Yes there is. I mean, it’s called fair dealing, but the principle’s the same. Whether copying tracks from a CD to your iPod comes under the fair dealing provisions, on the other hand, is a matter about which I’ve never managed to find a clear answer…

Still, your point stands that, whatever the situation, these people clearly don’t have a clue what’s going on.

I own an iRiver MP3 player, basically a huge chunk of DRM free hard disk space. Everything on there (40GB) is ripped from my CD collection. So once the music industry dies, it was my fault. Sorry about that.

I do think the artists could be a little more vocal about this. Many of them - if asked - will say they’re not fans of the labels attitude and actions, but how many of them are pro-actively doing ANYTHING to support their fans?

Bah!

John Kennedy, IFPI:
Without DRM, the explosion in the availability of music via digital channels would not have been possible. The purpose of DRM is not to alienate music fans, it is actually to improve your access to music

What a wonderfully circular argument. We think DRM is necessary. We wouldn’t allow online legal sites without it. Legal sites make music available for download. Therefore DRM makes legal sites possible. Therefore DRM is necessary.

Gah!

Steve Knott, HMV:
I’m sure many, if not all, of us have taped a song from the radio or burnt a CD. But that’s fine - and it’s not an issue when people make small numbers of copies for their own use.

but the fair use defence may be useful in areas such as copying your CD to your Ipod - Ewan

Look at thre mixed messages here. There is no concept of Fair Use in UK law. When it says “No Unauthorised Copying” it means it. But apparently, fair use does exist in the real world. Mainly because there is no case law as nobody has ever been prosecuted for making copies for their own use. So Ewan, your point is moot in that nobody has ever had to use a defence for copying music to an iPod or for any other personal use copying. And here we have Steve Knott explicitly stating that it’s ok to copy for personal use.

This gets incredibly complicated in the context of downloading and the real lawsuits. What exactly is being charged? It’s always presented as “downloading” that is illegal but it’s actually not that which they are complaining about.
1) Downloading from where? It’s not at all clear what sources are acceptable and what are not. And what if I download from an “illegal” source, music I’ve already bought?
2) If it’s OK to have personal digital copies of music you’ve bought, how are you supposed to prove where they came from? In one of the suits in the USA, it was an acceptable defence to show that most of the music was also owned on CD. So do I have to keep records of every CD and legal download that goes though my house?
3) If it’s making those copies available to others, there should be a stupidity defence. It’s all to easy to share a directory containing copyright music without meaning to.
4) If it’s actual uploading then where is the proof of uploading? And what if the only proof is that the BPI (or whoever) uploaded a song. Isn’t that entrapment?

Extra costs! Pressing a button on a computer screen vs physically moving goods across a country in van charged up with overpriced petrol!

the last question was posed by Simon at No Rock And Roll Fun, he has a comeback on his blog…

http://xrrf.blogspot.com/2006/01/music-industry-responds.html

I’ve still got LPs at home with the «Home taping is killing music. And it’s illegal» slogan printed in the sleeve. They’re 20+ years old, and music doesn’t seem to be dead at all after all this time.

I’d rather say that, if anything, P2P networks will make it stronger in the end.