| Forum Home | ||||
| Press F1 | ||||
| Thread ID: 36321 | 2003-08-06 04:40:00 | The "Sky" thing | John Grieve (367) | Press F1 |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 165805 | 2003-08-08 06:26:00 | Well guys, my understanding of the Copyright Act and copyright in general is that it applies to the public performance of copyright material or the copying and subsequent sale of copyright information in the form of printed, film or data media . This obviously covers the copying of computer programs for sale, and Section 80 of the Act allows the copying of computer programs for backup purposes, which in principle should put an end to the arguments about it being illegal to make copies of your own data disks . However, Section 80 has a qualifying subsection (3) which states that subsection (1) [which says it is not a breach of copyright to copy your own disks for backup purposes] only applies if it is not "contrary to an express direction by or on behalf of the owner of the copyright in the computer program given to the lawful user of the original copy not later than the time when the lawful user of the original copy acquired that original copy . " Loosely translated, this means that you can't copy them after all . I found nothing in the Act that would make it illegal to intercept an encrypted program broadcast (as Murray has said) or even to decode it, and nor did I expect to as the key purpose of copyright is to prevent the exploitation of original works for money, i . e . public performances for which others pay money to the infringer without paying the author his due . I think that legal support (if any) for control of this situation must lie outside of the Copyright Act in some other legislation related to the interception of private communications between supplier and subscriber, or perhaps even copyright control over the decoding algorithms used, though the public performance element would again be missing . At the moment I tend to think that the act of receiving and decoding may possibly be lawful, and any actions taken against suppliers of decoder software is probably Iceberg and Titanic stuff . He who has the most to lose will give way, regardless of his rights, as to defend those rights might involve an unacceptable cost . A similar situation probably applies to the Linux/Unix Code argument and also the patenting of mouse clicks for internet commerce (like, how stupid and petty can you get?) on the basis that the little men will pay up because they can't afford to defend their rights . Cheers Billy 8-{) [b][pre]I think I will apply for a patent on the use of the letter E on computer keyboards (for some novel and totally ludicrous pupose), then everybody in the world will have to either pay me for the right to use E's or keep massive data logs of all "E" usage to protect themselves against lawsuits funded entirely by the early adopters who paid up on demand . ;\ :D |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 165806 | 2003-08-08 07:35:00 | Most of us seem to be thinking along the same lines with variations on the theme . I guess thats one reason why lawyers can make a good living out of interpreting (& clouding) the various laws, acts and statutes, pining down a common consensus, even among judges is not easy . Under section 15 of the Copyright Act restrictions are imposed under the act "is done by the reception of the broadcast" referring specificaly to television, it doesn't mention encryption but thats not relevent, reception of the broadcast is (somebody tried to get out of paying their TV licence not so long ago, was this what they used as a defence . Whatever, it didn't work in court) . As Billy says reception for private use is okay and yet a further section Part VIII, Provisions, Television Broadcasts seems to override the reception breach in section 15 or broadcast to subscribers of a diffusion service and yet more in section 19 (one thing leads to another, I should have just read the whole thing from start to finish then gone back to the sections of interest) . So, whats a diffusion service? Messy! The alternatives are looking more attractive, at the mo . How does patents on the set top boxes and as mentioned algorithms sound . As said ealrlier scanners are not illegal in NZ its what you do with the material once its received . Cheers None The Wiser |
Murray P (44) | ||
| 165807 | 2003-08-09 05:39:00 | How about you just stick with Juice TV, which is now free to air on the UHF range [of frequencies]. I've always wondered, and am going to ask, is it as easy as how I guess it is to circumvent your power meter? Would it be as easy as taking the power line before it goes into your meter and diverting that to the power that comes out of the meter (adding necessary modulators, etc), and then your meter would not really be much use to the meter readers? If it is that simple (in description, not act), why do they not change the system? Just like tapping into a phoneline, it can't be too hard to install a cable splitter while someone is away from their house (say, a neighbour), and run a cable underground through to your house and hook it up to a phone? Heck, you could make inter-flat "intercom" in student flats and prank each other... circumventing Telecom knowing that you're doing that? Or how about shoving a wireless network access point in to a broadband network somewhere. Simple in words, complicated in reality, but all the same, should there not be more protection? |
agent (30) | ||
| 165808 | 2003-08-09 17:29:00 | Umm . . . . . . . . . . Murray You are referring to the 1962 Copyright act which has long been superseded by the 1994 Act . Television broadcasting was in its infancy in 1962, and the 1994 Act relegates it to the appropriate position in the scheme of things, i . e . the public performance or sale for gain principles apply . The Section 15 you refer to no longer exists . On that basis, comments by any other poster made after reference to the "Vanuatu' sourced Act linked by GF should be reconsidered in the light of the later legislation . The current Act plus amendments can be found Here ( . legislation . govt . nz/libraries/contents/om_isapi . dll?clientID=1288269672&hitsperheading=on&infobase=pal_statutes . nfo&record={85E4}&softpage=DOC" target="_blank">www . legislation . govt . nz) The debate is interesting, and I remain of the view that Copyright is not the issue . Cheers Billy 8-{) [pre][b]I'd be asleep at this hour if it wasn't for noisy neighbours who don't know when to stop partying! |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 165809 | 2003-08-09 23:24:00 | Overall, if there is no law that specifically bars using software to decode an encrypted television signal in New Zealand, it's down to common sense and ethics. Do you honestly think it is fair to decode a signal which countless other individuals pay for? I certainly don't, because it counts as theft of a service. And while you can argue that a service is not a product you buy, in reality, you pay for the usage of the service, and it is counted as a product. Subscribing to a magazine could be seen in a similar issue, though completely different context. Oh, and Sky does actually hold rights on the programs they broadcast - if you deliberately (and please don't say "but I can claim ignorance") decode the signal, know what you are doing, and know that you are using a service you have not paid for, you are stealing from Sky. Otherwise you can probably claim ignorance, but it appears everyone who has participated in these threads on Sky knows full well what they are trying to find out. I'd be careful about further posts, because if Sky were to find out someone was trying to find out if there is a law banning fraudulent decoding of their signals, they wouldn't be too happy, and could claim you were on a hunt to find ways to circumvent the encryption. |
agent (30) | ||
| 165810 | 2003-08-10 00:23:00 | This deals with what we are digging into here but for the Euro market, however it is obvious to all that this type of law is much the same all over the world. Its also about digital not UHF but is still relevant as far as I can see. www.wedzboyz.co.uk There has also been some government attention to protecting the contents of copy protected DVDs and CDs by making tools to bypass protection illegal maybe (not law yet). Patent law may be able to be twisted to cover the signal itself as well but it's not a strong case as it would interfere with other legalities around patents. Personally I think the copyright attack is not possible in todays legal system in NZ. |
John Grieve (367) | ||
| 165811 | 2003-08-10 00:39:00 | Sky can be as unhappy as they want. I have carefully avoided discussing the facts as to how its done and have carefully NOT named anything. We the public have every right to discuss the law in public. |
John Grieve (367) | ||
| 165812 | 2003-08-10 02:27:00 | I can't quite fathom your true position on this one agent, or the ethical foundation for your arguments . Your previous post re bypassing power meters, stealing telephone access from neighbours (I think they would notice if you were talking on their line) or hijacking somebody's wireless connection was so off the wall that I simply couldn't take you seriously . And nor, so it seems, did anybody else, yet now you are looking for the moral high ground on the decoding of encrypted television signals . I think you need to establish your position a little more carefully then show some consistency, as John Grieve has taken pains to do for example . I also agree with his open discussion without providing "how to" information or links to such sites . IMHO we are free to discuss this as much as we like, regardless of the views of the broadcasters . I guess the basis in law for challenging this practice will be set by overseas precedent but our current copyright and patent laws are unlikely to apply, at least in their present form, though the latter might possibly be used if the algorithms were unique to that signal and were patented . I read the posted link to the UK/Europe hacking scene which appears to be no more recent than 1996/97 and the legal action revolved around the pirating of decoder cards and technology . Their laws seem to have been rewritten specifically to cover their market as well and there is no direct equivalent here . Just out of interest though, what encryption system is used by Sky NZ? I assume that it will be a variant on the UK/European Sky system as they are hardly likely to have produced decoders specifically for NZ . Cheers Billy |-{) [pre][b]Yes I did finally get a little sleep thanks, but nowhere near enough . :) |
Billy T (70) | ||
| 165813 | 2003-08-10 05:47:00 | Can you not pick out that I was criticising how easy in principle it is to circumvent paying for services? While there may not be any specific law in NZ about this, the copyrights of the programs which could be accessed do extend beyond the country they were produced in. I stand on my point; it comes down to common sense and ethical and/or moral issues if there is no law. If your head is "screwed on properly", and you think, you will know that decoding a Sky UHF signal without a decoder from Sky is stealing from them, as you aren't paying them for use of the service. |
agent (30) | ||
| 165814 | 2003-08-10 06:00:00 | Sky uses one of the videocrypt variants. | John Grieve (367) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 | |||||