Copyright, and the Hargreves Report.

Well, finally … !

Someone seems to be talking sense … !

You’ve probably realised, haven’t you, that I’ve long been dubious — if not critical — of the UK’s copyright laws.

After all, in this digital age, we expect to be able to transfer our music and movies to our computers — and then to whatever media we choose — purely and simply for our own personal use.

Notice I stress that last part, there … !

But, at any rate, here in the UK, the various bits of copyright law mean it’s a criminal offence to put the songs and films you’ve bought on CD or DVD — and then ripped or copied with something like HandBrake, iTunes or whatever else you prefer — despite the fact that that you’ve already paid for them.

It still is …

However … ?

However, today’s seen the publication of the Hargreaves Report into copyright law.

Several of the recommendations deal with several areas: parody, review, what have you.

But one paragraph did catch me attention.

Chapter 5, Paragraph 14, specifically says

“By contrast many submissions also recognise that copyright needs to accommodate some unlicensed copying that is considered to be fair, in the ordinary sense of the word: whether that involves transferring CD files to a laptop and MP3 player or sharing a family home movie on your Facebook page which makes incidental use of copyright material.”

Paragraphs 24 goes on to say

“We therefore recommend below that the Government should press at EU level for the introduction of an exception allowing uses of a work enabled by technology which do not directly trade on the underlying creative and expressive purpose of the work (this has been referred to as “non-consumptive” use). The idea is to encompass the uses of copyright works where copying is really only carried out as part of the way the technology works. For instance, in data mining or search engine indexing, copies need to be created for the computer to be able to analyse; the technology provides a substitute for someone reading all the documents. This is not about overriding the aim of copyright – these uses do not compete with the normal exploitation of the work itself – indeed, they may facilitate it. Nor is copyright intended to restrict use of facts. That these new uses happen to fall within the scope of copyright regulation is essentially a side effect of how copyright has been defined, rather than being directly relevant to what copyright is supposed to protect.”

The key part, I think, are the parts I’ve italicised …

I think they finally allow us to potentially — and legally — allow us to do what we’ve all BEEN doing for years … !