Copying copyrighted CDs

[Cazale]

The confusion is added to because prior to 2015, it might have been OK to copy a CD for 'backup' (or even to format shift) provided you owned the original, but in 2015 the high court overturned that, so now the act of making a copy is illegal

 

There's a lot of confusion and misreporting over this. The original legislation ( Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations) effectively removed the right of a copyright holder to seek losses from somebody who had made a copy for personal use (effectively "format shifting"). An IP group representing recorded musicians challenged the scope of this (specifically they want to introduce a compensation scheme). In theory, you could now be sued (only for the loss incurred remember. i.e. the cost of the cd!), if you rip something that you are not the original purchaser of. In reality, nobody was being sued before the decision, and nobody has been sued since the decision. As above, cases like this don't go to court because the liability is limited to the losses incurred (probably about £10. So why bother?).

 

It wasn't a criminal offence before, and certainly isn't afterwards.

[Cazale]

Really? How does this owrk then? What's the difference?

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-offences/intellectual-property-offences#copyright-designs-and-patent-act-1988

 

2.1

 

Steve

 

Covered above matey. As I said, commercial copyright (selling reproductions of copyright works) and mass infringement causing significant financial loss is covered by criminal law. Copyright infringement is not.

 

- - - Updated - - -

 

Hi @Cazale,

 

Your replies are short and to the point - assuming that we all will appreciate it.

 

How about you spend some time giving some explanations to your posts - helping people understand where you are coming from.

 

Gareth

 

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

Edited May 23, 2016 by Cazale

[pcstru]

It wasn't a criminal offence before, and certainly isn't afterwards.

I think you are right in the context of a school technician being asked to copy a CD for use in a classroom. There is certainly provision in CDP for breaches of copyright to be prosecuted as a criminal liability although I believe it is aimed at large scale piracy and such acts are more likely to be prosecuted as Fraud.

 

From CPS guidelines :

 

 

Is infringement of copyright a criminal offence?

 

Deliberate infringement of copyright may be a criminal offence. Pursuing the criminals (e.g. when pirate or counterfeit copies of CDs/DVDs etc are being made, distributed or sold) can involve the police or trading standards departments.

 

However, many of the copyright-based industries concerned about this type of crime have formed organisations representing their interests that are actively involved in enforcement work, often in collaboration with the police or trading standards departments. In some cases these organisations undertake criminal prosecutions in their own right.

 

[Steve21]

Covered above matey. As I said, commercial copyright (selling reproductions of copyright works) and mass infringement causing significant financial loss is covered by criminal law. Copyright infringement is not.

 

If you have a look at that table you'll see it's not just selling that breaks it :s

 

Remember a school is a business in that sense, just because it's not selling a product.

 

Steve

[Cazale]

However, many of the copyright-based industries concerned about this type of crime have formed organisations representing their interests that are actively involved in enforcement work, often in collaboration with the police or trading standards departments. In some cases these organisations undertake criminal prosecutions in their own right.

 

 

They are specifically talking about private prosecutions against people profiting from copyright infringement here (where the CPS won't prosecute). Someone ripping a CD (for example) would only be liable in civil court.

[localzuk]

They are specifically talking about private prosecutions against people profiting from copyright infringement here (where the CPS won't prosecute). Someone ripping a CD (for example) would only be liable in civil court.

 

No. That is incorrect. Copyright is a criminal matter in the UK. Breaching the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act (and whatever laws have updated it) is a crime. It is also a civil matter. You can be prosecuted for ripping a CD, but in reality you likely wouldn't be. However, it is still a crime regardless of the likelihood of prosecution.

 

Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 and Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 define it. In particular 1c and 1e in this case in that second link.

Edited May 23, 2016 by localzuk

[Lonix]

I find this quite funny, we are now debating if you are breaking the law and using technical terms to practically say what it's legal? or not? joking right?

 

Telling me I can now go ahead and do what I want illegally or not - basically just go ahead and use software without a care, go ahead and download, copy CDs and movies without a worry? Jog right on comes to mind.

 

A simple google: Yes there are terminologies depending on what exactly you are doing but doesn't the below say "Copyright law" without permission. Doesn't matter what terminology you use, doesn't matter how you try and sweet it up. The fact of the matter is you should not be doing it in the eyes of the law. It may be considered as a "petty crime" but it is still a crime. You go drop some litter right in front of an officer, that's a petty crime and I look forward to you receiving a "petty fine". This entire thing reminds me of the whole "defending torrent illegal downloads" attitude. What you are also forgetting is, there is a chance that any company may use you as an example when prosecuting for breaching "Copyright law".

 

I also just had a quick look at software we have on a CD, you know the "Copyright" sections and you see the words "legal" and "law" and what you breach as a result of "Copies". Sorry but "You are wrong" according to the documentation of quite a few packages of software. Also what's the message we get from VHS, music CDs, DVDs and even Blu Rays nowadays? It's illegal end of, isn't something illegal breaking the law? regardless what "terminology" you want to use.

 

What people don't get (sounds like a certain one person here) if you say "Yes I will copy that disc for you, even though it's against the terms and conditions, breaching the copyright law as stated on the piece of paper" it then becomes "you can copy this because you did it last week". How much software will be installed, copied illegally at your School?

 

Copyright law is exactly that - LAW

What is a copyright violation?

 

Copyright infringement is the use of works protected by copyright law without permission, infringing certain exclusive rights granted to the copyright holder, such as the right to reproduce, distribute, display or perform the protected work, or to make derivative works.

Edited May 23, 2016 by Lonix

[elsiegee40]

AQA's own guidance to exam centres is here

http://filestore.aqa.org.uk/admin/library/COPYRIGHT_NOTES_CENTRES.PDF

 

CD-ROM, Intranet and Internet

 

7. In the case of AQA or its former boards (see 1.) specifications on CD-ROM or the AQA

website may be made available within the centre by printing copies from the disk or

downloading from the website.

 

8. Centres may use AQA material on their internal intranets, Moodles or VLEs as long as the

material is restricted to access within the centre only and is not copied or offered for

sale in any format. There are serious legal consequences for the unauthorised use of third

party material and centres are advised, wherever possible, not to use material subject to

copyright. Where this is essential centres must assume responsibility for clearing

copyright permission from external sources. Any permissions that AQA has received

cannot be passed on to third parties. In making the information available in this way,

centres and any users of their Intranet will be required to maintain the integrity of the

original AQA material. Centres may be asked to provide samples of this material to AQA.

 

9. Centres may not reproduce AQA material on their public websites.

 

10. Language tapes/CD-ROMs must not be copied or digitised

 

I think this document alone is enough @Sagima

 

Upsetting an exam board may not be a bright idea unless they're looking to change boards!

Edited May 23, 2016 by elsiegee40

[Cazale]

If you have a look at that table you'll see it's not just selling that breaks it :s

 

Remember a school is a business in that sense, just because it's not selling a product.

 

Steve

 

They're specifically not talking about small time copyright infringement (ripping a CD). When you get down to this level of specificity your talking about tests in case law, and maybe even specific rulings.

 

I'm not surprised that people believe it is a criminal offence akin to theft. This information is spread about by industry bodies who make a small fortune (and have the money to spread disinformation). We've all seen the "Piracy is theft" adverts. To put it politely, they are full of hot air.

 

To address this point specifically, as I said above; if you profit directly from the copyright infringement (by selling dodgy copies of someone else work) you could feasibly end up with a criminal record. People who've uploaded "leaked" files to the internet have also been prosecuted. Nobody has ever been prosecuted for ripping a CD, business or not.

 

Nearly all copyright breaches are handled in civil courts, even the big cases where (for example) an artist directly ripped off another artist. If you build a business on top of using copyright software which you don't pay for, you'll almost certainly end up in civil court (brought about by an industry body, such as the BSA). This does occur frequently, so yes, it is not a good idea to breach copyright in your job (as you'll probably lose it if your employer does get sued!!). Still not criminal though.

[Brimstone]

I also find it hilarious, does no one understand the actual copyright laws...

 

There's plenty of great content on places like youtube,clipart sites, google images all free to download and use in a school. Creative Commons would give you some places to look...

 

https://creativecommons.org/about/

[Sagima]

Thank you all for your responses. I will not be copying anything and the discs have gone back to the teacher in question.

[Cazale]

No. That is incorrect. Copyright is a criminal matter in the UK

 

Sigh (would it speed things up if I point out I'm a law graduate, graduated from a Russell Group uni with a good degree and studied 2 x 20 credit Property Law modules, and a Copyright Rights module?). Nope? Okay, how about:

 

inbrief.co.uk : "Copyright infringement is a civil wrong and where infringement occurs a claim may be brought by the copyright owner or a person who has an exclusive licence to the work through the civil courts"

 

findlaw.co.uk "What are the remedies for copyright infringement? Assuming no viable defences apply, there are a number of civil remedies available for copyright infringement" (addressing where criminal law applies....) "Certain acts, if conducted without the copyright owner’s consent, may be considered criminal offences, resulting in a fine, imprisonment, confiscation or all three. These punishments are designed to deter copying on an industrial scale for commercial benefit"

 

.... (sorry, I was going to post a huge list of referencing material, I got bored after two ).

[Andrew_C]

Still doesn't alter the basic fact. Without viable defence - illegal (even if only civil). Therefore wrong legally. (Morally? Different question.)

[Cazale]

I find this quite funny, we are now debating if you are breaking the law and using technical terms to practically say what it's legal? or not? joking right?

 

Not using technical terms, using specific legal terms (which is what law is!).

 

Telling me I can now go ahead and do what I want illegally or not - basically just go ahead and use software without a care, go ahead and download, copy CDs and movies without a worry? Jog right on comes to mind

 

Nice straw man. Nobody said that.

 

A simple google: Yes there are terminologies depending on what exactly you are doing but doesn't the below say "Copyright law" without permission. Doesn't matter what terminology you use, doesn't matter how you try and sweet it up. The fact of the matter is you should not be doing it in the eyes of the law. It may be considered as a "petty crime" but it is still a crime

 

It is not a "petty crime", it is not a crime at all! unless you are directly commercially profiting from, industrial scale piracy (or significantly depriving the copyright owner, i.e. uploading a leaked film before the release date). These are very specific offences. You do understand there is a difference between civil law and criminal law, right?

 

You go drop some litter right in front of an officer, that's a petty crime and I look forward to you receiving a "petty fine". This entire thing reminds me of the whole "defending torrent illegal downloads" attitude. What you are also forgetting is, there is a chance that any company may use you as an example when prosecuting for breaching "Copyright law"

 

You keep saying "copyright law" as though it is an established term that means anything that is a breach is criminal. That is a complete nonsense. Try and apply the same logic to the phrase "contract law".

 

Please educate yourself.

[Cazale]

Still doesn't alter the basic fact. Without viable defence - illegal (even if only civil). Therefore wrong legally. (Morally? Different question.)

 

I agree totally, and would say it is morally wrong (I haven't argued anywhere that copyright infringement should be encouraged).

[pcstru]

Still doesn't alter the basic fact. Without viable defence - illegal (even if only civil). Therefore wrong legally. (Morally? Different question.)

There is quite a difference between having a civil court lodge a judgement against you and a having a criminal conviction on your record. If you are employed in a school and within that employment are committing a criminal offence, there are likely to be much more severe sanctions than otherwise.

 

Also when it comes to Music, Films and other published works, the situation in schools is more complex than other businesses since there are specific exemptions in the law and there are a bunch of licences which may have been procured on a schools behalf. It really isn't terribly surprising that people are confused!

[Cazale]

It really isn't terribly surprising that people are confused!

 

You're right, it isn't a surprise. As I said above, industry bodies deliberately put out a lot of propaganda that specifically tells people "Piracy is theft". You can kind of understand why that message is helpful to their cause (and I guess it shows the people who they represent that they are doing something).

[Andrew_C]

 

10. Language tapes/CD-ROMs must not be copied or digitised

I'd love to know how they expect centres to organise revision and practice/mock exams...

[localzuk]

Sigh (would it speed things up if I point out I'm a law graduate, graduated from a Russell Group uni with a good degree and studied 2 x 20 credit Property Law modules, and a Copyright Rights module?). Nope? Okay, how about:

 

inbrief.co.uk : "Copyright infringement is a civil wrong and where infringement occurs a claim may be brought by the copyright owner or a person who has an exclusive licence to the work through the civil courts"

 

findlaw.co.uk "What are the remedies for copyright infringement? Assuming no viable defences apply, there are a number of civil remedies available for copyright infringement" (addressing where criminal law applies....) "Certain acts, if conducted without the copyright owner’s consent, may be considered criminal offences, resulting in a fine, imprisonment, confiscation or all three. These punishments are designed to deter copying on an industrial scale for commercial benefit"

 

.... (sorry, I was going to post a huge list of referencing material, I got bored after two ).

 

Ok, I did actually reference the actual legislation (section 107 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988), but I'll paste it here for you:

 

Criminal liability for making or dealing with infringing articles, &c.

 

(1)A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner—

(a)makes for sale or hire, or

(b)imports into the United Kingdom otherwise than for his private and domestic use, or

©possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or

(d)in the course of a business —

(i)sells or lets for hire, or

(ii)offers or exposes for sale or hire, or

(iii)exhibits in public, or

(iv)distributes, or

(e)distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright,

an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work.

 

and

 

(4)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1)(a), (b), (d)(iv) or (e) is liable—

(a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding [F3£50,000], or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding [F4ten] years, or both.

 

So, in this case (missing out all the irrelevant bits):

 

A person commits an offence who, without the license of the copyright owner possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work, is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six mopnths or a fine not exceeding £50,000, or both; or on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both.

 

Also, in this case, from Section 110:

 

Where an offence under section 107 committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

 

So, for the OP to copy the disc, he would be doing so as part of a business (nothing to do with commercial copying, just in the course of a business).

Edited May 23, 2016 by localzuk
Fix silly spacing

[Lonix]

So, for the OP to copy the disc, he would be doing so as part of a business (nothing to do with commercial copying, just in the course of a business).

 

It pretty much is simple and isn't built for "interpretation" which is why a lot of copyright terms and conditions can be pages and pages long. Each step of the way it makes sure it comes across as I said, not for interpretation.

 

Really doesn't matter at the end of the day, it's wrong, it's illegal regardless of what infringement you are going against. Different terminologies don't matter at the end of the day if you get a hefty fine or court ordered to remove the software or in the OPs case destroy the copied discs.

 

At the end of the day, I'd rather have a squeaky clean bottom than take risks of endless amount of copying CDs, ignoring licenses, downloading content and pretty much doing what I want regardless of laws. It doesn't matter if they will come after me or not. It's still my neck on the line.

[pcstru]

You're right, it isn't a surprise. As I said above, industry bodies deliberately put out a lot of propaganda that specifically tells people "Piracy is theft". You can kind of understand why that message is helpful to their cause (and I guess it shows the people who they represent that they are doing something).

I don't think there is a problem calling it theft in the ordinary meaning of the word, and I don't think that is primarily where confusion arises. There seems to be more confusion from staff in schools that they have some kind of blanket exemption granted to them by licences via PVS, MPLC, ERA or even primary legislation (CDPA Section 34), so they demand we copy X,Y or Z, or they dump 500GB of torrented films onto the network to 'share' with students and think that is OK.

 

It does seem ironic to me that our worst offenders with copyright are teachers of subjects like "film studies". I want to ask them how does leading by an example of piracy encourage anyone to try and get into films to make a living out of it?

Edited May 23, 2016 by pcstru

[Cazale]

Ok, I did actually reference the actual legislation (section 107 of the Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act 1988), but I'll paste it here for you:

 

 

 

and

 

 

 

So, in this case (missing out all the irrelevant bits):

 

A person commits an offence who, without the license of the copyright owner possesses in the course of a business with a view to committing any act infringing the copyright, or distributes otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright, an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work, is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six mopnths or a fine not exceeding £50,000, or both; or on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both.

 

Also, in this case, from Section 110:

 

Where an offence under section 107 committed by a body corporate is proved to have been committed with the consent or connivance of a director, manager, secretary or other similar officer of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity, he as well as the body corporate is guilty of the offence and liable to be proceeded against and punished accordingly.

 

So, for the OP to copy the disc, he would be doing so as part of a business (nothing to do with commercial copying, just in the course of a business).

 

Which, as I've said repeatedly, is intended to cover copying on an industrial scale for commercial benefit (apart from subsection e, which was put in place to address internet uploads where people are leaking films/albums/etc to thousands of users). With respect, that is significantly different to what you claimed in your original post.

[localzuk]

Which, as I've said repeatedly, is intended to cover copying on an industrial scale for commercial benefit (apart from subsection e, which was put in place to address internet uploads where people are leaking films/albums/etc to thousands of users). With respect, that is significantly different to what you claimed in your original post.

 

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.

Edited May 23, 2016 by localzuk

[Garacesh]

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). This is objectively true. However it is also objectively true that whether you like it or not, copyright infringement and copyright theft are freely interchangeable terms when discussing the law. We can debate it 'til the cows come home, but it still stands that, legally speaking, the term copyright theft refers to copyright infringement and not to any form of theft otherwise outlined by any other law or statute with regards to illicitly obtaining property.

 

It is also objectively true that despite schools as organisations often being given leniency for copying materials ('fair use'), if an organisation only provide licensing arrangements that prohibit copying their data to other mediums (including network storage, USB devices, other compact discs, etcetera) then those are the terms of your contract with that organisation and they must be adhered to. 'Fair use' does not give you the freedom to copy entire works of any kind.

 

tl;dr: If AQA say no copying, then no copying.

 

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

Edited May 23, 2016 by Garacesh

[pcstru]

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

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.