"UK Music has claimed that the reforms will cost musicians £58 million a year in lost revenues."
Just quoting but is there a provision for self-parody? If not will UK Music be suing itself?
Reforms to UK copyright rules that enable private copying, parodying and general quotation of copyrighted material to take place legally have come into force. The Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations and Copyright and Rights in Performances (Quotation and Parody) Regulations were …
Their website's very 1990s, but there's some telling stuff on there. The whole tone of it suggests that their view of the music business begins and ends with a record company's profit margins, but they still think that collecting backhanders is on a par with a musician's royalties. They probably spend all day insisting that their money-grubbing agenda is solely focused on rewarding artistic expression and then they deliberately kick the buskers in the tube station on the way home.
Their chief executive's bio is very telling indeed. Looks like a typical middle manager's over-inflated CV. If prostitution or drugs were made legal, she'd be quite at home heading up UK Shagging or UK Smack.
Some people have never heard of the idea that having a better product might lead to better sales.
In the 15 years before I started ripping CDs to play them through MP3 type players I might have averaged 1 or 2 CD purchase a year. Most years since then I've probably been closer to 100 since I suddenly had a format which meant it was sufficiently convenient to use the product. I don't mind paying for my music (and spoken word CDs), I don't see why musicians shouldn't be paid for the work they do. But I'll only buy something that I'm going to use. Make it usable and I'm in the market, stop it being usable or make me feel like I'm being ripped off and my money will stay in my pocket.
£58m lost because a few people are ripping their CDs or hell even from vinyl instead of paying yet again for the thing they already own to get it on MP3 or whatever?
I call BS.
What irritates me though is when certain artists fall for the crap that the industry spouts about loses and then start ranting about how copying is evil and denying them of a fair income. No, the industry is ripping you off, not the consumer! They give you a fraction of a penny for every CD/MP3/whatever sold and keep the rest themselves.
They need to decide if they sell a product or a licence. If a product then you should be free to do as you like with it once purchased. If a licence, then as a licence holder you should be able to purchase a replacement media or exchange format at (or reasonably close to) cost price.
In simple terms, if you want to force someone to purchase another copy for a format shift, then you are starting that they have purchased something physical rather than a licence.
The £58million has been derived by the usual method, "out the arse".
Probably some non-accounting, non-financial exec at that.
Sometimes, very very rarely, and only because its at some ludicrously low price, will I buy a digital copy of an album I already own on CD.
That said, I do like Amazons approach, if you buy the CD, you get a digital copy to play/download automatically. Even Apples iTunes Match is going some way towards common sense.
"EU laws allow countries that introduce a private copying exception into national laws to do so without an associated mechanism for compensating rights holders where only minimal harm to rights holders would arise as a result of private copying activities."
So, officially, our choices would be: Introduce a levy on blank media to counter the fact that transferring music from one medium to another may or may not happen. But we'll pay anyway.
Or require to buy a new copy of the same thing for each different type of media involved.
I think the new UK law has it about right. Home users can privately transfer between different types of media and UK Music can go screw itself. This is something we have all been doing for years. We copied our CDs into our phones and media players as a convenience to ourselves, not anybody else, and it's a bloody cheek expecting a person to pay again and again for something they have already legitimately purchased.
Law is catching up with reality, that is all.
Can you, for example, quote a whole book?
Off topic, but somehow related. How come audiobooks are available on YouTube? Obviously for me this is a good thing (I have recently really enjoyed Red Mars and am now on Childhood's End), but why don't they get pulled by Audible, etc?
"...Off topic, but somehow related. How come audiobooks are available on YouTube? Obviously for me this is a good thing (I have recently really enjoyed Red Mars and am now on Childhood's End), but why don't they get pulled by Audible, etc?..."
Well now you've gone and spoiled it for everyone...
Can you, for example, quote a whole book?
According to the article:
the extent of the quotation is no more than is required by the specific purpose for which it is used
I guess you could say "I am using the quotation to get around copyright law, so I need to quote the entire work", but I doubt that would stand up in court...
I had a video recording (made by a mobile) containing a few seconds of a movie playing on a RaspberryPi, without audio. It was "Rejected" and I didn't see any "Argue about Fair Use" link. So I don't really expect YouTube will change, either.
On the other hand, to correctly identify the clip from an off-centre and mosaic-y (screen focus issues) clip was rather impressive, though I wonder how many false positives it might trigger?
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019