Tony Arnold wrote: > I'm fairly sure that technically, anyone who records a TV programme is > in breach of copyright as they are if they rip a CD to their MP3 player,
Article 70 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 would appear to permit recording for time shifting (I Am Not A Lawyer). > 70 Recording for purposes of time-shifting > > The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast > or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed > or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any > copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any work included > in it. >[1] It has been amended by the The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 which removed the words "or cable programme" (See Schedule 2). It also added the words " in domestic premises"[2] > and yet TV recording gear is sold in the millions and recording seems to > be actively encouraged by some parties. The people selling it will (probably) say it is for "Time-shifting", see above. > But I don't know how to ensure > artists get a fair fee for their work but consumers also have the > freedom to copy stuff as they wish. Odd, no one cares that other members of society get a "fair fee", they get what the market decides for them*. If you want to base artists pay on merit when does the rest of us get this meritocracy? I bet their are a few NHS nurses who would think they deserve a bit more pay for what they do (compare the earnings of any Top 10 Popstar with those of your average nurse, do you really think that discrepancy is "fair"?) * The Government intervenes for the very low paid providing a minimum level of pay called "minimum wage", but in most cases it is left to the Free Market. If we let the Free Market decide we would have NO copyright. Instead the Government has decided that artists get protection for several generations. Copyright on books is Authors Life + 70 Years. That's enough to not only out survive the Authors generation but possibly that of 1 or 2 generations after. Do you seriously think someone needs a "fair fee" for having a certain parent or grandparent? What is the fair fee for being born to someone who was the child of someone who wrote a book? Before the Government went around extending copyright there was more creativity. Johann Sebastian Bach wrote over 1000 compositions (according to Wikipedia) and that was before Copyright was extended many times. I also don't think he used any form of DRM but I can't be sure. How many of today's artists have produced that much music? There is an argument that *reducing* copyright duration would increase creativity. People could no longer produce a single work and then do nothing for the rest of their life. > What gets me, though, is that whole load of fuss has been made about the > iPlayer limitations from the BBC (including the ISPs wanting the BBC to > contribute to the cost of upgrading their networks) and yet very little > is said about the ITV service, which is even more restrictive than iPlayer. The key difference is I can, if I so wish, Boycott ITV and it could hurt them (through reduced viewing and thus less advertising revenue) particularly if it is done "on mass". Either way I am not paying them my money. The BBC has the luxury that if I switch to a competitors product I still have to pay the BBC. I can not boycott the BBC effectively unless I boycott all television as I will still have to pay the license fee. This would hurt the BBC's competitors as much as them and thus be ineffective. Worse still Linux users where forced to pay for something the BBC won't let them use. And there is an MP4 version that would work on many devices but the BBC have locked it to products supplied by Apple (as stated previously). Andy [1] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/ukpga_19880048_en_4#pt1-ch3-pb11-l1g70 [2] http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm -- ubuntu-uk@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-uk https://wiki.ubuntu.org/UKTeam/
