Home Forums General Discussion Consumers: Piracy isn’t a crime Reply To: Consumers: Piracy isn’t a crime

#22721
Anonymous
Inactive

I dont think there is anything educational about the copyright ads shown before movies. I don’t think they are helpful, and I’m not even sure they are factually correct.[/quote:00c99e85c1]

To the uninitiated, I believe that at least the message is eductional.
To the initiated, it serves as a notice pre-the presentation.

Maybe I’m wrong here, but don’t we under Irish law have the right to copy certain percentages of a copyright work, for many reasons – for example private study?
That’s how I read http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000S50.html
anyway. (Obviously I am not a lawyer – I may well have misread this. Have we got a copyright lawyer handy here?)[/quote:00c99e85c1]

There are statutory exceptions to copyright infringement, which would not absolve you from infrigement, just lessen the impact of a finding of infringement against you. Generally, it hinges on whether you are infringing for profit or not. In light of MGM v Grokster, even free P2P distribution (wherein you upload the screener but do not charge or ‘trade’ for it) may be construed as a primary infringement.

But assuming the interpation is correct true, then there are scenarios where it would be perfectly legal to record some of a movie in the cinema.[/quote:00c99e85c1]

None. Only ‘accidental’ as you imply further on in:

For example, it’s also possible that one might want to take a video or photo of a friend, in the cinema, possibly catching a screen of the movie in the background, or possibly not. In these cases, it appears you would not be committing a crime, in Ireland?
If this is so, then the scaremongering advertisments before movies are at least misleading, and at worst outright lies.[/quote:00c99e85c1]

But even then, a Court might find a case of infringement against you, depending on the ‘substantiality’ of the amount of the work (movie) copied. Which could be an hour or 10 seconds…

By way of example, say we’re talking about Spielberg’s War of the Worlds: he’s been at pains from not releasing a single shot pre- or post-production of what the aliens look like, before Theater Release.

You happen to see a pre-release Work-In-Progress, take a snapshot of an alien in a frame (= 0.04 second at 23 FPS) with your camera phone = primary infringement.

It’s only a 23rd of a second, but there is a strong likelihood that this info will be considered very substantial, given the importance deemed by the author.

I dont believe wholesale copyright infringment is a good thing. Neither do I believe that using what are oft percieved as bullying tactics, or providing misinformation to the public, helps anyone.[/quote:00c99e85c1]

It isn’t misinformation. But let’s put those ads in context: the primer is the (nowadays automatic) release P2P screeners, the purpose is to establish that ‘notice was served’ if & when it goes to court, and the message is simply to make people aware that

(i) they’re not supposed to record the presentation, because doing so constitutes primary infringement, and
(ii) they’re not supposed to download or buy pirated stuff, because doing so constitutes secondary infringement, and
(iii) in both cases, ingorance does not provide any defense anyhow.

I mean, really, most people have cameras on their phones these days. Which are pieces of recording equipment. Are they committing a crime if they bring this into the cinema, as the ‘fact’ ads would seem to suggest?[/quote:00c99e85c1]

Not if they don’t record the movie. A simple-enough concept to grasp, even for sub-50 IQs :wink:

They are advertising it as if it were a legal fact, threatening us with ejection from the cinema, or prosecution. They even enourage audience members to be vigilent… even for camera phones?[/quote:00c99e85c1]

And so your point is… :?:

I think the notices are quite ridiculous, in many ways… I certainly wouldn’t call them educational.[/quote:00c99e85c1]

See earlier in this post :)