Format-shifting set to be legalised in UK

[sburrell]

At last!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14384268

Users of iPods and SqueezeBoxes, you are no longer de facto criminals!

[dave2010]

At last!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14384268

Users of iPods and SqueezeBoxes, you are no longer de facto criminals!
I doubt whether we'd have been criminals in any case before this, or did I miss something? I read somewhere that someone or some organisation was making waves.

If there hasn't been an Act of Parliament or a test case to set a precendent against iPod and Squeezebox users doing this, then it's very possible that it was OK before. Just not explicitly so.

My understanding of the UK law is that effectively there are three states.

1. Can do. 2. Can't do. 3. Undecided - but can do until a decision is made.

Some activity can remain in state 3 for a very long while.

I suppose a lawyer would also be interested in what happens at the point when activity moves from 3 to 2 - would this imply any retrospective action. Using the current example, if the decision had gone the other way,would anyone who had already made copies then have to delete them, or would they only be prevented from making new ones. Didn't happen in this case though, and often the principle of "de minibus non curat lex" will apply, unless of course someone, or some organisation feels that there's filthy lucre involved!

Also, does what one is allowed to do change or become restricted while a decision is being made once the legal cogs have been set in motion?

[Spur07]

Christ, what a waste of money, something akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They're so far behind the curve it's laughable.

I've read some interesting reports this year about 'cowboy' lawyers attempting to cash in on the download culture. As I understand it they obtain information about downloaders, (not necessarily the up-loaders), and send out letters threatening legal action the aim being to extortion money in a some kind of settlement as they have no intention of going to court because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Apparently a couple of firms have already had their wrists slapped. There must be so much money to be made here if the lawyers could find a way of avoiding these cases being thrown out of court so early on. If you're a serial downloader the music industry or the ISP's are the least of your worries.

[dave2010]

Christ, what a waste of money, something akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They're so far behind the curve it's laughable.

I've read some interesting reports this year about 'cowboy' lawyers attempting to cash in on the download culture. As I understand it they obtain information about downloaders, (not necessarily the up-loaders), and send out letters threatening legal action the aim being to extortion money in a some kind of settlement as they have no intention of going to court because they wouldn't have a leg to stand on. Apparently a couple of firms have already had their wrists slapped. There must be so much money to be made here if the lawyers could find a way of avoiding these cases being thrown out of court so early on. If you're a serial downloader the music industry or the ISP's are the least of your worries.Paul

You may be right, but there have been a few cases which haven't gone quite the way you might have thought. There was a woman who lost a lot of money for distributing games, and not even for profit. I'm not sure whether that case has set a precedent, but I'd think twice about distributing games. You may be right that it's only going to affect people who upload material for others to use, not people who use it.

I have also heard about people getting threatening letters and asked to pay up - and recent decisions have slapped those law firms down - which is probably a good thing.

There are also issues about criminal activity versus activity which might only be in possible violation of civil law. Obviously criminal activity is going to be stamped on - violent crime, extortion by threats etc., but "simply" disregarding terms and conditions of normal trade would surely come under civil law. ISPs, copyright holders etc. could come after someone for penalties, but often it's not really going to be worth their while, except perhaps to make an example of someone.

I guess if you think something is dodgy you shouldn't really do it, but mostly the law doesn't care about things which are thought to be reasonable, and also about some things which are considered too small to care about.

In the mean time some publicists get £1 million or more for getting their phones hacked. Can I put my phone number here, get it hacked? I'd settle for £500k :lol:

[sburrell]

Dave:

I doubt whether we'd have been criminals in any case before this, or did I miss something? I read somewhere that someone or some organisation was making waves.
Oddly enough, according to some of the blurb on an ad for the Brennan JB7 on the back of my latest copy of Private Eye:

In 2006 the record companies said unequivocally that they are happy for you to load your own CDs onto a hard disk but the Advertising Standards Authority have asked us to tell you that it is unlawful to copy material without the permission of the copyright holder.
This is why I used the term, "de facto".

then it's very possible that it was OK before.
No, it was, as I said, technically illegal to "rip" CDs - in fact, it still is.

De minibus non curat lex
Hehe, the law does not concern itself with minibuses? It's:

De minimis non curat lex
But I won't pretend I was familiar with the phrase before you used it. :)

does what one is allowed to do change or become restricted while a decision is being made once the legal cogs have been set in motion?
I cannot see that any legal action could justifiably succeed now that a Government Secretary has officially declared that the law in question is to be amended. And my conscience has been clear since I started ripping, regardless. I have no criminal intent, and this is what matters.

Paul:

Christ, what a waste of money, something akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They're so far behind the curve it's laughable.
To whom or what are you referring here?
As for the "serial downloaders": format-shifting is to be legalised, not breach of copyright as a whole, or wholesale theft.

Dave:

In the mean time some publicists get £1 million or more for getting their phones hacked. Can I put my phone number here, get it hacked? I'd settle for £500k
If I'm reading my current issue of Private Eye correctly, the hacking in question was actually more a case of infiltration due to poor security measures: apparently most remote Voicemail access PINs on mobiles etc. are left at their defaults, enabling anyone who tries to gain access easily.

[Spur07]

Paul

You may be right, but there have been a few cases which haven't gone quite the way you might have thought. There was a woman who lost a lot of money for distributing games, and not even for profit. I'm not sure whether that case has set a precedent, but I'd think twice about distributing games. You may be right that it's only going to affect people who upload material for others to use, not people who use it.

I have also heard about people getting threatening letters and asked to pay up - and recent decisions have slapped those law firms down - which is probably a good thing.

There are also issues about criminal activity versus activity which might only be in possible violation of civil law. Obviously criminal activity is going to be stamped on - violent crime, extortion by threats etc., but "simply" disregarding terms and conditions of normal trade would surely come under civil law. ISPs, copyright holders etc. could come after someone for penalties, but often it's not really going to be worth their while, except perhaps to make an example of someone.

I guess if you think something is dodgy you shouldn't really do it, but mostly the law doesn't care about things which are thought to be reasonable, and also about some things which are considered too small to care about.

In the mean time some publicists get £1 million or more for getting their phones hacked. Can I put my phone number here, get it hacked? I'd settle for £500k :lol:

Dave, I think you may have misinterpreted my last line there - I'm not saying that downloaders are particularly off the hook, as it were. It seems to me that money grabbing lawyers may represent some kind of random threat in the future, more so for the casual downloaders - all it needs as you say is a precedent to be set. The history of peoples internet usage is out there and one day may become a precious commodity in itself! The music industry haven't got the gumption and ISP's wont rock the boat. Virgin signed up for the 3 strikes and your out rule but will they really want to piss off there XL customers who pay up to £80 a month?

You're right with regards to gaming, that's a different kettle of fish. I'm guessing the games industry is much more 'pro-active' when it comes to protecting their products. Mess with them at your peril. :)

[dave2010]

Simon/Paul
Dave:

Oddly enough, according to some of the blurb on an ad for the Brennan JB7 on the back of my latest copy of Private Eye:

This is why I used the term, "de facto".Yes, but I think that was just to scare us into buying a Brennan - or at least steer us away from not buying one!



No, it was, as I said, technically illegal to "rip" CDs - in fact, it still is.I think that it depends what you mean by illegal. I think you can do it, but the copyright holder "might" object that you have violated the terms of the contract. That's what I was trying to say about the distinction between civil and criminal law. For practical purposes I'd say that much of the "law" in this area in the UK is in my state 2 - undecided.

Oops about the minibuses. Either brain not in gear, or fingers - m and b are quite close on the keyboard!


And my conscience has been clear since I started ripping, regardless. I have no criminal intent, and this is what matters.

Again this is wrong. The law does not always concern itself with intent. However in murder cases a distinction is made between deliberately setting out to kill and accidental killing, in which case a lesser charge of manslaughter can be brought. The fact that you didn't intend to do something does not necessarily absolve you from legal penalties.

[Beechwoods]

The only reason this aspect of law is being 'clarified' at the moment is to allow the music industry and associated businesses to make money from 'cloud' services that mirror your legally purchased material for streaming or download to other devices.

It's almost a by-product that they're formally allowing a practice that was commonplace for most people in terms of ripping their own discs to other machines for convenience.

The main irony is that the industry was hoist by it's own petard when it came to launching services like Amazon and Apple's Cloud services...

They don't do any of this for the good of people who already own copies of the music and want to freely copy it to their iPod!

[Alex_UK]

So does all this mean I can happily replicate my vinyl collection with downloads (however dubious the source) and be totally legal? Hope so!

[Reid Malenfant]

I still think you'd need to show that you have the original copy that you purchased (from wherever) so that you can prove you transcribed it from that Alex.

No original & obviously the question where did you get it from occurs? :rolleyes:

[dave2010]

So does all this mean I can happily replicate my vinyl collection with downloads (however dubious the source) and be totally legal? Hope so!Not going to argue about what legality means in this post! As I understand it, if you subscribe to Apple's cloud services, and if you transfer your own LPs to iTunes, then, if Apple recognises the equivalent CD, you will be able to stream it anywhere to a compatible device which you own. The download stream will be at most 256 kbps aac. I'm not sure if they plan to allow you to download as well as stream. If downloads are on offer this could be good for anyone who wants copies for their portable devices.

Apple's service is planned to be different from some of the others, which appear to offer similar facilities. Some of the others may actually upload your files, and store them, which would mean thousands of copies of the same music stored on servers.

Apple's proposed system relies on it making a match between your music and the music store in its database/storage system.

As mentioned, they will take money off you for doing this. Also, by ripping to clouds, it does make the commercial operations legal in some sense.

[sburrell]

Dave:

The law does not always concern itself with intent. However in murder cases a distinction is made between deliberately setting out to kill and accidental killing, in which case a lesser charge of manslaughter can be brought. The fact that you didn't intend to do something does not necessarily absolve you from legal penalties.
I'd rather break the law for the right reasons, than follow the law for the wrong ones.

[dave2010]

Dave:

I'd rather break the law for the right reasons, than follow the law for the wrong ones.Maybe - but who decides?

In an emergency I might drive my car well over the speed limit, but many people do so when there is no reason for them to do so.

Many people still use hand held mobile phones when driving - I've seen people overtake me at over 70 mph doing this, and of course many people (often women I'm afraid) who when driving out of the supermarket car park, then pick up their mobile and start having a chat.

So called civil disobedience can be a way of promoting change, and sometimes it may be helpful. Often it's just violence, needless, and disruptive.

We've seen quite a bit of needless vandalism here in the last few days, without any apparent reason other than a wish to create disorder.

In this country, thankfully, there are usually legal ways of expressing opinions, and influencing change. This is not the case in some other countries however.

Legal ways of behaving are usually, but not always, preferable to others. As I said - who decides?

[Reid Malenfant]

We've seen quite a bit of needless vandalism here in the last few days, without any apparent reason other than a wish to create disorder.
It's already kicked off again late this afternoon in a few districts of London :mental:

[sburrell]

Dave:

Legal ways of behaving are usually, but not always, preferable to others. As I said - who decides?
How did my well-meaning reporting of an imminent change in format-shifting laws turn so deep?
In answer to your rhetorical question: no-one makes a decision for anyone else, it just sometimes seems that way.

[sburrell]

So does all this mean I can happily replicate my vinyl collection with downloads (however dubious the source) and be totally legal? Hope so!
That's an interesting question - it also raises the question: can I buy a VHS of a move for 50p then download a DVD-quality rip onto my computer? Can I buy a 20p cassette of an album then download a lossless rip onto my computer?

I'm not going to assume that the answer is, "yes." I'll wait till it's decided in court.

[Beechwoods]

I very much doubt that you'll see that scenario play out like that :)

[Reid Malenfant]

You'll need to be in possession of the original DVD if you want to copy it ;) Obviously a copy of a DVD can't be taken from a video as the quality will be totally different, in which case it'll be illegal :rolleyes: