Copying copyrighted CDs

[localzuk]

IMO that is exactly where you fall down insisting it would be a criminal matter. The context is someone trying to make a copy for what they believe (in ignorance maybe) is a legitimate use. That is very far removed from someone who's intention is to make copies in "industrial quantities" with the intention to offer them for sale for profit.

 

Again, as I mention, intention of the law is irrelevant. If someone is in a Magistrates court for this crime, you simply cannot say "but Parliament intended XYZ". It won't be accepted in the court as a defense. Even at Crown Court it wouldn't be accepted. Only the literal written word of law is paid attention to. If the law is so ambiguous as to need to go further than Crown Court, up to High Court, then you can bring up Hansard records.

 

That said, I simply cannot see that this situation is in any way ambiguous. The law is very simple and clear as I posted it. The OP saw on the disc that it said "no copying". So he knows that it is not for copying! He is in a school, which in the eyes of the law is a business.

[pcstru]

Yes, theft is a stupid word to use when referring to copyright infringement. Theft implies revoking the current owner access of his or her property in order to have access to that property (whatever it may be) yourself. Creating a copy does not deprive the original owner of access to that media, and as such is not theft (by common acceptance of the word).

If you are focusing in on the definition of "theft" as a word and looking for how someone is deprived of their 'property', the property in this case is the fee they can rightfully levy rather than the work itself. So if you copy it, you have permanently deprived them of their fee and you have kept that for yourself. The word "theft" is quite appropriate in an ordinary context.

[Cazale]

Intention of the law is irrelevant, as you should well know. Unless it gets to the stage of referring to Hansard in a case, the intention of Parliament is not mentioned in court. Instead, the literal law is used, as written on paper, along with case law (as explained to me by a barrister).

 

My comments throughout this thread have been in context - the context of the OP working in a school.

 

You misunderstand. It is limited by use of a very specific term "in the course of a business". This phrase was deliberately chosen, it is defined in case law (Davies v Sumner [1984] 1 WLR 1301, if you're really interested), and is a specific legal test meaning it happens as an integral part of a business with some regularity (i.e. profiting directly from that activity, which I've also stated a number of times).

 

If you really want to get down to specifics, the test is from Havering London Borough Council v Stevenson [1970] 1WLR 1375

Edited May 23, 2016 by Cazale

[CyberNerd]

One school I know, one of the teachers put some copied resources on the public website.

They were sued for £20,000. Nobody got a criminal conviction, but they don't do that sort of thing any more.

[LeMarchand]

Not really sure why we're on Page 4 to be honest

 

Barrack room lawyers.

[Cazale]

One school I know, one of the teachers put some copied resources on the public website.

They were sued for £20,000. Nobody got a criminal conviction, but they don't do that sort of thing any more.

 

Eek, I bet they don't! Pretty harsh lesson. Did they initially refuse or something?

[elsiegee40]

Not really sure why we're on Page 4 to be honest

 

Barrack room lawyers.

 

We are watching. And I think the arguments are getting somewhat circular.

[CyberNerd]

Eek, I bet they don't! Pretty harsh lesson. Did they initially refuse or something?

 

Calculated from the number of downloads apparently .....

[localzuk]

You misunderstand. It is limited by use of a very specific term "in the course of a business". This phrase was deliberately chosen, it is defined in case law (Davies v Sumner [1984] 1 WLR 1301, if you're really interested), and is a specific legal test meaning it happens as an integral part of a business with some regularity (i.e. profiting directly from that activity, which I've also stated a number of times).

 

If you really want to get down to specifics, the test is from Havering London Borough Council v Stevenson [1970] 1WLR 1375

 

Ah. In that case it changes the meaning of the law as you say. Apologies.

[LincolnE]

Isn't there also the whole stock image thing going round, where the likes of getty and such are fining schools/businesses for using their photos on public sites.

Not quite the same as copying a disk, but in the same sort of ballpark.

[Garacesh]

If you are focusing in on the definition of "theft" as a word and looking for how someone is deprived of their 'property', the property in this case is the fee they can rightfully levy rather than the work itself. So if you copy it, you have permanently deprived them of their fee and you have kept that for yourself. The word "theft" is quite appropriate in an ordinary context.

 

Does that constitute as theft, though? Depriving somebody of financial gain isn't intrinsically theft, by meaning of the law, is it? For it to be theft (ignoring the mistaken term of 'copyright theft') is a person or entity not required to own something and then lose it?

 

If somebody purchases your CD, puts it online, and I download it, I may have deprived you of the financial gain (whatever the cost of the CD was), but I have not taken the CD from you. You still have it. I have committed copyright theft, which does include you incurring a financial loss (or a null financial gain) because of my actions. Therefore, I have committed copyright infringement, but not theft. The fact that you can take legal action against me is due to A) my breaching of the license terms and B) Your financial loss/null gain as a result of my actions, which are covered under copyright infringement law, not theft law.

 

At least to my understanding of the topic. IANAL disclaimer goes here. Also worth mentioning the fact that just because the law incorrectly uses the term 'theft', that doesn't make copyright infringement any less illegal. It's still a crime.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Garacesh

[pcstru]

Again, as I mention, intention of the law is irrelevant. If someone is in a Magistrates court for this crime, you simply cannot say "but Parliament intended XYZ". It won't be accepted in the court as a defense. Even at Crown Court it wouldn't be accepted. Only the literal written word of law is paid attention to. If the law is so ambiguous as to need to go further than Crown Court, up to High

Court, then you can bring up Hansard records.

The law seems to be quite clear that the criminal provisions are aimed at industrial scale copying for profit.

That said, I simply cannot see that this situation is in any way ambiguous. The law is very simple and clear as I posted it. The OP saw on the disc that it said "no copying". So he knows that it is not for copying! He is in a school, which in the eyes of the law is a business.

From what the OP says the person asking for the copy seemed to think it was OK (so they did not have intent to break the law), there didn't seem to be "industrial quantities" involved and there is no indication that the intent of the person asking for the copy was looking to profit from that. Given that, labelling it as a criminal act is a little absurd, any action would be a matter between the AQA and the School.

 

Some of the comments here (including mine) stray away from that specific AQA CD to consider generally films and music and their use in Schools. I'm particularly interested in this because the issue is IMO far from clear. There are exemptions in the DCPA relating to education (and they seem quite sweeping), there are central licences and there are licences which accompany the media (or service). Can a teacher use a DVD which specifically says "for home use only" to show to a class? As I understand it, despite what it says on the DVD cover, they can. Can a teacher legitimately rip a DVD to MKV to show to their class? I would have thought not but the Educational provisions in the act might not agree with that provided the copy is intended for use in the course of instruction and that instruction is non-commercial. Can someone use Netflix in class - well, not according to Netflix T&C's but if the film is covered by PVS or MPLC licence which would necessarily involve breaking the terms issued with a DVD, how is that substantially different? In all cases, there is no easy claim for damages if the school could have watched it legitimately for free.

Edited May 23, 2016 by pcstru

[garethEds]

- - - Updated - - -

 

Fair point. I was replying in a series of posts to specific posts above, read in isolation it does come across a little more hostile than I had intended

 

Good effort. Thank for explaining your points. I am certainly more aware than I was.

 

Gareth

[pcstru]

Does that constitute as theft, though? Depriving somebody of financial gain isn't intrinsically theft, by meaning of the law, is it? For it to be theft (ignoring the mistaken term of 'copyright theft') is a person or entity not required to own something and then lose it?

My comment relates to @Cazale's accusation that the music industry uses the word as a scare tactic. My point is that the word "theft" and the notion of stealing are commonly used and understood in the context, even if they are not prosecuted as such in any arbitrary locale. In other words, it's perfectly acceptable use of English.

[Andrew_C]

, it's perfectly acceptable use of English.

 

Actually, it is what is commonly known as FUD. Microsoft are past masters at it. Oh, by all means use Linux, if you aren't afraid of licencing issues for where sthuff is open source.

[sjpf]

OK so the AQA disc in question that Sagima mentioned contains music extracts and AQA do not allow this disc to be placed on an intranet or VLE at all. It clearly states that due to the copyright of the musical extracts we aren't allowed to make copies. AQA confirmed this on the telephone when I queried this with them too.

 

So while there's lots of debating as to whether something is legal or not legal, we'll refuse to make copies of the disc because as an organisation we don't feel comfortable doing something that goes against the licencing of the company in question.

[ozydave]

Theft or not theft its all just semantics

AQA sold the CD with terms and conditions ie “Don’t make copies”

So just don’t. Its not hard to get your head around. Just buy another copy, simple no!

 

Maybe next time the person wanting it copied should read the small print