Follow the Australian Telecommunications scene NEWSLETTER- FREE TRIAL
 |
 Stephen Withers turns his gaze on the world of Apple, with
detours into other aspects of IT and communications as they catch his
attention. |
Technology news and Jobs 
Our Blogs Core Dump Format-shifting provisions under review
Our Blogs Core Dump Format-shifting provisions under review | Format-shifting provisions under review |
|
| by Stephen Withers | |
| Thursday, 24 January 2008 | |
|
Page 3 of 3 It also means there is no "conflict with the ways copyright owners normally generate economic value from their copyright" nor will it "potentially cause an unreasonable loss of income to copyright owners" because (as I've already observed) people do not buy multiple copies of movies for use on different players.Featured Whitepaper
5 Best Practices for Smartphone Support
Given that we're only discussing exemptions for private use, we're really talking about commercial photos such as those purchased from newspapers, displayed on the web, or contained in books and other physical works. If it's OK to scan a photo for display in a digital frame, why shouldn't you be able to produce a second print for use in a conventional frame? As with movies, it's hard to see that rightsholders are actually going to lose anything if the law allows the making of multiple or similar-form copies of photos for private use. We're talking about a very small market in the first place. How many CDs and DVDs are there in your house? How many photos do you own that you'd ever consider copying, but that you do not already hold the copyright? Take away those given to you by friends and relatives that would give permission for copying, and the answer is almost certainly "very few." Since you already have the right to make a copy to display on your portable media player or computer screen, I really can't see that further liberalisation would affect the income streams of rightsholders one iota. Remember, this is all about private use, not making copies for (or permitting copying by) other people. One final point that applies to all sorts of copyright material. Given that you've acquired the rights to use the material in certain ways, why shouldn't you be allowed to make as many digital or printed copies as necessary to ensure you can continue to exercise those rights? If a company failed to securely store its assets (which typically includes off-site backup), shareholders and regulators would be unimpressed. So why should the law be used in an attempt to prevent individuals and families doing the same? If a disc is damaged beyond use, will the vendor provide you with a replacement at a price that reflects the fact that you've already effectively paid a perpetual licence fee for the content itself? Oh no. The government wants to hear from you on this issue, so take the opportunity to make your feelings known. You can bet those who want to restrict your ability to use the content you've purchased will be having their say. |
Tags
| < Next story in category | Previous story in the category > |
|---|
