UK Music Fans Can Copy Own Tracks 154
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. "
Obligatory McBane Quote (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Obligatory McBane Quote (Score:1)
Re:Obligatory McBane Quote (Score:2)
Choice quote (Score:3, Funny)
Mr Jamieson further went on to call for legislators to stop the partisian bickering, Walmart to pay their employees a living wage, and for those dogs to stop barking so damned late so that he can get some damned sleep.
Re:Obligatory McBane Quote (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Obligatory McBane Quote (Score:3, Insightful)
Can you say "token copyright reform"? Next thing, they'll be opposing the burning of witches!
From the summary: (Score:2, Funny)
|" "
Interesting.
Re:From the summary: (Score:2)
Re:From the summary: (Score:2)
How is this news? (Score:2)
This is not news...
Re:How is this news? (Score:2)
Actually, I believe the Australian AG recently announced [ag.gov.au] quite a few changes to copyright laws, including legitimising format shifting.
Re:How is this news? (Score:1, Redundant)
This is not news...
Of course a blank article isn't news! Sheesh.
(Sorry. It was just waiting to be said.)
Modern Society Hates Sharing (Score:2)
Soo... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Soo... (Score:3, Interesting)
It's called intent. If they can prove you had a motive (i.e. you were leaving them somewhere intentionally) then that would be a crime and rightly so. If you can prove that you did so by mistake, then you would of course be in the clear.
A P2P network for file sharing can hardly be called carelessly putting them somewhere - you have install the software, run it, and tell it what directorie
Re:Soo... (Score:2)
Re:Soo... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Soo... (Score:2)
Re:Soo... (Score:2)
Re:Soo... (Score:2)
Re:Soo... (Score:2, Insightful)
Nowadays, when it comes to the crimes against the holy Imaginary Property, we're all guilty and that's it.
Re:Soo... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Soo... (Score:3, Informative)
So, if someone steals your ipod they won't be able to play the fairplay tracks. And if you
Re:Soo... (Score:2)
You are imagining a scary scenario that just doesn't exist. The unlicensed copy in that case would of course be the one on the stolen device. There's no reason to think otherwise (and there are a few other, more valid scare-scenarios you could have brought up, if you insist on it...)
Re:Soo... (Score:3, Funny)
Ough-kay... let's hope we never get to the point that leaving CD's in an unlocked car is the only alternative to file-sharing.
Re:Soo... (Score:2)
Please rip them to iPods and carelessly scatter them about in front of my house. (Obligitory humorless RIAA bastards explanation: THIS IS A JOKE)
What? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Re:What? (Score:3, Funny)
"I RTFA and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Common sense (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Common sense (Score:2)
To make money because they refuse to update their business model?
Re:Common sense (Score:2)
Re:Common sense (Score:2)
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Interesting)
To date, there has been no such ruling or written exemption for making duplicates for the purpose of backups or personal use such as media shifting. It's long been assumed that if such a case came to court, media shifting would be added to the list; but it certainly wasn't guaranteed.
Don't forget, the large media conglomerates DID try to make video recorders illegal in the UK. It certainly wasn't beyond the realm of possibility that music companies would try to get mp3 players banned, or prosecute individuals for media shifting, which remains technically illegal under UK law. Their argument would go somewhat like this:
"Digital download services are now easily available. iPods and WMA players can be easily filled up with legally downloaded music. Just because someone has an old tape of an album doesn't mean they get to download the CD version for free, they have to buy their favourite music from us in their preferred new format. The defendant does not have the legal right to copy our CDs by 'ripping', and we would like to make clear that people still have to buy music in the new format - whether they want it on their WMA player, their ringtones, or their computer, each of these devices have music specifically designed for their optimum playback, and they are not interchangable. Give us lots of money for every single device you want to play our music on."
Media companies like Sony BMG, EMI and Koch have been explicitly putting anti-computer corruption into their CDs for some time, to try to prevent ripping. The fact that it's hard to do this on CDs, and so far all they've achieved is a fairly famous root kit, a few damaged macs, and a lot of people forced to learn about ripping just to play their CDs in their car-players doesn't matter to them. It's certainly not beyond the realms of possibility that they would take more direct legal action to sue rippers, and sellers of devices that 'encourage' ripping CDs.
Re:Common sense (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Common sense (Score:2)
Re:Common sense (Score:2)
It's about time! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
Someone hasn't heard of the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD)!
Re:It's about time! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
I don't see how crap like this gets modded as insightful. The parent author clearly has no clue as to what the concept of Fair Use really is. Here, let me give you a little description, and I'll even use a reference or two.
Ref: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use _Overview/chapter9/9-a.html [stanford.edu]
From that site:
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
I did not miss that case. However, there is a critical difference between buying a CD and ripping it to MP3 and recording a broadcast television show. Namely, that the broadcast is a broadcast, and sent to the public at large, for free. See this excerpt from the decision:
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
Re:It's about time! (Score:2)
In Europe, we have the EUCD which does pretty much the same as the DMCA does in America.
Re:It's about time! (Score:1)
ZONK! (Score:1)
At least put '\0'!
Best. Summary. Ever. (Score:2, Redundant)
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.
Peter Jamieson, chairman of the British Phonographic Industry, said consumers would only be penalised if they made duplicates of songs for other people
Currently anyone transferring music to portable devices breaks
Re:Best. Summary. Ever. (Score:1)
Re:Best. Summary. Ever. (Score:2)
They couldn't copy from the article (Score:2)
Great. As usual... (Score:2)
Hi, I'm your other sel... Never mind. Want some free music?
Do I! Let's go!
Re:Great. As usual... (Score:1)
Nitpicking (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nitpicking (Score:2)
'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".'
Yeah, and if my friends are any example, it's an important difference. They may be allowed to copy their own tracks, but they're still too stupid to know how. I always end up doing it for them.
Re:Nitpicking (Score:2)
"UK Citizens Allowed To Copy Own Tracks".
Will the RIAA declare war on UK? (Score:4, Interesting)
"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
Re:Will the RIAA declare war on UK? (Score:2)
Re:Will the RIAA declare war on UK? (Score:2)
I can borrow a CD off you and rip it for my own enjoyment then give you back the CD, but you may not dupe the CD and give me the dupe (basically, IANAL).
What I've been listening to [mikebabcock.ca]
Re:Will the RIAA declare war on UK? (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:Will the RIAA declare war on UK? (Score:2)
Re:Will the RIAA declare war on UK? (Score:2)
Grass on other side may appear greener (Score:2)
In truth, no-one here cares about DRM, free software or copyright. It's well outside the public conscience. Media coverage of this stuff, with the exception of the technology program on BBC world/news, there is none. Any colunns in newspaper typically contain laudible inaccuracies, laughible misconceptions and livacious pr
A good acknowledgement (Score:2)
Record Industry Statements? (Score:1)
I remember the RIAA said once in a court case that they wholly condoned copying of CDs for fair use, especially for transfer onto portable devices.
A few months later, they issued a statement which basically said, "We don't believe in fair use. You need out permission to buy, own, listen to, back up, sell, etc. the music." (My own paraphrasing; the original legaliese was something like "Unauthorized copying in any form, such as for transfer to a portable music device, is illegal.")
Is the market like tha
well that's lovely, but... (Score:2)
Well, that's lovely, but Peter Jamieson, chairman of the British Pornographic, er, Phonographic Industry, does not, contrary to his wishes, create the laws. Also of consideration is the worth of his word. One day he says it's OK, the next day he'll be suing you for doing it. Corporate policy has a tendency to change like that ... especially with or
Actually, it's worth a lot. (Score:2)
It's nice to live in a country that still respects common law.
Re:Actually, it's worth a lot. (Score:2)
And, no, just because you live in GB doesn't mean that this changes. Go talk to a lawyer.
Re:well that's lovely, but... (Score:2)
Just a quick note... (Score:2)
It's not that UK law has always allowed for it - in reality, it never has. It's that the law as it stands has never actually been enforced. Just the way we like it.
It's all fun and games until... (Score:1)
British Pornagraphy Industry? (Score:2)
This seems contradictory to me.. (Score:2)
First this guy says he believes consumers should be free to copy format to format, then he calls for apple to license out its drm to other manufacturers.
It seems to me like this guy doesn't actually want people copying from format to format, but instead wants people to only be able to copy from one DRM format to another.
He needs to get it through his thick skull, DRM is intentional incompatibility
Excellent (Score:2)
Haha.
"But Apple's DRM is super extra good because it's Apple, guys, and they're on our side. It's not Steve's fault - the music industry tells him he has to cripple the files."
oh reheheally? (Score:2)
I guess Mr. Jamieson (if that is his real name..) forgot that other manufacturers could choose to offer non-drm'd
not to mention, didn't the ipod come out ages before any of the "other manufacturers" invent their own drm?
Re:oh reheheally? (Score:2)
I think what he's aiming at is more the ability to download from iTMS and play on a non-apple device.
AAC is an open std ..... and so compatible.... (Score:2, Interesting)
BPI owns all music copyright now? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:BPI owns all music copyright now? (Score:2)
You obviously have no idea what "piracy" is. Copying a track from a CD to a player is _not_ "piracy", regardless of the author being happy about this or not.
> You are *not* free to copy any music you like, for personal use.
Which in the real world, just doesnt matter. I dont know in which fascistic dimension you are residing, but here its quite normal for _anybody_ who ever purchased a digital player to copy tracks onto it.
Fascistic Dimension? (Score:2)
Take a look at the legislation, specifically the 1988 copyright legislation as amended by the 2003 EUCD directive, and you'll find you're living in exactly the same fascistic dimension as I am.
In fact, take a look at this page:
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyr i ght.htm [patent.gov.uk]
i quote:
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 (eve
Something's got to give... (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:BPI owns all music copyright now? (Score:2)
Re:BPI owns all music copyright now? (Score:2)
Also, where DRM is concerned, breaking a DRM method in order to copy the music - Lets say i release a CSS-encrypted DVD and joe blow rips it to his video iPod, then there are specific criminal penalties under the EUCD.
I'm not threatening anyone with anything, just pointing out that the head of the BPI has no standing to make his claims, and that curre
But here's the thing... (Score:3, Informative)
Not news at all (Score:2)
The issue came up when tape recorders first came out. At the time it was eventually made clear. The same thing happened when the VCR emerged - it was made clear that taping for time shifting was OK and would be tolerated.
This is not what you want (Score:2)
Aside from being arrogant and pretentious, it's selective enforcement and shouldn't be allowed. Companies should not be the authority on what actions you may or may not do with the things they produce. They should not have laws that allow them to sue anybody when they feel they have a reason, because a company will alwa
"open", eh? (Score:2)
So, does he mean open as in Open Media Commons http://www.openmediacommons.org/ [openmediacommons.org] or does he really mean that Apple should bow to Microsoft Windows Media DRM? (BPI and Microsoft are partners in a number of DRM related projects.)
Re:Not so hot (Score:3, Informative)
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 pro
Re:Not so hot (Score:2, Troll)
No, it doesn't, you are wrong.
it doesn't necessarily mean that it is ok to file share
It certainly doesn't say that.
P2P, for example bittorrent, could be seen as making copies for other people (as you upload data to them).
No sh1t, Einstein
Re:Not so hot (Score:2)
Mod parent gibberish (Score:2)
Good Fucking Greif. It's legal to copy your own music for personal use. Get a grip on reality and stop suggesting that's anything but the case.
That's explcitly what tape recorders, mini disc players, VHS and DVD recoders are for (in fact, it would in fact be a crimimal offence - and not just the UK - to sell them if the practice was actually illegal).
The weasel words are "music
Re:Mod parent gibberish (Score:3, Informative)
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
Re:Mod parent gibberish (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:Mod parent gibberish (Score:2)
I am greatly amused at the notion you might have!
While IANAL, I am familiar with relevant legislation, if that's what you were getting at.
It's illegal to copy music in the UK without a license to do so, even for personal use.
That is not true. In the UK, the copyright design and patents act explicitly allows individuals to do just that under what it terms use for "research and private study".
Obviously it does not give carte blanche permission to give copies to all your friends though ("
Well, you better tell the UK Patent Office. (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.patent.gov.uk/copy/indetail/usingcopyr i 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 photocop
Re:Mod parent gibberish (Score:2)
Re:this isn't really news (Score:2)
Re:Do you trust them? (Score:2)
In this case it would clearly be inequitable for the BPI to make this promise and then turn around and sue someone who's copied music because of the promise.
But ote that nothing would sto