[nzlug] PCWorld Anti Piracy

[Simon Bridge]

On Tue, 2008-01-08 at 09:31 +1300, Nick Rout wrote:

> A bad article I agree.
> 
> There are offences against the Copyright Act, punishable by imprisonment
> of up to 5 years. That puts it pretty much on a par with theft.

I am sure there are crimes punishable on a par with murder that don't
actually involve killing someone. Shall we say that those crimes are the
same as murder?


>  But look
> at the importing provision (s 131(1)(b)) - does a bittorrenter who
> "imports" the latest episode of "Heroes" do so solely for his own private
> & domestic use? Probably not because he also copies it to others (thats
> how BT works). See also paragraph (1)(f) which does not require a
> commercial or business element.
> 
In any form of download, surely, multiple copies get created?
I'd like to argue that the bittorrenter is part of a transport
mechanism. Physically, it would be like a group of people banding
together to import in bulk - they each get one copy despite importing a
box load. Each copy is for personal use of a different individual. Or,
perhaps I buy six disks to give away as gifts?

However, the point is valid: the existing copyright wording does not sit
well with the way computers and the internet actually work. How many
copies can a computer make while playing a media file? In law? In
practise?

> The problem with equating copyright infringement and "theft", from a legal
> point of view, is that our legal concepts of theft have traditionally
> dealt with physical things, not intangibles like intellectual property. In
> fact electricity is something that is specifically mentioned in the
> legislation as being "capable of being stolen", because traditionally you
> couldn't steal it.

For me to steal from you, you need to be poorer as a result.
I copy your data, you still have the data. If I sell it as my own work,
or without giving you credit, you lose the prestige or reputation (also
the blame) that would otherwise result. But have I *stolen* it from you?
You never had it after all. How can I steal something that exists only
in potentia?

These are common philosophical issues for lawyers and is why this sort
of activity is not covered by theft laws.

OTOH: if someone acts in such a way as to reduce my income, I'd be
upset. Aso - the person selling copies of a movie did not pay the
production cost of the movie - if they don't contribute to it they get a
free ride. That's pretty upsetting too.

> Is it OK to obtain a copy of a show produced by a
> rich US media conglomerate, but not OK to copy an album by a struggling NZ
> independent band? I know plenty of people who think like that and will
> always buy their NZ music, but will download US and UK TV programmes and
> movies willy nilly. That seems to involve a pretty narrow view of
> morality.

Somewhat the wrong way around - distributing copies of an obscure band's
work increases their market presence and has been known to boost sales
of recordings of their work. There have been bands boosted to "the big
time" by free exposure on YouTube.

Another effect has been that some copied TV programs have increased the
market for the show - people living in places the show is not licensed
get to see the show, and have been known to pressure their local media
stations to license the show. And other shows like it. A market thus
opened up which would otherwise not exist.

So is that theft?

The obvious case is that a movie copied by me is revenue lost by the
film maker. It implies that I would otherwise have purchased it.

To claim a loss due to this activity, it should be possible to
demonstrate a decline in returns as easy copying technology became
available.

IIRC: MPA members suffered a declining trend in profits leading up to
the boom in online sharing and show a steady gain since.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/news/e3ic5575a8c4f61aadd68a0d344f476d5da

> 
> Sect 131 follows, sorry about the setting out, go to
> http://www.legislation.govt.nz if you want to see it set out better.
> 

Not too bat really - lets see, I get to infringe a copyright it's
private 

I can possess infringing material in the course of a business provided I
don't plan on commiting an infringing act.

Hmmm... seems I can distribute if it's not in the course of a business,
but I'm not allowed to sell, hire etc. If I give it away that's fine?

> (f)Distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an
> extent as to affect prejudicially the copyright owner—
> 
Ah - so it would need to be shown that me doing this bad for the owner.

> an object that is, and that the person knows is, an infringing copy of a
> copyright work.
> 
Ignorance is a defense.

> (2)Every person commits an offence against this section who—
> 
> (a)Makes an object specifically designed or adapted for making copies of a
> particular copyright work; or
> 
> (b)Has such an object in that person's possession,—
> 
So a dvd burner dosn't count - not specific. What about dvd::rip - is
this an "object"? What is it's specifig purpose - perhaps I want to use
it to rip the openSUSE DVD - but it is capable of ripping Seone's
Wedding.

Intent seems to count here.

> knowing that the object is to be used to make infringing copies for sale
> or hire or for use in the course of a business.

Ahhh... but making copies for personal use is OK.

> 
> (3)Subject to subsection (4) of this section, every person commits an
> offence against this section who—
> 
> (a)Causes a literary, dramatic, or musical work to be performed, where
> that performance infringes copyright in that work; or
> 
> (b)Causes a sound recording or film to be played in public or shown in
> public, where that playing or showing infringes copyright in that sound
> recording or film,—
> 
> knowing that copyright in the work or, as the case requires, the sound
> recording or film would be infringed by that performance or, as the case
> requires, that playing or that showing.

Oooh... so the late night parties better turn the music down then?

> 
> (4)Nothing in subsection (3) of this section applies in respect of
> infringement of copyright by the reception of a broadcast or cable
> programme.
Too loud radios are OK? Or is it the opposite - if it is a broadcast
program you cannot copy for personal use?

> 
> [(5)Every person who commits an offence against this section is liable on
> … conviction—

... spells out the punishment.

Isn't there something about being able to recode media if the owner
refuses to provide a copy I can use?

> >
> > Sharing unlicensed copies online is asserted as a "sister evil" to
> > pornography.
> >
> 
> Some say pornography isn't evil of itself, only if it infringes the three
> main legal taboos (kids, animals, violence).
> 
ideas and things cannot be evil - that is a property of "thing people
do".

> >
> > Does say that MPANZ represents *US* movie studios, not NZ movie studios..
> > Does point out alternative methods of discouraging copyright
> > infringement. (Re. BBC + YouTube etc.)
> >
> 
> AFAIK BBC still only allows downloads from windows boxes in the UK and is
> DRM'd. Youtube is a poky little low quality version of anything. OK for
> most of the homemade trash on there - coke bottles with mint lollies
> exploding etc - but i wouldn't want my fix of Dr Who on it.

Yes - XP and DRM. I think TVNZ does something similar.
YouTube seems OK for Mythbusters though.

I think we'll see increased experimentation with alternative business
models. Thisall will serve to muddy the waters further.