting does not make an infringing copy, where copying that work for other reasons would be an infringement.

But what if the owner of the material effectively has already granted additional rights? It would seem to me that the copyright law doesn't specifically take those rights away, so it would be theoretically possible for a studio to say "Y'all can record this film and keep is as long as you like," or "We don't mind if you keep these recordings and watch them over and over."

Now, most studios are very unlikely to say that, but it's possible. There are areas in law where failing to take action can change the status of something, specifically trademarks; if I use the phrase 'biro' to mean a ballpoint pen when I write in print, I'll receive a letter reminding me I should refer to either a Bic Biro, or a ballpoint pen, as part of the trademark protection, to ensure it doesn't become a generic, like hoover.

Because of the nature of copyright, and the fact that it's a civil matter, you would be hard pushed to bring a prosecution for any of these infringements - but if someone did, it would be interesting to speculate whether an argument could be made that the studios know people make copies for repeated viewing or archiving, and in not taking action, or promoting the fact that it's not permissible, may be deemed to have accepted that that is in fact a reasonable way to treat stuff.

Personally, I suspect that would actually be a hard argument to make, because in the absence of concrete proof that a particular person is doing something, you can't be expected to take enforcement action against them - it's very easy to spot when someone misuses a trademark in print; far less so to know that someone's keeping a recording for too long.

So yes, the law is a mess in this area; I don't see (even after the Gowers recommendations) how it can ever be anything but, really. Technically, the way many people use their PVRs is illegal, but they're realistically never going to be caught for it.

It must be hard trying to draft a law that will catch those who are trying to do large scale copyright infringement, in such a way that you don't leave loopholes, and don't affect ordinary people. And so you end up with what we have now - a law that can, potentially, snare lots of people, who have to put up with the inconvenience and hope no one ever knocks on their door.

You have a point although I think I'd phrase it differently.

I have little or no interesting in buying DVDs so I'm not a potential customer. I see DRM and shrug, somewhat grateful that it doesn't apply. I prefer to keep it that way.

White-Knight likes to buy DVDs and is a potential customer. He gets overcharged and risks being hounded just for a minor infringement. He sees DRM as a nuisance. Possibly being driven into my camp or actively seeking out ways to work around it.

What the industry should be doing is courting me and helping White-Knight.

It does neither.

Couldn't agree more.

No, neither of these are true under British law.

Phazer

It's a stange exemption, I know, but under UK law you are legally allowed to make backup copies of computer games, but not audio/video CD's or DVD's! (But you're not permitted to circumvent any copy protection that's been placed on the disc)

But isn't this a completely unsatisfactory state of affairs? I'm probably being naive, but given that we're talking about copies of TV programmes, why can't being caught selling copies be the threshold of actionable infringement? I can't imagine any reasonable person objecting to that, whereas somebody theoretically getting a midnight knock on the door for giving their mate a copy of an FTA programme which they happened to miss, or watching something once too often, just seems...totalitarian.

And when you take into account that most people probably have no clue about the timeshifting vs. archiving (non-) distinction, it becomes Kafkaesque, doesn't it?

To repeat but refine my original argument: Copyright law is too muddy to be the underpinning for these recently-implemented copy restrictions for FTA HD (and this will of course be the norm one day), and is in practice beside the point. They are being carried through by technological and economic force, and they depend both on a public being finessed into accepting them as legitimate and on broadcasting institutions (outside the US!) being willing to give in to the content providers who insist on them--with all the inconvenience that entails.

The content providers need to get paid, of course, but these restrictions seem to me to be an imagination-starved and ultimately counterproductive way of going about it. (Torrents--or gardening--anyone?) I know this is putting the onus on them to do better, but heck, isn't that what they are paid for?

I have decided to archive anything of repeat interest (such as music performances) by copying it out of the SCART onto my old HDD/ DVD recorder. If I wish I can set the recording quality to HQ ( which gives about 1 hour per DVD), but even so the majority of the SD broadcasts are faithfully copied at SD (normal 2 hours / DVD setting). I can even squeeze it down to EP (4 hours/DVD). That depends on the nature of the content, sometimes the sound is more important than the video.

Once in the old HDD I can also edit and split the piece as I wish, which is very useful. Goodbye adverts and senseless commentary !

The only weakness of this appoach is that the broadcast has to to replayed in realtime, but then some broadcasts really are watching twice ! Also the DVD has to be played back somehow, I use a second SCART connection to my TV.

You're quite right that it might seem more sensible to make profiting the point at which you commit an offence, and I don't know why that's not done.

The only reason I can suggest is that it's to keep it more in line with other property related crime, where the crime is in the taking of something, and there are additional crimes such as receiving.

For example, you don't have to prove that someone was attempting to sell your stolen jewellery for them to be guilty of theft - you merely show that they have it without your permission.

In that regard, and probably at least in part due to a lack of imagination, the law regarding intellectual property is written to mirror that surrounding physical property.

Nigel: That may seem a fair enough aim--some sort of consistency--but of course intellectual property is not the same as material property in that it's nonrivalrous. If I copy your programme, you still have it. This is one of the reasons why there was different law for it in the first place. But companies seem to be trying to erase the critical differences between the two strands of law, drastically expanding their claims for royalties. For example in the US there was a sudden demand for payment from the Girl Scouts for singing 'Happy Birthday to You' around the camp fire, with threats of multi-thousand dollar fines and jail time for non-compliance. (For anyone who's interested, a good read on the subject of increasing copyright aggressiveness is available (quite legally!) here: http://kembrew.com/documents/mcleod-...xpression3.pdf This is a book download, so dial-up users beware.)

To bring this back on topic(!), I'm not saying technological restrictions on copying TV is the end of the world, but it does feel like part of a bigger squeeze on existing freedoms.

[quote=Boff70man;34658068]I have decided to archive anything of repeat interest (such as music performances) by copying it out of the SCART onto my old HDD/ DVD recorder.
QUOTE]

do you not have a hi-speed copy facility? well worth it, writes a 2hr dvd (SP mode) in about 10 minutes.

[edit - sorry i realise we are on freesat+ - i'm thinking of my DVD/HDD Recorder]

That's a very good idea! I think I might try that with any recording I want to save.

I don't think it is a weakness, where you are not having to transfer off the Humax to USB and the time that takes though

Patrick

I don't understand this, you can play drm free music on an iPod?

Yeah but all the protected audio she bought in iTunes can't be played back on other devices that don't have DRM playback.

I personally copied all of my CDs to a PC years ago and play them back on streaming devices around the home. I don't consider this stealing but DRM would prevent it.