News - Media format shifting legalised in the UK, but don't touch the DRM

Quote:

---

The rule change first proposed in 2006 was supposed to come into force in June.

---

Read more.

Quote:

---

Even though the changes now allow users to format shift their media content legally, some restrictions are still in place. The new ruling bans consumers from removing DRM or anti-copy technical protections in order to make duplicates of their media/content.

---

This being the case, what's to stop the record companies from enforcing their status quo by slapping on some "nice" DRM on all CD's? I've excluded films because they come with CSS so the "no breakee the DRM" rule means no legal media shifting for them I guess. So if you want the latest blockbuster on your phone then you'll have to use that "Ultraviolet" copy that some DVD/BD's ship with.

In which case, I don't think I'm particularly impressed by this new freedom, "C-, must try harder" would be my assessment.

Quote:

---

Lord (Michael) Grade, a former BBC chairman and former Chief Executive at Channel 4, doesn't seem to agree with the legalisation of format shifting, "What the Government has failed to understand throughout its deliberations on copyright, since the Hargreaves report, is there is a direct correlation between investment and the investor’s ability to control and police its copyright, to protect that investment and ensure that it gets value for the investment it has made,"

---

Am I missing something here, or is Lord Mike sitting on his head (being polite)?

Surely if I make use of the new "freedom" and format-shift a CD I have bought to AAC to listen on my iPod then there's no copyright implications. On the other hand if I borrow someone else's CD and copy it then I'm breaching copyright - NOT merely format-shifting - so I can presumably be sued. So what is that overstuffed prat whittling on about?

Personally I don't think is going to make ANY difference to me, I'll continue to rip my CD's to a digital format and use them on my various devices. I'll also continue to use ****** to de-CSS my DVD's so I can format shift them to tablet etc. And in both cases I'll be retaining the "originals", so the content sellers will not have made ANY loss by my actions.

Quote:

---

In recent related news Ford and GM are being sued by the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies (AARC) in the US for the CD ripping to hard drive 'Jukebox' systems in their cars. The suit seeks lost royalties plus punitive damages of $2,500 per vehicle sold with one of these music ripping systems installed.

---

That's the US legal system for you - the only jurisprudence system where common-sense is uncommon! I'll give a fairly sizable bet that the line the AARC push is "oh my lord, please think of the poor artists that these evil car makers are forcing onto the breadline" rather than the truth ("oh my lord, that means that the record industry execs won't be able to afford their fourth five-star holiday this year").

And here's a second thought about this - how exactly are they going to evaluate the "lost royalties"? The only real way I can see is to recall ALL the cars with these systems on board and inventory their hard-disk contents (unless there's someway of doing that remotely of course). Seeing as that's unlikely I guess they'll fall back to the usual method ... wet finger in the air and triple the figure you first thought of.

I wish we could outlaw DRM. It makes it a real pain to watch movies and tv shows on my different devices, if I buy something on the iTunes I can't play it on my PS4, if I buy a video on my Xbox One then I can't view it on my iPad. I don't want to buy it twice, I want to access my media on any device.

So apart from CDs and the odd budget DVD, you still can't really touch your recent DVD/Bluray collection as they have copy protection systems on them?

Tens of thousands of man hours consumed to give us the right to do something nobody has done in the past 5 years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wasabi

Tens of thousands of man hours consumed to give us the right to do something nobody has done in the past 5 years.

---

Nobody? With cars hardly coming with CD players these days ripping my music onto SD card etc. will be very handy. Ditto if I want it on my photo/mp3 player etc.

To be honest it seems in many respects its just the law being changed as nobody is obeying it.

I have been ripping my CDs since around 1998 and have since played on phones, car stereos etc.

I have always had an awareness this isn't quite legal but morally I see no problem.

I don't really bother with films and just play from the discs but have format shifted a couple of times for a specic reason

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

And in both cases I'll be retaining the "originals", so the content sellers will not have made ANY loss by my actions.

---

They probably consider that they are losing out as you are not buying another copy in the alternative format for your tablet or phone. They remember how much they made when we replaced vinyl with CDs and VHS with DVD, and how much they would like to make by persuading us to replace DVDs with Blu-Ray. (The music industry has worked that way ever since they discovered they could sell 78s to people who had already bought sheet music.)

The persistence of optical disc based media and the backward capacity of modern players must really annoy them :)

Firstly, as far as I'm aware, this isn't legalised YET.

It's true that the original first attempt scheduled for June 1st was delayed, geld up by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments for "further consultation". A new draft was submitted, and that's what's been agreed by the Lords. However, it is still showing on official Parliament websites as "draft". Assuming that that status changes as a result of this decision, it's still scheduled, as per new draft, for commencement on October 1st, and THAT is when it will become legal. Not now.

Pretty useless IMO. Just who has held off waiting for this? Even the police officers and lawyers I know haven't batted an eyelid at ripping CDs since they got their first taste of MP3 players.

Perhaps we should scrap/amend the archery and horse-draw carriage laws (and god knows how many other useless laws) while we are at it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Percy1983

To be honest it seems in many respects its just the law being changed as nobody is obeying it.

I have been ripping my CDs since around 1998 and have since played on phones, car stereos etc.

I have always had an awareness this isn't quite legal but morally I see no problem.

I don't really bother with films and just play from the discs but have format shifted a couple of times for a specic reason

---

That's sort-of, but not quite, what's happened. It's partly a case of the law catching up with changes in technology, but it's also certainly the case that the law is effectively recognising something consumers already thought they had, and that even the record industry have pretty much acknowledged as "okay", and certainly as the status quo, by not having taken ANY legal action over it in, as far as I'm aware, decades, if not "ever". That is, personal copies of legally, permanently owned works, including format-shifting, be it LP to cassette, or CD/Bluray to MP3/MP4. Oh, and ebooks, too.

Oh, and I've been doing it since more like 1968 than 1998. :D First, onto reel-to-reel tape, for parties, or long-running background music. Second, onto compact cassette for the car, or more latterly, my Sony Walkman, when they first came out. This MP3 stuff is the johnny-come-lately of this game. :)

But that's the point. Consumers have been doing this, for personal use, for decades, and the industry, by a marked failure to actually attempt to prevent it, has basically acquiesced to the point that most people already think it's legal, and are shocked when told it (still, currently) isn't.

So, the law now seeks to catch up with reality, and extremely widely and commonly accepted standard practice. And only about 30 years late.

Hands up all those that are going to let the fact that it's technically illegal prevent them from format-shifting a CD they bought to their mp3 player, phone or car?

Anybody? Helloooooo?

:D


Even the industry knows it.


BUT .... preventing piracy is entirely a different matter. And that's what DRM, "preventative" measures, is all about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shaithis

Pretty useless IMO. Just who has held off waiting for this? Even the police officers and lawyers I know haven't batted an eyelid at ripping CDs since they got their first taste of MP3 players.

Perhaps we should scrap/amend the archery and horse-draw carriage laws (and god knows how many other useless laws) while we are at it.

---

I kinda agree, especially on tne first bit.

On the second bit, though, technology is making the balance between the personal freedoms of individuals and protecting the extremely valuable (to the economy) creative industry, ever more important. This legislative change seeks to implement a more balaned and realistic framework, dumping outmided views. The issue, unlike horse-drawn carriages, is still relevant, but the old legal framework was archaic at best. It's not exactly the hottest issue facing the country, to ssy the least, but nonetheless, worth dealing with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by virtuo

So apart from CDs and the odd budget DVD, you still can't really touch your recent DVD/Bluray collection as they have copy protection systems on them?

---

Erm, not quite.

This is where this SI starts to get complicated.

This new bit of law reflects two competing interests - the right of individuals to make non-infringing personal copies for personal use, and the right of the industry to try to prevent piracy with "technological measures".

The problem is when those clash.

The situation then is that this law change does embed the rights of the individual, and puts an onus on industry to come up with a way to reflect that right. It also establishes a process where individuals, or those representing individuals or groups of individuals, can complain to the Secretary of State IF those technological measures impede that right of individuals to personal copies. The SoS has a duty to condider that and, in the absence of a voluntary solution, "may" direct a solution on industry.

So, it's not the case that we have an automatic right to ignore copy protection measures, but nor is it the case that industry can just lock it up tight with such measures, and simply ignore the personal RIGHT to make compliant copies.

In other words, we're a bit in limbo on that right now, but the SI does make it clear that a solution to that MUST be found, because we DO (as of Oct 1st) have a right, within limits, to make personal copies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Saracen

BUT .... preventing piracy is entirely a different matter. And that's what DRM, "preventative" measures, is all about.

---

And in that context, it is worth re-iterating that while discussions about DRM and its value is permitted on HEXUS forums, discussions on how to circumvent DRM (including links to software etc) are not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

This being the case, what's to stop the record companies from enforcing their status quo by slapping on some "nice" DRM on all CD's? I've excluded films because they come with CSS so the "no breakee the DRM" rule means no legal media shifting for them I guess.

....

Surely if I make use of the new "freedom" and format-shift a CD I have bought to AAC to listen on my iPod then there's no copyright implications. On the other hand if I borrow someone else's CD and copy it then I'm breaching copyright - NOT merely format-shifting - so I can presumably be sued. So what is that overstuffed prat whittling on about?

Personally I don't think is going to make ANY difference to me, I'll continue to rip my CD's to a digital format and use them on my various devices. I'll also continue to use AnyDVD to de-CSS my DVD's so I can format shift them to tablet etc. And in both cases I'll be retaining the "originals", so the content sellers will not have made ANY loss by my actions.

....

---

On your first point, the preventative measure is that this embeds the RIGHT of the individual to exercise his new right to copy, and measures exist to compel industry to respect it, especially if they take that line. See my previous post.

On your second point, yes, the right to copy applies to any original material you legally own, in a form with permanent rights. It does NOT apply to broadcast material, subscription or rental naterial, streamed content, etc.

On your third point, yes, retaining the originals is essential. If you copy something you own, and then sell the original, you either have to pass on all copies, or destroy them. If you don't, if you retain the copy (s), then those copies becoming "infringing" copies, exactly as if you'd downloaded them from a pirate site.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

Quote:

---

In recent related news Ford and GM are being sued by the Alliance of Artists and Recording Companies (AARC) in the US for the CD ripping to hard drive 'Jukebox' systems in their cars. The suit seeks lost royalties plus punitive damages of $2,500 per vehicle sold with one of these music ripping systems installed.
That's the US legal system for you - the only jurisprudence system where common-sense is uncommon!

---

And here's a second thought about this - how exactly are they going to evaluate the "lost royalties"? The only real way I can see is to recall ALL the cars with these systems on board and inventory their hard-disk contents (unless there's someway of doing that remotely of course). Seeing as that's unlikely I guess they'll fall back to the usual method ... wet finger in the air and triple the figure you first thought of.

---

Here's a bit more on this:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...pping-systems/

what makes this lawsuit even more ludicrous is that the audio system that GM and Ford have installed is actually legally allowed (see bold bit in quote below)

Quote:

---

The problem with the suit, as outlined in a scathing response from Techdirt, is that the Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 was specifically written to allow exactly the kind of personal copying that in-car CD-ripping audio units perform.

---

Quote:

---

The fulcrum of the group's argument rests on the specific designation of the in-car devices as music-only systems. As pointed out by Techdirt, the suit bases this allegation on things like a marketing claim by GM that "the hard drive will not accept photos or other sorts of data" and is only usable for ripped audio. The AHRA does indeed regulate and levy royalties on devices intended to copy audio—but only if those devices are intended to be used to make repeated copies. In RIAA v. Diamond, the 9th Circuit affirmed that devices designed to make copies for personal use only aren’t impacted by the AHRA’s restrictions

---

The HDD player cannot make copies of the stored music, once it's ripped you can only play it or delete it, you can't export it to onto another CD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by crossy

I'll give a fairly sizable bet that the line the AARC push is "oh my lord, please think of the poor artists that these evil car makers are forcing onto the breadline" rather than the truth ("oh my lord, that means that the record industry execs won't be able to afford their fourth five-star holiday this year").

---

It also looks like they don't actually pay much of those royalties that they're collecting to the artists:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ARS Forum: Sprocketts

A wonderful quote from that article:
"There are still a very small number of things that are supposedly covered by the AHRA, but AARC collects a tiny, tiny amount of money. The Copyright Office's data shows a total of $748,277.72 in 2013. That's down from previous years, but at it's very highest AARC collected $5.3 million, and most years it was closer to $2 million. Oh, and in case you're wondering, almost none of that money actually gets paid out. The last year that the Copyright Office has published details concerning these fees, 2010, it notes that AARC collected $1.75 million... and paid out just $7,894.84. Yes, you read that right. AARC collected nearly $2 million, but gave less than $8,000 to copyright holders (likely the major labels, who probably didn't give any of that money to actual artists). The previous year, it paid out a whopping $16,564.63. "

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Blademrk

Here's a bit more on this:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...pping-systems/

what makes this lawsuit even more ludicrous is that the audio system that GM and Ford have installed is actually legally allowed (see bold bit in quote below) [snipped]
The HDD player cannot make copies of the stored music, once it's ripped you can only play it or delete it, you can't export it to onto another CD.

It also looks like they don't actually pay much of those royalties that they're collecting to the artists:

---

Thanks for that info - very interesting - and makes it sound even more like a patent trolling exercise. Here's hoping that Ford and GM take 'em to the cleaners - malicious prosecution suit anyone? ;)

PS was in the "tourist" (Bay) parts of Cardiff two weeks ago on holiday - impressed, and will be revisiting. Particularly nice to get in the car from the Odeon IMAX and end up "ambulance chasing" only to find that said ambulance said "Holby City General" on the side. The two Casualty fans were pleased.