Using music on websites and client DVD's

[farmer_rob]

...
If you use pirated software it's illegal...you can be prosecuted.

By whom? (This is the semantic part.)

[kiwi]

Every person in the chain...the ripper, the distributor and the end "user" is my understanding....is it not ?

[farmer_rob]

I meant "who will be doing the prosecuting?" - in my understanding, it will be the owner of the copyright or their agent, not the police or public prosecutor. I see this as a crucial (or nitpicky) difference between "illegal" and "unauthorised". Alternatively, if someone can point me to the section of the copyright act (I believe it is still the 1968 act with amendments) that indicates copyright infringement by an end-user is a criminal act, I'll back down.

[kiwi]

Oh I see, not sure, but I'll go with theft in a criminal court.

[ricktas]

My guess is the Business Software Alliance would be involved, even if just contacting companies and reporting individual cases of software piracy to them, and then it would be up to the companies to pursue it. Although it must be covered under a law somewhere, as are copying movies etc.

More information on how and who : http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/c...0/htcb003.aspx

[Longshots]

I dont doubt that "someone" will prosecute Rob, so I'd have to say that you're playing with semantics here. It really would depend on a case by case scenario. The reason I used both terms is because both are applicable.

While government supported criminal sanctions against copyright infringement is particularly low, civil actions against copyright infringement is more usual.

Rob, you asked about who would be doing the prosecuting ? Well albeit not many, but the DPP.

The DPP reported that in 1997–98 there were seven convictions recorded
for copyright infringements, and six in 1998–99.2 The penalties imposed
ranged from non-conviction bonds to fines of up to $4 800. Under
subsection 132(6A) of the Copyright Act, the maximum possible penalty
for infringement is $60 500 or 5 years' imprisonment in respect of
individuals, and $302 500 in respect of corporations.

Source is from a House of Representative inquiry on this subject was announced in 1999, and a report completed in Dec 2000
Copyright Industries Section
Intellectual Property Branch
And if you're interested here is the report:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...t/contents.htm

What might answer your point of debate is the issue of criminal sanctions - this chapter of the report will assist you understand that yes this clearly does and has happened:
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committe...ment/chap4.pdf

But arent we going off topic anyway ? The point now being missed, is that a few have suggested dobbing the person in for (in theory) using music without (again in theory, and clearly an assumption) an appropriate licence or (in theory) permission.

All well and good, but bringing it back to what I said, yes all very good for the judgemental out there, but are "you" also doing the right thing ? Is (for example) all your software (whatever you want to call this _ I 'd have to admit that I do think you're being "nitpicky" ) correctly licensed ? After all in most cases, when you're purchasing software, you are actually purchasing a licence to use it, not the actual software.

As to who, and whether its a breach of the copyright act _i'm not a lawyer so I cant and wont say if it is or not a breach of the copyright act, but in all honesty, I think instead of saying "hey show me where it says it is" and prove it - just read the licence agreement - because it says in fairly plain english that it is.

I'd suggest that if you want to seriously argue that copying software or using it without an appropriate licence is OK (ie "pirated software"), then you should have a look at this link - the Business Software Alliance
http://www.bsa.org/country.aspx?sc_lang=en-AU

As I said before, if we dont respect someone's IP, then we should expect our own IP to be used without our permission.

[kiwi]

Ok, i see that a personal end user is a civil matter, distribute or use for profit a criminal matter

So, yes, Rob...quite right

http://www.bsa.org/country/Anti-Pira...the%20Law.aspx

[Longshots]

Regarding the Australian Copyright Act

Rob asked which section of the copyright act covers the area of software.

As I'm not a lawyer I cannot specifically state which sections, but if you want to have a browse, you'll see that courts seem to fall on a coup;le of diferent sections (namely 36, and 38 of the Copyright Act). Heres just one of many court settlements noted on the Copyright Council's website:

http://www.copyright.org.au/news-and...tails/id/1714/

And regarding Personal end user debate - I have been speaking about the issue of using software from a business point of view, so have assumed that starting position. The whole part time/full time photographer position is then going to be part of a court debate on whether someone is an end user or "use for profit". So again this is simply splitting hairs IMO. Because that decision would be one made in the courts on a case by case basis.

[Redgum]

The whole part time/full time photographer position is then going to be part of a court debate on whether someone is an end user or "use for profit". So again this is simply splitting hairs IMO. Because that decision would be one made in the courts on a case by case basis.

Actually, that's a decision made by the "complainant" or their legal team well before it gets to court. Litigation is usually taken on the basis that you can recover your losses. For instance, Microsoft would only be interested in prosecuting a "software pirate" if the case sets a precedent (fine) or they have an opportunity to recover their loss (compensation).
Anyway, I don't think the OP really wants to go to court to buy music. Back on topic?

[ricktas]

Ultimately, you use pirated software/music etc at your own risk. The chance of being caught is minimal, but are you prepared to pay the legal fees, accept the court's decision, etc IF you are caught, charged and convicted. Up to each and every one of us to make that decision for ourselves. All this thread can do is advise on the situation, the implications and repercussions. Then it each person's choice what they do, cause they cannot come back and complain if they get caught, after ignoring all the advice presented here.

[campo]

If you use pirated software it's illegal...you can be prosecuted.

And if you're running a business and selling you work that was processed by the illegal software then they're gonna come down harder on you. I'm proud to say my computers have no illegal software - everything is licenced properly. In this day and age with activation it pays to do the right thing cos one day, the focus will get down to the individuals

[farmer_rob]

I would like to point out that I *never* advocated using software or any other copyrighted item without paying the correct fee.

I also suggested passing details to APRA - APRA have the licence information, and can very easily check if the person/company has an appropriate licence. I don't see that as dobbing, merely supporting copyright enforcement, which everyone else appears to advocate as a 'Good Thing'.

BTW, I will accept that aspects of copyright infringement can be described as illegal - thanks for the supporting documentation. (Longshots - I did not ask where software is covered in the copyright act. I asked where copyright infringement by an end-user is a criminal act in the copyright act. )

I do get nitpicky about this, because "theft", "illegal", "piracy" etc are very emotive words, and are used to paint a very black and white picture. However, it isn't black and white. There is a fair argument to be made that grey-market cameras are infringing copyright - the camera contains software with copyright owned by the camera company. They licence the distributor to resell that software embedded in the camera in a particular region. Buy it grey and you are breaching those licence conditions.

There is also the situation that video shot with a 5dmk2 (or other DSLR with video) and used commercially potentially infringes copyright (via the suppliers of the codecs - look in your camera manual.)

Under the copyright act, there are a number of "fair-dealing" exemptions - such as use for criticism - but the anti-circumvention provisions introduced in the 1999/2000 amendments effectively limit fair-dealing rights because you have to break DRM to exercise them.

Look at what Sony and others are doing concerning limiting mod-chips for playstations via the copyright act.

As for "am I clean?" - I am sure I am not, because there are so many grey areas and hidden licences and limits. By the same token, I am sure no-one else is either. However, I try to ensure that I pay for what I use, or get the free software equivalents (ie those where the copyright owners do not ask for licence fees). (I don't use images except for ones I have taken, I don't have songs on my website, and I have paid for the music I listen to.)

Yes, I know - veering badly OT. Sorry!

[Longshots]

BTW I did understand the difference re th copyright act, and criminal etc - I thought that the supporting documentation/links demonstrated that it was ? Albeit very small number of prosecutions though.

And yes the entire area is so "grey" that its a huge task to ensure that one is always "clean". The main issue with APRA which I just dont understand is that I recall dealing with a group of wedding photographers who were encouraging APRA to produce a specific licence to accommodate the "new" needs of photographers using music in their multimedia displays, and APRA had given an assurance that they would produce a solution to the "new" need. Clearly they've done bugger all in response

And while it might have been off topic, its been an interesting and enlightening discussion

[kiwi]

Based on how rampant it is, the number of prosecutions is totally underwhelming.

[Redgum]

William, a couple of interesting statistics for you to follow up. Close to 30% of fees recovered by APRA have not been distributed (because APRA cannot identify the proper owner). And a great majority of those fees have been held in excess of ten years. It is estimated that close on 60% of fees paid to APRA will never end up in the rightful hands and as a consequence go to consolidated revenue.
Rob, APRA doesn't have the resources to pursue licence infringements and I can't remember them ever doing that. What they can do is provide evidence to those who have the time and money to do so. The cost of so doing is prohibitive other than with large scale offences. Hence the issue of blanket licences for low level events (including weddings) and other one-off events particularly with less than 100 pieces of media (say DVD) distributed.
Rob, you said

There is a fair argument to be made that grey-market cameras are infringing copyright

.
In case you are not aware "grey market" cameras are legitimate hardware sold by the manufacturer to a reseller outside the normal "channel". Absolutely no copyright infringement here at all. There may be warranty conditions not offered or restricted by the manufacturer to the reseller but apart from that the camera or hardware is legitimate in every sense.

[Redgum]

Based on how rampant it is, the number of prosecutions is totally underwhelming.

Kiwi, they're only Australian figures and I've got no idea if they are accurate at all but remember that those companies that have been sued have collectively paid billions of dollars for their indescretion. Always wise to sue less for more because you will see behavioural changes and stronger precedents.

[farmer_rob]

...
In case you are not aware "grey market" cameras are legitimate hardware sold by the manufacturer to a reseller outside the normal "channel". Absolutely no copyright infringement here at all. There may be warranty conditions not offered or restricted by the manufacturer to the reseller but apart from that the camera or hardware is legitimate in every sense.

I am aware of the nature of "grey market" items, but disagree that it is not a breach of copyright. The "right of first sale" doctrine is being steadily eroded in America, and Sony's playstation cases are making it pretty clear that they consider you do not own your playstation outright, and Sony actively attempt to limit your rights to do any modifications to it. It is not a long step from there to viewing the use of camera software outside the licenced territory as a breach of copyright. That the camera manufacturers don't do it is more indicative of their attitudes to their distributors, and an awareness that it might really p*** people off.

The copyright act allows similar territorial issues for books - this is why (apart from shipping) it is cheaper to buy books from Amazon than buy them in Australia, because (to paraphrase) it is a breach of copyright to sell books from America in Australia without the local publisher's permission.

(BTW, although later amendments may include software, the use of the copyright act to cover software was because of the written nature of software - much easier to use copyright than patents. Look into the history of the BIOS for IBM PC clones.)

[Longshots]

Kiwi, they're only Australian figures and I've got no idea if they are accurate at all but remember that those companies that have been sued have collectively paid billions of dollars for their indescretion. Always wise to sue less for more because you will see behavioural changes and stronger precedents.

Its also worth noting that I posted a link which indicates the amount of prosecutions by the DPP - there was a great deal more civil actions, which is the normal course of action - and I posted that to answer Robs point about the difference between criminal and civil actions.

Thanks Redgum for the info, but to be honest I wouldnt be chasing APRA up myself I only post infomation if Im aware of an answer to a question, which doesnt mean that I personally agree with every element of that information . As an organisation they seem incapable of meeting the market and adapting to people really wanting to do the "right thing"; and if they're collecting and not distributing then (which doesnt surprise me) to the people or groups concerned, thats both typical and outrageous.

Its a bit off topic, but it reminds me about an Australian organisation that does collect money for Visual Artists (which includes photographers). If you join them, which is FREE, if they then collect royalties on your behalf they will take just 25% - which is not bad.

viscopy.org.au

I'll quote the About section :

Viscopy is Australia and New Zealand's not-for-profit rights management organisation for the visual arts providing copyright licensing services on behalf of our members to a wide and varied customer base.

We represent approximately:

* 43% of Australian and New Zealand artists and their beneficiaries.
* 40,000 international artists and beneficiaries in Australian and New Zealand territories through reciprocal agreements with 45 visual arts rights management agencies around the world.

Currently Viscopy offers two licensing services which generated over $2 million for artists in 2009-10.
Contact Viscopy

[Longshots]

I can assure you Rob that both Canon and Nikon Australia would love the copyright act to cover "grey" imports. Unfortunately, I've never been aware of that act being used or even potentially used in this situation.


Perhaps its your turn to show us which part of the Australian copyright act would substantiate your point

[Pat Redmond]

I think the issue Sony has with Playstations isn't that modding them is a problem with the internal copyright. It is a problem because the reason behind the mod is to counteract copyright on the disks. There is no doubt that avoiding the copyright on the disks is illegal. But the actual modding of the playstations isn't illegal, as long as you don't use it for illegal purposes. Of course, there is no other reason to do it...

I don't think grey market imports are in any way illegal or immoral. In fact, I think this is something that manufacturers are going to have to look at in the short term. With such an international market, it is crazy to be able to buy a lens in Australia for $1,000 or from Singapore for $600 including shipping! I think that the only people who have a problem with this are the manufacturers, and Gerry Harvey.