Re: DRM legal advice
"Anthony W. Youngman" <debian@thewolery.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <[🔎] 49ae6b15.fqYBgCVYp1iG7H3c%mjr@phonecoop.coop>, MJ Ray
> <mjr@phonecoop.coop> writes [...]
> >Do the copyright terms of things on iplayer actually have expiry
> >dates, or is that something merely enforced by technical measures on
> >some of the download methods?
>
> If I've got it right, the "play on demand" files are deleted (or at
> least made inaccessible) on the server after 7 days. The downloaded
> files cannot be played after 30 days, so I would *hope* iPlayer deletes
> them rather than leaving them around ...
Where did 7 and 30 days come from? The terms I just found at
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_iplayer/termscon
say "5. In order to meet the BBC's obligations to rights holders, the
BBC will embed downloadable BBC with digital rights management
security. The expiry date for the BBC Content that you download will
vary according to the agreements BBC has with rights holders of that
content. BBC Content will be automatically deleted from your computer
once its expiry date has been reached."
Does the BBC Content downloaded by get-iplayer have such an embedded
expiry date?
I don't know whether those terms apply to the BBC Content if used
alone, or only if used in combination with BBC's Download Manager.
> >Aren't we allowed reasonable timeshifting for limited purposes?
> >(Why should get-iplayer be treated differently to recording the same
> >things off of VirginMedia's on-demand service?)
>
> Define "reasonable". How long is a piece of string?
I looked it up and "reasonable" for this is "solely for the purpose of
enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time"
(Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 1988 (c.48) section 70).
http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk (when will they offer nice permalinks?)
I think it's not for us to quantify "reasonable" in software here.
> >Wouldn't the above data loss be a grave bug in the sense of
> >http://www.debian.org/Bugs/Developer#severities ?
> >Refusing to play would be better, although get-iplayer doesn't
> >necessarily do the playback, so I'm not sure that's feasible.
> >
> If get-iplayer doesn't do any playback, then I'm not sure there's any
> way to enforce the restrictions.
I've been playing back the downloads in Totem because that was what
happened by default. get-iplayer could scan downloads whenever it's
run, but wouldn't that be a grave bug?
> But if get-iplayer is meant to emulate iplayer, then I wouldn't call
> emulating its "delete out-of-date files" a bug - a "feature" maybe, but
> I still think respecting other peoples' copyrights and conditions by
> default is the correct way to go ...
It's not at all clear to me which conditions apply here: the iPlayer
terms, the statements in the CDP Act or something else? Timeshifting
doesn't fail to respect their copyright - our law explicitly says it's
not infringement.
Hope that explains,
--
MJR/slef
My Opinion Only: see http://people.debian.org/~mjr/
Please follow http://www.uk.debian.org/MailingLists/#codeofconduct
Reply to: