UK’s Legalization Of CD Ripping Is Unlawful, Court Rules

[GuyJD]

Or piracy.

 

If your breaking the law copying something you have already paid for its only a small stepping stone to thinking "sod you, I might as well just get it for free anyway"

exactly, the music industry are running a fine line, I really feel for artists that are producing the content that they put a lot of effort into for very little reward, the problem is with the record labels they take such a huge percentage and don't want to give it up, they'll end up with no new talent unless the whole business model is changed.

 

Personally I've lost track of the number of times I've bought the same thing more than once just because I want it on a different format or worse bought it on a different format just for convenience, the music/movie/games industry know that people will do that and are more than happy to take your money so why should they change it.

[halbaradkenafin]

I don't think I've pirated anything in years, the combination of Google Play Music and Netflix (plus BBC Iplayer and co) means that pretty much anything I want to watch or listen to is available for pretty cheap. Anything new that comes out and I want to see I go to the cinema (on cheap Tuesdays), any old films I want to see that aren't available through those services then I've either already got it on DVD or can pick it up for a few quid from CEX or similar. I doubt I'd ever pay full price for a CD or DVD ever again, if they were a more reasonable price then I'd consider it, especially digital downloads which cost almost as much as a physical copy despite having a lot less overhead on their production (shipping etc).

[CHR1S]

I don't think I've pirated anything in years, the combination of Google Play Music - snip - I've either already got it on DVD or can pick it up for a few quid from CEX or similar. I doubt I'd ever pay full price for a CD

 

But this just highlights the stupidity of it, you are happy to pay for something from Google then "for a few quid" buy it on CD, or vice versa. (I realise you might not have actually described the exact scenario I'm using here)

Your still paying for something twice.

[SovietRussia]

How can a law be unlawful, that just doesn't make sense.

 

In our Parliamentary Democracy - Parliament is supreme. So you are right no law can be deemed unlawful or incompatible.

 

Where this gets interesting is how Section 28B was inserted, first off it was secondary legislation authorised under the European Communities Act 1972 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/2361/made which was authorised by a EU Directive - ugh confusing.

Edited July 6, 2015 by SovietRussia

[halbaradkenafin]

But this just highlights the stupidity of it, you are happy to pay for something from Google then "for a few quid" buy it on CD, or vice versa. (I realise you might not have actually described the exact scenario I'm using here)

Your still paying for something twice.

 

No I only buy physical versions of things I can't get through (legal) digital methods. So I'm not going to buy a music CD that I can stream from Google Play but I will buy a DVD for a film I'm likely to watch a few times if it's not on Netflix (or I guess Google/Amazon/Somewhere else for Digital download).

 

Google Play Music has basically stopped me buying music CDs outright anyway, £10 a month for as much music as I want to listen to is a deal I'm happy with. The chance to say "I quite like this band so play me other bands/songs like it" and then get a long playlist of that music is almost worth is alone.

[localzuk]

In our Parliamentary Democracy - Parliament is supreme. So you are right no law can be deemed unlawful or incompatible.

 

Not quite that simple. We have given some of the ultimate control to the EU at present, and our parliament can't overrule them unless we either renegotiate our treaties or withdraw from the EU.

 

Also, laws can be determined to be unlawful or incompatible with existing laws in our country - that's exactly how our Human Rights Act works.

 

Then you have to take into account our being part of this little planet, and therefore things like international law being applicable too, outside of our country.

[SovietRussia]

Not quite that simple. We have given some of the ultimate control to the EU at present, and our parliament can't overrule them unless we either renegotiate our treaties or withdraw from the EU.

 

Also, laws can be determined to be unlawful or incompatible with existing laws in our country - that's exactly how our Human Rights Act works.

 

Then you have to take into account our being part of this little planet, and therefore things like international law being applicable too, outside of our country.

 

In theory no - The Human Rights Act is an Act of Parliament so there is nothing stopping Parliament from changing it not apply. That is the entire point of the supreme parliamentary system. Also the Court can make petition for Parliament to change an Act which is incompatible under HRA98 but it is under no binding agreement to do so - this is why this country does not have Judicial Review on laws and no need for a Constitution.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sections_4_and_10_of_the_Human_Rights_Act_1998 (For petition)

 

In theory Parliament could remove the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 and remove devolution (It never would but the theory is there)

 

EU Directives are only binding law when authorised under the European Communities Act 1972 thus the Government having to make statutory instrument to implement them.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom

Edited July 6, 2015 by SovietRussia

[Dos_Box]

But this just highlights the stupidity of it, you are happy to pay for something from Google then "for a few quid" buy it on CD, or vice versa. (I realise you might not have actually described the exact scenario I'm using here)

Your still paying for something twice.

 

That's what I like about Amazon. If I buy a physical CD I'll get the digital download included free of charge too.

[localzuk]

In theory no - The Human Rights Act is an Act of Parliament so there is nothing stopping Parliament from changing it not apply. That is the entire point of the supreme parliamentary system. Also the Court can make petition for Parliament to change an Act which is incompatible under HRA99 but it is under no binding agreement to do so - this is why this country does not have Judicial Review on laws.

 

EU Directives are only binding law when authorised under the European Communities Act 1972 thus the Government having to make statutory instrument to implement them.

 

That's only after the fact. At the point in time when a law is determined to be "unlawful", that law is indeed unlawful. If parliament then later adjusts it, it is no longer unlawful, but at that original point in time it wasn't lawful.

 

We do have judicial review of laws, if someone takes it to the courts to do so (just not routinely so). For example, a number of laws have been determined to be flawed by the courts and therefore cases against people dropped because of that fact. That's how the Human Rights Act works - all criminal cases must be checked against the HRA and as such if any are determined to be incompatible, the person being prosecuted cannot be prosecuted under that law, thereby rendering the law unlawful. Case law would then exist for other courts to use in their determinations also.

[SovietRussia]

That's only after the fact. At the point in time when a law is determined to be "unlawful", that law is indeed unlawful. If parliament then later adjusts it, it is no longer unlawful, but at that original point in time it wasn't lawful.

 

We do have judicial review of laws, if someone takes it to the courts to do so (just not routinely so). For example, a number of laws have been determined to be flawed by the courts and therefore cases against people dropped because of that fact. That's how the Human Rights Act works - all criminal cases must be checked against the HRA and as such if any are determined to be incompatible, the person being prosecuted cannot be prosecuted under that law, thereby rendering the law unlawful. Case law would then exist for other courts to use in their determinations also.

 

We have no binding judicial review all the courts can do is make petition for Parliament to change it - but Parliament could refuse if they wanted to.

[MrKJLS]

The High Court recently overturned private copying exceptions introduced last year by the UK Government, once again outlawing the habits of millions of citizens. The Intellectual Property Office today explains that ripping a CD in iTunes is no longer permitted, and neither is backing up your computer if it contains copyrighted content.

Late last year the UK Government legalized copying for private use, a practice which many citizens already believed to be legal.

The UK Intellectual Property Office noted that the changes were “in the best interest” of consumers and that they would bring copyright law into the 21st century.

 

However, the new regulation was short-lived. Fearing a loss of income several music groups objected at the High Court, which subsequently agreed that the new legislation is unlawful.

As a result the changes were overturned last month and the previous limitations were reinstated. To find out what the public can and can’t do under the law, TF reached out to the UK Intellectual Property Office, which provided some very clear answers.

“It is now unlawful to make private copies of copyright works you own, without permission from the copyright holder – this includes format shifting from one medium to another,” a spokesperson informed us.

 

The IPO specifically notes that copying a CD to an MP3 player is not permitted. This means that iTunes’ popular ripping feature, which Apple actively promotes during the software’s installation, is illegal.

Also, under the current law iTunes is actively facilitating copyright infringement by promoting their CD-ripping functionality. This means that the company could face significant claims for damages.

 

Apple’s iTunes installer offers ripping advice

iTunes Setup Screenshot>

 

There is more though, as the law affects much more than just ripping CDs. Simply copying a song in an automated computer backup or storing a copy on a private cloud hosting service is also against the law.

“…it includes creating back-ups without permission from the copyright holder as this necessarily involves an act of copying,” we were informed by the Government spokesperson.

Strictly speaking this means that UK citizens are not allowed to make a backup of their computer. After all, pretty much every computer contains copyrighted media. Needless to say, this turns almost the entire country into ‘outlaws’.

The Government is not happy with the High Court decision but it hasn’t decided whether it will propose revised private copying exceptions in the future. Copyright holders previously suggested allowing private copying in exchange for a tax on blank CDs and hard drives.

 

“As this is a complex area of law, the Government is carefully considering the implications of the ruling and the available options, before deciding any future course of action.”

As reassurance, the Government notes that that people shouldn’t be too concerned because copyright holders are not known to come after people who make a backup of their computers.

 

“The Government is not aware of any cases of copyright holders having prosecuted individuals for format shifting music solely for their own personal use,” the IPO spokesperson says.

However, copyright holders can take people to court over both CD-ripping and computer backups, if they want to.

 

 

Source: https://torrentfreak.com/itunes-is-illegal-under-uk-copyright-law-150805/

[sparkeh]

We have no binding judicial review all the courts can do is make petition for Parliament to change it - but Parliament could refuse if they wanted to.

 

Just to be precise, primary legislation cannot be overturned by courts but secondary legislation can be if it is deemed to exceed the scope of the primary legislation used to create it.

[Arthur]

Absolutely ridiculous!

 

Thanks to the music industry, it is illegal to make private copies of music—again

 

The UK's 2014 private copying exception, which allowed you to make personal copies of your own music, including format-shifted versions, has now been definitively withdrawn, according to The 1709 Blog. As a result, it is once more illegal to make personal backups of your own music, videos or e-books, rip CDs and DVDs to standalone digital files, or upload your music to the cloud.

 

The UK's new private copying exception had been in a state of legal limbo following a judicial review of the legislation in June, which had been sought by the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors, the Musicians’ Union, and UK Music. In his review, the High Court judge mostly found in favour of the UK government, except for one crucial aspect. He said the UK government's decision to bring in the new copyright exception was "flawed" because "the evidence relied upon to justify the conclusion about harm was inadequate/manifestly inadequate."

 

This left the UK government with three options. It could carry out further research to prove more rigorously that copyright holders would not suffer from the introduction of this personal copy exception, in which case the law could stand; it could repeal the relevant section of the law; or it could introduce a compensation scheme. In the end, it decide to throw up its hands and withdraw the private copyright exception completely.

 

In other words, killing the personal copying exception will bring the music industry very little financial benefit, while turning the UK public into scofflaws for making backup copies, format-shifting or uploading music to the cloud. And as The 1709 Blog points out, it's not as if the music industry is going to use the fact that the exception has been withdrawn to pursue anyone caught doing any of these things: "I think it is fair to say that they will, privately, continue with their old policy of not seeking to sue or prosecute anyone for personal format shifting. To do otherwise would undoubtedly alienate the buying public and strengthen the argument that the record labels are out of touch with what music fans want."

 

By insisting on a judicial review of this long-overdue and extremely limited copyright exception, which in any case only legalised what everyone was already doing, the music industry has certainly shown itself to be quite indifferent to what its customers want. But more importantly, it has confirmed that copyright itself is no longer fit for the digital age.

[sparkeh]

So in summary they have overturned a law which will bring them no benefit and not pursue anyone breaking the law they objected to. Not to mention costing everyone a lot of time and money in the process.

 

What the hell is wrong with the music industry?

[Andrew_C]

Greed. That is the whole answer.

[GuyJD]

So this action now makes iTunes even more useless than it was before, you can't use it to rip CDs to your music collection and you also can't sync music to your iPod/iPhone because that's making a copy of the media.

 

well done UK music industry :Slow Clap:

[Dos_Box]

Greed. That is the whole answer.

 

That is part of it, but for a while now there has been an elephant in the room which many have not even realised was there until recently. There is too much music to go around.

I think this blog post sums it up nicely: Is the Music Industry Suffering Because There is Too Much Music? | Kirkville

There is a lot of decent new music out there, but in many cases it is getting drowned out by the background noise of manufactured pop and identi-kit dance music which dominates most radio stations and 'entertainment' news items.

I agree that the UK music industry has done nothing for its image in getting the law changed (in fact I think it's a huge backwards step) and new smaller groups have to struggle to get heard in the face of overwhelming mediocrity.

There are a lot of people trying to keep their fingers in their slices of an ever increasing pie which they can't control.

[Andrew_C]

There are a lot of people trying to keep their fingers in their slices of an ever increasing pie which they can't control.

I think you mean "trotters" don't you.

 

Big man, pig man, ha ha, charade you are

You well heeled big wheel, ha ha, charade you are

And when your hand is on your heart

You're nearly a good laugh

Almost a joker

With your head down in the pig bin