For Bankfodder's attgention

[secretarybird]

For Bankfodder -

Re: Blacksheep 1979 reply to my query about Argos. I have no intention of sending the machine back saying its not been used - I could have done that in he first place! I acknowledged his reply in respect of contacting the Trading Standards - thats the route I intend to follow, not sending the thing back illegally. Hope you clear about that!

[blacksheep1979]

Also I'm a bit miffed at this - I did say those suggestions are naughty and yet still get a 'spanking' with my name permanantly pinned to the top of the forum, whilst people who in the IT section have been talking about pirating DVD (themselves actually commiting theft) have had nothing of the sort done. So suggesting something that may not actually be theft and slightly warning the person off it - bad, actually commiting theft and asking for further help in it - not as bad. hmmmm

[tom3131]

Also I'm a bit miffed at this - I did say those suggestions are naughty and yet still get a 'spanking' with my name permanantly pinned to the top of the forum, whilst people who in the IT section have been talking about pirating DVD (themselves actually commiting theft) have had nothing of the sort done. So suggesting something that may not actually be theft and slightly warning the person off it - bad, actually commiting theft and asking for further help in it - not as bad. hmmmm

 

blacksheep1979: What you suggested WOULD have been an offence. And why did you put those suggestions forward when you knew they were (in your own words) "naughty"?

 

And blacksheep1979, pirating DVD's in my opinion, doesnt constitute theft. It is a totally seperate offence and the peoplein the IT Section could have 100 reasons why it doesnt constitute an offence.

 

Each case is judged on its own merits.

 

If you have a complaint regarding the way your post was treated, I suggest you contact either Dave or BankFodder by PM, but I cant see any way in which you could justify your comments I'm afraid.

 

Regards,

Tom3131.

[blacksheep1979]

I was speculating on all possibilities and copying copyrighted DVD's is a criminal offence and as you put it if I did have a problem I could have contacted any one of the mods, bankfodder etc and see little reason why you have brought this up again.

[Bookworm]

copying copyrighted DVD's is a criminal offence

 

Not getting involved in the rest of the argument here, but just saw that bit and wanted to comment on that:

 

Copying copyrighted DVDs is NOT a criminal offence if you are reproducing an original which you have bought (as back-up).

 

My children have repeatedly scratched and otherwise ruined dvds for which I paid a fortune, I no longer let them have the originals, but run them copies every time.

[blacksheep1979]

Actually it has been deemed that it is an offence - its a common misconception that you are allowed to make personal backups

[dave]

I think Blacksheep is right. It shouldn't be an offence, but I believe it actually is.

[Spiceskull]

Reproducing copyrighted DVDs, or any digital media, is not a crime in itself. The 'crime' is actually circumventing any copy-protection systems that have been put in place.

[dave]

Ahh - yes, that's right. But of course to actually copy a commercial dvd you would have to use software that did circumvent the copy-protection (assuming of course that commercial dvd's ALL have copy protection - some may not).

[Spiceskull]

But of course to actually copy a commercial dvd you would have to use software that did circumvent the copy-protection

...which is why Clinton's "THE DIGITAL MILLENNIUM COPYRIGHT ACT OF 1998" is designed to outlaw all software that can do this...

[dave]

Yeah - I've seen that.

 

It seems that it's [DMCA] a direct conflict with the copyright 'fair use' policy though.

 

Very odd.

[Spiceskull]

That is true - but it is an unfortunate side effect of the sledgehammer scenario. European lawmakers are taking depositions to try and ensure that the rights of the consumer are not overtaken by the rights of the corporates...but at present DMCA is legally binding...

[dave]

That is true - but it is an unfortunate side effect of the sledgehammer scenario. European lawmakers are taking depositions to try and ensure that the rights of the consumer are not overtaken by the rights of the corporates...but at present DMCA is legally binding...

 

Worldwide?

 

If it's a US thing, surely a UK company that created a DVD couldn't user the DMCA? Or could they?

[Spiceskull]

I am pretty sure it is a global act - the very nature of digital technology is global. Whilst a UK DVD manufacturer might own the copyright on the content, it is a fair bet that any digital copyright protection will be based on US technology. With the one-way extradition treaty between UK and US there is very little we can do about it...so the act applies, and we have to accept it until EU lawmakers say otherwise...

 

That said, countries like China and Russia ignore the act, and in this the US is stuffed...LOL

[AndyE]

DMCA is US law and not applicable in the UK. Making an infringing copy is illegal, no matter how you do so. If the copyright holder has given you permission to make a backup it's legal, if you don't have permission it isn't.

 

Fair use is also a US term, the equivalent UK term is fair dealing and is defined by case law rather than in statute.

[Bookworm]

And just to give you a laugh about it:

 

MPAA accused of DVD piracy - vnunet.com

[Lariele]

Reproducing copyrighted DVDs, or any digital media, is not a crime in itself. The 'crime' is actually circumventing any copy-protection systems that have been put in place.

This is absolutely incorrect. You will note in the copyright notice on DVD's etc that it states "no copying blah blah blah without authorisation from the copyright owner"

 

- Reproducing anything that is copyrighted without the express permission of the copyright holder is breaking the law. The crime is not circumventing the copy-protection though that is also a crime in and of itself.

 

Edit: (I work in copyright protection - no I'm not one of the gits chasing people who download music =P)

[Spiceskull]

I work in copyright protection

I stand corrected, and also accept that what you say is likely to be the final word.

 

However, to qualify what I said, I was actually referring to the single copy for personal/back up use, rather than the piracy of multiple copies for sale. But as you say, the permission of the copyright owner is a requirement, and on a lot of digital content the licence often grants permission for this single copy...

[Lariele]

Well - you are correct in that if the terms and conditions state you may make a single copy for back up purposes then of course you may make a single copy However if it doesn't expressly say that, then copying it for any reason without permission is breaching copyright laws.

 

However, not that I could possibly advocate such a thing in my position, who's gonna know if you make a back-up for the kids to paw all over with greasy fingers or not?

 

Interestingly, copying a track you've bought off iTunes onto your iPod is technically breaking copyright law..

 

There is a minor loophole something entitled "The Analogue Hole" and that is recording something you are hearing through the speaker jack. That is one way of circumventing the copy protection stuff without actually breaking the copy protection software on the product. There is software that assists in doing this too. Technically this is still breaking copyright law unless you have the express permission of the copyright holder.

 

Music is moving into being a commodity - to some extent it already is. You listen to the radio right? You know you are paying for that even though it doesn't feel like it? You pay for listening to BBC radio via your license fee and from commercial stations by listening to the ads they play. One day all music will be a commodity - you turn on your tap water comes out, you pay a bill for water but most people don't think about it when they turn on the tap - music will be the same; its already going that way. On demand radio with personal playlists etc much like the TV is now with it being on demand.

 

I don't honestly see why anyone even would bother to "own" a physical product with music on it in the future, since soon enough we'll be able to get it on demand for a monthly fee. *shrugs*

 

Still I love the feel of my old vinyl and even still have a copy of the Belle Stars "This is the sign of the times" in a shaped picture disk and gatefold sleeve =D

[Spiceskull]

Still I love the feel of my old vinyl and even still have a copy of the Belle Stars "This is the sign of the times" in a shaped picture disk and gatefold sleeve =D

Still a youngster then? I have disposed of them all now, but I had hundreds of multi-coloured vinyl and picture/shaped discs from the heady days of punk in 76, 77 and 78 - they were great...

[Lariele]

Still a youngster then? I have disposed of them all now, but I had hundreds of multi-coloured vinyl and picture/shaped discs from the heady days of punk in 76, 77 and 78 - they were great...

 

haha I guess I am still a youngster but that one was one of the ones I remembered while typing this - I've no idea why *laugh* Do I correctly remember a green vinyl version of God Save The Queen? =D

[Spiceskull]

There was a green version, and in 77 there was even one that was Union Jack flavour...

[Lariele]

hah - the things they did to sell records back then

[analyst]

. . the things they did to sell records back then

Well, nowadays they produce a sexy video to sell the record (CD)

 

The trouble is, the music is so crap, they HAVE to produce a sexy video to have any chance of selling it.

 

Or, maybe it's conversely, if you are good (even excellent) musicians but don't have the right LOOK, you will be slung on the scrap heap. But if you have a LOOK they can exploit (The Cheeky Girls?) but make absolute sh*te music, the record companies are all over you.

 

Do you think OUR music is safe in the hands of the recording industry?