On 22/05/10 17:02, Vic wrote:
>
>> I can imagine that if person A offered copying music in A's possession
>> to others then that would be a commercial transaction and thus
>> prohibited. However if person B wishes to transcribe music in person
>> B's possession for B's personal use only, and uses A's service because
>> of its superior technology...
>>
> ...It's still prohibited.
>
> CDPA88 does *not* give you any right to do this, even for yourself; it is
> a breach of copyright, and that is an offence.
>
> Now no copyright owner is actually going to prosecute someone for
> format-shifting material they have bought for their own use - that would
> be PR suicide. Similarly, setting up Aunt Doris' new MP3 player just isn't
> going to trigger litigation - that would be daft, and everyone knows it.
> But that doesn't make it a *permitted* activity under the Act, just one
> that no-one can be bothered to prosecute.
>
> As soon as you start introducing money into the equation, everything
> changes. The law is much harsher, and the PR downsides are very much
> reduced (probably no downside - "we're opnly going after evil commercial
> pirates, not nice fluffy home users"). The probability of prosecution is
> related to the probability of detection. And as this is a *criminal*
> offence, a Police complaint could be made, and you could be arrested. Even
> the possibility of such an outcome makes the whole project too risky for
> my taste.
>
>
>> IANAL obviously, but it sounds like an interesting case.
>>
> Like I said, I wouldn't even consider doing this without proper legal
> advice. And, given that the law explicitly states that such copying is
> unlawful, I can't see any vaguely sober lawyer saying anything other than
> "don't do it".
Thanks again Vic, nice bit of research there.
I've already taken my new record deck out into the garden and smashed it
to tiny pieces to remove any temptation!
;-)
Sean
--
music, film, comics, books, rants and drivel:
www.funkygibbins.me.uk
