LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksThey followed Pink Floyd with Nickelback.Originally Posted by watercooled
They followed Pink Floyd with Nickelback.
i have always found copyright laws funny.
having loads of vinyl records, is does say on them ' not for public playing' which i find funny as 80% of records sold are for djs to play at gigs.
Funny old world.
Think a garage or MOT station found what looked like a bootleg tape/CD and reported it.
This entire time I thaught it was already legal. I've even carried XP install discs in front of cops without them even raising an eyebrow. Talk about a close one.
You were - technically speaking - barred from ripping a CD to slap onto a music player, and you were supposed to run out and rebuy that content as MP3's.
That said, I remember reading something this year from a BPI exec that as long as that was all you were doing the rips for (i.e. not running out to stick the ripped album on a torrent site) then that was fine and dandy with them and they wouldn't seek to prosecute. I also remember reading that there was some statement a long the lines of "as long as you still own/possess the original then you can generate new formats - for your own use - to your heart's content". This seemed very reasonable and sensible to me - so as long as I still have the originals I bought then I can rip my collection of cassette tapes from the 80's and 90's to MP3's to listen to in the car (so I can sicken the kids with Transvision Vamp, Sigue Sigue Sputnik, etc).
I really don't like buying MP3's - although it's horrifically easy these days - I much prefer to have some "real" media that I can still slap in a CD player. Yes, that makes me an old fogie, but I don't care.
Then again, they do say that vinyl's coming back into fashion, so maybe I'm just very fashionable .... roflmao.
Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...
Well, never, probably, as that would be a civil issue not a criminal one.
There are aspects of copyright law thar are criminal, usually if it's done as part of a business, but basic personal ripping is a civil dispute beyween the rights owner and the person that breached those rights.
And therefore, generally, the extent of the actions would be damages for compensation, which would be pretty small, and injunction to prevent you doing it again, and a seizure order for any infringing copies. And that, in part at least, explains why court action (in the UK) is why such action is rare, if it has ever happened. And that in turn is why the law as it stands is pretty farcical.
Yes. The fire is utterly irrelevant.
If the CD is protected by copyright, then you need either permission from the rights holder to copy, or the copy must fall into one of the exemptions I mentioned earlier. Otherwise, the copy is illegal.
It's not so much that the law is detailed enough though. The way it's worded is kinda the other way round.
Basically, any original creative work is protected by copyright, and therefore ANY copy is illegal unless :-
- sufficient time has passed that copyright has expired, or
- the rights holder has explicitly given permission, or
- the copy falls into one of those limited examptions.
If you want to be protected from the risk of fire, well, that's what insurance is for.
Saracen I believe he was asking after the potential changes to the law.
We can't know for sure, but I would presume so, unless you had transferred the ownership to someone else.
In which case, the answer is .... too early to say.
There are a couple of points, though. First, this point, while covered by the report, is a very long way from the prime focus or main priority.
Second, it's simply a report, and while it makes recommendations, we don't yet know which will be adopted and legislated for, or how those that are will be dealt with.
Third, generally, laws don't seek to deal with that kind of detail. They set the principles and leave that kind of detailed situation to be dealt with by the courts.
What the report does say, though, is that there is a good case for some limited extensions to the exceptions under copyright law to reflect personal copying, be it for immediate family or format-shifting, and to do so without the levying of additional costs that the industry lobbies for. The logic is that the industry is patently already aware of this type of copying so has already priced it in in their current chsrge structures, so there's no justification for charging again, be it on the cost of things like DVD burners, or bland media.
So the principle would be that personal copying would be okay, and the fire wouldn't change that. It might make establishing facts in any court case a bit trickier though. But that's for a court, not for the legislation itself.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
