Is this the end for Unitiserve/HDX?

Right, I'll have to hide my Unitiserve in our priest hole so the authorities won't find it!

There is another thread going on this. It looks like the prelude to placing an additional tax on storage media. I understand that this already happens in some countries.

I believe we all know where this is heading but I'd argue the whole premise is wrong. When you buy a book you don't have to decide that the book you buy will only be read in bed say. If you want to read the same book while sitting in the bath you're not required to go out and buy another copy for that different purpose. What's the difference when you buy a CD?

It's the same old story, publishers & artists just not moving with the times and not recognizing they require different business models to reflect this. Just look at the mess with streaming, they forever want the same high profit margins that they get with CD (and every other format before that)

I could not really make sense of the ruling (or indeed the other thread)

My reading is that this is about multiple copies-ie if you own the physical media you should not be able to use several copies of it elsewhere i.e. in the car or in another room.

OK, I'm not sure this has caught up with modern technology but to push the point a little when I buy a chair for my office I do not expect to be able to generate multiple copies for free and use them potentially simultaenously at various locations. If want too use software on multiple PC's I buy a multi-use licence not a single user one.

So I see some of the logic here, and the need to clarify the law.

Bruce

Storage media tax exists in many countries & it looks like a sensible way to solve this ...... assuming we agree the artists should be compensated for copying their work.

I fully accept it cannot be allowed to copy in numbers for commercial gain,   but preventing the copying of a fully legal tax & royalty paid CD or download & making a duplicate to play on another machine is not acceptable.  This effectively makes the title thread machines, all NAS & all storage media illegal.   If the HC ruling is correct, then its ridiculous, it just shows how detached the legal world is from the 21st century.  

Much as I agree with your top level POV I think there is a big difference here. You don't make a copy of a book to read in another room.  It's this distinction (or something akin to it) that the labels seem to have successfully latched onto. They claim that if you make a copy of a CD for personal use, like to listen to in the car or on a portable device, that the artist has somehow lost income from this. Which is nonsense. 

It seems yet again, just like it always has been in my lifetime, that people who buy and manipulate music for personal use, and keep buying more music legitimately their whole lives are being punished for the sins of the pirates the labels never catch.  So people will still still send multiple illegal copies all over the world but at least I'll be taxed for this. So that's OK. Seems I was ripping off artists and breaking the law in arrogant ignorance for scores of years. It's about time I was put in my place. This nonsense REALLY makes me want to rush out and buy more music.

(I might have made that last sentence up).

I stand by my previous comment 

Helen was given a CD by a friend last year by a local (and rather good Folk/Rock) artist. On the back of the CD it boldly states that the CD contained herein is licenced for SINGLE use only. Making copies for other devices is immoral and illegal and you should buy as many copies of the CD as you want to play on different devices.

Oh how we fell about laughing.

But how foolish we turned out to be.

And far from detaching the legal world from the 21st Century, I believe this is where we are going and it is being driven there deliberately. My grandchildren or possibly their children may one gay live in a world where the only way to listen to music is to pay per play and not keep a copy for more than a limited time. We are some way there already.

I have a medium  large collection of 400 CD's  all bought legally, some bought in UK, others in USA, various Africa, Mideast, Far East & some given as gifts.  I changed my CD player for a network player,  copying (ripping) all to NAS (& copied to back-up)   taking care to keep all my CD's as they contain the copyright I paid for.   

So according to the HC I should replace all the CD's with new legal download copies with whatever tax & royalties paid.   ???  But as I've already paid the artist for his work, can I get compensated by that artist for the work I no longer listen to in the stored CD's & now have paid them for twice.  

Second question,  if I pay for all new legal downloads,  who & how do I pay (again) for the back-up copy(s) 

Apparently you are Clive. Just as much as if you had obtained your music illegally, made multiple copies and sold them or gave them away, or ripped all your CDs and sold the originals while keeping the rips. What a bad person you are. But you're in good company.

So all those posters on the "What are you listening to and WHY might anyone be ..." thread had better watch out! 

The law is an ass....

The "difference" is that, with the book, you are not making a copy to read in the bath.

With the CD, you are making a copy to play in the car, on your iPod, when ripping to your server.  The legal protection given to authors and other creators is called COPYright.  It's the RIGHT to stop others from COPYing.

That's the difference.

Hear hear!

See my previous post. I'm inclined to agree with that. Should music be a different case? Technology is a challenge to the principles involved here but the principles are still quite clear.

Bruce

Many thanks for an interesting discussion, I'm certainly now seeing this issue in a different light. Whilst I can now somewhat appreciate a tax on storage media hasn't this got the potential to penalise some people as not everyone will be ripping CDs to their audio kit for example?

Did this ruling have any effect on downloads? Can they be backed up?  Is it now illegal to stream a single purchased download to more than one device? Will this ruling eventually result in new restrictions being placed on streaming services? Will each device have to be independently licensed to play a download?  What a can of worms...

This ruling seems to ignore what many who buy CDs today are doing: create a rip, but then store the CD away as a proof-of-purchase. Beyond the ripping process, the CD itself is no longer being actively used. I wonder how audio-savvy this particlar judge is. Could the assumption be that both CD and rip continue to be used simultaneously? Most of us are only actively using just one set of bits.

Also, even though it may take many years, aren't CDs a perishable media? One would think that buying a CD entitles the owner to listen that music for an indefinite period of time. How can one achieve that without making a rip? For those who respect the law, this was the original motivation for home taping of vinyl. Although a lot of illegal tape sharing did take place, many of us were simply concerned that our records would wear out and sound worse with each play.

Feels really weird to see music copyright law take this step backwards. IMO, if there isn't some additional clarification about how downloads can or can't be used, then this ruling may have the unintended consequence of simply further suppressing both CD and vinyl sales.

ATB.

Hook

PS - My knee jerk reaction is to go out and buy a ton of CDs, rip as usual, and always make sure my NAS is backed up to a second NAS. If I have a problem with a NAS device, sounds like someday I may have to wipe it clean before bringing it in for repair!  It feels really yucky to have common sense behavior being criminalized. I agree with James and others. After so many years of playing by the rules, and going out of my way not to cheat anyone out of their hard earned revenue, this ruling is hard to read without becoming angry.

PPS - Deep breath. It is silly getting all worked up over yet another ill-defined and unenforceable law. Hard for me to envision this being a solid precedent for higher courts and in other countries. Am also quite certain that this is not the last we have heard on the age-old topic of copying media for personal use.

One man's back-up is another man's copy.

The law is about principles, not practicalities. seems to me the principles of copyright are being upheld (and I think it only applied to physical media) and now common sense has to consider the application in practical terms to music.

As for the 'CDs are perishable' argument well so are a pair of jeans. When they wear out I have to buy another pair. I don't make a series of identical clones at the time of purchase for later use. Poor analogy I know!

I have never really thought about it before but when you buy a CD are you actually buying 'the music' (which might be considered enduring) or the 'device' (which will wear out)?

Bruce

My understanding is that you are buying a COPY of the music for personal use. Time was you could copy it to archive it against disaster, or put a copy on an iPod, or a storage device to stream, or maybe generate an mp3 to play in the car. It seems that all of this is now illegal. I suppose we should all turn ourselves in.

If I buy a CD from Amazon, Amazon will automatically let me stream it in MP3 quality to any device I have. But yet if I do the same myself it will be illegal? err?

fwiw, I'd be much happier paying a modest amount every time I listened to something, and never "owning" anything. One the "pay per listen" model, musicians who I listened to many times and became part of my life would get more of my money than those whose music I only played a couple of times, yet I would much more readily explore new music because I would know that it wouldn't cost me a lot for  a single listen.

Hi Haary -

Perhaps instead we should all start narc'ing each other out in exchange for immunity!  

Wonder how Naim would react to a letter from the NCA or MI5 demanding the contact info of everyone who had ever bought a network server/player?  Not a big believer in conspiracy theories or predictions of doom, and of course I doubt this would ever happen...

Still, it is somewhat amusing to take this silliness to potential extreme outcomes! 

Hook

Surely that Amazon example is not the same. Firstly it is explicit at the time of purchase, and secondly it is Amazon who holds the original copy for streaming purposes. They have sold you two things, A physical copy and a streaming service. They presumably pay the music publisher/artist for the latter.

Bruce

I was wondering about Amazon.

Maybe Amazon UK should turn themselves in too? They could maybe have their crimes against copyright rolled into their tax avoidance investigations?

Currently I'm listening to the approaching sound of police sirens because someone tipped them off to my stash of ripped CDs!

I wouldn't mind a Statement myself!