So with the recent High Court's ruling do all or my recent legal CD rips suddenly become illegal?
Rips now illegal?
- Thread starter Al ears
- Start date
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Effectively, yes. I doubt anyone will be pursuing you for it however, it appears that what the music industry actually wants is a levy to be placed on any media that can be used for copying (CD-Rs, USB sticks, HDDs, etc) that would then be paid to them to make up for the losses they believe they're incurring when someone like me rips a CD to their NAS in order to listen to it on their Sonos system (or phone). Evidentally this already happens in a couple of European countries.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
The_Lhc
Well-known member
As was said elsewhere, the court decision was about a month ago, the latest update is simply that the decision has been accepted by the government.
Native_bon
Well-known member
Surprise surprise, just another way to squeeze out more money.We may as well just call it communist state.David@FrankHarvey said:
The_Lhc said:
Pity the poor people that just use USB drives to cart documents around on then. They will be taxing my ton of black vinyl next. Cannot think of why anyone would make a law that's basically unenforceable. What's the point, they can't even stop people using mobiles when driving. A wholesale tax on recordable media, just in case you do RIP a CD to it cannot seriously justified.
Just shows how little the industry has progressed since the equally ridiculous "home taping is killing music" campaign from 30 years ago. If I go buy a CD but I want to play it on my mobile devices, what am I legally supposed to do? Buy the download as well (for often a higher price than the CD), even assuming a download is available in the first place? Yeah I'm full of tricks like that.
MajorFubar said:
Yep, it would appear the ever-overzealous music industry is whinging again.
Not content with charging over inflated prices for hires downloads, how the hell can they be the same as an LP without any packaging requirements?, the now want to tax what you choose to store it on. They are having a laff.
Absolutely no surprise their is so much illegal copying going on.
Frank Harvey
Well-known member
Unless it was his hi-res downloads of course...Al ears said:And we all know what Mr. Young thinks of streaming.
David@FrankHarvey said:Unless it was his hi-res downloads of course...Al ears said:And we all know what Mr. Young thinks of streaming.
They are two quite different things David.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Al ears said:David@FrankHarvey said:Unless it was his hi-res downloads of course...Al ears said:And we all know what Mr. Young thinks of streaming.
They are two quite different things David.
Not really, one's local and one's online but they are both correctly described as streaming.
tino
Well-known member
I understand the ruling is to be applied prospectively, so if you ripped your music between October last year and now ...which I'm sure we all did ;-) ...you were most likely acting lawfully ......
tino said:
Yes, the court had to consider whether to implement the repeal of the law retrospectively and in a rare example of common sense decided not to. As for the rest of the ruling, it's completely unenforceable IMHO. But hey, what do I know?
chebby
Well-known member
The_Lhc said:Al ears said:David@FrankHarvey said:Unless it was his hi-res downloads of course...Al ears said:And we all know what Mr. Young thinks of streaming.
They are two quite different things David.
Not really, one's local and one's online but they are both correctly described as streaming.
My understanding is that streamed music is to some sort of device that doesn't actually store it before playing whereas a hires download is just that and needs storage locally before playing . Surely streamed music is never actually stored anywhere on your system so you never actually own it.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Al ears said:The_Lhc said:Al ears said:David@FrankHarvey said:Unless it was his hi-res downloads of course...Al ears said:And we all know what Mr. Young thinks of streaming.
They are two quite different things David.
?
Not really, one's local and one's online but they are both correctly described as streaming.
My understanding is that streamed music is to some sort of device that doesn't actually store it before playing whereas a hires download is just that and needs storage locally before playing . Surely streamed music is never actually stored anywhere on your system so you never actually own it.
I store my music on a NAS and stream it via my Sonos, which doesn't store anything. The location of the storage is frankly irrelevant.
The_Lhc said:Al ears said:The_Lhc said:Al ears said:David@FrankHarvey said:Unless it was his hi-res downloads of course...Al ears said:And we all know what Mr. Young thinks of streaming.
They are two quite different things David.
Not really, one's local and one's online but they are both correctly described as streaming.
My understanding is that streamed music is to some sort of device that doesn't actually store it before playing whereas a hires download is just that and needs storage locally before playing . Surely streamed music is never actually stored anywhere on your system so you never actually own it.
I store my music on a NAS and stream it via my Sonos, which doesn't store anything. The location of the storage is frankly irrelevant.
That's my point, you store music therefore you hold that file on something you own. Streaming from some server over the internet is a different matter.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Andersοn said:Al ears said:The_Lhc said:Al ears said:The_Lhc said:Al ears said:David@FrankHarvey said:Unless it was his hi-res downloads of course...Al ears said:And we all know what Mr. Young thinks of streaming.
They are two quite different things David.
?
Not really, one's local and one's online but they are both correctly described as streaming.
My understanding is that streamed music is to some sort of device that doesn't actually store it before playing whereas a hires download is just that and needs storage locally before playing . Surely streamed music is never actually stored anywhere on your system so you never actually own it.
I store my music on a NAS and stream it via my Sonos, which doesn't store anything. The location of the storage is frankly irrelevant.
That's my point, you store music therefore you hold that file on something you own. Streaming from some server over the internet is a different matter.
It is and it isn't.
One you pay a recurring monthly fee and stream over a WAN. The other you pay up front for ownership and stream over a LAN.
Exactly, the only difference between wan and lan is distance, the protocols are the same.
By your logic Alears, if I upload my own music to Google Play am I streaming or not, it's coming over the internet but I still own the music. The distinction you're trying to make is false, the mechanism is streaming, whether or not you own or store the music yourself is irrelevant.
Native_bon
Well-known member
So if this becomes official is that the end of NAS DRIVES.. Oh dear.*nea* some many compaines have invested in this.*nea*
Native_bon said:
No it becomes no different to a year ago when it was still illegal. If you just pretend the last ten months or so haven't happened, that's basically it. It's been illegal for decades, all through the era of twin tape decks and hifi systems that synchro-recorded your CDs to tape. Think there's generally a little bit of over-reaction in this thread.
The_Lhc
Well-known member
Native_bon said:
Don't be so ridiculous, at worst there will be a few pence added to the cost of such devices. That's it.
chebby
Well-known member
The_Lhc said:
So after bulk buying them all yesterday (including a load of canned goods, a water purifier and a portable generator) you now tell me there was no need?
Similar threads
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram