From the new bill:
29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce onto a medium or device a musical work embodied in a sound recording, a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or a sound recording in which a musical work or a performer’s performance of a musical work is embodied, or any substantial part of such a work or other subject-matter, if the following conditions are met:
(a) the sound recording is not an infringing copy;
(b) the individual legally obtained the sound recording, otherwise than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns the medium or device on which it is reproduced;
(c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent a technolog- ical measure or cause one to be circumvented, within the meanings of the definitions “circumvent” and “technological measure” in section 41;
(d) the individual reproduces the sound recording no more than once for each device that the individual owns, whether the reproduction is made directly onto the device or is made onto a medium that is to be used with the device;
(e) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and
(f) the reproduction is used only for private purposes.
Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are the biggies for me. There was no distinction before in the private copying exemption in our current legislation between legal and illegal sources. The new section says you have to not only legally obtain the sound recording but it can't be rented or borrowed either. No more borrowing CDs from the local library. And if you in any way circumvent DRM or similar digital "locks" you clearly run amok of our new copyright laws.
|