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."
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.
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
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...
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.
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.