What are your questions on downloading & copying music legally?

A question about : What are your questions on downloading & copying music legally?

The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) - the British record industry's trade organisation - has agreed to answers MSE's questions on legal music sharing.

So what do you want to know?

Eg. Is it legal to copy your CD to your MP3 player?
Can you record the top 40 and listen back?
Can you lend a mate your favourite Take That/Foo Fighters album?

List your questions here, we'll get answers and publish them in the weekly email (www.moneysavingexpert.com/tips)

This Forum Tip was included in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email
Don't miss out on new deals, loopholes, and vouchers
FAQs
Privacy Policy
Past Emails
Unsubscribe

Best answers:

• Can you download an album from the internet (such as via bittorrent) to your PC if you own a copy already on CD?
• When are you going to drop the ridiculous idea that every single illegal download is automatically a lost sale, and using that to calculate your "losses", when most people who illegally download have never and will never step foot in a record shop, buy an album or pay for a download?
• Is it legal or illegal to listen to streamed music - even if the source of that music is illegal? For example if you were listening to a pirate radio broadcast on your computer (ie one which was not paying fees to record companies) are you breaking the law by listening?
  Thanks
  Sou
• Ask BPI :
  "When are you going to stop living in the Twentieth Century?"
  And if I want to know what is legal, I'll look at the law for myself, not ask a body with a vested interest in twisting the law.
• My question is not about legal downloading as such, but I have always wondered how the money paid is split between retailer, artist, writer, record company, etc.? As tunechecker shows, there can be a big difference between the cost of the same track or album from different retailers, is the split a fixed amount or a percentage cut? Thanks.
• If legal downloading costs the same as having the physical CD delivered (Which from many retailers it does), what is the incentive to download legally - make it a fair price and more people will pay it.
  Also I completely agree with Watto1990 - there us a lot of music that I'd have on my ipod if I could get it for free, that I would never even consider spending my money on!
• Why do the Performing Rights Society insist we need a licence to listen to the radio in our small office? All the employees have their own TV/Radio licences and the radio station pays royalties to play songs. Surely they are trying to charge for something that has already been paid for by the broadcaster. Wouldn't it make sense for them to chase the broadcasters for royalties not the listeners of background music at work.
• If you download a song with DRM, is it OK to un-DRM the track for your own personal use, if the MP3 player you have doesn't support DRM?
• A few facts:
  2008 was a record year for the number of singles sold, only for that record to be broken by October the following year.
  Numerous results of research shows that people who download music buy more albums than those that do not download, (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/3052145).
  Many of the singer-songwriters in the charts today were not found by the record companies but were discovered and made popular by promoting their own efforts using You Tube and social networking sites.
  The price of downloaded tracks are more expensive in the UK than many other countries (using iTunes as an example), a price agreed with the UK recording industry.
  Knowing this; how can you defend your argument that sharing tracks is hurting music? Isn't it more accurate to say that the way people are accessing music no longer fits within an outdated business and distribution model that the BPI has tried to enforce with decreasing effectiveness?
  Also, The Digital Economy Bill, a bill largely written by the BPI and lobbied for strongly (the final bill contained large portions of text copied exactly from the lobby documents), is not fit for purpose as the EU has already said that access to the internet should be considered a fundamental human right, a sentiment echoed by the UN.
  Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, (news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8548190).
  The technology to avoid detection has been used widely, and legitimately, for many years therefore anyone with a modicum of knowledge will not be affected directly by the law.
  What the bill does do is:
  Introduces the concept that everyone is guilty until you prove yourself innocent, without any access to assistance from the legal aid system.
  No proof is needed to punish a person, only a suspicion or accusation is required.
  If one user is suspected of downloading a file, everyone who uses that connection could loose access to the internet. It is to be proved though litigation whether this will affect free wi-fi areas and communal public connections.
  With the bill now made law, how does the BPI intend to reduce the level of illegal downloading by the desired drop of 70%. What monitoring is, or will be, in place and has this monitoring been shown to comply with the human rights act and any UK privacy considerations?
  Finally, if the reduction of 70% is achieved, how will we, the wider populous, benefit?
• Is it correct to say that any download for which you do NOT pay is illegal?
  Also, if you ARE paying, does that automatically make it legal?
• Just the opportunity I've been looking for, I've got quite a few questions:
• Are there any rules that a charity/business needs to abide by that don't apply to individuals?
• If an individual owns a CD can they copy it onto their charity/business laptop/computer?
• Can they use this music for playing to community groups/meetings if a PRS for Music license is in place at the venue?
• Where does the responsibility lie if illegal music is found on a charity/business laptop/computer, ie. individual, IT Manager, Director, Chief Executive, Board etc?
• What can happen if illegal music is found on a charity/business laptop/computer?
• Is there any documentation for charities/businesses that details clearly what is allowed and what isn't allowed regarding downloading/copying music?
• Do the terms and conditions for downloading music from iTunes etc vary for charities/businesses and individuals? This is something I've found very hard to clarify.

Thanks for the opportunity to ask these questions.

• stopping something by using fear as a deterent is not the way to address a situation and keep customers. if you are so concerned with 'illegal' downloading (the losses you quote have been independently proven many times to be gross exaggerations), why dont you make downloads available from your own web sites? giving digital quality, drm free, fast download speed and sensible prices (maybe -70% of buying a physical disk) as has been asked for for god knows how long, must make more sense and make alternate downloading less atractive. a lot of the hardware required to download and put music on to disk or device is manufactured and sold by the same companies that sell music disks anyway. we are encouraged to buy that hardware etc but then expected to not use it? this surely has to be a better option than alientating your own customers by insisting that they lose their internet connection, get taken to court, fined or imprisoned, all because you wont provide the service wanted, dont want anyone else to provide it, or because of what could easily be false accusations? these can and have happened numerous times, mainly because of flawed 'tracking' practices, the accused is the account holder, but not necessarily the person that was downloading and the fact that, from what i understand, it is possible to connect to another wi-fi connection, without the owner knowing. being guilty unless able to prove innocence, something that most people will not be able to do simply because of the cost of hireing a solicitor, is a violation of basic human rights and an invasion of privacy. it is, however, capitalised on by the BPI, other similar organisations and law firms that have been condemned even in the House of Lords for their unscrupulous methods! being told by the government that if an internet connection is removed by an ISP, a person can move to a new ISP immediately. what rot!! once off the 'net' it will be months before any ISp will give a connection and that will be subject to a whole lot of new and restrictive conditions! great, if you hadn't done anything in the first place!
• I have Vinyl albums that still play after 20 years. I have had CDs that only last from 4 years to 10 years before they fail. If i have a CD that fails after 4 years do i pay twice for the same CD again or can I download a replacement??????
• What am I buying when I buy a CD? Am I buying a piece of plastic that happens to have music on it, or am I buying ownership of the songs (the right to listen to them, not the right to redistribute or licence them).
  This has been asked a few times but I'd def like to know the answer. I think it's legal to convert tracks on a CD to mp3 for personal use (e.g. on an mp3 player), but if my CD is scratched and wont play certain songs, is it legal for a friend to send me the mp3s for the tracks I have purchased.
• Why are CD albums now sold for around Ј6 to Ј8 when before the internet made downloading music popular (early 90s) CD albums used to sell at around Ј12 to Ј14?
• I still find it totally unacceptable that organisations like the BPI, the Film Industry and even insurance companies find it 'difficult' to specify what actions are legal wrt to sound tracks or movies or in case of insurance companies what is actually covered. We see a whole raft of copying & public performance prohibition with respect to films and CD's but NOTHING tells us what we can do. Likewise on insurance there's a raft of nebulous exclusions that not even the legal profession can understand and we're left in the dark over what they will actually pay out on. As much as getting answers from the BPI from this forum is a start, surely we need legislation that catergorically and unequivocally forces them to spell out what we can or cannot do with a media purchase. For too long these types of organisations have hidden behind legal speak they believe to be sound but in many cases isn't, and the consumer has had a very raw deal.
  Its time for some honesty for once so come on BPI, you tell us everything that you believe we can do legally and then we can argue the toss if we disagree.
• (Semi) hypothetical scenario: I take a "backup copy" of an audio CD (DVD or whatever) onto my PC.
  1) If I lost the original CD, would I be allowed to burn a new copy from the backup? (I am not sure, "yes" or "no"?)
  2) Am I allowed to burn a new copy of the original CD from this backup if the original CD becomes scratched/unplayable? (I assume "yes", otherwise what is the point of the backup?)
  3) If however the original CD was in my car for use in its (single-slot) CD player, but the car got broken into and the CD (amongst other stuff) was stolen, am I allowed to burn a new copy from the backup? (Again, not sure, maybe "yes - if not covered by insurance" and maybe "no - if I did get some compensation from the insurance company to replace it"?)
  4) What happens if I do get some compensation for the theft of the original CD, but that CD is no-longer available? Am I allowed to use the backup in this case?
  5) If I bought a music (album) download, and necessarily/automatically took a backup of that download, is this backup allowed to be in the form of a playable *audio* CD? (Or must it be in exactly the same data format as the original download)
  6) What happens if I did *not* have a backup, but the original CD is unplayable, but still in my possession, but the original CD is no-longer available for purchase, can I demand that the record company provide me with a free download copy of the original? (By me possibly having to surrender the original non-playable CD as proof of rights to play the album.)
  7) If I happened *not to have* the means to download a downloadable version of the album, would they exchange the original unplayable CD for a new copy of the CD if still available?
  The recording (rights) holders really do need to think about whether we have legitimately bough the right(s) to play the music, or whether we have (only) bought the rights to exactly and only play the music *on/from the original medium that we purchased it*
  Until they do, I shall probably continue to buy a physical CD, take a "backup copy" onto PC and then store the original away very safely and not play it, but instead play the "backup copy" on my PC (or other output device by streaming the copy from my media server)
  Shame the the recording rights holders are too jealously guarding their "rights" to acutally understand how the music business has evolved.
• I've read about the music industry doing a deal with youtube. Is it legal/illegal to upload music tracks to youtube?
• Here are a few questions i would love to see answered.
  1) What actually happens when you buy one of there CD's? Do you actually buy them or do you buy a licence? Is the CD and data free and the purchase is for the licence or do you buy the physical CD the data and a licence?
  2) If you buy all three stated above why do they think selling an item and selling and enforcing a licence on that same possession that is no longer yours is legal? For example a shovel bought from B&Q can not include a licence for use. It is my shovel and when i purchase it i can do what every i want with my shovel with out needing B&Q's permission(With in reason of my own person use). So if i buy a CD and it really means i buy it why do you think you have the right to tell me what to do with my CD by enforcing a licence on my possession?
  3) If it is licenced and the physical CD and data is free(you simply are buying a licence to use the data) why do you advertise the word BUY instead of LICENCE.
  These three queries have been bugging me for ages.
  If these guys don't answer does anyone else know?
  -Jayson