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


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:0f307978ab]
None. Only ‘accidental’ as you imply further on in: [/quote:0f307978ab]

Interesting to hear a more informed opinion on the subject! You are saying there are never cases where it’s ok to record any of a movie, from a copyright point of view, even for personal study etc, if I understand correctly.

This is very interesting to know, as it’s not what I, and others I’ve spoken to would have thought.
Thanks for the information, which does substantially affect/negate the points I was exploring.

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.[/quote:0f307978ab]

Again, interesting to know. I find the legal text I linked to quite confusing in this case. I know, I have no legal training, so I’m not supposed to be able to read it. Still, I’d like to explore it here, as it was where I got my initial impressions from, and in case I’m misreading something obvious.

So it says firstly that fair dealing would not infringe copyright:
“Fair dealing… …shall not infringe any copyright in the work.”

And that fair dealing was using the work in such a way that it wouldn’t hurt the owner of the copyright.
“In this Part, “fair dealing” means the making use of … work … which has already been lawfully made available to the public, for a purpose and to an extent which will not unreasonably prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright.”

I’m over my head here, and I guess what hurts the owner of the copyright is probably well defined elsewhere.

But is taking a shot of the cinema, including the movie, with a camera phone, really prejudicing the interests of the owner? Especially if it’s just for personal use?

The reason I would like to know this, is because if it is legally acceptable to do so, then I would argue that the notices – whatever their real purpose (removing the ability to plead ignorance later etc) – are still misleading.

Again, obviously there’s a lot of legal nuance I’m ignorant of here, as you say that there are no scenarios where it’s legally to record (even incidentally) a portion of the movie.

Oh well, I guess my point would then fall to being that laws are written confusingly for the non-initiated. Nothing new established there, I suppose. :-|

Are they committing a crime if they bring this into the cinema, as the ‘fact’ ads would seem to suggest?[/quote:0f307978ab]

Not if they don’t record the movie. A simple-enough concept to grasp, even for sub-50 IQs Wink[/quote:0f307978ab]

I think we still have another issue regarding the notices there.

It’s very hard to argue definitively about without the text of one of the notices, which I can’t seem to find online (does anyone have a copy?).

But anyway, I recall getting the distinct impression that the notices said that possession of any recording device would be taken as intent to pirate (or something to that effect).
This, at least, would be misleading?

Legally, could posession of a recording device (again, using our pathelogical cameraphone example) be taken as intent to infringe copyright?
This is what I recall the notice stating.

If that’s the case, then either
A) possesion of a cameraphone cannot be taken as intent to infringe, in which case the notice is broken
B) posession of a cameraphone can be taken as intent to infringe, in which case question perhaps need to be asked about the law.

So, in summary:
*Thanks for the information, it clears up some misconceptions I had about the law, which meant a lot of my argument was invalid.
*I still find it hard to believe from reading the legalise, that there are no circumstances where you can record small amounts of a movie without infrigning copyright.
*I dont actually know anything about legalese, so thats to be expected.
*On a seperate point, I dont think the ‘any recording device = attempted infringment’ style of the notices, which I think is very dubious.