[ubuntu-uk] The BBC Launches Wiiplayer??? WHAT!?

[Andy]

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