using this site to inform

[forest]

I know this site is about permaculture but I believe that encompasses "life", therefore almost anything is a valid topic for discussion here.

I don't watch much TV, I never read TV guides. I would have loved to see the Morgan Spurlock doco discussed in the other thread. I didn't know it was on.

I'd love it if those of you who know about these TV programs before they're on would let the rest of us know. It's a form of education, the town crier who yells out relevant infomation that will impact our lives.

:duckie: :duckie: :duckie: :duckie: :duckie: :duckie: :duckie: :duckie:

[Jez]

The "Super-Size" doco (is that the one you're referring to?) is currently playing on rotation if you know someone who has Austar/Foxtel Forest. It only recently premiered so it should run for another couple of months.

Alternately, some intrepid soul who values the free dissemination of important information to all above copyright laws could provide you with a copy if you so desired... :D

[Tamandco]

Alternately, some intrepid soul who values the free dissemination of important information to all above copyright laws could provide you with a copy if you so desired... :D

Jez, please explain. I had offered to send my copy to a couple of people. I won't do this if it's unethical. I had no idea what I was doing was wrong. After all, I did see it on free to air.

Thanks,
Tam

[earthbound]

Theoretically you can't even record free to air tv Tam...... But ssssshhhhhhhhhh........ I didn't hear a word.......... :D :D

[Jez]

Jez, please explain. I had offered to send my copy to a couple of people. I won't do this if it's unethical. I had no idea what I was doing was wrong. After all, I did see it on free to air.

Thanks,
Tam


I don't know where to start Tam... :lol:

Ethics and legality are often different...and both are mighty flexible. As Joel says it's illegal to record free to air TV...is it unethical or "wrong?" That's probably best decided by each of us at a personal level. It can also probably be construed as illegal for you to rent a DVD and have it running somewhere in the background it at a party with too many people in attendance, even if it was just your kids watching in a room totally disconnected from the party.

It is illegal to store more than (I think) 9 cartons of beer on your property without a liquor license according to some archaic law from a bygone era that hasn't been enforced for over a century.

There's some bizarre laws out there if you look hard enough for 'em!

All I can say is that personally speaking, I don't believe that you recording a free to air TV show and loaning it to a few friends who missed it is "wrong" or "unethical" - I think it's perfectly reasonable. It is illegal...but highly unlikely to be enforced.

Does that help clear things up at all Tam?

[forest]

Yikes! I just reread my post. I didn't mean to sound so school-marmish. Forgive me one and all. I'm a happy spirit, not an accusatory one. :oops:

Jez, the doco I was referring to was 30 Days. I think it must have been on SBS. I actually went to the cinema to watch Super Size me. It was a wonderful piece of Americana.

Tam, when confronted with an issue like this, I think about the owner of the copyright. "Would he mind if I recorded his program to share with others." I'm pretty sure that in this instance he would want everyone who was interested to watch 30 Days. I'm assuming, of course, that he alone owns the copyright. But as with all matters of ethics, the call is yours alone.

[seussrules]

Forest, I think the doco series you're talking about was aired on the Ten Network? On the matter of copyright hoo-ha, it is legal to copy free to air material for the purposes of education (although this is strictly regulated). Heaps of university libraries these days copy free to air material and then make it digitally available to staff and students. If you know anyone with a university connection, this is a good way to get legal access to copyright materials.

On the issue of ethics, I'm of two minds about this. Yes, I agree that many filmakers etc are probably more concerned with making sure that their creations are shared and seen than strict adherance to copyright law (which probably serves interests other than their own, for the most part), it is a little depressing that, in this country at least, arts and cultural professionals are the lowest paid, the least likely to be employed in their area of qualification, and the most likely to be in short term insecure employment than any other professional group (of course, I don't think Morgan S. is in this situation!). One of the ways to ameliorate this is to make sure that their 'products' are valued and remunerated. Just some Sunday morning musings.... :?

[forest]

seussrules, you're preaching to the converted here. I've earned my living as a writer for the past 20 years and have been involved with the reality of copyright infringement over those years.

Copying free to air TV for the purpose of research or education is allowed only in part. Whole programs (or entire books in the case of print) are not supposed to be recorded and if it goes to court, the emphasis will be on whether there was a freely available version of the program available for sale. Universities are another story. They pay copyright fees to Screenrights which is seen as a blanket payment to producers of the works.

As for me and the recorded DVD, I don't have much patience with TV nowadays so I doubt I'd bother with a DVD. If I caught the program first time around, fine, but anything else is not worth the bother.

[murray]

in the last 3 days i read an article about this but damned if i can find it now. a guy was trying to buy a recording of what had been broadcast for his friends and called warner or disney (can't remember which) to buy a recording.

he received the reply:


"unfortunately [big media company name] does not sell or in any way provide recordings of what we broadcast. we encourage you to give your friends a videotape of the indicated material."

maybe this will be retracted by the company's lawyers soon for fear of creating a precedent on "fair use", but maybe not.

it really is just a tug of war between fair use and rights management.

- fair use says i should be allowed to make a backup recording of a CD i bought. rights management stops me.
- fair use says i oughta be able to install some software on my laptop as well as my main computer, but most rights management software stops that.
- fair use says that if i buy a music track from iTunes, i should be able to get it back again free should my house burn down. but i can't.
- fair use says that if i record a TV show on my TiVo (digital recorder sold in USA), i should be able to keep a show i recorded for as long as i like. unfortunately it's the TV execs who tell TiVo how long to allow YOU to keep your shows. (they are auto-deleted after an arbitrary length of time that you don't know...)

so, it certainly seems that they're using rights management as a way to GIVE YOU FAIR USE, piece by expensive piece, and making a business model out of it. you want to make a backup of XYZ? sure - that's a bit extra. you want to keep that episode of Sex and the City for an extra 6 months, well, that's a premium subscription.

the even worse part is....

because big media companies can't get the copyright law changed to stop "fair use", they are now shielding their content (that you paid for, by the way) behind digital rights management software (DRM software) that's protected by encryption. and unfortunately, it's now a federal crime under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) in the US, Australia, Canda and in many other countries to get around that encryption.

so, companies put trivial encryption around content to stop fair use of their content.

what really ticks me off is that these companies seemingly can't make up their mind whether digital content is evil or not, and hypocritically casts it as a strawman as and when it suits their purposes.

here's a summary of Sony's positions over the past 12 months:

- mp3 = bad.. anyone who has mp3 of our music is a pirate and needs to go to jail.
- iTunes = good.. we're happy selling our AAC DRM protected music through Apple at 99c per track.
- iTunes = bad.. we now want more than 99c per track for some music
- DRM = good.. we will not put "rootkit" exploits on every one of our music CDs that effective cripple our customers' computers [link1 (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/14/sony_anticustomer_te.html)] [link2 (http://www.boingboing.net/2005/11/17/sony_rootkit_roundup.html)]
- (when customers find out about it) ... "DRM is bad!" sorry! we'll make it up to you by giving you the content in Mp3 format!!!
- which leads us too... mp3 = good?

*sigh*

i can't keep up any more.

so, i guess my point (and i did have one), was taping a TV program for friends is fair use, is supported by legal precedent and you shouldn't have any hesitation doing it.

cheerz