UK Copyright Reforms Legalize Back-Ups, Protect Parody

rastos1 writes A law has come into effect that permits UK citizens to make copies of CDs, MP3s, DVDs, Blu-rays and e-books. Consumers are allowed to keep the duplicates on local storage or in the cloud. While it is legal to make back-ups for personal use, it remains an offence to share the data with friends or family. Users are not allowed to make recordings of streamed music or video from Spotify and Netflix, even if they subscribe to the services. Thirteen years after iTunes launched, it is now legal to use it to rip CDs in the UK. Just as interesting are the ways that the new UK law explicitly, if imperfectly, protects parody.

Comments

Also interesting for what they missed out

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This is progress of a sort, though it has been a very long road with many false starts.

Even so, it's interesting to see what they didn't include. For example, notice that almost none of the changes affect software at all, nor do they help at all with content that is protected by technical measures for DRM purposes.

In other words, those who want to remain legal are still at the mercy of content providers doing things that may or may not work reliably, may or may not interfere with the normal operation of computers/mobile devices, may or may not cause huge problems with restoring access to purchased content if such devices fail, etc.

Don't be fooled. A lot of the apparent improvements in this new law are immediately negated by technical measures.

Re:Also interesting for what they missed out

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

At least it's not illegal to [circumvent technical measures].

Yes, it still is. That's the point. Almost all of the theoretical benefits of these changes can immediately be nullified, because all the content provider has to do is apply technical measures and then breaking those measures remains against the law even if the copy would otherwise now be legal.

Re:Also interesting for what they missed out

[OliWarner]

What would you have? Just make DRM illegal on purchase-model sales? It won't change a thing. That whole model is being killed off.

The problem is that all content providers (even software) are moving to a model where you're not buying your license, you're just renting it. These sorts of arrangements are the sole good commercial reason for DRM but as we're seeing, it's ushering in a new wave of anti-interoperability. Yesterday's DRM-ripping problems won't be the problem tomorrow, it's the good old favourites of vendor lock-in, price gouging and tariff manipulation.

Perhaps all content provision needs to be regulated like a utility. Unbundled so the services that get it to you aren't competing for different content.

Re:Also interesting for what they missed out

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

This is not America, there is no DMCA.

What does America have to do with anything? This is about the UK, I live in the UK, and I'm talking about UK law. Here we have the EUCD, which is hardly "murky" on this matter, and the relevant provisions have been incorporated into UK law for around a decade now.

When do you think this hasn't held up in court? There have been various cases elsewhere in Europe where things like mod chips have survived a court challenge in various ways. However, in the UK, the judiciary seems to have taken a very consistent and pro-rightsholder view in such cases so far.

Also, what "clearer law saying something is specifically allowed" do you think applies here? The changes taking effect today have little to say about TPMs.

Perhaps you should read the Intellectual Property Office guidance (PDF) about this issue. Pay particular attention to the FAQ on page 4, where for example it notes:

However, you should note that media, such as DVDs and e-books, can still be protected by technology which physically prevents copying and circumvention of such technology remains illegal.

Or just go straight to reading the changes themselves, which are written in legalese but clear enough for a non-lawyer to understand.

Re:Also interesting for what they missed out

[PPH]

technical measures for DRM purposes.

DRM? I thought it was just corrupted data* on the original media. I downloaded this nice piece of software that appears to recover the data quite effectively and made my legal copy.

*It must have been corrupted. It wouldn't play on my Linux system.

EUCD is (approximately) DMCA for the UK

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

That's not how I read the BBC article, but if that is what it meant then it is wrong.

We have the EUCD here, which in somewhat similar to the DMCA. In fact, it is arguably stricter in this particular area, because it covers not only access control mechanisms but also copy protection mechanisms. The relevant details of the EU directive have been incorporated into UK law for roughly a decade.

Rightsholders can therefore pursue not only those circumventing such technical measures but also those making or distributing the equipment used to do so, and in some cases this can fall under criminal rather than civil law. Moreover, this has actually happened, for example in the Sony PS2 mod chip case.

Re:EUCD is (approximately) DMCA for the UK

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But the law doesn't say, for example, that you have a legally protected right to make back-ups. It just says that making back-ups under certain conditions doesn't infringe copyright, which is a completely different statement.

The guys who negotiated these laws are not new at this. These changes have been in negotiation and consultation for several years, and despite the apparent wishful thinking of many posting in this Slashdot discussion, they didn't get to that process and then accidentally give away the keys to the kingdom without noticing.

Re:EUCD is (approximately) DMCA for the UK

[BarbaraHudson]

Actually, this is not a new UK law - it's a European Union directive, so it applies to the whole of the European Union.

However, it's still more restrictive on what can and cannot be parodied:

If a parody conveys a discriminatory message (for example, by replacing the original characters with people wearing veils and people of colour), the holders of the rights to the work parodied have, in principle, a legitimate interest in ensuring that their work is not associated with such a message.

Certain really funny scenes in Spaceballs were just outlawed. "There goes the neighborhood."

However, when looking at the text of the actual law, it doesn't make any mention of discrimination in the list of changes. Neither does the 11-page explanatory notes section. My guess? Someone added their own interpretation, not realizing that the old test of "fair dealing" is modified by this new directive.

What would I have instead?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

What would you have?

Personally, in an ideal world but one where we accept the basic principle of copyright as a reasonable economic tool? I'd have:

1. 100% effective DRM. (Yes, really, but read on for what balances it.)

2. Compulsory escrow for any work being distributed commercially with DRM applied, and criminal sanctions for those who fail to provide the unprotected content to the relevant regulatory authority.

3. Much shorter copyright durations, probably varying by industry/type of work and dictated by what creates a reasonable commercial incentive but not an excessive one in each context, which I suspect would be around 5-10 years in most cases.

4. Original creators keeping the master copyright to any work they do, so big media distributors can only ever have exclusive licensing for relatively short periods (maybe 1-2 years) after which they have to renegotiate with the original creators if they want to renew their licence.

In short, I would give the creators primary control for the duration of the copyright, I would make big distribution channels into a market that is subservient to creators rather than the other way around, and then within that structure, members of the general public get a clear choice to enjoy a work immediately on whatever terms the market will support (one-off purchase, rental, library subscription, etc.) or to wait a significant but not absurd length of time until the work enters the public domain forever.

In shorter, I'd screw the distributor middlemen, make copyright back into something that provides a reasonable incentive to create and share good works, and make the default legal position that everyone can enjoy everything once that incentive has done its job.

Re:What would I have instead?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Lulz, if that's the case then I and many other people are simply going to wait for the copyrights to expire and get the books, music and movies for free.

Of course you are, and I have no problem with that. Copyright wasn't supposed to be a mechanism for locking up culture indefinitely. As long as enough people still want things soon enough to pay for them at reasonable prices, creators can still make a decent return and will still create and share stuff, and that is what it's all about.

Re:What would I have instead?

[Trogre]

Yes, and so what? Why is this a problem?