Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

CD Ripper 'Incites Law Breaking,' Says British Regulator

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the that-cd-was-askin'-for-it dept.

Music 204

Barence writes "A British firm has been banned from advertising a CD ripping device because it 'incites law breaking.' The Brennan JB7 is 'a CD player with a hard disk that stores up to 5,000 CDs.' The adverts for the Brennan highlight the convenience of ripping your entire CD collection to the device – much like we've all been doing for years on our PCs, iPods and other MP3 players. The Advertising Standards Authority has banned the ads after concluding 'that the ad misleadingly implied it was acceptable to copy CDs, vinyl and cassettes without the permission of the copyright owner.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Silly ASA (1)

Draaglom (1556491) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694450)

Silly Advertising Standards Authority, april fools' day was yesterday!

Re:Silly ASA (1)

mickwd (196449) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694528)

Muppets.

And yet things like this [bbc.co.uk] get away without even a slap on the wrist from the OFT.

96% receive a lower offer than was quoted? That's not a con at all....

Technically true (5, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694458)

Format shifting is illegal in the UK. Fixing this, and adding explicit fair use provisions, are both things that David Cameron has proposed. Whether they'll actually be done is another matter. It's quite ludicrous that, as it stands, we have a law that pretty much everyone in the UK has violated.

Re:Technically true (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694496)

...everyone, including Her Majesty the Queen, who was given an iPod by one of her grandsons.

Re:Technically true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694568)

What if all of her music came from the iTunes store?

Re:Technically true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694666)

What if all of her music came from the iTunes store?

The only thing on her playlist is Queen music. As she is, in fact, the Queen, it would seem she is the actual copyright holder.

At least that's what she tells everybody.

Re:Technically true (1)

Cederic (9623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695046)

I'm sure the Queen is a Queen fan, but she's not the rights holder for their music, even Killer Queen.

Re:Technically true (1)

nabsltd (1313397) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694970)

If "format shifting" is truly illegal in the UK, then anything you transfer from your hard drive to your iPod (which involves making a copy) should also be illegal.

The only way to remain legal in the UK would be to move your music collection from your hard drive to the iPod, thus having only one copy.

Re:Technically true (2)

similar_name (1164087) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695186)

The only way to remain legal in the UK would be to move your music collection from your hard drive to the iPod, thus having only one copy.

I think in the case of iTunes->iPad music copying is allowed by the copyright holder. For instance, you can record yourself and copy the resulting file wherever you want because you own the rights to it. You can also prohibit, restrict and license the right to use and copy it by other people. The difference in the U.S. is that the copyright holder cannot reserve rights that prohibit 'fair use'. What exactly 'fair use' is and how it relates to DRM is another question altogether.

Re:Technically true (2)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695282)

How is transferring an mp3 to another device (still an mp3) format shifting, exactly? Its not format shifting when I take a cd from my house and play it in my car

Re:Technically true (1)

am 2k (217885) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694590)

Isn't the Queen above the law technically?

Re:Technically true (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694694)

Um, would you take "No" for the answer to your question?

Unless you are referring specifically to copyright law, of which I have no knowledge of, it is unlikely the Queen is exempt from the laws of England. She does have a wide variety of privileges and exemptions from specific laws [hello tax breaks!], though.

Re:Technically true (4, Funny)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694714)

Isn't the Queen above the law technically?

RIAA Lawyer: Your Majesty, you are in violation of the law. I shall name you in a lawsuit forthwith.
Her Majesty: (Motions to large man wearing a hood and holding a huge broadaxe.) Kneel, good Solicitor, and you shall receive Her Majesty's response.

Re:Technically true (2, Funny)

Culture20 (968837) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694930)

She'll knight anyone these days.

Re:Technically true (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695040)

In the name of the queen, we hereby sentence you, Elisabeth, Queen of England...

I'd pay to see that!

Re:Technically true (1)

mevets (322601) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695480)

I believe that the 'stretch Mercedes Limo' has replaced the broadaxe as the weapon of choice.

Interesting, though, the term 'broad axe' - I guess misogyny in the royals runs deep....

Re:Technically true (3, Informative)

SmallMonkeyPirate (932116) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694854)

Yes she is, as her person is considered the crown and sovereign and the courts are in fact her her courts, she is immune from prosecution. Last time a British monarch was in court, was Charles back in the 17th century, he was charged with treason.

Re:Technically true (0)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695062)

Obama is the Queen's grandson?

Re:Technically true (0)

reboot246 (623534) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695160)

Off with her head!!

Re:Technically true (1)

Hazel Bergeron (2015538) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695350)

The Crown's jurisdiction does not fully extend to the guy or gal wearing the crown. She is certainly immune from being summoned to give evidence in court (see Regina v Burrell) and she's effectively immune from criminal prosecution - (i) the King (Queen) can traditionally (which is England's version of "constitutionally") do no wrong; (ii) consider the implications of Crown v Crown.

If you're paying attention, you'll answer (ii) with reference to the Crown Proceedings Act. This is probably necessary, but no by means sufficient, in paving any path toward taking judicial action against the ruling monarch (excepting the treason argument which cut Charles I short).

Re:Technically true (3, Insightful)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694508)

It's quite ludicrous that, as it stands, we have a law that pretty much everyone in the UK has violated.

Not really. Helps nail someone who you can't get for any other crime.

Re:Technically true (2)

HungryHobo (1314109) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694582)

everyone who supports stupid laws for this reason is insane.

why not go the really really direct root if you're going to take that approach.

Make breathing a crime punishable by death.

make having any body hair a crime punishable by life in prison then you can just punish whoever you feel like at any time for any reason if they're someone you " can't get for any other crime."

far more effecient than having a load of absurd laws on the books which everyone breaks so that you can use them strategically when someone pisses you off.

Re:Technically true (1)

hsmyers (142611) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694812)

Breathing is a crime punishable by death. You breath and at some point you die--- without benefit of judge, jury or trial...

Re:Technically true (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695066)

You forget that in addition to having a convenience of such a law, the thugs, otherwise euphemistically known as "the authorities", must also create a pretense of "working for the greater good", "justice", "defending against The Bogeyman" and similar notions, so that the sheeple feel that they are giving up all their rights for "protection" or some such nonsense. Otherwise there is a lot of pensive bleating in the shearing shack. Some even dig in their hooves, or fewer yet even try to bolt or bite, which disrupts the orderly shearing process.

Re:Technically true (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695150)

Because it's too obviously something everyone does. By making it something everyone does but not obviously so, you get a useful tool in your hands. Because it's not like anyone could credibly claim that everyone HAS to do it, simply to live.

Another example, similar but not as dangerous, is our "TV-Tax" hunters. They come to your door and simply claim if you didn't pay your "TV tax" (that you "only" have to pay if you actually have a TV) that you're breaking the law because it's implausible that you don't have one. They're not even weaseling about it, they simply flat out accuse you of having a TV "illegally" if you don't pay for having one. The idea that you might exist without a TV is deemed impossible.

It's not like people support such laws. It's simply that they either don't care, or that they think it won't hit them, mostly because everyone does it and they can't arrest ALL of us. No, 'they' won't. They'll single the ones out that are in some other way "unwanted".

Reminds me of the animal rights activists who're currently under trial in Austria for (allegedly) breaking a law that was created to battle international terrorism. (Un)fortunately the law enforcement is SO inapt and bumbling that the whole thing descends into a very embarrassing mess and is generally seen as a big joke by the media and population alike. Unfortunately, it pretty much ruins the lives of those accused, and all because they targeted a store that has good ties with one of the ruling parties...

That's what such "catch-all" laws are created for and what they're abused for: To silence dissenters.

Bad Solution (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694626)

Not really. Helps nail someone who you can't get for any other crime.

If this is really the point of it then it is still a bad law. You should make breathing illegal and then you can arrest anyone you want. This of course undermines the entire point of having laws and leads back to the feudal system where you just do what the guy with the biggest pointy stick wants. It might be frustrating to not be able to get someone who is committing real crimes but the solution is not to undermine the entire system by making everyone criminals.

Re:Technically true (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694632)

I know it seems clever to make remarks like that, but I have to wonder why they get modded up when theyre just false-- you would actually have to prove someone format shifted, and fortunately the legal systems of first world countries require something more than the circumstantial "He has an ipod, and everyone format shifts; surely he has done it". There are zillions of other laws which would be easier to get someone on than this. I cant imagine how one would try to prove format shifting.

Re:Technically true (1)

artor3 (1344997) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694718)

Confiscate your iPod, show that you own song X. Look through your financials, show that you never purchased song X as an MP3. I'm pretty sure you can't buy MP3s with cash.

That said, you're right. This law isn't about making everyone a crook, as popular a sentiment as that may be on Slashdot. If that were the cause, then surely there would be some example of the law being used in that way.

Easy to buy MP3s with cash (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694832)

You might be pretty sure, but you're wrong. Ever hear of prepaid cards? You know, the things that credit card companies want you to give as gifts (so they get to hold the money and earn money off it out until it's spent), and that Young America, MN likes to send you when you complete a mail-in rebate these days? It's perfectly possible to buy MP3s using a completely untraceable prepaid card which appears to be a normal credit card to the MP3 retailer.

Re:Technically true (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694866)

Confiscate your iPod, show that you own song X. Look through your financials, show that you never purchased song X as an MP3. I'm pretty sure you can't buy MP3s with cash.

Heres my most recent purchase:

Order Summary:
Details:
Order # 026-7755308-*snip*
Subtotal of Items: £7.49
      ------
Total for this Order: £7.49
 
    Tron: Legacy [Music Download], Price: £7.49
By: Daft Punk
Sold by: Amazon Media EU S.à.r.l.

Happy now?

Re:Technically true (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35695440)

Fuck you, you fascist asshat.

Re:Technically true (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694644)

Fair use isn't really the answer. The US is proof of that.

I mean, it does help a little with things like this, but as long as some interests want to control what goes on in people's homes, and try all sorts of stupid things to enforce copyright in people's homes, keeping the current level of copyright seems like a horrific plan.

Re:Technically true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694890)

For 1.

Why do you think the police are called the Queens Police and have the Royal emblem on items of clothing :D?

You dumb ass, Her royal Highness is above reproach thus above the LAW in the UK ( dude I hope you aint English ).

Re:Format Shifting (1)

TaoPhoenix (980487) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694926)

Can you / someone post the matching clause for the US that demonstrates that format shifting is legal here? I'd like to put that into my files.

Re:Format Shifting (1)

Jaktar (975138) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695450)

Though not set in stone, this is from the EFF website.

Although the legal basis is not completely settled, many lawyers believe that the following (and many other uses) are also fair uses:

        Space-shifting or format-shifting - that is, taking content you own in one format and putting it into another format, for personal, non-commercial use. For instance, "ripping" an audio CD (that is, making an MP3-format version of an audio CD that you already own) is considered fair use by many lawyers, based on the 1984 Betamax decision and the 1999 Rio MP3 player decision (RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, 180 F. 3d 1072, 1079, 9th Circ. 1999.)

http://w2.eff.org/IP/eff_fair_use_faq.php [eff.org]

Re:Technically true (1)

AftanGustur (7715) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695006)

Format shifting is illegal in the UK.

So, did they never commercialice MP3 players in the UK ?

Re:Technically true (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35695058)

we legally have to purchase music in digital formats in order to use MP3 players in the UK

Re:Technically true (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695170)

Yes, they're popular here - pretty much any phone from the past decade has MP3 playback capability. Using it with ripped CDs is illegal, as was recording your LPs or CDs to tape to play back in your car back when CD players in cars were uncommon. Like I said, it's a law that practically everyone in the UK has broken, which makes it a very silly law.

Re:Technically true (2)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695294)

Format shifting is illegal in the UK. Fixing this, and adding explicit fair use provisions, are both things that David Cameron has proposed. Whether they'll actually be done is another matter. It's quite ludicrous that, as it stands, we have a law that pretty much everyone in the UK has violated.

That is... incredibly stupid. Atleast here in Finland you are legally allowed to make 2 backup copies of anything you have bought, and you are allowed to even break copy-protection schemes in order to do that as long as you don't give your backups to other people. These kinds of devices like the one in the article are quite popular and I can definitely see why. So far no one has been stupid enough to try to pull those "ripping your legally owned CDs is illegal" stunts here, and they sure wouldn't hold up in court.

I just feel it's so restrictive and inherently screwed up the way something like this is disallowed in the U.S. and the UK. It simply doesn't make common sense. Common sense says that you should be allowed to back up stuff you've paid for, simple as that.

Hmh. Well. This again proves that Finland is the best place on Earth to live ;3

Re:Technically true (1)

Ada_Rules (260218) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695306)

Format shifting is illegal in the UK. Fixing this, and adding explicit fair use provisions, are both things that David Cameron has proposed. Whether they'll actually be done is another matter. It's quite ludicrous that, as it stands, we have a law that pretty much everyone in the UK has violated.

"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now, that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with." - Atlas Shrugged

Its hardly surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694460)

We have no 'fair use' laws in the UK.

Re:Its hardly surprising (5, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694602)

Yes we do. It is called "fair dealing".

It is perfectly legal to make a copy if you own the master copy.

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 [legislation.gov.uk]

Or a quick factsheet http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p01_uk_copyright_law [copyrightservice.co.uk]

Acts that are allowed

Fair dealing is a term used to describe acts which are permitted to a certain degree without infringing the work, these acts are:

        Private and research study purposes.
        Performance, copies or lending for educational purposes.
        Criticism and news reporting.
        Incidental inclusion.
        Copies and lending by librarians.
        Acts for the purposes of royal commissions, statutory enquiries, judicial proceedings and parliamentary purposes.
        Recording of broadcasts for the purposes of listening to or viewing at a more convenient time, this is known as "time shifting".
        Producing a back up copy for personal use of a computer program.
        Playing sound recording for a non profit making organisation, club or society.

        (Profit making organisations and individuals should obtain a license from PRS for Music.)

Re:Its hardly surprising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694734)

Nothing in that list or in the act refers either to format shifting, or backing up of artistic recordings by individuals (only software, or my permitted archivists/librarians etc).

Re:Its hardly surprising (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694794)

Then again, nothing in the act says it has to be of the same format.

As long as you own the master copy, and use the copy for yourself, not distributing or selling the copy, then you're perfectly fine.

Re:Its hardly surprising (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694766)

Private and research study purposes.

Are you saying "Private and research study purposes" means "Copying for private purposes is allowed, and copying for research study purposes is allowed"?

Re:Its hardly surprising (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694808)

The important part here is 'acts which are permitted to a certain degree'. For example, quoting a passage from a book for research purposes is legal, quoting the entire book is not.

Re:Its hardly surprising (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695090)

That means it is OK for porn.

It IS acceptable to copy CDs etc. (1)

vpaul (473197) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694468)

That's fair use AFAIK. Anyway, that's what users have been doing for decades now.

Re:It IS acceptable to copy CDs etc. (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694532)

Not in the UK.

Re:It IS acceptable to copy CDs etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694656)

Go away troll. Go read the law.

Re:It IS acceptable to copy CDs etc. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694592)

What country are you in? Did you know that "Fair Use" in the USA is not the same as "Fair Use" in the UK? How fucking old are you? 14?

Re:It IS acceptable to copy CDs etc. (2)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694658)

What country are you in? Did you know that "Fair Use" in the USA is not the same as "Fair Use" in the UK? How fucking old are you? 14?

Given the tone of your response, I'm guessing you're, what - 15?

Fair use? (1)

WillyWanker (1502057) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694472)

I guess there is no fair use right in Britain? It's perfectly legal to copy CDs, vinyl, and cassettes that you own for your personal use. I can't imagine it being different in the UK.

Re:USB Turntables (2)

Technician (215283) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694506)

Do they ban USB turntables there? The reason to get one is to convert your LP's into MP3's for your portable player. How is this any different?

Converting from CD implies the existence of the physical CD. Copying from P-P can be many generations of copies from the original.

Re:USB Turntables (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694870)

They haven't banned the product, just the advertising. Not to imply this is a good decision, by any means, but a decision by the ASA is very different to an outright product ban.

Re:Fair use? (2)

bamf (212) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694660)

Correct, we have no fair use right at the moment.

You're not going to get prosecuted for format-shifting for personal use, but it's not actually legal in this country.

Cars (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694474)

Cars incite law breaking by being able to go faster than the speed limit. Therefore cars must be banned from being advertised as fast or sporty.

Re:Cars (1)

LordLimecat (1103839) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694652)

Your analogy is terrible. Using a car is not illegal; using this device at all in the UK, apparently, is. If the posts from the brits here are to be believed, you are not allowed to rip CDs to mp3s, and that is the only function (other than clock? I smell a defense) that this device serves.

Re:Cars (2)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694732)

Your analogy is terrible. Using a car is not illegal; using this device at all in the UK, apparently, is.

The device was as legal as a car until the ASA said it wasn't.

Doesn't any computer, then, "incite law breaking"? (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694478)

After all, you can post or download child porn or worse, I'm sure to the various copyright interested organizations, use them to download any of a multitude of apps to copy music.

Re:Doesn't any computer, then, "incite law breakin (4, Insightful)

DaveGod (703167) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694664)

The product hasn't been banned. The wording of an advertisement has. The ASA ruling [asa.org.uk] specifically addressed your point, however concluded that "the overall impression of the ad was such that it encouraged consumers and businesses to copy CDs, vinyl and cassettes" (my emphasis).

Computers aren't advertised to do the things you mention.

Frankly I suspect the ASA wouldn't give a damn except that there was a complaint which was technically correct by their own rules.

Re:Doesn't any computer, then, "incite law breakin (3, Interesting)

canajin56 (660655) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694702)

Computers aren't advertised to do the things you mention.

"Rip. Mix. Burn." Don't you watch TV? That was an Apple ad.

Re:Doesn't any computer, then, "incite law breakin (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694738)

It's okay, Apple computers aren't real computers.

Re:Doesn't any computer, then, "incite law breakin (3, Insightful)

paiute (550198) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694748)

The product hasn't been banned. The wording of an advertisement has. The ASA ruling [asa.org.uk] specifically addressed your point, however concluded that "the overall impression of the ad was such that it encouraged consumers and businesses to copy CDs, vinyl and cassettes" (my emphasis).

Computers aren't advertised to do the things you mention.

"Rip. Mix. Burn. " ???

Acceptable (4, Insightful)

Ardaen (1099611) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694498)

implied it was acceptable to copy CDs, vinyl and cassettes without the permission of the copyright owner

That's because it is. Personal copies are very acceptable.

Wait wait, "format shifting" is illegal in the UK? That's messed up.

Re:Acceptable (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694974)

Not specifically. There is no such thing as a definition of "format shifting", etc in british copyright law, either allowing it or forbidding it. I believe "fair use" is defined only in terms of small illustrative quotes/pieces for publication and so forth.

It's common sense that as soon as this hits the courts, they will rule for fair use, format shifting and it will get formally drafted into law. This is why the labels haven't kicked up a fuss about it yet, because they KNOW they will lose, and they may lose even more. For the time being, it's an undefined gray area.

Re:Acceptable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35695484)

It's only messed up because you don't stand to profit from the law.

The wealthy are only wealthy because of their ability to control things people want. Allowing format-shifting is a relinquishing of control, and hence a threat to wealth. So the wealthy make it illegal.

It makes perfect sense.

Will a name change help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694512)

Or is it a blanket ban on all cd rippers? Doesn't sound that way.

Assholes Stifling Advertising (4, Funny)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694552)

Strange, I remember those Apple ads that said "Rip. Mix. Burn."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ECN4ZE9-Mo [youtube.com]

Shown on UK TV. The ASA said nothing.

If this Brennan JB7 device is illegal, so is iTunes. Is the ASA now banning any adverts from Apple that mention the software?

Re:Assholes Stifling Advertising (4, Informative)

gnasher719 (869701) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694696)

If this Brennan JB7 device is illegal, so is iTunes. Is the ASA now banning any adverts from Apple that mention the software?

The ASA acts if someone complains. Maybe nobody complained about Apple. Maybe someone complained, and Apple changed the adverts. Maybe Apple mentioned in their adverts that you mustn't copy music without permission of the copyright holder.

And the device isn't banned, the advertisement is (in it's current form). The company has been told what they need to do: Add a notice that you need permission before copying CDs.

Re:Assholes Stifling Advertising (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694758)

Ripping by companies? Perfectly OK.
Ripping by people? Shoot them and take their money.

Re:Assholes Stifling Advertising (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35695246)

I have a sticker on an old HP computer "Download songs and movies off the Internet"... Now that people have found out how, they suddenly want to throw up a paywall and create criminals out of customers. Sorry. If you purchased the content, then you did. Its yours. If they claim they don't want people listening to what they purchased, no problem. The mistake was people thinking a product purchased, was a product purchased. No problem. If its all illegal, then we can BAN THE PRODUCT!. Done! We will forcefully enforce no one getting the product, and banning all sales of these illegal 'CD' goods. We can go there too! Just try us. When you sow the wind, you will reap the whirlwind.

Hercules CD HDD + CD Player (2, Informative)

RotateLeftByte (797477) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694580)

more than 7 years ago I purchased a Hercules 80Gb mp3(256Kbit recording) device. It has Line-in recording (for turn tables), A CD drive so you
can play and rip CD's. It also has USB so that you can copy the files to another device.
I got it from Richter Sounds in Reading at one of their open box sales. Great device.

The device that has been banned is really nowt new at all. I suppose my bit of kit is illegal too..?

The ban is all down to the Music industry seeing their grim reaper on the horizon.
FWIW, I've been buying lots of 12in disks the past few years and digitising them. Listening to some classic 60's albums has reawakend my interest in Music but in the main there is hardly anything coming onto the market now as a New Release (As opposed to a re-issue) that interests me then I'll stick to 50's->70's Rock, Blues & Jazz thank you very much.
If any /. reader has a CD of the Beaver & Krause Album 'All Good Men' then I'd be interested in purchasing it. The Cat peed over my 12in Album and side 2 is ruined.

Another Expensive Absuridty (2)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694594)

And the public pays and pays and pays. Here again we have people who feel that the internet only exists for them to earn a living and that all laws must support their nonsense ideas. Electronic information storage and processing has nothing to do with enabling or preserving anyone's ability to make a living. The entire concept of the net is the free flow of all information that is to beyond all private and governmental regulations.. It is simple - From Every Mountain Top Let Freedom Ring. And you may not patent the ring tone of the bell.

Ban BMW too? (3, Informative)

laing (303349) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694608)

My car can rip CDs to the internal hard drive too. Should we also ban the production and sale of all BMW cars equipped with iDrive?

Re:Ban BMW too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694676)

Banning the production, no, but banning the sale of these cars in the UK would make sense.

Re:Ban BMW too? (1)

Cederic (9623) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695180)

Surely changing the law would make sense, rather than using archaic irrelevant laws to prevent people doing something that feels natural and normal to them?

Re:Ban BMW too? (1)

failedlogic (627314) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695370)

It sounds like you are concerned about the legality of some of the equipment in your BMW. It is impossible to be in full compliance by simply changing or removing the stereo equipment in the vehicle. I will be more than happy to liberate you of your legal concerns. Please provide the paper work and the keys for the car.

1999 is calling (1)

Sprouticus (1503545) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694618)

and they want their spurious argument back.

Don't blame the ASA (4, Interesting)

itsdapead (734413) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694640)

The UK doesn't have the US's fair use rules, so technically ripping your CDs is illegal, although its never enforced (at least not against individuals) .

Record shops were always happy to sell blank cassettes, CD-Rs and MiniDiscs - you just don't shatter the illusion that an awful lot of customers are amateur musicians taping their own work by going up to the assistant and saying "Dear assistant, can you recommend a blank CD onto which I can copy this here album which I am about to purchase?"

Basically, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".

In this case, some public-spirited person has submitted a complaint to the Advertising Standards Authority about this particular ad, so there's not much the ASA can do but say, yeah, the ad incites copyright violation.

Note that its the specific ad that's been banned - not the product. The ASA is an independent industry regulator, not a court of law - nobody has been prosecuted. The manufacturer will just have to stick in some small print.

Bow Wow Wow... (3)

Life2Short (593815) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695068)

Thirty years ago Bow Wow Wow charted a song called "C30 C60 C90 Go" which basically extolled the virtues of recording vinyl onto tape.

Re:Don't blame the ASA (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695126)

Record shops were always happy to sell blank cassettes

I for one used them to record programs and data using the CUTS format. Don't blame me!

Re:Don't blame the ASA (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695444)

...an awful lot of customers are amateur musicians...

Yes, they are an awful lot, aren't they.

Ba-da-bump.

Either way, it strikes me that the fair dealing laws in the U.K. probably cover this in effect, albeit not in letter. I'd be curious to see where this leads, particularly given the decade of de facto precedent set by iTunes and what I assume is a lack of challenges to that....

Solve the problem and carry on as normal (1)

bazorg (911295) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694698)

It does not take a lot of thinking and researching what competitors do to find that the only thing these guys need to do is add a sticker to every box stating that copying copyrighted material without permission is illegal and therefore this device is for copying other kinds of CDs. Life will then carry on as normal. Apple does the same in the UK and other places and the difference is all in the fine print.

The real issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694736)

Look there was never much of a fuss when people did things like copying their records to cassette tapes so they could listen in the car. The real fight started when people started sharing those recordings with their 10,000 closest friends. Before the rampant sharing they had little affect on sales. I've heard lots of people claim sharing promotes sales but that isn't reflected in the plummeting sales numbers. If this was really about copying CDs for personal use I doubt there would be much of a fight going on. I'm old enough to clearly remember 8 tracks as a teenager. Back in the 8-track and cassette days I don't remember ever hearing about a fight over some one recording from one device to another one. This battle started over what happened after the songs were ripped not really the ripping itself. The internet is what changed how people used the ripped material.

Re:The real issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694914)

The reason sales plummet is not piracy. The thing is, the Internet lets many people share their own work for free or sell it cheaper than record companies do. So that of course lowers the real value of music and people stop buying expensive albums because they finally realize they're being ripped off.

Other than that, the records may want to prevent people from copying CDs to their computer for convenience, but all these regulations make music a hassle to enjoy. That's another reason I stopped buying, I'm just tired of all those complicated rules and laws. It's music, I'm supposed to enjoy it not to take care of it like it's the Top-Secret plans of the Death Star.

Just like cars and spay paint (1)

vgerclover (1186893) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694740)

Just like high powered cars incite breaking speed limit laws and spray paint incite drawing graffiti on other people's walls.

Re:Just like cars and spay paint (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694830)

I combine these two hobbies by painting graffiti on high powered cars!

Nice looking little devices. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694764)

Think I'll buy one!

ps - my capatcha was "urinated". Pretty appropriate for the circumstances..... :-)

Make Copying Legal (2)

pavon (30274) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694776)

Forcing consumers and media device manufacturers to rely on subjective judgments of what qualifies as fair use, and thus never having any certainty about whether even the simplest and most harmless of tasks are legal or not is ridiculous.

Copyright law grants creators of works several exclusive rights over their works including:
* Reproducing the work.
* Creating derivative works.
* Distributing the work (including giving it away, selling it, renting it, etc).
* Performing or displaying the work publicly.

These basic fundamentals of copyright law were written when copying was expensive and difficult, and performing personal backups, format-shifting, time-shifting, and incidental copies were unheard of. These days any use of digital media requires some copying just to use the media. If you think about it, if you are copying(ie reproducing) a work but not doing any of the other things, then it is by definition for personal use, and should be covered under fair use. We should clarify the law and just eliminate copying as one of the exclusive rights altogether.

Fair use would still be needed to determine things like how much of an article can you quote before it is too much. But those are inherently fuzzy issues, so having a fuzzy law to handle them isn't a bad thing. What a consumer can do with his goods should be cut and dry.

Re:Make Copying Legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35695152)

Derivatives works are fair use, not an exclusive right of the copyright holder. If that were the case, there would be no remixes.

Re:Make Copying Legal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35695268)

The problem with parent is that you'd have to have a provision to somehow be in the possession of the "original" from which you made your legal copies (if not, this legalizes any unaltered copy in your possession). With physical media you'd think it's "cut and dry", but if your house gets broken into and your entire CD collection gets stolen? Are the FLAC rips you made and stored "in the cloud" for safety now suddenly illegal? If not, what's stopping me from asserting I owned a CD, created a rip, and the CD got lost. Having to save slips / proof-of-purchase tabs? They can get stolen too or more likely, get lost.

Don't get me wrong, I think it should be perfectly legal for anyone to time-shift, format-shift, create backup copies and moreover: explicitly have the right to circumvent whatever obstacles are put in their way to exercise these duplication rights. I just don't think it's simple to legislate.

Raids (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694842)

Get the police to raid the offices of the ASA AND the homes of everyone that works for them, just to check on the copyright status of the files on their iPods, mobile phones etc..

The ASA has been a quite useless regulator, picking on crap but letting big stuff slide.

It's either one or the other (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#35694872)

The media companies keep telling us that when we buy media, we're not really "buying" it, what we're really buying a license to read/listen/view to the media in question, with the cost for the physical support included in the price. In fact there's a cost of nearly zero in case of files sold via the internet. Fair enough.

But then if the physical support for the media gets damaged, why can't they offer a replacement at a lower cost? If my CD gets damaged, why do I need to buy another license? Shouldn't I be able to return to the store with the damaged CD and get a replacement at a much lower cost (near 1$) since the license is already paid for?

So if I buy a license to the media, why do they care if I convert it to another format for my personal use? The license is already paid for.

Transducers (1)

srussia (884021) | more than 3 years ago | (#35694950)

Format shifting illegal? That would mean speakers are illegal, as they shift electric format to acoustic which people record in their brain (ear-to-brain would also be illegal as shifts format from acoustic to electric/biological BTW).

Let's extend that logic (1)

Mister Fright (1559681) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695074)

Selling kitchen knives incites stabbing.

Re:Let's extend that logic (1)

Jon Stone (1961380) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695312)

If you advertised your kitchen knives based on how amazingly good they are for stabbing people, then I would expect that advert to be banned too.

It was the advert that the Advertising Standards Authority banned, not the device.

"Format shifting" from bits to sound waves (1)

TheCouchPotatoFamine (628797) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695168)

"Format shifting" from bits to sound waves.... this is stupid. They format shifted from the CD to RADIO WAVES. And they say nothing. Show me the exception.

Quick (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 3 years ago | (#35695332)

It's only a matter of time before the Brits ban paper...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?