I never understood the logic behind the argument that musicians should be entitled to any "compensation" if someone rips a legitimately purchased CD to MP3 for their own personal use.
It just doesn't stack up - no new data has been acquired, there is no improvement of quality, any improvement in convenience is solely due to the technology involved (and paid for) and no reasonable person can expect somebody to be able to listen simultaneously to both the CD and the MP3 - so only one copy is in use at any given time.
Where is the value added by the musician during the ripping process for which they must be compensated?
Meanwhile, if every media item were to be taxed to pay to the poor artists why should I pay them anything if all I burn on my DVDs is my family home videos?
I'm with the UK on this, not with the continent.