|
Reply with quote
You've legally bought a CD and want to listen to it on the way to work. You can just put it in your computer and copy it onto your iPod - that's perfectly legal, right?
Wrong.
Under current copyright law, you've just committed an offence and could, if prosecuted, be liable to a fine or be sent to prison.
Although you've bought the CD, you've only paid for the licence to listen to it on your CD player. If you want to listen to it in any other format, then by law, you must buy another copy in that format.
Copyright gives the creator of the work the exclusive right to make copies of it. If that person has not given you specific permission to create a copy then you are infringing on that right.
So called format shifting - creating an MP3 version of an audio CD, for example - requires the permission of the rights holder.
This isn't a new problem for the digital generation, it's as old as copyright itself. Advances in technology have always created problems for owners of creative work - copyright was originally introduced to protect authors during the advent of the printing press.
Although format shifting is technically an offence, the chances of actually being prosecuted for it are virtually zero. To bring a case against you, the owner of the work - usually a record company - would have to prove that you created a copy and then pursue you through the court for damages. Since this would ultimately take a significant amount of time and money, it is unlikely.
What record companies are more concerned with, however, is consumers making copies not just for themselves, but for other people too. This, they claim, reduces their ability to make money since people are obtaining music without paying for it.
During the 1980s, the BPI (British Phonographic Industry - a trade body that protects the rights of record labels) launched a campaign that claimed 'Home Taping is Killing Music', which targeted people that created cassette copies of albums for their friends.
The emergence of MP3, broadband and file sharing applications has since moved this activity onto the internet.
Current copyright legislation, however, doesn't take into account these advances in technology since it was largely drafted in 1988.
On 6 December 2006, the Gowers Review of Intellectual Property was released by the government, the aim being to bring copyright laws in line with the digital age.
Andrew Gowers was appointed by the Government to lead an independent review of intellectual property (IP) in the UK in December 2005. Gowers is currently the head of communications for investment bank Lehman Brothers and was editor of the Financial Times from 2001 to 2005.
His report argues that UK industry is increasingly being driven by sectors that rely on IP - such as music or software - rather than traditional manufacturing of physical products.
The report looks at three areas that would benefit the UK:
- strengthening enforcement of IP rights, whether through clamping down on piracy or trade in counterfeit goods
- reducing costs of registering and litigating IP rights for businesses large and small
- improving the balance and flexibility of IP rights to allow individuals, businesses and institutions to use content in ways consistent with the digital age
Gowers' extensive report addresses consumer concerns over their right to create electronic copies of music they've paid for and recommends the introduction of "a limited private copying exception by 2008 for format shifting for works published after the date that the law comes into effect. There should be no accompanying levies for consumers."
However, Laurence Kaye - a lawyer that specialises in copyright and IP issues - believes that the recommendations don't go far enough.
"From the consumer's point of view, Gowers' Review is helpful because it legalises something that is illegal, but only applies to work published after 2008," Kaye said.
So while consumers will be able to legally copy any new music they purchase to an iPod, "it's not going to help with your back catalogue of [CDs]", according to Kaye.
The recommendations will also bear little difference for the legal downloader, according to Kaye, since purchases such as tracks from iTunes already include format shifting rights such as creating CD copies.
For people that illegally share music, however, Gowers' recommendations are harsh.
"The legal consequences for online piracy [according to Gowers' report] should be the same as offline," Kaye said.
Penalties for copyright infringement currently differ, depending on whether the infringement was online or offline. Those caught commercially exploiting copyright offline can face up to 10 years in prison, while those that operate online only face two years.
"Gowers suggests bringing the two [online and offline] into line," according to Kaye.
So while Gowers Review will have a small impact on consumers, by allowing them to legally copy any music purchased after 2008 on to their iPod, it's online pirates that face the biggest change, with much tougher sentences if they're caught.
|
You are not logged in. You can sign in below or 
