What's the situation about copyright in the UK?

[Whiternoise]

What with all the talk recently about ACTA, Canada trying to re-adopt the "Canadian DMCA" and other such "draconian" bills being discussed, could someone clarify what the current legislation is in the UK about copyright - in the broader sense?

I've always been under the impression that copying a CD for personal use is fine under the UK's "fair use" policy, and while borderline in legal terms it's pretty much overlooked as being pointless as it doesn't deny the record company a sale, etc. and it's only once you get to sharing files on P2P networks and so on that things get illegal.

One thing that i've wondered about is radio broadcasting, and recording from the television. If, say the BBC was showing Lord of The Rings and i record it onto my PVR and burn it to a DVD, does that count as copyright infringement? (as many of you will have no doubt done in the past if a good film has been on the telly) And same for radio, what happens if you record a song you love and then "edit" the recording so it only plays that song?

I've never really looked into it, suffice to say that the UK always seems to have been a bit more relaxed about CD ripping than the rest of the west.

[directhex]

the UK has no "fair use" policy. anything that isn't explicitly written into the copyright designs & patents act as an exception (such as timeshifting tv recordings) is illegal. that includes cd ripping.

[Saracen]

What with all the talk recently about ACTA, Canada trying to re-adopt the "Canadian DMCA" and other such "draconian" bills being discussed, could someone clarify what the current legislation is in the UK about copyright - in the broader sense?

Big subject. I've gone into a lot of it in (for a forum) some depth several times. A search may throw them up.

I've always been under the impression that copying a CD for personal use is fine under the UK's "fair use" policy, and while borderline in legal terms it's pretty much overlooked as being pointless as it doesn't deny the record company a sale, etc. and it's only once you get to sharing files on P2P networks and so on that things get illegal.

It's not actually a grey area at all. If a work is copyright, then in the UK, copying is only permitted in one of three situations :-

1) Copyright has expired
2) You ow the copyright or have permission to copy from whoever does own it
3) Your copy falls into one of the statutory exemptions.

"Time-shifting", i.e. recording off-air transmissions to watch at a more convenient time is an exemption, but archiving to DVD for long-term keeping is not. There's no definition of how long you can keep it without going from "convenient" to "archive" though.

There is NO statutory exemption allowing you to either copy (backup) music CDs, even that you own, nor to format-shift to your MP3 player etc. Yet. It HAS been proposed, and it may well come in the next round of changes to copyright law. It's also a civil infringement (providing it's not dine as a business and not bypassing copy protection measures), so you might get sued but not prosecuted.

And, as far as I'm aware, there has been no case, certainly in a very long time (if ever) in the UK of someone being sued for copying a CD they already owned. The logic, in brief, is that the numbers simply don't add up - it isn't worth it.

So, it's (currently) illegal to do it, but the chances of it going legal, even if you get caught (which is highly unlikely) are minuscule.

But yes, if you starting sharing on P2P, your chances of ending up in court, while probably still fairly small, are much increased, as are the costs you risk incurring which could be substantial. It is not, personal, a risk I'd take.

I've never really looked into it, suffice to say that the UK always seems to have been a bit more relaxed about CD ripping than the rest of the west.

Officially, actually somewhat less relaxed than many. Many jurisdictions do include much wider personal "fair use" provisions than we do. In practice .... not much risk if you're copying your own material, not selling or uploading, etc. Apart from anything else, how exactly are the authorities (or copyright owner) going to even know if you have stuff on your MP3 player or burnt a TV transmission to CD?

As long as you steer clear of uploading, or flogging CDs down the local market, you're pretty safe from a pragmatic point of view, even if most copies of films or music CDs are illegal.

[Whiternoise]

Yeah, i had a quick search, but there's just so much to go through!

So what's the legendary "one for back-up" thing about, just a myth (at least in Britain)?

And i can imagine the numbers wouldn't add up for the CD ripping thing, would i be correct in making the assumption that were there to be a law against it, the market for portable media players would plummet? Simply because people would complain vigorously about having to cough up twice for everything?

Is this not fair use in the UK? P-09: Copyright Law | Fair Use conditions

Even if there isn't any particular legislation covering it, if say you were taken to court for format shifting - would you be able to argue "fair use" simply as a turn of phrase?

Oh, and yes, i do steer clear of P2P, even if i wanted to start, i wouldn't be able to (easily enough to make it a viable option) with the system that the Uni's in the UK use

[Agent]

So what's the legendary "one for back-up" thing about, just a myth (at least in Britain)?

Computer software is legal to backup, for your own use in the UK.

Music / CD is a different matter though as explained above.

[Lucio]

There's some interesting reading in this article

FIPR - Implementing the European Copyright Directive

[ACiD303]

"Time-shifting", i.e. recording off-air transmissions to watch at a more convenient time is an exemption, but archiving to DVD for long-term keeping is not. There's no definition of how long you can keep it without going from "convenient" to "archive" though.

Does this also apply for educational institutions and applications? I know a certain university library that holds a lot of DVDs, a lot of which were recorded from TV (very badly), but I always assumed that a few copyright issues were exempt for educational purposes.

[Whiternoise]

Presumably it falls under the "it's illegal but it's not worth the court's time to deal with it" catchment.

[Lucio]

Does this also apply for educational institutions and applications? I know a certain university library that holds a lot of DVDs, a lot of which were recorded from TV (very badly), but I always assumed that a few copyright issues were exempt for educational purposes.

"(14) This Directive should seek to promote learning and culture by protecting works and other subject-matter while permitting exceptions or limitations in the public interest for the purpose of education and teaching. "

From the link I posted, the general precident is that educational bodies are exempt from many copyright restrictions. This allows, for example, pages from a text book to be photocopied and handed out to students or a video that is normally not permitted for broadcast to an auidience to be shown.

It's not a complete carte blanche, because it has to be shown that the material is being used for educational purposes. If a school tried to pull a fast one and sell material covered by a copyright then they'd face the full weight of the law.

[TooNice]

Regarding photocopies, I remember being told by several lecturers and librarians that we could photocopy two chapters or 10% of the book (if I remember right), whichever is less, without breaking copyright laws when I did my MSc. I never verified it, though.

[chicken]

Oh, and yes, i do steer clear of P2P, even if i wanted to start, i wouldn't be able to (easily enough to make it a viable option) with the system that the Uni's in the UK use

Times have changed then from the days when we were at uni then, when JANET was beginning to discover the joys of Napster, Morpheus and most demanding of all DirectConnect! Is it all filtered now or something then?

From what I was aware of the UK record industry said they weren't fussed about copying for your own use, but would come down on those who openly allowed others to copy from them.
Telegraph Article - BPI Back Allowing Copying For Personal Use

[Dreaming]

Computer software is legal to backup, for your own use in the UK.

Music / CD is a different matter though as explained above.

There's still some contention over 'ROMs' though, some people say widely if you bought the original game you can play the ROM, whereas a lot of company's say you can't. Guess they're proprietary. Tried to get an answer on here a while ago and it was seen as a legal grey area i.e. like abandonware.

[Saracen]

... So what's the legendary "one for back-up" thing about, just a myth (at least in Britain)?

Legitimate users of computer software are allowed one necessary backup. But it ONLY applies to computer software, not to music, not to video, etc.

.....

And i can imagine the numbers wouldn't add up for the CD ripping thing, would i be correct in making the assumption that were there to be a law against it, the market for portable media players would plummet? Simply because people would complain vigorously about having to cough up twice for everything?

There have been attempts to ban 'devices' which copy material. THese date back to the audio cassette and the launch of video recorders in the '70s.

But the argument that won the day was that the devices themselves have legitimate uses, so aren't illegal. What you do with them may be, though.

Is this not fair use in the UK? P-09: Copyright Law | Fair Use conditions

Even if there isn't any particular legislation covering it, if say you were taken to court for format shifting - would you be able to argue "fair use" simply as a turn of phrase?

Yup, that's a broad description of the concept of fair use. But there is specific legislation covering it - the Copyright Dsigns and Patents Act 1988 ..... and several amendments. That defines exactly what you can do.... it's enshrined in the legislation. It's those "statutory exemptions I mentioned.

And no, simply claiming that something you wanted to do was "fair use" wouldn't work. And bear in mind what that link you quoted said at the bottom .... "Cases dealing with fair dealing can be complex, as decisions are based on individual circumstances and judgements. This can be a very difficult area of copyright law."

International copyright law has a lot of similarities, but a fair few differences too. In some countries, copying for personal use is not copyright infringement. But then, in some countries, every blank tape or disc you buy includes a levy that's returned to copyright owners ..... whether that disc is used top record copyright material or not. But the UK makes no such levy (it was proposed, but not adopted).

[Saracen]

There's some interesting reading in this article

FIPR - Implementing the European Copyright Directive

Bear in mind, though, that you need to be VERY careful in relation to that Directive. EU directives generally, and certainly including that one, have no direct force of law in the UK. What they are is a binding directive on national governments, including ours, to implement the directive in national law. The objective is to slowly harmonise laws on all sorts of subjects right across the EU, or EC, or whatever you want to call it these days.

The problem is, that all national governments have a way of demanding that certain local conditions, traditions, etc are honoured, given exemptions, etc, and also, in many cases, some local laws have little or nothing to say on a given subject, while others already exceed the minimum criteria laid down by such directives. In the case of that Copyright directive, UK law is already more prescriptive in many ways that that directive.

Then, as is usually the case, some parts of a directive will be mandatory, others will be optional, and yet more parts will be subject to local interpretation.

So, really, the Directive is interesting reading, but the implementation of it is the crucial bit, and to do see, you have to dig out the relevant law (and SI IIRC), or get hold of an amended copy of the 1988 Act, which includes the changes which implemented the directive.

[Saracen]

Does this also apply for educational institutions and applications? I know a certain university library that holds a lot of DVDs, a lot of which were recorded from TV (very badly), but I always assumed that a few copyright issues were exempt for educational purposes.

Yes. Educational establishments, or more specifically, educational purposes, have some exemptions, but as far as I'm aware, no blanket exemption to that. It does start to get pretty complicated though, so for a categoric answer, I'd suggest a copyright lawyer.

[Saracen]

"(14) This Directive should seek to promote learning and culture by protecting works and other subject-matter while permitting exceptions or limitations in the public interest for the purpose of education and teaching. "

From the link I posted, the general precident is that educational bodies are exempt from many copyright restrictions. This allows, for example, pages from a text book to be photocopied and handed out to students or a video that is normally not permitted for broadcast to an auidience to be shown.

It's not a complete carte blanche, because it has to be shown that the material is being used for educational purposes. If a school tried to pull a fast one and sell material covered by a copyright then they'd face the full weight of the law.

I don't agree with that. There are provisions for educational uses, but I think you'll find they're a LOT more restricted than that.

For instance, in relation education purposes, for literary, dramatic, musical or artistic works, you aren't infringing copyright by making a copy provided :-

- the education isn't for commercial purposes
- the copying is done either by the person giving or receiving the instruction
- sufficient acknowledgement is given
- the copy is not done by reprographic process.

That last one ins interesting. It means that, given the other conditions, you can type out or write out a copy of, say, pages from a book, but not photocopy them.

That, by the way, is from s.32(1) of the amended 1988 Act.


However, there is also a licensing scheme for educational users (run by the Copyright Licensing Agency) which, subject to limits and conditions, and for a fee, grants many users of educational establishments the right to make copies of works covered by the scheme. So ..... university staff and students, for instance, may well be prohibited from making a copy by copyright law, but .... copyright law says you cannot make unauthorised copies. You can copy things as you will, if you have permission from the copyright holder and abide by any limits on that permission. And permission is exactly what that licensing scheme gives .... for works it covers.