Film theft in the UK - Future of Copyright

lawful use of the work; and (iii) has no
independent economic significance. This
exception protects, for example, certain
telecommunications providers whose
equipment is used by customers for infringing
transmissions on the Internet. It does not affect
the liability of the user responsible for the
transmission.
The existing fair dealing exception for criticism
and review of a copyright work (s. 30, CDPA) is
limited by addition of a requirement that the
work has legally been made available to the
public. The exception for news reporting (ibid.)
is tightened by requiring the user to give a
sufficient acknowledgment of the copyright
holder, unless it would “for reasons of
practicality or otherwise” be impossible to do
so.
The making of copies by teachers for purposes
of instruction and examination in film and
television schools (s. 32, CDPA) remains
permitted, but a sufficient acknowledgement is
now required, unless this would be impossible
(as above). The exception for instruction is now
limited to that carried out for a noncommercial
purpose. Similarly, the exception
for copying of broadcasts by or for educational
establishments (s. 35, CDPA) now requires
sufficent acknowledgement of the broadcast to
be given and limits the exception to noncommercial
educational purposes. The revised
section permits electronic transmission of such
a copy within the school or college concerned,
providing the transmission is limited to the
premises of the establishment.
The existing exception for time-shifting (s. 70,
CDPA) is tightened by a requirement that the
copy be made “in domestic premises”. Such a
copy may not be sold, hired out, offered or
exposed for sale or communicated to the
public. This means that copies of films and
programmes recorded for later viewing cannot
be used for other purposes. Similarly, the taking
of a photograph of a broadcast work from the
television screen for private and domestic use
(s. 71, CDPA) remains excepted from liability,
but the photograph must be taken in domestic
premises and may not subsequently be dealt
with.
The cable retransmission of a wireless
broadcast remains excepted in certain
circumstances (s. 73, CDPA). The Regulations
now provide that for these purposes cable
retransmission includes microwave
transmission between terrestrial fixed points.
Currently, designated, not-for-profit bodies are
permitted to copy broadcasts in order to
provide sub-titled or otherwise speciallyadapted
copies to handicapped persons (s. 74,
CDPA). The Regulations make it clear that such
bodies may, in addition to rental or transfer,
provide adapted copies by way of loan.
Protection of technological measures
The CDPA already provide protection for copyprotection
measures (s. 296). With the advent
of digital media and the Internet, such
technical protection is of great importance to
the video industry. The Regulations
substantially amend the existing provision,
giving much enhanced protection for right
holders.
The circumvention of an effective technological
measure (a copy- or access-control measure or
a process of scrambling or encryption) applied
to a copyright work is a civil wrong (s. 296ZA,
CDPA). The copyright holder, his exclusive
licensee or a person who issues copies of the
work or communicates it to the public with the
benefit of such technological protection may
sue any person who carries out the
circumvention with reasonable grounds to
know that he is pursuing that objective. Those
carrying out research into cryptography are not
liable, unless the rights of the copyright holder
have been prejudiced.
An offence is committed by anyone carrying
out the commercial manufacture or
importation of devices primarily designed,
produced or adapted to circumvent
Film theft in the UK | 75