Legal question about downloading

A post on another forum got me thinking.
Imagine you have say 500 CDs. It's quite legal for you to cut them to FLAC format.
What about if a person has say 500 LPs? Clearly the owner could get the right kit and manually record 500 LPs to a digital format, but clearly it would be a pain in the butt.
So would it be legal for the owner to download from dodgy websites those 500 albums? After all, he already owns the albums?

Any thoughts?

 

Sharing files

My understanding is that any copyright music which is shared over the internet is illegal. Just because you own the music does not mean you own the copyright on it. In the UK the fair use legislation which exists in the states does not exist here so even copying music at home for ones own use is also illegal( and that means any format, analogue or digital).

Thats my understanding.

Regards D Louth 77

 

Thanks for that, just aswell that's not strictly enforced, or Linn would need to pull the plug on their new DS range.

 

I'll preface this by saying that I'm not a lawyer, so this is just a layman's understanding of UK law and is quite possibly misleading nonsense.

Distributing copyright material is a criminal offence and can result in a jail sentence. Unlikely to apply to anything other than a commercial piracy operation in practice.

Downloading songs for your own use (i.e. not uploading, sharing or otherwise distributing in any way) is most definitely not a criminal offence.

Distributing copyright material can also be a civil offence - the owner of the copyright (in the UK, for music, this would be the BPI in practice) can sue you for damages for the loss he has suffered (i.e. from lost sales). I believe that the BPI is on record as stating that it is not actively looking to sue UK citizens, but nonetheless a bad idea.

Downloading copyright material is not, I think, a civil offence either. I may be wrong on this, but even if I am there are two points to note:
- the extent of any damages due under law would be low on the assumption that you had not distributed any of the material
- in practice enforcement activity is rightly focussed on those distributing the files (including file-sharing)

So to answer your question, yes I think it would be legal; even if it were illegal I can't see anyone seeking to enforce that law; for what it's worth, provided that you already own the LPs I don't think it would be immoral either (IMHO).

 

btw, ripping a CD for your own use (either to make a back-up or to stream from a disk based system for example) is not illegal. D Louth is right that buying a CD does not give you rights over the copyright of the content, but that would only be relevant were you to distribute the content.

The situation with your vinyl example is a little more complicated however as there is a reasonable argument that a digital file is qualitatively different to a vinyl record. On that basis, buying a record wouldn't necessarily give you the same right to access a digital version of the content as buying a CD (in which case you have bought the digital content of course).

 

Most definatley illegal,and the good ole riaa or wotever there called would if they could, take everyone of us through the courts to recover the lost royalties.As has already been mentioned you may own the recording,but you dont own the copyright

 

One thing in the very fuzzy copyright laws which is very clear is that you cannot make a copy of music CDs full stop. You can, however, make a copy of a software CD which is where the confusion can come in.

 

I thought the law had recently changed or proposed change?

to allow you to copy for your own use any music format ....if you own the lp or cd I'd imagine it would be very hard to press a case in which you downloaded the same ...though I'm not an expert in the field ....

just to pose the question how many people have been prosecuted for copying music that they have legitimately bought ?

 

It is illegal to make any copy, CD or MP3 player.

However in 2006 the BPI and IPPR announced that they would not prosecute anyone copying music to an MP3 player. It was also argued that people should be allowed to copy cd's to cd's for personal use only.

They said there was no reason to change the law as all they would have to do is get authorisation for this to take place from the holder. So there i assume all copyright holders have agreed for consumers to copy onto mp3 players and as far as i can see we are allowed to make a backup for personal use only. They also said that in the future they may start explaining this right on CD packaging.

As far as downloading goes, thats illegal but someone please prove me wrong. People argue that its just uploading that's illegal. I'm not so sure. Now it seems logical that if you own the origonal you should be able to download. I don't know how this works. Essentially you are downloading music from someone who is not allowed to share. Its a bit like handling stolen property. You aren't allowed to.

 

This is my understanding too. I.e. it is illegal to make ANY copies even for personal use but BPI won't prosecute anyone for making copies for personal use. Uploading and downloading is illegal except where permission has been granted by the copyright holder. It's a bit like offering and receiving stolen goods.

 

Copying etc

Hi Guys

I once came across a parlimentary debate about this on The Parliment Channel. It was a private chambers debate and part of the discussion was about fair use etc and this law was only ever agreed in the US and refered to VCR recorders and has not been applied to MP3,Cd,I Pods etc except in peoples heads. The problem for the record industry and artists is that you are gaining a copy of their hard work/ investment. and not paying for it. Now the recording of material at home for your own use has never been legal but unless you start selling or exchanging material you have copied the powers that be can't enforce this as they can't track this. However when you transmit material on-line this can be tracked and my understanding is being increasingly done so by service providers. The bottom line is if you don't own the copyright you have no legal right to transmit it swop it or sell it. If you do then you are a thief bottom line.

For the audiophile community who care about sound quality all this illegal activity has led to copy protection which has destroyed sound quality and in some cases meant discs will not play on some machines. I have never downloaded but I and people like me have suffered because of those who have.

The one copy only protection exists in all cd,md,hard drive units and this was introduced to prevent people making multiple copies but this does not work for pc.mac's so the criminals who want can still do what they want.

Now you can argue from any point you like about the rights and wrongs of this but none of us have any rights to do with other peoples property be it intellectual or physical. This increasing activity is helping to ruin the music industry and I know there will be those who offer other reasons but the loss of money to artists and record companies is huge, and getting worse by the year. In part it is illegal down loading that has resulted in the loss of quality on CDs IMHO. So as audiophiles if you have done so you have been helping dig all our graves and banging in the nails as well. SHAME ON YOU ALL.

An other poster made a comment about the Linn kit well it isn't illegal to make this kit only how it is used by the end user. Good one that.

Home taping is killing music. Heck its near dead. The value of music is now nearly gone. Its only a low end get it how you can thing. True love of quality and taking the time to listen is dead for the majority and only kept alive by us the minority. If there is no money in offering quality then the artists and record companies wont bother. Most down loads are not high quality and that fact has not been lost on the providers. The Loudness issue is as a result of music quality being decided to cater for those who would not know sound quality if it bit them in the ass. And what is our fractured industry doing about it ? Nothing(much).

Regards D louth 77

 

D Louth - Copying etc

Couldn't disagree more. Home taping, within the context of this thread - that is, not for selling at car boot sales! - is no more killing music now than it was 25 years ago. The fact that it runs counter to the record industry's view of how it would like things to be, matters not one jot.

Copying music is convenient, (pop a copy on your iPod), sensible, (you do back-up your data, don't you?) and, when shared with friends and relatives, allows you to experience the work of artists you may otherwise not be exposed to, (a good thing).

But the most compelling argument for non-profit copying is that each of us has only a finite budget with which to buy music. If you and ten friends all buy the same album then one artist has benefited. If you all buy a different album each, and share them, then ten artists have benefited and ten people have heard ten different things. This then has the knock-on benefit of allowing ten artists to make a living, rather than one artist to make an outrageous living! I know this is a somewhat simplistic way of looking at what is a complex, real-world business but it is no less compelling.

It is also not true to say that music quality is suffering. Far from it. Granted, mainstream 'pop', for want of a better description, is probably being recorded and mixed for the mp3 market, but how much of that do you actually want to buy? There are an increasing number of on-line retailers offering very high quality music downloads who are servicing the very market we wish to see. Linn, HDTracks, Reference Recordings, 2L, HDTT, Music Giants, Bowers & Wilkins, to name a few. Although most of these are currently not available to UK citizens, (BPI please note - get a grip!), it is a very encouraging trend!

My view on home taping will always be that, provided it is kept amongst friends, it may very well do more good than harm! If transferring what you have already purchased, for listening via different sources, is illegal then, quite obviously, it shouldn't be. Laws should be enacted for the benefit of society as a whole and, where society sees laws to be fair and reasonable, then people will happily abide by them. Where laws are enacted for the sole benefit of businesses then there has to be a much more compelling argument for them other than 'because we want you to buy more copies'! We will always subvert bad laws precisely because we view them as unfair and/or unworkable. Where we do this, then it is the duty of Governments to change them or run the risk of criminalising its citizens!

As for downloading what you already own - well that's a grey area if ever I saw one. On the basis that ISP's can be asked to reveal the details of their 'downloading' customers, it would make for an interesting court case! But I suspect the 'handling stolen goods' argument would be difficult to defend.

 

Legal or not

Hi Graffoeman

In actual fact the question was is it legal or not. The answer is not. Now what you or I want is in the context of this thread is irrelevant and you can disagree all you like as can I, but the owners of the copyright and the recordings would view what you are saying you do with your friends as illegal as stealing in fact, as robbing them of those extra sales. It is a slightly(still illegal but they get a sale)different matter if making a copy sends you out to buy a proper legal copy, but you don't say you are doing that, so you are still ROBBING the artist of a sale. There is no fair use legislation in the UK as there is in the USA(though that is in threat). If you want to say you wish you could copy and you don't agree that it does harm so be it. But others feel it is. In this country it is illegal,FACT as is downloading without paying and file sharing with out paying. A portion of this payment must go to the copyright holder. If it does not this is stealing pure and simple and cheating the worker of a fair days pay.

Why would I want to buy quality well recorded pop/rock music. Why not ? I like a lot of this music and I would like to see the recording standard kept high ( Rosin Murphy Overpowered, is a great example of well recorded pop music). Yes Audiophile labels offer quality recordings but a lot of the music(not all) is not very good IMHO. One of the biggest crimes that used to be found at hi-fi shows was the use of this well recorded wall paper music(no wonder many have been turned off, when they have to play this type of music to hear their systems sound good).

Anyway In my opinion the whole down loading thing is killing music and reducing my choice in the way I want to have it. If your happy so be it but I am not. Call me old fashioned but I value real shops, being able to talk to real people and having real physical music to play. It could be CD, vinyl etc. If you want to live in a virtual PC/MAC world with your Squeeze box/Server etc good luck to you but I do Not.

Is there a time when making a copy is okay ? In my opinion if the music is out of print and not available or if your copy(CD) is decaying and you want to save it while you can. In my case My copy of Rosie Vella's only album was rotting so I made a copy. I have had to do this with a few others too. Cd cancer is more common than you might think. Check your cds and be prepared for a shock. Discolouration and sticky label sides are very common in a big collection. A lot of PDO pressings among those( well known as being a problem plant in the mid 80's if my memory serves me right.

Regards D Louth 77

 

Hi D,

so you are still ROBBING the artist of a sale.

Not so, I have purchased what I can afford to buy!

There is no fair use legislation in the UK

That says it all, really.

Call me old fashioned but I value real shops, being able to talk to real people and having real physical music to play.

I am with you on the demise of real shops, I miss them too. but they are not disappearing because people are copying music they have already bought, but because people are buying mp3 downloads and cheap cd's from supermarkets. BTW, you can still burn your purchase to cd so that you have something physical to pop in you cdp! As I do with the stuff I get from Bowers & Wilkins. It is the future, I'm afraid, sad though they may be for some of us But it has to be said it is also mighty convenient!

Is there a time when making a copy is okay ? In my opinion if the music is out of print and not available or if your copy(CD) is decaying and you want to save it while you can.

Do you not think that, to stay on-side of your own dislike for copying, you really ought to go and buy another one? I'm sure that's what the industry wants you to do. After all, if we were still buying everything on vinyl, that is exactly what you would have had to do. It is only the existence of, firstly, tape and latterly cd and hard drives that has given us the option of copying. I can see no difference, copying is copying. The arguments are simply justifications for what you choose to define as 'fair use'.

 

Understanding

I said if it was not available to still buy. Many of these albums are out of print and some being sold by private individuals/collectors shops etc for hundreds of pounds. I can't see A&M who own Rosie Vella's album ever releasing it again. Heck they haven't released her second album which has been finished for many years.

I am also not saying that I have never made copies and yes by my own stated standard that is stealing. However unlike you if I get a copy, like it I go out and buy real product unlike you and your friends as stated by you in your second to last post. I buy £1000 of pounds worth of music a year from real shops and people and have never down loaded or mp3 anything ever and nor do I ever intend on doing so, unless something comes along that is legal and offers better quality than what exists today, or I have no choice. I also feel while it is possible to turn your down load into a cd and have the art work this is a pretty soulless process.

Also just to make it clear my main dislike is down loading and file sharing which the original question was about, but to give the broader picture its all illegal including home copying.

Regards D Louth 77

 

Hi D,

But you are still choosing to ignore the fact that, in my little scenario, we all went out and bought an album! So,at step one, no-one has stolen anything. At step two we could all go, in turn, to each others houses and listen to each album. This would be perfectly legal. Or we could each burn nine copies, give them to each other, and listen to them at our own homes on our own systems. This would be illegal.

If we stop at step one then, as a group, we are only exposed to one artist each but we remain inside the law. If we go on to step two we are all exposed to ten artists, with the possibility that we then go on to purchase albums of our own from some of them, or go to see them in concert, but we have broken the law.

If each of us has £100 pounds per year to spend on new cd's then, regardless of who buy's what, the industry is only getting £1000 a year from our little group of bandits! The copies do not represent lost income. The industry will say that it does in order to add statistics to its argument and a figure to its justification. But, plainly, the argument is flawed. The industry actually loses nothing, our group has had a wider musical exposure, which may be of future benefit to the additional artists we have heard, and we have been branded criminal.

I'm sorry but, as I said, within the context of not-for-profit copying, the law is not only unjust but is manifestly unworkable. It may also be working to the detriment of the artists whom, you would assert, we are robbing.

Allegedly.:MILD:

 

From the BPI FAQ section:

Is downloading music illegal?
Downloading is when an internet user obtains a digital music file from the internet – in filesharing this source is another internet user known as an uploader. Unless this act of downloading is done from with the permission of the record label (for example, from a licensed service like iTunes), it is unauthorised copying and is illegal.

Uploading is when an internet user allows other internet users to access (and download) their digital music files. This phenomenon creates an enormous illegal library of music available for illegal download using filesharing services.

Copyright law provides that a person must have permission to make a copyrighted work (such as a sound recording) available for download on the internet. Doing so (i.e. uploading) without permission of the copyright owner (in the case of a sound recording, the record label) is against the law, regardless of whether the music was originally obtained legally or illegally by the uploader.

It is for the illegal act of uploading without permission that the international recording industry has commenced legal action against more than 14,200 people to date.​

Why is filesharing illegal?
British record companies invest tens of millions pounds annually in new artists, and recoup that by having the exclusive right to copy, distribute and make available their recordings.

Without copyright, labels would have no financial incentive to invest in new music and Britain would not have its world-beating music business. The Copyright, Designs & Patents Act 1988 grants various rights to copyright owners, and people who distribute copyrighted recordings via peer-to-peer networks without permission are breaking the law by infringing those rights.

It is absolutely clear in UK copyright law that unauthorised filesharing is illegal.

Specifically, filesharing runs counter to Section 16, which grants the copyright holder various exclusive rights, including the 'exclusive right to copy and to communicate works to the public'; and Section 20, which provides that the exclusive right of communication to the public includes the 'the making available to the public of the work by electronic transmission in such a way that members of the public may access it from a place and at a time individually chosen by themâ€Â.​

ii) Action against filesharers in the UK


Who are you threatening with legal action?
After a prolonged period of warnings, the BPI has taken the decision to commence legal action against major uploaders – the “worst†filesharers in the UK.

The BPI is only able to identify copyright infringement at the level of the internet protocol (IP) address of the infringer; BPI then has to go to court to obtain an order requiring the relevant internet service provider to disclose to BPI the name and address of the owner of that internet account.

BPI then writes to the individuals concerned and offers them an opportunity to settle the legal claims against them before legal proceedings are issued.


How much music do I have to download to be at risk?
Although we have not yet taken legal action against anyone for the act of downloading - this too is illegal and we urge consumers to stick to legal services.

The BPI has so far taken legal action against major uploaders – people offering hundreds and sometimes thousands of files for others to download.

Even uploading one file is illegal, and there is no safe limit that will avoid legal action. However, those uploading large numbers of files obviously put themselves at greater risk of legal action.

Taking action against major uploaders makes sense as US research group NPD estimate that around 15% of filesharers are responsible for uploading 75% of illegal content to the internet.

Can a downloader go to prison?
So far the BPI has only brought civil proceedings against illegal uploaders; however, it does not dismiss the possibility of criminal proceedings in a sufficiently serious case.​

Seems to me that the question of whether (just) downloading music or ripping CDs to iPod or Squeezeboxes is illegal is pretty theoretical.

 

Way to go IBR

I think that says it all. Well put together post.

And Graffoeman based on what I read in your post you did not explain your self very well however you did say that and use the words IF I could afford it, this suggests that if you can't you will just copy it and to hell with it. I would like to see you use that argument in a court of law. " Your Honour I have bought many items from ........(Super market name) and felt this allowed me to take and eat this apple...." Pure and simple theft. If you buy 10 different albums and then allow your friends to make copies say 10 friends then you are robbing the music industry of 90 sales. I have re read your post and you suggest making copies of the albums for your 9 friends. Listening to the material is great at friends houses thats what I used to do 20 years ago. I found out about a lot of music that way and bought many albums on that basis but your scenario is still wrong because the 10 artists loose out on the additional sales; because of copies. Sorry but that is still theft. If you made copies and your friends went and bought the albums fair enough, though the record label would still be unhappy but hopefully the sales would reduce their concern.

I am not saying that there should not be a fair use clause in the UK, I think that there should be but there isn't and thats that.

Regards D Louth 77

 

So it is.

 

The legality of format shifting and making backups is presently under review in the UK, with recommendations in the Gower review apparently finding favour with HMG. A link to the consultation and text of the Gower review is below. :bookworm:

http://www.ipo.gov.uk/about/about-c...rmal-current/consult-copyrightexceptions.htm

Key proposal:

• introducing a limited private copying exception, which will allow consumers
to format shift legitimately purchased content, for example music from a CD
to an MP3 player. This will allow consumers to use copyright protected
material in a manner which does not damage the interests of rights holders;

Hope this helps.