Burning CDs a sin

[Timothysis]

To add, if u were the owner, u would be allowed I believe to make 1 backup CD of the original, but of course, it would be for the owner’s personal use, and not to be given away to anyone else.

So do you mean to tell me that you can make a “backup” of a CD that you bought (I presume that you bought the burner and the blank CD, too) and that is legal “for the owner’s personal use,” but you’re not allowed to give it away? What other items are there that you legally own that “are not to be given away to anyone else?” I can give away my tv, my car or even my house, but I can’t give away a “backup” CD? Where do you get these legal tidbits? Or do you maintain that a manufacturer has the legal right to dictate how you use their product that you legally purchased and own? Ridiculous.

 

[Timothysis]

When I buy music online, it specifically states I am allowed a certain number of down loads, on a certain number of devices, or for a specific amount of time.

As long as I don’t go beyond that, the agreed upon contract, it’s not a sin.

Give me a break. “Bless me father, for I have sinned; father, I loaded an mp3 onto one more device than stated in the agreed upon contract.”

You honestly believe that to be a sin? Good grief.

 

[schaeffer]

Give me a break. “Bless me father, for I have sinned; father, I loaded an mp3 onto one more device than stated in the agreed upon contract.”

You honestly believe that to be a sin? Good grief.

Maybe re read what I wrote. I didn’t say anything WAS a sin. I said if the OP read the rules and followed them then no sin would be committed.

I have no authority to declare what is a sin, but following the laws and fair rules on this subject clearly are not.

 

[Timothysis]

Maybe re read what I wrote. I didn’t say anything WAS a sin. I said if the OP read the rules and followed them then no sin would be committed.

I have no authority to declare what is a sin, but following the laws and fair rules on this subject clearly are not.

To say "as long as I don’t go beyond that… it’s not a sin" implies that if you do go beyond that, then it is a sin.

 

[edwest2]

Burning a CD isn’t anymore of a sin than borrowing a book, dvd or a cd from a friend. Will anyone here tell me that it is a sin (or theft, for that matter) to borrow a book from someone? Do you steal from a publisher if you check a book out from the library and read it without payment? I really think that people need to research the legal definition of “theft” before they get involved in these types of discussions. Just because copyright advocates (who have very loud voices in congress) tell you that it is theft and that it is wrong doesn’t necessarily make it so.

I work for a book publishing company. There is an agreement between book publishers and libraries. The library buys the book and can loan it out or allow it to be read inside. The publisher is compensated and those with limited funds have access to the book.

Peace,
Ed

 

[edwest2]

Give me a break. “Bless me father, for I have sinned; father, I loaded an mp3 onto one more device than stated in the agreed upon contract.”

You honestly believe that to be a sin? Good grief.

Isn’t that how contracts work? I have a piece of software that is registered to me. The deal is I’m not allowed to make a copy for someone else.

bsa.org/anti-piracy/anti-piracy-agenda

Peace,
Ed

 

[Timothysis]

I work for a book publishing company. There is an agreement between book publishers and libraries. The library buys the book and can loan it out or allow it to be read inside. The publisher is compensated and those with limited funds have access to the book.

Sorry but I have never seen evidence that local libraries compensate publishers whenever a book is checked out. Besides, even if they did, how much could it be and why would it be worth the time to loan a book out for cents when it could be sold for much more? Libraries get tons of books free from donations; there is no way that they work through agreements with every publisher, any more than when they have a book sale.

 

[Timothysis]

Isn’t that how contracts work? I have a piece of software that is registered to me. The deal is I’m not allowed to make a copy for someone else.

Are you telling me that it is a sin if one does?

 

[edwest2]

Sorry but I have never seen evidence that local libraries compensate publishers whenever a book is checked out. Besides, even if they did, how much could it be and why would it be worth the time to loan a book out for cents when it could be sold for much more? Libraries get tons of books free from donations; there is no way that they work through agreements with every publisher, any more than when they have a book sale.

I didn’t write that. Libraries buy the book once. From the American Library Association web site:

"What Do Libraries Buy?

"Libraries purchase books for adults, young adults, children, and special readers (emerging literates, large print, braille). They also purchase newspapers and magazines, reference sources, scholarly journals, electronic resources (individual and aggregate online databases, computer software, ebooks and ebook readers), audiovisual materials (DVDs and online streaming video, audiobooks and music recordings in various formats including streaming and digital downloads), and microforms (microfilm and microfiche).

“Sturdy, better quality books are an important selling point to librarians who are interested in books lasting for more than a few borrowers. Also, books printed on acid-free (alkaline) paper are more desirable because pages printed on acid paper become too brittle to use after 50 to 100 years.”

And yes, they do accept donated books in good condition.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Timothysis]

I didn’t write that. Libraries buy the book once.

You are correct. This is what you said:

The library buys the book and can loan it out or allow it to be read inside.

Basically, you simply stated that libraries buy books and then loan them out.

The fact of the matter in regards to this thread, though, is that it is no more of a sin to copy a CD that you own for someone else than it is to check out a book from a library and read it for free. In both instances, a work is being consumed without paying anyone anything and that is the way things should be. Imagine if a car company tried to tell you that if you buy their car, you are not allowed to let anyone else ride in it; it is their way of “protecting” their product by not allowing people who didn’t pay for the car to benefit from it. Or a lawn mower manufacturer, or tv maker…I could go on forever. Once a person owns a product, they are free to do what they wish with it within the limits of the law that does not allow for patent or copyright violations. It is interesting how the classic concept of piracy was copying protected works and selling them for financial gain. The entertainment industry managed to get congress to revise the law to include copying without financial gain. Either way, it still exists and people still and will continue to do it. There is a false assertion that if a CD is copied X number of times, that it would have sold the same number of copies had it not been for being copied. The fact is that most of the copied music is stuff that most people wouldn’t have bought in the first place. Research has also shown that those who download music also buy more CDs than the general population. At worst, I think it could be said to be unethical to be involved in such activities but it certainly doesn’t rise to the seriousness of being a sin.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

Sorry but I have never seen evidence that local libraries compensate publishers whenever a book is checked out. Besides, even if they did, how much could it be and why would it be worth the time to loan a book out for cents when it could be sold for much more? Libraries get tons of books free from donations; there is no way that they work through agreements with every publisher, any more than when they have a book sale.

There is no law against loaning a book or CD to as many people as you like. However, making multiple copies of a copyrighted book or CD and passing them out, even for free, would definitely be a violation of copyright.

The practice of making mix tapes was once so common that it might be argued that music owners allowed it. It is perhaps a gray area.

 

[edwest2]

There is no law against loaning a book or CD to as many people as you like. However, making multiple copies of a copyrighted book or CD and passing them out, even for free, would definitely be a violation of copyright.

The practice of making mix tapes was once so common that it might be argued that music owners allowed it. It is perhaps a gray area.

Regarding mix tapes, can you provide a reference to music owners allowing it?

Peace,
Ed

 

[Timothysis]

There is no law against loaning a book or CD to as many people as you like. However, making multiple copies of a copyrighted book or CD and passing them out, even for free, would definitely be a violation of copyright.
.

It may be a violation of copyright but that doesn’t equate to being a sin. It still begs the question as to whether you actually own the CD or not. If you do, then you should be able to do what you wish with it within the confines of the law regarding copying and selling for financial gain. I have bought many CDs throughout the years and never once was I required to sign a statement of license at the time of purchase. BTW, now I tend to buy CDs used from Amazon marketplace, usually for around $3-4. Being used, neither the artist or the industry gets anything from it. Is that right? In any event, the first thing that I do with them is rip them to an external hard drive and then pack the CD away. If I ever get rid of the CDs, I’m still keeping it on the hard drive because it is mine.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

I do not know of any documentary evidence of music owners specifically endorsing mixtapes. I also do not know of any evidence that they actively discouraged the widespread practice. Did you ever see the big budget Hollywood movie “High Fidelity”? It is about a record store owner who is constantly making mixtapes.

 

[Beryllos]

… BTW, now I tend to buy CDs used from Amazon marketplace, usually for around $3-4. Being used, neither the artist or the industry gets anything from it. Is that right? …

It is right. You may sell, give away, destroy, lend, or even rent your CD, borrow it from the library, buy it secondhand at Amazon, Ebay, flea markets, yard sales, etc., …

… all this, as long as the music is not copied. The copyright owner has the exclusive right to copy the work or to authorize someone else to copy it.

 

[Alex_Heartnet]

Hoo boy, here we go again.

Person A makes a copy and gives it to Person B. Person B never had any intention of buying it to begin with. Is it a lost sale?

Person B is now interested in this Artist. He keeps his existing pie rat album but then goes out and guys the artist’s next album. Is this still a lost sale?

Person A has pirated 20 of the Artist’s albums. He has also purchased 15 of them, 5 of which are ones he pirates earlier and 1 of which he brought twice. Is the albums he pirated more important then the albums he purchased?

Person A also shares a copy with Persons C, and D, and tells Person E about it but doesn’t share a copy.

Person C also pirates and buys a lot, but he loses track of which artists he has paid and/or pirated from. As a result most of his spare income goes to various artists - just not necessary the ones that he listens to most often. Artist doesn’t see any money, but some other singer does.

Person D is autistic. He lives off of social security, thus has lots of free time but little spare money.

Person E is a jerk who never buys anything, constantly leeches off of torrents without seeding, and occasionally kicks puppies. He has the money to spend, but refuses to do so. Rude!

Person L is the guy who first uploaded the torrent for the song. He gets away with it with zero punishment whatsoever.

Mr. Dinosaur is the CEO of Record Labels Inc, a member corporation of the RIAA and the publisher that distributes Artist’s albums. Mr. Dinosaur doesn’t like piracy, because it means that he would have to change his outdated business model and actually take risks. This makes Mr. Dinosaur sad, because he wants to buy a new gigayacht this year so he can laugh at Mr. Moneybags and Mr. Congressman, both of whom only have a normal yacht. Therefore he yells “thief” at anyone who dares make a copy of anything, because he doesn’t want things to change.

Artist decides he doesn’t like Record Labels Inc because he only sees 5% of the money from sales. But he foolishly signed a contract a year ago! He can’t leave now!

Person A gets mad at Record Labels Inc for constantly treating him as a thief. While he likes Artist, he decides that it is not worth giving money to Record Labels Inc. As a result he stops buying from them, stops pirating their stuff, stops telling people about Artist, and instead tells everyone about how Record Label Inc is a bigger jerk then Person E. But he stopped pirating from Artist! Does this means sales are no longer lost?

 

[Beryllos]

Sounds like a good soap opera.

 

[edwest2]

Yes, a sale is lost whenever the copyright, or right to copy, is violated. Also, the copyright holder decides how and where his work gets distributed. Contracts. If the contract is for “global rights,” then nobody anywhere can copy it. If the contract is for “regional rights” or “North American rights,” then the item cannot be sold in countries not listed or only in North America. And no one has a right to copy and distribute it elsewhere. It’s that simple.

Right and wrong.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Alex_Heartnet]

Yes, a sale is lost whenever the copyright, or right to copy, is violated.

I just explained in my previous post why this is an overly simplistic notion

Very well, I provide some real-life examples.

There’s a major online distribution service known as “Steam”. The company owner has claimed that his business has been highly successful in piracy-prone Russia, and the key to his success was to simply provide a better service then the supposed ‘thieves’.

The guy who made Hotline Miami claims that it’s more important for him that people enjoy his game then it is for people to buy from him. If it weren’t for torrenting, his game would of remained obscure and would of never gotten the needed exposure to become so successful.

It’s that simple.

Right and wrong.

The world is never that simple.

 

[Beryllos]

There’s a major online distribution service known as “Steam”. The company owner has claimed that his business has been highly successful in piracy-prone Russia, and the key to his success was to simply provide a better service then the supposed ‘thieves’.

The same could be said for iTunes. They created a system that consumers like… and they did the hard work of negotiating with the copyright owners and getting permission. Do likewise and look for ways you can listen to the music you like while respecting the rights of others.