The actual judgement: http://www.ukmusic.org/assets/general/APPROVED_JUDGMENT_BASCA_second_hearing.pdf http://www.ukmusic.org/assets/general/APPROVED_JUDGMENT_B

The actual judgement: http://www.ukmusic.org/assets/general/APPROVED_JUDGMENT_BASCA_second_hearing.pdf http://www.ukmusic.org/assets/general/APPROVED_JUDGMENT_BASC... But most of the meat is in this earlier one: https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/basca-v-sofs-bis-judgment.pdf https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/basc... The main claim made by the music industry in this case was that when the law was introduced no provision was made to compensate copyright holders for the harm it would (allegedly) do them, and that the government failed to demonstrate that it had adequate evidence for claiming that it didn't need to because no substantial harm was done. (Apparently there is some requirement, when the government brings in a new law, that those non-negligibly harmed by it should be compensated. I do not know the details. I would be interested to know on what occasions if any they've actually done this. I've certainly never heard, e.g., of anyone being recompensed because the government has introduced a new tax on the sale of an asset they hold a lot of -- but that might be quite a different situation because it doesn't exactly involve new laws.) The judge, to be clear, didn't find that there is substantial harm. Only that the government hadn't adequately established that there isn't. This was a purely procedural matter. The music industry made a bunch of other claims, on which the judge found in favour of the government. For instance, when assessing the harm done to copyright holders, the government essentially asked the question: would they actually sell fewer copies with a limited-private-use exemption in law than without? The music industry contended that instead "harm" should be measured by assuming that every copy taken is a sale lost. Unsurprisingly, the judge agreed with the government on this. So it seems at least possible that the government may go away, lick its wounds, come up with a bigger pile of better evidence that a law of this kind will not in fact make any substantial difference to the music industry's profits, and then pass pretty much the exact same law again. I do hope so. Or they might come up with a smaller easier-to-marshal body of evidence that the harm is really rather small, and pass a similar law that does compensate the music industry just a little. I fear that actually they'll just drop the issue, though, and leave us with a stupid restriction that most of the population ignores and that no one is realistically going to be able to use to prosecute anyone anyhow.