European Court Strikes Down Law Allowing Users to Rip Their Own CDs(eff.org)
eff.org
European Court Strikes Down Law Allowing Users to Rip Their Own CDs
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/06/european-copyright-madness-court-strikes-down-law-allowing-users-rip-their-own-cds
75 comments
The BipCot NoGov license [0] might provide a template, replacing "government" with "[leaders of] media organizations" (or whatever), as applicable.
But if you're looking for something with teeth, this probably won't meet your needs -- as they say, "It is not copyright-based, it is entirely shame-based."
[0] http://bipcot.org
But if you're looking for something with teeth, this probably won't meet your needs -- as they say, "It is not copyright-based, it is entirely shame-based."
[0] http://bipcot.org
European Copyright legislative is an inconsistent mess.
Right now, in Austria, the government is up to demand 6% of the price of any digital storage device, to compensate copyright holders when the legit consumers of their work execute their right to make a private copy.
So the European Court apparently just has settled that in one country of the EU, consumers do not have the right to make private copies, while in others consumers just got a new tax to do so. AFAIK the Austrian model follows German legislative.
What a mess.
Right now, in Austria, the government is up to demand 6% of the price of any digital storage device, to compensate copyright holders when the legit consumers of their work execute their right to make a private copy.
So the European Court apparently just has settled that in one country of the EU, consumers do not have the right to make private copies, while in others consumers just got a new tax to do so. AFAIK the Austrian model follows German legislative.
What a mess.
From the linked text.
The government's choices are now to remove the private copying exception—making personal copying illegal again, or to supply additional evidence that copyright owners suffer no or minimal “harm” from personal copying, or else to begin imposing a new tax on users to compensate the industry for that “harm”.
Which sounds to me like UK has the option to start collecting a similar surcharge to compensate for the right to make private copies of works. They are not required to ban private copying completely.
The government's choices are now to remove the private copying exception—making personal copying illegal again, or to supply additional evidence that copyright owners suffer no or minimal “harm” from personal copying, or else to begin imposing a new tax on users to compensate the industry for that “harm”.
Which sounds to me like UK has the option to start collecting a similar surcharge to compensate for the right to make private copies of works. They are not required to ban private copying completely.
Thanks, I read the article but this sentence must have slipped my attention. I really would like to see them to supply evidence that copyright owners suffer no or minimal harm from personal copying but guess they won't even bother attempting.
Well, the levy is the least of their problems
In Germany there's the issue of GEMA and the draconian policies. Also users of bittorrent are fined liberally
In Germany there's the issue of GEMA and the draconian policies. Also users of bittorrent are fined liberally
Same in France, except that it is so high that CDs are ~10x the price of the ones in Germany (literally) so everyone is buying their CDs in Germany instead (or any other country, even the UK has cheaper CDs). Copy related taxes per country in europe: http://static.pcinpact.com/images/bd/news/120599.png (In French but easily understandable)
Is that blank recordable CDs or actual music CDs?
It's blank CDs and DVDs only, on this chart the tax is 35ct per CD and 1€ per DVD which seems about right.
[deleted]
The article is about a decision of the UK High Court, not the European Court of Justice, so it only applies to the UK.
Yeah, I am also not happy with the choice of words here. The reason for it seems to be that, while the court in question is national, the legislation which it cites as the base for its decision is European.
In Portugal a similar law will start to be applied from July on. Most storage devices will see an increase in the price so that "copyright holders" can be paid, when what you just want is to store your own photos. ridiculous.
Seizing on the opportunity to use this supranational directive to overturn a democratically-enacted law
The directive exists pursuant to action of the European Parliament* which is also a democratic institution, as someone with Jeremy Malcolm's outstanding education is surely aware.
* http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...
I'm not expressing an opinion on the merits of European copyright law; I'm not familiar with this case or the details of EU regulations, and I'm not suggesting the EFF is wrong to oppose this provision of EU law. I just get irritated as a citizen of the EU when people dismiss anything that comes out of Brussels as 'undemocractic'. Why does the EFF keep pandering to lowest common denominator like this? If I want xenophobic arguments I'll buy a tabloid newspaper.
The directive exists pursuant to action of the European Parliament* which is also a democratic institution, as someone with Jeremy Malcolm's outstanding education is surely aware.
* http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:...
I'm not expressing an opinion on the merits of European copyright law; I'm not familiar with this case or the details of EU regulations, and I'm not suggesting the EFF is wrong to oppose this provision of EU law. I just get irritated as a citizen of the EU when people dismiss anything that comes out of Brussels as 'undemocractic'. Why does the EFF keep pandering to lowest common denominator like this? If I want xenophobic arguments I'll buy a tabloid newspaper.
Well, I'm from Europe and I don't like most of the things that come out of Brussels. In fact, when polls are made it would seem majority share my view. Maybe then 'undemocratic' is not such a bad name for it?
It's tons of bureaucracy with very little democracy.
It's tons of bureaucracy with very little democracy.
I think the majority don't have a clue what laws come out of the EU versus their own parliament.
The EU has about 33 thousand employees, this is hardly tons of bureaucracy, just UK local government has 2.3 million employees.
The EU has about 33 thousand employees, this is hardly tons of bureaucracy, just UK local government has 2.3 million employees.
The EU Commission is regularly abused by any plurality of national governments to push for Europe-wide legislation that those governments want, but would not be able to enact nationally without significant voter backlash. So, they use European law as an excuse to say "See, we also do not want this, but we are forced to do so!". Same process as happens with international treaties like TPP or TTIP, which when signed would force numerous unpalatable changes to national laws.
Ed: And there's much of the reason for the bad rep of the EU inside of the EU. The rest (mostly in the UK) is due to Murdoch's personal interests, obviously.
Ed: And there's much of the reason for the bad rep of the EU inside of the EU. The rest (mostly in the UK) is due to Murdoch's personal interests, obviously.
A lot of local government are not strictly bureaucrats but are people providing services.
Bureaucracy services, mostly.
Teaching? Libraries? Rubbish collection? Street cleaning? Public health? Social care; adult social services, child protection social services?
Most of that isn't what people think when they hear bureaucracy.
Most of that isn't what people think when they hear bureaucracy.
Do you even know most things that come out of Brussels? Your sentiment is shared by many people all over the world with regard to their own national governments as well. That doesn't make all these countries undemocratic.
A recent poll in the US shows that 65% of likely U.S voters think that their country is going in the wrong direction (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood...). And that doesn't even speak of the almost 50% of people who don't vote.
What is special about the EU is that national politicians and tabloid media love to use it as a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with our modern globalised world. That is especially true for the UK.
A recent poll in the US shows that 65% of likely U.S voters think that their country is going in the wrong direction (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood...). And that doesn't even speak of the almost 50% of people who don't vote.
What is special about the EU is that national politicians and tabloid media love to use it as a scapegoat for everything that is wrong with our modern globalised world. That is especially true for the UK.
> That doesn't make all these countries undemocratic.
A few examples do show a blatant lack of democracy, though. In France, we had a referendum regarding the new European constitution. We refused it at 60% (not counting abstention, which by the way was relatively low). Then a dozen months later, the same constitution came back (sections were shuffled around, but it was mostly a copy-paste job). No referendum this time. It was submitted to the parliament instead. They said yes, despite indisputable evidence that the people did not want this. This is as undemocratic as it gets.
Elections don't make a country democratic. We need much stronger guarantees.
A few examples do show a blatant lack of democracy, though. In France, we had a referendum regarding the new European constitution. We refused it at 60% (not counting abstention, which by the way was relatively low). Then a dozen months later, the same constitution came back (sections were shuffled around, but it was mostly a copy-paste job). No referendum this time. It was submitted to the parliament instead. They said yes, despite indisputable evidence that the people did not want this. This is as undemocratic as it gets.
Elections don't make a country democratic. We need much stronger guarantees.
It was not undemocratic. Your parliament was democratically elected. It had a mandate to do things like ratifying new European treaties.
The problem was holding the referendum in the first place. Direct democracy does not work because it's a recipe for paralysis.
The problem was holding the referendum in the first place. Direct democracy does not work because it's a recipe for paralysis.
Democracy is supposed to be the power of the people. By definition. Moreover, most lay people will understand it that way.
When the government makes a decision that contradicts the will of the people, it is not democratic. Period. If the people really held the power, that decision wouldn't have been made in the first place.
The way the government was appointed doesn't matter, once you know of its actual decisions. Being democratically elected doesn't magically make all of your decisions democratic! Even if you stick to lawful decisions, I might add. Besides, there are a lot of ways for elected officials to have different interests than the general population.
---
That said, "democratic" does not mean "good". It is quite possible (though unlikely in my personal opinion) that the will of the people was wrong, and that European treaty was a good thing. In which case it was a good thing to go against the will of the people.
Serious. I'm not saying this particular decision was bad. I'm just saying it was undemocratic.
---
One last thing: you say our "democratically elected" parliament had, among other things, a mandate to ratifying European treaties. Only problem was, the entire political class wanted this particular treaty to happen. Very few thought otherwise. And those had other opinions about other subjects that often made them a big no-no for most people (extreme right and extreme left, mostly).
We did not have much choice when we elected our officials. It was like, this guy who wanted the treaty to happen, and that gal who also wanted the treaty to happen, and maybe that crazy fellow who did not want this, but had also a couple insane ideas we did not endorse.
When the government makes a decision that contradicts the will of the people, it is not democratic. Period. If the people really held the power, that decision wouldn't have been made in the first place.
The way the government was appointed doesn't matter, once you know of its actual decisions. Being democratically elected doesn't magically make all of your decisions democratic! Even if you stick to lawful decisions, I might add. Besides, there are a lot of ways for elected officials to have different interests than the general population.
---
That said, "democratic" does not mean "good". It is quite possible (though unlikely in my personal opinion) that the will of the people was wrong, and that European treaty was a good thing. In which case it was a good thing to go against the will of the people.
Serious. I'm not saying this particular decision was bad. I'm just saying it was undemocratic.
---
One last thing: you say our "democratically elected" parliament had, among other things, a mandate to ratifying European treaties. Only problem was, the entire political class wanted this particular treaty to happen. Very few thought otherwise. And those had other opinions about other subjects that often made them a big no-no for most people (extreme right and extreme left, mostly).
We did not have much choice when we elected our officials. It was like, this guy who wanted the treaty to happen, and that gal who also wanted the treaty to happen, and maybe that crazy fellow who did not want this, but had also a couple insane ideas we did not endorse.
Doesn't it? Did you check Switzerland?
Switzerland is ten times smaller than France, and in general the people who live there are far better off (GDP per capita is doubled between France and Switzerland ($90,000 vs $45,000)).
It's much easier to form a consensus when your constituents are all affluent. It's much easier to govern a small country than a big one.
Switzerland clearly works moderately well, but the barrier for success was far lower than for France.
It's much easier to form a consensus when your constituents are all affluent. It's much easier to govern a small country than a big one.
Switzerland clearly works moderately well, but the barrier for success was far lower than for France.
> It's much easier to govern a small country than a big one.
Then what about making small countries? We could then federate the result. Let the small regions take care of what can be handled locally, and let the federation take care about the big stuff (army, foreign policy…).
Then what about making small countries? We could then federate the result. Let the small regions take care of what can be handled locally, and let the federation take care about the big stuff (army, foreign policy…).
You are misinformed, according to the regularly performed Eurobarometer polls (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/eb/eb82/eb82_en....), there is not a single poll since 2006 where more people had a negative view than a positive view of the EU.
It's possible to have different views of the EU and on Brussels. While on balance I put myself on pro-EU side of scales it doesn't mean I have positive view of the way the European Parliament is currently run.
Don't forget that politicians of every country tend to take the credit when the EU does something popular while they're quick to blame Brussels when poorly-received reforms are made.
Not to say that everything's great in europe's current state of affair but be careful not to be too influenced by political propaganda. Remember that the political direction of the union is set by the council which comprises the various head of states of the union. It's not like the parliament is this rogue extranational body that unilaterally dictates its will to the members of the EU.
Not to say that everything's great in europe's current state of affair but be careful not to be too influenced by political propaganda. Remember that the political direction of the union is set by the council which comprises the various head of states of the union. It's not like the parliament is this rogue extranational body that unilaterally dictates its will to the members of the EU.
[deleted]
"xenophobic"? Is that really the word you're going to use here? Bit ridiculous.
Is it not accurate? Portraying the democratically elected EU as 'undemocratic' because it is in contrast to a national government suggest to me that the source of the misrepresentation is due to them not being English (in this case).
That, and a very long track record of such sentiments being aired by those who are more transparently xenophobic. I don't see how it is ridiculous.
That, and a very long track record of such sentiments being aired by those who are more transparently xenophobic. I don't see how it is ridiculous.
The facts of the given case notwithstanding, a lot of what happens on the EU level is quite undemocratic, IMHO. The reason being, that most of the power in EU institutions still lies with the Commission, not with Parliament. Commissioners are appointed by the national Governments, and not elected, and so twice-removed from all democratic processes.
[deleted](1)
The European Parliament is pretty f-ing far from a democratic institution.
Just because it has an election attached to it (for which the turn out is so ridiculously low they might as well not bother) doesn't make it a democratic institution.
Any power the EP has or doesn't have (mostly the latter) didn't come about through democratic process.
Imposing a faux parliament on people, especially one that operates without the context of a democratic government, doesn't make it a democratic institution. Never mind the fact that so many of these parliament members are the deeply corrupt representatives of corrupt countries.
And the people know this, hence the fact that the majority of the people of Europe now boycots these elections. Especially in countries that have a decently functioning democracy themselves.
Everything that comes out of Brussels is undemocratic, unless it pertains to the sovereign nation of Belgium.
Also, can we keep it civilized? If you don't call all opponents to your EU dreams "xenophobic", I won't call you a "eurofascist", agreed?
Just because it has an election attached to it (for which the turn out is so ridiculously low they might as well not bother) doesn't make it a democratic institution.
Any power the EP has or doesn't have (mostly the latter) didn't come about through democratic process.
Imposing a faux parliament on people, especially one that operates without the context of a democratic government, doesn't make it a democratic institution. Never mind the fact that so many of these parliament members are the deeply corrupt representatives of corrupt countries.
And the people know this, hence the fact that the majority of the people of Europe now boycots these elections. Especially in countries that have a decently functioning democracy themselves.
Everything that comes out of Brussels is undemocratic, unless it pertains to the sovereign nation of Belgium.
Also, can we keep it civilized? If you don't call all opponents to your EU dreams "xenophobic", I won't call you a "eurofascist", agreed?
[deleted]
Good old greed. The speed CDs and the music industry is disappearing probably will solve this issue going forward. Music is getting more and more fragmented and smaller and smaller styles show up that are very specific to a particular location. This will help to dismantle the music industry lobby probably.
I hear this argument very often but I don't see any strong evidence that it is happening in the majority case, nor will happen. The music/entertainment industries have been relatively slow to react to digitisation, the internet and technological advances, but their lobbying prowess is frightening. Just look at their power and handywork at the national level instigating ridiculous and oppressive laws and at the international level at the trade agreements being instigated. Just like in the linked article.
I do agree that small scale/localised success - the long tail as it used to be referred to - is a positive force too. It looks like we all just have to learn to live with both camps (and many more besides) being given scope to thrive. Hopefully that's the best outcome, but this type of out of touch and obtuse legislation is not helping.
I do agree that small scale/localised success - the long tail as it used to be referred to - is a positive force too. It looks like we all just have to learn to live with both camps (and many more besides) being given scope to thrive. Hopefully that's the best outcome, but this type of out of touch and obtuse legislation is not helping.
"In early 2015, Bandcamp released an announcement that artists using the website had officially gotten $100 million in total from music sale"
Total music industry is 15B (afaik). It is 1/150th of the entire music industry and that is just one site. I think the artist make more on Bandcamp and other music distribution platforms than on big labels, that might be the reason why Bandcamp is greatly successful.
Total music industry is 15B (afaik). It is 1/150th of the entire music industry and that is just one site. I think the artist make more on Bandcamp and other music distribution platforms than on big labels, that might be the reason why Bandcamp is greatly successful.
You left out the source for that quote, but it appears to be from Wikipedia, which has this[1] as a source.
From that article I get the impression that the $100 million refers to all money paid during the existance of Bandcamp, while I suppose the 15B is annual? The article says that Bandcamp has revenue of $3.5 million a month (= $42 million a year), most of which goes to artists.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/03/10/direct-t...
From that article I get the impression that the $100 million refers to all money paid during the existance of Bandcamp, while I suppose the 15B is annual? The article says that Bandcamp has revenue of $3.5 million a month (= $42 million a year), most of which goes to artists.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/hughmcintyre/2015/03/10/direct-t...
All correct what you are saying. This was exactly my point that Bandcamps revenue goes to artists (mostly).
Well that's incredibly positive and I wasn't aware of that. I'm used to seeing more of the news that artists get almost no money through Spotify and similar channels or that consumer websites like Pandora getting legally harassed.
Bandcamp is very different though - you buy and own your music there. An album bought is worth much more to an artist than fractions of a cent per stream.
I'm not surprised that Bandcamp has been doing that well for a long time now. In contrast to all those streaming services it's a business model that seems to be sustainable.
I'm not surprised that Bandcamp has been doing that well for a long time now. In contrast to all those streaming services it's a business model that seems to be sustainable.
I never liked Pandora, I was forcing myself to use it but they have limited music and their recommendation engine was a joke. It might work for hip-hop vs. heavy metal context but when it comes to sub-genres in electronic music not so much.
I agree primarily because the music industries target demographic appears to be 12 to 26... A group that usually heavily consumes what their peers listen to. Niche music appreciation mostly occurs later in life. My point is that fragmentation doesn't matter to the existing powers because the target of those groups doesn't fragment until they are much older and when they do they have a new set of fresh blood.
While I share much of your sentiment, I cannot share your optimism. Never underestimate the power of corporate rent-seeking lobbyism. Where I live, we do not only pay surcharges for blank CDs and DVDs, but printers, mobile phones, CD- and DVD burners, hard disk drives, etc. Practically, for any and all ways of storing data, both the drives and the media.
And it all vanishes in the huge, bottomless maw of corporate greed, with little ever reaching any actual artist. It largely divides into shareholder value, outrageous manager payoffs, and.... errr... "investments" (meaning, money for more lobbying and bribes).
And it all vanishes in the huge, bottomless maw of corporate greed, with little ever reaching any actual artist. It largely divides into shareholder value, outrageous manager payoffs, and.... errr... "investments" (meaning, money for more lobbying and bribes).
This is just UK. I dont think it will fly in Spain, Czech rep or other parts of EU.
For start there is author tax to compensate authors for fair use, it is collected as VAT on empty mediums and printers. With this law many powerful people would loose money. I would welcome it, since it means cheaper hardware.
And secondly: YES! More stupid laws like this, more DRM and people will turn to free music under Creative-Commons like license.
For start there is author tax to compensate authors for fair use, it is collected as VAT on empty mediums and printers. With this law many powerful people would loose money. I would welcome it, since it means cheaper hardware.
And secondly: YES! More stupid laws like this, more DRM and people will turn to free music under Creative-Commons like license.
From the linked text.
> The government's choices are now to remove the private copying exception—making personal copying illegal again, or to supply additional evidence that copyright owners suffer no or minimal “harm” from personal copying, or else to begin imposing a new tax on users to compensate the indust
This is exactly the situation we have in Spain, a tax was created to compensate private copy.
Sure it would fly in Spain
> The government's choices are now to remove the private copying exception—making personal copying illegal again, or to supply additional evidence that copyright owners suffer no or minimal “harm” from personal copying, or else to begin imposing a new tax on users to compensate the indust
This is exactly the situation we have in Spain, a tax was created to compensate private copy.
Sure it would fly in Spain
People will just pirate more.
Minor correction, the authors tax charged on printers and copy mediums is in addition to VAT, not the same as VAT.
Minor correction, depends on the eu countries, but in France, the authors tax charged on copy mediums is in addition to the product price without VAT, and then VAT is applied to the whole. So you pay VAT on the authors tax.
To be clear you pay tax on tax, a french speciality.
In NL you pay VAT on the special taxes added to fuel and there are a couple of other cases like this. Tax on tax is unfortunately not just a French thing.
uh sure okay.
People will continue to obey copyright laws as closely as ever. right.
People will continue to obey copyright laws as closely as ever. right.
The same story as reported by Ars technica[1] paints the EU law as the hero that produced some slight advances in copyright regulations based on essentially a completely reversed causuality than reported by the eff.
"The UK's music industry has successfully landed a significant judgement from the UK's High Court, countering a copyright exception that was brought in by the UK government last year. Since last October, there was a law that allowed you to make private copies of your own music; now the future of that law is uncertain."
"The UK government brought in the new copyright exception under a European Union directive that gives national governments that power, but which requires compensation to be paid to artists unless the harm caused to them by the change in copyright law is minimal."
It is also fun to contrast the position on the rights holders between the eff:
"Neither can we fully absolve the rightsholders from blame;"
and Arstechnica:
"The refusal to accept gracefully legislative changes is not new for the copyright industry. Perhaps the most egregious example of its dog-in-the-manger attitude [snip]"
[1]: http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/06/music-industry-...
"The UK's music industry has successfully landed a significant judgement from the UK's High Court, countering a copyright exception that was brought in by the UK government last year. Since last October, there was a law that allowed you to make private copies of your own music; now the future of that law is uncertain."
"The UK government brought in the new copyright exception under a European Union directive that gives national governments that power, but which requires compensation to be paid to artists unless the harm caused to them by the change in copyright law is minimal."
It is also fun to contrast the position on the rights holders between the eff:
"Neither can we fully absolve the rightsholders from blame;"
and Arstechnica:
"The refusal to accept gracefully legislative changes is not new for the copyright industry. Perhaps the most egregious example of its dog-in-the-manger attitude [snip]"
[1]: http://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2015/06/music-industry-...
The teaser is wrong. It's a UK court, deciding for the UK. Not on the European level.
While not wrong, as the UK is in Europe, it is a misleading title.
Lets be realistic here.
So I'm going to go and delete 90% of my mp3s and go and purchase a CD player this afternoon.
Actually nope, I'm going to continue to steal all my music out of a combination of apathy and disdain for the system.
Oh and continue to go to the odd gig.
So I'm going to go and delete 90% of my mp3s and go and purchase a CD player this afternoon.
Actually nope, I'm going to continue to steal all my music out of a combination of apathy and disdain for the system.
Oh and continue to go to the odd gig.
You and some other commenters miss the point completely.
Now the "rights holders" will have right to tax every storage medium you buy. n% of what you pay for your HDD goes to them. (And I don't know who is that, since everybody I lisen to won't get a cent)
Now the "rights holders" will have right to tax every storage medium you buy. n% of what you pay for your HDD goes to them. (And I don't know who is that, since everybody I lisen to won't get a cent)
I'll have to steal more then to get my money's worth...
This idiotic decision will not stop one single CD from being ripped in Europe.
I don't think that any but the most naïve lawmaker believes that these laws will stop the behaviour they criminalise. Rather, they simply further the "3 felonies a day" state of being (http://www.harveysilverglate.com/Books/ThreeFeloniesaDay.asp... I will set aside (because I honestly don't know what I believe) whether that is an intended or unintended effect.
I'm in favor of anything that degrades the respect for the rule of law qua law.
We'll have direct democracy on this stuff yet! Look at the Swiss.
We'll have direct democracy on this stuff yet! Look at the Swiss.
> We'll have direct democracy on this stuff yet! Look at the Swiss.
Sorry, I'm not sufficiently up to date on this stuff to know at what about the Swiss to look. Could you elaborate?
Sorry, I'm not sufficiently up to date on this stuff to know at what about the Swiss to look. Could you elaborate?
In other news: not single person who rips their own CDs in all of Europe will give a crap.
Also, the only people still buying CDs don't rip them, and the rest of us have ripped their last CD over a decade ago.
The actual impact of this decision is close to zero, and therefor not a strong argument for copyright reform. Many countries still have outdated laws on the books nobody bothers with, making noise about this just gives the impression copyright reform isn't urgent.
Also, the only people still buying CDs don't rip them, and the rest of us have ripped their last CD over a decade ago.
The actual impact of this decision is close to zero, and therefor not a strong argument for copyright reform. Many countries still have outdated laws on the books nobody bothers with, making noise about this just gives the impression copyright reform isn't urgent.
Exactly, I'm old enough to have many hundreds of CDs, cassettes and vinyl, it's quicker to download an album that I own than to go and look for it around the house let alone including the time to rip it.
"UK court". Reading "European court" made me think it was a ruling by an EU level court. That would have a different fallout.
I'm curious. This is phrased as a ruling on CDs. But doesn't the logic used suggest that if I buy an album on MP3, I cannot copy those files to my server and phone? It would be really weird if (US prices here, maybe UK is different?) I spend $15 on a CD I can only listen to the music using the original CD in a CD player, but if I spend $9 on an MP3 album, I can copy it to all my devices.
I think the EFF needs to send its people on a copywriting course, this article is so poorly written it's almost unreadable.
Perhaps, as a token of defiance, we should compile a list of the people at the top of these organisations, and forbid them from using our software.
There's a time and a place for spite, and this is it.