Stephen Withers
Thursday, 24 January 2008 11:22
Opinion and Analysis
Page 2 of 3
That seems far more sensible, given the multiplicity of devices in a typical household that are capable of playing digital video files, including iPods and other portable players, mobile phones, hard drive media players designed to connect more or less permanently to a TV, and notebook and desktop computers.
The industry should realise that people aren't going to buy multiple copies of the same content for use in each player. They're just not going to do it. And if you tell them it's illegal to rip a movie from a purchased DVD so they can watch it on an iPod, what's that telling them? That they might as well just rip it from their friend's DVD, or download it instead?
That's madness! It means the existing regime actually encourages piracy, which is the reverse of what the rightsholders presumably want.
The half-hearted concessions introduced in 2006 are in the interests of neither the rightsholders nor consumers. The former aren't selling any more units - and in fact may be selling fewer as people turn to 'alternative sources' - and behaviour considered reasonable by an overwhelming majority of the population is labelled as criminal.
The problem arises largely because the industry's fear of rampant unauthorised distribution. Unfortunately, it is tackling the problem from the wrong end.
A recent notorious case involved a party attended by a large number of people who were not personally invited and who engaged in a near-riot in the vicinity of the event. There was a suggestion - quickly dismissed by lawyers who presumably knew what they were talking about - that the host should be held responsible for the actions of those that caused the trouble. It seems it was too hard to identify and prosecute the real culprits.
So it is with the unauthorised distribution of copyright material. Trying to turn mums and dads into criminals because they ripped their kids' DVDs onto an in-car player or iPod has nothing to do with people selling counterfeits in shopping centres or markets, or offering movies for downloading.
One obstacle to liberalising the regime is the so-called 'three-step test' imposed by international treaties, but I don't believe it is impassable.
An exception allowing digital-to-digital copying could be confined to copies for private use. That should take care of the requirement that exemptions must be narrow in scope.
