Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Buffalo2102
Not wishing to be a prude but we're getting a bit close to promoting/encouraging piracy here aren't we?
|
Home recording of programmes you legally receive as a broadcast, for later personal use, is a long-established custom in the UK - so long established, that even though it is technically not covered by our copyright law, I believe it is essentially unchallengeable in court. Custom is as powerful as statute in English law.
Broadcasting Macrovision signals along with a broadcast may be an attempt to enforce the letter of the law but in my opinion that particular horse bolted many years ago and I don't think anybody could be successfully prosecuted for it. Copyright is copyright. You can't pick and choose what you want to enforce. The studios and broadcasters have been choosing not to enforce for the best part of 30 years now.
To complicate matters slightly, there is a European law that forbids sale of any kit whose design and purpose is to circumvent copyright. One of the broadcasters threatened Maplins a couple of years ago because they were selling Macrovision removers - even though, if you are a home cinema enthusiast, the primary reason you want a Macrovision remover is because Macrovision mucks up the picture on large displays, especially if there's a SCART splitter in your set-up. Maplin apparently backed down to avoid a costly court battle, not because they believed they were doing anything illegal.
In point of fact, I don't think Maplin were doing anything illegal. IMO, any attempt to prosecute someone using a Macrovision remover at home would fail on two points:
1. The copyright protecting a macrovision-protected broadcast is exactly the same as the copyright that protects a non-macrovision broadcast. If you want to prosecute one, you have to prosecute the lot. No court in the UK is going to be prepared to criminalise every man, woman and granny for taping a programme to watch later.
2. The European law that prompted Maplin to stop selling Macrovision removers was framed to prevent deliberate circumvention of copyright. Yet despite the above, the primary purpose of such a device is to improve picture quality, not to circuimvent copyright. So no go for a prosecution there either.
The defence rests, m'lud.
