In a shock move, it seems the UK Government is set to announce something sensible:
BBC News - Legal change for personal CD ripping
Excellent. Making this common (and in my view perfectly reasonable) practice legal will draw a clear line between copying for personal use and filesharing. Currently as both are illegal many consider the difference between the two simply one of degree - hence it encourages some to file share.
It was the shame the article didn't go into a bit more detail about the laws on parodies changing (what constutes a parody? How much of the original song can it contain? - the lawyers will have a field day).
Neither s ther indication as to when this might become legislation.
Last edited by TimStannard; 08-03-2011 at 10:59 AM.
Quote : "Mr Cable told the BBC that he hoped to add "more clarity" to the current copyright laws..."
That alone would be a good result.
I also wonder how they will work out the difference between a "parody" and copying.
Seeing the two industry pundits on BBC Breakfast this morning just made me cringe, they were trying to avoid answering the questions worse that politicians do. They didn't want to admit it is illegal to copy your CD collection onto your computer.
Midnight Blue Productions M.M.Inst.V.
Old computer games that came on tape actively encouraged you to backup the games onto another tape as they could become corrupt.
Copying old computer programs wasn't encouraged as far as I recall, although most purchasers did, for the reasons suggested by TheComputerSaint.
As to "parody" or "Copying" - isn't this likely to be answered by the number? If you re-enact a famous film-scene, that might be loosely called Parody, but if this extends beyond one scene, then it starts to become a Copy. The greater problem of course is the diminuation of the original film as a whole. Creating a film is a considerable undertaking and if small groups can use this effort to improve their standing, I suspect the Big Picture is reduced by the same amount.
However, if it was actually a film about a true event, then the small group could say their film is another viewpoint of history; even if it is stretched beyond the accepted historical bounds of probability. I guess that is the risk the Big Film Co has accepted, taking an historical event as their source.