UK Think Tank Calls For Fair Use Of Your Own CDs

jweatherley writes "The BBC reports that a UK think tank, the Institute for Public Policy Research, has called for the legalization of format shifting. In a report commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown, they state that copyright laws are out of date, and that people should have a 'private right to copy' which would allow them to legally copy their own CDs and DVDs on to home computers, laptops and phones. The report goes on to say that: 'it is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government.' The report also argues that there is no evidence the current 50-year copyright term is insufficient. The UK music industry is campaigning to extend the copyright term in sound recordings to 95 years."

I see just one problem

[growse]

The only problem with think-tanks is that they're constantly coming up with common sense and good ideas like this, but no one in actual real grown-up government will give a rats ass. They commission a study to show that they care about the issue and then ignore the results. That's politics!

Re:I see just one problem

[jb.hl.com]

The IPPR is very very close to the governing Labour party, a fact which was in the submission of this exact same story which I made a few hours ago. :)

Oooh, so close!

[Tim C]

They almost got it right:

'it is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government.'

There I was thinking it was the job of society (i.e. the people themselves) to decide what rights people should have, and the job of the government to put into place laws describing and safeguarding (and where appropriate, limiting) those rights.

Guess I'm just getting old.

The job of government...

[NevDull]

It's not the job of government to decide what rights people have, but to determine what rights they don't have, as by default, if freedom is the natural state of man, it is limitation of the rights of man that must be negotiated and/or dictated.

Job for governments, society or a corporations?

[dada21]

Rights aren't given to anyone by society, government or any corporations -- rights are inherent and they're only protected when we use them even in the face of those who wish to stop us.

Government can jail me, society can tell me to get lost, corporations can sue me -- but I will still use these hands and these ears and this voice as God gave them to me (yes, a religious slashdotter). No one can take them away, and no one can tell me what to do with them. I don't use them to hurt anyone. If I spend time making copies of something, it is my time I am wasting. I could use my hands to make a copy of a mechanical design that is patented -- it might take me thousands of hours, or I could just go and buy it. Some things are difficult to copy, so my time preference says it is better to buy it. I could make a copy of a CD -- it might take me 30 seconds, or I could just go buy it. Time preference works in my favor in this case.

I pay the plumber to fix the toilet -- his current action in front of me is worth my money. I pay the band to perform live for me -- their current action is worth my money. Recording their music on a CD is a great way for them to advertise their abilities to get me to come to their live show, but the CD is worthless. Supply and demand, people. The supply is near infinite (for the recorded music), so the price goes to zero. But the supply of the live band is limited, so the price goes up to meet demand.

Good goals, but fundamentally wrong

[Control Group]

'it is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government.'

I wholeheartedly support the things they're trying to achieve, but...I would be hard-pressed to find a statement that could be more fundamentally wrong than the above. It's that sort of thinking that's got us in the mess we're in.

The government, in no way whatsoever decides what rights people have. The function of legitimate government is no more or less than to recognize and to protect the rights people have*. The government doesn't grant rights, people have rights because they're people. The government, if anything, limits exercise of rights in the name of social order (don't read anything into this statement that isn't there - I'm not advocating anarchy, this is a legitimate function of government and necessary for society to function).

By ceding the power to government to decide what rights people have, we've opened the door for exactly the kind of abuse that now runs rampant. Government is controlled by money, and huge quantities of money are controlled by the pseudo-citizens we refer to as "corporations." Granting power to government is granting power to corporations.

It would be easy to say that the quote is just verbal shorthand, but I think there's a fundamental difference between the mindset "we have rights, and we delegate some authority to government" and the mindset "the government has authority, and delegates some rights to us" that is exhibited by such a statement.

*To demonstrate this to yourself, consider this: if government grants rights to people rather than people having rights and granting authority to government, then this means that there can be no such thing as a government abuse of rights. After all, if government can legitimately decide what your rights are, then you have no legitimate complaints about government trampling them. And I don't think you really need to look too far from home or too far in the past to find examples that, to me, pretty clearly indicate that the government can trample rights.

Re:Oooh, so close!

[Winckle]

In a democracy society elects representative officials, so in theory you are both correct.

Re:95 year protection?

[julesh]

License-free drugs are substantially more important to the public good than license-free Milli Vanilli.

Re:95 year protection?

[Penguinoflight]

On the other side of the coin there's not as much reason to protect Milli Vanilli in the first place.

Re:Oooh, so close!

[Aladrin]

I see the definition of Democracy has been stretched to fit the US. What you describe is actually a Republic.

In a democracy, the people ARE the government, and so they would both be correct. In a republic, the government is doing the law making, and the decisions for it. You may have elected them, but that's not the same as making the decisions.

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=democ racy [answers.com]

http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=repub lic [answers.com]

Re:I see just one problem

[From A Far Away Land]

You may underestimate the power of an organization saying something. Granted them saying it doesn't do much, unless the politician reads or hears someone else pointing to the study/policy saying "why don't we do that?" The RIAA/Phonograph idiots have positioned themselves as the "experts" on copyright policy, and it's time for people to create consumer friendly organizations that talk about common sense, and the Commons.

Re:Oooh, so close!

[Winckle]

Well, I'm British, you probably guessed that from my URL. And the first definition of democracy: 1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

Re:Oooh, so close!

[RAMMS+EIN]

In Europe, there is a sentiment that, since the government is chosen by the people, it represents the people, and government and people can effectively be identified. The sentiment, common in the USA, that the government and the people are in an adversary relationship, is much weaker in Europe. It's more like the government has been contracted to rule the country, so that the people don't have to. This explains many things, such as the fact that Europeans often want the government to set strict rules for things and to watch everyone to ensure safety and social security, whereas in the USA, there is a strong feeling that the government should be restrained and leave people to figure things out for themselves.

Of course, these are not absolutes. All generalizations are false.

Re:Oooh, so close!

[dylan_-]

They're talking about consumer rights, not human rights...like getting a refund from the retailer on something that breaks after 2 days use. Not something Amnesty is going to be counting any time soon.

Oops, shouldn't have posted that, now maybe I won't get to hear any more Americans educating me on the safeguarding of human tort^H^H^H^Hrights.

Re:The job of government...

[RAMMS+EIN]

These are just two ways of looking at the same coin. Do I have a right to my own property, or are you restricted from taking it away? Do you have the right to a fair trial, or am I restricted from executing you without one?

Re:Oooh, so close!

[Tim C]

That's as may be, but the UK is much closer in attitude to the US than it is to continental Europe. Also, at any given time, at least half the population think the government is a bunch of idiots, as political support tends to be very polarised here - if you vote Labour, you generally can't stand the Tories, and vice versa (despite the differences now being next to insignificant).

Personally, I like (at least the idea of) the NHS and social security; it gives me a warm fuzzy feeling to think that at least part of my taxes are going to help those less fortunate than myself. A couple of friends have had serious illnesses that they probably would not have survived if not for the NHS (who, at 20, expects to develop cancer?). I see those who oppose such state-provided facilities funded through taxes as short-sighted and selfish. Opinions differ, of course.

Re:Good goals, but fundamentally wrong

[Ngwenya]

'it is not the music industry's job to decide what rights consumers have. That is the job of government.'

I wholeheartedly support the things they're trying to achieve, but...I would be hard-pressed to find a statement that could be more fundamentally wrong than the above. It's that sort of thinking that's got us in the mess we're in.

Note: the speaker did not say which rights the people (ie, the citizens of the state) have, it was which rights consumers have. We're not talking about fundamental rights of the citizen, we're talking about the rights of the consumer within a marketplace scenario. Generally, consumer protection is delegated to government as a power to ensure that vendors are not allowed to market falsely, exercise unconscionable contracts, etc. It's usually accepted in most European states that those possessing capital (the vendors) are in a stronger position than those parting with it (the consumers). The people have a right to expect that government will act as a shield for the weaker party, in order to ensure a fair marketplace. In other words, whether we're talking about a European model of liberty, or an American one, the point remains: consumer protection is generally a power which government has been given popular authority to exercise.

Remember the context: copyright legislation. At the moment, we have copyright legislation that's almost exclusively to the advantage of rightsholders, ignoring the basic truth that the fruits of knowledge can be shared almost trivially today. The IPPR are saying that it is the government's right and duty to reassert that ideas and their expressions are not primarily commercial quantities. That the right for consumers to copy their own possessions is not one which should have been ceded in the 300 years of copyright legislation.

Your point was addressing the nature and rights of the citizen in the modern state: a far more general and differently rooted argument than the point at hand. Some here will consider that those rights are natural rights (ie, they stem from our being human), others will consider that rights are essentially civil (ie, they are reserved/ceded as part of a social contract); in either case, the power of government to act as a fair market arbiter tends to be accepted by either construction. (Yes, I'm aware that some libertarians do not accept that such a role of government is legitimate; however, the libertarian constructs of Nozick's Anarchy, State and Utopia would accept such a power as proper).

--Ng

Re:Oooh, so close!

[Shemmie]

I'd argue that the view is much less polarized over here in Britain, than say what I've seen of Americans. Example: Over here, we vote depending on what's put on the table by the parties. If Labour's got a better manifesto, go Labour. Next election, maybe Lib Dem, or whatever. There are die-cast Lab and Tory voters, but the floating voter is in the majority. From what I've seen on the net, Americans seem to live and die by their party. You're either die cast Dem, die cast Rep, and a very small number are what actually decide the election - the floating voter. I'd vote for whoever put the best policy down in front of me, and actually seemed willing to go through with it. Labour and the "We won't introduce Top-Up fees" manifesto, for example. (We won't introduce Top-Up fees... ... in this parliament)

Schoolyard ahoy!

[garyok]

Goddamnit, why does every discussion that involves the word 'rights' and a non-US country always have to devolve into an our-constitution-is-bigger-than-your- sucky-parliament-and-can-kick-its-head-in polarised slagging match? If this leads to UK government policy that bars corporations from imposing their DRM bullshit on the UK, then it's a good thing. Otherwise, it's a waste of time. Can we wait and see before jumping down each other throats over who's form of government has the biggest swinging dick?

Re:Oooh, so close!

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Both the UK and the US are certainly moving toward being the type of country which used to call itself a "democratic republic," but I don't think that's something we should look forward to.

Re:I see just one problem

[multisync]

Give it a couple of weeks. Some right wing, music industry friendly "think tank" will release a report concluding that copying CDs for private use is bad, and 95 years is nowhere near long enough for a copyright term.

Re:Job for governments, society or a corporations?

[dada21]

For me (I write on blogs and books), my value comes from my direct performance to an audience -- it's called consulting. For political writings, I have gotten paid to speak to an audience and field questions. Even a nobody like me can get $10-$20 per head for the live venue. 500 people paying to ask an author questions is an easy $10k. I've NEVER copywritten anything I've produced, including music. I let others freely copy my works and put THEIR OWN NAME on them -- this is because it increases the audience for the ideas I write, and eventually they find me or increase the demand for my work.

A toilet bowl maker spends hours designing a toilet bowl and then producing it. Do you pay him every time you flush it? Of course not. You pay once. That toilet bowl engineer may have spent years in college and in the field learning to make a better toilet bowl -- do you compensate him for this learning time? No.

A band also spends time making music -- some went to school, some spend years making an album. It doesn't matter -- everything you did in the past is USELESS in terms of value. I am an employer (in IT, in the print business, in business consulting, and in editing), and all my employees know from the past is IRRELEVANT -- it is what they produce TODAY that matters. Been on the job 50 years? Great, apply that knowledge to something profitable TODAY. Sometimes the people in a business the longest are worth the least because they refuse to change with the market. The same is true for music, engineering, laboring, whatever.

Your only profitable work is what you can do TODAY, not yesterday. Did you write something yesterday? Don't use the State to protect your profits -- go out and make yourself new ones by talking about what you wrote. Give your book away for free and command more money for your intimate knowledge that you share with a live audience. It can be done -- do it.

If you are afraid to take a risk as a band (in giving away your advertising on CD in music form) and try to make money live, then get a salaried job making music -- there's thousands of jobs in the music industry worldwide that pay a salary and offer little risk (and little reward). Want to try to make millions? That's all about LIVE PRODUCTION income -- your reward is high, but your risk is higher. Think about supply and demand and you'll get it.

Re:I see just one problem

[Trillan]

They're not that different. Just as there are a finite number of ways to do something, there are also a finite number of melodies that any human ear would consider music.

Re:To everyone harping on the UK Govt granting rig

[pjt33]

Actually we do have a written Bill of Rights [wikipedia.org]. We also have courts which are capable of overruling Parliament, as happened recently with control orders [guardian.co.uk]. There was also a recent instance, although I can't recall details, in which a court construed an Act as meaning the opposite of its plain reading. However, it's rare for legislation to be struck down except on the grounds of incompatibility with the Human Rights Act.

Yes!

[swill01]

It's about time. The music industry has no problem changing formats. I can look back at my 45's, FP's, 8-tracks, cassettes, CD, minidisks, etc...... Why do I have to re-buy my music due to the industry changing formats? I can't disagree that I could maintain all my old equipment (8-tracks, cassettes), but why would I want to? Why should I have to? The movie industry is going down the same path... beta, VHS, laserdisk, dvd's, now HD-dvd's. 'bout time!

Betraying the Digital Media revolution

[dryriver]

Anybody remember how Digital Media started out? It was all "create your own website, make your own music, shoot and edit your own films, bring your creative vision to life". Sort of like DTP applied to all things audiovisual, multimedia and creative. Where is industry taking us now? Pay $$$ for a DRM locked audioplayer, $$$$ for DRM locked HD viewing gear, then lots of $$s for each little chunk of hour long or two hour long formulaic audiovisual content. You can view but you cannot copy. You can view but you cannot modify. You can view but you cannot share. That explains, in my opinion, why the internet landscape is so impoverished of quality audiovisual content today that people hang around viewing junk like what's on Youtube in their millions. P2P has been killed with fear of lawsuits. Indy film/music/games crushed by billion dollar commercial content marketing. What's left, really, is an impoverished landscape of non-participatory, formulaic view-but-don't touch content that is basically just there to pull another two 10 dollar bills out of your pocket.

Re: That Bill of Rights is for Parliament

[Ngwenya]

Furthermore, this was an "Act of Parliament". Under parliamentary sovereignty no previous act of parliament can trump a future act of parliament. This can be overturned by another Act of Parliament until the British establish a Bill of Rights of the people which limits Parliament's sovereignty and binds all future parliament's to its provisions.

Actually, that's not quite correct. The courts (which are independent of the executive. Well, as independent as any judiciary can be) have long held that there are "ordinary statutes" and "constitutional statutes". And only a new constitutional statute can overturn an existing one. In other words, things like the Human Rights Act, the Representation fo the Peoples Act and the Bill of Rights (along with the Acts of Union, Settlement, etc, etc) must be purposefully overturned. You cannot just stick a rider onto a Fisheries Bill abolishing the right of appeal, or fling in a statutory instrument asserting the right of the executive to have detention without trial. It must be specifically brought forth and voted in by Parliament (all of Parliament, not just the House of Commons).

Afterall, the right to remain silent was sustained for 300 years based on tradition and self-restraint, yet Blair's government tossed both out the window and now that long-held right that was taken for granted is now gone.

Actually, that was the last Conservative government, with Home Secretary Michael Howard introducing the legislation.

In the end, the strength of the US Constitution is only as great as those charged with its defence, and the desire of the US population to see its strictures adhered to. It didn't stop the abomination of slavery - although its power was shown when that institution was finally abolished via constitutional amendment. Similarly, the desire of the US population to refrain from state torture seems to be somewhat ambivalent right now (And we can probably thank "24" for that... :-)). This is not to decry the magnificence of the US Bill of Rights or the US Constitution. Merely to say that a written constitution has certain advantages, and certain disadvantages, and that a constitution in itself is no guarantor of liberty.

At the moment, liberty is taking a bit of a pounding either side of the Atlantic. But it will reassert itself, and when it does, the centuries of British conventions, traditions and personal desire for liberty will prove just as powerful a force as the US's instruments of state. The British method of government and preservation of liberty isn't as capricious or fragile as one might think from your posting.

--Ng

Re:I see just one problem

[tomhudson]

If the patent is truly inventive - not one of the "it should never have been granted to the patent troll in the first place" patents, its not a removal of technology from the public domain, since it did involve unique creation that never existed before and wasn't obvious.

But literature or music or art - give me a million monkeys and enough time and I'll recreate ALL literature. As for art, a lot of it could be improved by an attack of killer monkeys - on the fawning art critics who glorify drek.

The same million-monkeys will eventually result in the downfall of software patents, once the software can generate and test its own code.

Re:I see just one problem

[jabuzz]

Except the BPA has already said that they think it should be made legal. The problem the music industry in the U.K. has created is the "in for a penny in for a pound" scenario. If copying the music from my legally purchased CD to my iPod is illegal, why should I bother buying the CD in the first place. Why not just download it from the internet for free? Yes this is illegal as well and is not morally defensible like the copying your own CD's. However if trying to do the morally right thing is illegal as well why bother.

It will be a long climb back out of this particular hole for the media content generators.

Re:I see just one problem

[Charcharodon]

I agree that a copyright for 10-20 years after it was created by a person , but transfering that copyright to a corporation or any other person be illegal. The problem is when you have something that has the legal rights of a person, but is more or less immortal like a corp there is aways going to be a big push every ten years or so to extend the copyright for another ten years. Look at Disney they've singlehandedly push US copyright far beyond what it was ever intended to do. The funny thing is Disney has made an absolute killing off of public domain material for the last 60 years (Peter Pan, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty etc etc.) It's time they give back some of what they have proffited from.

If copyright is supposed to be about protecting the artists then fine let's protect the artist. Corporations are not artists and that copyright should never be something they could own.

Re:Oooh, so close!

[jabuzz]

Execpt the "King" can sign a law into existence without the conscent of the legislature. Further more they can if they so choose ignore the legislature. Now it has been quite some time since that last happened, but in 1775 it was only about 20 years.