legality

[Jon Davies]

On 28 April 2011 09:58, James Cook <james.cook at bluewin.ch> wrote:
> One reason for asking was this snippet in the mediaselector file
> which get_iplayer uses to get the streams:
>
> e.g. for http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/4/mtis/stream/b00z54tp
>
> <mediaSelection>
> -
> <!--
> This code and data form part of the BBC iPlayer content protection
> system. Tampering with, removal of, misuse of, or unauthorised use of
> this code or data constitutes circumvention of the BBC's content
> protection measures and may result in legal action. BBC (C) 2010.
> -->

The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 disallows the circumvention
of "effective technological measures", but defines "effective" as
something that "achieves the intended protection".  This definition
seems somewhat circular in that any "technological measure" that can
be circumvented clearly doesn't achieve the intended protection...
but if you take what might be a slightly more sane interpretation (but
it's law, and sanity has never in my experience appeared in the
context of law), then an effective measure would be one that if not
actively worked around actually protects something.  Listing a whole
pile of stream sources in an unencrypted file cannot possibly be
"effective" under the definition in the act.  So reading and
interpreting that file, and selecting a stream from it, cannot
possibly be a violation of the Copyright act.

Further, when you use the iPlayer site, you as a user provide the
software and systems to access iPlayer, and the software and systems
you provide access this file and select a stream from it.  So in that
sense you should be able to argue that get_iplayer is just another
"browser".  Just a special-purpose browser.

So that particular statement in that particular file is, in my
opinion, unenforceable.  And anyhow, get_iplayer doesn't remove or
tamper with the file - it's hosted on the BBC's site, and get_iplayer
doesn't tamper with anything there.


There are a some things that are pretty clear:

- recording a broadcast for the purpose of time-shifting is a
"permitted act" and does *not* violate copyright law, and the live
streams from iPlayer are "broadcasts" as defined by the Copyright
Designs and Patents Act 1988.  Further, if the BBC, or any other
broadcaster, puts in place technological measures to prevent you from
making a recording for the purposes of time-shifting (which is a
"permitted act"), then you are entitled to complain to the Secretary
of State.  Note that the entitlement is to complain - the law doesn't
provide an entitlement to circumvent the protection on a broadcast.

- unfortunately, just because a piece of video has been broadcast,
doesn't make every copy of it a broadcast, and the non-live content on
iPlayer is *not* a broadcast.  (In fact the law expressly defines
video on the internet as not being a broadcast, unless it's either
showing something that's live; or it's transmitted over the net at
essentially the same time as a more conventional broadcast.)

- giving a recording of a broadcast or copy of a copyright work to
someone else, in any form for any purpose whether for fee or not, is a
violation of copyright law.  Please don't do it.

I am not a lawyer etc, if you need legal advice, find someone
qualified to give it to you.

Jon