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)
What if I made a bunch of copies for myself and carelessly put them where they could easily be taken by stangers?
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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...