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. "
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.
It's worth pointing out that the BPI is in fact, the British version of the RIAA. Mr Jamieson is speaking on behalf of the same big record labels when he speaks as a representative of the BPI (British Phonographic Institute) which is the British recording industry association/lobby group/vague legal threats mouthpiece.
Maybe the record companies have realised they need a slightly more sane approach in the UK and France, as they can't buy off the legislature so easily as in the US? That said, we have just as much DRM if not more on our CDs. They've obviously decided to use technical measures rather than legal ones to stop people ripping CDs, because they probably fear a court case ruling against them and actually opening the door to media shifting; if they allow it themselves for personal use, it still remains technically illegal, and they can use DRM much more easily.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.
Quite correct. Not just music, but books, software (actually, there is a right to backup, which has been severely damaged by a clueless bit of judicial activism) and video. Any copyright work may not be copied without permission. There are a very few exceptions; but copying your own stuff is still not legal. It's insane, and everybody ignores the law. Now the music labels say they won't prosecute - but they also don't back a change to the law either. They want to have their cake and eat it. Also note that they're mega-fans of DRM. So you might have the "right" to copy your music, but not the ability. And it's an offence to bypass DRM in the UK. So, all in all - thanks BPI. And thanks for allowing us to get wet when it rains; and get suntans in the sunshine too.
The simple truth is that the BPI could never have really filed suit over someone filling their iPods with their own CD material. We have no statutory damages for copyright infringement here - so the BPI would have to prove and quantify their actual damage. No court would have bought the argument, so the BPI would (at best) have got nominal damages, and probably end up out of pocket for court costs. The courts don't like people bringing harassing lawsuits. This announcement of policy is just aligning their public face with the reality of the world.
Actually, video recording (for time-shifting purposes) are specifically not infringing by virtue of section 50 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act.
--Ng
Actually, it says "everyone who's bought CDs then ripped them to mp3/ogg/whatever and played them on their PC or personal music player has been breaking the law. Previously we've been ignoring that; now, however, we want to make it clear that it's ok and should be legal."
Basically, it sounds like they finally want a fair use-type clause introduced into UK copyright law. It's going to feel weird at first, no longer being a criminal just because I like to listen to music on my commute (on my iRiver) and at work, but don't like carrying CDs around with me.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
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...
Isn't it wonderful? They want to fight an ignored, unenforced, and unenforcable aspect of the law!
Can you say "token copyright reform"? Next thing, they'll be opposing the burning of witches!
It's been a long time.
Well, how to put it... You're a bit out of touch with the times.
Nowadays, when it comes to the crimes against the holy Imaginary Property, we're all guilty and that's it.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.