It is Now Illegal to Rip CDs You Already Own in UK

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

Can't you still do single copy per device plus one back up copy?

Strictly speaking you have to get a discman if you want to listen to the CD on the go, or buy the song(s) again in digital format (in which case you're also only allowed to have one instance of the file).

[Valentyn]

Woah! Hold up! Just last year the UK Legalise this very thing....

Aka being allowed to copy/rip the data to store elsewhere.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29448058

[MrRavens]

This again? Why can't this die? (Q.Q )

[othertomperson]

I'm still waiting for this to be verified by another source. What the article describes makes no sense under UK or EU law.

[lubblig]

Now consider this, what happens when every blank media will be taxed because they think that people buy that to rip legal stuffs 'illegally', hence the consumers have to pay for all the 'potential lose of revenue' by the copyright holder.

This is already a thing in Sweden...

 

There is a company/organization called Copyswede. They are abusing an old law that was in place to make empty cassettes cost somewhat more since people used them to record songs of off their radios.. (It's kind of weird we still have that law, not like it's relevant anymore in this modern society...)

 

But Copyswede have basically made everything with a hard drive/storage capacity to have an extra tax. Everything from HDDs to smartphones to Playstations to thumbdrives. ALL OF IT. We pay extra for everything that could potentially store songs if someone wanted to, it doesn't matter if it's a gaming console. We are basically paying more for something most people won't ever use for copying things from a CD or similar to. Most people in Sweden use Spotify (or similar) nowadays, not ripping or even downloading.

 

Also, for some reason (this may have changed now, but I did read this in some news article a while back) Copyswede doesn't have to publish what they are giving to artists. So this is a company that has abused a law badly in Sweden and they are probably getting away with lots of money themselves since no one knows who gets what since they do everything in private, nothing is public (as far as I know).

[dfsdfgfkjsefoiqzemnd]

There is a company/organization called Copyswede. They are abusing an old law that was in place to make empty cassettes cost somewhat more since people used them to record songs of off their radios.. (It's kind of weird we still have that law, not like it's relevant anymore in this modern society...)

 

But Copyswede have basically made everything with a hard drive/storage capacity to have an extra tax. Everything from HDDs to smartphones to Playstations to thumbdrives. ALL OF IT. We pay extra for everything that could potentially store songs if someone wanted to, it doesn't matter if it's a gaming console. We are basically paying more for something most people won't ever use for copying things from a CD or similar to. Most people in Sweden use Spotify (or similar) nowadays, not ripping or even downloading.

 

Also, for some reason (this may have changed now, but I did read this in some news article a while back) Copyswede doesn't have to publish what they are giving to artists. So this is a company that has abused a law badly in Sweden and they are probably getting away with lots of money themselves since no one knows who gets what since they do everything in private, nothing is public (as far as I know).

Could be worse, We have one here that claims to represent made-up bands and wants royalties for songs that don't exist.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110209/04101413022/belgian-collection-society-sabam-caught-taking-cash-made-up-bands-it-didnt-represent.shtml

[Ekpyrosis]

I wonder if this means that software that lets you rip will be considered illegal in the UK. If so, iTunes will be illegal as well.

[RuffRuffmcgruff]

This doesn't really affect me since I don't have any CD's etc. But how are they going to enforce this? It's like they  make these stupid laws just to tick boxes. Like "look how well we're doing we've corrupted the media, stifled free speech and destroyed independent thinking and it's only Monday Afternoon!!" Fuck the tories

[GarlanTyrell]

Firstly, I was under the impression that the law that this was in response to was not to transfer music from 1 medium to another but to bypass the copyright restrictions on the original media in order to transfer it (at least that's if I remember the original law correctly, it was really just making the means to copy legal).
 
Anyway, a few points on this ruling (because it makes no sense what soever):

 

1) The record companies are upset that the UK gov changed the law regarding copyright licences using the (sadly legitimate) excuse that there was an EU copyright that stopped governments changing the law regarding copyright without compensation to the licence owners unless there was no or minimal harm to the licence holders.
Here is the first problem; the licence holders are claiming that this is indeed the case and that "by making a copyof content that you have already purchased, in your own home and for your own use, you are indeed causing them to suffer harm." Hilarious, right? Only if you have a black sense of humour, because its effectively insulting and disrespecting the people who have purchased the media and given them money.
 

2) It gets worse, because they claimed they would "suffer harm" aka, not line their pockets quite so deeply the courts asked the UK gov to PROVE that they would not suffer harm or that it would be minimal and because they couldn't do that, the ruling sided with the record companies. But isn't the premise of law that you are innocent until proven (beyond all reasonable doubt) guilty? But this is the exact opposite, the record lables etc are claiming they will suffer harm but from what I can see have no proof for the accusation, only a hypothetical case and have left it for the defendant to prove that they are not guilty.
 

3) 1 of the main points that the verdict cited that was that copyable media is inherently more valuable than non copyable media and therefore they should be able to charge more for it than un-copyable media. If it sounds obtuse, that's because it is; and is a notion not only new to us but to the licence holders as well. If said media was more valuable then surely digital music would be appreciably more expensive than CD bought music, but as it transpires, this is not the case. So why the ruling? We shall never know. But effectively it means every time you transfer your music collection to your new pc, phone, audio system, whatever, they want money for each copy.
 

4) Now lets talk about the result and the gov's options:

• Either reverse the law and make copying illegal again, going backwards.
• Fight the ruling by providing the evidence that the court wanted, proving they will suffer minimal harm, something they shouldn't have to do.
• Or introduce a new tax on users to compensate the industry for the "harm" they are suffering. Something like the private copying levy in the US. Basically a tax on blank storage media (ie blank CDs) that goes straight to the media industry just in case at some point some copyrighted material will be stored on it. Now this really takes the biscuit! That's like saying "we will tax your house EXTRA and give that money directly to some companies we have an agreement with, just in-case at some point a stolen item from one of them is within your premises. You might not but we will collect the money anyway, just in case."