rockyracoon
...
There is a huge difference between the two, but not within the context of this discussion/topic. It won't bother me if you can't handle discussing things with people who don't share your perspectives.
RIAA: CD Ripping For Personal Use Now 'Unauthorized'
- Thread starter Diamond45
- Start date
There is a huge difference between the two, but not within the context of this discussion/topic. It won't bother me if you can't handle discussing things with people who don't share your perspectives.
skyrefuge
Member
Yes.
Yes, and the RIAA agrees. That's why they don't do it, even though they legally could. The rest of your comments are then based on faulty assumptions.
Neil
rockyracoon
...
Just because they don't currently do it, doesn't mean they won't try in the future.
The rest of my comments are based on hypothetical situations that could potentially happen depending on how far the RIAA plans on going with things.
Iced Dog
The Stormrider's Pooch
SyXified
Member
Actually, the law does agree. The Fair Use Doctrine states that making copies, distributing, or performing in a private setting, or for educational use, parody, etc, is a defensible argument against copyright infringement. Makers of CD burners, etc are already made to pay an annual fee to the RIAA to compensate for potential misuses by end users. But burning CDs for private use or converting to mp3 for private use are well documented as legally acceptable. Because the law has to phrase everything in a complicated way (which really ends up being important but for the lay person is a pain in the ass) the idea is your private copies, performances, distro, etc, IS technically still an infringement of copyright, but Fair Use is a viable defense against these charges.
As you said the interesting part is, when does private become public? Since the law makes strides never to draw absurd arbitrary lines (like 40 people is okay, 41 is not) that differentiation is always left up to individual case law to determine based on all the aspects of the situation and consideration of fair use under 4 categories:
1. The nature of the work
2. The nature of the use
3. The substantiality of the portion taken
4. The effect on the author's income
On a side note, the law of first use says that once you buy a CD you are imbued with the right to dispose of that item however you see fit, be it by sale, lending, or giving it away (that ONE copy, not your own copies). So lending in that sense is pretty well protected. "lending" a CDR copy... a bit less clear cut.
I think Skyrefuge makes an excellent point - when you see a little blurb like that you cannot just immediately assume it is accurate. There are so many disreputable sources, and even reputable ones sensationalize a bit. Based on everything I said above regarding established laws and fair use, I would think the RIAA out of their minds to be actually suing someone over conversions to mp3 or sharing over a VPN. The courts would probably fine them for a frivolous lawsuit if that was all there is to it. Question the RIAA's methods all you want, they aren't completely retarded.
Nailz - I still owe you a response on our previous RIAA discussion. I had one all typed up and someone thought a power strip was not connected to my computer and hit a devastating switch. Been busy since then, but I did want to let you know I'm not just bailing out on it, I think you made a ton of interesting points and I owe you a thoughtful response.
Um, yeah. That's 100% illegal. Really.
And by doing so, you're depriving the artist of a sale ('cause that other person didn't have to buy it).
Craig
Here's a way to look at it to see what I'm (and others are) saying:
By burning copies for other people, you're giving 100% ability for those people to control when they listen to that CD. You could say you're giving them license to do so anytime they want. The thing is, you only have one license, and you can't give it to someone (legally) and still keep it for yourself.
However, by LOANING a CD, you're also loaning your license along with it, because you give up YOUR control of listening to it until they're done with it. Once they're done with your license, you get it back...because you only bought ONE license to listen to it.
And before you go off on a rant about "oh, so I also can't have my girlfriend over and have us both listening to it at once," sure you can. That's covered under the license. Unless you're playing it out in public (at a bar, sporting event, etc, where it's a "commercial" type environment), you can have multiple people listening to your one licensed copy at the same time (ie. at a party at your house/apt).
Think of it as "control over when it gets played." If more than one person has control over when the music gets played (without more than one copy getting bought), then it's illegal.
Another way to think of it is this: Could I do this with a car?
-You can loan your car to a friend.
-You can drive your car and have multiple friends there with you on the drive.
-You could loan your car to a friend, and he/she could have other people along for the drive.
-You could SELL your car, and after you sell your car, you can no longer drive it, because you no longer own it.
-BUT you can't be driving your car to the beach while your friend is driving your car to work, etc, etc. UNLESS you BOUGHT more than one car.
Replace "driving" with "listening" and "car" with "music" and you'll be all set. For some reason, the legality/logic is obvious and clear with a car, and people don't argue about it, but with music (and movies/software) people get confused for some reason...probably because it's "convenient."
Later,
Craig
THANK YOU for using that phrase properly
<laughs> So I'm not the only one driven crazy by people saying that incorrectly?
Other person: "I could care less"
Me: "Oh, so you do care."
Other person: "No, I just said that I could care less."
Me: "Well, if you could care less, then that means you DO care at least a little...'cause you COULD care LESS than you currently care."
Other person: "No, I don't care at all. I think you're confused."
Me: <pounds head against wall>
My other pet peeve is when people say "It's a mute point." Really? The point has nothing to say? Not a word? The point is unable to speak? <laughs> (For those not getting it, the proper phrase is "moot point").
Craig
shaq
Demon of the Fall
SkiBumMSP
Member
The reason that it is obvious with a car is because a car is a physical, tangible item. Unless we come up with Star Trek style replicators, it is not possible to easily "burn a copy" of a car and hand them out to friends or share them over the internet. However, with music, software, movies and other so called "digital media", it is very easy to make multiple perfect copies, yet still retain the original. As a result, a lot of the limitations with physical property such as a car or house no longer applies to digital media and seems to muddy things up a bit. Can you imagine what would happen if we did have Star Trek replicators readily available that can be used to make perfect copies of any vehicle you want, virtually free or very inexpensively, provided you already have one to make copies of? Supposed I could replicate a perfect copy of my car. We can all agree that making copies and sharing them out to the public at large would be wrong (who in turn could make copies themselves and so forth). However, would it be "wrong" if I made a couple of copies for personal use, but keep the original safely in the garage under a tarp? Thus, if I wrecked one, or it even just wears out and breaks down from heavy usage, oh well, just make another copy of the original and life goes on!
By strict interpretations of the copyright laws, this would not be allowed. Fair use doctrine does seem to allow some limited personal copying, but only archival purposes (thus keeping the original safely in the garage but driving around the copy) would be perfectly legal. Where this would get muddy is that is it wrong if I made copies to be shared in the immediate household, i.e, the wife wants to make a copy to use to drive to the store, but I already am using a copy to go to work? It seems for things like software, this is greatly frowned upon (ever read the EULA for Windows, for example - where it says "this software can only be installed on one computer"). It seems that Microsoft, for example are now taking steps to enforce such restrictions, via the product activation, Windows Genuine (dis)Advantage and what other means they may try to come up with. In fact, it is the goal of DRM at large to try to enforce these types of restrictions.
Yes, treating a CD like a physical item such as a car does make sense when it comes to transferring it to somebody else, but at the same time, keep in mind we do have some rights with how to use/listen to the music contained on that CD that many not necessarily apply to something like a car, i.e., the ability to retain archival copies, change formats, etc.
rockyracoon
...
THANK YOU for using that phrase properly
I couldn't care less = There is no way I could possibly have any less care/concern about a particular subject.
Not terribly difficult to figure out, and it was used correctly because it expressed the point I was trying to make. Typical, however, of a few who start attacking things like grammar or mis-usage of words or phrases when they can't "win" an argument. Never fails.
Sir Exar Kun
Member
I post here very rarely, but this is REALLY hilarious.
I have noticed that there are FAR more "defenders" of copying / downloading on this board than on the others I peruse. Is there something inherently different about the demographics here? I feel like the average age here must be "younger" than on the others, perhaps?
I don't understand how anyone nowadays cannot understand that copying CDs remains ILLEGAL. This is not a discussion of morality, but of LAW.
- You cannot walk into a Kinko's and photocopy an entire textbook so your best friend does not have to buy one.
- You cannot make a copy of the latest Star Wars film for all your friends and relatives to watch at their leisure.
- You certainly cannot copy a CD, cassette, or record album and give it away.
Now, when I use the word "CAN"..... Well, of course you physically CAN. But you must accept the fact (and this IS a FACT, not a moral position) that it IS ILLEGAL. Will you be prosecuted for it? Probably not. But there is no arguable point that could possibly defend these acts in a court of law. PERIOD.
I have noticed that there are FAR more "defenders" of copying / downloading on this board than on the others I peruse. Is there something inherently different about the demographics here? I feel like the average age here must be "younger" than on the others, perhaps?
I don't understand how anyone nowadays cannot understand that copying CDs remains ILLEGAL. This is not a discussion of morality, but of LAW.
- You cannot walk into a Kinko's and photocopy an entire textbook so your best friend does not have to buy one.
- You cannot make a copy of the latest Star Wars film for all your friends and relatives to watch at their leisure.
- You certainly cannot copy a CD, cassette, or record album and give it away.
Now, when I use the word "CAN"..... Well, of course you physically CAN. But you must accept the fact (and this IS a FACT, not a moral position) that it IS ILLEGAL. Will you be prosecuted for it? Probably not. But there is no arguable point that could possibly defend these acts in a court of law. PERIOD.
rockyracoon
...
I just thought I sensed a touch of sarcasm. If I misinterpreted, my bad. I'm not so great at interpreting emoticons.
SyXified
Member
In the case of making copies for your household, based on past case law, you are protected. That standard dates all the way back to the fact that if you bought sheet music to, say, Jingle Bells, and learned it/played it on your home piano, your other family members should rightly be allowed to learn the song too without having to buy their OWN copy of the sheet music. Furthermore the performance is protected because clearly it has no negative effect on the artist's income stream. If I played you a Symphony X song on guitar at my house, you wouldn't go 'awesome...I don't have to go see Symphony X this leg of the tour now'.
Because music is an auditory occurrence, there is an understanding that when a person buys a CD he will be playing it in his household and therefore likely other members of the household will inherently overhear it and have access to it. Same way if I buy Microsoft Office for the family computer, it's not as if my family members cannot use the software. So you would pretty much be safe making a copy of a CD for your each of your family members, both in theory and practice. The rationale, in a crude way, is 'I doubt mom would otherwise buy her own copy of Keeper of the Seven Keys'. The sale to a single family member is usually all the sales one would expect for that entire family. That's why sometimes you'll hear a stat like "1 in 15 households owns a copy of Dookie".
Keep in mind that back when software had licenses for use on one system there was generally speaking ONE computer per household. Therefore the understanding was if you were installing it on a second computer you were installing it on someone else's computer who would have otherwise perhaps bought the software on their own. Now that there are more like 3 computers per household, MOST softwares come with 3 licenses or more, with that same understanding as CDs, that copies are being made for your household for convenience, and if those copies could not be made, you would just have your family use one computer for that software and share - i.e. additional sales are not being deterred, in fact I would be hesitant to buy most softwares I could not install on all my household computers - especially if competitors were offering that. Good ol' capitalism usually makes things work out fairly like that.
Similar threads
