Ripping your CDs is now illegal (again) if you live in the UK

That re-opens more than one old can of worms...

1  So, having paid for a copyright licence to use the music and your CD is damaged, destroyed or stolen, then you are entitled to be able to buy a replacement without paying again for the copyright licence.

2  Timeshift use is specifically permitted by pre-existing copyright legislation, so the copyright holder trying to enforce the restored parts of the copyright law would have to show that that was not the purpose of the copy.

Does it really matter? Illegal or not:

• It is unenforceable.
• It doesn't make ripping software or streamers illegal.

So not sure this has any impact on music lovers unless we invite a copper over for dinner and show him our NAS and go through pains to explain how music got there in the first place AND assuming they care.

Well David Cameron has just put aside £15b for the new "Ripper Rozzas".

I remember last time we debated this, there was endless discussion about the difference between "illegal" and "lawful".

I think the way to think about it is "illegal" is where an action is specifically forbidden by statute.  And "lawful" is where something is specifically allowed by statute.  Responsible journalists should understand that.  

In the absence of statute, as we now are in the UK, copying would not appear to be illegal, but it may not be lawful.  In general the police won't have the resources or the inclination to pursue individuals regarding private copying.  If someone is doing it on an industrial scale and selling pirate copies, then it becomes theft and that is different.  Otherwise I think us Naim users don't have a whole lot to worry about.

David, modern interpretation by many  is that illegal and unlawful mean effectively the same thing.. certainly in my professional world in the UK that is how it is interpreted.. and googling around there is some discussion on the web on this and the predominant conclusion is that they are interchangeable and any inferred nuance in difference is subjective and therefore meaningless in many contexts. One popular use would be unlawful is a euphemism for illegal as it sounds less negative.

To the OP this is a mess and to my mind an example of when national principles and EU principles clash.. we get the worst outcome.. And effectively erodes the standing of law by many.

Simon

Simon

well we could argue semantics, but forget the words and look at what stands behind them.  There is no criminal law which says "thou shalt not make a copying the music on a CD that you own, for your private use", If you make a copy for private use, you are not breaking a law, so it is not illegal.

On the other hand, there is now no law which says "You may make a copy for private use".  So you can no longer claim that it is lawful to make a copy for private use.  That still doesn't make it illegal.  Arguably it is now not lawful.

The point about what the police may or may not do is still relevant, whatever the words illegal and unlawful mean. They have (and gave always had) much more to do than look for people making a copy of their music for their private use.

Of course the copyright owners will argue about whether or not copying a CD that you own for your own use constitutes a contravention of copyright law.  And they might be able to mount a private prosecution.  But even they would I think admit that they are not interested in Naim owners who have copied all their CDs to a NAS, providing they do keep the CDs somewhere and don't sell them on to someone else.

best

David

I think a key point here is the "not selling on." I think protecting your media would be considered lawful, provided you maintain the original. Copying and then selling on might be considered a form of piracy, if only on a 1:1 rather than 1:n basis. 

Yes I agree that is the key point.

The other important part is 'Timeshifted Playback' which is still lawful.

This provision will be kept as otherwise use of PVRs (and use of any other mechanism that can record and/or pause and/or rewind a live signal such as TV or DAB radio) would also become illegal; and television users are a much more powerful lobby group than audiophiles.

New CD arrived in the post this morning ripped in to my PC and transferred to my NAS as I have committed  this offence several  hundred times before do you think I will get a fine or will a custodial sentence be in order?

Nothing less than Guantanamo bay, indefinite sentence, obviously.

A lash for a cd.

But it could be worse: a lash for a track.

You haven't said...

Are you intending to play the music from the NAS instead of using the CD?

If so you're in the clear as then you are using the timeshift provision of the Copyright Act.

What we need is a test case - the rozzers decend on some hapless little hi-fi nerd who's happened to have ripped a few CDs, bung him in the clink, and when he comes up in front of the beak we can see what happens.

My experience of judges is, although they can be somewhat out of touch with the modern world, they do tend to be pretty sensible and a good barrister would have a field day constructing a pretty robust defence.

Tonym,

I agree, and I know one barrister who'd love to take that on, and would probably do it pro bono publico if needed.

The timeshift argument is potentially weakened by the fact that you own the CD and could play it at any time without having to rip it. It's different to recording a broadcast show to watch later.

WGAFF?

I haven't read all the act (and relevant amendments), but I did review the official government guidance notes: Nowhere there does it state any limitation to the principle of timeshift based on the persistence of the medium used to convey the copyright material.

Part of me wants to take that attitude, but then I ask myself why is legislation being shaped to ensure the profitability of a corporation's particular business model? The consequence of this legislative change may not be that individuals are prosecuted for ripping CDs, but rather that the systemic abuse of our political systems by large rent-seeking corporations continues to the detriment of us all. 

+1

This law can suck my balls.

I see this as a nonsense too.  The argument being I have paid the artist for their work, now whether I lose the CD, sit on it and break it or sell it to someone else is neither here nor there.  I have paid the artist for their work.  I didn't pay them for the plastic disk, I paid for their art.

Sadly one of the failings of a representative democracy is that anyone can make representation to the government, on behalf of whom so ever they wish.

Unfortunately individuals representing corporations can apply pressure through their fiscal strength that most individuals cannot muster, and that pressure sways politicians despite the lack of morals displayed by these businesses.

Despite this, representative democracy is probably the least bad system of government available at the moment.

I think the last time this discussion occurred there was a suggestion that the case brought by the BPI et al was aimed at, or a precursor to, introducing a levy on storage media for "artist compensation" (as some european countries already do).

I'm unclear from this article whether the govt's stance or reaction makes this less likely, or it remains a possibility.... ?

It seems that they consider the re-banning private copying be a better alternative to either "proving" that the industry won't be damaged (but why the f^%$ they should have to do that is completely bewildering), or legislating some arbitrary compensation as is done in other jurisdictions.