downloading music and Burning CDs

[thistle]

I just saw on the news that the French parliament are debating to legalise all downloads (music, movies etc) from the internet.
It is currently legal in Canada and Holland to download music from the internet.
It seems there are a growing number of countries thinking about it.

 

[DreadVandal]

thistle:

I just saw on the news that the French parliament are debating to legalise all downloads (music, movies etc) from the internet.
It is currently legal in Canada and Holland to download music from the internet.
It seems there are a growing number of countries thinking about it.

Yes, its all very interesting. I’m sure that all of this keeps Intellectual Property lawyers quite busy and fascinated. I’m a librarian so it interests me very much, since the Fair Use doctrine is essential for what we do.

From what I’ve read, there is growing sentiment in Congress and among consumer rights groups to loosen things up and there has been, over the past 20 years, a very agressive campaign on the part of big business (recording industry) to strip people of virtually all fair use rights. I have read some articles that showed that the RIAA was now trying to say that you could not make back up copies of CDs you purchased and that you could not tape television shows for viewing at a later time. This really is a big battle and this is, in part, why I asked the questions I asked and started the thread to begin with.

I do agree that taking intellectual property without permission or sanction is almost always stealing (fair use excepted) but I also think that intellectual property is somewhat of a nebulous concept and that laws and concepts are always in a state of flux. This means, I think, that its rarely a black & white issue. But it is a lot of fun for legal scholars and philosophers I suppose.

 

[jjb5985]

DreadVandal:

Yes, its all very interesting. I’m sure that all of this keeps Intellectual Property lawyers quite busy and fascinated. I’m a librarian so it interests me very much, since the Fair Use doctrine is essential for what we do.

From what I’ve read, there is growing sentiment in Congress and among consumer rights groups to loosen things up and there has been, over the past 20 years, a very agressive campaign on the part of big business (recording industry) to strip people of virtually all fair use rights. I have read some articles that showed that the RIAA was now trying to say that you could not make back up copies of CDs you purchased and that you could not tape television shows for viewing at a later time. This really is a big battle and this is, in part, why I asked the questions I asked and started the thread to begin with.

I do agree that taking intellectual property without permission or sanction is almost always stealing (fair use excepted) but I also think that intellectual property is somewhat of a nebulous concept and that laws and concepts are always in a state of flux. This means, I think, that its rarely a black & white issue. But it is a lot of fun for legal scholars and philosophers I suppose.

I would agree that the record companies are limiting fair use too much if they take away the right to make personal copies and what not. However, when it comes to things like limewire and filesharing services where the issue is just simply straight foward copyright violation by distributing the files to other people without permission, there shouldn’t be much arguement. I think you agree with that and I don’t get why anyone wouldn’t.

 

[vz71]

One of the biggest problems I have seen is defining what exactly you have bought when you buy a CD.

Do you buy rights to listen to the music?
Do you buy rights to rip the music to your PC then to a pod?
Do you buy rights to play the CD in front of an audience (like at a Christmas party)?
Do you buy all of these?
Do you buy none?

So what do I really get when I buy a CD?

According to the RIAA, I have only bought the right to listen to the music, alone. I am not allowed to play the music if another can hear it (party settings), am not allowed a backup copy of the music, am not allowed to play the CD on anything other then a CD player (no PC, or DVD player), am not allowed to move it to an iPod, etc…
And of course the list of don’ts keeps changing.

It really makes no sense. It is like someone trying to legislate what you can do with a book once you have bought it. Your only allowed to read it once, standing on your head, in the bathroom, in a corner, by candlelight, silently so as not to give any information away.

I liked much better how software has been handled. Basically as long as you have a license, you can do whatever you want with it. The biggest stipulation being that you can only have the software running on as many PC’s at a time as you have licenses. So if you have one license, feel free to juggle the software around, but just do not have it running on more then one machine at a time.

 

[Arwen037]

I tried buying a song I needed for a school project, and my dad downloaded it to his computer so he could pay for it. The song would not allow itself to be copied to anyother computer, nor burned to the CD I needed it on. If you buy a song, many times there number limits on them. Like you can have it on one computer, and 3 CDs. If you bought the song, you bought the song. You ought to be allowed to do with it what you wish. And it is ridiculous to pay $15 for a CD on which there are only 2 songs I want to listen to, just so I can do with the songs what I like.

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

I believe that music and art are free. I believe that artists should accept donations for their work, but charging for art and restricting the use of it (to the degree of prohibiting the copying of music for mere private use or simply inserting a cd into a computer) is excessive. The music companies are the bandits, as they are hording the music in order to charge what should be free. However I do think there is a limit, and that would be making copies for the sake of selling the copies. I have few if any reservations about using art & music freely, without the intention of creating personal profit. I simply don’t believe in corporate ownership of art. Art is free, donations accepted.

 

[OhioBob]

vz71:

But (as is the case with most of the music industry in America) the majority of the music available for free to download is NOT intended for that purpose. There are no royalties being paid for the music, and it IS, in fact, theft.Z

When I was young (a long time ago), in the days before cds, mp3s and digital music players, when music was actually recorded on vinyl :bigyikes: , we would record albums (our own and those of our friends) onto cassette tapes. We would borrow each others albums and record what we liked to tape for our cars, portable players, etc. Back then nobody regarded that type of sharing as theft. It was considered good for business in that it allowed the music to be spread around and for bands to grow in popularity.

I think the issue today has become one of scope, where digital copies of music can be copied by the thousands and distributed commercially without royalty. Bootlegging was always considered theft because of the commercial component.

I guess I still look at it like we did back then. If I download the occasional song from like-minded folk who want to share their music, I have trouble considering that to be theft any more than when I copied my friend’s Pink Floyd albums to tape to play in the car in 1975.

Rock on, dude.

 

[vz71]

OhioBob:

I guess I still look at it like we did back then. If I download the occasional song from like-minded folk who want to share their music, I have trouble considering that to be theft any more than when I copied my friend’s Pink Floyd albums to tape to play in the car in 1975.

Rock on, dude.

Well, it was theft then as well. But the industry did not really concern itself with it since the self destructive nature of a tape to tape copy kept bootleg copies down and pretty much insured that your copy would not go far.
BUT, suddenly digital media came onto the scene. There is no longer any difference in quality from the original to the copy, and bootleg copies became just as good as original legit copies. People went nuts, and copying of music ran wild.
The record industry sensed a hit to their sales (real or imaginary is still speculative) and has been waging a war with the customer ever since.
The goals were eventually accomplished, and it was made illegal to share or download music without a royalty being paid.
But having reached its goal, the RIAA has decided it could get more sales by limiting the use of legit music. They are trying to force people to buy multiple copies of a song to cover the individual uses the customer may have. Thus if you want the music you can buy it, but if you want to listen to it in your ipod, or even in your car in some instances, they want additional copies of the same music purchased. Up to and including additional purchases for ‘backup purposes’

So I arrive at an interesting question…
Is it morally acceptable to ignore the RIAA rules and do whatever I want with legitimately purchased music?
I have arrived at the conclusion that once I have legitimately purchased my music, I have purchased the music. They have the money they wanted for the song, and my obligation to them is fulfilled.
Anything I want to do with the song for my own use is my own business.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Just wondering.

 

[thistle]

vz71:

Well, it was theft then as well. But the industry did not really concern itself with it since the self destructive nature of a tape to tape copy kept bootleg copies down and pretty much insured that your copy would not go far.
BUT, suddenly digital media came onto the scene. There is no longer any difference in quality from the original to the copy, and bootleg copies became just as good as original legit copies. People went nuts, and copying of music ran wild.
The record industry sensed a hit to their sales (real or imaginary is still speculative) and has been waging a war with the customer ever since.
The goals were eventually accomplished, and it was made illegal to share or download music without a royalty being paid.
But having reached its goal, the RIAA has decided it could get more sales by limiting the use of legit music. They are trying to force people to buy multiple copies of a song to cover the individual uses the customer may have. Thus if you want the music you can buy it, but if you want to listen to it in your ipod, or even in your car in some instances, they want additional copies of the same music purchased. Up to and including additional purchases for ‘backup purposes’

So I arrive at an interesting question…
Is it morally acceptable to ignore the RIAA rules and do whatever I want with legitimately purchased music?
I have arrived at the conclusion that once I have legitimately purchased my music, I have purchased the music. They have the money they wanted for the song, and my obligation to them is fulfilled.
Anything I want to do with the song for my own use is my own business.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Just wondering.

I think its perfectly legal for you to make a copy of cd’s you have already purchased. You many like certain songs on different cd’s and make a compilation cd of songs you have already paid for. You may, like me, have various family members borrow the cd so making a copy is easier than having to search my daughters bedroom. You may want a backup copy in case your original gets damaged. You may want a copy to play in your car system without having to keep your original in the car.
I absolutely believe all of the above is perfectly legal.

 

[Alterum]

La-Petite-Fleur:

I believe that music and art are free. I believe that artists should accept donations for their work, but charging for art and restricting the use of it (to the degree of prohibiting the copying of music for mere private use or simply inserting a cd into a computer) is excessive. The music companies are the bandits, as they are hording the music in order to charge what should be free. However I do think there is a limit, and that would be making copies for the sake of selling the copies. I have few if any reservations about using art & music freely, without the intention of creating personal profit. I simply don’t believe in corporate ownership of art. Art is free, donations accepted.

Well, I suppose your ideal that music and art should be for donation rather than for sale means it’s okay to steal music and art.

Aside from the fact that most artists would go out of business, what you’re doing is still illegal and still immoral.

 

[Benedictus]

thistle:

I think its perfectly legal for you to make a copy of cd’s you have already purchased. You many like certain songs on different cd’s and make a compilation cd of songs you have already paid for. You may, like me, have various family members borrow the cd so making a copy is easier than having to search my daughters bedroom. You may want a backup copy in case your original gets damaged. You may want a copy to play in your car system without having to keep your original in the car.
I absolutely believe all of the above is perfectly legal.

If a CD, DVD, etc. is protected by some form of digital rights management (DRM), then the (unjust) Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent the DRM, even to make a backup copy.

 

[Ray_Scheel]

vz71:

So I arrive at an interesting question…
Is it morally acceptable to ignore the RIAA rules and do whatever I want with legitimately purchased music?
I have arrived at the conclusion that once I have legitimately purchased my music, I have purchased the music. They have the money they wanted for the song, and my obligation to them is fulfilled.
Anything I want to do with the song for my own use is my own business.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

I’m of a like mind. The DMCA goes too far, to the point of imposing on the rights of the person purchasing a license to a song/album. Though I’m very much disgusted with the rampant level of digital piracy, there is NO WAY we should rely on the RIAA as the conscience to guide us on this issue…

 

[DreadVandal]

Just to add a little more info. to the discussion which is becoming quite fascinating; I can tell you that Intellectual property is a modern concept. In fact, Prior to the 18th century, there wasn’t much in terms of copyright law at all. If you go back to the great composers of the 18th century and earlier, they freely take melodies, themes, and so forth from folk songs and other composers, not even always giving credit and such was not frowned upon. In the ancient world, no one had to provide precise citations. Also, copyright law, under the Constitution, has two purposes. One purpose is to protect the rights of creators to earn a profit from their work. Indeed, people should receive just compensation for their work. But copyright law was also designed to stimulate creative works, scientific research, and technological advances for the sake of the public good. This means that creator’s rights and buyers (user’s) rights have to be balanced and this is the job of the courts. There is still much in copyright law that is not definitively decided. It won’t be until there is established precedent through court cases.

This is not to say that since copyright is a modern idea, that it’s invalid. But it does point out something I mentioned earlier, that the concept of intellectual property is somewhat nebulous and always in flux. Interesting food for thought I think.

 

[DreadVandal]

And one final point: One should not take everything the RIAA says at face value since they are not a neutral party. They agressively push for as much as they can. When the first videorecorders came out, Sony sued to have the videorecording technology banned. If they could, they would have all technology that allows any duplication banned because it serves their interests. They are greedy and unethical and they want to have as much power and profit as possible (gee whiz, welcome to the corporate world). That being said, that doesn’t mean they don’t have rights and we are free to disregard the law and all claims that they have. But we shouldn’t feel at all that they have the exclusive right to decide all matters and set the terms of all use of recorded materials.

 

[vz71]

DreadVandal:

And one final point: One should not take everything the RIAA says at face value since they are not a neutral party. They agressively push for as much as they can. When the first videorecorders came out, Sony sued to have the videorecording technology banned. If they could, they would have all technology that allows any duplication banned because it serves their interests. They are greedy and unethical and they want to have as much power and profit as possible (gee whiz, welcome to the corporate world). That being said, that doesn’t mean they don’t have rights and we are free to disregard the law and all claims that they have. But we shouldn’t feel at all that they have the exclusive right to decide all matters and set the terms of all use of recorded materials.

Actually, I take nothing the RIAA says at face value. From day one their purpose has not been in the best interests of the consumer, and thus not in my best interests either.

 

[DreadVandal]

vz71:

Well, it was theft then as well. But the industry did not really concern itself with it since the self destructive nature of a tape to tape copy kept bootleg copies down and pretty much insured that your copy would not go far.
BUT, suddenly digital media came onto the scene. There is no longer any difference in quality from the original to the copy, and bootleg copies became just as good as original legit copies. People went nuts, and copying of music ran wild.
The record industry sensed a hit to their sales (real or imaginary is still speculative) and has been waging a war with the customer ever since.
The goals were eventually accomplished, and it was made illegal to share or download music without a royalty being paid.
But having reached its goal, the RIAA has decided it could get more sales by limiting the use of legit music. They are trying to force people to buy multiple copies of a song to cover the individual uses the customer may have. Thus if you want the music you can buy it, but if you want to listen to it in your ipod, or even in your car in some instances, they want additional copies of the same music purchased. Up to and including additional purchases for ‘backup purposes’

So I arrive at an interesting question…
Is it morally acceptable to ignore the RIAA rules and do whatever I want with legitimately purchased music?
I have arrived at the conclusion that once I have legitimately purchased my music, I have purchased the music. They have the money they wanted for the song, and my obligation to them is fulfilled.
Anything I want to do with the song for my own use is my own business.

Anyone else have thoughts on this?

Just wondering.

VZ

I don’t have a firm answer. I have mentioned a couple of times that the concept of Intellectual Property is nebulous and I’m quite sympathetic with you, at least sometimes. Truth is, I’m conflicted and I see many ways of looking at the issue. That being said, I hesitate to call it a simple black & white issue.

 

[DreadVandal]

Benedictus:

If a CD, DVD, etc. is protected by some form of digital rights management (DRM), then the (unjust) Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent the DRM, even to make a backup copy.

From what I’ve read, that is precisely what the RIAA wants the courts to rule. Here is another thought. The way these kinds of issues are decided is through court battles. If the consumer lies down and doesn’t rebel, then the “man” wins, so to speak. Now, I’m not advocating unethical behavior or stealing, but I am saying that if one is fine in one’s conscience with this, that conscientious objection to the practices and political maneuvers of the recording industry might justify downloading behaviors not acceptable to the RIAA. But if one ends up in court, then one should be willing to accept the consequences if one loses.

You know, I must ask this question. Has there ever really been a company or artist that has not been more than justly compensated because Joe blow made a copy of a CD for a friend because he wanted his friend to hear some new music? I doubt it. And I suspect that the RIAA knows this but they could never admit it publicly. That being said, I am in now way positively advocating breaking the law or stealing. Each one must consult the facts and his own conscience. This is just food for thought.

 

[vz71]

No, I must state my objections again firmly.

Illegal downloads are theft.
Illegally distributing (through copied CD or otherwise) is also theft.

What I am considering morally acceptable is making whatever copies I want to legally obtained data for personnel use.

I do not give copies to anyone else.

The practices of the RIAA is just giving those that advocate theft something to point at to give themselves the appearance of justification.
In actuality, it does not matter what the RIAA does or does not do, theft will still always be theft, and illegal downloads will always be wrong. Trying to justify illegal downloads by pointing at the practices of the RIAA is trying to make two wrongs equal to a right. It simply will not work.

 

[thistle]

Benedictus:

If a CD, DVD, etc. is protected by some form of digital rights management (DRM), then the (unjust) Digital Millenium Copyright Act makes it illegal to circumvent the DRM, even to make a backup copy.

Well frankly that’s stupid! I’m legally allowed to hand the cd to my daughter to let her play it in her bedroom and then take it back later but I can’t make a copy for her to save all the backwards and forwards?
Whoever thought of a restriction like that is an idiot.

 

[DreadVandal]

thistle:

Well frankly that’s stupid! I’m legally allowed to hand the cd to my daughter to let her play it in her bedroom and then take it back later but I can’t make a copy for her to save all the backwards and forwards?
Whoever thought of a restriction like that is an idiot.

The RIAA and their ilk are claiming restrictions like that and they are apparently willing to go to court over it. At least that’s what I’ve read in my most recent research on these issues. 'Tis no joke. And if you sign up for Napster or one of these legal fee services to download invididual songs, you have to buy an additional license to be able to get files that can be burned onto a CD, otherwise you are limited to the machine where you downloaded the file (Your PC or IPOD). They’ve got a license for everything To me, its like going to see a car dealer. There’s the sticker price and then there’s the price for the additional 5 year warranty that they don’t tell you only covers major engine failures and then as you are filling out the paper work there is the life insurance they try to sell you. Its just business, that’s all.