Mp3 Downloading

Thirdfox

Interestingly I was debating whether downloading MP3s from the internet for private consumption was illegal or not (I assumed that it was) but the honourable gentleman said that under Irish law maybe only the person who makes the material available is liable not the downloader... does anyone have any information on this?

I know that in the US downloaders can definitely be held liable...

hullaballoo

I thought this was suitable to be a thread in itself. The law in this area is very unclear, so it should be a good topic.

snappieT

I know that in the US downloaders can definitely be held liable...

That's uploaders. You can only be prosecuted for making copyrighted media available without the permission of the owners.

Dave!

I had always assumed that both downloading AND uploading were illegal, but the RIAA (or the Irish equivalent) were mainly targetting uploaders for the logical reason that if there is no uploaders, there can be no downloaders.

Just saying that was the way I thought it was, and point me in the right direction if I'm off

Devon

Thirdfox wrote:

Interestingly I was debating whether downloading MP3s from the internet for private consumption was illegal or not (I assumed that it was) but the honourable gentleman said that under Irish law maybe only the person who makes the material available is liable not the downloader... does anyone have any information on this?

I know that in the US downloaders can definitely be held liable...

What about if the mp3 file you're sharing was legal when you obtained it, but would now be illegal to share it since the band is now signed?

Case in point: Drowning Pool. If I downloaded their anthem "Bodies" from their site when they were unsigned. Now that they are signed, would the RIAA come after those who share it out?

Thirdfox

snappieT wrote:

That's uploaders. You can only be prosecuted for making copyrighted media available without the permission of the owners.

I had this discussion with someone on the Trinity boards already... I found this case on lexis nexis:

BMG MUSIC, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. CECILIA GONZALEZ
citation: 430 F.3d 888; 2005 U.S. App. LEXIS 26903

where it was held inter alia that
"The foundation of this holding is a belief that people who post or download music files are primary infringers."

"She contends that her activities were fair use rather than infringement. The district court disagreed and granted summary judgment for the copyright proprietors (to which we refer collectively as BMG Music). 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 910 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 7, 2005). The court enjoined Gonzalez from further infringement and awarded $ 22,500 in damages under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)."

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054883286

Thirdfox

See also the plans by the RIAA to stop CD ripping:

http://www.techcentral.ie/consumer_tech/CD_Ripping/view

the vice of the corporate state tightens just a bit more...

Reku

Thirdfox wrote:

See also the plans by the RIAA to stop CD ripping:

http://www.techcentral.ie/consumer_tech/CD_Ripping/view

the vice of the corporate state tightens just a bit more...

Ah yes, I'd heard about this, my simple oppinion is they can damn well reimburse me for my now otherwise useless CDs if they think they are banning me from putting them on my mp3 player!:mad:

dermot_sheehan

Thirdfox wrote:

Interestingly I was debating whether downloading MP3s from the internet for private consumption was illegal or not (I assumed that it was) but the honourable gentleman said that under Irish law maybe only the person who makes the material available is liable not the downloader... does anyone have any information on this?

I know that in the US downloaders can definitely be held liable...

To copy and paste what I said on the TCD board, in Ireland downloading isn't an infringement:

In particular s. 50 of the Copyright and Related Rights Act 2000 provides for fair dealing http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000S50.html This would include things like transferring your cd collection to your ipod.

But downloading isn't even infringement under the act, uploading is infringement as it violates the "making availabe right" under s. 40 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000S40.html downloading isn't.

Of course if you redistribute or sell the works you download you'll be liable for secondary infringement.
s. 45 deals with infringing copies and secondary infringement thereof, which basically states if you make infringing copies available to the public, you commit an offence, not from private possession http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/ZZA28Y2000S45.html

Of course I stand to be corrected if someone could point me at a statute, directive, regulation or case i missed.

padser

gabhain7 wrote:

To copy and paste what I said on the TCD board, in Ireland downloading isn't an infringement:



Of course I stand to be corrected if someone could point me at a statute, directive, regulation or case i missed.

My understanding of Fair Dealing (and am studying it at the moment and havnt finished, so my understading is incomplete) is that it refers only to

~research or private study
~critisism or review
~reporting of current events

The fair dealing element of this is that the fact you are involved in, for example 'research or private study' does not give you a complete immunity from copyright. you must still act fairly and not abuse the protection you do have. If you do you will lose it.


This would seem to be supported by reading the section you have linked (s50) you have linked, and the following section (s51). s50 is entitled 'Fair dealing: criticism or review.'.

There is no general defence of 'fair dealing'. Thus the current law in ireland would be that if you buy a cd. Put it onto your ipod via ur computer you have committed two primary infringments. One, you made a digital copy to your laptop. Two, you made a digital copy to your ipod.

Thus the only legal way i can see to have money on your ipod is to
a)download non copyright music
b)buy directly from itunes (i assume music from this source legally can be transfered from your computer to your ipod - although i dont know this for sure)

dermot_sheehan

padser wrote:

Thus the only legal way i can see to have money on your ipod is to
a)download non copyright music
b)buy directly from itunes (i assume music from this source legally can be transfered from your computer to your ipod - although i dont know this for sure)

"Time shifting" has been held to be fair dealing by the U.S. Supreme Court in Universal Studios v. Sony. I assume it has been applied in this jurisdiction, though don't have statute or case law to hand, because if it wasn't, tape recording tv programs would be illegal.

EDIT

Hold on, just re-read statute, transfering the music you lawfully bought, to your ipod, to listen to by you would be private study under s.50(1), it appears the oireachtas had implemented the time shifting theory in the statute. To be quiet honest, given the natural and ordinary meaning of the words in the statute what does "private study" mean. If I listen to music I like, through headphones so no one else is hearing it, it's private study. Especially given the common law interpretation of fair dealing in other jurisdictions with regard to time shifting. Similary, I set VCR to tape a program, watch it on my own 4 hours later, it's private study of the program the statute doesn't require it to be for an educational purpose.

ambro25

Copyright law in itself, or at least the principles underlying it, are simple - copyright defines who can and cannot reproduce the work of an author, after defining what a work is and what a copy is. Anything beyond that is Contract law.

Mp3s are only one particular form of a work (think of it, when reading the Act, as a 'recording').

What you purchase when buying a CD or an mp3 from iTunes, is in effect the right to listen to the works (see below) to your heart's content - for this reason, part and parcel of the deal is that you get a support (CD/mp3) to do this. That's pretty much a contract - this is because...

What you do not purchase, is the (or any portion of the) copyright in the original works: the lyrics, the instrumentation on a sheet from which the music is played, the rendition of the music, the singing of the lyrics to that music and the studio recording of the lot, from which the CD/mp3 are authored (the CD/mp3 are themselves 'authorised copies' and they are 'recordings', as far as the Act is concerned).

If you download an mp3 without having first consented to the terms under which you would legitimately obtain the right to listen to it (by buying it as a CD or mp3 download), however, then the owner of the work is not compensated under his terms, so may rightfully (and legally) deem that you are in possession of an unauthorised copy of the work (unauthorised because not obtained under his terms): the uploader may have title (under Contract law) to his mp3 (e.g. if bought from iTunes), but the subsequent copy reconstituted on your HDD from a stream is not the same file, therefore is a subsequent copy/recording of the work.

The main form of copyright infringed is that embodied in the recording (which is different, in definition and length, from the lyrics, performance, etc.).

As for uploading, I believe that situation is perfectly clear and doesn't need much further discussion, if any at all.

What could be interesting under the Act, but so far has not been judicially reviewed because the argument has not been made in any Court that I am aware of, is the analogy that should be drawn when upload/download activity can be technically assimilated as broadcasting activity (again, see the Act about this): in essence, drawing an analogy between tuning a radio receiver to a particular frequency (Radio1) and taping a broadcast (ToTP onto a K7) [noone bothers, been done for decades], and 'tuning' a browser of a computer to a particular frequency (IP address) and 'taping' a broadcast (recording streamed bits) [oooh aaah sue-sue-sue]

Victor

gabhain7 wrote:

To copy and paste what I said on the TCD board, in Ireland downloading isn't an infringement:

But what about the subsequent possession / "copying".*

* Is the copy made by the uploader or downloader? I would contend the downloader.

Dave!

have any cases been brought against any downloaders in Ireland?

Thirdfox

Have there been any cases in Ireland at all in relation to mp3s?

padser

gabhain7 wrote:

To copy and paste what I said on the TCD board, in Ireland downloading isn't an infringement:

.

incorrect, downloading may in itself not be an infringment, but the digital copy made is an infringing copy (and u cant download without making one), and being in possession of an infringing copy is an infringment. Thus downloading is effectively an infringment. Also 17 people (high volume downloaders) have had their IP addresses given to IRMA (irish recorded music organisation) and most have settled out of court. A few of the cases may yet go to court. Link below is all i could find on it and is not complete story, but does show that it is obviosuly illegal under irish law

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6639.cfm

DavemcG wrote:

have any cases been brought against any downloaders in Ireland.

yes see above link

gabhain7 wrote:

Hold on, just re-read statute, transfering the music you lawfully bought, to your ipod, to listen to by you would be private study under s.50(1),

No it wouldnt. That is precisely the kind of abuse of the the 'private study' that the limitation of 'fair dealing' avoids. 'Fair dealing' allows the courts to use their discretion to ignore arguments of the kind 'me listening to the music is private study'.

ambro25 wrote:

Copyright law in itself, or at least the principles underlying it, are simple - copyright defines who can and cannot reproduce the work of an author, after defining what a work is and what a copy is. Anything beyond that is Contract law.
....
What you purchase when buying a CD or an mp3 from iTunes, is in effect the right to listen to the works (see below) to your heart's content - for this reason, part and parcel of the deal is that you get a support (CD/mp3) to do this. That's pretty much a contract - this is because...

.

What you do not get when you purchase a cd etc is any right to copy the work. Now a digital copy is a copy. Therefore you do not have the right to copy it to your ipod or your computer.

AS you have correctly said copyright 'defines who can and cannot reproduce the work '. And buying a CD does not give you the right to reproduce it.

dermot_sheehan

padser wrote:

incorrect, downloading may in itself not be an infringment, but the digital copy made is an infringing copy (and u cant download without making one), and being in possession of an infringing copy is an infringment. Thus downloading is effectively an infringment. Also 17 people (high volume downloaders) have had their IP addresses given to IRMA (irish recorded music organisation) and most have settled out of court. A few of the cases may yet go to court. Link below is all i could find on it and is not complete story, but does show that it is obviosuly illegal under irish law

Era yes downloading does create an infringing copy on your computer, but guess what, simple possession of an infringing copy in a domestic environment is not an infringement.


45.—A person infringes the copyright in a work where he or she without the licence of the copyright owner—
(a) sells, rents or lends, or offers or exposes for sale, rental or loan,
(b) imports into the State, otherwise than for his or her private and domestic use,
(c) in the course of a business, trade or profession, has in his or her possession, custody or control, or makes available to the public, or
(d) otherwise than in the course of a business, trade or profession, makes available to the public to such an extent as to prejudice the interests of the owner of the copyright,
a copy of the work which is, and which he or she knows or has reason to believe is, an infringing copy of the work.

dermot_sheehan

padser wrote:

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6639.cfm



yes see above link

Yes, it's a snippet from a newsreport on interlocqutory proceeding in the high court. Not very relevent since we don't know if the persons whose ids were being sought were uploading or just downloading.

padser wrote:

No it wouldnt. That is precisely the kind of abuse of the the 'private study' that the limitation of 'fair dealing' avoids. 'Fair dealing' allows the courts to use their discretion to ignore arguments of the kind 'me listening to the music is private study'.

eh, read the statute, read case law on time shifting. Courts are very reluctant to retrospectively impose civil/criminal liability where the law is unclear. It's one of the canons of statutory interpretation that words are given their ordinary and natural meaning. "private study", there's no limitation requring it be for an educational purpose.

padser wrote:

What you do not get when you purchase a cd etc is any right to copy the work. Now a digital copy is a copy. Therefore you do not have the right to copy it to your ipod or your computer.

AS you have correctly said copyright 'defines who can and cannot reproduce the work '. And buying a CD does not give you the right to reproduce it.

Copyright is a state granted monopoly and is regulated by law (it's whole existance is due to law). When you buy a cd, the publisher is giving you some plastic, and a licence to do x, y and z, but does not stop the law from allowing you to do a, b and c. For example if a publisher sold a cd in germany and made it a condition of the licence that it not be exported to ireland, it would be invalid as contrary to the treaty of rome. Similary the copyright that exists in broadcasts, the law allows time shifting. On an iPod you're listening to the same copyrighted material without adversly effecting the copyright owner's legitamite interests. That's why it's protected as private study. I buy my green day cd. I ripp it on to my ipod, and i listen to it on way to work, it's protected as fair dealing, why? because I haven't adversly effected the copyright owner's legitamite interest, I already paid for a licence to listen to it, I'm just listening to it in a different manner.

TheMonster

What about something like www.allofmp3.com - where they are actually operating totally legally in their country. Are you by buying off them doing so legally and then importing it here.

ambro25

padser wrote:

What you do not get when you purchase a cd etc is any right to copy the work. Now a digital copy is a copy. Therefore you do not have the right to copy it to your ipod or your computer.

AS you have correctly said copyright 'defines who can and cannot reproduce the work '. And buying a CD does not give you the right to reproduce it.

The license is not explicit, but may be implied, and if not under express statutory defenses to infringement (fair use, private tudy etc.), then at least in equity. That's because, indeed...

gabhain7 wrote:

On an iPod you're listening to the same copyrighted material without adversly effecting the copyright owner's legitamite interests. [EDIT: provided you purchased the license to do so, of course, i.e. bought the cd/download from iTunes] (...) I already paid for a licence to listen to it, I'm just listening to it in a different manner.

What your deal, as an end-user, with the music distributor entitles you to do is for (i) you to (ii) listen to the work (iii) against payment to the author or his/her representative/successor-in-title: the license does not restrict the manner in which you choose to listen to the work, nor the time at which you choose to listen to the work (both of which may actually be inter-dependent: i.e. (a) no access to a portable CD player, only a desktop PC, (b) only time available to listen is during commuting, (c) only have access to mp3 as portable device).

That's entirely different from either (A) making the ripped version subsequently available for download (as an uploader, and whether for free or against €s), or (B) downloading a ripped version for which you have not "made the deal" by buying the CD (e.g.).

Where the debate gets gray, is whether (i) once you have bought the CD (say in 1995) and (ii) so long as you have not re-sold it 2nd-hand (in which case you are also re-selling the license to listen, by the way!), can you legitimately download a rip of that CD whenever suits you from whatever source at whetever bit rate?

Where the debate gets side-tracked, is when uploaders/downloaders (in the 'leech' sense of the terms) are conveniently re-focusing the debate on the DMCA-inspired "device or ripping restrictions" that music distributors are "trying on", because they know that legally they haven't got a leg to stand on - because that's another debate.

besty

TheMonster wrote:

What about something like www.allofmp3.com - where they are actually operating totally legally in their country. Are you by buying off them doing so legally and then importing it here.

That's an interesting variation on the law. My understanding is that the above Russian site doesn't honour the royalties to the degree they should be so their service is actually illegal. I'm not certain about this but recall a thread somewhere previously started on boards.

TheMonster

besty wrote:

That's an interesting variation on the law. My understanding is that the above Russian site doesn't honour the royalties to the degree they should be so their service is actually illegal. I'm not certain about this but recall a thread somewhere previously started on boards.

I think it has been proved beyond doubt that they are totally legal in Russia, where it is grey area is buying from overseas.

If I go to Russia and download the files and then bring them to Ireland would that be ok? AFAIK Holland has said it is legal to use there.

Stabshauptmann

padser wrote:

Also 17 people (high volume downloaders) have had their IP addresses given to IRMA (irish recorded music organisation) and most have settled out of court. A few of the cases may yet go to court. Link below is all i could find on it and is not complete story, but does show that it is obviosuly illegal under irish law

http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/6639.cfm

Those were uploaders.
"file sharers it alleges to have shared copyrighted music"
"While these file sharers might have been uploading music illegally"

Nouveau

I have a large collection of records, a draw full of cassettes, boxes of CDs
and even some 8 track cartridges.

Since I own all these recordings, if I chose to download one of them ( or all of them ) from a P2P service or a torrent to listen to on my MP3 player am I within my rights or am I acting illegally ?

JohnK

TheMonster wrote:

I think it has been proved beyond doubt that they are totally legal in Russia, where it is grey area is buying from overseas.

If I go to Russia and download the files and then bring them to Ireland would that be ok? AFAIK Holland has said it is legal to use there.

My thoughts in that situation would be that its no more or less legal than buying from the likes of Amazon.com since both are outside the EU and both are fully legal in their respective countries.

grumpytrousers

when i think of www.allofmp3.com i think the matter stops being one of legality and one of ethics; I've just tried to log onto the site and (dammit) it's down so i'll have to rely on my admittedly porous memory here, and re-iterate stuff i've said on the topic on previous boards. Just 'cos something is legal doesn't make it right; you use a site like that, you know full darned well that the artist isn't getting the thick end of bog all out of the folks running it. If the fact that the transaction was 'legal' acts as a salve to your conscience, you've a problem. If you want to ride the artist and not pay any royalties, at least have the sodding decency to use torrents so that nobody gets any moolah.

Oh - and ambro25 - as a matter of interest, i've often thought of the purchase of a CD as being effectively a license to listen to the tunes produced by a certain artist or whatever...but I do wonder, if i've bought the CD for say, €15, then surely if the dog eats my disc and it's unplayable, I still have a valid license to listen to the album. S'funny how if i walk into HMV and ask for a replacement, it appears I don't have a license to listen anymore, it's a physical product that's 'broken' and i have to purchase a replacement...

oh - and me 2c to the guy who asked about the song that *was* legitimately available as a download when a band was unsigned and is now signed - well, if the download was legitimately obtained, it was legitimately obtained. I'm not sure that by signing a record deal, that a company can retrospectively make freely available stuff 'restricted' - in that you should delete same from your hard drive and pony up the money to get it again!

ambro25

grumpytrousers wrote:

Oh - and ambro25 - as a matter of interest, i've often thought of the purchase of a CD as being effectively a license to listen to the tunes produced by a certain artist or whatever... but I do wonder, if i've bought the CD for say, €15, then surely if the dog eats my disc and it's unplayable, I still have a valid license to listen to the album. S'funny how if i walk into HMV and ask for a replacement, it appears I don't have a license to listen anymore, it's a physical product that's 'broken' and i have to purchase a replacement...

HMV do not have any implied or express contract with you to supply you with any replacement - the CD producers have: you have to distinguish the medium which costs X to produce, manufacture, advertise and distribute, and retails at Y, from the intellectual property on it. HMV doesn't decide how much of price Y is composed of "physical" costs, and how much of it is composed of the IP value - they just know they buy it at X and sell it at Y. It's the producers who know how much of the X cost does the IP represent.

That's why it's not HMV having at P2P/torrents, but RIAA and MPAA and consorts.

In an ideal world, you would send proof of purchase to Mr EMI or Sony BMG, and they would give you a voucher (of an indeterminate amount, corresponding to the value of the copyright-based "listening contract" for which you should have to pay only once), to reduce the price of your replacement CD by as much.

The same applies in respect of -say- a Dyson hoover: say you've bought the hoover, which is manufactured under license under the Dyson patents. You use it without fear of infringing Dyson patents, you have 'paid the contract'. But when it's borked, you have to replace it (with same or another altogether): you cannot make your own Dyson hoover, because you would be infringing Dyson's patents and they would have a valid cause of action to sue you for infringement.

edit: JohnK (and poster before... and others), you have to bear in mind the various jurisdictions involved and the variations of the Legal Statutes in each: it's not because you buy something legally in country A, that importing it in your country B is legal. You can buy cannabis legally in the Netherlands, would you think of having it shipped to you in Dublin? Another: you can buy a PSP in Hong-Kong, but Mr Justice UK (which would be followed in IE) has said you can't then import it in Europe.

The same applies for copyright (and whatever else): check whether the acquisition and possession of the product (which can be an mp3 download) would be deemed legal under the Law in this country, before wondering about whether the sale of it in another country is legal at all.

grumpytrousers

Fair dinkum. So you think i'll really have to buy *another* copy of The Best of Showaddywaddy then...:D

JohnK

ambro25 wrote:

edit: JohnK (and poster before... and others), you have to bear in mind the various jurisdictions involved and the variations of the Legal Statutes in each: it's not because you buy something legally in country A, that importing it in your country B is legal. You can buy cannabis legally in the Netherlands, would you think of having it shipped to you in Dublin? Another: you can buy a PSP in Hong-Kong, but Mr Justice UK (which would be followed in IE) has said you can't then import it in Europe.

The same applies for copyright (and whatever else): check whether the acquisition and possession of the product (which can be an mp3 download) would be deemed legal under the Law in this country, before wondering about whether the sale of it in another country is legal at all.

Yes, I understand that but the point I was trying to make was that if people say AllOfMP3 is illegal in Ireland then surely by the same logic Amazon.Com (and all other non-EU based stores) must be illegal as well.

ambro25

JohnK wrote:

Yes, I understand that but the point I was trying to make was that if people say AllOfMP3 is illegal in Ireland then surely by the same logic Amazon.Com (and all other non-EU based stores) must be illegal as well.

Not so. Fasten your seatbelt, it's about to get horrible

Your transaction with AllOfMP3 in Russia may be legitimate under Russion copyright law. That's why the sale is legal in Russia.

But your ownership of the product of the transaction in Ireland (i.e. downloaded from Russia into the Irish jurisdiction) may constitute an infringement of the relevant copyright owner under the relevant Irish Copyright Act, if either:

(i) the copyright owner does not recognise/appoint AllOfMP3 as an approved supplier at all (so AllOfMP3 has no right to transact in the property of the owner); or

(ii) the copyright owner does not recognise/appoint AllOfMP3 as an approved supplier for European/Irish residents (so AllOfMP3 has no right to transact in the property of the owner in Ireland - which selling to an Irish resident is)

That's assuming the copyright owner consented to the distribution of his copyrighted work in Russia in the first place.

The net effect is that you, under the Irish Copyright Act, have acquired the copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright owner and are therefore liable for infringement. Endof.

The same logic applies to Amazon.com, and anyone else exporting to the EU/to Ireland. So long as the intellectual property owner consents to distribution into the EU, they can ship to their heart's content - but if the intellectual property owner doesn't, they cannot. That's exactly what happened with LikSang and Sony (only it was trademarks and designs, not copyright - but the same principles apply).

It would be very different if AllOfMP3 were based anywhere in the EU. As once the copyrighted work has been sold anywhere in the EU with the copyright owner's consent, then it's fair game for import/export from one EU country to another.

JohnK

ambro25 wrote:

Not so. Fasten your seatbelt, it's about to get horrible

Your transaction with AllOfMP3 in Russia may be legitimate under Russion copyright law. That's why the sale is legal in Russia.

But your ownership of the product of the transaction in Ireland (i.e. downloaded from Russia into the Irish jurisdiction) may constitute an infringement of the relevant copyright owner under the relevant Irish Copyright Act, if either:

(i) the copyright owner does not recognise/appoint AllOfMP3 as an approved supplier at all (so AllOfMP3 has no right to transact in the property of the owner); or

(ii) the copyright owner does not recognise/appoint AllOfMP3 as an approved supplier for European/Irish residents (so AllOfMP3 has no right to transact in the property of the owner in Ireland - which selling to an Irish resident is)

That's assuming the copyright owner consented to the distribution of his copyrighted work in Russia in the first place.

The net effect is that you, under the Irish Copyright Act, have acquired the copyrighted work without the consent of the copyright owner and are therefore liable for infringement. Endof.

The same logic applies to Amazon.com, and anyone else exporting to the EU/to Ireland. So long as the intellectual property owner consents to distribution into the EU, they can ship to their heart's content - but if the intellectual property owner doesn't, they cannot. That's exactly what happened with LikSang and Sony (only it was trademarks and designs, not copyright - but the same principles apply).

It would be very different if AllOfMP3 were based anywhere in the EU. As once the copyrighted work has been sold anywhere in the EU with the copyright owner's consent, then it's fair game for import/export from one EU country to another.

My head hurts after reading that

So, would I be right in saying then that if a DVD has printed on its cover: This product (including its soundtrack) is licensed for sale in U.S.A. and Canada only that it would be illegal under Irish law (and presumably US law) for an internet based shop (in this case Amazon.com) to sell it to me if my delivery address is in Ireland? Or would I be the one commiting a crime by buying it?

dermot_sheehan

Basically this is situation:
section 44 of copyright act:http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/sec0044.html#partii-chapv-sec44
any copy importing into the state is an infringing copy if the copying if done in the state would have been an infringement. A copy is not an infringing copy if its been distributed by the licence holder somewhere else in the european economic area.

section 45
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2000/en/act/pub/0028/sec0045.html#partii-chapv-sec45

it is not an infringment to import an infringing copy into the state if it's for someones personal and private use.

Patrickof

Well, its clear from above that there's a difference between 'right and wrong' and 'legal and illegal'. Sadly the music industry is no angel in this either - nor are we the customers who continue to support them.

Rant against music industry:

When media moved from cassette to CD, the price went up even though the cost of production went down on the basis that we were paying for better quality. (compare this with the car market, if the price increased the same rate every time cars have been improved over the last 20 years they'd now be unaffordable).

Same with VHS to DVD, with the music industry claiming we were paying more for the extra content on the DVD (mostly rubbish). Then they latched on to this "region codes" idea so that they could charge varying prices for the same product depending on what country you were in.

As for the arguement that paying allofmp3 prevent monies getting to the artist, well, the music industry aren't angels here either. In 2004 (maybe 2005) that english pop group whose name I can't remember had one of the biggest No. 1s of the past few years with "You can make me whole again". The 5 members of the band got £40K to share between them.

So if the music industry want to be treated "fairly" they need to wake up and realise that if they've been ripping us off for years then they can't be too surprised when the public bite back when they get the opportunity.