[LINK] The US and THEM of P2P

[Tom Koltai]

Actually, You are correct copying a dvd or cd for personal use is
permitted according to 10AA (below).

However, being pedantic - that is not what the police department did.

From: Copyright Law Branch [mailto:copyrightlawbranch at ag.gov.au] 
Sent: Tuesday, 30 September 2008 11:46 AM
To: 'tomk at unwired.com.au'
Subject: FW: Draft Copyright Infringement Notice Scheme Guidelines
[SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

Dear Mr Koltai,  

Thank you for your e-mail dated 27 September (attached below) regarding
the Copyright Infringement Notice Scheme.   

As you have noted, the Copyright Act 1968 was amended by in 2006 by the
Copyright Amendment Act 2006.  A current version of the Copyright Act
incorporating in the 2006 amendments is available at the following
website:  
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/comlaw/Legislation/ActCompilation1.nsf/0/20470F
1CF0D331BDCA25750F000D54FC/$file/Copyright1968.pdf
The 2006 amendments created a tiered system of indictable, summary and
strict liability offences.  Under this system, offences applying to the
same physical activity differ in seriousness dependant upon the criminal
intent of the offender.  The lowest tier of the offence system is the
strict liability offences, which require no criminal intent to be
established.  Under the Act, these offences may be enforced by the
infringement notice scheme.  As noted on our website, under this scheme,
a person issued with an infringement notice will have the option of
paying a fine as an alternative to prosecution in court for the alleged
offence.  In some circumstances the scheme also requires the forfeiture
of copyright infringing materials and/or related devices.   
<snip>

The folowing exerpt from the Act re Video only - the music bit is
similar.

110AA Copying cinematograph film in different format for private
use
(1) This section applies if:
(a) the owner of videotape embodying a cinematograph film in
analog form makes a copy (the main copy) of the film in
electronic form for his or her private and domestic use
instead of the videotape; and
(b) the videotape itself is not an infringing copy of the film or of
a broadcast, sound recording, work or published edition of a
work; and
(c) at the time the owner makes the main copy, he or she has not
made, and is not making, another copy that embodies the film
in an electronic form substantially identical to the electronic
form in which the film is embodied in the main copy.
For this purpose, disregard a temporary copy of the film
incidentally made as a necessary part of the technical process of
making the main copy.
(2) The making of the main copy is not an infringement of copyright in
the cinematograph film or in a work or other subject-matter
included in the film.
Dealing with main copy may make it an infringing copy
(3) Subsection (2) is taken never to have applied if the main copy is:
(a) sold; or
(b) let for hire; or
(c) by way of trade offered or exposed for sale or hire; or
(d) distributed for the purpose of trade or otherwise.
Note: If the main copy is dealt with as described in subsection (3),
then
copyright may be infringed not only by the making of the main copy
but also by the dealing with the main copy.
(4) To avoid doubt, paragraph (3)(d) does not apply to a loan of the
main copy by the lender to a member of the lender's family or
household for the member's private and domestic use.
Disposal of videotape may make the main copy an infringing copy
(5) Subsection (2) is taken never to have applied if the owner of the
videotape disposes of it to another person.

Basically it is saying that the temporary copy (i.e.: the copy on the
police computers) is illegal if not deleted after the personal copy for
family members only residing at the same residence, is made.

Quite clearly - according to 10AA Subsection (5) it is illegal to share
a copy of a DVD with anyone outside your family as defined in 10AA
Subsection (3)(d) by the use of the word "otherwise".

In civil law there is a recognised principal of "clean hands" - possibly
the S.A. police action should result in Australians having the right to
claim "anshun estoppel" under criminal law if charged with a similar
offense.


Tom

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Howard [mailto:scott at doc.net.au] 
Sent: Thursday, 5 March 2009 5:06 PM
To: Tom Koltai
Cc: link at anu.edu.au
Subject: Re: [LINK] The US and THEM of P2P


On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 4:04 PM, Tom Koltai <tomk at unwired.com.au> wrote:

Your argument is akin to stating - let him off judge, he's not a serial
killer, he only shot one innocent person.

Shooting one person is a crime.  Shooting multiple people is a crime.

Copying a DVD for personal, non-commercial use is not a crime. Copying
DVDs for commercial gain is a crime.

So no, my argument is nothing like that.

  Scott.



No viruses found in this incoming message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.6.4
http://www.iolo.com 


_______________________________________
No viruses found in this outgoing message
Scanned by iolo AntiVirus 1.5.6.4
http://www.iolo.com