Section 296ZB of the Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988

[TVC_Admin]

Tweet

An interesting set of perspectives, and not necessarily ones I would challenge.

Apple do as they have for no altruistic reason, they are driven by profit alone. ITV show their ITV1 channels live, but they saturate them with commercials and their service is unreliable. Building a better moustrap and giving it away for free is very hard to compete with, that why more people subscribe to TVC than any other live TV site in the world. 312K new members last week alone across all platforms says it all, but we are not complacent.

Netflix, Lovefilm, Youtube, etc are not doing the same as TVC, neither can they ever hope to do so effectively whilst they remain fixated on cloud based technologies to keep their distribution costs down - in much the same way that Joost dies a death because of their crazy reliance on P2P based solutions. We just do things in a different way, a way that can't be bought in any box from a solution provider, we designed and built our own solutions.

Times change, TVC has played its' part in bringing about much of the change, and we have only just begun. Talking about change is one thing, exploiting other people's changes is another (and there are plenty of people out there who are trying to capitalise on pther people's innovation), but we are committed to being architects of change.As you say, stay tuned for what's coming

[hbunting]

I found an interesting article which (kinda?) fits in with the whole discussion here (from a US standing anyway)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...cted-by-court/

[hbunting]

I found an interesting article which (kinda?) fits in with the whole discussion here (from a US standing anyway)
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...cted-by-court/

Having thought this a little more after posting this I've come up with some more ideas.

-

Since simply viewing a copyrighted material alone is not copyright infringement,
then by say me using a vpn to watch a programme from the iPlayer is not a copyright
infringement.

Also, you are only required to have a UK tv licence if you want to watch live streams
(BBC one, two, three, four, etc). Thus that argument goes out too.

The company hosting an rtmp proxy could get in trouble for rebroadcasting live streams.
But I think the law there is a little murky.

An example I'll give is: I use a company which runs a dns server and sends all name
lookups to return to one of its proxy servers (instead of say bbc or itv). This is done on
my AppleTV. It's all streaming, I don't download any of the content to watch later, nor
am I giving other people access or copies of a file which doesn't exist or any cache the
player needs to playback the stream reliably.

Thus, if the "viewing copyrighted material alone isn't copyright infringing", then by my
streaming say an episode of Panorama, through a rtmp proxy, to my Apple TV, which
doesn't keep any of the data downloaded for an extended period of time, it is my
interpretation that I would not be liable for copyright.

The most I see is a violation of their (bbcs) terms of use, which I've yet to see anyone
in a criminal or civil court convicted for breaching a TOS/TOU.

What about the people who pay for a licence? Isn't that stealing from the BBC though?
Like I said above, the only time you need a tv licence (in re to watching online, with
iPlayer) is when you watch live streams.

[TVC_H4U]

Im not sure it add's anything to the discussion in the UK, im happy to see the judge see denability for MyVister as itself did not know what the content was and the user for the same - not knowing licensing agreements.

myVidster still has a responsibility for DMCA take downs and the users for not going to WATCH-PIRATE-TV.COM..

Plus it was a US judge.

[dj_gerbil]

Having thought this a little more after posting this I've come up with some more ideas.

-

Since simply viewing a copyrighted material alone is not copyright infringement,
then by say me using a vpn to watch a programme from the iPlayer is not a copyright
infringement.

Also, you are only required to have a UK tv licence if you want to watch live streams
(BBC one, two, three, four, etc). Thus that argument goes out too.

The company hosting an rtmp proxy could get in trouble for rebroadcasting live streams.
But I think the law there is a little murky.

An example I'll give is: I use a company which runs a dns server and sends all name
lookups to return to one of its proxy servers (instead of say bbc or itv). This is done on
my AppleTV. It's all streaming, I don't download any of the content to watch later, nor
am I giving other people access or copies of a file which doesn't exist or any cache the
player needs to playback the stream reliably.

Thus, if the "viewing copyrighted material alone isn't copyright infringing", then by my
streaming say an episode of Panorama, through a rtmp proxy, to my Apple TV, which
doesn't keep any of the data downloaded for an extended period of time, it is my
interpretation that I would not be liable for copyright.

The most I see is a violation of their (bbcs) terms of use, which I've yet to see anyone
in a criminal or civil court convicted for breaching a TOS/TOU.

What about the people who pay for a licence? Isn't that stealing from the BBC though?
Like I said above, the only time you need a tv licence (in re to watching online, with
iPlayer) is when you watch live streams.

I think the key point you missed your "viewing copyrighted material alone isn't copyright infringing" statement is that the Broadcaster has Paid to Broadcast said content within a certain area, so as you say isn't breaking the law, but if you view the content from outside the area then the copyright owner hasn't been paid for that, which is what makes it copyright infringement. Or at least that's how I understand it.

[hbunting]

I think the key point you missed your "viewing copyrighted material alone isn't copyright infringing" statement is that the Broadcaster has Paid to Broadcast said content within a certain area, so as you say isn't breaking the law, but if you view the content from outside the area then the copyright owner hasn't been paid for that, which is what makes it copyright infringement. Or at least that's how I understand it.

Just something I grabbed from wikipedia as a quick source for a definition to the word copyright.

Generally, it is "the right to copy", but also gives the copyright holder the right to be credited for the work, to determine who may adapt the work to other forms, who may perform the work, who may financially benefit from it, and other related rights.

I may be wrong, I am not an expert in copyright law in any country, but I would like to consider myself competent enough to be able to interpret words written down.
Going by the definition above, it looks to me as I would not be breaking copyright law. I am not copying, denying credit, adapting it into other forms, performing it
for others or financially benefitting it by watching a stream of a video of an episode of Panorama from the BBC website via a place-shifting proxy server.

Pirated music, mp3s downloaded through P2P networks is grey area for me. (Going to extremes here) Is possession of an illegal reproduction of a copyrighted file just
as illegal as possessing an image of a nude child engaged in a sex act (aka kiddy porn)?

I know that if I buy a music cd, rip it and then put those ripped files online for everyone to download would be violating copyright law because I don't have that
"right to copy" as mentioned above. If possession of a copyrighted file (ripped song from cd), but you lost the cd, could that be viewed as a possible pirated song?

For me the streaming bit seems like a grey grey grey area simply because there are no physical evidence (e.g. a file). As for DMCA there isn't anything to take down.

Metaphorically speaking, the closest analogy of this type of service (proxying) that I can of is say you build a house, BT says they will not run a line to your house or
provide telephone service, so you setup a satellite dish (for internet) and use voip instead.

I do have one question (you won't be able to answer)... If the BBC, itv, Chanel 4, etc really really really don't want people watching the content on their websites from outside
of the UK, then why are they putting them on CDNs which place that content in the US as well as the UK?

BTW tvc_h4u, the whole above was from a US standpoint. I realise that US != UK law

Oh, I also wanted to add, for the most part I'm speaking of pre-recorded videos, not rebroadcasting live tv channels.

Or perhaps, if I purchase a Sky digibox, get a freesat card, hack it so I get all of Sky channels. This would be considered theft of service,
not copyright infringement.

BTW, if I've gotten anything wrong, please tell me. Mostly what I'm here for is some nice philosophical debate

[dj_gerbil]

Or perhaps, if I purchase a Sky digibox, get a freesat card, hack it so I get all of Sky channels. This would be considered theft of service,
not copyright infringement.

BTW, if I've gotten anything wrong, please tell me. Mostly what I'm here for is some nice philosophical debate

I believe TVC_Admin covered that one further back. Something about knowingly defeating devices designed to prevent access/reproducing of material. So Yes, it would be seen as theft, especially by Sky.

As for your comment about Live vs Pre-recorded, the only time they are treated as being different is by the TV Licence people. Copyright is Copyright and like I said it all comes down to where the Broadcaster has paid for permission to show it.

[TVC_Admin]

Pirated music, mp3s downloaded through P2P networks is grey area for me. (Going to extremes here) Is possession of an illegal reproduction of a copyrighted file just
as illegal as possessing an image of a nude child engaged in a sex act (aka kiddy porn)?

Downloading to make a copy for your personal purposes is an act exempted from copyright infringment, provided the recording is made in your domestic premises. However, the porn argument cannot apply as it is illegal to own or posess such content whatever the circumstances

I know that if I buy a music cd, rip it and then put those ripped files online for everyone to download would be violating copyright law because I don't have that
"right to copy" as mentioned above. You do have a right to copy for your own personal use only, but not to make available to others. If possession of a copyrighted file (ripped song from cd), but you lost the cd, could that be viewed as a possible pirated song? Nope, but see above

For me the streaming bit seems like a grey grey grey area simply because there are no physical evidence (e.g. a file). As for DMCA there isn't anything to take down. A streamed file is being made available to others without the authority of the owner, thus it is subject to the same copyright law

/snip

I do have one question (you won't be able to answer)... If the BBC, itv, Chanel 4, etc really really really don't want people watching the content on their websites from outside
of the UK, then why are they putting them on CDNs which place that content in the US as well as the UK?

As they have the rights to do as they please, then they can do as they wish within the terms of their license. The CDNs concerned are generally within the UK for UK content, but if they are geo restricting distribution, that will satisfy most conditions.

Sorry for haste, but it's a subject we're pretty clued up about (see my sig)