Where has it said anything about removing copy protection (DRM)?

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

In reply to a post by Vorlon:

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

... nested quotes trimmed ...

seems they used the ruling as an excuse to say its not needed. I bet those guys wish they didnt take BT to court now

glad the government seen sense, also they plan to make the laws more leniant and make copying of personal content fully legal.

I think it's a great idea to open up the rights of the individual who has bought a "license" to a particular piece of media (say music) so that he/she may copy that to other media for personal use.
For those who grew up in the vinyl era and who have had large vinyl collections (like myself), purchasing many of the same again on CD format has been expensive and something I've Always Believed the media companies could have been more flexible on.

The question is will the media companies honour the change in law and remove copy protection.

A starting point would probably be preferable with Audio CD's which don't seem to have the amount of protection that Film media does. Also Audio entertainment is generally more portable, as too are the range of types of devices.

Whilst the lifting of Audio copying restrictions would be a big bonus to me ie a legitimate paying customer, I still think those who use every excuse under the sun to download music/media without paying for it, will continue to do so.

I've always seen about 90% of the comments that people make about the media companies simply not adding up. If people really believe they have a serious problem with companies making money, then that category isn't exclusive to the media industry.
Many of those that download illegally have no intention of paying and just leave the funding of the media industry up to those of us that are honest.

You would have thought that those that found any companies profits repugnant would simply boycott them.
So i'm all for legitimate customers getting flexibility (it's long overdue), but I think people like me that pay for our media, will continue to be penalised by those who have no intention of paying. I suppose they are similiar to those who refuse to have car insurance - ultimately we all pay.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

Where has it said anything about removing copy protection (DRM)?

it hasnt, but obviously if DRM is kept, its effectively sticking 2 fingers up to the change. Vincent Cable called it common sense to allow people to make personal copies of media they buy.

its a step they should make.

if DRM goes, regional release dates go etc. Then I will be far more swayed towards the copyright infringerment cause. DRM defenitly turns people of buying media, they feel it is their right to make a copy if they pay for it. So removing DRM will be a very good first step in getting in touch with the consumer. Its far from a final solution tho. I am glad the government is recognising this as well.

I guess it depends on what the actual change is. If the change is so that is is no longer illegal to copy music then companies could continue to put DRM on.

If the change is to give people a right to be able to format shift then I would say DRM should not be allowed as it would stop people exercising that right.

So, I wonder which it is that they are looking to do. Decriminalise format shifting or make format shifting a "human right"?

DRM that allows copying to 3 or 4 devices is reasonable enough, obviously no DRM would be preferrable

DRM only inconveniences those who actually pay for their media. You don't see much DRM in illicit downloads (or so I'm reliably informed )

People who pay for media can also engage in piracy though, e.g. giving copies of a purchased music album to their mates.

True and obviously that's why DRM exists but it still doesn't alter the fact that hookey downloads are DRM free so it only inconveniences those who pay.

I agree I would say the affect of DRM is 0% on piracy. or at least very close to it. I think DRM is an all lose for media companies, it adds cost to develop and produce, it gives them bad PR which ultimately loses them sales and it can in some cases compromise quality of the product. Its one of those things they do because they feel they have to do it.