BBC's Fair Traiding Commitment

[RC45]

I'll use my 3,000th post to agree with my great debating opponent on this one... ;)

[gigdy]

i get the feeling jabba knows what hes doing. you dont ofen become as successful as he has by going blindly into things.

but just for debate.

it does say for your own personal use and im sure they could turn sharing it on a website as going against that.

[RC45]

it does say for your own personal use and im sure they could turn sharing it on a website as going against that.

Not really - there is also allowed "fair use" of excerpts for demonstration and preview.

[gigdy]

gigdy wrote:
it does say for your own personal use and im sure they could turn sharing it on a website as going against that.


Not really - there is also allowed "fair use" of excerpts for demonstration and preview.


so if i watched a vid because jabba or you or some one wanted to show me how to drift a cgt that could be acceptable?

[RC45]

Even easier - there is (as far as I understand) nothing wrong with me taping a segment from TV or VHS or DVD and watching that - or even showing you or my other friends in the context of my own original production that would showcase said content.

As an example, as a car enthusiast I could start a website, on which I store these segments and samples and show them to a select few friends associates as part of my own original work.

As long as in my work I do not take credit for these segments or charge any amount to view them - other than (if I did - charged a fee for you to view my original content).

Much like a movie or book review club can Xerox chapters of the book being reviewed for the club members.

That is MY understanding of a valid legal use of someone elses copy in a fair use situation.

The legal-eagles among us feel free to correct any misinterpretation I may have made.

[gigdy]

makes sense to me. i used to go to one site that had scans of victoria secret. and it was shutdown by vs. however i think that might have been done since he was asking for donations for bandwidth. (tho im rather sure that was why he wanted the money)


Much like a movie or book review club can Xerox chapters of the book being reviewed for the club members.


i think u have to be careful with that one. i know that in some of my classes the professor had to get authorizaion from an author in order to make copies from pages of a book we didnt use in class.

[RC45]

i think u have to be careful with that one. i know that in some of my classes the professor had to get authorizaion from an author in order to make copies from pages of a book we didnt use in class.

Perhaps because you were at a "for profit" educational institution where students paid tuition and the prof earned a salary?

eductational use is maybe another set of criteria...

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

An excerpt fromTitle 17, Section 107 of the U.S. Code.


Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered “fair,” such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:

the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

the nature of the copyrighted work;

amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining permission.



Seems open to interpretation - and then if in doubt the copyright holder would need to bring suite... and unless the value of the copyrighted material is impacted I am sure the only thing they could get is a "cease and desist" order.

Pretty expensive excercise for no lost revenue.. ;)

BUt then you may come across a jack ass like Gary Larson who forced every Far Side fan website online to shutdown and remove the cartoon images.

[stracing]

i think u have to be careful with that one. i know that in some of my classes the professor had to get authorizaion from an author in order to make copies from pages of a book we didnt use in class.


exactly the same here. first our uni has to get authroization and then the uni has to pay a royalty fee, in the end we have to pay for the notes.

however, some tutors are nice enough to do some photocopying for us if we keep our mouths shut.

[RC45]

i think u have to be careful with that one. i know that in some of my classes the professor had to get authorizaion from an author in order to make copies from pages of a book we didnt use in class.


exactly the same here. first our uni has to get authroization and then the uni has to pay a royalty fee, in the end we have to pay for the notes.

however, some tutors are nice enough to do some photocopying for us if we keep our mouths shut.

Ah - this falls under the "does a market exist for possible royalties" or what ever they call it.. basically says if there is a royalty or fee based distribution mechanism that you are by passing - it's not fair use...

But I am sure you guys are referring to complete copies of works - correct? Or just a single page/paragraph...

[gigdy]

gigdy wrote:
i think u have to be careful with that one. i know that in some of my classes the professor had to get authorizaion from an author in order to make copies from pages of a book we didnt use in class.



exactly the same here. first our uni has to get authroization and then the uni has to pay a royalty fee, in the end we have to pay for the notes.

however, some tutors are nice enough to do some photocopying for us if we keep our mouths shut.


i think thats a llittle different then what i was saying. The one example the we only used like 1 chapter and the professor knew the author.

[Jabba]

3. You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast, transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.


And that is for content found on the website.
So, yet again, non-commercial and you're ok.


I have indeed seen this on their site I would interpret those conditions slightly differently for anyone that would be stupid enough to capture any of their material and upload it onto any website for hosting and downloading.

You may not copy = capture GUILTY, reproduce, republish, download, post = GUILTY, broadcast, transmit = upload GUILTY, make available to the public = open to debate, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree not to adapt = GUILTY, alter = GUILTY or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC.

I see where your coming from though if you do any of this for your own personal non commercial use then it appears to be ok.

What exactly is personal use and what exactly is meant by public is a huge grey area IMO.

Is a CLOSED user group (not available to the public) of "friends" that can view material with no commercial gain to the provider of the material acceptable I would/should think YES

JW = No Advertising, No Subscriptions, No Donations - Not even to cover the usual running costs bullshit = NO COMMERCIAL GAIN WHATSOEVER

[Vansquish]

Right Jabba, the only problem, as you pointed out and as others have noticed is that there is a grey area concerning the "personal use" clause. My little brother is a little more versed in this sort of thing than I, but I think that it would be difficult to claim that even the relatively small number of people to whom the videos are distributed on here could constitute personal use, as in essence the function of distribution is still being carried out. It could even be argued that the fact that the broadcasts have been set with a JW ensignia and cut into special feature portions might constitute reproduction and republishment. On the other hand, if the site goes down, then we're all screwed, as I daresay that all members who have access to the DL/UL privelages have used them at some point and as a result are guilty of downloading and in many cases transmission as well.

In any case, this website is most definetely non-commercial and as that is part and parcel of the "personal use" clause, it would be exceedingly difficult to bifurcate the statement and argue one point while ignoring the other entirely.

In other words, I think we're on the grey-ish edge of O.K.

[Jabba]

I think alot of it comes down to how much the BBC cares...if they really wanted to in force the conditions of use...in fact even if they asked me to remove all TG related material than I would without argument...as it is their material and that is that.

I am sure however they would make a start on sites such as this blatantly charging people £2 to download episodes of top gear.

http://www.voodoofiles.co.uk

[Vansquish]

Indeed, it seems hard to believe that BBC would worry too much about those of us who don't turn a profit on their work.

[cho_888]

well researched! yovery dedicated to this site. I would like to tahnk you jabba as just a general reminder for spending so much of your own money on us! You get no financil gain, only the pleasure of discussing your passion! thanks