Is this the end for Unitiserve/HDX?

He or she's not getting my Statement!

Struggling to understand how me ripping to my hdx is causing any harm to the musician  or the industry. I buy the CD, rip it to the HDX  for convenience, and store the once-used CD in my Loft. Sometimes  listen to a rip on my iPad in the car, but no loss if I couldn't, or could not take a copy on holiday with me. I certainly would never dream of buying a download of a CD I already own - I would just do without. In actual fact I think I have bought quite of numbers of CDs to rip to HDX that I would not have bought otherwise, simply because they were cheap and was convenient. Perhaps I should delete them off my HDX and flood the market with second hand, used once discs, then no-one makes any money, either the artist or the industry.

seem to remember last time I bought some software the license indicated I could have backups so long as I only used the software once at a time. Quite happy for same logic with music I've bought. Only have one pair of ears after all!

But we all DO get worked up and its exactly this type of law that angers people and encourages them do exactly what the law says they cannot.   No one ever said governments ran high with common sense. 

No one will buy multiple copies of a CD or download (one for home, one for the car, one for my iPod, etc., etc)  Artists have never made a penny more in revenue trying to enforce this type of law with individuals. 

I can confidently say I used the exploding sausage in the right context in this post

The only part that's quite enforceable is the levying of a tax on storage media.

(Encourages some to simply buy hard drives when visiting a country w/o such a tax.  For every tax there is an evasion scheme.  Just ask our Greek friends.)

Well if you read the doc on the UK.GOV website where that have looked into levies, the current wisdom   Is that revenue from taxes on storage media is in decline by those countries that do this, as the market and technology have moved on, and such taxes would need to be more appropriately applied to Internet access, mobile access and smartphones .. And apparently these are being challenged in some countries.

For those that are interested, the judgment and the UK Gov position on the ruling is here 

https://www.gov.uk/government/...te-copying-exception

In in short the gov are reviewing the implications and options with respect to new legislation. We are back to where we were before the end of last year, when the government provided legislation to resolve the situation on private copying in a pragmatic way in my view.  

In my view the only credible levy option with current trends and omni channel and storage technologies is to provide a levy on every published  CD, download, LP unless copy protection is built in ( exception then applies under EU law) so as to cater for those instances where you might want to make a personal copy. Now I wonder who might  have scored an own goal.

I have no doubt that a tax on media is not effective!  

Shouldn't the HC have made the ruling that you can only (legally) listen to said album or track that you've legally paid for on one device at a time? This is what many software providers do anyway - you can install on several machines but can only use it once at a time.

Surely this would get around the argument somewhat? Obviously still totally unenforceable but then the latest HC ruling doesn't exactly make it obvious that he/she is doing something they shouldn't... It's not like you could be walking down the street with earphones on and the local beat-bobby sniffs the air as you pass each other and then stops you and says "I have reason to believe you're listening to copyright material on that device that you don't have a license for..."

The essence of the right is to prevent copying -- not to 'allow copying so long as you're only looking at / reading / listening to one copy at a time.'  That'd not be a COPY right.

Yes, many software providers do that, as they realize it's a good business model.  The music industry is not as wise unfortunately. 

yes I think listening, reading or viewing to one copy at a time is interesting. I agree probably hard to enforce unless you are counterfeiting but addresses the requirement possibly.

After all the whole concept of a not being able to make a physical copy makes the ruling ridiculous - ie are you unable to store legally purchased downloads on a resilient system or mirrored hard disk or backuped hard disk. Clearly this is a nonsense. Are iCloud and other consumer internet back up services and  data centre services all going to require a levy just in case someone is prudent enough to insure their legally purchased music copies against technical failure. ( and indeed by following other EU best practice advice on data resilience).

Of course it could be a new VAT rate is provided for musical media (CDs, LPs, Downloads) to cover such a levy.

Of course under EU law if a levy is charged then necessarily copying (as opposed to limiting to format shifting or backup) becomes legal - and many EU countries that use levy systems have widely varying legislation on who and what you can legally copy for.

Simon

As a US citizen, this doesn't affect me yet living in the states, but it concerns me because the kind of legislative wrongheadedness (OK, let's be blunt; stupidity) is by no means the exclusive purview of EU or UK legislators.

Plus, as an Italian citizen living in the states, does it affect me then?  Or only when I show up in the EU with my iPhone that contains rips for my personal use?

The most irksome part of this is that I have a CD collection of over a thousand titles, and have done "my part" in supporting the artists and have spent literally thousands of dollars on music...only to have them stick it up my behind with this kind of crap.

And as I said on the other thread, this is strictly about corporate profits.  Record companies have been screwing the artists for decades with no crisis in conscience, so any use of the artist themselves (who are the only entity in all this for whom I have any empathy) is strictly out of convenience for their own interests & money grab.  (Kind of like how the USA uses "human rights" in foreign policy.)  And politicians (which includes judges) always follow the money; the needs of their constituents only count as far they need to in order to keep their comfortable jobs.

Agree. But I don't think the legislation is ignorant or stupid. It has a cold logic to it. It is being driven in this direction to make more money in the short to medium term and ban anyone from owning a physical copy of anything in the long term (because we can't be trusted to abide by an unenforceable law which few of us agree with).  As the paradigm moves towards services like TIDAL, Spotify etc and more people stand up and declare that downloads, CDs etc. are dead, so we will all be forced to pay per play. This is the beginning. However, for the here and now the UK government will "let us off" with an additional purchase tax. That's nice of them. I'm SO grateful.

Agreed Wat. I tried Qobuz and Tidal with their free trials. Qobuz SQ was OK but I didn't rate Tidal as highly. I only tended to listen to explore new music and neither Qobuz or Tidal has a very user friendly interface. With over 5000 albums on my hard drive why do I need to give these companies my hard earned cash? Thanks but no thanks.

Copyright law is territorial.  US laws govern what you can and cannot do in the US.  With the international reach of online systems, things do get a little wonky, but the IT government has no jurisdiction over you ripping cd's when here in the States.

I'm a Spotify subscriber but generally only use it to listen/explore new music (as Wat said above)  and prefer to 'own' my music rather than pay to rent it for the duration of a particular track. I've just bought an ND5 precisely because it supports Spotify but would easily move over to Tidal if Naim brought out a firmware update allowing this... I'd still buy CD's though (or hi res downloads if available rather than just use the streaming service).

I am a public network streaming convert - and I feel and have experienced public network streaming can sound just as good as local network streaming. Hopefully one day we will be able to appreciate this with some of our Naim equipment.

So right now I am in the happy position of using ripped CDs, purchased lossless downloads and lossless streaming - and my ability to access music and enjoy it has never been better.

It will be interesting to see if the record labels or music copyright lobby groups  pressure streaming companies to encrypt media streams. Currently it is not that difficult to create a copy from a lossless streaming service.. though a bit of know how is required. If its encrypted EU law takes the view so I understand it is copy protected and no levies are required.

Simon

Simon

What is public network streaming?

Bruce

Bruce, streaming from a service provider (Tidal, Qobuz, etc) over the internet - ie public network.

At the lower level of bits and bytes of the media sample data transfer - it looks pretty much the same as streaming from your NAS on your home network

Simon

Sorry, I was a bit unfamiliar with the terminology.

From a personal standpoint streaming services such as Quboz, Spotify etc are totally irrelevant with my unreliable connection and slow broadband speeds. I suspect I will be buying physical media or downloads for a long while yet.

Bruce 

Bruce

Fair enough, I have about a 3Mbps rural link and that is plenty fast enough with other web activity, but yes if my broadband bandwidth was at about 1.5 to 2 Mbps I would be probably be on the edge.

Reliability is often down to matching modem DSP chipset with your service provider. It becomes more critical with long lines like mine and perhaps yours. Best use ISP provided or ISP recommended modems.

I use a DrayTek Vigor 120 on my BT ADSL line and that works rock solid. My previous Cisco 870 modem was all over the place.

Simon

We manage 2.5 on a good day but it also drops out variably for spells. BT have changed almost every point along the chain from junction box to modem but it still remains an issue.

I like to know that when I want to listen to music it will be there for me, not dependent on today's line situation.

Bruce

and modem you are using? and approx. distance to exchange? Also best use BT installed phone wiring for the ADSL signal. It made a difference for me.

S

BT Hub 5, second they have supplied in case original was at fault.

BT wired throughout.

No idea of distance to exchange other than probably a long way.

Our lines were damaged about a year ago outside by a farm vehicle and have never been the same since. BT engineers have been helpful and thorough, inside and out, but we are no further on after about 9 months. We have had 4 visits now and numerous telephone discussions. Sigh

Bruce

As a matter of interest, thanks to the enterprise of a local fellow, we've now got 24 Mb Broadband, courtesy of a microwave system. Given that we're in deepest rural Suffolk, with practically no chance of aquiring decent broadband speeds in my lifetime (we can get 1.3 Mb on a good day via the phone line), this is an unexpected and very welcome development.

There are various speeds on offer; we took the fastest (SWMBO's company is paying) but the gentleman who runs the system has plans to increase this to over 30 Mb in the next few months. It's expensive, but apparently I can also opt for an internet phone system in place of the BT line, which is only a fiver or so a month for all calls. The other advantage is that the service is excellent.

Tony

It has been mooted in the neighbourhood, but actually across the area in which I live there is huge variation in the speed and quality of service. many are entirely satisfied. Not enough people wanted to go ahead to justify the cost.

Bruce