PDA

View Full Version : Why that mix CD might be illegal


Loz
10th November 2003, 15:05
Why that mix CD might be illegal

Dot.life - Where tech and life collide, every Monday
By Mark Ward
BBC News Online technology correspondent

It could now be illegal to make a compilation of your favourite tunes under new copyright laws - and soon even tougher measures could be introduced.

What we can do with the CDs, DVDs and videos lining our shelves has changed this month - the law now takes a dim view of anyone who copies, or attempts to change.

For this month, the European copyright directive has come into force in the UK. This puts in place legal protection for companies that try to protect copyrighted products with what is known as a digital rights management (DRM) system - examples include putting errors in music CDs so computer drives can't play them, or locking software until the customer registers online to prove they have permission to use it.

The UK's version of the directive is called the Copyright and Related Rights Regulations 2003, and it is being implemented 10 months late. Controversy over the scope of the directive has delayed its implementation in many other European nations, and nine member states have yet to introduce their own versions.

While much of what home users do with their CDs, DVDs and videos could now be legally questionable, the directive is instead aimed at large-scale privacy outfits, says Francisco Mingorance, the director of public policy at the Business Software Alliance, which co-ordinates anti-piracy work at many hi-tech firms.

The zeal of these counterfeiters means that up to one in three CDs sold is a pirate copy, according to a report by the International Federation of the Phonographic Industry.

Mr Mingorance says the directive gave long awaited legal protection to the devices BSA members use to guard against piracy. This means that many music and movie makers are more likely to make their wares available online as locking devices now have legal protection.

But others are not so sure the directive is a positive step. Julian Midgley, the head of the Campaign for Digital Rights, says in some respects nothing has changed.

"It makes no difference to the basics - copyright infringement is still copyright infringement and you are as liable as you were before."

But, says Mr Midgley, the important point about the directive is that it establishes in the minds of copyright owners that DRM systems work, albeit not in the way the EU intended.

In the US, the laws put in place to protect DRM systems are being used as competitive tools. Some firms have put trivial locking devices into their software to stop reverse engineering of their products, says Mr Midgley.

Press play

The new copyright laws also mean that many of the things we are used to doing, such as playing a music CD on a computer drive or copying tracks to an MP3 player, now fall into a legal grey area.

Before the directive was passed, circumventing the copy-protection device - which could be as simple a matter as putting a black pen mark around the edge of the disk - was tolerated. But now that is a breach of the law, even though you otherwise have the right to listen to that CD.

Some have pointed out that fast-forwarding through the ads at the start of a DVD now contravenes the law. And using a file-sharing service is an infringement, although one that, as yet, is likely to go unpunished.

But maybe not for long. The EU is building these copyright laws into another, the European Intellectual Property Enforcement Directive, which will give even more powers to copyright owners to protect their creations. This will criminalise all efforts to break copyright, even trivial ones.

And that could mean you, with that compilation of your favourite tracks.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/technology/3256945.stm

bitch one
10th November 2003, 15:12
mr mingorance??

'don't die of mingorance'

Loz
10th November 2003, 15:19
One thing I always notice about these "digital rights" things, is that they're frequently, if not always, rights for the copyright holder (ie, record company) and not the originator.

So why aren't more music artists speaking out about these? They're getting fucked just as much as we are.

Jeniffer Mills
10th November 2003, 15:20
..Good for the artists, tough for the musiclovers and DJ`s

zongkong
10th November 2003, 15:26
What artists? The ones who are already loaded? Or the other ones?

More like, the record industry is losing it's grasp and function more and more, and are trying desperately to stop that from happening..

Loz
10th November 2003, 15:31
interesting point, how long before DJs will have to pay royalties for what they spin in the clubs?

Mirsha
10th November 2003, 15:55
I'll start to worry about the whole copyright thing when I see proof the RIAA is paying divdends back to the artists, and by that I mean all of them, including all those small record labels with a handfull of releases by local guys.

Yer_Maw
10th November 2003, 15:57
dont clubs have to get a PRS license just like radio stations? dunno but.

wheezer
10th November 2003, 15:58
1) I believe in Germany most clubs have to pay royalties for music played, it's payed to the German musicians association GEMA

2) There are artists speaking out against this, such as the ever-popular Courtney Love - at least I remember her holding some type of speech on precisely the matter of the small artist holding nothing or next to nothing in his/her hands at the end of the day

3) All of these digital rights things are meant to further protect copyright holders, almost always at the cost of the consumer and/or the originator.

Loz
10th November 2003, 16:14
some are, but why aren't more?

we could do with a sort of anti-Metallica, perhaps someone could coerce REM into speaking out about it, they're of a similar status to Metallica.

wheezer
10th November 2003, 16:52
I hate Micheal Stipe with a passion, otherwise its a sound plan.

Seriously though, I figure that there are plenty of artists well aware of their position in the music industry, but I suspect that publicity, press coverage etc. will generally be pushed into the direction of RIAA-bootlickers by the powers that be.

grobelaar
10th November 2003, 18:22
Fuck 'em - the revolution starts here...

I'm just getting tired of all this, its so petty and its the fact that its so petty and the implications of it all just brings home what a fucking utterly shit world we are making with our much vaunted advances in technology.

You'd have never thought that any of this has anything to do with art and creative endevour, that side of things has become totally abstracted out of the argument. Funny how the only artists the RIAA can ever get to side with them are fucking dried up rock has beens, worried that without being able to flog their back catalogue of tired old shite they won't be able afford to pay the bills for nursing their drug addled wrecked bodies through their dotage.

Ironic that this should be mostly about pop music, a medium that was originally only afforded 20 years before it entered the public domain because of its ephemereal nature - the only thing that has changed is the ability to store something on a disc forever.

What next, are they going to re-copyright great composers works like Mozart - I'm sure there's money to be had there.

What price is put on human enrichment...

People talk about rights, personally I think it should be a human right that if you are an originator you can not under any circumstance sell or contract out that right of ownership. No company no matter how forward thinking can create anything. Only people can create things. Its a total crock of shit