UK High Court Strips Away Short-Lived Private Copying Right, Buying Recording Industry's Demented Assertions

from the no-rights-for-end-users dept

Mon, Jun 22nd 2015 9:18am — Tim Cushing

It wasn't until late 2014 before the UK government finally (officially) allowed its citizens to make personal copies of their purchased music and movies. It was an uphill battle against copyright-reliant industries to bring the UK in line with exceptions available in other European countries. The recording industry threatened to fight this new exception in court, because of course it did.

So, it sued. And it got its way. It somehow convinced the UK High Court that people making copies of music they've purchased causes the industry harm. The resulting opinion is so lacking in logic and so thoroughly divorced from reality that the EFF is actually somewhat impressed by the audacity of the industry's arguments, as well as the court's willingness to follow them to these irrational ends.

Whilst accepting that the Copyright Directive does not require “that sellers must be able to extract the very last gram of value from the copyright,” the court found that the personal copying exception might have resulted in some loss of sales (for example, some hypothetical consumer might have refrained from buying an extra copy of their favorite CD for their car, in reliance on the new exception), and that the government had failed to present any evidence that these lost sales were zero or minimal.

This decision is so bad, that it isn't even wrong. Not because we think that the government did produce the economic evidence that the court was looking for, but because the fact the government should even be required to produce that sort of evidence before allowing users to make personal copies of purchased works shows how completely detached copyright law has become from the real world.

The fact that the industry can claim -- with a straight face -- that the private copies somehow cut record labels out of additional income is so ridiculous it veers into the realm of the bizarre. It continues to feel it should retain all rights to purchased products, even up to the point that it can deny people who have paid money for its products the option of making backup copies or format shifting it from physical-to-digital, or from device-to-device.

That a self-interested industry would claim this -- in the face of all reasonable logic -- isn't surprising. That a court would buy what the industry's selling is a bit more disconcerting. Both have drifted in the unintentional satire that is (most) of European copyright law, with the High Court following the overly-restrictive nature of EU court decisions -- ones that include ongoing (and increasing) "you must be a pirate" levies on devices and media.

The worst thing about this decision is that the court looked at the industry's malignantly overgrown sense of entitlement and said, "Yes. These are perfectly rational demands. Let's make sure no iteration of its products ever occurs without compensation -- despite having been paid for once already."

Demanding that each such lawfully-made copy be somehow carved into its own sliver of value, and ensuring that rightholders have been afforded the maximum opportunity to extract rents from that value, is nonsense on every level: it is administratively unworkable, acts as a barrier to fair use and innovation, and has no justifiable legal or moral basis as a matter of copyright policy.

Any arguments that copyright law -- at least the industry's interpretation of it -- has any basis in reality can be dismissed. The original purpose of copyright has been buried and the new purpose -- to provide as many endless revenue streams as possible -- is urinating on its grave.

Products these industries don't even make (CDs, hard drives, memory cards, etc.) have levies added to somehow offset piracy -- apparently the only purpose these items exist, according to the rationale behind these demands. Customers purchasing movies and music are similarly treated as thieves in order to ensure repeated sales across multiple formats, stripping them of any "rights" they might enjoy after spending their own money.

The EFF conjectures that maybe that UK copyright law's abysmal nadir is what's needed to get some real copyright reform kickstarted.

[P]erhaps a stupid decision like this is just what is needed to turn the temperature up a notch, and place more British users on the offensive. After years of lobbying for a free personal copying exception, its loss at the hands of the music industry clearly outlines the incursions that unbalanced copyright law makes upon users' freedom to make reasonable, private (and public) uses of copyright works. It's high time to bring European copyright law back into line with reality.

Reality isn't something the industry has much familiarity with. Its battles with technological advances have been mostly futile but increasingly tenacious. It will take any inch a government will give it, even if it means screwing its own customers over in the process. And it fights these battles like a doddering but vindictive patriarch, holding tight to its dwindling power even as its assertions are increasingly dotted with demented ravings.

Basca v Sofs Bis Judgment (PDF)Basca v Sofs Bis Judgment (Text)

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: copyright, exemptions, private copying, uk, uk high court, user rights

69 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

That Anonymous Coward (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 9:38am

Citizens need to start suing the labels for replacements.
If items we purchase are not ours, and they retain rights they also retain responsibility when they fail to deliver.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 9:57am
  
  Re:
  When i worked for ASDA here in the UK they have a policy that if your purchase any CD/DVD/BluRay from the store that you could not take it back to the store and claim a refund and get your money back if the product was faulty if the plastic covering it was broken. The only way that you will ever find out if the CD/DVD/BluRay was faulty was actually by using it which meant that you had to remove the plastic covering and thus nullifying getting your money back if the product was faulty.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:29am
    
    Re: Re:
    This suggests a fantastic scam. One that copyright maximalists should take note of.
    
    Deliberately make some percentage of your physical recordings defective. People cannot return them if they've opened them. Even if the original purchaser returns it unopened, some other sucker is going to end up holding the defective copy that cannot be returned. Some (large) percent of those people will simply fork out to buy another copy, hoping it is not one of the XX percent of defective ones.
    
    This scam is not quite as good as the scam of imaginary property itself. But still could provide the copyright maximalists with desperately needed supplementary income.
    
    Of course, a way to fix this would be that you can only return a defective item for an exchange of the same item.
    
    This tilts things much more in the consumer's favor. For the cost of only one copy, one could return and exchange a large number of defective copies. (Assuming they were all originally defective of course. Not to suggest doing something improper. No, nosiree.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:36am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I'm not sure about the UK but I think that's probably how it would logically work. Like the post says, you can't get your money back but I'm assuming that you can still exchange it for another.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:57pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "Deliberately make some percentage of your physical recordings defective."
      
      Lots of discs are actually defective and will rot over a few years due to flaws during manufacturing. I own somewhere in the region of 850 DVDs and maybe 900 CDs, and I've seen around 4-5 of each format suffer like this (the reflective layer becomes oxidised and useless.
      
      But, if I see evidence that any more of my collection, the government can kiss my ass if they think I'm going to shell out for another copy rather than making a backup. Especially if the industry is still going down the "it's a licence not a purchase" route they're chasing, in which case they can supply a free replacement for the faulty media they supplied to access my licenced content.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    Not sure about the UK but I think the way it works, at least here in the US, is that you can't take it back but you can exchange it for one that's not defective.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:32am
  
  Re:
  The solution is to simply not buy anything that's not explicitly released under reasonable terms.
  
  If you want the products you buy to be released under a reasonable creative commons license after a reasonable period of time then seek content that is released under a license that releases itself under such a license after ten years or so. Make sure the content includes the publication date in the license.
  
  If you want content that allows you to make personal copies then seek content released under such a license. Don't buy content that doesn't explicitly allow you to copy it for personal use. There will be artists willing to fill that void and when they start making money and their revenue starts to seriously cut into the revenue of the all rights reserved crowd then that crowd will consider and perhaps be forced to adapt.
  
  Avoid content that doesn't allow you access to license agreement before purchasing. If you don't and can't reasonably know the license of something before buying it then simply don't buy it. Make sure there are no clauses that say that these terms are arbitrarily subject to change. Heck, if the license is like 30+ pages with a bunch of intentionally confusing and seemingly misleading legalese then simply don't buy it. Force them to release content under a clear and unambiguous reasonable license or else they can't have your business.
  
  If enough people voted with their wallets we may not be able to change the laws directly but we can change the outcome achieving the same results by simply forcing companies to change the release terms. This is something a large percentage of people must participate in but it is possible. If we collectively refused to buy all rights indefinitely reserved content then it won't sell and so it won't be produced and the industry will be forced to seek more consumer friendly terms. In this way we can force a better balance between 'all rights reserved' and 'no copy protection laws at all'.
  
  That's not to say that the laws shouldn't be directly challenged. They absolutely should. Everyone knows that selfish middlemen will do everything in their powers to pass laws that make creative commons and similar licenses ineffective by making these terms arbitrarily revokable. such attempts can not be tolerated. But, in the meantime, we should keep doing what we're doing and simply routing around and avoiding content that's implicitly released under an all rights indefinitely reserved license. We should also educate everyone that the default implicit terms that anything is released under is all rights reserved and we should let them know what that means. Let them know that unless explicitly stated otherwise it's the equivalent of agreeing to a contract that doesn't allow you to make copies for yourself or others for 95+ years.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - jupiterkansas (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 12:38pm
    
    Re: Re:
    You are putting the delivery mechanism over the content and assuming all content is equal. It's not. The content should be what's important - not the means by which it's delivered, which should be irrelevant.
    
    If you truly want to vote on the delivery mechanism with your wallet, then the same content needs to be available on multiple delivery mechanisms so you can actually vote on the mechanism you want for that content.
    
    Otherwise, you're restricting your own choice of content based simply on the way it's delivered. You're the one that suffers, and you'll never find a large enough mass of people that care more about the mechanism over the content for you to make a financial difference.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

LAWSPLAINER, 22 Jun 2015 @ 9:45am

YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS.

This only startles YOU PIRATES because of YOUR loony premises.

But doesn't much affect practical archiving. Go to it. SO LONG AS IS PRIVATE, not out in "the cloud" for anyone to take the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:09am
  
  Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
  then the answer is simple... and it seems more and more musicians and content creators are moving to it every day... stop paying the self-entitled recording companies and self produce and release as you see fit on the internet.
  
  That way I can choose how my music is shared and the RIAA and it's ilk can pound sand as they continue to lose revenue due to their own short-sighted and self-aggrandizing greed.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - neghvar (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:57am
    
    Re: Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
    This is why the RIAA fears the internet. Artists can interact directly with their consumers. Thus making the RIAA and the production studios obsolete. There are companies out there whose purpose is to create websites for musicians and help distribute their music for moderate fees and no percentage of revenue.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
    Yes, that.
    
    I have bought MP3's from Amazon. I have never shared them. I have enough backup copies on my several devices and a backup drive that I will never lose it to a defective media.
    
    That's how it ought to be. I paid for a license for private listening. That's how I use it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Ruben, 22 Jun 2015 @ 1:46pm
  
  Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
  People with your attitude is why I have no problem pirating with impunity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ottermaton (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 3:41pm
  
  Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
  Report this troll and every post that responds to it.
  
  Even this one.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- techflaws (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:39pm
  
  Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
  But doesn't much affect practical archiving. Go to it. SO LONG AS IS PRIVATE,
  
  And you're not in the UK, where THIS IS FORBIDDEN!
  
  Or did you assclown again just skip reading the article?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:14pm
    
    Re: Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
    "And you're not in the UK, where THIS IS FORBIDDEN!"
    
    It may be forbidden but in one survey 90% of the population thought it was already legal. Probably because logic would bring you to that conclusion.
    
    The funny thing is that before this new law everybody ripped CDs/MP3s/DVDs, nothing changed when the law came in to force and nothing will change with this court decision. The BPI can suck it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - techflaws (profile), 23 Jun 2015 @ 10:29pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
      OF COURSE people don't give a damn, and rightfully so. I was simply pointing out that our jackass troll is once again completely out of his depth.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 23 Jun 2015 @ 12:06am
  
  Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
  "YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES!"
  
  Oh, deaser you're still arguing with your fantasy strawmen aren't you?
  
  I DO pay, asshole. Now what?
  
  "But doesn't much affect practical archiving"
  
  Apart from where it does. The rule's largely unenforceable on that content, but it still applies.
  
  "not out in "the cloud" for anyone to take the content."
  
  Also, dickhead, private clouds exist. If you want to prevent infringing public sharing, have at it. As ever, just don't try to take away my rights to use my LEGALLY PURCHASED content the way I see fit. it didn't work when pricks like you were trying to restrict my access to VHS and it sure as hell isn't going to work now.
  
  If only you morons would put as much effort into fixing the crap you do that encourages piracy rather than trying to take rights away from your own customers...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2015 @ 12:22am
  
  Re: YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!
  "But doesn't much affect practical archiving." Really? Because where does it say that copying CD is illegal EXCEPT for archiving? Would you point me to the relevant part of the ruling?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another Mike, 22 Jun 2015 @ 9:49am

Forget TTIP..
Corporate sovereignty is a national matter, too!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:00am

"I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS."

That's why the "Pirates" don't "purchase" it. Why would they? Especially when they can get it for free without all the bullshit strings attached! Your not exactly giving them a reason to buy it are you? You've made your bed, sleep well!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:02am

You've gotta love it when they pass unenforcable laws.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:03am

Whistling in the dark
The EFF conjectures that maybe that UK copyright law's abysmal nadir is what's needed to get some real copyright reform kickstarted.
[P]erhaps a stupid decision like this is just what is needed to turn the temperature up a notch, and place more British users on the offensive...
The EFF is deluding themselves on this point.

The balance of political power is flowing away from ordinary folks, and towards the soi-disant “one-percenters” of the rentier class. The law is merely adjusting itself to the current trend of the power-balance fluctuations.

One must be objectively realistic about the situation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:35am
  
  Re: Whistling in the dark
  > One must be objectively realistic about the situation.
  
  One must also be objectively realistic about what history teaches will eventually happen.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 2:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Whistling in the dark
    Yes. All the money and political power they had didn't do much for the French aristocracy in the end.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:16pm
  
  Re: Whistling in the dark
  "The balance of political power is flowing away from ordinary folks"
  
  Not really, ordinary folks never had the power in the first place.
  
  If anything the government are forced to listen to the public these days, mainly thanks to the internet.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2015 @ 11:41am
    
    Re: Re: Whistling in the dark
    Not really, ordinary folks never had the power in the first place.
    From roughly the era of the Napoleonic Wars, up through the transition to aimed, repeating rifle fire, and all the way up until the effective end of conscription, the bosses required armies of human workers to mass produce society's munitions and deliver those munitions to their targets.
    
    Now, it isn't just the 8,000 workers on the third shift who've been let go, but the whole damn mill. The whole damn row of mills, what used to belch smoke and sparks into the pre-dawn breeze.
    
    If anything the government are forced to listen to the public these days...
    These days, the government doesn't need to care about what the public thinks.
    
    What is the public going to do? Go on strike? Ha, ha, funny that. In the industrial age, the workers and the soldiers were always replaceable parts, but still essential in the aggregate. Now —not so much.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2015 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re: Whistling in the dark
  the EFF is not deluding themselves but you are deluding yourself by thinking the balance of political power is flowing away from ordinary folks... its not
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:05am

"... with the adoption of European Union Copyright Directive (2001/29) ... no new copyright limitations and exceptions could be introduced without compensation to rightsholders, unless its introduction would cause them minimal or no harm."

So, basically, a corporate sovereignty provision built into EU law? Make me wonder about TPP and what it might do to fair use in signatory countries.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:07am

"the court found that the personal copying exception might have resulted in some loss of sales (for example, some hypothetical consumer might have refrained from buying an extra copy of their favorite CD for their car, in reliance on the new exception), and that the government had failed to present any evidence that these lost sales were zero or minimal."

Meanwhile, I buy a few songs on iTunes, and from that single purchase have copies of those songs on:

-My computer
-My iPod
-My other iPod
-My iPad
-My cellphone
-One of my USB sticks that my car can read.

Apple and iTunes specifically facilitate the first 4. It would be the first 5 except I don't use an iPhone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- AJ, 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  PIRATE!! You have to buy 5 separate times.. then if you cross into another country or area, you've got to buy them 5 more times. THEN! If we come out with a new method for fucking you out of your money, you have to buy them all again!!!
  
  Friggin ungrateful thieving pirates... the nerve.... /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DannyB (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re:
    Copyright has already fragmented into many ridiculous rights for the playing and listening of music.
    
    They could just make up some more.
    * Separate licensing for right to listen on an airplane
    * Separate licensing for right to listen from a cell phone. (Hey, getting to hear your music from your phone adds value to that MP3 you bought)
    
    Etc. . . start your imaginations
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 23 Jun 2015 @ 12:26am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      When DRM was implemented on music, I remember some executive or other opining on the possibilities it "enabled", trying to put a positive spin on them all, but unable to hide the fact that they were just artificial restrictions designed to cripple the music in order to be charged again to unlock them. My favourite was the suggestion that you could buy someone a track for their birthday, but it would only play up to 3 times on that date and no other. Amazingly, not only did that idea fail but DRM itself failed on music purchases.
      
      That is their idea of a positive move, their sycophants were shocked to be reminded that the recipient would probably appreciate a full unrestricted track (or, even better, the ability to choose their own music). The mindset they've locked themselves into is astounding sometimes, and the suggestions you've all made would not be something they'd be averse to trying.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Burkhardt (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:14am

I could buy their arguments (I wouldn't agree with them, just buy into them), if it weren't for the copyright levies. See, the levies are already paying legacy media companies for your second copy. You can't say you aren't. And therefore, banning personal archival copies on the basis that your second copy is lost revenue is bunk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:The media levies are paying for your second copy
  If personal copies are banned/outlawed then media levies should be discontinued; they are no longer necessary.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - JoeCool (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:46am
    
    Re: Re:The media levies are paying for your second copy
    But then they can't eat their cake and have it, too!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:31am
      
      Re: Re: Re:The media levies are paying for your second copy
      Don't forget that not only do they get to have their cake and eat it to, they get to have and eat yours, and mine, and everyone's, too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:45am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:The media levies are paying for your second copy
        Don't forget how they eat the artist's cake as well.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - JoeCool (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 12:15pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:The media levies are paying for your second copy
        Everyone SHOULD be allowed to have their cake and eat it too. That's only logical. But the labels are actually legally allowed to eat their cake and have it too. Too many industries are buying laws that allow this illogical dicotomy. The UK now firmly adheres to this stupidity.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:18pm
  
  Re:
  |Excellent point but we don't have any media levies in the UK. When the law was proposed the copyright industries tried to introduce it but the lords shot it down.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
wereisjessicahyde (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:31am

"Products these industries don't even make (CDs, hard drives, memory cards, etc.) have levies added to somehow offset piracy" Not in the UK they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
neghvar (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 10:44am

Realistically, how will this change anything?
Whether illegal or not people will still make copies, convert formats for use on other devices and break DRM. The tools are out there and as long as people keep it to themselves and not share online, they is nothing to fear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:00am
  
  Re: Realistically, how will this change anything?
  Until there TV or some other appliance reports the contents of all storage on their network back to corporate headquarters.
  
  /Unfortunately not sarcasm
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2015 @ 4:59pm
    
    Re: Re: Realistically, how will this change anything?
    stop bring paranoid
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 27 Jun 2015 @ 5:02pm
    
    Re: Re: Realistically, how will this change anything?
    wow... paranoid much? you better stop using the internet then they are listening to you as we speak! corporate headquarters has already notified the police about you and are already on there way to arrest you! why? they cant tell you!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Josh in CharlotteNC (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:48am
  
  Re: Realistically, how will this change anything?
  as long as people keep it to themselves and not share online, they is nothing to fear.
  
  Uh-huh. Tell that to people who have actually not shared anything online, but still get sued.
  
  Besides the general insanity of the ruling, it simply isn't good for the rule of law. Bad laws and bad rulings further widen the gap between what is legal and what is socially acceptable in everyday life. In free societies, there needs to be a really good reason to make something illegal if everyone is doing it. If not, then the inevitable result is selective enforcement, which undermines the belief in the fairness and equality of the law.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 12:04pm
    
    Re: Re: Realistically, how will this change anything?
    And don't forget about the majority of people who don't share and don't pirate who will have to pay the levy. Why should these people be penealised for being a pirate when they are not.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Neghvar (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 12:08pm
    
    Re: Re: Realistically, how will this change anything?
    Uh-huh. Tell that to people who have actually not shared anything online, but still get sued.
    
    Then they tipped off the content owners somehow. Plus, firewalls are very useful. I have total disregard for the DMCA. Every DVD and CD I have was ripped to an audio or video file and then boxed away in the closet.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
David, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:21am

So basically
using an MP3 player without Internet connection to make purchases with will be illegal.

Because otherwise if I am using the MP3 player, I am not using the medium I paid for downloading onto, or which I purchased in hardware.

So there is no point in buying any CDs any more if you were not planning to listen to them with a CD player.

I have no doubt that any consequential drop in CD sales will be attributed to "pirates" and the call for harsher punishments. Leading to even fewer people wanting to buy media for which they only have "illegal" uses.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
andy, 22 Jun 2015 @ 11:45am

crap
Hopefully the government will open it's eyes and decide once and for all to remove the overbearing powers that copyright has been given, maybe if this is used as an example of the overreach in every are of content sales the government can determine that the existing laws are not fit for purpose and demand an independent enquiry to take away as much of the copyright powers as they can while still giving the content creator the right to sell their content once to every person that is interested. They tell us they sell us a licence to listen to the content we have paid for then they try to do this and say they sell us the media the content is on, come on surely the courts are not so ignorant, or are they being persuaded in other ways to support the criminal copyright system. And why call for fees on media when there are already fees,I enquired about pressing a few thousand cd's and included in the cost was the cost of copyright fees, even though I was not using the cd's for anythign other than distributing linux software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Repostor, 22 Jun 2015 @ 1:12pm

Face facts, pirates. Such as that I can re-post easily.
LAWSPLAINER

YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!

I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS.

This only startles YOU PIRATES because of YOUR loony premises.

But doesn't much affect practical archiving. Go to it. SO LONG AS IS PRIVATE, not out in "the cloud" for anyone to take the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Repostor, 22 Jun 2015 @ 1:16pm

Face facts, pirates. Such as that I can re-post easily.
LAWSPLAINER

YOU HAVE A "RIGHT" TO PAY FOR COPIES! THAT IS IT, PIRATES!

I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS.

This only startles YOU PIRATES because of YOUR loony premises.

But doesn't much affect practical archiving. Go to it. SO LONG AS IS PRIVATE, not out in "the cloud" for anyone to take the content.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 1:51pm
  
  Re:
  Face facts, pirates. Such as that I can re-post easily.
  
  Geesh Blue, buy a clue.
  
  I'll bet even the people who might be on your side in some of these arguments are clicking report on your comments because they are so outlandish and so lacking of logic and facts that they hurt their side's credibility.
  
  I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS.
  
  And you've been wrong every time. RIAA v. Diamond more or less estibilished that personal time-shifting or format-shifting is Fair Use in the US.
  
  Also, copyright does not and has never (with the exception of Section 1201 - ie: DRM) impeded the property rights associated with the individual copy. For example, I'm completely within my rights to remove all the pages from a dead-tree book and rearrange them into a new story.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- CK20XX (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 2:03pm
  
  Re: Face facts, pirates. Such as that I can re-post easily.
  What makes you think that screaming louder and louder will make you more effective? It sounds more like you're retreating further and further into a fantasy drama where you are the star because your script states that you're the only one that's ever right. Your posts could be cited in psychiatry textbooks as examples of downward spirals into insanity.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 7:13pm
  
  Re:
  Practical archiving is precisely what this move is intended to hurt. The industry is all too happy to assume that any private copies are for distribution, which is why the exception was made in the first place.
  
  But you knew that, you filthy lying cocksucker.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 23 Jun 2015 @ 12:36am
  
  Re: Face facts, pirates. Such as that I can re-post easily.
  "I've tried often to 'splain that purchasing media confers NO rights whatsoever to the content. NONE. ZERO. ZIP. NADA. RIEN. NICHTS. BUPKIS."
  
  Then, why should we buy it?
  
  Congratulations, if you convince people of this fact then you've explained to them why they should stop supplying your industry with revenue from purchases, and use free legal services instead. Why spend $10 on something that confers me no additional value compared to listening to the radio? Why listen to music all, in fact, when there's so many other forms of entertainment, even in audio format. That $10 is better spent on your industry's competitors.
  
  That's what I love about you - without realising it, you're actively trying to destroy the industries you claim to be nobly defending.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ruben, 22 Jun 2015 @ 1:43pm

Won't matter
This is an unenforceable ruling. Not that a single UK citizen will respect it anyways.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 2:50pm
  
  Re: Won't matter
  Yes. I've long held that the difference between "illegal and unenforceable" and "legal" is purely academic. It's what this represents that's the issue, not whether it'll have any direct impact on people's everyday lives, and what this represents is special interests defying the will of the people.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - PaulT (profile), 23 Jun 2015 @ 12:39am
    
    Re: Re: Won't matter
    My feeling is that it's something they want to use as a trojan horse. Even the people they're falsely accusing of piracy must have a couple of CD rips on their hard drive or some other kind of format-shifted content. They get accused, their computer seized and charged for whatever can be found. No innocent victims any more, you see, so they're not running an extortion racket now, honest.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich, 22 Jun 2015 @ 1:57pm

Although I agree with the gist of the article, can we stop with the "digital is the opposite of physical" nonsense?

The opposite of digital is analog. Either may be physical or non-physical. A DVD is digital, even though it is a physical thing. laserdisc is (was) analog. It, too, was physical.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 22 Jun 2015 @ 5:14pm
  
  Re:
  Huh? I don't see anything in this article, or any other article I've ever read on this site, that uses the word "opposite" when discussing digital and physical goods.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JMT (profile), 22 Jun 2015 @ 6:01pm
  
  Re:
  I have no idea what part of the article you're referring to, but you shouldn't criticize others' incorrect terminology until you correct your own. A DVD is not digital, the data stored on it is. A LaserDisc is not analog, the data stored on it is.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PaulT (profile), 23 Jun 2015 @ 12:41am
  
  Re:
  "The opposite of digital is analog."
  
  In one context, yes. In another context, no. You are aware that the English language enables words to have multiple definitions, surely?
  
  "A DVD is digital"
  
  No, a DVD is a plastic physical disc. The data stored on it is in a digital format, but a DVD is physical.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeroen (profile), 23 Jun 2015 @ 12:40am

Since there is no reasonable relationship between the value of a medium (CD-Roms, HDs, USB sticks), there can be no reasonable levy that will do justice to all; following the reasoning of this court, suppliers of such hardware can demand evidence of no harm caused by introducing such a levy, and have it scrapped by this very same court.

The only way out of this quagmire is to disallow the private copying exception, and return to the existing status quo that it is technically illegal but everybody ignores it, making a mockery of this bad law. You could start enforcing it ruthlessly, such that it really starts hurting, and people start caring enough to change their voting behavior, and get this madness out of the law-books.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2015 @ 12:59am

So once again a mostly Amerikkan group forces Europeans to suck them off.
Good, keep them coming it only makes the "extreme-right" more popular.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2015 @ 9:20am

this is just a 'taster' for what is going to happen if these shit 'Trade Deals' keep being forced into law! there wont be a single country that is 'governed', every one will be run by industries and corporations! this is what has been coming since the 'trumped up financial crisis! it was engineered on purpose so that more 'Conservative' type governments gained power, the other parties could be blamed for what had happened, a VERY few lambs were hung out for slaughter and going on quietly in the background were the plans of industry and the wealthy heads to literally take over the world, just like Hitler wanted to do, but in this instance, without firing a shot! if the UK and other governments cannot see, wont see what is going to happen then the only thing is that it wants it to happen! and then the situation will be 'fuck all of you, us corporation and industry top bods are in charge now and you will do exactly as you're told, just like the rest of the plebs!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 23 Jun 2015 @ 1:12pm

As a European, I regard the "you must be a pirate" levies as permission to pirate. I've already paid for the service, so why shouldn't I use it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 24 Jun 2015 @ 10:34am

Think of the greedy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheogorath (profile), 25 Jun 2015 @ 6:10pm

Products these industries don't even make (CDs, hard drives, memory cards, etc.) have levies added to somehow offset piracy [...]
As I've stated in the past, there are no such levies in the UK on the basis that the exception allows copying only for personal use, not copying for all and sundry.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]