KitGuru KitGuru.net – Tech News | Hardware News | Hardware Reviews | IOS | Mobile | Gaming | Graphics Cards
If you've used iTunes CD ripping feature recently, did you know you were breaking the law? If you backed up your PC to a remote cloud platform, did you know you were taking part in an illegal activity? Yes, thanks to a recent overturning of revised copyright legislation by the High Court, copying any copyright protected media, whether from a CD to a PC, one device to another, or even backing up to a remote cloud is entirely illegal.
The High Court decision came through last month, where it overturned a previous ruling by the British government made in 2014, which legalised the copying of privately owned media for private use. A number of music studios were scared by that though and assumed people would stop buying music, so it lobbied and had the decision made unlawful in June this year.
So technically almost all copying is illegal, and this has been clarified as such by the Intellectual Property Office, which TorrentFreak recently spoke to. It specifically highlighted how it is illegal to rip a CD to a PC, making iTunes illegal and its advertising potentially infringing of copyright law, since it advertises the feature.
At least the IPO and citizens agree here. ‘Yes it's illegal, but who cares?'
The law also extends to making back ups of your own files if they contain copyright protected media. Ghosting a hard drive with songs on is illegal too. Essentially unless you are playing a song or movie on the original medium you purchased it on, it's illegal.
The IPO claims however that people shouldn't worry, since copyright holders rarely attempt to bring legal action against those that do.
“The Government is not aware of any cases of copyright holders having prosecuted individuals for format shifting music solely for their own personal use,” the IPO spokesperson said.
Discuss on our Facebook page, HERE.
KitGuru Says: Can you imagine if that happened for any other law? “Yes it technically is illegal to shoplift, but don't worry about is as no one gets prosecuted for it.”
So what? It’s illegal? It’s illegal for the wrong reasons. It protects no-one and only introduces unfair rules for what should be an end-users right to how they use their own data.
If I wish to make a backup of my own personal data (in whatever format it belongs) WITHIN my PRIVATE dwelling. Then I don’t give a FUCK if it’s considered illegal.
How stupid. How about we crack down on the crime that really negatively effects society.
Errrrr correct sentiment, wrong facts. You don’t own the data, the music data belongs to the publisher (usually) or the artist. You only have a licence to play the music, you don’t own it. You may own the physical CD but not the data.
Whilst I completely agree with you that it shouldn’t be illegal for personal use, technically none of us “own” the copyrighted material that this law covers. It’s licensed, just like software, and in most cases that license only allows a single copy and a single user. I own the physical media, but the music on my CDs is owned by the record label or artist. It’s the licenses that we agree to by opening the shrink wrap that govern what we can and can’t do with this material; the law is simply following it. The “personal use exception” that was overturned should put back, but the original copyright laws need to remain in place, as they protect copyrighted material in many forms.
1. So what “so what?”? I don’t agree with this or pot being illegal, doesn’t mean I wont get arrested for it if I say “so what?” to the police.
2. You can not give a FUCK all you want, doesn’t make any difference.
3. It’s not yours, you own a license for it.
4. The Queen has NEVER not signed legislation. So….thats kind of a moot point. If a law doesn’t break any human rights laws or is overruled by a higher law then…its legitimate (seeing as they are made by the courts and governments) regardless of if people think its stupid. Someone didn’t hack the system to make the law.
I mean I agree with your sentiment, but christ, was that a silly way to go about it.
and if my CD burns up in a house fire can i kindly ask the music company to honor that license i own and give me back my music?
the truth is that the whole thing is a mix of bull**** legalese speak that essentially leaves the consumer with no protections, which is why courts have ruled against it in several cases since its fundamentally unfair.
how about an example where product license sales is being taken too far, new cars. right now you own your car, everything about it is yours, and you can go out and change it how ever the hell you want without voiding any patent/copyright. a good number of car companies want to slap a license agreement on the software installed on newer cars though, essentially making it illegal for you to take it to your local mechanic or to swap in alternative parts to improve performance.
murder unions and drug dealer guilds don’t exist and thus don’t have lobbying groups… politicians like money after all.
It would be amusing to see drug king pins lobbying the government. Big Tony feels that it’s in the public interest for you to get off his back, capiche.
Slightly more ethical than the current state of affairs, at least crooks are open and honest. Businessmen are less forthcoming.
Regardless of my loss of property rights, I have found a streaming service to be more useful than physical copies. Though I do also have backups of a fair amount of music as well so I guess I’m a filthy criminal.
He’s not saying that he agrees with the rules, he’s saying what the rules are. There’s a very big difference.
“The High Court decision came through last month, where it overturned a
previous ruling by the British government made in 2014, which legalised
the copying of privately owned media for private use. A number of music
studios were scared by that though and assumed people would stop buying
music, so it lobbied and had the decision made unlawful in June this
year.”
Surely I am not the only person seeing the stupidity of the ‘music studios’? If people are buying the music and transferring it to ipads,ipods,phones,tablets or any other device whats the issue? Would they rather now people ‘risk’ downloading the music illegally because they don’t want to pay the ridiculous pricing of a music cd just to have that one copy? To me that is more about greed, they would want you a user to buy a CD version and then buy the digital tracks for your device.
Go figure, I’ll still back up what I want when I want
Stupid stuff like this only encourages pirating. That’s how pig-headed the recording industries are. No one will miss them when they’re gone, and no one will weep when their mountains of cash run out.
A complete waste of time for all parties involved. In my mind this is about as effective as making it illegal to breath, people are still going to do it and it’s almost impossible to actually enforce the law on any significant scale.
It pains me to think how much of society’s time/money is wasted on garbage like this.
The Courts exist outside of Parliament, that’s the whole point of them.
The Queen is party to legislation, as she is the third part of Parliament. “Signing” is a bit irrelevant, and is indeed a moot point, but to imply she does not oversea legislation is wrong; all legislation requires Queens Consent.
It surprises me how little we, as a country, know about our own constitution – I mean that as inoffensively as possible. I just think we should be taught at least the constitution in high school. It’s not exactly complicated, and it amazes me how many people say daft things like “It would be easy to get rid of the Monarchy”, when it would, in fact, require an entirely new rewriting of the Constitution.
I always find it fascinating that we have courts deliberate over laws, rather than cases.
It’s like the court presiding over whether someone is guilty of a crime; they go through the trouble of investigating, hearing evidence, deliberating…and at the end of it, if you’re guilty of a crime, you go to jail.
…am I going bonkers here, or wouldn’t it make more sense to ascertain whether you’re guilty of *doing something wrong*? Laws can make anyone guilty. You would’ve thought the whole point of having a jury would be to decide whether the person is guilty of a wrongdoing, not breaking the law.