High Court has just turned your iPhone into a crime scene

Remember when back in 2014 the government realised that having a law against people ripping their own CDs to put on digital players was absurd, and tidied up the law?

The High Court has reversed that change, and believes that if you own a CD and wish to listen to the music on your iPhone, you will meekly go online and pay for the thing all over again:

The ruling says that governments can't make exceptions to copyright law without compensating rightsholders for the "harms" from the changes; because the UK government didn't demonstrate that ripping CDs doesn't cause harm to rightsholders, and because it didn't impose a levy to compensate for "harms," the legalisation of ripping (which, incredibly, only took place in the last Parliament) is now invalid.

Yes, lawyers from the Music Industry have convinced judges that when Person A slips Now That's What I Call Music 56 into their drive, if they weren't doing that, they'd be somehow buying the tracks instead.

Obviously, it's a stupid decision, made by a legal system that has apparently never met a person, but it's also a ruling that will be completely ignored. It's not as if prior to 2014 people looked at their pile of CDs, looked at their iPod, and thought "well, if only the law recognised that I own the music and the only distinction is whether the digital playback is instantaneous or later, I could pop those on my device."

And it's probably for the best that the world will ignore this rule - the police force has been so hollowed out under Theresa May's rule that they can barely manage to turn up to a crime in progress, much less pop round on the rumour that someone has put their Clean Bandit single on their Galaxy G4, so it's going to make scofflaws of most of us.

But if the law was applied, the logical behaviour would be to say 'if I have to pay twice, well, screw that. The more flexible choice is to go with digital, so I shall stop buying CDs altogether, and instead go with cheaper digital versions. But hang on, as I'm not buying a physical album I only need to buy the two tracks I really want. Actually, come to that, why am I going to buy anything? I can just use my Spotify account if all I want to do is listen digitally."

Effectively, the big brains of the Music Industry have gone to court to argue that the added value of their premium product be outlawed. Maybe the judges aren't so out of touch - perhaps they've just come up with a smart way to fine an industry for its vexatious lawsuit.

Vince Power: Hop Farm Fest relied on hope

You'll recall Vince Power, regarded as one of the most competent music festival impresarios despite the odd problem here and there, and despite the Phoenix Festival. Oh, and having to pull Hop Farm Fest last year. And those years when Leeds ended in fire.

Still, he's been running festivals for years, so at least he knows what he's doing, right?

What's that, Kent Messenger?

The founder of the Hop Farm Music Festival has been banned from playing music in public after it was revealed events were hosted without a licence.

That's quite a big oversight. Especially for someone who has been running festivals back when it was possible to do one without a sodding ferris wheel and silent disco.

But just an oversight, yes? Embarrassing but maybe an envelope unposted?

However, at the court it was claimed Power infringed copyright at The Hop Farm Festival at the events in 2009

Well, that was the second year. Maybe the assumption was that last year's licence was still valid?

2010

Okay. Two small oversights.

2011

Uh.

and 2012.

Well, that looks a bit systemic. You kind-of hope that Power had actually gone to all the trouble of getting a licence last year, and it turned out to be such a complex process he had no time to do anything else.

Still, I'm sure that Power was able to clear up why he ran a festival for four years without a licence for playing music. Right?

PRS claimed that Power was the “guiding will and mind” of the companies and authorised or directed the alleged acts of infringement.

But when they took legal moves against him he failed to file a defence to the action with the result that PRS was this week given judgment against him by Mr Justice Birss at London’s High Court.

There's a secondary question here: if a barber shop in Golders Green switches on the radio without a PRS licence, they're being swarmed over by the royalties company in seconds. How the hell did a festival run by a large company manage to get away without having a PRS licence for so long?

[Thanks to @RichardButton04 for the tip]

Morrissey remembers he's meant to be suing the NME

Four years ago, when the NME ran Morrissey's comments about the country being "flooded", the singer threatened to sue the NME for making him look like a racist. At the time, he ended up only suing The Word, who apologised in court for referencing the comments.

And that seemed to be that.

Until yesterday, when Morrissey's people and the NME turned up in court. MediaGuardian reports:

Lawyers for the former Smiths frontman told the high court on Monday that the singer "continues to suffer" reputational damage from a controversial interview he gave to NME magazine four years ago in which he complained about an "immigration explosion" leading to a loss of British identity.

The court hearing was to decide if Morrissey could bring an action against IPC and the then-editor of NME, Conor McNicholas. Morrissey contends that the piece remains a blot on his character; the IPC team counter that he hasn't seemed that bothered up until now:

However, lawyers for McNicholas and the NME told the court the claim should be struck out. Catrin Evans, acting for the magazine, claimed that financial difficulties, a legal dispute in the US and an acrimonious fallout with his then manager had "distracted" Morrissey from pursuing his claim against NME.

Morrissey threatened legal action against the magazine in November 2007, days after the interview was published.

According to Evans, the singer dropped the complaint for three years before recently reigniting the row. "The court can infer from this that there has been such a delay that is not a genuine bid for vindication," Evans said. "[The claim] simply didn't figure at the forefront of his mind."

Evans claimed that Morrissey "by his own actions" has provoked "more topical" accusations of racism – including an interview with the Guardian in September 2010 in which he described Chinese people as a "subspecies" – since the NME article was published.

Part of the IPC case is that Morrissey continues to tour and sell records, and that his fanbase seems undiminished as a result of the article - the "nobody pays much attention to the NME" defence.

MediaGuardian ends with this:

McNicholas, whose seven-year editorship of the NME was characterised largely by the well-publicised row, was in court for the three-hour hearing on Monday. The hearing continues on Tuesday.

To be fair, when you think of McNicholas' period at the NME, it's surely the vanishing circulation that you think of first, isn't it?