Lasts indefinitely until the film is published and then 70 years from the end of the year the film is first published. Copyright in films or broadcasts made for, or first published by a government , or in which copyright is owned by a government, lasts for 50 years from the end of the year of first publication.
Copyright Information What is copyright? Films and Television Broadcasts. Duration of copyright Ownership of copyright Rights of copyright owners Using copyright material Copyright and teaching Limits on using copyright material for teaching Using copyright material in lectures Copying material for exams and test questions The Statutory Licence for educational purposes Aside and teaching Music, copyright and teaching Copyright and research Fair dealing Copyright and your thesis Selecting a licence for your work Requesting permission from a copyright owner to reproduce material Locating a copyright owner Services Copyright Office permissions service Copyright notices, signs, forms Submit a query Guides Contact Current Students Library Staff.
Protected as a combination of photographs , dramatic works and sound recordings. No copyright protection. However, the underlying works in the broadcasts - the images, music, sounds, screenplays etc - would have had protection as photographs artistic works ; dramatic works , and sound recordings. Films and broadcasts created before 1 May are protected as combination of different types of copyright material, with different periods of duration depending on the type of material and who created the work.
This means that copyright in the film and broadcasts will expire separately and parts of the film or broadcast may be out of copyright, while other parts remain in copyright. Likewise, for films and broadcasts created after 1 May , copyright might expire in the film or broadcast but remain in the underlying works. Our Blu-ray player reviews take these factors into account, so you can buy one that will make the most of your film collection.
But sometimes the fault can lie with the Blu-ray itself. Which should mean higher quality. These processing technologies could feasibly be on Blu-rays and DVDs, too, but often they are saved for the 4K releases. The back of a Blu-ray box will tell you what audio formats and processing is on the disc.
But Blu-ray players and 4K Blu-ray players are usually backwards compatible with the lower-resolution discs. It's not always the case that a player will be able to play lower-resolution discs, so it's worth checking our Blu-ray player reviews or the store listing before you buy.
Not a DVD player, there's really no point. Very few are still made and we don't test them any more. Ideally, you should buy a 4K Blu-ray player. Despite some 8K TVs now being released, 4K will be the main resolution used by the TV and film industry for years to come. If you don't have a 4K TV already, then it's likely that you will when you next upgrade, and a 4K Blu-ray player will let you make the most of the display, as well as let you watch your existing Blu-ray and DVD collection if you choose the right model - use our TV reviews to help you.
As 4K Blu-ray players and discs become more common the costs will come down. This happened when Blu-ray was taking over from DVD. Blu-ray discs and players cost a fortune during the transition, but now they cost roughly what DVDs and players did then. See our pick of the best Blu-ray players for a steer on which to buy. Test score. This isn't true, either. The content that's on the DVD isn't restricted to the player at all.
It's MPEG and pretty much any video player can play the digital file. The only damn reason the disk is used is to add the copy protection layer so that other MPEG players can't access the digital file it can easily play.
Of course, this truth won't be told. Roger Strong profile , 23 Apr pm. If only it were that simple and reliable. The same goes for satellite TV. One of the many reasons billions of people download and share content online, if a tv is capable of playing the content but their drm or whatever they want to call it prevents me from doing so then it is not only legal for me to get a copy that works but to help others do so too.
That is the power of money, purchase something and you own it, unless they are prepared to buy back every dvd and cd i have ever purchased at the price i paid for them they cannot stop me or others from circumventing their anti consumer technology where they attempt to sell content that is not playable.
Twenty-three major hardware vendors and a variety of content providers - MTV, Yahoo, etc. It would Play For Sure!!! And of course the XBox One isn't compatible with the John Fenderson profile , 23 Apr pm. PaulT profile , 24 Apr am. PlaysForSure was a joke. There were huge, widespread compatibility problems, I remember complaints at the time from retailers saying they had huge overheads due to the level of support calls surrounding the DRM.
When Microsoft realised that this scheme was the white elephant it was, they backed out and rebranded. The fallout was a mess. Zune owners couldn't play music that they had purchased from MSN - Microsoft couldn't even guarantee compatibility with itself! Once PlaysForSure's infrastructure was shut down, nobody could play the music they had purchased, although they were given a grace period to get the music converted.
Meanwhile, of course, those who simply decided to pirate their music instead of paying for it remained unaffected. Fortunately, there's a silver lining - the utter catastrophe of this episode helped convince labels that DRM was hurting more than it helped and start to reconsider allowing retailers to just offer MP3s. Once they did this, new players in the space such as Amazon were able to enter and the market grew exponentially.
Sure, backward compatibility would have been nice, but the internal architecture is different enough that allowing games to play wouldn't have been a simple patch like the Xbox to transition. When you're talking about differences in a new generation of hardware rather than people pissing around with what should be an open file format, I'm not so concerned.
Rich , 23 Apr pm. That Anonymous Coward profile , 23 Apr am. So if I don't own it and have paid them a fee for the access, I'd like my replacements for their media that has failed to live up to the promise of allowing me access to the content. Designerfx profile , 23 Apr am. Something something sony case about restricting linux. Pragmatic , 24 Apr am. The End. Anonymous Coward , 23 Apr am.
I paid legal tender for the purpose of owning the product I was purchasing. DigDug , 23 Apr am. I also probably have as good or more extensive of a collection than you do, with none of the restrictions! You are part of the problem. No, you are. We pay for our and yet we get punished, because you don't and think you're being slick. Anonymous Coward , 23 Apr pm. You also forgot the storage fees for you storing their property!!
I don't remember the part either where when I bought and paid for the DVD's, I signed a license agreement stating that I wasn't purchasing their goods. Uriel profile , 23 Apr pm. One of those By using our website, which you are doing just by looking at this screen, you agree to our terms and conditions. People lose so many arms, legs and first-born children that way.
I bought most of my huge collection from a store. I don't recall there being a licence agreement there. Mason Wheeler profile , 23 Apr am. I once heard that a few years back, a certain political party in Britain managed to pick up a huge number of seats in an election by doing nothing more than publishing the official platform of their biggest rival and saying "this is what these guys stand for.
Take these statements, collect them, and say "this is sheer insanity on the face of it, and these people are trying to enshrine it in law. Copyright refers to the IP-owners exclusive right to copy.
Thus has little to do with the eventual owner of a copy. Arguably the distinct lack of rights for the end-user is the real problem with the current system. When you hear about the fights against any and all end-user rights from certain organisations, you see the true face of greed as a right with the nasty: "If you tolerate this, then your children will be next"-legal uncertainty situation as a guarantee for extra gore.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it. Where does copyright law say the copyright holder has control over the copies once they have sold them? First sale doctrine. Oh wait, that's the part that says you can do whatever you want with the physical item after you've bought it, including resale or using as a coaster. The trolls are using their fantasyland version of copyright again.
The problem with the notion of copyright as property gives these people the right they believe to exert control over the copyrighted item after we have paid for it. Village Idiot profile , 23 Apr am. I would certainly hope so, at least in these nonsensical situations that the current mess that is copyright law has created. I hate it too. Thank the flying spaghetti monster that technology continues to outpace the dinosaurs robbing me of my property rights.
I don't remember there being a form to scroll through that I didn't read before accepting this license. James Burkhardt profile , 23 Apr am. Yep, I've had a few DVDs that have rotted due to manufacturing flaws over the last decade or so.
I either paid for access the the content or a physical disc. If I was only paying for access, I would like it returned, at no further cost. Bergman profile , 25 Apr pm.
I wonder if the DVD consortium knows how many lawsuits they are opening themselves up to with this? Dreddsnik , 23 Apr am. They should probably remove the tagline 'Own it Today' from every one of their commercials. We'll see how fast they fly off the shelves then. Yeah, they didn't think that one through, did they? Today' from every one of their commercials [movie trailer voice] License the limited right to play it on an approved player Too bad LDs died off, now that was a good format.
They didn't even have Macrovision. Yeah, except LD is analog and you have to get up and change discs about 4 times per movie. Wilhelm Arcturus , 23 Apr am. Copyright being used to undermine fair use, international law, and the longstanding fundamentals of private ownership? Rowling going to show up next and tell me my daughter doesn't really own those Harry Potter books because I keep expecting the April Fools punchline to all of these stories, and then I look at the calendar and sigh heavily.
Yes, I'm afraid you will be required to white out all the pages before you sell those Harry Potter books :. Umm, okay. And you claim others can't understand plain words. This is a low point for even Masnick, just childish incomprehension of facts and law. Wow you are grasping at straws in your personal attempt to attack mike, you are sounding like more and more of an absolute idiot every comment you make, of course you own the movie you purchase and can do anything you like with it, edit it and re-edit it if you want then release it as a parody as something that is covered by law as fair use.
Get a life and stop trying to hate on someone like mike who has the public's interest at heart more than you. If you want to suck up to your bosses in the mpaa do it on their website , here you are just laughed at and the butt of many jokes.
GooberedUp profile , 23 Apr pm. Sorry I missed your comment prior to leaving mine. You are about the only other person on here who can see this garbage article for what it is. Well since you've thought it through, and the rest of us obviously haven't, given our inabilities to understand big words, let's for just a second assume that the studios DO own the content on the DVD, while we the consumer owns the physical medium.
If the studio says we can't use the content anymore, for whatever reason, how exactly do they think they're going to take it back? Involuntarily having the consumer destroy the DVD? Using the police to facilitate a mass confiscation? I anxiously await your superior-worded solution to my poorly-worded problem. Don't know, don't care. I'm talking about what the laws are not how to implement or execute them. I don't disagree with the author, I have a problem with the clueless commenters.
I've only seen less than a handful of knowledgeable, intelligent responses. Anonymous Coward , 24 Apr am. You were saying something about being clueless?
This has already happened where devices were connected to the internet. People downloaded an update which then wiped the content off the device. So yes, they can.
They've been trying this for years with music and arguing to have everything their way. They want to say that you're buying the disc, but not the media on the disc, only a license to view the media on the disc, but only the media on that disc, so you don't get a free replacement if your disc gets worn out, damaged, or stolen. And you don't get access to the media in any other format like digital copies or streaming from a server.
And you can't have more than a couple friends over to watch it. And you can't lend it to a friend because they have to buy the license too. And you can't make any copies, even for fair use purposes, because you'd have to circumvent copy protection, which we paid to make illegal.
No one, if actually presented with these terms, would agree to this, especially not at the prices that have been charged in the past for physical media. And by the way, "free speech" Masnick is still trying to block me. What a fraud. Baron von Robber , 23 Apr am. New Silicon Valley definition of troll: dissenting opinion. Good luck with that. New AC definition of dissenting opinion: random personal attacks and whining about censorship where none is present.
At no point in the above was an alternative opinion on the subject of the article presented. Try again. Actually, to be honest, the only way you could peddle your speech is to make it free. I doubt anyone would pay for it.
You should look up a little case history about free speech. BernardoVerda profile , 23 Apr pm. I was going to "report" you. But fortunately, I quickly realized that this would actually be, in fact, quite counter-productive, and that it would be both easier and more effective to leave your blathering unhindered, for all to see and to judge for themselves. Just Another Anonymous Troll , 23 Apr pm. What moronic parallel universe did you come from, where buying something doesn't mean you own it?
It's sad he has to say this all right, sad that Hollywood needs to be reminded of this. Also, Mike is not trying to censor you just because your comment gets held for moderation, that's just an automated anti-spam thing. The fact that your idiotic, insulting comment was published is proof of that.
Also, computer software - the place where you have to agree to an EULA before you can use it, and often have it included for view before you open the disc case, allowing you to return the goods if you don't agree.
Where is that agreement on a DVD, because I don't ever recall seeing one? But, even then, a great many do not have any terms listed at all. Rating, specs, plot synopsis, extras, case, sure. But no licence terms. Those that do list some terms simply reiterate general copyright and trademark information, not the things being claimed here. Am then I to assume I can do whatever I want with the content, or do you accept that the two things are not comparable? Anonymous Coward , 24 Apr pm.
That's why I paid for the damn DVD - a blank one is waay cheaper. I thought destruction of copyrighted media was far more damaging than copying copyrighted media but how wrong was I. Can't wait for this to backfire. GM will owe a lot of people in certain states property tax for their vehicles and state car taxes I would recommend anyone that owns a car in a state like Virginia should bill GM for this miss-applied tax bills. I've only watched the handful of live concert DVD's I bought once, maybe showed a few friends some choice cuts.
Movie DVDs? Save your money. There are so many interesting sources of entertainment now, life is too short to watch the same movie twice. Just wait for the retread - you know - the one where they add a Spiderman role to it. There's a meme for someone, insert Spiderman into all sorts of unlikely retreads!
Richard profile , 23 Apr pm. How many times have we seen the phrase "Own it on DVD" in an advert. Let's hold them to it. They add a qualifier. So if you purchasing the disc doesn't include buying the content, then distributing the pirated content without the disc result in no loss of revenue, because that comes from sales of the disc not the content??
When i buy something be it a car a dvd or a file i buy the right to own it in its entirety. No law can take that away from me and if they ever create a law that takes away my rights then i ignore it and refuse to purchase that object, especially a car or computer. If the law does change for specific items then those laws must also ensure that if i am only licensing the content then when the disc fails for any reason they must supply me free of charge another copy. Especially games discs that are made to stop working within years of purchse.
I really am starting to dislike this site. The initial premise of the article was possibly fine, but the idiotic comments afterwards are indicative of the fact that the copyright laws aren't understood by people and the writer made no attempt to provide those statues.
No doubt it's because of all the pageviews these trolling topics garner. And I would quit reading the site if every single article tried to explain copyright law to a bunch of trolls that will simply ignore it and instead try to demean the writer. Gwiz profile , 23 Apr pm. I have a fair grasp of copyright law.
Do you care to point out what is being misunderstood here? It's been known for ages that a person "owns" the physical media but does not own the copyrighted content. This is long established law. Not really. Traditionally one has had full property rights to the individual copy that they own.
For example, with a dead-tree version of a book I can write on the pages or reorder the pages or destroy chapters I dislike or whatever. Section which is what this article is about changed that by restricting what I am allowed to do with my property in the privacy of my home. Section also impedes Fair Use. Without Fair Use, copyright would run afoul of the First Amendment.
I'm of the opinion that Section is fundamentally unconstitutional, even with the granting of the exceptions. You're agreeing with me then. You own the media. Do what you want with it. Tear, burn, draw, deface, whatever. It's yours. You can still do that. However, the copyright holder has the rights to dictate how you consume the copyrighted content. Copyright grants the copyright owner the rights enumerated in 17 U.
There is nothing in there about how the copyrighted work is "consumed" whatsoever.
0コメント