29 replies to this topic

[lyndonlim]

What do you think?

[automated]

Absolutely not.

[Bus_Boy]

Nup, giving someone your download is like giving them the CD to burn. You can say take this and listen to it, but not copy it.

[CP_]

I don't think the laws care whether you're friends with a person or not!

[wolster]

Nobody on SNA would ever do such a thing.

[bhobba]

Bus-Boy is correct. You can make copies for your own private use and for backup purposes then lend the original to a friend - but they can not make copies. But its a rather fine point in law whether you have given someone something or merely lent it to them.

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 03 July 2012 - 10:47 AM.

[O.Sydney]

isn't it the same thing as lending them a book or magazine to read for a week

[CP_]

OP is talking about giving a download to a friend, which to me sounds like making a copy and relinquishing it. If you were merely transferring the original copy to a friend's computer, and not retaining the original, then technically you'd be safe for sure.

[Batty]

+1 I agree with CP

[O.Sydney]

is that different to a physical book or downloaded say PDF book/ music etc

CP I get where your coming from, just exploring peoples thinking on the distinctions

[GregWormald]

As far as I know the law in Australia does *not* allow you to make backups. The US law does.

If you give, or loan, your music to a friend, then you no longer have a copy yourself--this is legal.

If you make a copy for a friend, that is illegal.

Greg
Willing to be updated about copyright law.

[danter]

Like taping a tv show, who's to know.
I am fine with it.
I know most will take the moral high ground, but I can still sleep at night.

[fordgtlover]

As far as I know the law in Australia does *not* allow you to make backups. The US law does.

If you give, or loan, your music to a friend, then you no longer have a copy yourself--this is legal.

If you make a copy for a friend, that is illegal.

Greg
Willing to be updated about copyright law.

Greg,

It is legal to make a copy for personal use, but not to distribute or to circumvent copy protection. And, it's not legal to keep the copy if you sell, trade or otherwise dispose of your original, but you can lend it to someone in your family without having to delete your other copies.

http://www.comlaw.go...00158/Html/Text

From the Copyright Amendment Act 2006:

Section 109A Copying sound recordings for private and domestic use

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the owner of a copy (the earlier copy) of a sound recording makes another copy (the later copy) of the sound recording using the earlier copy; and

( the sole purpose of making the later copy is the owner’s private and domestic use of the later copy with a device that:

(i) is a device that can be used to cause sound recordings to be heard; and

(ii) he or she owns; and

the earlier copy was not made by downloading over the Internet a digital recording of a radio broadcast or similar program; and

(d) the earlier copy is not an infringing copy of the sound recording, a broadcast or a literary, dramatic or musical work included in the sound recording.

(2) The making of the later copy does not infringe copyright in the sound recording, or in a literary, dramatic or musical work or other subject‑matter included in the sound recording.

(3) Subsection (2) is taken never to have applied if the earlier copy or the later copy is:

(a) sold; or

( let for hire; or

by way of trade offered or exposed for sale or hire; or

(d) distributed for the purpose of trade or otherwise; or

(e) used for causing the sound recording to be heard in public; or

(f) used for broadcasting the sound recording.

Note: If the earlier or later copy is dealt with as described in subsection (3), then copyright may be infringed not only by the making of the later copy but also by a dealing with the later copy.

(4) To avoid doubt, paragraph (3)(d) does not apply to a loan of the earlier copy or the later copy by the lender to a member of the lender’s family or household for the member’s private and domestic use.

Edited by fordgtlover, 03 July 2012 - 03:09 PM.

[LogicprObe]

No.

[GregWormald]

Thanks fordgtlover, I'm glad they have changed that. I always thought that backups and time-shifting should have been legal in the first place. They were anomalies when we adopted the US legislation.

Greg

Edited by GregWormald, 03 July 2012 - 06:02 PM.

[ThirdDrawerDown]

I happily download and share and swap.

After all, I don't think I can download all by myself the 2,500 shows by the Grateful Dead available free at archive.org.


Logicprobe - when you say

No.

I assume you (and others here) are referring to that subset of downloadable materials that are subject to restrictive copyright.

[My post is made on the assumption that the original poster was referring to that subset of downloadable materials under Creative Commons licenses and similar.

As compared with the people who assumed that "downloadable = restrictive copyright"]

Just to be painfully obvious, it is incorrect to assume that all downloadable materials are restrictive copyright. No matter how many multinationals would like us to adopt that lazy way of thinking.

Edited by ThirdDrawerDown, 03 July 2012 - 10:57 PM.

[comfortablynumb]

Greg,

It is legal to make a copy for personal use, but not to distribute or to circumvent copy protection. And, it's not legal to keep the copy if you sell, trade or otherwise dispose of your original, but you can lend it to someone in your family without having to delete your other copies.

http://www.comlaw.go...00158/Html/Text

From the Copyright Amendment Act 2006:

Section 109A Copying sound recordings for private and domestic use

(1) This section applies if:

(a) the owner of a copy (the earlier copy) of a sound recording makes another copy (the later copy) of the sound recording using the earlier copy; and

( the sole purpose of making the later copy is the owner’s private and domestic use of the later copy with a device that:

(i) is a device that can be used to cause sound recordings to be heard; and

(ii) he or she owns; and

the earlier copy was not made by downloading over the Internet a digital recording of a radio broadcast or similar program; and

(d) the earlier copy is not an infringing copy of the sound recording, a broadcast or a literary, dramatic or musical work included in the sound recording.

(2) The making of the later copy does not infringe copyright in the sound recording, or in a literary, dramatic or musical work or other subject‑matter included in the sound recording.

(3) Subsection (2) is taken never to have applied if the earlier copy or the later copy is:

(a) sold; or

( let for hire; or

by way of trade offered or exposed for sale or hire; or

(d) distributed for the purpose of trade or otherwise; or

(e) used for causing the sound recording to be heard in public; or

(f) used for broadcasting the sound recording.

Note: If the earlier or later copy is dealt with as described in subsection (3), then copyright may be infringed not only by the making of the later copy but also by a dealing with the later copy.

(4) To avoid doubt, paragraph (3)(d) does not apply to a loan of the earlier copy or the later copy by the lender to a member of the lender’s family or household for the member’s private and domestic use.

Sheesh......

So recording songs from the radio (most of us did that, didn't we?) was a no-no ?

Surely no-one was going to charge a 10 year old with copyright infringment ?

[danter]

Sheesh......

So recording songs from the radio (most of us did that, didn't we?) was a no-no ?

Surely no-one was going to charge a 10 year old with copyright infringment ?

As was using your VHS to tape TV shows. (or within the audiophile community, Betamax).

At the end of the day, cheap quality streaming of extensive online libraries will be a massive move away from personal 'ownership' - eradicating the need / temptation to download.

[sjay]

FYI our fair use copyright laws are now under review and the report is due in 2013

[a.dent]

As was using your VHS to tape TV shows. (or within the audiophile community, Betamax).

At the end of the day, cheap quality streaming of extensive online libraries will be a massive move away from personal 'ownership' - eradicating the need / temptation to download.

AHHH. Beta.

I had a Sony Hi Fi Beta recorder and put many of my (and friends) CDs on to Beta tapes. It took hours.

The SQ was amazing and I still have all the tapes. Sadly the Sony died about 20 years ago and I did not bother to get it fixed. I wish I still had it.

But yes, I know some of my tapes are illegal and immoral

[CP_]

Logicprobe - when you say

I assume you (and others here) are referring to that subset of downloadable materials that are subject to restrictive copyright.

[My post is made on the assumption that the original poster was referring to that subset of downloadable materials under Creative Commons licenses and similar.

As compared with the people who assumed that "downloadable = restrictive copyright"]

Just to be painfully obvious, it is incorrect to assume that all downloadable materials are restrictive copyright. No matter how many multinationals would like us to adopt that lazy way of thinking.

I assumed this, because I couldn't see any incentive to sharing non-copyrighted material. Ie if your friends could download it at no cost then you don't need to share anyway.

Danter - I respect your honesty

[Kamikaze]

Sheesh......
So recording songs from the radio (most of us did that, didn't we?) was a no-no ?

No it's not.
Copyright Act 1968 as amended:
111 Recording broadcasts for replaying at more convenient time
(1) This section applies if a person makes a cinematograph film or sound recording of a broadcast solely for private and domestic use by watching or listening to the material broadcast at a time more convenient than the time when the broadcast is made.
Note: Subsection 10(1) defines broadcast as a communication to the public delivered by a broadcasting service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
Making the film or recording does not infringe copyright
(2) The making of the film or recording does not infringe copyright in the broadcast or in any work or other subject‑matter included in the broadcast.
Note: Even though the making of the film or recording does not infringe that copyright, that copyright may be infringed if a copy of the film or recording is made.
Dealing with embodiment of film or recording
(3) Subsection (2) is taken never to have applied if an article or thing embodying the film or recording is:
(a) sold; or
( let for hire; or
© by way of trade offered or exposed for sale or hire; or
(d) distributed for the purpose of trade or otherwise; or
(e) used for causing the film or recording to be seen or heard in public; or
(f) used for broadcasting the film or recording.
Note: If the article or thing embodying the film or recording is dealt with as described in subsection (3), then copyright may be infringed not only by the making of the article or thing but also by the dealing with the article or thing.
(4) To avoid doubt, paragraph (3)(d) does not apply to a loan of the article or thing by the lender to a member of the lender’s family or household for the member’s private and domestic use.

What Section 109A is saying, is that:
It's not an offense to copy your CD you own, so long as it's done on a device that you can listen to the CD on. It's an offense if the original is downloaded, or if the original is a recording of a broadcast. If the copy is used for sale, distribution or broadcast, it constitutes an offense.

Edited by Kamikaze, 04 July 2012 - 12:00 PM.

[bhobba]

Surely no-one was going to charge a 10 year old with copyright infringment ?

Don't you believe it. It wasn't a 10 year old but it was I think a 15 year old that got done for - get this - posting a copy of a game not for the purpose of illegally distributing it but to merely show he had it. All his online friends refused to believe he had a copy because they thought it wasn't released yet. It turned out his local store had sold it early but to prove he had it he uploaded a copy. The company accepted he had no intent to distribute but went after him anyway and at the end of the day he was in deep doo doo.

Thanks
Bill

Edited by bhobba, 04 July 2012 - 12:04 PM.

[emesbee]

So, he ripped the game and posted the ripped copy? If that is the case, then he clearly infringed copyright. A bit naiive perhaps, but what 15 year old isn't? Would have been smarter if he just posted a copy of the purchase receipt.

[Kamikaze]

Ignorance is not a mitigating circumstance... It says so in section 22 of criminal code.

[bhobba]

So, he ripped the game and posted the ripped copy? If that is the case, then he clearly infringed copyright. A bit naiive perhaps, but what 15 year old isn't? Would have been smarter if he just posted a copy of the purchase receipt.

That's the point - its obvious he was naive and thats almost the definition of 15 year olds. You would think they would cut him a bit of slack because of it - but no. I saw their reply to the program that aired the story - they accepted he had no intent but wanted to send a message.

Thanks
Bill

[Kamikaze]

I think more 15 years olds do illegal downloads than 40 somethings.
It was a landmark case. In the court of law, there is a thing called precedence. Once you let something go, the subsequent ruling needs to be in line with the severity that the previous cases were treated. The judge needs to treat any landmark cases with care, and with full consideration of the subsequent cases.

Yes, it was naive and may be a little harsh for a 15y.o. but he was stupid to break the law... and as per my previous post, Criminal Code explicitly states that ignorance of the law is not a defence.
Well, he most likely knew it was illegal to upload a copy anyway. He probably just thought no one else gets caught so he can get away with it... also probably lost sight of what he was doing for the bragging rights he was about to claim.
Poor guy. Obviously didn't think of the consequences enough.

Don't toy with illegal up/downloads kids! You could end up like the kid!

[ThirdDrawerDown]

I assumed this, because I couldn't see any incentive to sharing non-copyrighted material. Ie if your friends could download it at no cost then you don't need to share anyway.

I'm envious! This reads like a message from someone who has bandwidth.

[joz]

Nobody on SNA would ever do such a thing.

I whole heartedly agree

[comfortablynumb]

No it's not.
Copyright Act 1968 as amended:
111 Recording broadcasts for replaying at more convenient time
(1) This section applies if a person makes a cinematograph film or sound recording of a broadcast solely for private and domestic use by watching or listening to the material broadcast at a time more convenient than the time when the broadcast is made.
Note: Subsection 10(1) defines broadcast as a communication to the public delivered by a broadcasting service within the meaning of the Broadcasting Services Act 1992.
Making the film or recording does not infringe copyright
(2) The making of the film or recording does not infringe copyright in the broadcast or in any work or other subject‑matter included in the broadcast.
Note: Even though the making of the film or recording does not infringe that copyright, that copyright may be infringed if a copy of the film or recording is made.
Dealing with embodiment of film or recording
(3) Subsection (2) is taken never to have applied if an article or thing embodying the film or recording is:
(a) sold; or
( let for hire; or
© by way of trade offered or exposed for sale or hire; or
(d) distributed for the purpose of trade or otherwise; or
(e) used for causing the film or recording to be seen or heard in public; or
(f) used for broadcasting the film or recording.
Note: If the article or thing embodying the film or recording is dealt with as described in subsection (3), then copyright may be infringed not only by the making of the article or thing but also by the dealing with the article or thing.
(4) To avoid doubt, paragraph (3)(d) does not apply to a loan of the article or thing by the lender to a member of the lender’s family or household for the member’s private and domestic use.

What Section 109A is saying, is that:
It's not an offense to copy your CD you own, so long as it's done on a device that you can listen to the CD on. It's an offense if the original is downloaded, or if the original is a recording of a broadcast. If the copy is used for sale, distribution or broadcast, it constitutes an offense.

Thats a relief !!!

Now I can remain pissed off at the radio DJ for talking over the front of the song I had waited all evening to tape !!!