Brentwood Mind and Copyright.

Usually, about know, I’d be watching Humans: something I’ve got on in the background.

It’s looking … pretty … damn … good: and has just given us a bit of a revelation about Leo Elster.

AND about DI Voss.

But that’s possibly for another time.

What I meant to tell you about … ?

Was the Brentwood branch of mental health charity, Mind.

And about copyright.

~≈®≈~

Blu-ray Discs: Ripping Movies and Avoiding a Bag Of Hurt.

18th January, 2015.

I’ve occasionally written pieces, here, about DVDs.

DVDs, movies, TV series, all sorts of media.

Occasionally?

Occasionally, I’ve written about how to use a programme called HandBrake to rip DVDs.

In other words, to re-code the contents of a DVD — whether those contents are TV shows or movies — into a form that can be played on a computer, iPod or other media player, or tablet.

Partly as back-up.

Partly because I feel if I’ve bought a copy of a film, it’s my copy of the film: and I should be able to watch that film on whatever device I own.

Whatever that device happens to be.

~≈®≈~

Copyrght, Hargreaves … And stuff …

Oh, well, now …

It looks — LOOKS — like I can honestly turn around and say “Well, FINALLY” with both a certain amount of force.

And a certain amount of relief, as well.

Because, after a certain amount of consideration, Business Secretary, Vince Cable has announced the government’s response to the Hargreaves Report on Intellectual Property and Growth.

And it’s favourable.

»»·««

Just so you know, the report was published some time ago, and deals with the state of UK copyright law in the modern age: and, in part, how to deal with one or two of the anomalies of UK copyright law.

The bit of it that’s always struck me and many others as stupid, here … ?

Is the simple fact that in the UK, one cannot do what’s become known as format shifting.

In other words … ?

We can’t, legally, copy a CD or DVD we own from the original optical media, to our hard drive, and then to an iPod, MP3 player, flash drive*, external back up drive, home theatre computer … or the earlier models of Apple TV streaming device.

Ridiculous, really, isn’t it … ?

But, at ANY rate … ?

As you’ll have probably figured out, I’ve always thought that that was — speaking frankly — bloody stupid.

The law, in this sort of case, is not only an ass, but a bloody slow one, at that.

It’ll still be slow.

But if you’ve been watching the news, today, you’ll know that Business Secretary Vince Cable has announced the the coalition government will — in possibly the only good move I think they’ll make — be accepting those conclusions.

He also announced that the government will be dropping the web-site blocking aspects of the Digital Economy Act, that passed into law, just before the general election.

Mostly because of the legal moves afoot to force ISPs to block them: something I believe to be very dodgy ground. After all, it’s turning the people who provide you and me with access to the ’Net into policemen. And policemen I’d rather not have stomping around MY hard-drive, just on principle, thanking you … !

But, at ANY rate … ?

At any rate, this hopefully means that, now Mr Cable’s announced this … ?

It means we can all heave a collective sigh of relief.

Because we’re now no longer being made criminals, unintentionally.

»»·««

* I mention that as many modern models of DVD and Blu-Ray player/recorders, PVR and television set have USB ports on them, and happily play any correctly encoded video file on a USB flash drive.

Newzbin: Breaking News

Hmmm …

I’ve got to admit, I’ve a BIT of news, I’m going to share, that’s been on both the BBC News channel …

And on their website.

But I’ve got to admit, I’ve just had the rather sad news an old friend has died: of pneumonia, arising from a complication of cancer.

From what I’m told … ?

From what I’m told, it was actually mercifully quick: something the family concerned are grateful for.

Knowing the person concerned, they would have hated a slow and debilitating death.

The irony is … ?

Literally, I’d just had a phone call to tell me I’ve an interview, tomorrow.

And to find out that, then of a friend’s death … ?

Well …

You have to assume they’re funny.

You really do.

Because you’d be crying even harder, if you didn’t … … … …

So …

This one’s for Jen: hoping she’d’ve appreciated it.

»»·««

Lets get moving on, shall we … ?

Before I get too depressed … !

At ANY rate, I do know I managed to see this article go past on the BBC’s news-site, this morning, informing us that the British government were being officially ripped off by its various IT suppliers.

Surprise, surprise … !

Now, in spite of the amount of support that George Osbourne gave to the open source movement whilst in opposition, I’ve a funny felling they won’t be switching en masse to Ubuntu.

And I’m also going to point out that Labour weren’t the only ones to spend serious cash on IT.

Look around Nik Nak’s Old Peculiar for anything to do with Eric Pickles, MP for Brentwood, and have a read about the £7500 Laptop.

»»·««

The OTHER bit of news doing the rounds on the BBC’s news channel* and website … ?

Is the news that a High Court, today, has ordered British Telecoms — BT, in other word’s, Britain’s biggest Internet Service Provider — to block access to file sharing site, NewzBin.

And I’ve got to admit, I’m thinking I’m … hmm …

Well, annoyed is possibly one way of putting it.

Because I’m thinking this has implications.

Lots and lots of implications: probably than just one layman can come up with.

But there’s one that springs to mind, here: or possibly several.

Now, I’m quite happy to admit that I’ve used peer-to-peer BitTorrent clients in the past.

In fact, I occasionally still do.

I’ve always encouraged people to experiment with various different operating systems: mostly various different distributions of Linux.

And I’ve usually used a BitTorrent client called Transmission to do this.

Even with the broadband download limit I have through BT, using peer-to-peer technology.

It takes longer to download a file, like this, but doesn’t chew up as much bandwidth.

So I can’t help but be interested in this sort of thing.

Interested …

And worried …

You see, it strikes me that insisting an ISP automatically blocks a website?

Is understandable, given that Newzbin seems to be devoted to illegally file-sharing copyrighted materiel: after, I think I’d want to keep out of trouble, in their situation.

Possibly.

But I’m also wondering why on earth it’s BT’s job to police the internet: in what seems to me to be the first step on a long slippery slope towards censorship of the ’Net.

When the various movie studios could be doing something a touch radical.

Like …

Oooooh …

Maybe give their movies away?

After all, for anyone with a DVD or PVR hooked up to their TV, and a way of getting them to their computers …

That’s what they’re effectively doing, already …

* Just who ARE the newsreaders, today … ? They aren’t the regulars, I know that … !

Copyright, and the Hargreves Report.

Well, finally … !

Someone seems to be talking sense … !

You’ve probably realised, haven’t you, that I’ve long been dubious — if not critical — of the UK’s copyright laws.

After all, in this digital age, we expect to be able to transfer our music and movies to our computers — and then to whatever media we choose — purely and simply for our own personal use.

Notice I stress that last part, there … !

But, at any rate, here in the UK, the various bits of copyright law mean it’s a criminal offence to put the songs and films you’ve bought on CD or DVD — and then ripped or copied with something like HandBrake, iTunes or whatever else you prefer — despite the fact that that you’ve already paid for them.

It still is …

However … ?

However, today’s seen the publication of the Hargreaves Report into copyright law.

Several of the recommendations deal with several areas: parody, review, what have you.

But one paragraph did catch me attention.

Chapter 5, Paragraph 14, specifically says

“By contrast many submissions also recognise that copyright needs to accommodate some unlicensed copying that is considered to be fair, in the ordinary sense of the word: whether that involves transferring CD files to a laptop and MP3 player or sharing a family home movie on your Facebook page which makes incidental use of copyright material.”

Paragraphs 24 goes on to say

“We therefore recommend below that the Government should press at EU level for the introduction of an exception allowing uses of a work enabled by technology which do not directly trade on the underlying creative and expressive purpose of the work (this has been referred to as “non-consumptive” use). The idea is to encompass the uses of copyright works where copying is really only carried out as part of the way the technology works. For instance, in data mining or search engine indexing, copies need to be created for the computer to be able to analyse; the technology provides a substitute for someone reading all the documents. This is not about overriding the aim of copyright – these uses do not compete with the normal exploitation of the work itself – indeed, they may facilitate it. Nor is copyright intended to restrict use of facts. That these new uses happen to fall within the scope of copyright regulation is essentially a side effect of how copyright has been defined, rather than being directly relevant to what copyright is supposed to protect.”

The key part, I think, are the parts I’ve italicised …

I think they finally allow us to potentially — and legally — allow us to do what we’ve all BEEN doing for years … !

Blogspot and Copyright

Hmmm …

That’s … a bother …

Actually, that’s a serious bother for about 60, 000 people: my fellow bloggers in Turkey.

I’ve just seen a news article on the BBC News pages.

It seems that the Turkish pages of Blogger — the site I use for Nik Nak’s Old Peculiar — is involved in something of a row with one of the country’s broadcasters, Digiturk, over football.

As a result … ?

Blogger has been taken down, temporarily.

Which is a bit of an over-reaction, from where I’m sitting … !

From what I can gather, various Blogger uses in Turkey have done something similar to what I do with various movies and TV shows.

They’ll quite happily post clips — via YouTube and other services — and add them to their posts, about a given game.

Now, I’ll be the first to admit that this is iffy legal ground, to say the least.

Which is why — over the years — I’ve arrived at my way of handling things.

Whenever I post a clip to YouTube, I always make the point of doing this:

Acknowledging the copyright holders: either in the attached comments or or by inserting a copyright notice on the clip*.

Writing words to the effect of “No violation is intended, as the clip is used for illustrative purpose, only” in the Comments section for the clip.

And, lastly, taking down the clip, if requested.

Now, it’s not perfect, I know.

But I don’t think I’ve had too many complaints.

Companies that do object, usually ask YouTube to disable embedding on the offending clips.

Which is …

Well …

A bit of a bummer, from where I’m sitting, as it’d be nice to have some of them, here.

But those clips are their property, after all.

»»•««

At any rate, the point I’m trying to make … ?

Is that I think I and other Bloggers have a right to good old fashioned Freedom of Speech.

Now, granted, that comes with a few basic responsibilities.

Being polite. Being discreet. Making sure we do no harm.

Acknowledging copyright ownership is in there, somewhere, as is giving credit where credit is due.

It’s a trade off.

Granted, I have to — indeed, should — acknowledge intellectual ownership, as and where necessary.

I want to make sure I can show you a relevant clip, photo or quote to make a point.

That’s polite, if nothing else.

»»•««

Now that’s my end of things.

My end of things, you notice … ?

I also believe that copyright holders have an obligation, here.

If that’s the right word, here … ? Debbi … ?

Hmm maybe obligation is the wrong word.

Obviously, I can understand copyright holders have a right to be protective of their property.

I don’t blame them, especially given the existence of sites like Pirate Bay.

However …

I also believe that, along with protecting their property, copyright holders have an obligation to check things. To make sure that — before they get snotty — of how a given clip is being used.

If a copyright holder has a complaint about my use of a given clip or song, I’d hope they’d at least look at what I’ve done with them, in order to satisfy themselves I’m not — frankly — extracting the proverbial Mickey.

But I also hope that any response a holder may have to my use of their property are proportionate to any violation I may have committed.

This situation, where the whole Turkish end of Blogger has been taken down … ?

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again.

I believe it to be an over-reaction.

* One piece of video editing software I find hand is MPEG Streamclip, by Squared5, allows one to insert brief messages into a clip: very handy for this sort of thing. I can also use iMovie to insert a Keynote slide at the end of a .mov presentation.

Copyright, and Back-ups.

You know, you wouldn’t believe the amount of discussion a simple mention of something can cause.

Or possibly you would …

But I mentioned, the other day, that I have a new exterior drive.

Mostly to store backed up video files on.

And I’ve had a few people quietly mention that iffy legality of the practise.

Hmmmm …

Let me try and briefly summarise here, for you.

I’ve quite a few TV series and films on DVD.

And I keep back-up copies — mostly done with HandBrake, MacTheRipper or Fairmount — in case any of them get damaged: I should also add that none of them leave my exterior drive, for love nor money.

But from what I’ve been told, or able to find out … ?

That — with-in the UK — is illegal.

As is — as I and many others have sone — using iTunes to copy music from my CD collection to my iPod.

Although I believe there’s a set of government guidelines that allow for this.

However, those regulations don’t cover DVDs.

||⋘•⋙||

Now here’s where I’m possibly going to be contentious.

The law that states this is bloody stupid!

As I see it, I’ve paid you, the artist, some of my hard earned cash for a film, song or album you’ve made.

I believe that I, as the owner of that copy, have the moral — if not legal — right to watch or listen to that copy when I want, and how I want.

And more to the point, where I want.

I like to watch Dr Who when I’m writing the Teasers, for example: I find it a lot easier to do this with QuickTime, rather than on the TV.

I can also see myself upgrading to a video capable iPod, at some point: I’d like to watch them on that, and don’t see why I should pay double — by buying the episodes from the iTunes Store — for the privilege, when I’ve already bought the DVD versions.

||⋘•⋙||

Now, if you’re in the States, things are slightly easier: you can copy DVDs for personal use, so long as those don’t come from copy-protected DVDs.

Which sounds just as arse-about-tit, from where I’m sitting, given the amount of copy-protected DVDs there are, out there. Spain, as a counter example, allows you to back up any DVD you own, regardless of whether it’s copy-protected. Or even a legal copy.

||⋘•⋙||

So I’m hoping that those creatives out there won’t be annoyed — too much — if I put their work on my external drive, so I can watch it at my leisure.

The way I see it … ?

I’ve paid the piper.

I get to call the tunes …