Return of the nanny state.

It's getting ridiculous now.  Time for the EU to stand up for it's citizens rights.

"But a judge has ruled that the government was wrong legally when it decided not to introduce a compensation scheme for songwriters, musicians and other rights holders who face losses as a result of their copyright being infringed.

Unlawful, not illegal! Huge difference. 

Do explain.

Can Naim explain what it all means? Do I need to buy a digital download 3 times in order to make a couple of backups? Some d/l sites only provide a link valid for 48hrs.

Before speculation runs rampant, it might worthwhile reading the four paragraphs of this article: http://www.engadget.com/2015/0...-exception-unlawful/

It puts some perspective on what the decision means to the typical CD ripper in the UK. Apparently unlawful is the accurate term, but to most of us uninformed in legalese, unlawful versus illegal can be taken synonymously.

The enforcement mechanism to be hashed out remains to be decided. The music industry is attempting to fetch some indirect compensation from sales of the physical playback media via 'blank media tax'. How these fees might actually trickle down from the industry to the individual artists themselves seems the ultimate question to me.

I doubt that Naim want to get into the business of giving legal advice to their customers and the general public.  They probably have enough difficulty figuring out what this means for them as a manufacturer and seller of hardware.

(Simon, "M'Lord, it might have been unlawful but it wasn't illegal" is something the convicted criminal shouts to the judge  as they are taking him out of the courtroom in handcuffs on the way to prison for the next 20 years.)

Bart, *chuckle* I liked your comment about Naim and legal advice, I know I tend run a mile at work when legalities are having to be involved and I refer to the company L+R guys and girls when ever I can. The interesting thing is they sometimes don't know the answers either. 

I think I see a transcription error in the statement above:

"It is vitally important that fairness profits for songwriters, composers and performers the record companies is written into the law. My members' music defines this country. It is only right that government gives us the standard of legislation our music deserves."

Like record companies have ever given a rat's arse about the musicians...

I can think of a forum member who will be criticising them if they don't  (or if they do for that matter).

I always thought that 'unlawful' was against the law, and 'illegal' was a sick bird?????

Indeed

BTW, I removed my earlier post as on further reading of various directives etc, the exclusion to allow personal copying within the EU is up to each country to specify and on  the condition that there is a mechanism to address any estimated lost revenues. This is is the contentious bit as certain countries ( such as Canada) have research that show certain personal copying behaviours increase artist revenues as it drives up interest and sales that otherwise would not occur.. therefore there would be no levy required. The recent growth in streaming and the correlation with improved physical music sales would support this.... I suspect this one will run and run and run.

Whats also interesting, perhaps because of the Canadian view, is that the big major music labels are ambivalent on levies.

From

https://www.gov.uk/intellectua...pyright-infringement

6. Copyright infringement

Copyright owners generally have the right to authorise or prohibit any of the following things in relation to their works:

• copying the work in any way. For example, photocopying, reproducing a printed page by handwriting, typing or scanning into a computer, or making a copy of recorded music

If this interpretation is upheld exactly as specified, then not only is backup unlawful, but digital replay on any system that buffers the data is also unlawful.  I feel this threatens the validity of the law (it pre-dates the common use of computers and digital systems) and that some concept of context or usage will be necessary in case law.  We'll just have to hope that this allows copying and transcription to other media for use within a single location or system, and for backup purposes (where the backup is not a medium for information usage).

Huge, you need to refer the legal advice and guidance on copyright exceptions

https://www.gov.uk/exceptions-to-copyright

I note  however the consumer exception document that specifically addresses home back ups and personal copying, still quoted by Google, has been removed, and gov.uk state that exception doc has been removed pending updating. It's a shame I didn't keep a personal copy of it.

As far as buffering etc, I doubt that is problematic, as such mechanisms are covered by the 'fair dealing' principle, which is left reasonably open, but basically considers infringement as an activity  that would impact the copyright holder in terms of lost revenue and therefore that would not be fair, and buffering would therefore not in most circumstances be an infringement.

You can see how lawyers can make a living from this stuff.....

Simon

Apparently it is unlawful, illegal, against the law to drive a car in France without a breathalyser kit since about 2013. No-one has ever been charged or any prosecutions made. A common sense approach to stupidly implemented law...... so far.

Indeed, and just to emphasise for the UK driver over here: there is no repeal so far but there is no legislation to govern collection and distribution of the fine therefore it cannot be enforced. It is a good idea to have one just in case some bent copper tries to fleece you though! French police are very 'hot' on Stop sign enforcement. Also if you do ever wonder if you might be over the limit or close they are a handy tool, so I recommend you get one if you are not totally abstinent before using the car, whatever country you live in.

A couple of points on 'fair dealing':

1  "Usually only part of a work may be used", but for buffering this is probably not relevant as use of the whole is implicit in the use.

2  It's reasonable to include copying of a CD to a NAS for playback by a streamer as 'fair dealing' in the same way (in that it is a 'time shifted' playback of the material and the transcription to the NAS is a pre-requite to the playback by the streamer), provided that the CD remains in your possession and is never played at the same time.

 Precisely the point I'm making...  It's largely a matter of interpretation.

Huge - just spotted this - unless the buffer is as large as the media file itself (unlikely) the buffer (as used in all digital replay equipment to varying degrees)  will only copy part of the work at a time - as I say really not an issue.

The law is all about protecting revenue.

In my experience much law does apply interpretation to its applicability - law is written for people not machines - and why we have lawyers. My point was about the subtleties of applicability in different contexts which is where I see the lawyers making their living. Good luck to them.

But only half-way!

Hi Simon,

Absolutely it's about interpretation, but basically the law is out of date as it's been overtaken by technology.

I could make worthless arguements about the 'whole in parts' and transcription (decoding Reed-Solomon to LPCM); but the law doesn't make allowance for the technology, so there's no point really, it's just an unholy mess at the moment.

It's for lawyers to argue and the judiciary to decide.

F*ck 'em. I've paid for all my music. As long as i don't sell all my ripped CDs then i'll do what i like with them 

What's the difference between this player and the SSD based music I have on my MacBook Other than going back to playing one CD at a time?