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. "

Nitpicking

[Umbral Blot]

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".

Re:Not so hot

[Zocalo]

Although this does mean that it's ok for you to burn a copy of your friend's cd

No, it doesn't. Read the opening paragraph again and you'll see that it says: "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." That makes absolutely no mention of making a quick copy of someone else's CD, which would most definitely still come under the UK legal heading of Copyright Infringement which you could be prosecuted for. Assuming that you get caught of course, which is pretty unlikely.

What I want to know though, is that now we in the UK can buy one copy of a song (or whatever) and then translate it into any format we like for our own use with the blessing of the BPI, does that mean that the music industry is going to stop wasting their money on useless copy protection? Somehow, I don't think so, but we'll see... there is a government review of this in progress, so maybe this is just the music business trying to make it was their idea all along and not what they are about to be told to do in the wake of the Sony rootkit fiasco.

Re:Soo...

[Yorrike]

The copies are pirated, since you sold on the original "license", at it were.

Re:Mod parent gibberish

[ikekrull]

Have you read the law? It's illegal to copy music in the UK without a license to do so, even for personal use.

And yes, there was certainly legal controversy over whether VCRs etc. were legal, and the only reason these devices do exist is because have been found to have substantial non-infringing uses.

Theres nothing illegal to use an mp3 player to play back your own material, material legally supplied to you in the mp3 format, material you have a license to 'format-shift' or public domain materials, and also to play material where 'fair use' applies (this does not apply to personal use). Using an mp3 player or other device to play copyrighted content supplied on CD that you do not have permission to format-shift is illegal.

Where did you get the idea your initial assertion was true?

Re:Common sense

[arkhan_jg]

Sorry, I made an error; Time shifting is now legal and part of the UK law, http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2003/20032498.htm#19 [opsi.gov.uk] as is making transient copies for the purpose of listening to it on say, the computer. Making entire copies of CDs for personal use, or ripping to MP3 is still technically illegal though.

But here's the thing...

[91degrees]

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.

Well, you better tell the UK Patent Office.

[ikekrull]

Try visiting:

http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyri ght.htm [patent.gov.uk]

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.

Re:Soo...

[LordVader717]

Unlimited ipods, but they all have to be connected to a registered computer. With your itunes account, you can register 5 computers which are allowed to play the "fairplay" tracks, and unlimited ipods. But as soon as you connect said ipod to an unregistered computer (or one that's registered for a different account, I'm not sure on the details) the music will be unplayable until you cennect it to a registered machine.

So, if someone steals your ipod they won't be able to play the fairplay tracks. And if you have any sense you'll have backed them up somewhere.
Ofcourse it's a little different with unprotected music, but there's no law forcing DRM.

That brings me to an idea. Wouldn't it be a good if you could use a similar kind of DRM for the actual hardware itself? If it gets stolen, ss soon as someone hooks it up to an unknown computer, it locks out and becomes unusable, and can only be reactivated by hooking it up to a Computer registered on your ITMS account.

Anyways, I don't think they expect you to destroy original media if the copy has been stolen. The thing is, the thief has taken copied media that wasn't his. Even if he has physically aquired it, it isn't his, in which case he is the one violating the copyright, and he has not been aided by the original owner.