Most are in agreement that downloading an album you don’t own from the Internet is wrong, but having a digital copy of an album you legitimately own is alright.
Is it wrong to burn a copy of a CD for a friend?
Or to rip the MP3s off of a CD that your friend has lent you?
What is the Church’s official stance?
(I will talk about the Church’s official stance in a second…so bear with me)
According to 17 U.S.C. 202,Ownership of a copyright, or of any of the exclusive rights under a copyright, is distinct from ownership of any material object in which the work is embodied.
Transfer of ownership of any material object, including the copy or phonorecord in which the work is first fixed, does not of itself convey any rights in the copyrighted work embodied in the object; nor, in the absence of an agreement, does transfer of ownership of a copyright or of any exclusive rights under a copyright convey property rights in any material object.So, while you may own the CD that the sound recording is carried on, according to the above, you do not own the information on the sound recording. You have licensed it from the owner and must comply with the terms and conditions of the license.
(And the same principle applies to MP3 files legally purchased and downloaded…you own the file, but not the contents of the file). Based upon the above, the owner of the copyright can limit how you are allowed to use the content. By purchasing the medium upon which the content is loaded, you implicitly agree to whatever terms and conditions the copyright owner happens to place on the work he licenses. That’s why they can use Digital Rights Management (DRM) to limit all sorts of conditions, including copy protection, the amount of time the work can be used, the number of times it can be played, and so forth. That’s also why it is illegal for you to remove any of that copy protection.
However, you are allowed to make copies for your own personal use. 17 U.S.C. 1008 states:
No action may be brought under this title alleging infringement of copyright based on the manufacture, importation, or distribution of a digital audio recording device, a digital audio recording medium, an analog recording device, or an analog recording medium, or
based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings.
The question comes up whether the transfer of an MP3 to a friend is truly ‘noncommercial’ or if not. Likely if it is a true gift (no compensation given or implied), it would likely be viewed as noncommercial (provided you aren’t giving the work to 1,000 of your closest friends
). However, if you trade it for something of value (money, receiving MP3s from your friend either at that time or at another time, or some other consideration), then it could be considered commercial.
The trouble is that you don’t own the music. You license the music. You have some protections in the law, but the copyright owner has more. Because the music is his/her property.
In the law, unauthorized distribution of an MP3, duplication and replication of a CD, or the like would be considered akin to theft of the copyright owner’s intellectual property.
(BTW, I’ll be the first to admit that the RIAA has draconian license restrictions…but, after all, it IS their property)
So…with the above, the question comes in: is this a commercial or noncommercial use? If it is commercial, it is basically theft. If it is noncommercial, it is allowable.
You asked, *What is the Church’s official stance? *I think the question should be, what is the Church’s official stance on theft?
