Idiots guide to downloading music???

asbokid

RussJK wrote: »

No he's correct. Obviously both words essentially mean the same thing, but there is the distinction he describes in their usage. Generally you describe an act as "unlawful" if there is no likelihood that criminal charges be brought, i.e. that it'll come under tort or contract law...

When you're breaking the law, it's 'illegal'. When you're not following the law, it's 'unlawful' but not necessarily illegal. An unlawful contract isn't necessarily criminal, but just one that has no 'legal effect'. I'm not a lawyer, so this is the end of my part in the discussion.

That's pretty much my understanding of it. The Daily Mail article on downloading music is littered with deliberate errors to frighten the readership..

"Is it illegal to copy a CD on to your iPod?" (no it might be unlawful but it is not illegal)

"millions of consumers are unaware they are breaking the law" (no, it's not breaking the law)

"the threat of prosecution" (no, prosecutions are only for criminal offences, and copyright is a civil matter)

"it is illegal to copy music they have purchased to an iPod" (no, it might be unlawful but it's not illegal)

"73% of people are not aware of what entertainment they are legally allowed to copy" (no, the word is lawfully, not legally)

"Millions of consumers are regularly copying CDs or DVDs and are unaware they are breaching copyright law." (that's better.. the word is breaching, not breaking)

.
.
There are specialist legal dictionaries from Black's and from Jowitt's, but neither can be accessed online for free (not lawfully any way!)

Wikipedia has an entry for the Digital Economy Act 2010.

The Act was introduced, after intense industry lobbying, by the former minister for passports, Lord Peter Mandelson of NM Rothschild & Sons.

According to Wikipedia, there is just a single reference to criminal law in Mandy's new Act. Thatrelates to an amendment to the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

The amendment increases the criminal liability for "making or dealing with infringing articles" and "making, dealing with or using illicit recordings" to a maximum of £50,000, so long as it is done during the course of a business.

I ain't no lawyer, so don't take my word for it (and don't get caught).


.

asbokid

The_Grandmaster wrote: »

Technically yes, but on a spectrum of legal to illegal, copying CDs you've purchased is far better than stealing music off the internet...

The unauthorised downloading of copyrighted music may be unlawful but it is not stealing, since that would be a criminal offence under the Theft Act 1968 as amended.

To prosecute someone for the criminal offence of theft involves the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or, rarely, the Attorney General.

The remedy in civil law for a copyright holder is to pursue a (private) claim for damages against the infringer of his exclusive right.

.

esuhl

asbokid wrote: »

Only criminal acts are "illegal".

Civil offences, such as copyright infringement, are simply "unlawful".

RussJK wrote: »

No he's correct... Generally you describe an act as "unlawful" if there is no likelihood that criminal charges be brought, i.e. that it'll come under tort or contract law.

Interesting... I previously thought that civil law only applied to private contracts and that the existence of a specific Copyright, Design and Patents Act meant that criminal law applied. But it sounds like I was mistaken, so thanks for letting me know!

So... how is one to know which laws are covered by criminal law and which by civil law? I read a few Wikipedia pages on tort and it seems that some torts are criminal even though they might be considered a crime against an individual (rather than society as a whole). It's very confusing!

The_Grandmaster wrote: »

{O}n a spectrum of legal to illegal, copying CDs you've purchased is far better than stealing music off the internet...

On the spectrum of legality/lawfulness, copying CDs you've purchased is identical to "stealing" music off the Internet. In both cases you've breached the copyright terms. In both cases you can be sued for damages. So if you're buying a CD purely to rip it, you may as well not bother and just download the files unlawfully.

Dave_C wrote: »

No-one has ever been prosecuted for this... Basically you are quite safe copying your CDs to your ipod. It's impractical for them to try and sue millions of people!

That's a fair point, but prosecutions for downloading music unlawfully are extremely rare, given the scale of the problem. You're probably 99.999% safe if you do this, but I don't know exactly what the odds are. As you say, it's impractical to sue everyone who does it.

To be clear, I don't condone illegal/unlawful acts (in case anyone gets the wrong idea) - I'm just interested in the law!

asbokid

I shouldn't have used the words "civil offence"... perhaps "civil wrong" is more correct.

esuhl wrote: »

Interesting... I previously thought that civil law only applied to private contracts and that the existence of a specific Copyright, Design and Patents Act meant that criminal law applied. But it sounds like I was mistaken, so thanks for letting me know!

I'm no lawyer, but the CDPA looks like a particularly weird Act of Parliament to codify both civil wrongs and criminal offences.

So... how is one to know which laws are covered by criminal law and which by civil law?

You could determine the type of law from the reading of the Act. The court in which a case would be heard is enough to determine the type of law..

The following is an excerpt from the criminal part of the CDPA....

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/part/I/chapter/VI/crossheading/offences

A person commits an offence who, without the licence of the copyright owner..makes for sale or hire...an article which is, and which he knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of a copyright work...

A person guilty of an offence..is liable..

(a)on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or both;

(b)on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, or both.

So that Section of the Act is obviously a criminal law.

(Summary conviction means in a magistrates court, whereas "on indictment" means conviction by jury trial in a crown court.)

I read a few Wikipedia pages on tort and it seems that some torts are criminal even though they might be considered a crime against an individual (rather than society as a whole). It's very confusing!

The only example I can think of is when someone commits and is convicted of a criminal act, for example an assault, and is later sued for damages in a civil court for the injuries that he caused in the assault.

The tort has been proved through the criminal conviction and has been proved at the higher burden of "beyond reasonable doubt". In a civil action that proof would be accepted, leaving the court with the task of establishing the scale of the damages.

Wikipedia gives an American case of OJ Simpson as an example of that happening (although he was actually acquitted by the criminal court). There must be some British examples of it happening as well, though.

There are laws that should have remained civil wrongs (if indeed even that) but have been placed in criminal statute because of political pressure..

E.g. the laws on defamation (a civil wrong), have been codified in rare cases in criminal law.. libelling the monarch, blasphemy, seditious libel..

On the spectrum of legality/lawfulness, copying CDs you've purchased is identical to "stealing" music off the Internet. In both cases you've breached the copyright terms. In both cases you can be sued for damages. So if you're buying a CD purely to rip it, you may as well not bother and just download the files unlawfully.

I'm not sure it is identical.

The court would expect the copyright holder to demonstrate financial injury in order to quantify the damages.

If the defendant could show, for example, that he bought the CD, ripped it to MP3 for his iPod, but never played the CD again, then the financial loss to the copyright holder is difficult to prove.

However, if the defendant simply downloaded the music without ever buying a legitimate copy, the copyright holder could presumably prove the loss of a single sale of his works.

kwikbreaks

Can somebody please tell me if it is illegal, unlawful, or just plain unfortunate to sit next to one of those annoying idiots with "leaky" headphones playing at brain scrambling volume which you can't help but overhear?

TIA

asbokid

identify the music the man was listening to and the copyright holder of that music, and explain that there was an infringement by the performance of their work in public!

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/48/section/19

esuhl

Thanks for the reply asbokid - that's interesting stuff, again!

asbokid wrote: »

If the defendant could show, for example, that he bought the CD, ripped it to MP3 for his iPod, but never played the CD again, then the financial loss to the copyright holder is difficult to prove.

I'm not sure how damages would be calculated, but I would have thought that buying the CD gives you the right to listen to it, whether or not you actually do. If you rip the CD to MP3, couldn't the copyright-holder claim that they have been denied revenue from the sale of the MP3?