One that always pounders me, is running copy righted software.
Once you've installed the copy, you then run that copy, which involves copying that data to memory, then fiddling with the image if need be (think horrible re-basing on windows). Not only have you copied it, but changed that copy. Where's the cop out for that?
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act.Originally Posted by Andy3536
Any original artistic work (such as music, musical recordings, paintings, photographs, movies, articles, poetry, books and, more recently, computer software and databases) are protected by copyright by virtue of the act of creation. Who owns the copyright varies a bit, but someone does.
And once that copyright exists, it is only legal to copy it if you either have permission from the copyright owner, or the copy you make comes under the "fair dealing" exemptions in copyright law. There are a variety of such exemptions, including the "timeshifting" exemption that allows you to record broadcast transmissions to watch at a more convenient time, but there are also exemptions covering use in Parliament, court use, academic use, news reporting and journalism, and so forth. Many of these exemptions aren't blanket exemptions, and are quite tightly controlled in the type of use you have and under what circumstances.
And, at least in the UK (but not in some other countries) ripping to MP3 is NOT a exempted use. Not, for that matter, is making a backup of a music CD you legitimately own.
But nor, by itself, is it a crime.
Basic copyright protection is a civil matter, and is therefore an argument between the copyright owner and the individual alleged to have breached his rights. It can, under some circumstances, also become a criminal matter but the basic breach of copyright isn't criminal. It is, however, illegal.
If you look for a law that explicitly says you can't copy to MP3, you won't find one. What there is is a law that says if it's a protected work, ANY copying at all is illegal unless :-
1) you have permission from the copyright owner, OR
2) the copy falls under a valid statutory exemption, OR
3) the duration of copyright has expired.
and no such exemption currently exists for MP3s.
You might think that, but the problem is that such software can be used for legal purposes too. If you're talking about software designed, for instance, specifically to crack copy protection then it starts to get more complex, since the law currently seems to be a bit contradictory in that basic copyright law seems to make essential backups of software you legitimately own legal, but if you have to break copy protection to do it, another piece of legislation says that's an offence.
That, however, is the type of issue that gets resolved in court cases, where judges rule on exactly what the law means and how it applies to specific situations.
As for cover art and such, well, yeah, it probably is technically illegal unless the owners of the copyright have given permission for it to be copied, and in most such cases, I'd bet that they haven't. But you also have to bear in mind that copyright provisions, and especially exactly what the fair dealing exemptions are are different in the US to the UK. Copyright law has a LOT of similarity from country to country, not least because most countries have implemented the same common international conventions (the Berne convention, for a start) but there are still areas of national differences.
For instance, a number of countries provided more liberal copying rights on CDs, etc, because they levied a charge on every piece of blank recording media sold. Every audio cassette, every blank CD, etc, included a small charge that went to the copyright associations to be paid to copyright owners to compensate for the rights that were, in large numbers, being abused by those blank media being used to copy protected material. But that also meant that people that weren't using blank media for copying copyrighted stuff (like many business users of CDR and DVDR) were paying for something they weren't doing. Anyway, that levy was debated but never introduced in the UK, so the charge wasn't applied but neither were the fair dealing provisions widened.
But, as I said earlier, UK recording associations have said that they support the law being amended to make copying material you own to MP3 legal. It just hasn't happened yet ..... unless it's very recent and I haven't noticed.
But thier is a fair dealings adition to the law that was ammended in 2003 for music.
Quite was is legal though i don't know, it's not writen in English as we know it
Copyright law of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i only have one thing to say to this
*waits for sony to try and sue every member of the British public for ripping CDs*
The fair dealing exemptions have been there since the original CDPA in 1988. They're not an addition .... but you're right, they were amended in 2003 .... and largely speaking, tightened up to be a bit more restrictive in some areas, such as academic and research use.But thier is a fair dealings adition to the law that was ammended in 2003 for music.
Quite was is legal though i don't know, it's not writen in English as we know it
Copyright law of the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The thing is, Andy, the term "fair dealing" is a generic term covering the range of specific exemptions given by the (amended) Act. It doesn't mean a use is exempted if it's "fair", because "fair" is defined by the Act and the interpretation given to it by the courts.
If anyone can show where the law was changed, I'll gladly stand to be corrected on this, but I'm not aware of it (yet) having been changed.
Not likely, and not only because of the logistics of doing so.
Unlike some aspects of US law, punitive damages are not available as a remedy in the UK except in a very limited number of situations, mainly involving personal injury, and they certainly aren't an option in copyright cases. Those punitive damages are where you get huge awards that are disproportionate to the loss suffered, and are called punitive because the intention is to use damages as a punishment, and not just to compensate for loss.
Under copyright law, punitive damages aren't available and any damages awarded are compensation for loss. So if Sony (or any record company) wants damages, they have to establish the extent of the loss they suffered as a result of the copyright infringement. So if someone copies a CD, what loss have Sony suffered? Well, it's hard to see how they can have suffered more than the cost of the CD, and even that might be pushing it a bit. It's more likely their element of the cost, or even their profit element. Pragmatically, suing over this sort of personal infringement just doesn't make financial sense, not to mention that it'd be hugely negative publicity, and probably rather tough to justify in the court. If courts feel a large company is throwing it''s weight about by browbeating people with lawyers, they have a tendency of making their disapproval of wasting court time by dishing out awards like 1p, and not granting costs.
If record companies wanted to sue over this sort of personal copying, they could have been doing so for decades, so the fact that they haven't rather suggests they don't want to.
Remember, it wasn't the record companies that framed the law. Sure, they want protection against large scale exploitation, whether it's mass uploading or commercial duplication and counterfeiting, but there's nothing to suggest they actually want to sue individuals for a bit of personal copying, even if they technically have the right to do so.
I can't belive that ripping CD's is illegal, theres nothing i can find through google that is supporting that.
Is there not some clear web page somewhere that has the law in English for us to understand?
Untill that i'm afraid i just can't belive that it's a crime. It would be very easy to copyright protect the disc like on DVD's.
erm, it's all over the place. give the act a read if you like: Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (c. 48)
perhaps easier for you to digest, since it sounds like 29 pages of legalese isn't something you'd read for fun, is a link to an article like this one:
BPI plans direct authorisation for CD copying | OUT-LAW.COM
as Saracen says, UK copyright law basically says "no copies, unless you have written permission, or are covered by a specific exemption". there is no specific exemption for cd ripping (personal copying).
I didn't say it was a crime, I said it was illegal. The fundamental copyright provisions, such as those that affect ripping to MP3 are covered by civil law, not criminal law. But, nonetheless, there are ways in which it can become criminal as well.
There are countless websites that discuss the illegality of this, but unless it's an authoritative source, why would you believe that when you won't believe it here.
So, I'd suggest going to the Treasury website. Do a search for the Gowers Review on IP rights. It is an independent review, commissioned by Gordon Brown as Chancellor, and you'll find that one of the recommendations for a change to the law is that "format shifting" should be included in the fair dealing exemptions.
Does it get much more authoritative that a government-commissioned review looking at proposed changes to the law?
And to be clear, works that are copyright don't need protection measures like applied to DVDs for it to be illegal to copy them without permission. Indeed, breaking that copy protection technology is one of the areas where you're starting to get into criminal breaches and not just civil ones. But in terms of whether you can legally copy CDs or not, the presence or absence of copy protection measures doesn't affect the basic legality of that copy at all.
Also, of course, such copy protection measures as have been implemented have met with considerable resistance, not least because they can cause compatibility problems.
Now thats more like it!
The first link lets face it, it's all i've come accross and isn't specific or clear. The second link does it though, nice find and at last some clarity on the subject.
Actually, the first link is specific - it's the actual legislation which says you can't copy unless you either have permission, or copyright has expired, or the copy fits into one of a very specific list of exceptions. But it sure as hell isn't terribly clear, especially when you realise you have to be very careful reading the primary legislation, not only because it's hard to read but also because if the copy you read is the original Act, it has been amended more than once since, so unless you're reading a version incorporating all subsequent additions, deletions and amendments, you're not getting the full picture. So specific it is, but about as clear as mud.
I'd love to see Sony try... I rip a Sony CD using Sony software (or something of higher quality if it doesn't fit the bill) to a Sony player made to play digital music.
IANAL but I think they'd have a really hard time considering that int he last 4 years I've spent more on their players then their artists works.
L
Well as Saracen was saying, the industry isn't likely to bother if it's for personal use. It survives just fine in other countries where that sort of thing is permitted.
But then what point of view do you have? Are you someone who is okay with breaking laws as long as there's no come back for doing so, or are you someone who inherently thinks laws should be respected and the right thing to do with a law you don't agree with is try to get it changed rather than ignore it?
The implications for a forum or website are more serious - regardless of the likelyhood of individual action, potentially encouraging or facilitating someone in the act of breaking the law can be a problem. This is especially a pain when a forum is based in the UK and therefore is governed by stricter laws in this area than say the US, while posters on the forum may be from the US and perfectly happy to discuss ways to make a physical backup of some copyright software for example.
I made a post on this yearly in the year with regard to "no-cd" cracks for games.
I've got a few games I like to play on the laptop at certain points (train travel, hotel rooms etc) and carrying multiple cd's around is a drag.
I own the games, I've paid for them, and in most cases are only ever installed on one machine at once, hence the same dilema with the no-cd cracks
It is Inevitable.....
My laptop has no CD and if it needs restoring you do it off the Mfr's partition.
Do you actually own them, or have you just bought a license to use the content in a way prescribed in an EULA?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
