V+ : Download Recordings off a Samsung V+ box

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by caph

Stuart, are you sure about this? I know that section 27 sub-section 6 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows "making a single accessible copy for personal use". Are you saying there has been amendment to this particular clause? I can't seem to find one but I'm no expert on law, I just know the basics, but I would appreciate knowing the latest score regarding all this.

Or are you talking about grabbing the HD content and distributing it? In which case, yes it's definitely illegal. In my case I want to grab the hi-def MOTD highlights of United beating Man U, and I only want to keep it for myself, so there will be no infringement in this respect because I will delete the copy on my Tivo to free up space once I've copied it to my NAS box. I doubt it is something that will ever be released on a Blu-Ray so other than resorting to illegally downloading a torrent, I believe the HDFury/HD PVR combination is currently my only legal (but very expensive) option.

the copyright law is exploited by users wanting to have legal copy and the companies who it is meant to protect exploiting to make more money

the entire law needs to be rewritten for the modern age it is far out of date, but ever time it might happen it always favouring the the holder to make more money there will be a cahne sometiem this year that will make it legal to copy form pvr or even a blu-ray/dvd a copy for your use on your own devices with no drm but the holder are trying to block it because people can exploit it

what needs to be done is for the holder to modernise and make everything avaialble online as digital download/dvd/bluray etc at a reasonable subscription price that has unlimited access but also optiosn for limited numebr per month as i say the price has to be reasonable

seocnd the law they passed to prosecuted illegal downloader or fielsharer need to be changed to protect user and not use ip as ameans, there other better ways to identify the user but nothing is 100% relible apart from checking the user hard disks, once the above system is in place they then target uploader and downloaders because then everyth8ng will be available legally for download ata good price and anyone still doign it illegaly are trying to defruad the holder just now 60% of illegal downloads i woudl say aint available in dvd/bluray form so it is part the reason people do it, but people also do it to see if they will liek it before they buy it i say there is about 10% of the user downloading who dnt ever want to pay and those are the ones that need to be prosected

---------- Post added at 12:05 ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 ----------

Originally Posted by spiderplant

"accessible" is the key word here (see section 31A). It is in relation to making copies for the visually impaired. For example, if you bought a book but the print was too small for you to read, you would be permitted to make a copy with larger print if a large-print version wasn't commercially available.

I'm not going to enquire into your personal circumstances, but I can't think of any way that having a DVD copy would let you access a recording that you couldn't access on the TiVo.

In general, the only lawful copies you can make in a domestic environment are for time-shifting purposes. Your TiVo already meets that requirement.

acutally the law is black in that area about timeshifting, techically pvrs/dvd recorder etc are illegal but because it is seen they cant be copied then they dnt try to get them banne die the copyright holders but i agree with what your saying

[caph]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

"accessible" is the key word here (see section 31A). It is in relation to making copies for the visually impaired. For example, if you bought a book but the print was too small for you to read, you would be permitted to make a copy with larger print if a large-print version wasn't commercially available.

OK, so is it section 70 relating to time shifting that applies in this case? If so then moving it from the Tivo to my NAS for the purposes of watching it later would still comply with this section, so I'm still not breaking the law.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------

Originally Posted by Andrewcrawford23

what needs to be done is for the holder to modernise and make everything avaialble online as digital download/dvd/bluray etc at a reasonable subscription price that has unlimited access but also optiosn for limited numebr per month as i say the price has to be reasonable

Here's hoping.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by caph

OK, so is it section 70 relating to time shifting that applies in this case? If so then moving it from the Tivo to my NAS for the purposes of watching it later would still comply with this section, so I'm still not breaking the law.

---------- Post added at 12:54 ---------- Previous post was at 12:50 ----------



Here's hoping.

movign it to the nas in there eyes is breaking the law, but the big thing they need to sotp doing it claimign it is a criminal offense it is civil offense only that what annoys me the most about the rights holder claiming criminality when it civil it is only criminatily when yoru makign money from it

but as i say tehcincally moving it is illegal jsut now, i nee do double check but i think the chang eint he law is meant to happen middle this year and then it wouldnt be illegal it be legal so long as you never share it

not accusing you of file sharing just stating what would and would not break the law when it is amended assuming it is

[caph]

Originally Posted by Andrewcrawford23

movign it to the nas in there eyes is breaking the law

It doesn't say that in section 70 though. It just says I am allowed to make a copy of the program (with no differentiation between SD and HD) for the purposes of watching it later and no time limit is specified. It makes no mention of not being able to transfer that program from one device to another (which in effect is just making a copy of the program for the purposes of watching it later) which means it is allowed unless there is another restricting clause or some amendment to the law that you know of? It is just the same as having a VCR with HDD and moving a program from the HDD to a tape.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by caph

It doesn't say that in section 70 though. It just says I am allowed to make a copy of the program (with no differentiation between SD and HD) for the purposes of watching it later and no time limit is specified. It makes no mention of not being able to transfer that program from one device to another (which in effect is just making a copy of the program for the purposes of watching it later) which means it is allowed unless there is another restricting clause or some amendment to the law that you know of? It is just the same as having a VCR with HDD and moving a program from the HDD to a tape.

there is but i cant remember it off the topic of my head there to many clauses but as i say it changing

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by caph

Stuart, are you sure about this? I know that section 27 sub-section 6 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 allows "making a single accessible copy for personal use". Are you saying there has been amendment to this particular clause? I can't seem to find one but I'm no expert on law, I just know the basics, but I would appreciate knowing the latest score regarding all this.

I'm no expert either, nor have I ever claimed to be, but I would argue that by allowing you to archive a Standard Def copy of HD content, they are allowing you to make a single accessible copy for personal use.

But, regardless of what the law says, the restrictions VM place are probably a condition of their agreements to carry content on behalf of the providers..

[caph]

Originally Posted by Stuart

It is a copyright issue

But you said that copying HD off the Tivo was an infringement of copyright. I was just wondering what you based this on?

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by caph

But you said that copying HD off the Tivo was an infringement of copyright. I was just wondering what you based this on?

probally based on teh fact that copying the cotent is a inringment even for personal use, but as i said before it acivil offnce a court wouldnt really do much other than warn not to do it again, it very veyr unlikely you will eb cgased for copying it for perosnal use but the stupid laws are in holder court and make it ilegal (dnt forget jsut cause something is illegal doesnt mean it wrong just against the law your breaking)

you really hsould look into some of the things in ameria where people who can download hd copies have some for perosnal use but most other are for file ssharing and teh holder just go nuts its sad thing because as i have said they coudl easily make mroe money if they jsut realised ther ethe ones that are screwed up

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by caph

But you said that copying HD off the Tivo was an infringement of copyright. I was just wondering what you based this on?

The fact the copyright law does not, with some exceptions, allow you to copy copyrighted material, and the bulk of the stuff shown on TV is copyrighted.

My point actually wasn't so much what the law says, more that regardless of what the law says, the media companies seem happy to tolerate low quality copies, hence them allowing archiving to DVD/VCR, but only via a Composite connection.

[caph]

Originally Posted by Stuart

The fact the copyright law does not, with some exceptions, allow you to copy copyrighted material, and the bulk of the stuff shown on TV is copyrighted.

Stuart, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 inclusive of the latest revisions specifically DOES allow you to copy copyrighted material for private and domestic use. See here. When you say it is a copyright issue, are you basing that on anything concrete that you can provide a link to? Andrew doesn't seem to be able to, maybe you have the link?

[spiderplant]

Section 70 allows you to record a broadcast, as defined in section 6. Which is what your TiVo does. But a recording on your TiVo is not a broadcast, so you can not copy it again.
To do so would be an infringement as defined in section 17.

[Andrewcrawford23]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Section 70 allows you to record a broadcast, as defined in section 6. Which is what your TiVo does. But a recording on your TiVo is not a broadcast, so you can not copy it again.
To do so would be an infringement as defined in section 17.

correct nto sure of the ection myself but i know that is what it does say, as i say it a civil offence max penalty £5000 decided bya judge who determines to waht extent your trying to break the law

the copyright holder will claim it is acriminal offence but unless the law ha cahnge in teh last frew years which is hasnt it not unless oyru making profit form it then it criminal

[caph]

Originally Posted by spiderplant

Section 70 allows you to record a broadcast, as defined in section 6. Which is what your TiVo does. But a recording on your TiVo is not a broadcast, so you can not copy it again.
To do so would be an infringement as defined in section 17.

I see where you're coming from on this but I want to move it, not copy it. The law makes no reference at all to moving it, only copying it. There will still be a single copy for me to watch at a later time. I would say your conclusion of infringement is tenuous at best here. Next you'll be saying that SMART technology which is making copies of data as bad sectors die is violating copyright! But thanks for being the only person to make any attempt at a viable argument here, it's definitely worthy of consideration. In cases where the law is lacking, the judge will extrapolate from the spirit of the law. In this case the law intends for us to be able to make and keep a copy (multiple if we record on multiple devices) of a public broadcast to view at a later date and I would be complying with this so I think that moving the recording from the Tivo to a NAS would be in keeping with the spirit of the law. Until a prosecution in this regard is brought (which I think we can all agree it won't be), we will never know.

I think an important factor that we are all overlooking is that the law makes no distinction between SD and HD. HDD Video recorder combos have been around a long time with no copy protection. These can be no more illegal than HDFury surely.

HDFury is essentially sold under the guarantee that you won't break the law with it and will only use it with content you own (like a camcorder). Just like DVD ripping programs.

Not that anyone abides by that.

[caph]

Originally Posted by Jameseh

HDFury is essentially sold under the guarantee that you won't break the law with it and will only use it with content you own (like a camcorder). Just like DVD ripping programs.

Not that anyone abides by that.

As we've already covered, the HD Fury can perfectly legitimately copy the live HD output from a linear channel broadcast through the Tivo to a PC or laptop in unencrypted format. The law explicity allows this (see previous link).

What spiderplant is saying is that a recording on the Tivo HDD can't legitimately be moved to a NAS box. See my previous reply for my response to this in relation to the spirit of the law.

[Edit] Also VM T&Cs say the following is not permitted - "a. copying or recording all or any part of the television services or premium television services except as may be permitted by law for your own private, domestic and non-commercial use (and if this kind of copying becomes illegal in the future you must stop doing it);"

My bold. So there are no additional considerations with regards VM T&Cs as was previously hinted at by Stuart.