UK law set to change to allow format shifting...on CDs and DVDs

[sourcejedi]

*giggle*. AIUI the logic was that CDs would have to be more expensive to make up for lost MP3 sales. Either argument is incredibly badly stated - the vast majority of CDs would already be covered by the BPI's promise not to sue. That's modern news reporting for you .

[Solicitous]

Originally Posted by Mike L

There's no mention of ebooks in the BBC story you quoted, but the Hargreaves Review covers all aspects of copyright law. It's highly unlikely that the proposed changes will only apply to CDs, DVDs, etc.

Hmm I'm still a little uncertain that ebooks would ever get mentioned in this law. In Australia we have had the right to format shift for some time now (though copyright circumvention is illegal - go figure), and fairly clearly to be allowed to format shift you must own the original copy, and own a device capable of shifting the format to play on, but you can only format shift to one format, not several ie: if you have an ipod and say a zune, you can't as my understanding of the law format shift to one format for your ipod and another for the zune.

The reason I feel ebooks wont get mentioned is the fact that ebooks are licensed (well from majority of the big sellers, some you would own such as Baen or Smashwords), not purchased and owned (hence no first sale doctrine). I'm feeling format shifting ebooks is like renting a DVD, you are not allowed to format shift.

Don't get me wrong, I would like to think that one day we as consumers have the free right to purchase an ebook and convert it to be able to read it on our ereader which isn't supported by the original format or seller.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Solicitous

Hmm I'm still a little uncertain that ebooks would ever get mentioned in this law.

I didn't suggest the law itself would specifically mention ebooks - or any other medium. It's much more likely that it will be phrased in general terms, to cover "consumer digital products" or something equally generic. The aim would be to cover both current products and any new media that comes along.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I didn't suggest the law itself would specifically mention ebooks - or any other medium. It's much more likely that it will be phrased in general terms, to cover "consumer digital products" or something equally generic. The aim would be to cover both current products and any new media that comes along.

That's generally the way that these things work. Eg, the reason we pay VAT on eBooks is the broad wording of the EU's "e-commerce VAT directive", which states that VAT is payable on all digital downloads. It was originally put in place to cover music downloads; eBooks got caught up in it accidentally.

[carpetmojo]

I'm just a little confused here - how many years has , for example, Windows Media Player had the terms, and functions, "rip", "burn" and "sync" in plain view - and how to perform all these explained in relatively clear detail in the official instructions ?

And Microsoft would never break any law, would they.........

Oh, I get it, of course, no-one was supposed to use them until this law change.............

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by carpetmojo

Windows Media Player had the terms, and functions, "rip", "burn" and "sync" in plain view - and how to perform all these explained in relatively clear detail in the official instructions ?

Perhaps because in many countries (including the US), format shifting for personal use is not illegal?

[CleverClothe]

The comment in the report about relaxing restrictions on parody is interesting. What restrictions would they be referring to?

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by CleverClothe

The comment in the report about relaxing restrictions on parody is interesting. What restrictions would they be referring to?

Under US copyright law, in certain cases parody qualifies as "fair use" and is thus non-infringing. I don't think that this is the case under copyright law in the UK.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Under US copyright law, in certain cases parody qualifies as "fair use" and is thus non-infringing. I don't think that this is the case under copyright law in the UK.

Yes, that's correct.

[khalleron]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

Under US copyright law, in certain cases parody qualifies as "fair use" and is thus non-infringing. I don't think that this is the case under copyright law in the UK.

Perhaps that's why Weird Al Yankovic always goes to the trouble of obtaining permission to parody an artist's work - he doesn't have to in order to release a song over here, but he wouldn't be able to release it in the UK.

Or else he's just a decent guy.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by khalleron

Perhaps that's why Weird Al Yankovic always goes to the trouble of obtaining permission to parody an artist's work - he doesn't have to in order to release a song over here, but he wouldn't be able to release it in the UK.

Or else he's just a decent guy.

I think he probably is a decent guy.

But not all parodies are non-infringing - according to the cases, the parody has to be "commenting" on the original artist's work. A good example of this is "The Wind Done Gone," a re-writing of "Gone with the Wind" from the point of view of Scarlett's slaves - the new work "comments" on the old by showing how they had completely different motives and opinions than she did, and how they saw the events in the story from a completely different perspective than she did. It is probably not the case that "Like a Surgeon" is making the same sort of comment on "Like a Virgin" as "The Wind Done Gone" is on "Gone with the Wind."