Secondhand CDs

[DavidOdden]

"Convenience" applies only to the owner and the owner's home; it cannot extend to others.

That's not what's in doubt -- copying for the benefit of others is theft. What's in doubt is that there is even permission for so-called convenience copies for personal use. It's clear that permission is required, and I see no reason to believe that permission has actually been granted.

[TLD]

That's not what's in doubt -- copying for the benefit of others is theft. What's in doubt is that there is even permission for so-called convenience copies for personal use. It's clear that permission is required, and I see no reason to believe that permission has actually been granted.

I have never seen such permission questioned, thus it is granted.

Apply the concept of certainty.

[freestyle]

All,

Does this discussion not illuminate the impossibility in certain cases of objectively determining a moral or ethical judgment on actions when a disconnected 3rd party is involved in the act? I mean, if I were able to obtain direct permission from, say, Jack Johnson that it is OK with him if I "share" one of his songs with my 5 year old son by putting in on his Fisher Price .mp3 player, that would obviously be perfectly ethical. (Assume for simplicity that Mr. Johnson holds ALL ownership over that CD and song, and he wants wants that particular act of father/son sharing to occur.). That act is then moral by any definition I can imagine...

Wait! I just imagined one possible way it is not a moral act. I suppose one could argue that it was immoral of Mr. Johnson to sanction the act of duplicating one of his songs on the basis that it amounts to altruism. (I would not personally take this line of argument)

Nonetheless, without access to a "controlling legal authority" and no specifically applicable law with regard to the action (and worse, a fuzzy statement like "won't usually raise concerns"), it would seem that no amount of back and forth can lead to a determination if one is acting unethically when making a copy of a CD for their own personal use. The RIAA states "there is no legal 'right'," but that is meaningless as there is also no legally defined "right" for me to specifically use the disc as a coffee coaster.

P.S. This is a bit of a wild tangent to these ideas, but can anyone point me to a discussion of Dagny Taggart's ethics and morality in terms of being complicit in an illegal act of adultery? I've been discussing this with a friend and this 3rd party issue keeps getting dragged into it (i.e. Lillian). I've been googling and searching here and have not seen any discussions on whether or not Dagny acted immorally and unethically.

Edited October 30, 2009 by freestyle

[DavidOdden]

I have never seen such permission questioned, thus it is granted.

I don't understand the logic of that. If a person presumes that he has permission for an action, and has heard no denial of such permission, how does that constitute there being permission?

[scottd]

I don't understand the logic of that. If a person presumes that he has permission for an action, and has heard no denial of such permission, how does that constitute there being permission?

As Freestyle said, "Nonetheless, without access to a "controlling legal authority" and no specifically applicable law with regard to the action (and worse, a fuzzy statement like "won't usually raise concerns"), it would seem that no amount of back and forth can lead to a determination if one is acting unethically when making a copy of a CD for their own personal use."

Therefore, without specific denial of permission, it is reasonable to assume you are within your rights, right?

[Seeker]

Therefore, without specific denial of permission, it is reasonable to assume you are within your rights, right?

No, because Title 17, Section 106, U.S. Code, states: "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; ..."

The grant of "exclusive rights" to the copyright owner is the denial of such rights to you.

[scottd]

No, because Title 17, Section 106, U.S. Code, states: "Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following: (1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords; ..."

The grant of "exclusive rights" to the copyright owner is the denial of such rights to you.

I just called the RIAA. They would do nothing more than refer me to the site you got this from. This site implies any copying of any kind is illegal. How can they tell us it is ok to copy to our computers if that is the case?

[DavidOdden]

As Freestyle said, "Nonetheless, without access to a "controlling legal authority" and no specifically applicable law with regard to the action (and worse, a fuzzy statement like "won't usually raise concerns"), it would seem that no amount of back and forth can lead to a determination if one is acting unethically when making a copy of a CD for their own personal use."

Therefore, without specific denial of permission, it is reasonable to assume you are within your rights, right?

This would be true if it is also reasonable to in fact be unaware of the fact that there is copyright law. I can imagine a peasant in Outer Mongolia being unaware of the fact of copyright law, but not any adult in the modern US. Once you know that the content of CDs is someone else's property and that the property is protected by law (and I think that's what falls into the realm of "what everybody ought to know"), then you know that permission is required.

I do of course sympathize with people who honestly don't know how to determine with certainty what the law says. It is incessantly repeated that copying is against the law, so nobody could reasonably claim that they were unaware of that. However it is rare that you see anyone say "This is someone else's property", which is the fact that should lead you see that permission is required. I don't see how any implicit permission follows from the failure to deny permission.

[DavidOdden]

How can they tell us it is ok to copy to our computers if that is the case?

But they didn't. Look again at what they say. Nowhere is permission granted. They say that there is no legal right to copy beyond the implied tape-copy right. What they say is that copying to your computer won’t usually raise concerns, which means you can probably get away with it. For now, such copying is unpreventable, so the law probably won't be enforced against you. They won't bother to come after you, if you only transfer CDs to your computer. That is not giving permission.

[TLD]

I don't understand the logic of that. If a person presumes that he has permission for an action, and has heard no denial of such permission, how does that constitute there being permission?

In the context of home/personal use, permission has never been denied; just ask Microsoft down to the CD makers.

Using the certainly principle, permission is thus assumed.

To Freestyle: the 3rd party does not own the song itself, just the CD; thus he has no authority to share the CD.

Scottd

I just called the RIAA. They would do nothing more than refer me to the site you got this from. This site implies any copying of any kind is illegal. How can they tell us it is ok to copy to our computers if that is the case?

The RIAA says what it has to say, but the owners of the material do not follow such a standard.

[scottd]

This would be true if it is also reasonable to in fact be unaware of the fact that there is copyright law. I can imagine a peasant in Outer Mongolia being unaware of the fact of copyright law, but not any adult in the modern US. Once you know that the content of CDs is someone else's property and that the property is protected by law (and I think that's what falls into the realm of "what everybody ought to know"), then you know that permission is required.

I do of course sympathize with people who honestly don't know how to determine with certainty what the law says. It is incessantly repeated that copying is against the law, so nobody could reasonably claim that they were unaware of that. However it is rare that you see anyone say "This is someone else's property", which is the fact that should lead you see that permission is required. I don't see how any implicit permission follows from the failure to deny permission.

I just called a local copyright attorney. He said that, by the letter of the law, ANY copying, even to your computer, is against the law. However, he also said that all the copying to my computer and my son's computer, and to both our MP3 players, is "generally" considered to be within the "fair use" guidelines. He indicated any legal consequences only occur from passing CDs amongst friends for copying, peer to peer sharing networks, and other obvious infringements.

Considering that information, and the fact that the RIAA can offer no clarification, I have to assume I am within my rights.

Anyone disagree?

[DavidOdden]

In the context of home/personal use, permission has never been denied; just ask Microsoft down to the CD makers.

You're evading the facts. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that they have permission; it is not on the property owner to assert the denial of permission. Consider how that logic would apply to cars. This is implicit in the concept "property".

If you read the posts in this thread, you will probably notice that I also mentioned the fact that software -- and not music -- comes with well-defined permissions to copy. When you do not see such permissions, you do not have permission. It is just that simple.

Using the certainly principle, permission is thus assumed.

What is this "certainty principle" you're talking about?

[DavidOdden]

He said that, by the letter of the law, ANY copying, even to your computer, is against the law. However, he also said that all the copying to my computer and my son's computer, and to both our MP3 players, is "generally" considered to be within the "fair use" guidelines. He indicated any legal consequences only occur from passing CDs amongst friends for copying, peer to peer sharing networks, and other obvious infringements.

Considering that information, and the fact that the RIAA can offer no clarification, I have to assume I am within my rights.

Anyone disagree?

Yes, because by the letter of the law, ANY copying, even to your computer, is against the law.

Fair Use is a mystical witches brew. It is possible that the courts have finally ruled that any amount of copying for personal use is allowed. I would like to see the citations that support that conclusion -- that's how we'll know what credibility to give to a claim of being 'generally considered'. We can look at the language of section 107:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

The language of this section is horridly vague, but nowhere does it say that copying whish is not for the puposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research is allowed. Copying-to-computer is not covered by the "character of use" requirements; it is flagrantly at odds with the "amount and substantiality" clause, and it maybe does have a negative effect on the market (their ability to sell you two copies of the work).

Which is not to say that some court will not have gone totally off the rails and decided that all copyright violation that is not for profit is "fair use".

Remember that copyright law protects the rights of the copyright owner. Section 106 says "the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following". That is why RIAA cannot clarify squat -- they are not legally competent to give permission.

[TLD]

You're evading the facts. The burden of proof is on the person who claims that they have permission; it is not on the property owner to assert the denial of permission. Consider how that logic would apply to cars. This is implicit in the concept "property".

If you read the posts in this thread, you will probably notice that I also mentioned the fact that software -- and not music -- comes with well-defined permissions to copy. When you do not see such permissions, you do not have permission. It is just that simple. What is this "certainty principle" you're talking about?

No evasion here. The key to your post is the last question; and "certainly" is the key to the answer to what we have been debating. You were significantly involved in the Confirmation thread where certainly was discussed multiple times; I can't believe you asked that question. But in case you missed it all, go to that thread or look in The Lexicon

Edited October 30, 2009 by TLD

[DavidOdden]

The key to your post is the last question; and "certainly" is the key to the answer to what we have been debating.

I'm quite familiar with "certainty" from the Objectivist perspective. "Certainty" refers to an epistemological fact; you claim that there is a principle, and Objectivism does not have a "certainty principle".

The epistemological question that has some relevance here is whether a person can reasonably believe that he has permission to copy a music CD. For the various reasons that have been enumerated here, such a conclusion is at best "possible". But even then, it takes evasion to make that conclusion possible -- evasion of the fact that use of someone else's property always requires their permission, and that a property owner has no obligation to actively promulgate a denial of permission to enjoy their exclusive property rights.

[TLD]

I'm quite familiar with "certainty" from the Objectivist perspective. "Certainty" refers to an epistemological fact; you claim that there is a principle, and Objectivism does not have a "certainty principle".

The epistemological question that has some relevance here is whether a person can reasonably believe that he has permission to copy a music CD. For the various reasons that have been enumerated here, such a conclusion is at best "possible". But even then, it takes evasion to make that conclusion possible -- evasion of the fact that use of someone else's property always requires their permission, and that a property owner has no obligation to actively promulgate a denial of permission to enjoy their exclusive property rights.

So I elevated its significance a bit.

I cannot agree with your conclusion. All the evidence points to "permission" - no examples of denial can be shown.

Thus, I am "certain" that I will always have permission for personal use copying; I will never question my morality with such copying unless I see it printed or am told otherwise. No evasion is involved: permission is the default here;

I will never need to explicitly ask permission in such cases.

[freestyle]

I cannot agree with your conclusion. All the evidence points to "permission" - no examples of denial can be shown.

This was originally about morals and ethics, so that's the tougher question in my mind.

As for permission, it seems that (in the above quote) you are defining permission as "lack of an explicit denial". I don't think that definition holds water. If I build a sand castle on the beach and leave it to eat a sandwich, you can't take the lack of my putting up a sign as permission to destroy it. You might argue that you had a right to, or something else, but you most definitely did not have "permission".

[TLD]

This was originally about morals and ethics, so that's the tougher question in my mind.

As for permission, it seems that (in the above quote) you are defining permission as "lack of an explicit denial". I don't think that definition holds water. If I build a sand castle on the beach and leave it to eat a sandwich, you can't take the lack of my putting up a sign as permission to destroy it. You might argue that you had a right to, or something else, but you most definitely did not have "permission".

You took 1 line out of context; that is not my definition - read all posts.

Bad analogy: No "preponderance of evidence" applies. Also, there is no ownership issue there.

Of course it is about morals, and the issue of "permission" is important to determine right from wrong here.

[Seeker]

So I elevated its significance a bit.

I cannot agree with your conclusion. All the evidence points to "permission" - no examples of denial can be shown.

Thus, I am "certain" that I will always have permission for personal use copying; I will never question my morality with such copying unless I see it printed or am told otherwise. No evasion is involved: permission is the default here;

I will never need to explicitly ask permission in such cases.

Your conclusion, that you have permission, is arbitrary because there is no such evidence (saying that you are certain because "all of the evidence points to" a conclusion when there is no evidence is contrary to Objectivist epistemology), and because permission does not exist unless it has been granted (which is to say that permission is not the "default"). Nowhere was permission granted to make personal copies. Since permission was not granted, it does not exist, and you do not have such permission.

Edited October 31, 2009 by Seeker

[TLD]

Your conclusion, that you have permission, is arbitrary because there is no such evidence (saying that "all of the evidence points to" a conclusion when there is no evidence is contrary to Objectivist epistemology), and because permission does not exist unless it has been granted (which is to say that permission is not the "default"). Nowhere was permission granted to make personal copies. Since permission was not granted, it does not exist, and you do not have such permission.

There seems to be much confusion about "permission" in this context.

It does not only mean explicit authorization, but implicit as well. The evidence is all the examples of authorizations that I and others have received. The "Certainty" derives from that and the lack of any evidence to the contrary.

I am confident with this conclusion; you should be able to see the broader argument here.

But if you want to buy an extra copy of every CD for your child to use or for you to use in multiple devices, feel free. (I really doubt that there are many on this forum who actually do that - who believe that that is the only moral thing to do.)

Edited October 31, 2009 by TLD

[Bob G]

What about stuff you bought 40 years ago? Is there a point when you can sell something that has been out of print for decades? Or the stuff has been rereleased cheaply because the copyright has expired and you still own the original?

[TLD]

What about stuff you bought 40 years ago? Is there a point when you can sell something that has been out of print for decades? Or the stuff has been rereleased cheaply because the copyright has expired and you still own the original?

With expiration of copyright and product being unavailable, there is no issue.

Under your re-release scenario, it would depend on whether the later version also has the copyright mark and the product is essentially the same as the original.

[DavidOdden]

All the evidence points to "permission" - no examples of denial can be shown.

No evidence points to permission, except in one kind of case -- an EULA, where permission is given. There is no need to look for denial. That presupposes that you have a right to another man's property unless they explicitly deny it (which is clearly false). Furthermore, since there are cases where permission is given (an EULA), you can also conclude from silence that there is no permission.

The only possible hope for your argument is if you can demonstrate a pattern of actual, explicit permission from a music CD or record. You can't, because there is no such pattern. You cannot simply make up a claim that there is "implicit permission" in some act. Implicit permission is possible only when permission is granted exceptionlessly for such a long time that it becomes a social fact that everybody knows. There's a reason why you can't find any shred of evidence for explicit permission to copy music -- it doesn't exist.

I will never need to explicitly ask permission in such cases.

Do you apply the same ethical rule to your neighbor's car? If not, why not?

[TLD]

No evidence points to permission, except in one kind of case -- an EULA, where permission is given. There is no need to look for denial. That presupposes that you have a right to another man's property unless they explicitly deny it (which is clearly false). Furthermore, since there are cases where permission is given (an EULA), you can also conclude from silence that there is no permission.

The only possible hope for your argument is if you can demonstrate a pattern of actual, explicit permission from a music CD or record. You can't, because there is no such pattern. You cannot simply make up a claim that there is "implicit permission" in some act. Implicit permission is possible only when permission is granted exceptionlessly for such a long time that it becomes a social fact that everybody knows. There's a reason why you can't find any shred of evidence for explicit permission to copy music -- it doesn't exist.Do you apply the same ethical rule to your neighbor's car? If not, why not?

I have been trying to tell you that there is in fact a pattern. That is why I can use the term "certainty."

But since you and others seem to refute this, then I want examples of any company who has denied anyone the right to copy their product for his own use. If there are not sound examples, than quit playing devils advocate.

[DavidOdden]

But since you and others seem to refute this, then I want examples of any company who has denied anyone the right to copy their product for his own use.

This discussion is pointless: you don't understand logic.