Posts Tagged: copyright

Know Your Recording Rights (and Your Super Bowl Commercials)

Posted | Category: Applian Software, Replay Video Capture.

superbowl-blog

Whew. What a game last Sunday! We could barely pull ourselves from our screen — especially in those last ten minutes. As we marveled in the replays and even went back to replay the streaming feed on NBC, thanks to our Replay Video Capture software, we realized that some customers and those non-Applian laymen might think that our insistence of recording this NFL game might be (*gasp) illegal. Well, ladies and gentlemen, it’s not. But the NFL does a fantastic job at making you think so. An intelligent Ars Technica article that came out last week does a great job explaining why it’s not. Here’s a sample:

The NFL is also drastically overstating its case when it comes to actual copies of the game or pictures coming from it. You can record the Super Bowl. It’s been undeniably, unquestionably legal since 1984 that you can record the broadcast to watch later (and skip commercials, if you’re so inclined). And the fair use doctrine that allows you to do this also lets you use those recordings for other purposes, too. If you want to use clips for commentary or criticism or news reporting of some aspect of the game or the broadcast, that’s perfectly legal, too.

So don’t fear, Applian friends. Go ahead and get your Super Bowl re-watch on. Oh, and if you missed all of the advertising action because of the NBC stream, we highly recommend that you check out this full recap of the multi-million-dollar spots.

Our personal favorite, and slightly underrated, was the pitch-perfect Sarah Silverman and Chelsea Handler commercial from T-Mobile. We hope it’s an ongoing theme, because we love seeing comedians do what they do best — make fun of themselves and each other:

Downloading Media and Copyright Trolls

Posted | Category: Media Business.

People are getting their media fix in a variety of ways these days. Some use our software to record or download for their personal use, others go to clearly illegal download sites, and some use BitTorrent. While downloading is the most convenient and fastest way to capture video or audio, it does have some inherent risks. And some unscrupulous people will try to take advantage.

Take the case of Prenda Law, documented by blogger Popehat and others here. (Read the link backwards for a good history.) In a nutshell, a few lawyers allegedly bought the rights to worthless adult movies, had them posted on BitTorrent, and then watched as other people used Torrent software to download them. They captured the IPs of the downloaders, and then subpoenaed the internet providers to get the name of the customers. Then they filed copyright actions against these alleged downloaders, in the hopes that they would settle rather than going to court to defend themselves from downloading porn. A pretty clever scheme.

This is starting to fall apart, as many bloggers and opposing lawyers claim the very same lawyers who were doing the suing also formed the company to buy the copyrights, and tried to hide this fact from the courts. Oh – and these guys apparently did some identify theft to make a CEO for these holding companies. One federal judge is particularly not amused, and has ordered all the parties to appear in his courtroom April 2. A lot of people are following this, as it’s pretty unusual for a judge to take these steps.

Nevertheless, I understand from reading articles about this that many people caught downloading have decided to pay up to $3000 instead of fighting this in court, which is the preferred outcome to begin with for these (alleged) schemers.

The moral – when you download something from a file download or torrent site, your IP address is available, and anyone motivated enough can find out who you are. Using products like ours – where the server logs look like normal use – is one way to protect yourself.

FAIR USE? Sort of.

Posted | Category: Media Business.

Ars Technica has a nice analysis of the new pro-consumer FAIR USE bill being proposed in the USA. It’s a start, but there’s still a long way to go before true “fair use” recording rights are protected.
Basically, the bill gives hardware companies an exemption, but does nothing for software. To me, it seems like a way to get the content companies and the hardware companies on the same side, and then crush the software companies, where all the true innovation is taking place.
Go read the entire article.

PERFORMance Anxiety

Posted | Category: Media Business.

Looks like the PERFORM act just won’t die. This is the nonsense legislation – sponsored by the RIAA – that would force satellite, digital, and Internet radio providers (but not over-the-air radio) to implement measures designed to restrict the ability of listeners to record audio from the services.
On the Internet side, given the plethora of radio stations all over the world, this would basically kill American Internet radio.
You can read more from Ars Technica.
Once you’re sufficiently outraged, contact your senators here.

Fair Use Threatened

Posted | Category: Media Business.

I received this email from Jake Fisher of iPac today, and I’m taking the liberty of reprinting it in full. It’s an important topic – the Big Media companies are threatening to take away our Fair Use recording rights.
Here’s the letter in full:
Dear IPac supporter,
In June we brought attention to S1RA (The Section 115 Reform Act), which
has the laudable goal of bringing mechanical licensing into the 21st
Century. However, buried deep within the legislation was a provision that
required all incidental copies of a song to have their own separate
license. In other words, a copyright holder could charge you for every
copy that exists in a caching server, your ISP’s own cache, or even the
buffer on your computer. It’s double dipping, redefining fair use, and now
it’s back and worse than ever. S1RA lives on under the title of the
Copyright Modernization Act of 2006. Sounds ominous enough. It still
includes all the terrible provisions of S1RA by taking aim at Internet
radio and satellite radio by gutting the Audio Home Recording Act, which
explicitly allows devices to time-shift radio.
CMA is trying to elbow itself into law by wrapping itself in a good bill:
the Orphan Works Act of 2006. This bill is an important piece of
legislation that removes significant hurdles that artists have to jump to
create their art. Right now, with our over-reaching copyright regime, if a
documentary film makers wants to include an image, film clip, or song in
their work, but no copyright holder can be found, the film maker is out of
luck. OWA allows the artist to include the work, assuming they employed due
diligence to track down the copyright holder, and would severely limit any
damages stemming from an infringement suit if the owner suddenly
reappeared.
However good the Orphan Works Act is, S1RA is worse and negates the
benefits that come from OWA. We cannot sacrifice our technological future
by imposing an innovation tax on internet and satellite radio.
For a FAQ on CMA and to find out how to stop it please see:
http://ipaction.org/campaigns/cma/
Thanks very much for your continued support of IPac.
Sincerely,
Jake Fisher
Executive Director
IPac

Recording Online Media Since 1997
Located in Marco Island, FL

Helpful Links

Applian Technologies recording products are not intended for use in circumventing copy protection mechanisms or for making illegal copies of copyrighted content. Please respect the rights of the content owners when recording.

© Copyright 2024 - - All Rights Reserved.