Ripping CDs to ipod is now illegal again.

[ik9000]

You couldn't make this up.

https://uk.news.yahoo.com/making-pri...100111455.html

[Bluecube]

Has anyone ever actually been prosecuted for ripping CDs? And does anyone every pay attention to this sort of shambolic nonsense? It's a classic example of a law that not many people know about nor actually care about...

[Saracen]

Has anyone ever actually been prosecuted for ripping CDs? And does anyone every pay attention to this sort of shambolic nonsense? It's a classic example of a law that not many people know about nor actually care about...

By and large, unless you're doing it as part of a business, you wouldn't be prosecuted. It's a civil infringement, so you be sued by the rights-holder, not prosecuted by the state.

Quibbles aside, though, as far as I'm aware the answer to your point would be "no". Nobody. Or at least, not for a very long time.

Ripping for your own personal use is extremely unlikely to result in legal action, not least because it's extremely hard to detect and next to impossible to prove. And in the vast majority of cases, the available remedies mean there's little or no point anyway.

If you rip and upload, the picture changes significantly.

It's pretty clear that the intention is to change "fair use" provisions to drag an outdated law into the modern world, to reflect that is in fact so widespread a practice as to be an effectively unenforceable law.

[peterb]

Has anyone ever actually been prosecuted for ripping CDs? And does anyone every pay attention to this sort of shambolic nonsense? It's a classic example of a law that not many people know about nor actually care about...

Of course, your sig does publicise (with our permission, you asked first, thank you) your original work, so how would you feel about someone copying your work without paying you a royalty for it? (And I'm not having a pop, but interested in your opinion as someone who could be affected by this)

[Bluecube]

Providing it was for fair use I'm fine with that. Ripping tunes from CDs so you can listen to them on your iPod is fair use IMHO. I wouldn't even say it was copying, merely changing the format. Providing you don't distribute the ripped files then where's the harm? You've paid for the music so you should be able to listen to it however you wish.

[Jonj1611]

I agree Bluecube, yet another ridiculous law. If you already own the cd that you PAID for, why on earth should you have to pay for it again to have it as a digital copy.

[AGTDenton]

A common sense / in the public interest approach would be used I suspect, unless you were uploading it would be very strange circumstances for the police to suspect you.

The whole media format industry is behind the times and confusing, music isn't region locked yet games and movies on disc are.

[kalniel]

I agree Bluecube, yet another ridiculous law. If you already own the cd that you PAID for, why on earth should you have to pay for it again to have it as a digital copy.

It's not so much a ridiculous law, as the failure of the govt to get through a law that was sensible. We talked about this on Hexus when news of the appeal first came through. AFAIK the govt are still trying to pass a similar law to allow ripping. Without that, we're back to legislation that's simply too old.

[peterb]

Providing it was for fair use I'm fine with that. Ripping tunes from CDs so you can listen to them on your iPod is fair use IMHO. I wouldn't even say it was copying, merely changing the format. Providing you don't distribute the ripped files then where's the harm? You've paid for the music so you should be able to listen to it however you wish.

Thank you. I'd agree with you about the distinction between format change and ripping for commercial distribution (for which there have been prosecutions).

But as the source document stated, the change in the law won't affect the reality of the situation!

One absurdity is that I could buy a digital download and store it on a server, but can't do the same with a CD (legally).

[Jonj1611]

It's not so much a ridiculous law, as the failure of the govt to get through a law that was sensible. We talked about this on Hexus when news of the appeal first came through. AFAIK the govt are still trying to pass a similar law to allow ripping. Without that, we're back to legislation that's simply too old.

Indeed I remember the conversation and its certainly out of date for modern times but I still say its ridiculous that someone who paid for a CD in a shop, now within the terms of the law cannot now take that content and transfer it to a device they own. For instance my car only has a MP3 player built in, it didn't come with a CD player, obviously what I would do is rip my shop bought CD's to a memory stick to play in the car, so in effect I cannot listen to any of my quite extensive CD collection unless I pay for the digital download.

Hopefully sense will be seen and the law updated.

[Saracen]

It's not so much a ridiculous law, as the failure of the govt to get through a law that was sensible. We talked about this on Hexus when news of the appeal first came through. AFAIK the govt are still trying to pass a similar law to allow ripping. Without that, we're back to legislation that's simply too old.

That, basically.

I think everyone, including the music industry, knows the law is outmoded and out of date. And short of legal action against about half the population, or more, unenforceable anyway.

What they're trying to do is bring the law up to date to reflect what's both reasonable and the de-facto real-world situation.

[goldfinger247]

Not that this can be enforced in anyway, for me this adds to the reasons to keep using streaming services and YouTube.

[spacein_vader]

The whole media format industry is behind the times and confusing, music isn't region locked yet games and movies on disc are.

I hope that I've misunderstood this, and you're not advocating region locking as something that the music industry needs to catch up on and implement? Region locking is a consumer hostile practice that should be discouraged IMO. The internet has turned the world into a global marketplace, but more and more companies think that the benefits of that should only apply to themselves as the sellers, and the buyer should not have access to the same freedom of choice & regional pricing differentials as they do.

I purchase quite a lot of digital content, games, software and music mostly. Currently the most price competitive place to find a lot of PC games is a site based in Brazil. However several major publishers are now altering the way they deal with the site to make it harder to buy from outside South America. The content being purchased is identical, why shouldn't I be able to choose if I buy it from the shop at the end of the road, a UK etailer, or one in Brazil/Russia/USA/South Africa?

One absurdity is that I could buy a digital download and store it on a server, but can't do the same with a CD (legally).

As someone who does store music on a server something has just occurred to me. When I buy a CD, I can obviously only play it on 1 device at a time. When I put the file onto the server (even assuming format shifting becomes legal again,) would I be infringing if more than 1 of the connected devices played the file simultaneously?

[peterb]

H

<---snip

As someone who does store music on a server something has just occurred to me. When I buy a CD, I can obviously only play it on 1 device at a time. When I put the file onto the server (even assuming format shifting becomes legal again,) would I be infringing if more than 1 of the connected devices played the file simultaneously?

Probably, but then if you play back your CD and feed the output into an amplifier with speakers through the house, or severL amplifier/speaker set ups, the effect is the same, but presumably legal? Lots of absurd anomaly so as the legal position hasn't caught up with the technology.

[shaithis]

Probably, but then if you play back your CD and feed the output into an amplifier with speakers through the house, or several amplifier/speaker set ups, the effect is the same, but presumably legal? Lots of absurd anomalies though as the legal position hasn't caught up with the technology.

Doesn't that get covered in the "broadcasting" section of the law/license though?

And its not as absurd as some may think, especially when Sony wrote software to detect how many people were watching a film!

And I still say "format shifting" laws should have something to cover content re-releases. i.e. DVD to BluRay, BluRay to 4k etc. The vast majority of the cost of a film is the production, not the authoring of the media!