×

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!

UK Music Fans Can Copy Own Tracks

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the like-they-should-have-been-able-to dept.

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. "

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

154 comments

Obligatory McBane Quote (4, Funny)

belgar (254293) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510989)

The article! It says nothing!

Re:Obligatory McBane Quote (1)

DrackenFireBreather (691905) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511017)

Wow...puts a whole new meaning in 'RTFA' or 'You must be new here'. I guess it's just a promotion of the general /. additude of post first and read later!

Re:Obligatory McBane Quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511067)

Actually, it does say something but your eyes were burned out by acid... hence the reason why you're unable to read.

On an unrelated note, may I suggest the tag "whogivesashit" for this article? Thanks!
 

Choice quote (2, Funny)

cgenman (325138) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511772)

Mr Jamieson also called for Apple to open up its iTunes software so it is compatible with the technology of other manufacturers.

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 (4, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512009)

Actually, it says "everyone who's bought CDs then ripped them to mp3/ogg/whatever and played them on their PC or personal music player has been breaking the law. Previously we've been ignoring that; now, however, we want to make it clear that it's ok and should be legal."

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 (1)

DaveHowe (51510) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512277)

I wonder how this will affect the "Digital DJ" licence - where if you play original cds, you don't have to make any additional payment, but if you rip those cds to your laptop to play them from there *even if you have the cds with you for inspection* you must pay the recording industry for the priviledge.

Fantastic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15510991)

From the article:

""

Woohoo!

How is this news? (1)

the_unknown_soldier (675161) | more than 7 years ago | (#15510999)

I think Brits have known about this already. Suing every single iPod owner who owns all of the music on his iPod would be disasterous to the record company. Australia has similar laws and the ARIA organisation has always stated they won't prosecute for ripping.

This is not news...

Re:How is this news? (0, Redundant)

iced_773 (857608) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511039)


This is not news...

Of course a blank article isn't news! Sheesh.

(Sorry. It was just waiting to be said.)

Soo... (3, Funny)

dduardo (592868) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511000)

What if I made a bunch of copies for myself and carelessly put them where they could easily be taken by stangers?

Re:Soo... (2, Interesting)

MankyD (567984) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511032)

What if I made a bunch of copies for myself and carelessly put them where they could easily be taken by stangers?
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 directories/files to share.

Re:Soo... (1)

sparkz (146432) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511085)

Okay then - what if I make copies for personal use, and then re-sell the originals? Which is the "pirated" copy now?

Re:Soo... (2, Informative)

Yorrike (322502) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511243)

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

Re:Soo... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511358)

YARR, matey, thou art a pirate upon the high seas! You are all idiots for calling this piracy whether it is copyright violation or fair use. Piracy would be something like stealing a shipment of CDs and then reselling them for profit. All while wearing an eyepatch.

Re:Soo... (4, Interesting)

fermion (181285) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511053)

Let's make this a bit less outrageous with some real world examples. Recorded music is easily lost or stolen, and, if left in a car, are often stolen. Therefore the wise person is going to make a copy of an original copy on CD or tape or whatever. If, at some point the duplicate gets lost or stolen, and i keep the original, if this breaking the license. One can extend this to an iPod, with every recording one owns. If the iPod got stolen, does the industry expect the original to be destroyed. Even MS Play for Sure allows music to be copied to a Play for Sure device, and I don't think that the song is destroyed if the device is lost, although this could change as the exact user rights seems to be fluid. The Apple crippled music format allows a song to be copies to nearly unlimited iPods.

Re:Soo... (3, Informative)

LordVader717 (888547) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512340)

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.

Common sense (3, Insightful)

drspliff (652992) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511010)

This is just common sense isn't it?

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 (1)

Cheapy (809643) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511034)

"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..."

To make money because they refuse to update their business model?

Re:Common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511191)

But the very same companies that state that it is illegal to rip music are the ones selling portable music players for precisely this purpose, eg. Sony.

I don't see how any prosecution could work when Sony and other big companies which are part of the Recording Industry are selling items based on their ability to rip your own music and take it anywhere. Essentially they are inciting people to break the law, and if they were to push a prosecution I would think they would open themselves up to some major legal repercussions.

(Mind you, companies have been known to sue their own divisions before, so I wouldn't put it past them ;)

Re:Common sense (4, Interesting)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511874)

UK copyright law has several "fair dealing" defences to charges of copyright infringement, written into the law. They're somewhat vague, but allow the non-commercial use of extracts for personal study, reviews, criticism or news reporting. Time shifting, i.e. recording off the radio or television, for the purpose of watching at a later date then erasing have been judged by the courts to be another fair dealing defence.

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 (4, Informative)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511918)

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.

Re:Common sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15512181)

Not news here but if it was, his wouldnt have released the statement saying "penalized", he wouldve spelt it correctly - "penalised", yet another American that cant read English and must change it so that millions of Americans dont go "what, huh, whats that word"

It's about time! (5, Insightful)

JesusPancakes (941204) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511016)

Well, at least in Britain, the basic idea behind fair use is protected. In America, you have the right to fair use except when you circumvent measures intended to prevent you from exercising fair use. Or is that Soviet Russia?

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! (1)

Blue Stone (582566) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511078)

> Well, at least in Britain, the basic idea behind fair use is protected. In America, you have the right to fair use except when you circumvent measures intended to prevent you from exercising fair use.

Someone hasn't heard of the European Union Copyright Directive (EUCD)!

Re:It's about time! (1)

Athanasius (306480) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511184)

If you check Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48) [opsi.gov.uk] and The Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003 [opsi.gov.uk] you'll see that there isn't any 'fair use' right for CD/tape/vinyl music in the UK. The closest is that for making recordings of 'broadcasts' (includes cable tv). A phrase similar to 'fair use' is 'fair dealing', which is applicable in general to academic works (and has some new restrictions due to that EU directive).

So, yes, this is/was news, the BPI is basically saying they're waiving their right to sue anyone for what is, legally speaking, an infringement.

And indeed that EU directive has given us a clause prohibiting reverse engineering "the functioning of a computer program".

Re:It's about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511081)

Wait a minute, even in the USA show us a lawsuit where somebody got sued by the RIAA because they broke the DRM on itunes and copied the audio to their portable mp3 player. Or burnt it on a CD to play in their car which supports MP3/WMA.

Last I checked, here in reality the only lawsuits thrown around are against people distributing music via file-sharing networks. Whether or not the DMCA has made it illegal to circumvent this DRM nobody is getting sued for doing. For that matter how would the RIAA ever know I copied my DRM'd music onto a blank CD to use for my own personal use. *They Cant!* erm unless I start sharing it with the world..

Re:It's about time! (1)

neonleonb (723406) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511099)

Unenforced laws are the worst sort. They make it easy for the government to target anyone for persecution. So, "Bad law X isn't being enforced" doesn't make it okay.

Re:It's about time! (1)

frickendevil (977786) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511224)

I'll have you know i have a vast collection of public domain MP3's which have been filling my MP3 player until i heard about this....

Re:It's about time! (1)

Twanfox (185252) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511932)

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:
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and "transformative" purpose such as to comment upon, criticize or parody a copyrighted work.

You see, legally, fair use is about sampling a copyrighted work in order to quote verbatum that work in something else, say, a research paper. You are legally allowed to do this without the permission of the copyright holder. You are also legally allowed to parody the work, as our famous Wierd Al does with most of his songs, and he can get away with it, legally.

What Fair Use is NOT about is allowing you to convert the work you have in hand into another form. While it may seem to fit into that set of words, the legal definition has absolutely nothing to do with the idea of 'I want to listen to CD as an MP3' without permission. Now do note that some companies may give permission for such conversion, but that is not fair use; that is their perogative as the owner of the copyright.

Re:It's about time! (1)

ribuck (943217) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512188)

No, you're not "gaining" any rights. The British Phonographic Industry is just saying that they don't intend to "pursue" you for this kind of copying. There's no suggestion that you have a legal right to do it.

Re:It's about time! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15512207)

Copying music is still illegal. It's just they've promised not to prosecute you for it.

Not so hot (0)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511019)

Don't get your hopes up too high. Although this does mean that it's ok for you to burn a copy of your friend's cd, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is ok to file share. Depending on how you look at it P2P, for example bittorrent, could be seen as making copies for other people (as you upload data to them).

Re:Not so hot (2, Informative)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511090)

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:Not so hot (1, Troll)

sparkz (146432) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511100)

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

Best. Summary. Ever. (1, Redundant)

Kawahee (901497) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511027)

I dunno if anybody noticed that there was a story going through the pipeline with a huge chunk of text missing, but here's the complete article:

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 copyright laws.

The music industry has traditionally turned a blind eye, however, in favour of targeting "professional" pirates.

"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".

Domination 'not healthy'

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.

He said iTunes' dominant market share in downloads was "not particularly healthy" and said he "would advocate that Apple opts for interoperability".

Consumers in the UK pay 79p per track on iTunes and - generally - £7.90 for a full album, although this can vary according to the number of songs and the status of the artiste in question.

In February, music industry investigators claimed someone in almost every street in every town in the UK was illegally copying music and film.

The Federation Against Copyright Theft and British Phonographic Industry said home counterfeiters now accounted for the majority of their investigations

Re:Best. Summary. Ever. (1)

Twiceblessedman (590621) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511056)

It's ironic that he's saying domination is not healthy when talking about apple's drm by limiting other companies but it's ok to limit customers to what they can and can't do with what they purchased.

Re:Best. Summary. Ever. (1)

tacarat (696339) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511157)

It's ironic that he's saying domination is not healthy when talking about apple's drm by limiting other companies but it's ok to limit customers to what they can and can't do with what they purchased.

Considering that they're now allowing more than was legal before, I guess the idea is really that too much domination isn't healthy. Apple just needs to be a sub every now and then

Re:Best. Summary. Ever. (1)

Trepalium (109107) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511260)

What they're really pissed about is the fact that the pricing situation is reversed for them right now. Apple currently sets the price for music, and they're none too pleased about that. They'd far rather there be competition on online music sales, because that way the cartel (oligopoly, whatever) can set the prices instead. So, yes, they're all "pro-consumer" right now. If they got their way, and were given the opportunity to dictate terms, I'd bet that attitude would change.

Re:Best. Summary. Ever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15512006)

Here's the complete article

You pirate!

Surpised by Free Software (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511029)

Eric had been driving through Pennsylvania since dusk and had crossed into Ohio about two hours ago. It was 2 AM and pitch black outside as he approached Columbus. He flicked the ash from his Marlboro Light out his cracked window and mopped a greasy swatch of orange-brown hair back across his forehead. He hadn't stopped to eat, drink, or relieve himself since he'd left Malvern and the strain of the road was getting to him. With a gulp of cold coffee and one last puff from his cigarette he rolled his window up and refocused.

His eyes glanced over the console on their way back up to his dirty windshield, and to Eric's chagrin the gas needle was hovering just above E, shimmying ever so slightly as his Omni wiggled and jammed down the highway. He began scanning the horizon for travel plazas where he could buy gas and freshen up for the next third of his journey. It wasn't long before he saw Exit 122 and soon after a sign for a Flying J Travel Plaza. Eric exited I-70 quickly, anxious for a break.

After pulling up next to a pump, Eric dragged himself out of his car and waited with the gas nozzle in hand, just in case of a backfire, as his Omni usually shuttered for a minute or so after he'd shut it off. Finally jamming the nozzle into the hole, Eric smiled as he envisioned a steamy hot shower. After that he would indulge in the luxury of a late-night truck-stop feast. ESR tapped his foot as he waited for the pump to start. Half a second later, he almost had a heart attack.

Sir, all of our pumps are now prepay and you'll have to come inside to pay before you can pump your gas, an unseen speaker blared at him.

Startled, Eric jumped back, dropped the nozzle on the ground, and bumped the Omni's gas door shut with his ass. His heart beat furiously and he trembled uncontrollably. Heeding the cashier's friendly greeting, Eric picked the nozzle up and shoved it back in its holster and made his way to the store's entrance. He was not pleased with having to prepay, not pleased at all. And he intended to share this with the clerk. He marched up to the front checkout and drew himself up to his whole 5'6 and glared.

Do you know who I am? Eric demanded, his voice like a teapot about to blow its top.

The cashier, a lean young man of about 20 with longish dark hair pulled back in a pony tail with three days of stubble and sky-blue eyes, looked at him and stifled a chuckle. No, he said. I don't.

Well that's your first mistake, Eric said before he paused to look at the clerk's name-tag, Shawn.

Shawn bit his cheeks to keep from smiling and made direct eye contact with Eric -- or tried to, since Eric's eyes were all over the place at this late hour. I'm sorry about that, sir. What can I help you with tonight? he asked.

You can start by putting thirty five dollars in gas on pump thirteen, Eric said. And then I'll take three of these motor oils, five of those bottles of trucker pills, and one of your hot showers in the back, he finished, grabbing and throwing the items on the counter.

Ringing, Shawn watched to make sure Eric didn't pack anything in his pockets during the sale.

Will this be cash or credit? Shawn asked.

Credit, Eric answered with gusto. On my VA Software credit card!

Eric produced a blue credit card with the familiar Tux penguin logo in the right hand corner and gave it to Shawn. He stared at the ground and tapped his foot while the transaction went through. He yawned and looked off into the distance at the showers, where he would soon bathe himself after days of sweaty travail. That last eight hours of driving had really clenched the odor. Eric idly noticed one of the doors had a Linux sticker on it and smiled, bemused. He'd take that room for luck.

Just sign here, Shawn said after handing Eric his card, a receipt, and a cheap pen. Would you like a bag?

No, no, no, no bag tonight, Eric said as he signed the receipt and gathered his purchases up in his arms and began hobbling toward the door.

Sir, wait up! Shawn called after him.

Eric turned and raised his eyebrows. Yes, what is it? he said.

Shawn held out a small, full plastic bag. You forgot your shower bag, sir. he told Eric, who was now standing at the counter again, negotiating a hand free from his motor oil and speed pills.

You can use any of the free stalls, you just have to lock it from the inside, Shawn told Eric as he deftly placed the bag on top of the motor oil. Enjoy your stall, man.

Oh, I will! Eric said as he made his way outside. I will!

Eric sauntered slowly to the shower rooms in the back of the Flying J trucker mall, thinking about how nice a long, steamy shower would feel. He opened the door with the Linux sticker on it and took a towel, wash rag, soap, shampoo, and several small tea lights out of his shower bag and set them on the sink. Humming Ride of the Valkyries, he disrobed and began lighting the candles, thinking of sudsing his sloping shoulders and running soap through his naughty areas. His humming grew more intense.

Standing naked in the candlelight humming, Eric closed his eyes and envisioned summer waterfalls in the Germanic countryside. In Eric's fantasy pure Teutonic waters lapped at his thin, pale chest while Swabian maidens giggled as he spat water at them. His hands reached forward past the shower curtain, turning the faucets, and water began spraying from the shower head. He stepped inside. His humming filled the shower and he was lost in the Black Forest, wild with the secrets of Germany and Open Source.

He ran his thin bar of soap across his limp body as the warm water washed over him. A German maiden stepped under the hidden waterfall with Eric, eyes sparkling in the candlelight. Eric soaped his buttocks and stood ready for her in the warmth and darkness. Wagner thundered in the magic cavern and he extended his hand, full of the magic energy of the motherland -- and soap -- to caress his young valkyrie's face. He reached out, ever so slowly, savoring the moment...

And touched a thick blanket of whiskers.

What the fuck! Eric yelled as he opened his eyes.

Standing at the other end of the shower was none other than Richard Stallman, leader of the Free Software Foundation, in his dripping wet altogether with a look of anticipation on his shaggy face.

I was wondering when you'd realize I was here, he said. His voice was high pitched and monotonic. It rang in Eric's ears.

What, Eric yelled, Are you doing in my shower twenty minutes outside of Columbus?!

Please, Eric, calm yourself, Richard said. I thought we were getting along.

We were, Eric said, Except for that nasty little problem of you always saying that Free Software is better than Open Source.

Richard looked at Eric with puppy dog eyes. Fine enough to have a truck stop rendezvous? he pleaded.

Look - no - not until you tell me how you knew I would be here, Eric said, pointing at Richard. Was it you on Match.com all along?

Match.com? Richard said, looking puzzled. If you're cruising for ass online you should not use Match.com. It is not Free.

Then what are you doing here? Eric said, ignoring Richard's capital F. Columbus is a little out of your territory, don't you think?

I could ask the same thing of you, Richard said. He noted that the shower was still running warm water all over Eric's backside as they spoke. But I am down here speaking to the Central Ohio Linux User's Group about the GPL.

Eric said, I'm on a little road-trip to Kansas City, He dropped his hands to his hips. And I took this room because I saw the Tux sticker on it.

Ah! Richard exclaimed. I knew I should have used a gnu sticker! Any old bum will take a room with a penguin on the door.

Eric noticed the gleam in Richard's dark, beady eyes from the low amber light of the candles. And just then, in the middle of their silence, Flying J's muzak came on. Richard and Eric both looked up, waiting to catch the tune. It began softly but suggested a faster beat. Then, slowly, the sound came into focus -- it was Hung Up, the first single from Madonna's new album. Both Eric and Richard's heads bobbed in sync with the beat and their feet began tapping along. Eric's hips started swaying as well.

Eric was the first to break out of the song. Look, I have a bottle of Jäger in my Omni. There's not much room in there, but-

Don't worry about how much room there is, Richard said, stopping Eric. Let's just enjoy this song first and worry about the rest later.

And that's exactly what Eric and Richard did while Madonna gave way to a string of other muzak hits and the tea lights burned out. Eric had a long night ahead of him before he embarked westward to Kansas City in the morning.

Great. As usual... (1)

gardyloo (512791) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511045)

...we schizophrenics are left to -- Who are you?

Hi, I'm your other sel... Never mind. Want some free music?

Do I! Let's go!

Re:Great. As usual... (1)

bl4nk (607569) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511093)

That isn't schizophrenia. That's DID (dissociative identity disorder [wikipedia.org] ) which is quite rare, and quite different from schizophrenia. Symptoms of schizophrenia include visual and auditory hallucinations, often degressing in to paranoid schizophrenia.

Nitpicking (2, Informative)

Umbral Blot (737704) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511050)

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:Nitpicking (1)

grcumb (781340) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511150)

'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.

Will the RIAA declare war on UK? (3, Interesting)

BlueStrat (756137) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511063)

From TFA:

"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? (1)

sparkz (146432) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511130)

I, for one, welcome our US overlords. Really, I don't know what the Iraqis have been complaining about; I look forward to an endless invasion of my sovereign country with an unknown body count [iraqbodycount.org]

I hear the NSA has discovered... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511267)

...that the UK has a nuclear weapons project. Rumsfeld and Cheney are right now in an emergency meeting with GWB, the RIAA, and the JCoS. An invasion appears imminent. Curse those Brit terrorists! Curse them right to Hell!

They're no better than the RIAA (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511327)

All that these guys are saying is that they won't bring suit against you for making your own personal copies. But this is not actually any kind of a concession, because they can't find you out anyway.
The RIAA doesn't sue anyone for making purely personal copies, so it's not surprising to hear the same from their UKian counterparts... but as soon as you start sharing music on the internet, they will be happy to take your ass to court.

Re:Will the RIAA declare war on UK? (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511728)

Canada has had a similar private-copy exemption for a long time (since the early 80's) to what the UK is basically saying now.

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? (2, Insightful)

arkhan_jg (618674) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511902)

It's worth pointing out that the BPI is in fact, the British version of the RIAA. Mr Jamieson is speaking on behalf of the same big record labels when he speaks as a representative of the BPI (British Phonographic Institute) which is the British recording industry association/lobby group/vague legal threats mouthpiece.

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 much DRM if not more on our CDs. They've obviously decided to use technical measures rather than legal ones to stop people ripping CDs, because they probably fear a court case ruling against them and actually opening the door to media shifting; if they allow it themselves for personal use, it still remains technically illegal, and they can use DRM much more easily.

Re:Will the RIAA declare war on UK? (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511935)

I don't know about France but our politicians are just as prone to financial influence as yours are.

A good acknowledgement (1)

Aeron65432 (805385) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511082)

It is entirely possible for the recording industry to reach a compromise with users over mp3s. The idea that you aren't allowed to rip, mix, and copy your own cd's/mp3s/etc is ridiculous, and it's good thing that the Recording industry (at least in the UK) has seen some basic common sense.

Record Industry Statements? (1)

TwilightSentry (956837) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511083)

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 that over in the UK?

well that's lovely, but... (1)

ltwally (313043) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511097)

"Peter Jamieson, chairman of the British Phonographic Industry, said 'consumers would only be penalized if they made duplicates of songs for other people.'"
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 organisations such as the BPI/RIAA/MPAA etc etc.

Basically, what I'm saying is that no body should pay any attention to this, because it's not worth the paper it's printed on.

Re:well that's lovely, but... (1)

kfg (145172) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511133)

Peter Jamieson . . . does not . . .create the laws

Correct. What he does is invokeAlso of consideration is the worth of his word.

Aye! Theeeeere's the rub.

KFG

Re:well that's lovely, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511216)

One day he says it's OK, the next day he'll be suing you for doing it.

Which he's perfectly entitled to do....and the law suit would be dismissed the minute it got to court - because UK law has always allowed copying for this purpose - it's quite obviously (IMO) fair use. I'm not even sure why this has been posted as 'news' in the first place - its been this way for a very long time.

On the whole IP/copyright subject I think that people here in the UK and Europe still have it much better than those in the US - common sense still prevails - most of the time. One reason for this might be that (at least based on what I read here) many of the suits in the US have been (at least initially) "John Doe" suits - this form of suit isn't possible under UK law - quite simply - if you don't know the name of the person you wish to sue - you can't sue them.

Although I think that UK law (and law everywhere) needs to be adjusted in this respect I'm glad that the legal system here in the UK doesnt seem to give carte blanche to the industry representatives as it seems to in the US.

Wife unavailable for comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15512231)

yeah yeah,
"Meanwhile, his wife, Jenna were unavailable for comment, she had her mouth full"

It's all fun and games until... (1)

Terranaut (885084) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511102)

Someone stores his CD collection on his hard drive, then sells the "hard copies" for £3 ($4.50 - $5) a piece. :-)

In 2 Nutshells (1)

realitybath1 (837263) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511116)

1. Look nice by giving people what should have always been their undeniable right. 2. Apple's market power limits our (clients') market power.

The law has NOT changed (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511134)

All he says is:
"If you rip your own CD, don't worry because we won't pursue you."

From a legal point of vue, nothing has changed ! And he can change his mind.

Also, note that with what he said, if you rip your friends CD you'll get sued.

Mod parent up! (1)

mad zambian (816201) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511189)

The law hasn't changed to make it legal to copy your own music. It is just them saying that they won't enforce the law and sue you.
Big difference.
The weasel words are "music that you own."
So borrowing a CD from a friend and ripping that is still a no-no.
The record industry apparently feels it is essential to increase the copyright period from 50 to 95 years as well.

The record industry hasn't changed.

Mod parent gibberish (1)

@madeus (24818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511752)

The law hasn't changed to make it legal to copy your own music. It is just them saying that they won't enforce the law and sue you.

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 that you own."So borrowing a CD from a friend and ripping that is still a no-no.

Those are not weasel words in any shape or form. They are communicating their very reasonable position quite straightforwardly.

Like many of todays 'yoof', you don't seem to understand the concept of 'paying for something you ought to' though.

The record industry hasn't changed.

You mean because they want you to pay for stuff they are selling? What an odd idea!

Re:Mod parent gibberish (2, Informative)

ikekrull (59661) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511825)

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:Mod parent gibberish (3, Insightful)

Ngwenya (147097) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511980)

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


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.

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.


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 (1)

@madeus (24818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512087)

Have you read the law?

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 ("oh noes!" students across the land cry), but even sharing copies of media with family / household members is seen as "probably" legal, according to review by a government task force set up to investigate it (which is as definitive as they could come up with).

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.

No it's not illegal, nor is illegal to format and/or time shift using a VCR or a Mini Disc, nor are ISP's who cache such content on their proxy servers committing an offence, nor is it illegal to make backup copies of your computer software, even if EULA says it is (and other urban legends).

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)

'Fair use' is an American term with specific meaning, it does not apply in the UK. Perhaps the term you were looking for is 'Fair Dealing', which is a different thing I should point out. It is insubstantial, vague and in need of improvement, but it still allows for copies for personal use as it stands under "private study".

To re-iterate a previous point, if it were not so, that would mean unequivocally anyone who sell's iPods or Mini Disc's (now there is an irony) or who makes available copies of MP3 ripping software (including Apple's iTunes) would therefore be guilty of secondary infringement by order of supplying tools for the intended purpose of assisting in copyright violation - which is an interesting taking on things!

It seems like what your looking for a nice codified European style civi-law that says very clearly "This is illegal" and "but this is okay" - English law very often doesn't work like that though (as a result, the law is harder to interpret with a trade-off, at least in theory, being you get better reasoned judgements).

Well, you better tell the UK Patent Office. (2, Informative)

ikekrull (59661) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512266)

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.

this isn't really news (1)

rucs_hack (784150) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511183)

I've been recording music that I bought onto cassette/cd for, let me see, about 25 years, perhaps 30. Obviously not on cd to start with though.

I don't buy albums from the main labels any more, because 99% of them are crap, produced to make profit, and nothing else. There's nothing new there either, it's been going downhill ever since the spice girls.

I do buy music, but only from indie publishers, and then only from bands who's music I can download to try out.
And yes, I copy them as soon as I get them, then put the originals away.

Do you trust them? (1)

dotoole (881696) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511204)

The BPI has promised not to pursue legal action against people who copy music to portable devices. This is not an acknowledgment of fair use. Personally I'll be holding off on the celebrations until fair use if protected by law, not flimsy promises.

This seems contradictory to me.. (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511289)

The formats itunes uses are perfectly compatible with any other player save when encrypted with "fairplay" DRM.

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 and is diametrically opposed to the concept of format shifting.

Re:This seems contradictory to me.. (1)

sketchykg (981607) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511440)

Indeed. Instead of telling Apple to license its DRM, why don't the record industry cartels and governments petition/let Apple to remove all the DRM. Apple can sell the plain ole mpa files and all the competitors are happy. I mean they are so concerned by anti-competitive practices, right? Silence? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Excellent (1)

labratuk (204918) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511335)

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.

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? (1)

tehwebguy (860335) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511402)

"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."

I guess Mr. Jamieson (if that is his real name..) forgot that other manufacturers could choose to offer non-drm'd .mp3 files which would work on the iPod, and any other mp3 player on the planet.

not to mention, didn't the ipod come out ages before any of the "other manufacturers" invent their own drm?

Re:oh reheheally? (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512208)

I guess Mr. Jamieson (if that is his real name..) forgot that other manufacturers could choose to offer non-drm'd .mp3 files which would work on the iPod, and any other mp3 player on the planet.

I think what he's aiming at is more the ability to download from iTMS and play on a non-apple device.

Except (1)

Sonshi (979395) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512210)

He's not talking about songs from other music stores being able to play on the ipod.

He's talking about songs from itunes playing on other mp3 players, which is not possible at present.

He has a point.

British Whatographic Institute?? (1)

acercanto (930670) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511448)

I swear, every time I read that name, my brain reads it British Pr0nographic Institute. Every time. Maybe I need to get my mind out of the gutter..

AAC is an open std ..... and so compatible.... (2, Interesting)

aJester (954798) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511479)

My understanding is the DRM was "invented" so that the Content owners can restrict the device in which their content/music plays. Or to rephrase, the DRM is there *BECAUSE* RIAA insisted on it as a pre-condition for access the catalog. If the British Music Labels want the music to be "compatible" on all devices, am sure Apple will have NO problem offering DRM free AAC music. Right? As long as they offer their catalogs without stipulating DRM be there, wouldn't Apple be able to offer the downloads in UK drm-free AAC? To me this whole article is a sham.. A case of the pot calling the kettle black! Just.. a ... Jester

well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511496)

I wonder if the British Pornographic Industry.. or BPI fer short will sue me if I copy my "moves" to the neighbours wife..

Re:well.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15511674)

Well, twice nothing is still nothing, so I think you're safe.

BPI owns all music copyright now? (3, Interesting)

ikekrull (59661) | more than 7 years ago | (#15511745)

I mean, its nice for this guy to say that BPI won't sue - but whats to stop other copyright holders using the statutes of law, as they are written, to prosecute those who are quite clearly breaking it by making personal copies.

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? (2)

muuh-gnu (894733) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512008)

> advocating the piracy of works over which it has no rights whatsoever.

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? (1)

ikekrull (59661) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512263)

You mean the UK.

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/usingcopyri 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 (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.

It is of course quite normal to do it, but it's still illegal.

Something's got to give... (3, Insightful)

Haeleth (414428) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512328)

It is of course quite normal to do it, but it's still illegal.

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 controversies I can think of in recent years are those that relate to homosexuality in children or churches.

In other cases, the behaviour remains technically illegal but is de facto permitted; e.g. the way even the police now regularly cruise at 80 on motorways and nobody bats an eyelid. I suspect that the only reason the speed limit hasn't been raised is that nobody faces jail for doing 80, so the public sees no reason to demand a change in the law.

Contrast cases where a significant part of the population thinks a behaviour should remain illegal: the Lambeth experiment with tolerance of cannabis use managed to cause quite a controversy, and there's no reason to suppose that law will become any more liberal than it currently is, because the majority of the population seems to agree that cannabis use should remain illegal but should be punished fairly lightly.

Where does copying music for personal use fit into all this? I suspect it's going to end up de facto legal but not de jure, since the music industry wants to avoid the risk of a slippery slope; again, we see the same effect in both the examples above (the government is reluctant to raise any speed limit for fear of encouraging people to drive even faster, and reluctant to liberalise drug laws for fear of encouraging wider use).

But it does seem strange, and strangely incompatible with democracy as it's popularly understood, to have a law deliberately criminalising "acceptable" activities, with no intention of enforcing it, solely to discourage "unacceptable" activities...

But here's the thing... (3, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512120)

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.

Blah! (1)

WCD_Thor (966193) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512130)

I'm getting tired of people trying to force Apple to open up its software. Deal with it or go somewhere else, if enough people go somewhere else, they will change, but quit complaining. Apple has every right to be an asshole with their software, because it is thier's. Thats how life works, people get to do what they want with their own damn stuff (to a reasnable extant, which this is).

Not news at all (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 7 years ago | (#15512371)

This has always been the case in the UK. Although, technically, it is a breach of copyright, it has always been tolerated.

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.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...