Copyright and CD sounds copied to MP3 player
Jeff Cable
tracks are destroyed by an introduced background noise that is not
present if the CD is played in a CD player. I assume it is an
electronic copy protection device and wondered how the law is regarding
making a copy of a legitimately purchased CD onto an MP3 player owned
by the purchaser of the CD. My question... if my chosen method of
listening to the CD is an MP3 player, do I have any rights to convert
the CD into that format? Jeff
--
Kind regards
Jeff
Edwin Petree
jeffcable@ntlworldcom:
There are exemptions if you are making it accessable. If you have a voice
activated MP3 player and no fingers, for example, a normal cd machine would
be tricky to use.
Perhaps your mp3 player just isn't very good, or perhaps the conversion
fromcd to mp3 was sub optimal.
Traveller
news:2004032605525016807%jeffcable@ntlworldcom...
If you're copying the CD you bought onto your MP3 player for your own
personal use, then you're not breaking any laws.
The Todal
"Traveller" <mcg...@mindless.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:c411pd$7ei$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
... but you probably cannot claim your money back on the CD on the grounds
that although it plays perfectly well in a CD player it does not play
properly in a computer drive and cannot be copied into another medium. By
playing in an ordinary CD player, it is fit for its purpose. Mind you, many
shops would probably give you a refund anyway.
Cheeky
AFAIAA if the disc has the "compact disc" logo on it it should play on
all cd drives that also have that logo (which would include PC ones).
--
喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂
Please reply to the group
Replies to this address will bounce!
喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂,,,,喊`昂
Edwin Petree
news:c412cl$2e4g4q$1...@ID-164291.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> "Traveller" <mcg...@mindless.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:c411pd$7ei$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>> "Jeff Cable" <jeff....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>> news:2004032605525016807%jeffcable@ntlworldcom...
>> > Just bought a new CD and copied it to put on my MP3 player. A few
>> > tracks are destroyed by an introduced background noise that is not
>> > present if the CD is played in a CD player. I assume it is an
>> > electronic copy protection device and wondered how the law is
>> > regarding making a copy of a legitimately purchased CD onto an MP3
>> > player owned by the purchaser of the CD. My question... if my
>> > chosen method of listening to the CD is an MP3 player, do I have
>> > any rights to convert the CD into that format? Jeff
>>
>> If you're copying the CD you bought onto your MP3 player for your own
>> personal use, then you're not breaking any laws.
>
> ... but you probably cannot claim your money back on the CD on the
> grounds that although it plays perfectly well in a CD player it does
> not play properly in a computer drive and cannot be copied into
> another medium. By playing in an ordinary CD player, it is fit for its
> purpose.
If it has a copy protection mechanism it is not a CD, and it cannot be sold
as such.
Does the package have a "CD" logo? Does the disc *definately* have copy
protection?
If so, the OP has SOGA things.
The Todal
"Edwin Petree" <edwin...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:Xns94B873EABB323e...@news-60.giganews.com...
> "The Todal" <the_tod...@msn.com> wrote in
> news:c412cl$2e4g4q$1...@ID-164291.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
> >
> > "Traveller" <mcg...@mindless.nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:c411pd$7ei$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
> >> "Jeff Cable" <jeff....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >> news:2004032605525016807%jeffcable@ntlworldcom...
> >> > Just bought a new CD and copied it to put on my MP3 player. A few
> >> > tracks are destroyed by an introduced background noise that is not
> >> > present if the CD is played in a CD player. I assume it is an
> >> > electronic copy protection device and wondered how the law is
> >> > regarding making a copy of a legitimately purchased CD onto an MP3
> >> > player owned by the purchaser of the CD. My question... if my
> >> > chosen method of listening to the CD is an MP3 player, do I have
> >> > any rights to convert the CD into that format? Jeff
> >>
> >> If you're copying the CD you bought onto your MP3 player for your own
> >> personal use, then you're not breaking any laws.
> >
> > ... but you probably cannot claim your money back on the CD on the
> > grounds that although it plays perfectly well in a CD player it does
> > not play properly in a computer drive and cannot be copied into
> > another medium. By playing in an ordinary CD player, it is fit for its
> > purpose.
>
> If it has a copy protection mechanism it is not a CD, and it cannot be
sold
> as such.
I'm willing to defer to you on this, but I don't know what the applicable
standards are. I would have thought that if a shop sells you a CD that is
fit for all normal purposes a judge would regard that as discharging its
obligations, but perhaps it needs a test case.
Adrian Boliston
news:c4168h$2c78oa$1...@ID-164291.news.uni-berlin.de...
> I'm willing to defer to you on this, but I don't know what the applicable
> standards are. I would have thought that if a shop sells you a CD that is
> fit for all normal purposes a judge would regard that as discharging its
> obligations, but perhaps it needs a test case.
Now that PC's have become "total entertainment systems" capable of providing high
quality DVD and audio playback through a high spec amp & speaker system, then
surely the days of the conventional standalone stereo system as the main listening
platform must be numbered, making obsolete a cd incapable of being played on a PC
optical drive.
Edwin Petree
>
> "Edwin Petree" <edwin...@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Xns94B873EABB323e...@news-60.giganews.com...
>
>> "The Todal" <the_tod...@msn.com> wrote in
>> news:c412cl$2e4g4q$1...@ID-164291.news.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>> > ... but you probably cannot claim your money back on the CD on the
>> > grounds that although it plays perfectly well in a CD player it
>> > does not play properly in a computer drive and cannot be copied
>> > into another medium. By playing in an ordinary CD player, it is fit
>> > for its purpose.
>>
>> If it has a copy protection mechanism it is not a CD, and it cannot
>> be sold as such.
>
> I'm willing to defer to you on this, but I don't know what the
> applicable standards are. I would have thought that if a shop sells
> you a CD that is fit for all normal purposes a judge would regard that
> as discharging its obligations, but perhaps it needs a test case.
I'm under the impression that the term CD refers to a 'thing' designed
by Philips. Philips have allowed other manufacturers to create and sell
CDs to foster market acceptance of the 'thing'.
<http://www.licensing.philips.com/information/cd/rec/>
<http://ukcdr.org/issues/cd/quick/>
There is no section in the spec covering copy protection, thus a
copy-protected 'thing' cannot be a CD, and connot be sold as one.
I recognise the importance of your comment about a test case though.
Dr Zoidberg
true CD.
Unless it meets the standard it shouldn't have this logo on the packaging.
http://images.google.co.uk/images?q=tbn:rBKr9jjWZG4J:www.akdesign.no/goodies/cd_logo_black.jpg
--
Alex
"I laugh in the face of danger"
"Then I hide until it goes away"
www.drzoidberg.co.uk
www.upce.org.uk
Malcolm Hayes
"Dr Zoidberg" <AlexNOOOO!!!!@drzoidberg.co.uk> wrote in message
news:c41b4h$2d4r0r$1...@ID-46820.news.uni-berlin.de...
it into another format (MP3)? Therefore the argument about whether it is a
CD or not is mute.
MalcolmX
Edwin Petree
news:C1Y8c.363$745.301@newsfe1-win:
> Surely the point is, it will play in a 'puter as a CD but the OP
> cannot copy it into another format (MP3)? Therefore the argument about
> whether it is a CD or not is mute.
He might be able to get his money back if it isn't a CD but was sold as
one.
Plus; I've already said that there *might* be exemptions if he's copying
it to make it accessible.
Fat Freddy's Cat
"Traveller" <mcg...@mindless.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:c411pd$7ei$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>
> If you're copying the CD you bought onto your MP3 player for your own
> personal use, then you're not breaking any laws.
>
>
Urban myth.
Believe it or not, backing up your own CD to, say, another format for your
own use is breaking the law. Always has been, but never really pursued by
anyone.
Its a common misconception brought about by the UK being one of the very few
countries where this applies, and the lack of any real pursuit by copyrigth
owners.
g.
Benedict Addis
news:c411pd$7ei$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
As I understand it, there is no 'fair use' provision under UK law.
Benedict.
--
Add the 'co' to reply
Fat Freddy's Cat
"Benedict Addis" <ne...@itchest.uk> wrote in message
news:W4_8c.1$LQ4.0@newsfe1-win...
>
> As I understand it, there is no 'fair use' provision under UK law.
>
> Benedict.
>
correct.
g.
Fishter
In <news:C1Y8c.363$745.301@newsfe1-win> you wrote:
> Therefore the argument about whether it is a
> CD or not is mute.
The word you are looking for is moot, not mute. I've seen it misused at
least twice today and it bugs me!
moot, adjective, tending to be discussed or argued about and having no
definite answer.
mute, adjective, not loud; lacking enthusiasm; describes a colour which is
not bright.
--
Fishter
unhook to mail me | http://www.fishter.org.uk/
Nice outfit! Guranimals?
Tim Jackson
> As I understand it, there is no 'fair use' provision under UK law.
There is (it's actually called "fair dealing"). But it doesn't cover
this type of use.
--
Tim Jackson
ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid
(Change '.invalid' to '.co.uk' to reply direct)
Absurd patents: visit http://www.patent.freeserve.co.uk
Jeff Cable
iPod not very good? No it's fine thanks and works very well usually.
Ripped on a Mac using AAC compression techniques as always. None of my
other CDs ripped in this way suffer from the effect. Thanks for the
thought.
--
Kind regards
Jeff
Jeff Cable
> "The Todal" <the_tod...@msn.com> wrote in
> news:c412cl$2e4g4q$1...@ID-164291.news.uni-berlin.de:
>>
>> "Traveller" <mcg...@mindless.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:c411pd$7ei$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> "Jeff Cable" <jeff....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>> news:2004032605525016807%jeffcable@ntlworldcom...
>>>> Just bought a new CD and copied it to put on my MP3 player. A few
>>>> tracks are destroyed by an introduced background noise that is not
>>>> present if the CD is played in a CD player. I assume it is an
>>>> electronic copy protection device and wondered how the law is
>>>> regarding making a copy of a legitimately purchased CD onto an MP3
>>>> player owned by the purchaser of the CD. My question... if my
>>>> chosen method of listening to the CD is an MP3 player, do I have
>>>> any rights to convert the CD into that format? Jeff
>>>
>>> If you're copying the CD you bought onto your MP3 player for your own
>>> personal use, then you're not breaking any laws.
>>
>> ... but you probably cannot claim your money back on the CD on the
>> grounds that although it plays perfectly well in a CD player it does
>> not play properly in a computer drive and cannot be copied into
>> another medium. By playing in an ordinary CD player, it is fit for its
>> purpose.
>
> If it has a copy protection mechanism it is not a CD, and it cannot be
> sold as such.
Looks like a CD, plays like a CD, marked like a CD... must be one then.
>
> Does the package have a "CD" logo? Does the disc *definately* have
> copy protection?
I am reasonably sure (95%) that this as a form of electronic copy
protection. It is undetectable when played in a CD player but makes
itsel known when converting for MP3. It plays without interference in a
computer CD. It is the copying attempt that is frustrated.
>
> If so, the OP has SOGA things.
SOGA may help with fitness for the purpose but... if the purpose (from
recording company point of view) is to produce a set of sounds on
medium that can be played in a CD, I think it could be argued that the
item was fit for the purpose. It is my wish to transfer it to another
form. Although I would argue that many people now have and use MP3 type
devices, I don't believe that a record company is under any obligation
to consider that issue.
>
>> Mind you, many shops would probably give you a refund anyway.
If I complain... I am sure that is probably true. If I get another one
that is the same, what then?
--
Kind regards
Jeff
Jeff Cable
I am in agreement with this assessment.
>
>>
>> Does the package have a "CD" logo? Does the disc *definately* have copy
>> protection?
>>
>> If so, the OP has SOGA things.
--
Kind regards
Jeff
Jeff Cable
An interesting viewpoint. It has its roots in the days before anyone
could easily 'record a CD' from data on one which they had obtained.
The essence of 'CDness' (as you have explained it) does not acknowledge
the copyright issues nor does it address the easy manner in which music
CDs can be copied by those of a mind to do so. The technology no longer
costs tens of thousands of pounds and anyone with a computer can do it.
A case to establish that the CD I bought is not a CD, would take far
more skill and resources than I have available but... it is an
intriguing prospect. I suspect that such a case would perish on the
rock of common sense and the judgement would permit authors of music to
protect their copyright in any way they deemed fit... given the
evolving state of technology and the prevalent copyright abuse of
music, image and data.
--
Kind regards
Jeff
Jeff Cable
Are you able to provide a reference to the relevant portion of law?
--
Kind regards
Jeff
Edwin Petree
> On 2004-03-26 12:45:45 +0000, Edwin Petree
> <edwin...@example.invalid> said:
>
>> There is no section in the spec covering copy protection, thus a
>> copy-protected 'thing' cannot be a CD, and connot be sold as one.
>> I recognise the importance of your comment about a test case though.
>
> An interesting viewpoint. It has its roots in the days before anyone
> could easily 'record a CD' from data on one which they had obtained.
Eh?
From Need to Know 2004:03:12
<http://www.ntk.net/2004/03/12/>
---cut here---
Also off the Free-sklyarov list - those CD anti-"copy
protection" activists have got a reply from someone at the
British Phonographic Industry regarding those pesky discs
that refuse to play in CD-ROM drives, some car stereos etc -
and while it clearly isn't an official BPI policy statement,
it's very tempting to read it out in the voice of David Brent
from The Office: "The industry has made extensive efforts to
communicate with manufacture[r]s so our CDs play on their
systems. Let's just say that some of our calls haven't been
returned." Auditioning for the role of Brent's exasperated
manager Neil is the Campaign for Digital Rights' Jim Peters,
patiently explaining: "Copy-controlled discs do not conform to
any known standard. In fact, if they conformed to a standard,
then they would no longer be effective, as everyone could make
their drives read them correctly." As the first part of Harry
Hill's TV Burp inevitably concludes - Fiiiight!
http://www.xenoclast.org/free-sklyarov-uk/2004-March/005735.html
- vs http://www.xenoclast.org/free-sklyarov-uk/2004-March/005744.html
---cut here---
> The essence of 'CDness' (as you have explained it) does not
> acknowledge the copyright issues
The 'cdness' of an object is just something you can use to get your money
back. "I bought this thinking it was a CD, it isn't, it does not work in
my car stereo."
> nor does it address the easy manner
> in which music CDs can be copied by those of a mind to do so. The
> technology no longer costs tens of thousands of pounds and anyone with
> a computer can do it. A case to establish that the CD I bought is not
> a CD, would take far more skill and resources than I have available
> but... it is an intriguing prospect.
> I suspect that such a case would
> perish on the rock of common sense and the judgement would permit
> authors of music to protect their copyright in any way they deemed
> fit... given the evolving state of technology and the prevalent
> copyright abuse of music, image and data.
These links about how Philips view copy protection might be interesting:
<http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,50101,00.html>
"Gerry Wirtz, general manager of the Philips copyright office that
administers the CD logo, told Reuters that not only would Philips yank
the logo from copy-protected discs, it would force the major labels to
add warning stickers for consumers. Most controversially, he claimed
future models of Philips players would both read and burn the copy-
protected discs."
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%2Bphilips+%2B%28copy+protected%29+%
2BCD&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&meta=
Colin Wilson
> protection. It is undetectable when played in a CD player but makes
> itsel known when converting for MP3. It plays without interference in a
> computer CD.
IANAL
The protection often takes the form of deliberate corruption of the data
on the CD forcing the player to use all the anti-corruption algorithms
enshrined in CD specification to play at all.
What this also means is that any slight damage to the CD from normal use
will render it useless, whereas a "standard" CD would remain perfectly
playable.
How they get away with that under suitability and SOGA is anyones guess
:-}
--
Please add "[newsgroup]" in the subject of any personal replies via email
* old email address "btiruseless" abandoned due to worm-generated spam *
--- My new email address has "ngspamtrap" & @btinternet.com in it ;-) ---
Jonathan Bryce
> I'm willing to defer to you on this, but I don't know what the applicable
> standards are. I would have thought that if a shop sells you a CD that is
> fit for all normal purposes a judge would regard that as discharging its
> obligations, but perhaps it needs a test case.
CD, Compact Disc and the Compact Disc logo are trademarks owned by Phillips.
In order to be allowed to use these trademarks on your silvery coloured
music disks, they have to comply with something known as the "red book
standard" which is designed to ensure that all CDs will work in all CD
drives.
Copy protected silvery coloured audio disks do not comply with the red book
standard, so they can't be called CDs.
Anyone who sells such a silvery coloured disk and describes it as a CD is
selling counterfeit goods and could be subject to the same sort of
penalties as someone who sells a fake Rolex watch.
Jonathan Bryce
> An interesting viewpoint. It has its roots in the days before anyone
> could easily 'record a CD' from data on one which they had obtained.
> The essence of 'CDness' (as you have explained it) does not acknowledge
> the copyright issues nor does it address the easy manner in which music
> CDs can be copied by those of a mind to do so. The technology no longer
> costs tens of thousands of pounds and anyone with a computer can do it.
> A case to establish that the CD I bought is not a CD, would take far
> more skill and resources than I have available but... it is an
> intriguing prospect. I suspect that such a case would perish on the
> rock of common sense and the judgement would permit authors of music to
> protect their copyright in any way they deemed fit... given the
> evolving state of technology and the prevalent copyright abuse of
> music, image and data.
The copy protection process does things like introduce corrupt tables of
content onto the disk, and put deliberate errors in the music track. These
steps make it not comply with the Red Book Standard, and it would be a
matter of fact for the court, not a legal argument.
There was a test case in France, and the record companies lost it.
Tim Jackson
> Also the copyright designs and patents act makes it acceptable to make
> copies for personal study.
You still can't copy the entire work, however.
The actual wording of section 29(1) of the Act is that "fair dealing
... for the purposes of research or private study" is not an
infringement. That means there are two conditions:
1. Your copying must be for the purposes of research or private study
AND
2. It must be "fair dealing".
(And since a recent amendment to the Act, it has to be non-commercial,
too.)
What amounts to "fair dealing" is not well defined, but there has been
some case law. Copying the whole work isn't fair dealing, but copying
only a reasonable proportion can be.
Note that "research or private study" isn't a *definition* of fair
dealing. It's an extra condition *in addition* to the requirement for
fair dealing.
So the mere fact that your copy is for research or private study
doesn't absolve you from infringment, if in fact what you are doing is
not what the courts consider to be "fair" - such as if you are copying
the entire work.
See http://www.intellectual-
property.gov.uk/std/faq/copyright/ex_fair_dealing.htm
(click http://tinyurl.com/3cean to go there.)
Note the reference to "short extracts" probably being OK.
Edwin Petree
news:MPG.1acee6401...@news.freeserve.net:
> Chris Street wrote on Sat, 27 Mar 2004 00:27:37 GMT....
>> Also the copyright designs and patents act makes it acceptable to make
>> copies for personal study.
>
> You still can't copy the entire work, however.
>
> The actual wording of section 29(1) of the Act is that "fair dealing
> ... for the purposes of research or private study" is not an
> infringement. That means there are two conditions:
>
> 1. Your copying must be for the purposes of research or private study
> AND
> 2. It must be "fair dealing".
>
> (And since a recent amendment to the Act, it has to be non-commercial,
> too.)
>
> What amounts to "fair dealing" is not well defined, but there has been
> some case law. Copying the whole work isn't fair dealing, but copying
> only a reasonable proportion can be.
>
> Note that "research or private study" isn't a *definition* of fair
> dealing. It's an extra condition *in addition* to the requirement for
> fair dealing.
>
> So the mere fact that your copy is for research or private study
> doesn't absolve you from infringment, if in fact what you are doing is
> not what the courts consider to be "fair" - such as if you are copying
> the entire work.
If you owned the original CD-type-device, would the courts see copying to
another format as being unfair?
Is there case law (Is that the correct term) to show that owning the
original and making copies is illegal?
Edwin Petree
> Benedict Addis wrote on Fri, 26 Mar 2004 17:42:15 -0000....
>> As I understand it, there is no 'fair use' provision under UK law.
>
> There is (it's actually called "fair dealing"). But it doesn't cover
> this type of use.
Could 'time shifting' be used?
Tim Jackson
> If you owned the original CD-type-device, would the courts see copying to
> another format as being unfair?
If you were taking the whole work and not just a reasonably short
extract, I believe they would.
>
> Is there case law (Is that the correct term) to show that owning the
> original and making copies is illegal?
Don't know without looking it up.
Tim Jackson
> Could 'time shifting' be used?
Copyright etc Act 1988, Section 70: Recording for purposes of time-
shifting.
[quote]
70. The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a
broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to
be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe
any copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any work
included in it.
[end quote]
Jeff Cable
<ne...@winterbourne.freeserve.invalid> said:
> Edwin Petree wrote on Sat, 27 Mar 2004 04:02:49 -0600....
>> Could 'time shifting' be used?
>
> Copyright etc Act 1988, Section 70: Recording for purposes of time-
> shifting.
> [quote]
> 70. The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a
> broadcast or cable programme solely for the purpose of enabling it to
> be viewed or listened to at a more convenient time does not infringe
> any copyright in the broadcast or cable programme or in any work
> included in it.
> [end quote]
Is this only referring to broadcasts or am I to infer from section 70
that recordings of music CDs would fall within the scope of the section?
--
Kind regards
Jeff
Edwin Petree
jeffcable@ntlworldcom:
---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
It seems limited to broadcast programmes.
Jeff Cable
[snip]
>
>>> [quote]
>>> 70. The making for private and domestic use of a recording of a
>>> broadcast or cable programme
> ---^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> It seems limited to broadcast programmes.
I see. Thanks for the information.
--
Kind regards
Jeff
Jeremy Barker
> Just bought a new CD and copied it to put on my MP3 player. A few
> tracks are destroyed by an introduced background noise that is not
> present if the CD is played in a CD player. I assume it is an
> electronic copy protection device and wondered how the law is regarding
> making a copy of a legitimately purchased CD onto an MP3 player owned
> by the purchaser of the CD. My question... if my chosen method of
> listening to the CD is an MP3 player, do I have any rights to convert
> the CD into that format?
No you do not. Unlike many other countries there's no general right
to make personal use copies of any sort for any purpose in the UK.
jb
Jeremy Barker
> news:2004032605525016807%jeffcable@ntlworldcom...
> > Just bought a new CD and copied it to put on my MP3 player. A few
> > tracks are destroyed by an introduced background noise that is not
> > present if the CD is played in a CD player. I assume it is an
> > electronic copy protection device and wondered how the law is regarding
> > making a copy of a legitimately purchased CD onto an MP3 player owned
> > by the purchaser of the CD. My question... if my chosen method of
> > listening to the CD is an MP3 player, do I have any rights to convert
> > --
>
> If you're copying the CD you bought onto your MP3 player for your own
> personal use, then you're not breaking any laws.
I'm afraid that is incorrect. It is a clear infringment of copyright
to format convert any recording in the UK.
jb
Jeremy Barker
They would see it as straightforward infringment of copyright.
> Is there case law (Is that the correct term) to show that owning the
> original and making copies is illegal?
Making a copy of a copyright work is illegal unless it falls in one of
the narrow exceptions that include fair dealing. I cannot see how
anyone could copy even one track and be legitimately able to claim
that it is fair dealing. There is no need to refer to case law as the
restriction is plain in the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act. The
fact that a person owns the "original" is utterly irrelevant.
jb
jb
Jeremy Barker
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 - specifically section 17,
which I have reproduced below.
jb
[Extract from Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988]
Infringement of copyright by copying.
17.?(1) The copying of the work is an act restricted by the copyright
in every description of copyright work; and references in this Part to
copying and copies shall be construed as follows.
(2) Copying in relation to a literary, dramatic, musical or
artistic work means reproducing the work in any material form.
This includes storing the work in any medium by electronic means.
(3) In relation to an artistic work copying includes the making of
a copy in three dimensions of a two-dimensional work and the making of
a copy in two dimensions of a three-dimensional work.
(4) Copying in relation to a film, television broadcast or cable
programme includes making a photograph of the whole or any substantial
part of any image forming part of the film, broadcast or cable
programme.
(5) Copying in relation to the typographical arrangement of a
published edition means making a facsimile copy of the arrangement.
(6) Copying in relation to any description of work includes the
making of copies which are transient or are incidental to some other
use of the work.
[End of extract]
blah
> "Traveller" <mcg...@mindless.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:c411pd$7ei$1$8302...@news.demon.co.uk...
>>> Just bought a new CD and copied it to put on my MP3 player. A few
>>> tracks are destroyed by an introduced background noise that is not
>>> present if the CD is played in a CD player. I assume it is an
>>> electronic copy protection device and wondered how the law is
>>> regarding making a copy of a legitimately purchased CD onto an MP3
>>> player owned by the purchaser of the CD. My question... if my
>>> chosen method of listening to the CD is an MP3 player, do I have
>>> any rights to convert the CD into that format? Jeff
>>
>> If you're copying the CD you bought onto your MP3 player for your own
>> personal use, then you're not breaking any laws.
>
> grounds that although it plays perfectly well in a CD player it does
> not play properly in a computer drive and cannot be copied into
> another medium. By playing in an ordinary CD player, it is fit for
> anyway.
If it's sold as a CD but doesn't conform to the official Compact Disc
standards (so doesn't bear the Compact Disc Digital Audio logo) then
it's not as advertised.
If it does bear the logo and it's sold as a CD but doesn't conform to
the official Compact Disc standards, then it's definitely not as
advertised and Philips may be interested in the misuse of the logo by
the publisher.