Its still in need a hell of a lot of rethinking in my opinion.
If I buy a CD & gift that CD to a friend, who owns the copyright.
If I buy a CD & am now able to make a legal copy, then I gift that copy to a friend, whats the difference.
There are more twists turns and what-ifs than fleas on a dog,
I don’t really want to get any further into this because, as Simon says, there is complexity around the detail. However, I don’t think there is any ambiguity about the case you cite. Once you give a CD away you also transfer the right to copy it for private use. This is why once you you copy or archive your CDs you cannot give them away and still retain the right to keep a copy, legally speaking. In other words your right to hold a legal copy resides in your legal ownership of the original.
You typically dont own the copyright with a CD, Vinyl or download file - that resides with the copyright owner - typically the author or artiste. You own the media that work comes on - that is your property - so if you gift that media to somebody - they then own the media and can play the work on it - but they never own the copyright,
And if you have a CD and copy it and sell that CD - you have sold your right to access that content via that medium and any personal copy derived from it.
So that bit is fairly clear to me - its the access to format shifted content in a family or household which is not clear to me.
1 Like
Yes I misused the copyright word meaning, but you get the point ……
I was going to expand into other scenario’s such as family vs friends, but like I said it’s got more fleas than ……
However just one more …… is a spouse included in the legal ownership of a recording, can I make copy for that spouse to use on their own (owned) equipment.
The obvious answer is who cares as no one is going to police it.
Surely the law was aimed at people copying CDs, dvds and computer games, then selling them.
The police used to stop this happening, but I doubt there is a need these days.
I dont see how - a spouse is a family member - and it specifically states you can’t create copies for family members - but I couldn’t see whether family members can access your copies - to be honest only looked at this in a cursory manner at the moment
S
it would appear this new advice is aimed at those who - as per the document’s introduction:
• read books, watch films or listen to music;
• use electronic devices such as smartphones, tablets, eReaders, MP3
players and computers;
• blog, put videos on websites like YouTube, or share pictures and
content with your friends.
Sort of nonsensical. Spouses generally share the same home. Young children as well. Does that mean the family member can listen to the CD, but not the rip?
Hence my query about family members sharing the same address as the applicant or owner of the medium. Such people/family members are treated in specific way in some scenarios (TV Licence or even Netflix account for example) - but not sure about this one.
Streaming with Qobuz sounds great, high res etc. etc, but my Melco sounds even better (i don’t know why….) . So if i like a record very much, I buy it from Qobuz and put it on the Melco, simply sounds better…….Last buy: Orange from Caroline Shaw, so beautiful……
I think this has been discussed several times now on different threads why this can be the case… the content is likely different. No real mystery or magic.
Thank you Simon, I believe you…….
Wouldn’t spouses automatically own property in common? In case of death duties and divorce the contents of a shared marital home are regarded as jointly owned. There is a legal difference between marriage/civil partnership and shared occupation of a property even in a familial relationship. As far as family is concerned then I would guess that it would depend whether children are minors or not. In other words legal guardians/parents provide resources to dependent children. As you say, it is not entirely clear and the wording doesn’t clarify anything about households, which might be expected. I suspect a further revision will eventually be forthcoming that takes more account of mass storage devices in the household or on the cloud. Anyhow I doubt very much that we are going to see this tested in the courts!
There’s been some great advice from everyone and some important points raised:
Hard Drive: I have indeed bought some downloads from Bandcamp that are not otherwise available so I will be retaining the NAS, at least for the time being.
Backup Strategy: I back up my NAS every week to an external HDD. One of the hard drives within the NAS failed early on. A backup strategy is indeed essential.
SQ: there seems to be mixed views on this. I have read about technical differences but it’s an area that I don’t fully understand. However, I’m now in my mid 60s and my hearing is definitely not what it was. Too much time spent going to gigs, listening to music on earphones and my guitar amp turned up to 11! Also, I have mild tinnitus. My wife reckons that I need to have my hearing retested (last done about 15 years ago and it was evident that there was some loss at the polar ends of the frequencies!). Unfortunately, a little vanity on my part worries me about wearing hearing aids albeit I have some friends whose devices are very small and discrete.
Copyright: whilst a consideration and not wishing to ignore the helpful points mentioned, it’s difficult to imagine how it could be policed. And it’s fair to say some of us may have accumulated a substantial number of “live recordings and outtakes” which might be a bigger issue.
So the NAS drive is certainly here to stay (unless it fails); I will do some comparative listening between the NAS and Tidal to determine if I can detect and SQ differences, and I think the CD collection will, at least, be slimmed down.
A locally ripped cd collections will be of infinite advantage in the event of a broadband outage 
ATB, J
3 Likes
Or perhaps we might say that at present the technology needed to enforce it is not commonly available or readily scalable at an economic cost, and there is currently no political will to police or enforce.
What may happen in the future is anybody’s guess.
Think you will find this was overturned by the High Court.
It reverted the law back to home backups being illegal again.
Unenforceable I agree.
1 Like
Sadly that change, which was back in 2014, was overruled by the high court in 2015 so a copy is still not permitted, even if it’s just for personal use on different devices. Technically that means that if you buy a Core, for example, and rip your CDs on it without the permission of the rights holder, you have broken the law. The recording industry has been trying to restrict such practices for years - remember those LP covers that had something like ‘home taping is killing music’ printed on them?
In practice I’m not aware of any successful, or even attempted prosecutions of private individuals for copying CDs for personal use. The situation might be further complicated if you had a streaming subscription too, as that gives you the right to access the same material, albeit not on the same media.
Ultimately I think the problem is simply one of inadequate legislation.
1 Like
This was covered earlier.
Well, I must apologise for spreading false information about rights. It’s very strange though that those documents are still on the government website.
1 Like