Copyright - again. The Law is a ass - again!

[Dave2002]

Can we all agree on something?
Most of us make copies to our own HDs.
Yes, it appears to violate the copyright laws of our respective countries.
So on this Forum, if we post a "How to" question regarding this, can we please REFRAIN from pointing out that this is an illegal activity?
By the way, it sends a tingle down my spine knowing that I am associating internationally with daring criminals such as myself...

Is it not the case that in your country you are entitled to do that, as the US has I think given explicit rights to end users?

I tend to still think that the law is a ass, despite any recent enlightnment in these posts.

[richardfinegold]

Is it not the case that in your country you are entitled to do that, as the US has I think given explicit rights to end users?

I tend to still think that the law is a ass, despite any recent enlightnment in these posts.

actually, it was slow at work and I googled it when I read your post. The law appears just as muddled here, perhaps even more so, bewcause it is less explicit that it is illegal to copy something that you bought.
My post was intended thusly: Many of us scan CDs (and other media) to hard drives.
We hopefully will never be prosecuted for it.
occasionally someone (like a technobooby such as me) asks a question on the forum about it along the lines of "how to". Some (no doubt well meaning) soul always feels compelled to point out that this
is an illegal activity.
Per your post today, Dave, I acknowledge that i am a law breaker. I don't wish to see the flood of posts informing me of my Al Capone- like behavior. Let us reprobates acknowledge that we are doing this and then hopefully get a meaningful response to our queries.

[Pabmusic]

This is from the Wikipedia entry on ripping cds.

A directive of the European Union [from 2001] allows its member nations to instate in their legal framework a private copy exception to the authors and editors rights. If a member State chooses to do so, it must also introduce a compensation for the copyright holders. Most European countries, except for Norway, have introduced a private copying levy that compensates the owners directly from the country's budget. In 2009 the sum awarded to them was $55 million. In all but a few of these countries (exceptions include the UK and Malta), the levy is excised on all the machines and blank materials capable of copying copyrighted works.

It is clear from the BBC report cited in post 1 that the issue in this case was that the Government had ignored the EU directive and not provided for compensation (as most of the other EU states have). That's the issue, compensation.

I think the industry may have a point.

[Dave2002]

Per your post today, Dave, I acknowledge that i am a law breaker. I don't wish to see the flood of posts informing me of my Al Capone- like behavior. Let us reprobates acknowledge that we are doing this and then hopefully get a meaningful response to our queries.

Hi Richard

I think in English law (I nearly wrote UK - but Scotland is different ...do I need to correct my earlier posts?) the "trick" is often for there to be deliberate obscurity. Things may be different in the US. This happens quite a lot here. As mentioned earlier, in England the "rules" are based either on laws passed in Parliament, or on the outcomes of previous cases. Sometimes legal cases are not pushed to their final conclusion, or judicial reviews not completed etc. Whether this is deliberate or not I couldn't possibly comment. In some cases it might be that a judge or adjudicator was "clearly going to come down on the side of X" - but then for technical reasons did not, or the parties involved agreed an out of court settlement. This would not set any precedent. Thus the rule that "you can do anything which isn't expressly prohibited" often takes precedence over other considerations if there has been no binding decision made to deal with particular cases.

Maybe in the US the legal system tries to have rules for every eventuality - or at least more eventualities, but in England I think there is recognition that this is impossible. However, I think the US system is quite close to the English system.

Most of us in the UK are law breakers - speeding (the attitude seems to be "we get away with it") is an obvious one, and some of us just do it accidentally or inadvertently, though many are doing so deliberately and with intent.

[richardfinegold]

I was wondering if the demise of both Optical drives on Computers and CD Recorders was due to copyright concerns. It's rare to find a laptop that now offers an Optical Drive, although it can be purchased as a peripheral. And dedicated CD recorders went the way of the dinosaur more than a decade ago. I suspect the main use for optical drives was for burning CDs, and of course that was the only function of a CD recorder.
i used to make many CD-Rs to use in my car and portable CD Player (remember the Walkman?) and also for a system that I had in my office at work. I've lost more than 1 CD by carting the original around. In a few cases I have lost the original but still have a CD-R that I made for this purpose and play it frequently--Karajan's Shostakovich 10 is my most prominent casualty. I guess that must be the reason I'm on an Interpol Most Wanted List...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

[QUOTE=richardfinegold;513409] And dedicated CD recorders went the way of the dinosaur more than a decade ago. [/ QUOTE]

?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_0_12?url=search-alias%3Delectronics&field-keywords=cd+recorders&sprefix=cd+recorders%2Caps%2C251

Also, check out komodo dragons, crocodiles and alligators.

[Lento]

As to Itunes match, you could ask them, or perhaps study the various EULAs/T&C's. I don't, and won't be using iTunes/Match etc, so I don't know. I can't see Apple facilitating a breach of copyright, to attract yet more litigation aimed at their healthy revenue stream. So I wouldn't be surprised to find it is not transgressing copyright law.

Other similar services are available such as google play which offer the same facility. I guess they would all say it's not their business what happens to the original copy once uploaded.

[Dave2002]

In a few cases I have lost the original but still have a CD-R that I made for this purpose and play it frequently--Karajan's Shostakovich 10 is my most prominent casualty. I guess that must be the reason I'm on an Interpol Most Wanted List...

Seems reasonable. One of my cars years ago was smashed into, and the radio and CD player taken, as well as the CDs inside it. The insurance company did recompense me (quite well) for the CDs, but one was impossible to replace. I still had the case though, and as I had a copy I was able "effectively" to offset the problem. Does this also put me on the "most wanted" list? Maybe I'm now guilty of insurance fraud as well, due to the illegal actions of others.

[ahinton]

My post was intended thusly: Many of us scan CDs (and other media) to hard drives.
We hopefully will never be prosecuted for it.

I remember being accused of doing the same once; my reply was that I had sought the composer's permission. When asked if I had it in writing, I replied that I didn't, because I'm not in the habit of going to the bother of putting in writing permissions that I give to myself...

[ahinton]

Seems reasonable. One of my cars years ago was smashed into, and the radio and CD player taken, as well as the CDs inside it. The insurance company did recompense me (quite well) for the CDs, but one was impossible to replace. I still had the case though, and as I had a copy I was able "effectively" to offset the problem. Does this also put me on the "most wanted" list? Maybe I'm now guilty of insurance fraud as well, due to the illegal actions of others.

No. Provided that the theft could be proven in a court of law (if necessary), you would have no place on such a list. Copyright breach is theft. So is stealing the radios, CD players, CDs &c. of others. From what you write, it also seems - unsurprisingly - that your insurer did not take the view that, in permitting the theft of your radio/CD player/CDs merely by not succeeding in preventing it, you became a wilful accessory after the fact.

[Bryn]

I was wondering if the demise of both Optical drives on Computers and CD Recorders was due to copyright concerns. It's rare to find a laptop that now offers an Optical Drive, although it can be purchased as a peripheral. And dedicated CD recorders went the way of the dinosaur more than a decade ago. I suspect the main use for optical drives was for burning CDs, and of course that was the only function of a CD recorder.

I think the general decline of the optical disc market, and the desire for lighter, slimmer laptops is more the reason. Desktop PCs still tend to come with CD/DVD writers.

[Dave2002]

I remember being accused of doing the same once; my reply was that I had sought the composer's permission. When asked if I had it in writing, I replied that I didn't, because I'm not in the habit of going to the bother of putting in writing permissions that I give to myself...

Technically you may be wrong, though. I have written at least one article which I now find very difficult to obtain, as I think the original rights were passed over to an organisation, and then subsequently the article and a whole bunch of others from me and other people were passed over to an organisation based in the US of which I was at the time a member. At one time I wanted a copy for a co-author. All sensible attempts to get a copy of that article failed. Not that it's a big deal now ... You may have been careful when being involved in your recording to ensure that you still had copyright rights - but not everyone is so careful, or realises all the issues or future possibilities.

[umslopogaas]

The crux of the matter is that a law that was put in place for good reason, to prevent certain practices that are clearly unacceptable, has had the unintended consequence of being potentially applicable much more widely. If this wider application was enforced, it would make criminals out of much of the adult population. This wasnt the intention, and therefore it hasnt been enforced.

Reminds me of a story about a student at Cambridge who discovered a mediaeval university edict that entitled him to a glass of mead with his dinner, so he wrote to the college and demanded it. They provided it, but then fined him six and fourpence for failing to wear his sword in public.

The copyright law has some similarities to the laws regulating the use of pesticides by amateur gardeners. No, bear with me ... Pesticides may only be used for the uses set out on the label. All other uses are illegal. This means that despite the availability of products that would control problems on vegetables and fruit, it would be illegal to use them for this purpose. I and many like me know that such products can be used perfectly safely on edible plants if a simple precaution is observed, which is not to spray within three weeks of consumption. I suspect the law is widely disobeyed, but the Pesticide Safety Directorate has limited resources and better things to do than persecute amateur gardeners for illegal use of amateur products, which in any case are extremely safe, or they would not be sold on the amateur market.

On reflection I'm not sure if this does have much to do with copyright, but having gone to all the trouble to write it, I shall post it anyway.

[ahinton]

The crux of the matter is that a law that was put in place for good reason, to prevent certain practices that are clearly unacceptable, has had the unintended consequence of being potentially applicable much more widely. If this wider application was enforced, it would make criminals out of much of the adult population. This wasnt the intention, and therefore it hasnt been enforced.

Reminds me of a story about a student at Cambridge who discovered a mediaeval university edict that entitled him to a glass of mead with his dinner, so he wrote to the college and demanded it. They provided it, but then fined him six and fourpence for failing to wear his sword in public.

The copyright law has some similarities to the laws regulating the use of pesticides by amateur gardeners. No, bear with me ... Pesticides may only be used for the uses set out on the label. All other uses are illegal. This means that despite the availability of products that would control problems on vegetables and fruit, it would be illegal to use them for this purpose. I and many like me know that such products can be used perfectly safely on edible plants if a simple precaution is observed, which is not to spray within three weeks of consumption. I suspect the law is widely disobeyed, but the Pesticide Safety Directorate has limited resources and better things to do than persecute amateur gardeners for illegal use of amateur products, which in any case are extremely safe, or they would not be sold on the amateur market.

On reflection I'm not sure if this does have much to do with copyright, but having gone to all the trouble to write it, I shall post it anyway.

!!! - oh, I don't know; there's no shortage of people who think that what they view as excessive pedantry and unrealistic prescriptiveness in intellectual proprety law is a pest!

[Nick Armstrong]

It's now illegal - again - to rip CDs and DVDs, or store copies on hard drives.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/33566933/ripping-music-and-films-illegal-again-after-high-court-overturns-new-law

Anyway, you have been warned!

There's a useful summary from a specialist lawfirm in this area of law, here