Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

UK Music Fans Can Copy Own Tracks

Posted by Zonk on Sat Jun 10, 2006 07:41 PM
from the like-they-should-have-been-able-to dept.
Media Music Technology
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. "
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

UK Music Fans Can Copy Own Tracks 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Obligatory McBane Quote (Score:5, Funny)

    by belgar (254293) on Saturday June 10 2006, @07:43PM (#15510989) Homepage
    The article! It says nothing!
    • It isn't what he said. It's how he said it. The italics made the entire quote.
    • 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 (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Tim C (15259) on Sunday June 11 2006, @02:52AM (#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.
      • Isn't it wonderful? They want to fight an ignored, unenforced, and unenforcable aspect of the law!

        Can you say "token copyright reform"? Next thing, they'll be opposing the burning of witches!
  • From the article:
    |" "
    Interesting.
  • 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...

  • Soo... (Score:4, Funny)

    by dduardo (592868) on Saturday June 10 2006, @07:46PM (#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... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MankyD (567984)

      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 directorie

    • Re:Soo... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by fermion (181285) on Saturday June 10 2006, @08:05PM (#15511053) Homepage Journal
      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.
      • 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
      • 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.

        Ough-kay... let's hope we never get to the point that leaving CD's in an unlocked car is the only alternative to file-sharing.

  • What? (Score:3, Funny)

    by b0lt (729408) <b0ltz0r@gmail.com> on Saturday June 10 2006, @07:49PM (#15511006) Homepage
    I just RTFA'd and came back with nothing.

  • Common sense (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drspliff (652992) <harry.roberts@noSPam.midnight-labs.org> on Saturday June 10 2006, @07:51PM (#15511010) Homepage
    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.
    • "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 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arkhan_jg (618674) on Sunday June 11 2006, @01:38AM (#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.
  • 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.
    • > 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)!

  • 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
      • 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.
  • ...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!

  • Nitpicking (Score:3, Informative)

    by Umbral Blot (737704) on Saturday June 10 2006, @08:04PM (#15511050) Homepage
    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".

    • '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? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by BlueStrat (756137) on Saturday June 10 2006, @08:11PM (#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
    • 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]
    • 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
  • 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.

  • "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 or

  • Almost..Almost...Almost...There we are. Well done.
  • 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

  • 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."

  • "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?
  • 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

  • BPI owns all music copyright now? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ikekrull (59661) on Sunday June 11 2006, @12:31AM (#15511745) Homepage
    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.

        • 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

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

    by 91degrees (207121) on Sunday June 11 2006, @03:50AM (#15512120) Journal
    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.

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

      No, it doesn't. Read the opening paragraph again and you'll see that it says: "UK music fans no longer face the threat of prosecution for copying their own CDs on to PCs or MP3 players, as long as the songs are only for personal use." That makes absolutely no mention of making a quick copy of someone else's CD, which would most definitely still come under the UK legal heading of Copyright Infringement which you could be pro

    • 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

    • With such reading comprehension skills, you might prefer digg.com.
        • 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

          • Re:Mod parent gibberish (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Ngwenya (147097) on Sunday June 11 2006, @02:32AM (#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

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2010 Geeknet, Inc.