Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Intellectual Property and Burning CDs

Rate this topic


GoKartMozart

Recommended Posts

I don't actually know if I've posted on these forums before, though I have read posts on them often.

Anyways, my question involves that recently I have burned two cds for my girlfriend of some of my favorite songs. Is this right/legal (the two not always being the same). All the music involved was legally bought by me or my dad (which raises another question, which is, is it right/legal for me to use music my dad bought, even if he did so legally)

Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyways, my question involves that recently I have burned two cds for my girlfriend of some of my favorite songs. Is this right/legal (the two not always being the same). All the music involved was legally bought by me or my dad (which raises another question, which is, is it right/legal for me to use music my dad bought, even if he did so legally)
It is not right or legal. When you buy a CD, you buy that object for your use (you can give it away, transferring ownership). You do not own the music, and you do not own the right to make copies. The right to make copies is held by somebody else -- that is their property. Theft of another's property is never right.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't actually know if I've posted on these forums before, though I have read posts on them often.

Anyways, my question involves that recently I have burned two cds for my girlfriend of some of my favorite songs. Is this right/legal (the two not always being the same). All the music involved was legally bought by me or my dad (which raises another question, which is, is it right/legal for me to use music my dad bought, even if he did so legally)

Thanks

The most honest way to resolve this would be to ask the store (when you buy the CD) or the record company (via email) exactly what they are selling. They of course have made it very clear that they are selling Cd's , not the right to copy them, so that's what you should go by.

We, on the Objectivist website, have no right to change the conditions of your father's business deal with Sony (or whomever sells those Cd's). If those conditions were unclear to your father, he should've asked before making the purchase. However, I think those conditions are very clear: the music has to stay on the CD, you do not buy the right to copy it.

My point is this: if you wish to be completely honest, you do not need to interpret copyright laws, nor do you need to ask others to interpret them for you: the "law" should be whatever the parties making the transaction agree to. If Sony sold you a CD with the stipulation that you never listen to it (only for decorative purposes or something), and they made you aware of that, then that's the only thing you should use it for: frame it and put up on the wall.

It is not the business of the government to mandate such agreements between a company and its customers. Their only job is to enforce that agreement (within the law).

In your case, you are of course aware of that agreement, from the news, if the CD is made by a major record company: I bet it is even written on the cover of the CD, actually, and your father agreed to it when he bought it. (though I can't know for sure what's on the cover, since I don't know the brand)

P.S. Don't take this as a lecture, I realize that you made the distinction between right and legal yourself. My slightly hostile attitude is directed solely toward the anti-copyright crowd, who often bring the issue of rights and how copyright laws infringe on those rights into this. They don't realize that all they would have to do to be completely undisturbed by any big corporation (not just the record industry) is to not deal with them, and not use their products. That would set them completely free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point is this: if you wish to be completely honest, you do not need to interpret copyright laws, nor do you need to ask others to interpret them for you: the "law" should be whatever the parties making the transaction agree to.
That assumes that both parties have the right to whatever they agree to. If a store clerk agrees to sell you the right to make copies for non-commercial distribution to your friends, that does not negate the fact that he has no right to anything other than the physical CD. You do not need to interpret copyright law, you simply need to know it and obey it, since the law states the basic moral fact that only the creator of the work has the right to authorize making of copies. A vendor cannot sell or give away that right, and any actual agreement between customer and vendor to transfer the right to copy has the same moral and legal validity as one between a fence and his customer to transfer stolen property.

I should also point out that there are virtually never any agreements involved in the sale of CDs. The act of buying a book or CD is no more an agreement to do or refrain from doing certain things than the act of owning land or voting or breathing within the US is an agreement to voluntarily pay taxes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not right or legal. When you buy a CD, you buy that object for your use (you can give it away, transferring ownership). You do not own the music, and you do not own the right to make copies. The right to make copies is held by somebody else -- that is their property. Theft of another's property is never right.

Something like this...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0

Sure sounds like Edward Hermann as John Galt from the Atlas audiobook.

<*>aj

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not right or legal. When you buy a CD, you buy that object for your use (you can give it away, transferring ownership). You do not own the music, and you do not own the right to make copies. The right to make copies is held by somebody else -- that is their property. Theft of another's property is never right.

Hi, DavidOdden. I believe that you are basically right when you say "It is not right or legal". etc. However, several years in the past I had the following experience regarding this topic. I had purchased a number of cassette tapes from a certain website and asked permission to copy them onto CD's. A representative of the website said that permission was granted saying that "transferring it to another medium is fair use". I was also told that " You can do so for personal enjoyment, study, or shared listening, but you cannot sell the transposition...".

This seems a little confusing. Why is it immoral to copy, for instance, a CD to CD but not immoral to copy cassettes to CD. Incidentally, the website from which I purchased those cassettes was the Ayn Rand Bookstore. So, did the ARI Bookstore representative goof up on this one? Thank you, and anyone else on this forum for helping me clear this up. Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had purchased a number of cassette tapes from a certain website and asked permission to copy them onto CD's. A representative of the website said that permission was granted saying that "transferring it to another medium is fair use". I was also told that " You can do so for personal enjoyment, study, or shared listening, but you cannot sell the transposition...".
I have been collecting examples of copyright mythology for some time now. An example is "You can copy anything, if it's for educational purposes" or "You can copy anything, if it's for personal use". Now if the actual owner of the IP grants you permission to make a personal-use copy, then that satisfies the requirements of "getting the owner's permission". The website proprietor is not necessarily the IP owner. But there is no general "personal use" exception to IP law

I believe that one does have the legal right to a backup copy of a software disk -- this is a means of protecting the physical object that you actually purchased. In addition, RIAA has promulgated the notion that record companies don't object to people making a copy of legal music for personal use (e.g. downloading the contents of a CD to your MP3 player). That may be, but that doesn't constitute an across the board legal permission. So RIAA is in part culpable for the conceptual confusion over proper and improper copying. I don't know what exactly they think is "okay with them", and they are very careful to not be clear on the limits of copying for personal use. It really does not matter a lot whether you are talking about a cassette or a CD, the principle and the law are the same.

Incidentally, the website from which I purchased those cassettes was the Ayn Rand Bookstore. So, did the ARI Bookstore representative goof up on this one?
I dunno. The question is, who owns the copyright, and did the representative accurately state the owner's policy? I would assume that it's true in that case although I might be wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

David,

I thought that you could make copies of CD's if, and only if, those copies were only for your personal use.

Windows Media Player, which is supposedly compliant with copyright and digital media laws (as far as I know) allows this.

Is this incorrect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Windows Media Player, which is supposedly compliant with copyright and digital media laws (as far as I know) allows this.
That's too technical a question; I think though that it prohibits copying where permission is explicitly denied, and allows it otherwise. The law (and morality) basically puts the burden on the individual to refrain from copying, just as the individual must refrain from breaking into a house. There is no legal burden on toolmakers to guarantee that their tools will only be used for good, and little moral burden to that effect, and there is nothing illegal about having a program that allows you to copy the contents of a CD. But it is totally appropriate -- and I strongly advocate such steps -- for the toolmakers to creatively prevent wrongful use of their tools, if possible. I can't comment on the technical eptness of these digital rights protections methods, but it's a good idea. However, in order for it to work effectively, it has to prohibit {use, copying} only in extreme cases, namely when it is certain that there is no permission. That means that with (older) media which does not digitally indicate rights, you can't assume that permission is denied. That's why physical ability to copy is not proof of permission.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's too technical a question; I think though that it prohibits copying where permission is explicitly denied, and allows it otherwise. The law (and morality) basically puts the burden on the individual to refrain from copying, just as the individual must refrain from breaking into a house. There is no legal burden on toolmakers to guarantee that their tools will only be used for good, and little moral burden to that effect, and there is nothing illegal about having a program that allows you to copy the contents of a CD. But it is totally appropriate -- and I strongly advocate such steps -- for the toolmakers to creatively prevent wrongful use of their tools, if possible. I can't comment on the technical eptness of these digital rights protections methods, but it's a good idea. However, in order for it to work effectively, it has to prohibit {use, copying} only in extreme cases, namely when it is certain that there is no permission. That means that with (older) media which does not digitally indicate rights, you can't assume that permission is denied. That's why physical ability to copy is not proof of permission.

I think we might be taking the term "copyright" too literally. At least when it comes to digital media, copyright refers to the right to make and distribute or sell copies of the work, as far as I understand (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV). There is no reason for music owners to enjoin anyone from making copies of a CD for personal use, which is why itunes, WM, etc. allow users to both rip and burn copyrighted materials. Where they take issue is when the user makes copies of a work and distributes or sells that work, whether virtually "sharing" or physically handing out copies.

Just as David pointed out that he has a right to back up software, so do I have a right to back up my itunes library (in fact they recommend it expressly). I also have the right to burn a mix CD for my own personal use (in itunes, each playlist can be burned up to three times, IIRC).

Morally, you are simply bound to adhere to the agreement you sign up for explicitly when you purchase a copyrighted work. If the copyright page in a book says "Don't make any xerox copies, but feel free to hand out handwritten copies of this book", then that is what you are morally obligated to do, because you purchased a work with explicit limitations built into it.

Similarly if I want to sell a CD for $1000 dollars and demand that the listener destroy the CD after listening to it five times, that would be a valid contract. Of course it would be idiotically impractical in terms of business savvy and enforcement, but for the sake of argument, the contract you sign up for is the contract you are morally bound to adhere to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least when it comes to digital media, copyright refers to the right to make and distribute or sell copies of the work, as far as I understand (I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV).
The wording of the law is fairly clear: the owner of copyright under title 17 has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. So the right of the copyright holder is not limited to "copy plus distribution". I don't believe there is any special exception in the copyright statutes that says "except digital media", though that effect might have been created in common law by subsuming "copy for personal use" under "fair use". However, the industry has denied (not vigorously) that there is such a right, which would indicate that there probably isn't a clear common law exception "except for personal use". I do expect that some socialist court will eventually create another crack in the dike by extending "fair use" to any and all cases of "personal use".
There is no reason for music owners to enjoin anyone from making copies of a CD for personal use, which is why itunes, WM, etc. allow users to both rip and burn copyrighted materials.
But there is: requiring separate purchases would lead to more sales. One might buy a physical CD for $15.00, or CD+download rights for $18.00. I think the only reason why they didn't do that is that they knew that theft would be high enough as it is, and such a restriction would be highly unpopular among the rabble.
Just as David pointed out that he has a right to back up software, so do I have a right to back up my itunes library (in fact they recommend it expressly). I also have the right to burn a mix CD for my own personal use (in itunes, each playlist can be burned up to three times, IIRC).
But only when it is actually permitted by the copyright holder. Not as a general rule.
Morally, you are simply bound to adhere to the agreement you sign up for explicitly when you purchase a copyrighted work.
Sorry, that dog won't hunt, since there is no agreement. The owner of IP has the exclusive right to his property, and you may not morally infringe on that right. Your only basis for copying is that you have permission from the copyright holder to do so under such-and-such conditions. This is not the same as having an actual agreement -- such things generally do not exist for music and video. You simply cannot produce any such explicit agreement. That optional © mark does not constitute a contract. If it did, it would simply mean "you have no permission to copy, not even backup".
If the copyright page in a book says "Don't make any xerox copies, but feel free to hand out handwritten copies of this book", then that is what you are morally obligated to do, because you purchased a work with explicit limitations built into it.
In that case, you did not purchase the work. The concept of "purchasing" entails "transfer of ownership", and that in turn implies "exclusive right of control". When you actually sell a book, that means you no longer own the book, and you cannot make any conditions on what a man does with his own property. Now what you can do is sell the book, and also indicate that the owner of the intellectual property (not the physical book) has granted the right to make and distribute handwritten copies. But then you did not purchase the "work" (the intellectual property).
Similarly if I want to sell a CD for $1000 dollars and demand that the listener destroy the CD after listening to it five times, that would be a valid contract. Of course it would be idiotically impractical in terms of business savvy and enforcement, but for the sake of argument, the contract you sign up for is the contract you are morally bound to adhere to.
True, if there were such a contract. Although in this case, it would not be selling it, it would be a bizarre form of rental. And again, just putting some verbiage on a package and pretending to sell the object would not form a valid contract. There has to be actual offer and acceptance, and clarity as to what is offered.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember listening to an interview with an RIAA representative a few months ago who spoke out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of whether copying your own CDs onto your computer for personal use was legal.

DavidOdden is correct that it is technically illegal, and also correct that right now the music industry is not willing to sue people for copying their own CDs.

I don't remember the last time I listened to a CD on a CD player. For years now, I've been copying CDs I bought onto my computer, and listen to music on an mp3 player. While the law might consider me a thief, I feel no guilt. I don't think the law should consider such activities "copying" under IPR law, as long as you bought the CDs and you're not distributing them to anyone else.

Otherwise, everyone who uses an mp3 player is a criminal. Technology has rendered the law ridiculous, and as it stands I consider it immoral. What if the law forbid me from humming a tune based on a copyrighted work in the shower? I would tells the feds to screw!

Of course, CD makers are free to enforce contracts with whomever they wish as a condition of sale. But IPR law is designed to enforce protections absent the existence of any contract.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember listening to an interview with an RIAA representative a few months ago who spoke out of both sides of his mouth on the issue of whether copying your own CDs onto your computer for personal use was legal.

DavidOdden is correct that it is technically illegal, and also correct that right now the music industry is not willing to sue people for copying their own CDs.

I don't remember the last time I listened to a CD on a CD player. For years now, I've been copying CDs I bought onto my computer, and listen to music on an mp3 player. While the law might consider me a thief, I feel no guilt. I don't think the law should consider such activities "copying" under IPR law, as long as you bought the CDs and you're not distributing them to anyone else.

Otherwise, everyone who uses an mp3 player is a criminal. Technology has rendered the law ridiculous, and as it stands I consider it immoral. What if the law forbid me from humming a tune based on a copyrighted work in the shower? I would tells the feds to screw!

Of course, CD makers are free to enforce contracts with whomever they wish as a condition of sale. But IPR law is designed to enforce protections absent the existence of any contract.

Yeah, I have to say I stand corrected in terms of copyright, and as David said, it is not an agreement when you buy a CD or a book. I'm not sure if Fair Use has mucked things up, but it seems when you look at a contemporary book or CD, the label will often have admonitions to deter the user from scanning, distributing, reselling, piracy, etc. I had always assumed that buying a CD or book was similar to an End User Agreement (EUA) that comes with software. It is not, but I think that would make more sense than the current watering down of copyright that is happening with Fair Use.

..requiring separate purchases would lead to more sales. One might buy a physical CD for $15.00, or CD+download rights for $18.00. I think the only reason why they didn't do that is that they knew that theft would be high enough as it is, and such a restriction would be highly unpopular among the rabble.

Agreed, but I don't think this is any different from backing up software, in both cases you are making a copy that provides value to you, so in essence you are using up a value surplus that the copyright holder could have profited from. I think trying to make an extra $3 for the right to make personal use copies would be suicide from a business standpoint, even given a market that recognized the moral right of the copyright holder to do so. Anyone who has experienced the frustration of having to constantly reauthorize DRM protected files from itunes understands how off-putting such limitations can be. I've personally gone over to Emusic.com where I download 30 songs a month for $12 and am explicitly allowed to burn CDs, make copies, etc. as long as I am not sharing or distributing the music.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...