Reprographic Levies to hit the UK?

Does the UK adhere more closely to conventional copyright principles (as articulated e.g. by The Berne Convention) than other jurisdictions?

Some jurisdictions appear to permit certain breaches of copyright principles to remain within the law. Such a concession is often permitted for the practice of making ‘private copies’ of copyrighted materials. Although this practice currently remains an illegal contravention of copyright in the UK, the same concession appears to be on the way .

The reason for such legal concessions is purely practical. The practice of making private copies is rampant and it is inconceivable how copyrights may be legally enforced at the individual level on such a large scale.

In consideration for such legal concessions, often a levy is placed on the sale of items which directly commit the private copies (e.g. scanners), or on media within which the copied material may be stored (e.g. blank CDs). Such levies are increasingly being referred to as ‘reprographic levies’. Revenue generated through reprographic levies are conceived to find their way back to the music industry where they are to be distributed across the producers.

Assuming that the relevant ‘private copy’ legislation eventually comes to fruition in the UK, would that also signal the onset of reprographic levies? The answer to this is likely to depend on two points. First of all, is a particular form of copying being perpetuated at a consequental direct loss to the copyright holder? And secondly is it possible to isolate a device which has a sole function of directly committing copies, and is used mainly for the copying of copyrightable materials, or is it possible to isolate a device which has a sole function of storeage and is used mainly for the storeage of copyrightable materials?

These points are derrived from principles set by our european counterparts, who have been resolving the issue of reprographic levys for some time. A recent ruling, by a German court, found that single function printers (i.e. distinguishing from photocopiers which can both scan and print) were beyond the scope of levys. It was argued that the hard printing of digital materials (e.g. something written on a plain text editor) often does not amount to a breach of copyright. And moreover, a bulk of copyright breach type printing is effected only when the single function printer is networked with a PC and scanner (sales of which already carry a levy).

Applying the points to the specific case of ‘ripping’ – where song files on CDs are extracted onto the computer hard-drive and stored digitally; clearly this activity is being practiced at a direct cost to the copyright holder of the song files, however it remains unclear where exactly a levy may be placed. The device which rips CDs is generally retailed integrated into a whole computer package so in general only serves a minor function for must computer users. Ripped song files are increasingly likely to end up on an mp3 player (or other portable device e.g. mobile phone), although placing a levy on mp3 players cannot easily be reconciled with the music industry’s drive to promote the nascent legal music download market.