Supplementary memorandum submitted by
the British Phonographic Industry
BPI POSITION ON PRIVATE COPYING
I promised I would write to you on the question
of private copying and to clear up any mis-understanding that
may have arisen about the BPI's position.
To remind you, the position we set out to the
Committee is as at Q134:
There are a few key phrases I want to highlight
here. First is "purchased music". Clearly, we are not
relaxed about the copying, or the acquisition, of music which
has not first been paid for from a legitimate source. It is worth
noting that this formulation rules out our ever being relaxed
about the copying of music acquired through digital stream-ripping,
for example.
Secondly, this is all about what is done for
the consumers' "own use". Again this is critical to
our position. We do not see giving a copy, perhaps to a close
relative by way of a gift, as being an example of "own use"—it
is manifestly for the recipient's use once given to them.
Furthermore, to reiterate the point that consumers
can now wittingly or unwittingly cause immense damage to our industry
by electronically distributing music on a massive scale not necessarily
for commercial gain. This is why the industry has had to pursue
egregious offenders in this area who are not necessarily "commercial
pirates".
Finally, your contention that the industry should
not be in a position where it "chooses which particular
laws they think they wish to enforce" (as you commented
in the first oral evidence session in this inquiry) is a valid
one. What we are proposing would achieve this and may also introduce
a new "maxim" that could reduce consumer confusion:
in other words "to buy it and copy it is OK—but to
pass it on is NOT." We think that this may be able to be
achieved without rewriting the law; ie without introducing a new
fair use exception to the 1988 Act, or without amending existing
exceptions. It is our stance that rightsholders can, and should,
retain their existing statutory rights and simply authorise consumers
to make a private copy.
The missing link in our position, and the area
where intense discussions continue, is exactly how this authorisation
can be formulated so that it captures the position that if, and
only if, copying is done for private use, it should it be allowed.
There is then a secondary question as to how this position is
promulgated to consumers. We are working on this assiduously and
will of course inform you and the Committee as soon as we arrive
at what we think may be a workable solution.
19 June 2006
| 
