Copyright and CD ripping - Crazy

Just another brick in the wall of the corporate/government drive to control and monitor every aspect of life - I shudder to think how it will be in 100 years long after I am worm food, assuming we haven't blown the whole rock up.

Orwell was spot on, just missed the timing...

Technically, when you rip a CD you're not actually copying the CD, but converting the analog version of the bits (pits and lands) to the original digital version. Not sure how that would fly in court though...

I am sure that most of us here spend far more on the music that we use than 95% of the public, well it now appears that the music industry that we support wishes to criminalise its top customers.

Total stupidity! Given that this law is unenforcable, the masses of youngsters who are incapable of understanding the concept of paying for music at all will just carry on flouting the law in blissful ignorance. On the other hand, I imagine that there are plenty of forum members who are willing to pay in the hope that at least a bit of their cash finds it's way to the artists. Legislation like this can only encourage us to abandon such principles, which I suspect are driven more by large corporations protecting their bottom line than the desire to reward artists fairly for their work.  

The ultimate intent of the plaintiffs is of course to force the introduction of a tax on copying devices and media, as Canada and many other countries already have http://www.cpcc.ca/en/frequently-asked-questions. Notice the weasely wordplay in the FAQ about it not being a tax, just a levy to "compensate" (C) holders.

Yes. This looks like a prelude to taxation. I'll be surprised if a high percentage of the surcharge ends up in the pockets of the artists. I suppose that any percent would be something at least.

For all my adult life the labels have told me that because I pay for my music I am a criminal. Turns out they were right.

Would I be correct in assuming the next time I back up the music files on my NAS I'll be breaking the law.

In Italy the rip of a CD for personal use is still permitted by the law (if you own the physical CD). In my country all devices that can be used to store data (like HDD's, flash memories and so on) are taxed in order to compensate the harm of the copy (this is why for example the IPhones are about 40€ more expensive in Italy than in Germany or other European countries).

I think that the problem of taxation of the rips will be a non issue in the near future: with the streaming music services and the online stores that sell Flac files getting more and more popular the CD's will face a rapid extinction.

However this ends up, as phosphocreatine points out,  keep in mind the possibility of UK taxing the copying media such as already done in other countries.  Known as Private Copying Levy or Blank Media Tax the levy varies considerably depending on device, medium & size,  but as e.g. Finland taxes HDD between 5 & 18 Euro - 18 Euro is for 1TB to 3TB, but interesting that bigger than 3TB has no levies.  The tax actually makes sense if its done to compensate the artists,  but I fear it will be used as another gov tax revenue.

I work in the area of intellectual property law (but not copyright).  Sorry to take so long in seeing this thread but you really ought to read this article before getting too wound up about this topic.  The EFF seem to have got this one arse about tit.

http://ipkitten.blogspot.co.uk...ion-requirement.html

It's written by a lawyer who understands UK copyright law.  The gist of the decision is that UK government did not provide sufficient evidence to let the judge allow an exception for private copying.  The UK government wanted to allow people to copy for their own private use. 

Private copying has always been illegal under copyright law.  It's just not enforced at the "little man" scale.  You have to be Pirate Bay or Kim DotCom before they come after you.

As I read, the UK adopted copyright law changes that specifically permitted personal copying.  By "always," do you mean prior to when it was permitted?

https://www.gov.uk/government/...ce_for_consumers.pdf

Another case of Europen / EU reform? The sovereign UK government has taken a pragmatic and reasonable position and is challenged by a seemingly out of touch EU government policy. I wonder what sort of lobbying has taken place behind the scenes in the EU?

Anyway the UK government position is clear, thanks Bart that was a great link to really clear and well presented piece of consumer explanation  of the law. EU gov could learn a thing or two from that.

Simon

And - in the beginning at least - CD-R were sold in two formats: for data storage, and for music storage; they were identical but the 'music' ones costed 40% more than the 'data's.

I too would like to know how much of that percentage reached the SIAE (the semi-public agency for copyright protection and management) and how much was absorbed by the public administration. I tend to think that what was taxed, in the end, was not the right to copy, but the user's freedom, which is the thing all governments hate and fear most.

Mark,

I tend to think that Orwell is much overrated. In his view, the present society should be a worse version of the Soviet Union, where Control is held by an abstract and blind political power for abstract and blind reasons - to Control.

We live in a world where power and control are in the free hands of the Capital, and are used to control economically, and where those who have the power are the free, and those who haven't are doomed to slavery. This is Middle Age, and a very right-wing one.

The only thing that Orwell was right about is the hideous power of television, but ours needs not having an eye on us, because he hadn't understood the television's power of imbecilization, which makes any further form of control useless. People now control themselves perfectly.

Simon/Wat,

So you're holding the EU responsible for poorly drafted and rushed through legislation. The fact that some other EU countries already allowed private copying is telling. Don't blame the EU for poor UK law makers. And I don't even want to think about how many power-crazed Home Secretaries we've had in the last 30 years. I know which way I'll be voting as well. 

Andy

Andy, that's one point of view. I actually think the current UK law is pragmatic and sensible for these modern times. The EU position from what I gather seems to belong to a different era. Hence my question on perhaps it needs to reform its position which to me seems unduly complicated.

Anyway I agree as per the referenced article, perhaps it needs something like this to show how ludicrous the interpreted EU position is.

Simon

I'm obliged Osprey, good for Finland,   here's hoping the rest of the countries that apply a Blank Media Tax follow suit,  I'm not holding my breath tho' 

Well I personally hope  the EU gov can be reformed in a way  that some other states seem to now be agreeing with the UK government on. With this I would hope to vote yes...

Its  probably completely unjustified, but in my mind I can't help perceiving similarities between the current FIFA and EU administrations.

Simon

Simon,

I'm in full agreement on the objective of the uk law and if the government had done it properly there wouldn't be a problem. But EU law is more complex because it is generally better written and better able to withstand spurious challenges. This being a classic case in point. Just because we like a particular view (and I do love the govt view on this) doesnt justify riding roughshod over the opposition without proper due process. Coalition were looking at this for long enough to have done it properly. And frankly could have produced ample evidence that private-use format shifting leads to increased sales revenues. For starters CD prices are back up again. Artists get a percentage. Once the govt does its job properly we're sorted and possibly without any tax on storage media.

Andy

That's right Wat. No way do we want to come out of Europe. Bad for consumers, bad for the economy, bad for democracy, bad for the disadvantaged, bad for peace. Just a really bad idea. And the costs? If you think we have a large deficit now, you'll think back on these as the golden years. 

EU is still evolving so it can always be reformed and improved and that's not a unique proposition of the UK. But its better we help the process from within, then sit outside.

Andy

Animal Farm was a parody of the Soviet Union.

1984 was a warning of the dangers of totalitarianism in any form, it wasn't a prediction of the future.

Ah all becomes clear now Wat.  Me,myself and I.  

Andy

Andy I don't disagree with the due diligence required.. But I also understand a balance should be struck between practical and specific  laws vs too generalised and complex laws.

Also I understand laws shouldn't overly specifically regulate and constrain as they may stifle innovation  or become irrelevant.

I cant  help feel the world has moved on with consumer music and laws on artist copyright protection need to reflect a more generalised way of music consumption. Copying with tape, CD, memory, tablet, phone etc  is only part of the mix ( and when I record my own music why should I pay for some else's royalties?) . One can consume music online via YouTube, or even download and play illegally and discard. So if there is a levy for artists on physical recordable media, to be consistent you would need a levy on ISP accesses and even mobile tariffs as well. It just doesn't feel practical or workable. Why are musicians special? What about actors, authors, photographers etc?

Simon

Simon,

I'm not sure they are. The law applies equally to playwrights, authors etc.  Its just they are the ones with sufficient funds (quite telling) to challenge this time. The write up has I think overstated the actual implications of the court ruling. Properly considered I don't think musicians have a strong case. EU law only states that changes to copyright law must look at compensation. By definition if there is no loss, there is nothing to pay.  Artists simply need to demand bigger cut from the labels if they think they would otherwise have got multiple sales in different formats. I am fairly confident that properly presented no tax should ensue.  

Andy