If The UK Wants People To 'Respect' Copyright, Outlawing Ripping CDs Is Probably Not Helping
from the you-earn-respect dept
We had two separate stories late last week about copyright issues in the UK, and it occurred to me that a followup relating one to the other might be in order. The first one, from Thursday, was about the UK's plan to try, once again, to push a new "education campaign" to teach people that "copyright is good." We've seen these campaigns pop up over and over again for decades now, and they tend to lead to complete ridicule and outright mockery. And yet, if you talk to film studio and record label execs, they continually claim that one of the most important things they need to do is to teach people to "respect" copyright through education campaigns.My guess is they say this because an education campaign is something they can actually do, so they can make it look like they're "doing something" no matter how ineffective it will be. And, you can go back centuries and find that no education campaign has ever worked in magically making people respect anti-copying laws.
That brings us to story number two: on Friday, the UK's High Court confirmed that ripping your legally purchased CDs and DVDs to make a digital copy for personal use is no longer legal (something that the government had only "made" officially legal a few months ago). The court even left open the possibility that anyone who relied on the official change in regulations to rip their own CDs might now face punishment for doing so.
This court ruling came about after an organization run by the record labels, UK Music, challenged the legal change.
Combine these two stories, and you have to wonder what the recording industry is thinking. As Matt Schruers noted on Twitter, this latest court ruling can only serve to destroy any credibility that copyright might have held for people:
If one set out to burn up the credibility of #copyright in a single act, saying there could be liability for CD ripping just might be it.
— Matt Schruers (@MSchruers) July 18, 2015And yet, the recording industry does all of that, and then they think that a lousy (and misleading) education campaign will make people "respect" copyright? What are they thinking?
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, education, personal copying, respect, ripping, uk
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
All those "shouldn'ts," yet you still can't tell us whether artists and authors shouldnt have copyrights. Funny that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What a stupid comment
That's why I publish all my music under a CC BY NC licence. That way if the corporate media industries think my work is good enough for them to make money from they can beg me for a license to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a stupid comment
We should have copyright under circumstances where all of the following conditions are met: Providing a copyright would act as an incentive which would result in works being created and published by authors materially in excess of those created and published by authors if no copyright were available. The copyright incurs minimal restrictions on the public, and those for the least amount of time, such that the harm the public suffers from the existence of copyright restrictions is less than the benefit the public enjoys due to the creation and publication of works which would not be created or published but for copyright, taking into account the limited immediate benefits enjoyed during the copyright term, and the full, delayed benefits enjoyed after the copyright term.
So whether authors should get copyrights and if so, what those copyrights should consist of, depends.
Architects, for example, didn't get copyrights on their architecural works (buildings, basically) in the U.S. until about 25 years ago. We had a flourishing architecture scene without it, and the availability of copyright does not appear to have caused any changes for the better or even to be responsible for any improvements in architecture. But the copyrights still restrict the public. Thus, architects should not get copyrights for architectural works unless something changes in that field to make such a right worthwhile. OTOH, copyright probably is useful for, say, the field of literature, so granting copyrights to the authors of books ought to be an easy case to make.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What a stupid comment
If i read a book that i have loaned or been given from someone else and i enjoy it i will look for their website and if they had other books might buy them, or just share with friends that have those books as i am not prepared under any circumstances to pay more than £1 for a book. But if the author had a donate button to help him/her to fund a new book i am sure many would pay, and pay a lot more than the author ever made for their books before, damn can you imagine how much people would donate for a new harry potter series, maybe with it being about his son so starting from year 1 at hog-warts again.
I can actually see a new website appearing that is just for new books from authors a website like indigogo where authors can judge the interest in a new book in a series they write.
As much as musicians and film makers are having to change how they do business so are authors. And authors need to stop saying that if they do that it feels like getting charity, donating to a new book is not charity it is an investment and those authors that refuse to accept that are finished as authors, and that is a good thing as many new authors can gain peoples attention and money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: What a stupid comment
I'm not saying that no books would be written without copyright, but if copyright was completely abolished then it would be trivial to take someone else's published book and republish it for free. Yes, that's already the case with pirate sites, but if the copy is available on Amazon then the original author may lose a number of sales from people who may have been looking to purchase.
Then again, maybe Amazon would prevent this even if not legally required to do so, because they don't take any margin from free "sales" on their site, so they won't want to push away the authors who actually create the new content that people are willing to pay money for.
So... I dunno. I suspect that the hypothetical abolition of copyright would see a dramatic short-term drop in publication as people tried to figure out what the ramifications were... but by the medium-term the error bars on my prognostication efforts are too wide to see without turning my head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What a stupid comment
When it comes to education people it will be interesting to see this time around , with all the social media out there today, how much of an uproar there is going to be about copyright laws and how much pressure it takes for the government to cancel all copyright laws for personal use of any material.
Hopefully this is going to be enough to upset the average person that normally sits to the side and just ignores copyright laws and encourages them to voice their anger at what rules they have to abide by and how stupid thse laws are.
And when people start realising that copyright laws are not a right but an agreement between the people and the content creators, well it could mean the end of copyright laws for any other than those that make money from distributing or sharing content. And torrenting is one thing that will become legal, damn everyone does it even the studios themselves why should it be illegal or how can it be illegal when everyone does it, it is like saying that everyone is a criminal if they chew their food, that is how stupid copyright laws are. And yes i would download a car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"All those shouldn'ts, yet you still can't tell us whether people should have guns. Funny that."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry, but what is an unenforceable right worth?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Now who's the weasel?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Artists and authors tend to get a lot less time of copyright protection these days than the media associations because copyright tends to last quite longer after their death than it did during their life.
So yes, I don't mind artists and authors enjoying copyright protection for their works. But usually they only get the choice between getting none, or getting a completely nuclear option where they have to relinquish all control over both their works and their legacy. In return for some money, depending on whether the record company in question considers marketing of those works matching their strategies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ignoring the horrible way that phrase was written, he has - if you read the actual articles he writes. He's just never given you the answer you want, which relates to the fictional strawman version of him you set up an entire persona to attack and not the one that exists in reality.
But, hey, why address any of the points raised and why discuss why you disagree with them when you can just launch another impotent personal attack instead?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
He states his stances on the subject all the time, your problem is that it requires actually reading the articles to see this, something you clearly don't, or can't do, and hence you continue to claim otherwise.
To save you time, the following is probably pretty close to his stance on copyright in general:
1. The general idea of copyright is good, that of providing incentive to creators so they create more stuff, and the public benefits as a result when that stuff enters the public domain(theoretically).
2. Copyright laws need to be evidence based, not based purely on emotional arguments or claims that lack backing evidence. Current copyright law fails at this.
3. Copyright law is abused, often, and this is bad. Steps need to be taken to address this.
4. Reasonable enforcement of copyright is good, excessive or abusive enforcement is not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You've never made your position any clearer than that. Thanks again, jackass.
*clicks report*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Once again, is it too hard for one of you people to act like an adult?
"He clearly can form all kinds of opinions and explicitly state them. He just will never say yes they should have copyright or no they shouldn't have copyright"
So, he can state any nuanced position he wants, but it's not acceptable if he doesn't take an absolute black and white position because you demand it? He has to respond to your childish whining with exactly the answer you want, else you'll whine and scream more? Figures.
Yet again, I'm sorry if reality is too complex for you, and the thoughts of intelligent human beings are too difficult for you to comprehend.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The hypocrisy is staggering, though perhaps not surprising.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I'll try a dumb-it-down translation just for you. He said it depends on how it's done. Yes for overall PUBLIC good. No for overall PUBLIC harm.
Would you like a drink yes or no? Answer: Depends is it bleach or water? The devils in the details.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, today isn't going to be like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
Give up, antidirt! Invincible stupidity is invincible. While I see that you meant the writer won't state a position, it's lost on the fanboys. I admit is worthwhile to get them into a barking mad frenzy so that no reasonable persons are deluded by TD's facade, but I'm willing to concede defeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
Bark much?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: antidirt on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 4:04am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That makes absolutely no sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Go back into your hole antidirt
Look at the upside: if you're silent at least you're not advertising what a spectacular shithead you are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Well, he certainly wouldn't tell you, because you would just lie about it and act like an asshole.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120818/01171420087/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week -techdirt.shtml#c1210
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Instead consumers get screwed and bled, and the labels wonder why people won't respect them demanding full control over products after they have sold them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They have a Plan B
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2418432/pirates-faced-with-10-year-jail-terms-in-go vernment-review
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They have a Plan B
Until such a time, I have enough stuff to do with my time that I can perfectly well forego any participation in this penalty-, restriction- and criminalization-ridden circus.
I refuse to participate in this war on consumers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect is earned, not "taught".
Most with a modicum of experience know this. Those that do not apparently think they can "teach" others to respect that which they themselves hold dear, in total absence of any understanding why others might not agree.
What exactly would this "teaching" involve and would there be a test?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Today, all manner of commonplace devices can do the task. The mistake they make is in thinking that the law was ever a deterrent to casual infringement (sharing of culture, in effect). It was not, it was simply a capability that few people had. Starting with cassette players, that has gradually changed so that today everyone has the capability. That the law says I can't make a cassette copy for the car or rip a cd to my phone of something I have already paid for is silly and unenforceable.
It is a shame that there are idiots are so oblivious of this that they will torpedo a law change that costs them nothing and is in real the tiniest step towrads the 20th century.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
and that we all share books becasue we know it encourages reading, promotes authors and increases sales.
Presumably thats why all lawyers have magazine tables in their offices to share their reading materials and show how cool they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Respect? Blundered away in 1841
And you will find that, in attempting to impose unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead, you have, to a great extent, annulled those restraints which now prevent men from pillaging and defrauding the living.
That was the moment respect for copyright died. And it won't get it back unless you lift these unreasonable restraints on the reprinting of the words of the dead.
The whole speech is extremely enlightening:
http://homepages.law.asu.edu/~dkarjala/OpposingCopyrightExtension/commentary/MacaulaySpeeches.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rather that the anal retentive purity advocated here, perhaps it would be beneficial to ponder the question "Just how many lawsuits are being pursued against individuals who privately rip CDs they have purchased to place copies of files on their personal music-playing devices for their private listening pleasure?" I personally do not recall any such suit. The ones I do recall were all associated with the public distribution of ripped copies, which is an entirely different matter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yeah, no. You're missing the point. As military organizations learned millennia ago, the quickest way to undermine your authority is to issue orders you know won't be obeyed. You can only push so far - Prohibition in the USA proved that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Your seeming inability to formulate a relevant substantive comment on any issue being discussed here suggests the latter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well whaddaya know, GamerGate folks aren't the only ones into sea-lioning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
and I agree that discussions providing a wider range of opinions provide a more nuanced understanding of things. That's exactly why Techdirt has been a good place for us to discuss these issues. It's also, ironically, why these one sided 'educational' (or more like indoctrinating) campaigns are a terrible arena for a nuanced understanding of these issues since they only really allow one side of the debate, yours, to be presented. Here everyone's side, including yours, maybe presented. This is exactly why you should be against these 'educational' campaigns and part of the purpose of the OP, to help explain why these one sided 'educational' campaigns are bad (for the very reason you state, they only present one side). but I suspect you're probably not against them. You're not really in favor of "a discussion involving seemingly incompatible and diametrically opposed views" you are in favor of a one sided 'discussion' where only your side is expressed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But maybe I'm just prejudging you. Maybe you really are in favor of "a discussion involving seemingly incompatible and diametrically opposed views". If you are then you would have no problems criticizing and opposing these 'educational campaigns' for being one sided. Can you do that? Here is your chance to prove me wrong. Surprise us all. Admit that these 'educational campaigns' are bad. I await your response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What I find the most pathetic is how you proclaim to have moderate views of copyright enforcement, and yet, you'll leap to the defense of any law with unenforceable terms or high collateral damage, insisting that anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, wrong, wrong.
Hell, right here, you're claiming that a law that outright prohibits ripping CDs isn't going to be used to go after people who rip CDs they personally purchased.
It's even more pathetic that you think anyone believes your sad shtick, outside of your sycophantic idols.
Go have out_of_the_blue's offspring or something like you want so much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So, bad laws are OK just as long as they're not enforced? You didn't think that one all the way through. But, even then you're wrong.
"The ones I do recall were all associated with the public distribution of ripped copies, which is an entirely different matter"
Just because you chose to be ignorant of them, that doesn't mean they didn't happen. It's true that most of them have been levelled against people who make the hardware and software to allow ripping rather than end users, but here's a couple I recall that I found after a few moments searching. There are others.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122800693.html
http://ww w.computerworld.com/article/2490564/technology-law-regulation/ford-and-gm-sued-for-millions-over-cd- ripping-tech-in-cars.html
So, do you have any justification of these actions, or are you in the mindset of "some people might decide to do something wrong with their otherwise legally obtained file, so we'll make ripping illegal even for those who commit no other crime" camp? The latter group gets zero respect from me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The funny thing is that I frequently hear US legislators say that outright.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Plus, they're very handy to have in such cases like former speaker Dennis K.
"Statute of limitations, sorry."
"No prob. We'll just entrap him with lying to a federal officer instead."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Jul 21st, 2015 @ 6:00am
I hear they haven't sued anyone for singing in the shower, either, so clearly a law banning that is similarly reasonable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That is why i want to be able to copy my content from cd and dvd's and blu rays.
Due to their greed i have had to buy the same disc four times and many discs three times due to them wearing from normal use.
I want the right to copy my discs or the right to download the games and play them as i would have my original.
I have lost a lot of money replacing discs for my kids to play their favourite games, and i am almost sick every time because i know i am being stolen from but i will hack my xbox eventually and feel no guilt.
And i don't care if it is illegal any more as they have stolen from me, and there is no need for them to do so as they are already making billions from gamers just buying new games without the billions they make from people having to buy the same game multiple times.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clever strategy for getting people not to buy CDs anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's one option. Another (mine) is to finally recognize that what they're producing isn't worth even that much trouble and effort. Go find something else to do instead.
Clever strategy to finally rid us all of these noisy, arrogant, self-entitled, litigious buggy whip mfgrs. who distrust and despise their actual remaining paying customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Abolish Copyright
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
record labels
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
that should be aimed at the politicians who continuously do whatever is demanded by the industries, to do as much harm, for as long as possible, on to the customers! why is it that no one, not a single person in a powerful position has ever tried doing things the other way? instead of trying to get the worst possible punishment used, try to get things the customers ask for? if i had a chance of buying a movie for £2 or getting it for free with the distinct possibility of being run in for doing it, surely the way to go is the £2 way, isn't it? £2 is next to nothing, being fined even £100 isa lot! getting a bigger fine or even worse a spell in jail, is so much worse. the problem is, though, that neither the entertainment industries nor any of the governments or politicians want to do anything except take the road that hurts the people the most! now sensibly tell me why that is, please?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
A few years ago, my gov't forgot this truth and jacked up the ("sin tax") price on tobacco. There was an immediate explosion of tobacco smugglers. The gov't couldn't back it out fast enough. It cost them the moon for enforcement attempting to stop them.
Shhh, don't tell the MafiAA. It would seriously screw up a few politicians' campaign budgets.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If the work is less than 28 years old, I'll pay for it. If it's older, I'll find it online for free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
That's just ridiculous. -- And the court only said it can't find such right, not that as practical matter you'll be thrown in jail if rip a CD. Sheesh.
Give up, antidirt! Invincible stupidity is invincible. While I see that you meant the writer won't state a position, it's lost on the fanboys. I admit is worthwhile to get them into a barking mad frenzy so that no reasonable persons are deluded by TD's facade, but I'm willing to concede defeat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
http://info.legalzoom.com/copyright-law-making-personal-copies-22200.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Channeling the spirit of the *AA's and other maximalists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Channeling the spirit of the *AA's and other maximalists
It's funny how both those two clowns think consistently trolling on a site they claim has no effect on anything is getting them anywhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
Since you're the one who wants to impose artificial limitations on what's possible (as all laws do), what's your justification? What possible reason can an artist or creator have for wanting me to buy multiple copies of the same file for personal use in my house, car and portable music player? We all know that the only real intended "benefit" is for the copyright holder (probably not the creator) to make more money, but I'm curious to hear your reasoning anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
First sale doctrine. If I buy a book, it doesn't matter whether I read it, use it to line a bird cage, wipe my ass, make a paper mache sculpture or photocopy it, or even resell it. I am free to do so as long as I do not do something infringing with the resulting copies. The original author doesn't get a say after they've taken my money. So, why am I not free to do the same with a legally purchased CD?
Like it or not, the people you worship are removing rights, and the paying customers they're attacking are not happy about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let me get this straight: TD says people who create content have no right to control copies, but purchasers of CDs do have a right to rip the content?
Life is full of natural rights that are given to us by our very nature and existence. Not all things come handed down from the governments on high. Slavery is an example of governments and thugs trodding on the natural rights of individuals with less physical power for selfish benefits.
Many governments are nothing more than thugs using threat of violence. The laws they write may not be moral or right. The government where I live has laws that are immoral, wrong and violate natural and constitutional rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]