Re: Prepare to get screwed by digital rights management
thing
>
>
> 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 $100? Why do we need
these new toys at all?
One exec was quoted as saying the TIVO(?) gets around forcing you to
watch the adverts, that means your stealing the content, your a criminal
in their eyes and dont forget it.
The hopefully saving grace I can see is these execs still only think in
terms of the domestic US and 1st world markets, Asia, China etc will
make and sell non-locked kit and being the biggest market this will win.
They also have a substantial own market in terms of their own content,
not evryone buys US drivel.
I hope so anyway...
And as for "fair use", I believe it is a US term, not a NZ one (in terms
of legalese) we enjoy fewer rights than a US consumer.
Our big dangers are
1) Helen Clark selling our souls to get a US trade agreement, we get to
sell a piddling amount of lamb to the US, while domestically we continue
to be raped by the US. At what point does our Government see our future
is wthin Asia as that's where we are?
2) OZ selling its soul first, then it becomes very hard for us not to
follow suit, if not impossible.
For me, I do not buy CD's anymore, because I object to paying 30+ for a
few tracks on a CD the rest I do not want. And I still have my vinyl
collection so why pay twice?
I watch virtually no TV because the adverts have ruined films, the
remainder of the TV content is 99% garbage only fit for the morons
amongst us. I do not listen to the radio anymore because of the
frequency and length of the adverts.
So how do execs get to sell to me? why try and screw the Internet, but
so far its proving bigger than them, I just want Asia on line soon so
its stays to big for them.
</rant>
regards
Thing
Clarity
news:ujWed.22898$mZ2.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
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.
Matthew Poole
>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.
>
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 fuck 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
Peter
> 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.
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
Matthew Poole
>"thing" <red.is.nutty....@thing.dyndns.org> wrote in message
>news:ujWed.22898$mZ2.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
>We do have an equivalent of "fair use" in New Zealand, with a similar
>sounding term of "fair dealing" used in the Copyright Act 1994. Whilst you
>wouldn't be able to claim defence to large scale copying of entire works,
>there is sufficient provision to uphold fair and reasonable use.
>
I suggest you look a little more closely.
The US doctrine of "fair use" allows for format shifting. NZ law
specifically DENIES that right to the consumer. Even recording a TV
show is illegal in this country if you store that recording. You are
allowed ONLY to store it for as long as it takes you to watch it, unless
you wish to make a complaint.
And don't even think about ripping CDs to MP3 to play in your car.
Absolutely, totally verboten. Even copying CDs so that you don't have
to keep the originals in your car is illegal. You seem to know so
much about the Copyright Act, I don't have to tell you that, though.
Clarity
news:clhfsp$ekl$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> In article <lXWed.969$lF1....@news.xtra.co.nz>, "Clarity"
<commo...@home.in.nz> wrote:
> >"thing" <red.is.nutty....@thing.dyndns.org> wrote in message
> >news:ujWed.22898$mZ2.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
> *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...
BTMO
"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.
Matthew Poole
>"Matthew Poole" <sp...@stops.here> wrote in message
>news:clhfsp$ekl$2...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
>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.
>
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.
Clarity
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;
Matthew Poole
>"Matthew Poole" <sp...@stops.here> wrote in message
*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
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.
Clarity
news:FkYed.992$lF1....@news.xtra.co.nz...
>
> "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
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?
Matthew Poole
>"Matthew Poole" <sp...@stops.here> wrote in message
*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".
>
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.
Clarity
> In article <1DZed.1025$lF1....@news.xtra.co.nz>, "Clarity"
<commo...@home.in.nz> wrote:
> >"Matthew Poole" <sp...@stops.here> wrote in message
> >news:clhmus$jsv$1...@lust.ihug.co.nz...
> *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.
Warwick
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
Matthew Poole
>On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 01:08:23 GMT, Matthew Poole wrote:
>That might be true, but it is also true that abuse of those laws is rife,
>and convictions for that abuse non existent.
>
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.
Gordon
>
>
>
> 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
> 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
> 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.
Warwick
> Then the law should be removed. If it's not enforced, regularly
> ignored, then it's not necessary.
Couldn't agree more with you there.
It is a principal argument for legalizing marijuana, or at least I use it
that way when campaigning for drug law reform.
Patrick Dunford
Mon, 25 Oct 2004 10:46:03 +1300, Geronimo <g...@yaxxx.com> says...
Just a lot of whinging, so what
Patrick Dunford
Oct 2004 12:31:45 +1300, Clarity <commo...@home.in.nz> says...
>
> 42.Criticism, review, and news reporting-
Obviously this title applies to the following section.
Timeshifting is one of the few actual rights you have for off air
material.
Matthew Poole
>In article <lXWed.969$lF1....@news.xtra.co.nz> in nz.comp on Mon, 25
>Oct 2004 12:31:45 +1300, Clarity <commo...@home.in.nz> says...
>Timeshifting is one of the few actual rights you have for off air
>material.
It's the ONLY right, other than taking backups of computer software you
own, and even the timeshifting right is heavily circumscribed.
I was most disgusted to read that people in the IP industry are
concerned that the proposed changes swing too far towards the consumer.
I'm sure they would've been much happier with the law staying as it was.
Patrick Dunford
19:28:05 GMT, Matthew Poole <sp...@stops.here> says...
> In article <MPG.1be78c76b...@news.paradise.net.nz>, Patrick Dunford <patrick...@nomail.invalid> wrote:
> >In article <lXWed.969$lF1....@news.xtra.co.nz> in nz.comp on Mon, 25
> >Oct 2004 12:31:45 +1300, Clarity <commo...@home.in.nz> says...
> *SNIP*
> >Timeshifting is one of the few actual rights you have for off air
> >material.
>
> It's the ONLY right, other than taking backups of computer software you
> own, and even the timeshifting right is heavily circumscribed.
Well apart from the reviewing ones