Make a recording from BBC iPlayer?

esuhl

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think you're somewhat over-reacting there.

There is nothing wrong with discussing from a dispassionate, hypothetical POV what is and is not legal.

I'd also point out that no one has definitively shown, so far, that the original question regarding downloaded materials from iPlayer relates to a breach of the criminal law. (I accept that it may be a breach of Ts & Cs, but that would be a civil matter).

Exactly. You ARE allowed to use get_iplayer under "fair use" terms (i.e. by deleting downloads after 30 days).

You are NOT allowed to rip a CD onto your iPod. That would be an outrageous crime that should never be discussed on reputable forums.

So don't even think of "stealing" a copy of music you've bought on CD and ripping it to your iPod. If you don't pay twice for exactly the same music, you're taking bread from the mouths of starving children.

dipsomaniac

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

Well yes you may be very unlucky to get caught and there are also many trying to make a living in media who are far from fat!

singing/acting/football are not proper jobs. they are pastimes:)

Cornucopia

esuhl wrote: »

You are NOT allowed to rip a CD onto your iPod. That would be an outrageous crime that should never be discussed on reputable forums.

So don't even think of "stealing" a copy of music you've bought on CD and ripping it to your iPod. If you don't pay twice for exactly the same music, you're taking bread from the mouths of starving children.

So is downloading music from Youtube "less illegal" than ripping your own CDs? In some cases, the music seems to have been placed on YT by rights holders themselves.

Just a thought.

Heedtheadvice

I think you're somewhat over-reacting there.

There is nothing wrong with discussing from a dispassionate, hypothetical POV what is and is not legal.

You may be right there Cornucopia but for reference I copy the forum rules below.
If means were used to copy programs from iPlayer that circumvented license fee paying that does break law. Time shifting (by lawful means -whatever that might be) is allowed but not when it is used as an excuse to copy and keep!

Now we have not been discussing piracy (that is another related major issue that many see as not hurting anyone) but there are views being posted that would seem to condone illegal actions or suggest 'grey areas'. Now there will be grey areas, unavoidable with law and I feel that the subject is worthy of discussion, if only to try and add clarity but the MSE team do not want to take the risk so have forum rules and seem to err very much on the side of caution!

legal/grey area topics

Please don't discuss illegal issues or those that are grey areas in law on this forum.

You may not post or transmit material that infringes the intellectual property rights or other rights of others or post or transmit any material that is unlawful, obscene, libellous, threatening, harassing, abusive, hateful, or embarrassing to any other person as determined by us in our sole discretion; any such posts are removed when reported.
These include:

Tobacco sales
File-sharing
Breaking copy protection
Hacks
Keygens
Trading registration codes
Pornography
Importing medicines
Console modification (for example Xbox chipping)
P2P
MP3 download sites or other ways to illegally use software of any kind.

In the case of in-car speed camera alert/avoidance devices such as Roadangel, GPS Satellite Navigation and TomTom, feel free to discuss the MoneySaving on purchasing the product but not the legalities.

We probably are not discussing breaking copy prevention but possibly could be perceived as discussing circumventing it and we certainly have been discussing grey areas

onomatopoeia99

esuhl wrote: »

You are NOT allowed to rip a CD onto your iPod. That would be an outrageous crime that should never be discussed on reputable forums.

So don't even think of "stealing" a copy of music you've bought on CD and ripping it to your iPod. If you don't pay twice for exactly the same music, you're taking bread from the mouths of starving children.

Please learn the difference between a crime and a tort. Format shifting for personal use is a tort.

Please also read the theft act to understand how "steal" should be construed in English and Welsh law (possibly Scots and NI law as well).

onomatopoeia99

Cornucopia wrote: »

So is downloading music from Youtube "less illegal" than ripping your own CDs? In some cases, the music seems to have been placed on YT by rights holders themselves.

Just a thought.

Content placed on youtube (or any other site) should have an appropriate licence from the rights holders to be there.

I know a lot doesn't and youtube remove things when rights holders report it. They have come quite detailed explanations of their processes on their website.

Cornucopia

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

You may be right there Cornucopia but for reference I copy the forum rules below.
If means were used to copy programs from iPlayer that circumvented license fee paying that does break law. Time shifting (by lawful means -whatever that might be) is allowed but not when it is used as an excuse to copy and keep!

I appreciate that you are concerned, but when you say "licens(c)e fee" do you mean a fee in payment for copyright concessions or the TV Licence, because the issues are not the same.

Now we have not been discussing piracy (that is another related major issue that many see as not hurting anyone) but there are views being posted that would seem to condone illegal actions or suggest 'grey areas'. Now there will be grey areas, unavoidable with law and I feel that the subject is worthy of discussion, if only to try and add clarity but the MSE team do not want to take the risk so have forum rules and seem to err very much on the side of caution!

I'm not sure that there are the "grey areas" you speak of, but I also think that as responsible adults we can discuss areas of law that are "honoured in the breach" without being seen to condone them.

We probably are not discussing breaking copy prevention but possibly could be perceived as discussing circumventing it and we certainly have been discussing grey areas

The only aspect of the discussion that concerns breaking copy protection is the comparison with ripping CDs and DVDs. That's already been flagged as being problematic. Having skimmed the entire Wikipedia article on UK Copyright law, I am still unclear on what the legal basis of protection actually is. I assume that it is mainly based in civil/contract law, and therefore not criminal (and the use of terms like "illegal" may not be appropriate). But it's not clear.

Heedtheadvice

Is there a definitive difference between keeping a recording, say, on a Freeview PVR and by downloading via get_iplayer?

How does that compare to ripping a DVD that you already own?

Yes. Do a search on iPlayer law and you will find that the law (not Ts and C's) regarding keeping programs etc. refers to iplayer. I cannot comment on the legality of get_iplayer.
However copying programs, dvds, CDs, photographs, videos, books -irrespective of source- that is, anything with intellectual property rights could be illegal (there are certain exceptions depending upon purpose and time shifting is one of those exception).

You will also find that the rights being breached may not be those of the broadcaster, publisher et cetera (the 'fat cats' ?) but the originator or production company some of which are trying to start a business and employ people by so doing!

Probably most people have infringed rights somewhere along the line wittingly or unwittingly! Does that make it right?

Cornucopia

onomatopoeia99 wrote: »

Content placed on youtube (or any other site) should have an appropriate licence from the rights holders to be there.

I know a lot doesn't and youtube remove things when rights holders report it. They have come quite detailed explanations of their processes on their website.

My interest is in music from the 70s & 80s, some of which is quite rare. There seem to be 3 categories (on YT): fans publishing music and music videos either without consent, or possibly where there is no viable legal entity available to consult for consent; publishing with a copyright notice (which could indicate permission to publish);
and content which, as I say, appears to have been placed there by a rights-holder.

As an example of the latter:- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn_cTBTFjHu_V0fw_S8WwoQ

Cornucopia

Heedtheadvice wrote: »

Yes. Do a search on iPlayer law and you will find that the law (not Ts and C's) regarding keeping programs etc. refers to iplayer. I cannot comment on the legality of get_iplayer.

I have to say that the law is sometimes surprising but I find the notion of law specific to iPlayer copyright issues to be somewhat implausible. Do you have any references to it? When I Google "iplayer law", all I get is references to the TV Licence, which is not what we are talking about.

However copying programs, dvds, CDs, photographs, videos, books -irrespective of source- that is, anything with intellectual property rights could be illegal (there are certain exceptions depending upon purpose and time shifting is one of those exception).

Yes, I agree, and in fact there is a set of valid "fair use" exemptions.

You will also find that the rights being breached may not be those of the broadcaster, publisher et cetera (the 'fat cats' ?) but the originator or production company some of which are trying to start a business and employ people by so doing!

Probably most people have infringed rights somewhere along the line wittingly or unwittingly! Does that make it right?

Indeed, and I very much have two hats on here - as a user of copyrighted material, and as a creator/publisher of it (in the form of computer software).