Following recommendations made in an independent report by Professor Ian Hargreaves in 2011, the UK Government introduced several changes to copyright law, covering fair dealing for accessible formats for the disabled, research and education, public administration, parody, and personal copies for private use. The regulations permitting personal copies of legally purchased music to be made for private use under exceptions to the copyright law came into force on October 1, 2014, having been passed as one of two delayed statutory instruments on July 29, 2014. The reform has since attracted strong resistance from the UK music industry.<\/p>\n
The Intellectual Property Office released eight guides explaining the changes in plain terms. The guide for consumers explains that the changes:<\/p>\n
“allow you to make personal copies of media (ebooks, digital music or video files etc, excluding computer programs) you have bought, for private purposes such as format shifting or backup”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
on any device, including online cloud storage that the consumer owns personally. The guide further states that it remains:<\/p>\n
“illegal to make copies for friends or family”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
and that electronic media used for distribution, such as DVDs and e-books:<\/p>\n
“can still be protected by technology which physically prevents copying and circumvention of such technology remains illegal.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Judicial Review Application by the Music Industry<\/h2>\n
The Musicians’ Union, the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors (BASCA), and UK Music jointly filed an application for judicial review of the regulation. One ground advanced was that the legislation could not introduce such an exception without providing for fair compensation to rights-holders, as required under Section 35 of the EU Copyright Directive. The compensation sought could take the form of a state subsidy or a levy on the sale of electronic devices such as MP3 players and iPods.<\/p>\n
Vick Bain, Chief Executive of BASCA, stated:<\/p>\n
“We have sought judicial review because of the way the government made its decision not to protect the UK’s creative industries \u2013 in stark contrast to other countries that have introduced copyright exceptions. We fully support the right of the consumer to copy legally bought music for their own personal and private use, but there must be fair compensation for the creators of the music.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Government Position and EU Directive Context<\/h2>\n
The EU Copyright Directive on which the music industry relied itself provides that:<\/p>\n
“In certain situations where the prejudice to the rightholder would be minimal, no obligation for payment may arise.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Government, in its report titled Modernising Copyright<\/em>, addressed this concern, stating:<\/p>\n
“In view of the minimal impact on sales expected to arise from introduction of this permitted act, and the opportunity that it provides for the value of private copying to be priced in at the point of sale, the Government believes it will cause minimal, if any, harm to rights holders.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Mike Weatherley, former adviser on intellectual property to David Cameron, told the Financial Times<\/em>:<\/p>\n
“The UK’s private copying exception is defined in a much narrower and more restrictive way than similar exceptions found elsewhere in Europe. In some European countries, the exception allows people to share their music with many family members and friends.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The Judiciary’s opinion on the matter remained to be seen at the time of writing.<\/p>\n
Disclaimer: This article is for general information and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult a qualified attorney before acting on any matter discussed here.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The UK\u2019s new copyright regulation enables personal copying of legally bought music, but the music industry is challenging it over compensation concerns. The regulation\u2019s compliance with EU law and its impact on rights holders remain under judicial review.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":27,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,6,22,7],"tags":[6969,3697,6972,6974,6973,6970,6971],"class_list":["post-17185","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-copyrights","category-intellectual-property","category-ip-commercialization-licensing","category-media-and-entertainment-law","tag-copyright-regulation","tag-eu-copyright-directive","tag-fair-compensation","tag-legal-exceptions","tag-music-copyright-law","tag-private-copying","tag-uk-music-industry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17185","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=17185"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17185\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":149687,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/17185\/revisions\/149687"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=17185"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=17185"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=17185"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}