back to article EU court: phone makers not liable for users' copyright badness

The European Court of Justice has said that companies providing technology that can make copies of music or films, such as a modern smartphone, don’t need to pay compensation to copyright-holders so long as the economic damage is “minimal”. Both sides in the current UK dispute between the government and parts of the UK music …

  1. Lusty

    Muddy waters

    Could they make this any more complex? There appears to be no clarification of what they are trying to achieve to me.

    My mobile phone makes personal copies of my music for me to listen to when I'm not at my computer - this is what I consider a copy for personal use and as far as I was aware digital music includes this in the terms so no further payment is necessary.

    Tapes and CDs used to include a payment for the industry because they were used for piracy before the Internet. This had nothing to do with personal use and everything to do with copying for a mate while still compensating the artist.

    If this stuff continues, we need to be absolutely crystal clear about what we are buying. If I'm buying the rights to the track or the movie for my own use then you can't charge me twice by taking a payment for my phone and my memory cards. If I'm buying one copy of the track then fair enough, but if I'm buying one copy of the track and need to pay for every copy I make then a levy on memory cards may be in order. If they are trying to stop piracy then for the love of god just give up, it nearly killed the industry last time, which has since recovered despite the removal of DRM. Shocker, people actually want to compensate their favourite artists.

  2. JetSetJim
    Facepalm

    Economic damage of home taping..

    "UK Music commissioned an authoritative economic report that the damage and potential damage of an uncompensated private copying exception is quite significant"

    Is that "UK music commissioned a report to justify saying that the (potential) damage was quite significant", or a properly independent report operating with no constraints/assumptions and the ability to examine both sides of the argument in full detail?

    When the BPI did the original "hope taping" campaign in the 80s, I'm sure they'd have had similar reports on hand, and look how they panned out...

  3. heyrick Silver badge

    whether it should be applicable at all to phones, whose primary purpose is not playing music

    Doesn't that depend upon each person? Mine spends a lot of time in airplane mode via WiFi; it's like a small tablet with the ability to be a phone once in a while. I listen to music on my phone for a lot longer than I talk on it.

    That said, isn't holding the manufacturer liable for what the end user does a bit like saying that vehicular homicide is Ford's fault?

    1. Lars Silver badge
      WTF?

      Re: whether it should be applicable at all to phones, whose primary purpose is not playing music

      I agree, the simple fact is that the music industry, the ones who claim they represent it, are greedy as hell and they have the money for lobbying. It has gone too far long ago. Perhaps the Authors Guild should now claim money from paper mills as it's possible to enter a library and copy a sentence or even several on a piece of paper.

  4. NumptyScrub

    Commissioned reports

    UK Music commissioned an authoritative economic report that the damage and potential damage of an uncompensated private copying exception is quite significant.

    Whereas I commissioned a report that the damage and potential damage of an uncompensated private copying exception is practically insignificant. Where do I get it stamped as "authoritative"? Does it need to be laser printed, or will the original crayon suffice? This is important.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Commissioned reports

      "Does it need to be laser printed, or will the original crayon suffice?"

      Best. Comment. EVER.

  5. Mr Anonymous

    Copying

    Last time I looked, the ability to copy music has been available to the masses since the reel to reel recorders in the 50's, cameras have been around for a century, printing for over 5. There seems to be no shortage of "new" music, imagery and print available from numerous sources.

    Technology moves on endlessly, some people are losers and others gain from each "next greatest thing", get over it.

    Plenty of people have zero hours contracts or are on minimum wages, I don't see why those who make music, images or text should get preferential treatment.

    1. Charlie Clark Silver badge

      Re: Copying

      They used (and may still be) a levy on recording media. In Germany it applied to blank CDs as well as tapes and also photocopying. I think they may have extended it to SD cards. It never applied to devices. The music royalty collection agencies are usually swimming money so why should they care about the artists?

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You'd think films costing £100 million or so would not be possible if the media industry was struggling.

    Yet films seem to cost more and more.

    1. Lee D Silver badge

      Pity, however, that the actual art vs cost value of them is diminishing rapidly.

      I don't get the copyright extensions, the "Disney" laws, etc. at all. The only explanation is lobbying and pandering to the industry.

      Working in schools has shown me some light, however. If anything, we are teaching children to grow up in a world where content-sharing is the norm and anything and everything is available for download for free. I can't think of a better justice for all the years of copyright heaviness than an entire generation of people who are STILL surprised that you are supposed to pay for using a font, for example, even if you can download it for free.

      Copy-and-paste from Google to Word for use on a poster is seen as the norm, now, for images and text. Nobody bothers to police it in schools any more because it's just become ordinary.

      Go into any school, look at the displays. If you don't spot a copyright violation (maybe you could claim fair-use or educational-use for some things but I bet the copyright holders would disagree if you were to ask!) in five minutes, I'll be amazed.

      Hell, have you SEEN what it costs to comply with some of the licence requirements for putting on a simple school play from a known text? Time, effort and money.

    2. fearnothing

      That's more to do with the fact that the movie industry pays for a bunch of people to sit around and reject all the ideas that aren't likely to make money hand over fist. Yes, the budget for the big movies is snowballing, but the diversity is snowball-in-hell-ing.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Eventially...

    ...the UK will need to clarify it's position as making a copy for personal use is so broad that any criminal can use it "for illegal personal revenue".

    1. Tom 7

      Re: Eventially...

      Memory (or do I mean arse) wipes.

    2. F0rdPrefect

      Re: Eventially...

      The UK position IS clear.

      Make a copy of a CD to play in the car, no trouble.

      Make a copy of a CD (or almost anything else) and try to sell it and you are a criminal and will get confiscations, fines and prison if a persistent offender.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like