> Under the new regulations, only the individual who purchased the original copy of the work, and not others such as a friend or family, is legally allowed to copy it.
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jul/17/high-court-q...
The government said that this type of copying would have minimal impact on the rights-holders. Those rights holders disagreed, went to court, and won, and so now format shifting is not legal.
The court case is here: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/1723.html
It's long and complex. The first few paras are a good introduction.
EDIT:Genuinely baffled that this link to a primary source has been downvoted.
Currently, because of this case it's not lawful to format shift. I'm not saying that I think this is a good thing; I'm describing the law as it is in England.
Using the Guardian sources linked above:
> The high court has quashed regulations introduced by the government to allow members of the public to lawfully copy CDs and other copyright material bought for their own private use.
[...]
> On Friday, in a further decision, he said: “It is clear that I should quash the regulations. I make clear this covers the entirety of the regulations and all the rights and obligations contained therein.”
[...]
> The changes had come into force last October under the Copyright and Rights in Performances (Personal Copies for Private Use) Regulations 2014. Prior to 1 October, it was unlawful, for example, to “rip” or copy the contents of a CD on to a laptop, smartphone or MP3 player for personal use, although the format-shifting activity had become commonplace. The regulations introduced an exception into UK copyright law permitting the making of personal copies, as long as they were only for private use.
The law said format shifting was unlawful. The government introduced regulations to make format shifting lawful, but they didn't include mechanism to pay the rights holders. The judge ruled against the government, those new regulations were quashed, and format shifting became unlawful again.
Here's what the judge said: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2015/2041.html