Slashdot Mirror
UK Becomes Sixth Country to Implement EUCD
orbital3 writes "The UK, as of October 31, 2003, became the sixth nation to implement the laws required to comply with the European Union Copyright Directive with its Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 legislation. This is a short little article about it and here is a copy of the law itself."
"Why shouldn't I be allowed to make a copy of a CD I have paid for so I can listen to it on my computer or put it on an MP3 player? This shows that the law can be an ass," said George Gardiner, technology lawyer and partner at law firm Stephenson Harwood."
That ship sailed long ago, or should I say, never even entered the dock. The UK never HAD a right to create backups, this hasn't all of a sudden outlawed them
1. They've allowed temporary copies (Section 8) - so "transients" created say while listening to the music aren't infringing :-)
2. They've allowed "timeshifting" for domestic premises. Interestingly this opens a whole can of worms for them given the phrasing. A copy can be made for the purposes of timeshifting as long as it does not become an infringeing copy - i.e. one that is sold or let for hire. This would seem to allow at least the creation of "backup" copies for personal use.
3. Section 15 - Observing Studying and Testing of Computer Programs. They've allowed this - as long as you own a copy - and even better this Copyright Act overrules any restrictive license imposed by the copyright holder. (2) Where an act is permitted under this section, it is irrelevant whether or not there exists any term or condition in an agreement which purports to prohibit or restrict the act (such terms being, by virtue of section 296A, void).".
Of course the really stupid part of this is that any infringement is a criminal offense (why?) and you can potentially end up spending longer in jail than a burglar or rapist.
There already is -- that's why the DMCA and EUCD were constructed. They are both based on the WIPO (a UN agency) copyright directive.
I think alot of this is being driven by the US demanding that anyone visiting their country has biometric information in thier passports.
This article sums up the current situation:
"A European Commission official told the paper that EU governments are bound by a timetable set out by the US government after September 11.
Under the US Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, countries whose citizens enjoy visa-free travel to the United States "must issue passports with biometric identifiers no later than Oct. 26, 2004," the IHT reports.
"The solution which is mostly likely is a chip in the passport containing fingerprints and eye scans," Pietro Petrucci, an EC spokesman told the paper."
But enough rhetoric... After actually reading the text of the law, I can honestly say it was not written to be clearly understood by the common man. If men cannot understand the laws set before them, how can they be expected to follow said laws?
Wow... I'm glad we got that cleared up. I always enjoy it when someone can intervene and change the rules whenever they see fit. It makes life so much more predictable. Corperate lawyers love this stuff, because it's easy to twist and turn into a favorable position for any barratry they wish to inflict.
I live in the US, so this law does not directly affect me, but it's still a global chilling effect on all the common people who are just trying to live comfortable lives without being nickle-and-dimed to death by corperations who feel they should be entitled to every portion of our lives.
Where does this madness stop?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Yeah, but this law will prevent other things. I don't fit into the category you're talking about because I don't copy CDs from friends, and on the few occasions I've downloaded music from the 'net, it's because I was wanting to sample the music of a particular band before going out and buying the CD. My main problem with this law, is that it would be illegal to transfer the music onto a portable MP3 player. If I can't have the music with me when I go walking or to the shops, then I might just choose not to buy it at all. I'm quite dissapointed at Britain making tighter restrictions on what fair use of copyright is considered to be.
Follow me
No it does not, not directly at least. There is no provision in the law that prohibits you from making copies for personal use.
However, it does make it illegal to circumvent copy-protection devices... in a few years, when DRM might becomes commonplace, it could mean that your rights to make copies for personal use are de facto taken away from you.
Over here in Holland, fair-use rights have always been upheld as a right. Not because prevention and prosecution of the making of such copies would be impractical, but because lawmakers deem the ability to make such copies for personal use a right. What I would like to see is legislation that would protect and guarantee this right, rather than take it away by outlawing the circumvention of copy protection devices. How about a law that outlaws a copy protection device or DRM, if such a device would infringe on fair-use rights, making it impossible to make copies for home use?
Unfortunately it will never happen. When corresponding with both left-wing and right-wing representatives in the EU government, I get the distinct feeling that no consideration whatsoever is given to the rights of individuals, when copyrights or piracy are discussed. The current politcal wind seems to fully favor the RIAA and its ilk.
More about the EUCD and the UK implementation.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Denmark was one of the first to implement this law.
/ S4 85.htm
And the minister EXPLICICTLY has stated that DeCSS by Jon is legal in Open Source distributions (it was asked specifik about Linux).
http://www.folketinget.dk/Samling/20021/spor_sv
You have to be able to understand Danish, but some friendly soul can probably give an translation.
Also note that folketinget is the danish parlaiment, so the source is diffenitly okay.
I'm afraid not.
The making in domestic premises for private and domestic use of a recording of a broadcast solely for the purpose of enabling it to be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe any right conferred by Part 2 in relation to a performance or recording included in the broadcast.
[emphasis mine]
As I read it, that section relates specifically and only to time-shifting broadcasts, not to "media-shifting" CDs, etc. Which, frankly, sucks. I run a (private) streaming mp3/ogg server at home, so I can listen to my music at work without lugging CDs around or leaving them in the office, or ripping them all to my work machine's rather small hard drive (hah - which I suppose is illegal anyway...). I guess that's now illegal; thanks guys. And this is meant to make me buy *more* CDs?
It's official. Most of you are morons.
according to this site. (Google is your friend).
Making temporary copies 8. - (1) After the heading "General" appearing before section 29 there shall be inserted -
" 28A Making of temporary copies Copyright in a literary work, other than a computer program or a database, or in a dramatic, musical or artistic work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording or a film, is not infringed by the making of a temporary copy which is transient or incidental, which is an integral and essential part of a technological process and the sole purpose of which is to enable -
(a) a transmission of the work in a network between third parties by an intermediary; or
(b) a lawful use of the work;
and which has no independent economic significance.".
admittedly just the amendment, I'm sure there's more for anyone who wants to slog through everything, but I think the parent of this has a point. It really does look like making a copy for backup is legal.
He's dead, Jim. You get his tricorder, I'll get his wallet.
The parent is, sadly, correct. In the UK, copyright law has never allowed for the same "fair use" as the corresponding law in the US. Some exemptions do apply, but copying for personal use is not among them by default, even if it's just transferring data to a different media format, burning a CD with just your favourite tracks (which you legally have on other CDs) on it, or making back-ups.
This is, of course, a rather absurd situation, since everybody does it and even the pro-copyright people (of whom I am normally one) don't argue that the behaviour is unreasonable. That's probably why, AFAIK, no-one has ever been prosecuted in the UK for recording a programme onto video cassette and keeping it, or making back-ups of software they just bought for their computer. The law should certainly be changed to reflect the practical reality, but in practice, it's not as damaging as it sounds for now, because the UK legal culture isn't anything like as nasty as the US one.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
That's the clause that allows a device to operate as designed to play the music. To operate, the signal is buffered between the original and the speakers, but buffering is "making a copy." This clause allows that.
Backups are neither integral nor essential in the data path; they may be obvious and appropriate, but that's not what the clause describes.
[
Seems to me the UK actually legalised home taping!
While nice conspiracy theory, it's most likely not true at all because every directive have to be implemented as a law in each member country according to the rules of that country.
With 15 countries each having different policies in implementing laws it's just impossible to achieve a simultaneous implementation.
Case in point: in Finland this law was almost ready for final voting in the parliament, but didn't quite make it through the committee responsable of drafting it before the elections and thus had to be post poned until after the elections. Meantime the opposition of the law has grown and therefore it's still pending.
You're half right. It's true that UKers were never allowed to rip CDs, but it was never a crime and certainly not incarcerable. Previously, the copyright holder had to bring a civil case and the penalty would be nothing more than a fine, albeit a large one in all probability.
Hmm.. as in.. Sony's Betamax case of 1984?
A nice test case in which the US Court ruled that Sony was not liable for the consumers of the Betamax video recorder who recorded (c)opywritten TV shows..?
From the article:
The article is wrong, then?
in particular, explicitly recognising various fair uses in the sense that US copyright law does
I don't know about backups, but I'm pretty sure it does explicitly recognise "fair use".
All the photocopiers in my (UK) university libraries have a poster above them which says "Make sure you stay within the law!" and gives details on how much you can legally photocopy from various different types of source.
In fact, I've heard it mentioned explicitly in the UK media recently, with regards to the "Burrell affair" which involved Paul Burrell publishing extracts from letters whose copyright was held by Princess Dianna and other royals. He was able to publish these extracts due to fair use, otherwise the royal family could have prevented the book being published (and/or sued for royalties) for copyright infringement.
how exactly does gun ownership relate to the wild west? gun ownership is directly related to the american revolution which precedes the "wild west era" by about 75 years. the right of a man to protect himself was codified in response to the british policy of oppresion. we yanks will always want to have easy access to firearms in cause you obnoxious brits want to come across the pond with your individual rights hating attitudes. the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to shoot any british or canadian infiltrators. i can't wait till the border war starts. i love canadian bacon.
Clearly, a lot of people don't believe that gun ownership only belongs in the "wild west", and gun ownership has been a right in the US and in other countries since long before the wild west. Even assuming that extreme gun control is legal under the Constitution, and assuming that gun control laws will reduce crime in urban areas, etc., the United States has vast rural regions where wild animals are a real threat, where your closest neighbor is a mile away, and it will take the police at least 20 minutes to get to your house. Frankly, I don't see how you might not think a gun would be appropriate in such a situation, even if only because the low population density in many regions in the United States is actually quite similar to the way things were in the wild west. Gun ownership was appropriate in the wild west because it was wild and law enforcement authorities were not very powerful. The same is true if you're living in North Dakota. Other people are very far away, there are wild animals, and law enforcement is weak, or at least, delayed (which is the same thing when you're dead). With gun control, as a criminal, I would be able to get guns fairly easily (and the US doesn't even have a small border of water like the UK), and then due to the gun control laws, I can go to any house in a rural area, and know that even if there is a person in the house, it will be at least 15-30 minutes before anyone (the police) else with equal power to me (a gun) will get there. There are 500,000 police officers in a country of 280 million people and over 9 million square kilometers. They are good at investigating crimes, they are not good at preventing any individual crime. On the other hand, there are 70 million gun owners in this country, and only a few thousand murders by gun per year, many of which are by people who are going to kill each other anyway, such as various criminal elements fighting each other. Canada has more guns per capita than the US and there is much less crime in Canada than the US.
I don't see what's wrong with having a single written Constitution. The United States Constitution is so minimal as to be extremely flexible. Gun ownership is a specified right that was clearly thought important by the people who founded this country. If that right is to be changed, it is done so with the numerically significant and regionally diverse support required of a Constitutional amendment. If the UK "constitution" is so flexible that it reflects the current world better than the U.S. Constitution (which is absurd because the U.S. Constitution is so very basic that it is an appropriate Constitution for a government in almost any era at all), that would mean that the basis of the UK government is more vulnerable to various fads of government and such that are often later realized to be very bad ideas. No, I suspect your constitution isn't as flexible as you think. If it were, it wouldn't be any sort of constitution, it would be on par with any other law at all, and afforded no special protection under the law.
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson