The UK music industry groups recently won a case over government allowing people to legally copy CDs and other lawfully obtained content for their own private use. According to the court ruling, the government should have established a compensation scheme for songwriters, musicians and other copyright owners who suffer losses because of copyright infringement.


According to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the taken measures were supposed to cause no harm, thus making compensation unnecessary. The changes came into force nine months ago under the Personal Copies for Private Use Regulations. So, prior to 1 October it was unlawful in the UK to rip or copy the contents of a CD for personal use, despite the fact that the format-shifting activity was widespread.

However, the legality of these regulations was challenged in court by various music bodies, including the Musicians’ Union and the British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authors. According to their estimations, such regulations, if not providing a compensation scheme, would result in annual losses of £58m.

The court sided with the musicians and pointed out that the case had raised a range of legal issues, most of which were ruled in the government’s favor. The judge invited further submissions on whether aspects of the case should be referred to the European Court of Justice.

The representatives of the music industry claimed that the law on private copying had been in an unsatisfactory state for many years now, though the problem had been exacerbated by digital technology and the Internet, and the reproduction and copying they allowed. Although the entertainment industry did welcome the government’s measures, it raised the issue of the lack of a fair compensation scheme over copying for personal use for the copyright holders – both historically and in the future.

Apparently, the United Kingdom, unlike other European states, had failed to provide appropriate compensation. According to the regulations, only the individual who purchased the legitimate copy of the content is allowed to copy it, not their friends or family.

The government argued that this case boiled down to an opportunistic attempt to obtain a financial benefit, but the judge decided that such stance was not justified by the evidence with regard to the compensation issue.