Slashdot Mirror
UK Music Fans Can Copy Own Tracks
An anonymous reader writes "BBC news is reporting that music fans in the UK won't have to fear litigation from the British Phonographic Industry. Peter Jamieson, chairman of the British Phonographic Industry, said 'consumers would only be penalized if they made duplicates of songs for other people.'" From the article: "Mr Jamieson also called for Apple - which makes the popular iPod portable music player - to open up its iTunes software so it is compatible with the technology of other manufacturers. Apple applies a digital protection system to its downloads, which means they are not usually compatible with other companies' devices. "
The article! It says nothing!
What does it mean to wake out of a dream
and be wearing someone else's shorts?
BNL, Born on a Pirate Ship (1998)
From the article:
|" "
Interesting.
From the article:
""
Woohoo!
From the article: ""
I guess there's not much to say about this.
I think Brits have known about this already. Suing every single iPod owner who owns all of the music on his iPod would be disasterous to the record company. Australia has similar laws and the ARIA organisation has always stated they won't prosecute for ripping.
This is not news...
What if I made a bunch of copies for myself and carelessly put them where they could easily be taken by stangers?
I just RTFA'd and came back with nothing.
got sig?
This is just common sense isn't it?
Why on earth would anybody want to prosecute me for ripping my cds to play on my mp3 player or to listen to while I'm at work, or for burning my mp3s so I can listen to them in the car...
This isn't news here in the UK, I'm not really sure about the U.S. but if it is then whoah! there are seriously bigger issues that need to be looked at here.
Well, at least in Britain, the basic idea behind fair use is protected. In America, you have the right to fair use except when you circumvent measures intended to prevent you from exercising fair use. Or is that Soviet Russia?
Yeah. Isn't it funny how laws can lag so far behind reality? For years, MP3 players have been a burgeoning industry and music on the computer is so entrenched that ISPs and computer manufacturers make specious claims about how their service or product will help you listen to music... yet just now, it has become legal to do anything involving MP3s in Britain.
At least you're *gaining* rights... on this side of the pond, ours are stripped away in great, sweeping anti-terrorist motions.
Don't get your hopes up too high. Although this does mean that it's ok for you to burn a copy of your friend's cd, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is ok to file share. Depending on how you look at it P2P, for example bittorrent, could be seen as making copies for other people (as you upload data to them).
Philosophy.
At least put '\0'!
I dunno if anybody noticed that there was a story going through the pipeline with a huge chunk of text missing, but here's the complete article:
UK music fans no longer face the threat of prosecution for copying their own CDs on to PCs or MP3 players, as long as the songs are only for personal use.
Peter Jamieson, chairman of the British Phonographic Industry, said consumers would only be penalised if they made duplicates of songs for other people
Currently anyone transferring music to portable devices breaks copyright laws.
The music industry has traditionally turned a blind eye, however, in favour of targeting "professional" pirates.
"We believe that we now need to make a clear and public distinction between copying for your own use and copying for dissemination to third parties," said Mr Jamieson, whose organisation represents the UK's record labels.
He told the Commons select committee for culture, media and sport that he wanted to "make it unequivocally clear to the consumer that if they copy their CDs for their own private use in order to move the music from format to format, we will not pursue them".
Domination 'not healthy'
Mr Jamieson also called for Apple - which makes the popular iPod portable music player - to open up its iTunes software so it is compatible with the technology of other manufacturers.
Apple applies a digital protection system to its downloads, which means they are not usually compatible with other companies' devices.
He said iTunes' dominant market share in downloads was "not particularly healthy" and said he "would advocate that Apple opts for interoperability".
Consumers in the UK pay 79p per track on iTunes and - generally - £7.90 for a full album, although this can vary according to the number of songs and the status of the artiste in question.
In February, music industry investigators claimed someone in almost every street in every town in the UK was illegally copying music and film.
The Federation Against Copyright Theft and British Phonographic Industry said home counterfeiters now accounted for the majority of their investigations
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
It is copyrighted.
...we schizophrenics are left to -- Who are you?
Hi, I'm your other sel... Never mind. Want some free music?
Do I! Let's go!
I feel the need to nitpick the title: "UK Music Fans Can Copy Own Tracks". This would imply that other music fans, or UK fans previously, could not copy their own tracks. Maybe they couldn't figure out how to use the cd burner? A correct title would be: "UK Music Fans Allowed To Copy Own Tracks".
Philosophy.
From TFA:
"We believe that we now need to make a clear and public distinction between copying for your own use and copying for dissemination to third parties," said Mr Jamieson, whose organisation represents the UK's record labels.
He told the Commons select committee for culture, media and sport that he wanted to "make it unequivocally clear to the consumer that if they copy their CDs for their own private use in order to move the music from format to format, we will not pursue them".
Will the RIAA now pressure the US to have the UK kicked out of the WTO? Will we be invadng the UK next for "IP terrorism"? If visiting UK citizens bring their copied music with them on a visit, will they be arrested/fined by US Customs, their copied music confiscated?
Between the French and the UK, the US copyright-cartels and the DRM-pushers have been receiving some major blows. I don't seriously believe the US would invade either the UK or France. (Mostly because they have way too many things that go "BOOM".)
I do have to wonder what consequences the cartels will pressure the US into trying to apply to the UK and France over these actions in trying to free their citizens from the Damocles' Sword of copyright-criminalization by simply copying for their own use what they already bought and paid for and insisting on fairness and interoperability in DRM schemes.
This ought to be interesting to watch. I hope that by raising objections to the UKs' and Frances' actions, they wake a few people up in the US as to the freedoms they are losing, and the raping of the Public Domain and *our* culture for profit.
Cheers!
Strat
Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
It is entirely possible for the recording industry to reach a compromise with users over mp3s. The idea that you aren't allowed to rip, mix, and copy your own cd's/mp3s/etc is ridiculous, and it's good thing that the Recording industry (at least in the UK) has seen some basic common sense.
I remember the RIAA said once in a court case that they wholly condoned copying of CDs for fair use, especially for transfer onto portable devices.
A few months later, they issued a statement which basically said, "We don't believe in fair use. You need out permission to buy, own, listen to, back up, sell, etc. the music." (My own paraphrasing; the original legaliese was something like "Unauthorized copying in any form, such as for transfer to a portable music device, is illegal.")
Is the market like that over in the UK?
How to enable garbage collection on a system without protected memory: #define malloc() ((void *) rand())
Dupe : http://trollaxor.com/text/surprised_by_free_softwa re.html
Basically, what I'm saying is that no body should pay any attention to this, because it's not worth the paper it's printed on.
/dev/random
Someone stores his CD collection on his hard drive, then sells the "hard copies" for £3 ($4.50 - $5) a piece. :-)
1. Look nice by giving people what should have always been their undeniable right. 2. Apple's market power limits our (clients') market power.
All he says is:
"If you rip your own CD, don't worry because we won't pursue you."
From a legal point of vue, nothing has changed ! And he can change his mind.
Also, note that with what he said, if you rip your friends CD you'll get sued.
I've been recording music that I bought onto cassette/cd for, let me see, about 25 years, perhaps 30. Obviously not on cd to start with though.
I don't buy albums from the main labels any more, because 99% of them are crap, produced to make profit, and nothing else. There's nothing new there either, it's been going downhill ever since the spice girls.
I do buy music, but only from indie publishers, and then only from bands who's music I can download to try out.
And yes, I copy them as soon as I get them, then put the originals away.
The law hasn't changed to make it legal to copy your own music. It is just them saying that they won't enforce the law and sue you.
Big difference.
The weasel words are "music that you own."
So borrowing a CD from a friend and ripping that is still a no-no.
The record industry apparently feels it is essential to increase the copyright period from 50 to 95 years as well.
The record industry hasn't changed.
Trying to associate Microsoft with "fun" is like trying to associate Satan with aromatherapy. -Tycho
Almost..Almost...Almost...There we are. Well done.
30% off web hosting. Coupon code "SLASHDOT".
The BPI has promised not to pursue legal action against people who copy music to portable devices. This is not an acknowledgment of fair use. Personally I'll be holding off on the celebrations until fair use if protected by law, not flimsy promises.
...that the UK has a nuclear weapons project. Rumsfeld and Cheney are right now in an emergency meeting with GWB, the RIAA, and the JCoS. An invasion appears imminent. Curse those Brit terrorists! Curse them right to Hell!
The formats itunes uses are perfectly compatible with any other player save when encrypted with "fairplay" DRM.
First this guy says he believes consumers should be free to copy format to format, then he calls for apple to license out its drm to other manufacturers.
It seems to me like this guy doesn't actually want people copying from format to format, but instead wants people to only be able to copy from one DRM format to another.
He needs to get it through his thick skull, DRM is intentional incompatibility and is diametrically opposed to the concept of format shifting.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
All that these guys are saying is that they won't bring suit against you for making your own personal copies. But this is not actually any kind of a concession, because they can't find you out anyway.
The RIAA doesn't sue anyone for making purely personal copies, so it's not surprising to hear the same from their UKian counterparts... but as soon as you start sharing music on the internet, they will be happy to take your ass to court.
Haha.
"But Apple's DRM is super extra good because it's Apple, guys, and they're on our side. It's not Steve's fault - the music industry tells him he has to cripple the files."
Malike Bamiyi wanted my assistance.
"Mr Jamieson also called for Apple - which makes the popular iPod portable music player - to open up its iTunes software so it is compatible with the technology of other manufacturers."
.mp3 files which would work on the iPod, and any other mp3 player on the planet.
I guess Mr. Jamieson (if that is his real name..) forgot that other manufacturers could choose to offer non-drm'd
not to mention, didn't the ipod come out ages before any of the "other manufacturers" invent their own drm?
-- lol pwned
I swear, every time I read that name, my brain reads it British Pr0nographic Institute. Every time. Maybe I need to get my mind out of the gutter..
You can have only two of the following three qualities when developing a product: cheap, fast or good.
My understanding is the DRM was "invented" so that the Content owners can restrict the device in which their content/music plays. Or to rephrase, the DRM is there *BECAUSE* RIAA insisted on it as a pre-condition for access the catalog. If the British Music Labels want the music to be "compatible" on all devices, am sure Apple will have NO problem offering DRM free AAC music. Right? As long as they offer their catalogs without stipulating DRM be there, wouldn't Apple be able to offer the downloads in UK drm-free AAC? To me this whole article is a sham.. A case of the pot calling the kettle black! Just.. a ... Jester
I wonder if the British Pornographic Industry.. or BPI fer short will sue me if I copy my "moves" to the neighbours wife..
I mean, its nice for this guy to say that BPI won't sue - but whats to stop other copyright holders using the statutes of law, as they are written, to prosecute those who are quite clearly breaking it by making personal copies.
The BPI doesnt own copyright on all music, and so they have absolutely no standing to make any general claims around what UK citizens do and do not have to fear when copying music to their iPods.
For example, if I publish a piece of music on a CD and sell it to joe blow at a gig, and joe blow ends up with it on their iPod, then they have broken the law. I would be well within my rights to bring a case against them, under UK law, and the BPI has nothing to do with it.
The BPI, by spreading this misconception that all music in the UK is free of personal use restrictions is effectively advocating the piracy of works over which it has no rights whatsoever.
I mean, maybe these corporations and institutes figure that because they bought the laws initially they should be free to interpret them any way they like, but in my view they need to make it very clear that this waiver only applies to BPI-licensed materials, and that other content is still protected by the statutes as written.
You are *not* free to copy any music you like, for personal use.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
The law hasn't changed to make it legal to copy your own music. It is just them saying that they won't enforce the law and sue you.
Good Fucking Greif. It's legal to copy your own music for personal use. Get a grip on reality and stop suggesting that's anything but the case.
That's explcitly what tape recorders, mini disc players, VHS and DVD recoders are for (in fact, it would in fact be a crimimal offence - and not just the UK - to sell them if the practice was actually illegal).
The weasel words are "music that you own."So borrowing a CD from a friend and ripping that is still a no-no.
Those are not weasel words in any shape or form. They are communicating their very reasonable position quite straightforwardly.
Like many of todays 'yoof', you don't seem to understand the concept of 'paying for something you ought to' though.
The record industry hasn't changed.
You mean because they want you to pay for stuff they are selling? What an odd idea!
Mr Jamieson also called for Apple to open up its iTunes software so it is compatible with the technology of other manufacturers.
Mr Jamieson further went on to call for legislators to stop the partisian bickering, Walmart to pay their employees a living wage, and for those dogs to stop barking so damned late so that he can get some damned sleep.
The ______ Agenda
UK copyright law has, and has always had an section for "private study" under the fair dealing exceptions. The copyright office has clarified that private study includes listening to music purely for personal enjoyment. Whether this would allow one to copy an entire song or album is a matter for consideration, but in the past, British courts have been quite permissive over private use and fair dealing. The fact that there's this exception, and no case law on the matter, means that it's quite possible that the people the BPI is not going to sue aren't breaching coyright in the first place.
I'm getting tired of people trying to force Apple to open up its software. Deal with it or go somewhere else, if enough people go somewhere else, they will change, but quit complaining. Apple has every right to be an asshole with their software, because it is thier's. Thats how life works, people get to do what they want with their own damn stuff (to a reasnable extant, which this is).
He's not talking about songs from other music stores being able to play on the ipod.
He's talking about songs from itunes playing on other mp3 players, which is not possible at present.
He has a point.
yeah yeah,
"Meanwhile, his wife, Jenna were unavailable for comment, she had her mouth full"
Take a look at the legislation, specifically the 1988 copyright legislation as amended by the 2003 EUCD directive, and you'll find you're living in exactly the same fascistic dimension as I am.
In fact, take a look at this page:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyri ght.htm
i quote:
But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?
Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.
It is of course quite normal to do it, but it's still illegal.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyri ght.htm
Heres a nice succint quote from 'the horse's mouth':
But if I've bought something, can't I use it however I like?
Just buying a copy of a book, CD, video, computer program, etc. does not necessarily give you the right to make further copies (even for private use) or play or show them in public. The right to do these things will generally remain with the copyright owner, whose permission you would need. You should note that photocopying a work, scanning a work to produce an electronic copy and downloading a copy of a work which is in an electronic form (eg. on a CD-ROM or an on-line database) all involve copying the work so that permission to copy is generally needed.
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
It is of course quite normal to do it, but it's still illegal.
That's a very interesting point. Ultimately, in a democracy, surely something that becomes normal behaviour is going to end up becoming legal?
Consider homosexuality, for example. In the late 19th century you have a number of famous cases of people being jailed for having gay sex (Oscar Wilde and so forth). Fast forward to today, and because British society as a whole now believes any sexual practice involving consenting adults is OK, the only controversies I can think of in recent years are those that relate to homosexuality in children or churches.
In other cases, the behaviour remains technically illegal but is de facto permitted; e.g. the way even the police now regularly cruise at 80 on motorways and nobody bats an eyelid. I suspect that the only reason the speed limit hasn't been raised is that nobody faces jail for doing 80, so the public sees no reason to demand a change in the law.
Contrast cases where a significant part of the population thinks a behaviour should remain illegal: the Lambeth experiment with tolerance of cannabis use managed to cause quite a controversy, and there's no reason to suppose that law will become any more liberal than it currently is, because the majority of the population seems to agree that cannabis use should remain illegal but should be punished fairly lightly.
Where does copying music for personal use fit into all this? I suspect it's going to end up de facto legal but not de jure, since the music industry wants to avoid the risk of a slippery slope; again, we see the same effect in both the examples above (the government is reluctant to raise any speed limit for fear of encouraging people to drive even faster, and reluctant to liberalise drug laws for fear of encouraging wider use).
But it does seem strange, and strangely incompatible with democracy as it's popularly understood, to have a law deliberately criminalising "acceptable" activities, with no intention of enforcing it, solely to discourage "unacceptable" activities...
This has always been the case in the UK. Although, technically, it is a breach of copyright, it has always been tolerated.
The issue came up when tape recorders first came out. At the time it was eventually made clear. The same thing happened when the VCR emerged - it was made clear that taping for time shifting was OK and would be tolerated.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
This is a company (or group of companies, it's not entirely clear) who is saying "this is illegal and we could wreck your life for it in court... but we've decided to let you do it. For now."
Aside from being arrogant and pretentious, it's selective enforcement and shouldn't be allowed. Companies should not be the authority on what actions you may or may not do with the things they produce. They should not have laws that allow them to sue anybody when they feel they have a reason, because a company will always abuse this power, sooner or later - they are ruled by the bottom line.
We don't want their permission. We want the laws changed so that we don't need their permission.
If they've said that they won't pursue, in the press (ie, in front of millions of witnesses), then they've effectively given up their right to pursue someone for those actions. The nice thing about the courts in the UK is that they actually hold people to their word - if the BPI tried to take action against someone, all the defendant would have to do is refer the judge to this (very public) statement and the case gets thrown out.
:)
It's nice to live in a country that still respects common law.
First read through the article came across as "music fans in the UK won't have to fear litigation from the British Pornographic Industry", then saw Jamieson.... thinking they misspelled Jameson....
What does music fans have to do with porn?
Oh wait, I think I need some more coffee......
Uk copyright law doesn't have a fair use clause. Instead, it's 'fair dealing', and your only legal entitlement under it is to make copies for research purposes.
:D
It's not that UK law has always allowed for it - in reality, it never has. It's that the law as it stands has never actually been enforced. Just the way we like it.
Dear Mr Jameison,
Please go fuck yourself with your fucking WIndows Media PC. Tell your fucking friends at Microsoft to open up their fucking Windows Media DRM so it will work on other operating systems than your own fucking Microsoft Windows.
open up its iTunes software so it is compatible with the technology of other manufacturers.
So, does he mean open as in Open Media Commons http://www.openmediacommons.org/ or does he really mean that Apple should bow to Microsoft Windows Media DRM? (BPI and Microsoft are partners in a number of DRM related projects.)
Hah. Lovely as that sounds, I don't think that is the truth. Court cases are brought against filesharers, ISP illegally supplying their addresses to record companies who lack court orders.
m l
In truth, no-one here cares about DRM, free software or copyright. It's well outside the public conscience. Media coverage of this stuff, with the exception of the technology program on BBC world/news, there is none. Any colunns in newspaper typically contain laudible inaccuracies, laughible misconceptions and livacious prejudices. Most people don't know what DRM (or a stem cell) is.
In France, the parliament lobbied to rule the development of free software illegal (1), a threat to french software businesses. So much for freedom, equality and brotherhood. In the UK, *very* few people outside labs and universities use linux. Some people use FireFox cos it's quite good but they wouldn't understand the GNU public license. *I* get out, too.
http://fsffrance.org/news/article2005-11-25.en.ht
I suppose the news is that the BPI have no tolerence for me giving my friends my music and vice versa. I don't do p2p and feel a little insulted that sharing with my friends is some kind of criminal offence. We all buy plenty of music.