Regular readers will know that Geeklawyer is an irritable sort of cuss. And it has always niggled him that while our friends across the pond can buy a CD and then rip it to play on their MP3 player or their iPod we in dear old blightly cannot.
We don't suffer alone: other common law countries like New Zealand South Africa and Australia also prevent so called format shifting. Format shifting is analogous to time-shifting for video recordings; that is, using a video recorder to record and view TV programs at a later time or date than they were transmitted and which is lawful in the UK. This was permitted as a concession to convenience: many people could not be at their TVs when a program was transmitted and the broadcasters suffered no ill effects from this right. The right hasn't been the subject of significant controversy or case law which rather suggests that neither side is adversely affected.
Format shifting is unlawful in the UK: if you rip a CD to mp3 or a DVD to DivX then you are liable to an accusation of copyright infringement. This is despite the fact the the European Union Copyright Directive permits countries to allow such personal copying. There is no disadvantage to the consumer nor to the rights holder by permitting such copying: the primary concern seems to be that it will encourage illegal file sharing. Indeed a civil servant at the Copyright Directorate explicitly told Geeklawyer that it wouldn't even be considered for that reason. A charming vote of faith in the honesty in the populace.
The only people who do benefit are hardware manufacturers like Apple who use the veneer of copyright protection to embed a near monopoly in their iPod players, and Microsoft who propagate their WMV file format in the hope of locking users into Microsoft Windows hell.
The argument about whether p2p file sharing damages or assists copyright holders is for another time. But in this context it is good to see the Australians changing the law to permit format conversion: though they have still to go the full way by permitting DVDs to be format shifted. They are also explicitly permitting the use of copyright material for satire: something that used to be allowed in the UK but which, regrettably, evaporated under the lens of unfortunate case law.
Very interesting!!
I've just had an idea that may offer an alternate solution, stemming from the practice of purchasing music online from the iTunes Music Store. Here digital rights management technology is embedded in the downloaded music file.
Why don't record companies provide DRM versions of tracks on the cd, in addition to the standard audio version? Thus users wouldn't have to rip the track illegally, thereby avoiding copyright infringement. Their purchased music would already be in a secondary protected format, allowing users to legally utilise their music in their MP3 player.
Obviously there would be problems in choosing which protected format to provide; Window's protected WMA files, Apple's protected AAC or other. Choosing either would tie users into using the proprietary software of these companies (ie: Windows Media Player or iTunes), which is hardly ideal.
But what do you think Geeklawyer, is there any food for thought in this suggestion?
As an aside, Apple actively encourage users to backup their music and appear to have no restriction on the number of copies that can be made of a single file:
"Songs purchased on the iTunes Music Store can be copied to an unlimited number of computers. However, only five computers at a time can play your purchased music." (http://www.apple.com/uk/support/itunes/musicstore/authorization/)
None of the mainstream music labels or film studios would do that: they fear p2p and uncontrolled sharing too much.Their faith is in the sterile idea of DRM in a format that would allow format shifting but while retaining control of their product.