Changes To Copyright Law

[paul_ahb]

I just read the following article:

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?...ght+material%3f

I notice that a lot of people here are interested in what can be legally done with recorded TV so I thought I'd share it here. I hope I am not repeating something that someone else has already posted

Paul

[Alfred Smee]

I just read the following article:

http://www.choice.com.au/viewArticle.aspx?...ght+material%3f

I notice that a lot of people here are interested in what can be legally done with recorded TV so I thought I'd share it here. I hope I am not repeating something that someone else has already posted

Paul

Thanks for the link paul_ahb. It makes for very interesting reading. I was under the impression that we were tightening up our copyright laws because of our trade deals with the U.S. but it seems that while some have been tightened, others have been freed up considerably.

[tonygib]

Thanks for the link paul_ahb. It makes for very interesting reading. I was under the impression that we were tightening up our copyright laws because of our trade deals with the U.S. but it seems that while some have been tightened, others have been freed up considerably.

I would say that nothing has been freed up and everything has been locked down, or more the point, provided a legal framework to lock it all down. From the article this is the real killer:

However, the Amendment also creates new restrictions and penalties that can prevent consumers using their rights. So while consumers now have the right to copy a purchased CD onto their MP3 player (format-shift), if the CD contains copyright protection software, it is now illegal to circumvent the protection even for a completely legal purpose like format-shifting.

In other words, in the past they largely haven't been able to stop you recording a TV show or ripping your CD to your ipod and in some ways, if they did actually prevent you, then one could argue that they either didn't have the legal right, or if you did by-pass the system, or buy a "black box" that let you, it was still perfectly legal to do so.

Now, with that new law in place, anything that lets you "exercise" your new fair use right, on copy protected media, becomes illegal and so does its use.

Trust me, this is a big lost, do you think the media cartels would let anything through that wasn't of huge advantage to them.

[Alfred Smee]

I would say that nothing has been freed up and everything has been locked down, or more the point, provided a legal framework to lock it all down. From the article this is the real killer:

In other words, in the past they largely haven't been able to stop you recording a TV show or ripping your CD to your ipod and in some ways, if they did actually prevent you, then one could argue that they either didn't have the legal right, or if you did by-pass the system, or buy a "black box" that let you, it was still perfectly legal to do so.

Now, with that new law in place, anything that lets you "exercise" your new fair use right, on copy protected media, becomes illegal and so does its use.

Trust me, this is a big lost, do you think the media cartels would let anything through that wasn't of huge advantage to them.

You must have read a different article to the one I did. We are now able to copy across formats legally and time-shifting is now OK too. So I can copy my CD collection to my MP3 player without being arrested. I can also "tape" my favourite TV shows to watch later. In the past these were a no-no. It doesn't look like "nothing has been freed up" to me. Perhaps you might consider reading it again.

[Mcrackn]

But you can't copy the cd's in your collection that have 'copy protection'.

[50mxe20]

But you can't copy the cd's in your collection that have 'copy protection'.

At least not legally?

[DrP]

Just wait for the 'copy protection' to appear on TV shows that go to air in Australia. Copy protection can be something as lame as a 'Do not copy this show' being run before the program.... or it could be as half arsed as the USA's broadcast flag. Either way, copy the show and you can end up in hot water.

[tonygib]

Perhaps you might consider reading it again.

Perhaps you may consider reading the quota I pulled out again, it confirms exactly what I said.

Either way, copy the show and you can end up in hot water.

Exactly, because under the new laws, its illegal to by-pass the protection even if you want to do it for your new legal, format or time-shifting needs.

[sold]

Trust me, this is a big lost, do you think the media cartels would let anything through that wasn't of huge advantage to them.

How is it a loss? Prior to this you couldn't legally copy anything, now you can.

But I can't see them enforcing the new laws (on your average consumer making copies for private use) anymore than they have the current laws so I don't really see why it matters anyway.

[Alfred Smee]

Perhaps you may consider reading the quota I pulled out again, it confirms exactly what I said.

Exactly, because under the new laws, its illegal to by-pass the protection even if you want to do it for your new legal, format or time-shifting needs.

You said, and I quote, "I would say that nothing has been freed up". Yet, whereas in the past copying your own CDs and taping TV broadcasts was illegal, now it is legal. So something has been "freed up". Stop being so nonsical.

[DrP]

So something has been "freed up".

.. and then a deadbolt has been fitted to the 'freed up' bit. The deadbolt is DRM. All that has to be done to make your legal copy be illegal again is for even the most basic forms of DRM to be applied to the content. Once you bypass that DRM (no matter how trivial it might be) to make the copy, you have broken the law.

This is an excellent example of giving with one hand while taking with the other.

This is a real step backwards that will result in wholesale infringement by the general public - ie, we will be back at the exact same position we were before with the old copyright rules where every man and his dog thumbed his nose and them and recorded program X from TV on their VCR etc etc etc.

Reform is about actual change, not mystical pseudo-changes that amount to the status-quo.

[Ian Norman]

I fail to see what all the fuss is about.

It doesn't matter whether you can or can't copy your CD's etc according to the law.

The simple fact is that no Media Company or law inforcement agency is going to walk into your house and claim you illegally copied something for your own personal use and take you to court. It's just not possible or certainly not economical to do so.

The courts are already full. The last thing a judge wants is to hear about is some good citizen recording his or her CD's to another medium for personal use regardless of DRM or not.

If you sold the copies ( and many of them ) that's a different matter as you defrauded the copyright owners of income.

Let them make all the rules and regulations they like about copyright as it won't change anyones habbits. They know that and we know that.

Using or doing something for personal use will always remain just that.

How is anyone going to know what you do in your house if you don't tell anyone.

[tonygib]

You said, and I quote, "I would say that nothing has been freed up". Yet, whereas in the past copying your own CDs and taping TV broadcasts was illegal, now it is legal. So something has been "freed up". Stop being so nonsical.

Stop reading with your eyes closed and look at the bigger and longer term picture.

Yes, copying your own CD's and taping TV was "illegal" and now its not. But as Ian Norman pointed out, it was and never will be enforced, because rightly so, its really just impossible. So what you have been 'given' is totally worthless, reguardless of if copying your own CD's, etc was legal or not, makes no difference.

Consumers 0

However, what the media cartels have got, is a law that makes it illegal to exercise those rights, if they decide to add any DRM protection that prevents copying your own CD to an ipod. I'll admit, I don't know how far the law now goes, but have no doubt that the wanted outcome, would be to not only make the act of by-passing any DRM illegal, but the sale, etc of any tools (be it hardware or software) also illegal.

Thats step one.

Now I am sure plenty of you (given some of the replys so far), will never think any of this will happen, problem is your wrong, it already has. Some of you may remember a number of Sony music CD released, that employed copy protection (root kits that totally stuffed up your PC) which prevented the ripping of "your own" CD's to an ipod. But wait I hear you cry, we now have the legal right to format shift my personal CD's, its all been "freed up".

Yes, you do, but Sony, at least here in Australia, now has the legal right to stop you and make it illegal for you to even try to get around it.

On a plus side, all is not lost, you can still buy that CD again, via iTunes in order to get it on your ipod, but of course you can't then back it up or transfer it to any other MP3 player, since that would require breaking the DRM protection and thats now illegal

Media Cartels 1

PS, at least DrP can see were I'm coming from, so I know its not just me

[Neon Kitten]

You must have read a different article to the one I did. We are now able to copy across formats legally and time-shifting is now OK too. So I can copy my CD collection to my MP3 player without being arrested.

You always could.

I have been "breaking the law" by copying music all my 40-year-long life, since I was tiny. Recording songs off radio to cassette. Saving TV shows on VHS. Making compilation tapes and giving them to partners. Burning compilation CDs for the same reason. Ripping CDs for my Minidisc player and then later my iPod.

Nobody has EVER been arrested in this country for doing any of the above. Nobody ever will be.

This is why laws like this are considered by many in the legal community to be BAD laws. The reason? They put people in the mindset that breaking "the law" is harmless and consequence-less.

I still "break the law" by making CDs, downloading TV shows, etc etc. I know the chances of me getting "busted" are *NIL*. Why would I stop? And why would I feel guilty just because of the plaintive "no fair" cries of multi-billion-dollar corporations?

See? I've long been indoctrinated into the "use it any way you want" way of thinking.

I can also "tape" my favourite TV shows to watch later. In the past these were a no-no.

Such a "no no" that MILLIONS of people have archived shows sitting there on VHS. How many of those were prosecuted and/or sued? NONE. How many will be in the future? NONE.

[DrP]

The deadbolt rears its ugly head...

[AndrewW]

The deadbolt rears its ugly head...

Well my toppy, which totally ignores these stupid flags, is going to be worth a fortune

I really can't see this making a difference.

Some company in china will mass produce PVRs and DVD recorders that continue to ignore any new flag that is implemented.

Andrew.

[tonygib]

So something has been "freed up".

Yup, the ongoing vice-grip by the media cartels. From that link of DrP's

Ratification by ETSI seems likely, and a campaign would no doubt begin soon after to pressure governments and telecommunications regulators to require devices to abide by the CPCM restrictions. Such rules, paired with the anti-circumvention clauses found in the DMCA and similar worldwide laws, would give broadcasters unprecedented control over consumer uses of their content, even when such uses might be legal under copyright law. Fair use will become whatever broadcasters say it should be.

I think that pretty much says it all really.

Some company in china will mass produce PVRs and DVD recorders that continue to ignore any new flag that is implemented.

And based on the new copyright law's, it would then be illegal to use such a device (as it by-passes copy-protection), and maybe even be illegal to sell such a device in Australia. So when your toppy breaks down, and can no longer be repaired (or more likely, the broadcasters change something in their stream, that makes a 20 year old toppy unusable, but is just fine on latest recorders (that obey the broadcast flag), and your stuffed, but at least you will still have a legal fair use right, pitty you won't be able to make any use of it.

Come on ppl, wake up and see the bigger and longer term picture. None of this has anything to do with the next 5 years, its all about putting in place a framework for the next 50 years, if it was all so "nonsical" as Alfred Smith thinks, then why do they keep trying in the US to get a broadcast flag into law and they will keep trying, till they succeed.

[Ian Norman]

I think we all need to forget about the USA - They represent a very small portion of the worlds population. What they do with their "Broadcast Flag" is their business and what they do to their TV audience is their business.

We had region codes for DVD's ( for some stupid reason ) and no-one objected to region free DVD players being sold in Australia.

Australia represents an extremely small portion of the worlds TV market and as such barring us from recording/timeshifting etc is a waste of time and money.

They can make copyrights laws that last for eternity if they like but history repeats itself over and over again and the copyright law makers screw themselves and those they represent everytime they make a decision.

The copyright law makers will take one step too far and It will all end in tears and one day the creators of the copyright material will stand up and finally unite and get paid for their work rather than the pittance they get now.

Let them lock the content down as hard as they can cause it will backfire bigtime.

People have brought countries to their knees by uniting - it wouldn't take much to tip a top heavy media company over.

Power to the people I say - as long as apathy doesn't get in the road.

[tonygib]

I think we all need to forget about the USA - They represent a very small portion of the worlds population. What they do with their "Broadcast Flag" is their business and what they do to their TV audience is their business.

hmm, you have yet to hear about free trade agreements I take it. The US do them very well, from their point of view, by getting countries to argee to sign on with international "standards" and then all the US has to do is set those standards to what they want.

A case in point, which was raised in the second article is the WIPO, and if you think it has no effect on us, then its time you wake up and smell the rubbish. As part of our recent free trade agreement with the US, Australia passed into law, an increase to the copyright term, from 50 years to 70, as wanted by the US and set within the WIPO. So, what they do to their broadcast business, they then pass onto us.

We had region codes for DVD's ( for some stupid reason ) and no-one objected to region free DVD players being sold in Australia.

Australia represents an extremely small portion of the worlds TV market and as such barring us from recording/timeshifting etc is a waste of time and money.

Only problem with that is that region coding has nothing to do with copy protection.

They can make copyrights laws that last for eternity if they like but history repeats itself over and over again and the copyright law makers screw themselves and those they represent everytime they make a decision.

The copyright law makers will take one step too far and It will all end in tears and one day the creators of the copyright material will stand up and finally unite and get paid for their work rather than the pittance they get now.

Let them lock the content down as hard as they can cause it will backfire bigtime.

People have brought countries to their knees by uniting - it wouldn't take much to tip a top heavy media company over.

as long as apathy doesn't get in the road.

Yeah, and there's one of the problems, even based on your own postings:

I fail to see what all the fuss is about.

If everyone just thinks its no big deal, says nothing and calls anyone that raise's a red flag as being "nonsical", then you just may get what you deserve and since I don't seem to be getting through here, there seems to be little pointing in further postings.

[DrP]

Well my toppy, which totally ignores these stupid flags, is going to be worth a fortune

Oh I wouldn't be too smug just yet. Assuming Topfield uses mostly common coding between boxes in different countries (in all likelyhood they do, its a fairly common practice), you might well find your Topfield is already looking for stupidity such as this. There was a big stink in the UK when TopupTV triggered remarkably DRM like behaviour in Topfields. Live viewing worked fine, but attempts to record (or even time shift during the broadcasts) were effectively disabled.

Some company in china will mass produce PVRs and DVD recorders that continue to ignore any new flag that is implemented.

That might be a way out until the detection and prevention is done entirely within the hardware and has no facility to be disabled via flipping register bits. Don't scoff at that either, this is precisely how things are moving along right now. So sure, buy your yum-cha brand STB, but don't expect to be able to bypass any restrictions because odds on it'll be using a 'do everything fully integrated single chip decoder' that fully implements the DRM involved.

[Ian Norman]

Tony

Raising the red flag in awarness and doing something about it are two entirely different things.

I'm sorry to say that there are far more important issues in the world today than copyright laws. ( for me anyway )

If copy protection issues are a grave concern to you then raise the red flag as high as you can and get as much interest in the matter as you can.

I wasn't trying to put your efforts down or to try and discourage you in anyway, I was just pointing out that there are consumers like myself that won't be disadvantaged by the copyright issues.

The free trade agreement, like all agreements will have advantages and disadvantages to both sides and I would much rather have fair import export between the countries even at the expense of a broadcast flag/copyright etc etc.

Something that benefits all Australians ( many non TV Timeshifters ) has to be good.

There is no point in us continuing to discuss the pro's and con's so I'll leave it here. - You have to right of reply

Cheers.

Disclaimer:- I'm too lazy to use "smilies" so the actual meaning might not be as intended.

[AndrewW]

Oh I wouldn't be too smug just yet. Assuming Topfield uses mostly common coding between boxes in different countries (in all likelyhood they do, its a fairly common practice), you might well find your Topfield is already looking for stupidity such as this. There was a big stink in the UK when TopupTV triggered remarkably DRM like behaviour in Topfields. Live viewing worked fine, but attempts to record (or even time shift during the broadcasts) were effectively disabled.

Ouch,

I'd be mighty pissed if that were to happen.

And I'd be demanding a refund.

I think I'd have a fair argument.

Andrew.

[Neon Kitten]

The free trade agreement, like all agreements will have advantages and disadvantages to both sides and I would much rather have fair import export between the countries even at the expense of a broadcast flag/copyright etc etc.

Any attempt by broadcasters to introduce a "broadcast flag" or other method of preventing recording or time-shifting would have two effects on me and on pretty much anyone else who doesn't work the quaint old-fashioned Howard-lover hours of 9am to 5pm, Monday to Friday:

Effect 1. I would never watch ANY free to air TV again. As it stands, the hours I am home all there is to watch is sex ads, infomercials, religious nutters and ancient forgotten British movies. Time-shifting is, for me, the ONLY way I can watch TV.

Effect 2: I would find myself "illegally" downloading not just a few shows, but *everything*. They can broadcast-flag their little hearts out, but the chances of them stopping the people who capture, encode and distribute these shows is... well, less than ZERO.

Something that benefits all Australians ( many non TV Timeshifters ) has to be good.

I keep hearing this "The FTA will benefit all Australians" line. Yet to this day nobody seems to be able to come up with even a hint of a benefit to the citizens of this country.

[joeybloggs]

@tonygib cheer up You are completely right and most of the rest of them are too stoooopid to even see the problem... And the funny thing is I don't remember being asked by my government what I wanted and how it should be implemented. So incremental changes in public policy under the table without any public debate or input and the media cartels get away with murder

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance or some such

I keep hearing this "The FTA will benefit all Australians" line. Yet to this day nobody seems to be able to come up with even a hint of a benefit to the citizens of this country.

Well... I guess the sugar growers will be able to say but look they pay billions in subsidies every year to their sugar producers

[evil_josh]

Interestingly under these laws it is still illegal to use an ipod, and bascially illegal to use any mp3 player in any useful way.

To use an ipod you must first format shift the CD into itunes then use itunes to copy the track onto your ipod. In doing this you have made a second copy of a format-shifted song which is illegal.

Similarly if you hold a legitimate format-shifted collection of songs on your computer and copy some or all of these songs onto an mp3 player you are again breaking the law. To operate within the law you would need to move the files onto your player (ie copy then delete them off your hard drive) and move them back to your hard drive from your player when you are finished. Whilst it is possible to do this with most non-ipod players it is impossible to do this with an ipod thereby making it illegal to play any format-shifted content on an ipod.

It is also illegal to make a backup of your collection, or use a raid 1 array to store your songs.

When it comes to recording TV shows, you are only allowed to watch them once then they must be deleted. It is illegal to store a recording after watching it, and it is illegal for another houshold member to watch the recorded show after you have watched it. It is also illegal to lend a recording to anyone even if you have not watched it yourself meaning it is illegal to record a show for a friend or family member.

Conveivably this also means it is illegal to rewind a recorded show to replay a scene if you missed something.

Some freedom

My concern is not in the enforcability - by quantifying the fair use provision it becomes possible to compel manufacturers to enforce these restrictions in new generation equipment.