2 ms·
Feel free to consult a lawyer, but there are 2 parties to which the copyright act refers: the public and researchers. The definition of researchers is given in
by mikekchar 8y ago
Feel free to consult a lawyer, but there are 2 parties to which the copyright act refers: the public and researchers. The definition of researchers is given in the act. The public is everybody else -- you, the renter, anyone else that isn't a researcher.
The way it works is that the act outlines all of the circumstances in which copying could be infringing. It then defines infringement in section 2. In section 2 it says that it is not infringement if you have an agreement with the copyright holder (i.e. a license).
You may be thinking that "the public" infers a large group of people. This is not correct. The copyright act doesn't distinguish between numbers of people except in very specific circumstances (private copying with respect to audio recordings of music is an example). There used to be a section dealing with "making available", but it seems to have been removed (I haven't lived in Canada for a decade, so I haven't kept up with the copyright act).
Generally speaking, copyright infringement is a civil matter, but commercial copyright infringement is a criminal matter so it is doubly important to get a good legal opinion before venturing into that territory.
But, like I said, the act is quite clear IMHO. If you disagree, then feel free to get a legal opinion (which mine is not). I would literally be shocked if any lawyer told you that it was legal, though.
- Dylan16807 8y agoDoes that mean two people watching a movie together are breaking that law?
- Paperweight 8y agoThere's all kinds of exceptions and things in there, plus a copyright board that makes decisions. Notable is 29.22 Reproduction for private purposes is allowed if 29.22 (1) (a) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced; So it seems that both the DVD and player must be legally owned by the person watching the movie. That means they must have the right to come in and walk away with the DVD and player at any time, just as if they had them in a data center. Seems reasonable. Just buy them back when they're done. Note that Zediva didn't do this. Their DVDs and DVD players weren't actually owned by the customers, just rented, nor were customers allowed into the data center to repossess them. The US also didn't have the same private reproduction provision as in the Canadian Copyright Act does.
- Dylan16807 8y agoThat's making a copy, not really relevant to viewing, so I'm not really sure why you're quoting it. If it was relevant to viewing then it would imply that two people watching a rental aren't covered...
- mikekchar 8y agoRead the act. There is a section for presentation of audio visual works. I understand that you want to be upset at the copyright act. I actually don't like it very much either. But you do yourself and others a disservice by maintaining an intentionally ignorant stance. If you want to help, learn about it and do something useful. Sniping at people who are trying to help you is completely unhelpful.
- Dylan16807 8y agoI'm curious why you think I'm 'sniping', because I'm not trying to be hostile at all. And I don't trust myself to read the law very well, because copyright-related law is often contradictory and impossible to understand without extensive case law understanding. And even if the Canadian version is easy to understand, it doesn't help the US version being excessively twisted in my eyes to make very reasonable things illegal. I'm frankly amazed that 'cloud DVR' wasn't shut down immediately.