Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Secondhand CDs

Rate this topic


TheAllotrope

Recommended Posts

There should be a reason, apart from getting caught or apart from obeying one's morals for morality's sake, in which I would be harmed from doing this.

Why would you need another reason to do the right thing besides knowing it's the right thing to do?

When a good man intentionally violates his own principles, the mental consequences are swift and severe. I won't say how, but I know this to be true.

However, "fair use" is completely moral. No guilt required. <duck>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Anyway, you didn't answer my question and I am seriously puzzled why any of you follow the Objectivist ethics if you can't give an egoistic reason not to steal copyrighted material in this instance.

I personally gave you an answer, in my first post answering you. An abstract one, the only kind there is. It's not a complete answer, since Objectivist morality is an integrated whole, but I did connect your question to the relevant principles in Oist Ethics. That is the reason why I follow Oist Ethics, and there cannot be any other reason but that. No ammount of speculation about various concrete scenarios is going to do better than abstract thought.

Yes, a concrete consequence does exist to every concrete immoral action you take. But what it is, you often have to find out after the fact, the world is a bit more complex than something a person can predict on a message board, even if we forget about free will.

One thing is clear, the answer is not gonna be the same exact thing every single time you perform an action that belongs to a wide class, such as "stealing copyrighted material" (an abstraction!!!), and the possibilities are for all intents and purposes endless if men (another wide class) perform that first wide class. So your question (What are the concrete consequences of stealing copyrighted material?) is a contradiction. If you're looking for a concrete answer, ask a concrete question, and then at least there's a chance that someone will have an answer. (though no one here knows you well enough to estimate what effect stealing the new Lady Gaga single off of Bittorent will have on you, so that answer will just be a wild guess...the best I can tell you is that a large fine is a possibility, if you live in the West)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It happens that I have bought a copy of Atlas Shrugged three times. The first was the small paperback version when I first read it (and my eyes nearly bled from the tiny type). The second was the large paperback version, because I was unsatisfied with the small type in the first one. The third was another copy of the small paperback after I had worn out the first, because I wanted to have a small convenient copy to take on the go. No one is going to argue, I presume, that I ever had the right to any of these for free. Note that the issue of convenience for portability on the go was neatly solved by buying another copy -- and the same thing applies to buying another copy of a musical recording from the iTunes music store (in the case of an iPod). For cases where the online stores don't have the music, I presume that no one will argue that had Atlas Shrugged not been available in small paperback, that I would have been authorized or morally right to make my own tiny copy, even given the benefits of being able to take it wherever I go. No one would argue that I could make a convenience copy on the rationalization that I had already bought a copy of the book.

The only reason I can think of why people resist applying this logic to copying their music collections is the size of the collections and the expense of buying second copies of every album. Unnoticed is that this argues powerfully against considering such copying "fair use" or moral, because it shows that a sizable/non-trivial market exists for these copies. By ripping copyrighted music from CD, one deprives the copyright holders of the ability to exploit this market and thereby reduces their incentive to create and distribute new music. Observe that the copyright holders have not relinquished their rights; with millions of dollars on the line, technological advancement that affects markets creates massive uncertainty -- while the shakeout may be hard to predict, they have held their rights up to now. Morally it is necessary to respect this judgment.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unnoticed is that this argues powerfully against considering such copying "fair use" or moral, because it shows that a sizable/non-trivial market exists for these copies. By ripping copyrighted music from CD, one deprives the copyright holders of the ability to exploit this market and thereby reduces their incentive to create and distribute new music. Observe that the copyright holders have not relinquished their rights; with millions of dollars on the line, technological advancement that affects markets creates massive uncertainty -- while the shakeout may be hard to predict, they have held their rights up to now. Morally it is necessary to respect this judgment.

It is immoral to rip CDs against the copyright holder's wishes. It's silly that they wish you to not do it, but since they do... That has very little to do with how it affects their ability to exploit the market, it simply is a violation of their rights.

I don't think the fact that most companies don't allow the copying of CD's for personal use is going to help them in any way. People will simply stop buying CDs (in fact they already have), and start buying music directly online ( music that can be shared between multiple devices, legally, even using official Apple software). If they had made the decision early on to allow and encourage ripping for personal use, the old market may have survived for a lot longer, making the transition easier for companies and artists alike.

I think that was a mistake, and it had to do with the inability of lawyers and Courts to understand that allowing/banning ripping for personal use doesn't affect piracy one way or another. At this point, the ship has sailed on that one. Personally, I just don't buy CD's if I'm not allowed to copy the music to whatever device I'm using, and the music is available online. If I have to buy the same music for my phone anyway, it would be like buying a ten dollar album cover, just to have to have a special folder in my house, to keep it in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I buy virtually all of my music now from Amazon.com and in digital form. This solves the problem for me. Here are the rights granted and restrictions;

2. Digital Content 2.1 Rights Granted. Upon your payment of our fees for Digital Content, we grant you a non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the Digital Content for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to and in accordance with the Terms of Use. You may copy, store, transfer and burn the Digital Content only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use, subject to and in accordance with the Terms of Use.

2.2 Restrictions. You represent, warrant and agree that you will use the Service only for your personal, non-commercial, entertainment use and not for any redistribution of the Digital Content or other use restricted in this Section 2.2. You agree not to infringe the rights of the Digital Content's copyright owners and to comply with all applicable laws in your use of the Digital Content. Except as set forth in Section 2.1 above, you agree that you will not redistribute, transmit, assign, sell, broadcast, rent, share, lend, modify, adapt, edit, license or otherwise transfer or use the Digital Content. You are not granted any synchronization, public performance, promotional use, commercial sale, resale, reproduction or distribution rights for the Digital Content. You acknowledge that the Digital Content embodies the intellectual property of a third party and is protected by law.

I understand this to mean that I am legally granted license to copy this onto a CD if I think I need a physical backup, I can store it on multiple hard-drives for back up purposes, and I can put the music on as many devices as I have as long as all of those uses are for my personal use and I do not distribute them to other people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RIAA has a program out now to teach children in schools about copyright. They have a flyer that contains the following information; (yes, I recognize this is not law, but it can certainly add to the ambiguity of the issue)

Can I make copies of the

CDs and other music I

purchase?

Most people today listen to music in

many different formats – on a CD, on

the computer, on an MP3 player, or

even on a cell phone. Personal use is

permitted when music fans buy their

music. Typically, fans make copies in

several different formats and even

combine different songs to make their

own special mixes. But you cannot

give the copies you make to anyone

else – that is a violation of copyright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RIAA has a program out now to teach children in schools about copyright. They have a flyer that contains the following information; (yes, I recognize this is not law, but it can certainly add to the ambiguity of the issue)

What does it take????

It does not add to ambiguity; it adds to "certainty."

Just as the "Fair use" statute confirms this despite what others believe it to be ambiguous.

The courts will never challenge "fair use" to the extent of making personal use illegal (i.e. disallowing the now-accepted exception to copyright law).

(I had to jump back in with this.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does it take????

The RIAA gives varying, range-of-the-moment answers regarding personal use copying on its web site, in court rooms, and in the educational programs it sponsors. Its conduct is inconsistent, reprehensible, and unprincipled pragmatism. In the Howell litigation, copying was theft. In the "Music Rules!" program, copying is "permitted" because, it seems, that's what people do. That's the prevailing standard, so it must be right. On its web site, we are told that copying (though presumably wrong) "won't usually raise concerns".

The RIAA is not a trustworthy exponent of the actual man-made facts about permission. Its multifarious, often murky, and irreconcilable statements cannot rationally be considered permission. Permission is not a nebulous concept, and it was actually not given by the copyright holders (i.e. the ones whose permission is actually necessary).

What does it take, indeed.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RIAA is not a trustworthy exponent of the actual man-made facts about permission. Its multifarious, often murky, and irreconcilable statements cannot rationally be considered permission. Permission is not a nebulous concept, and it was actually not given by the copyright holders (i.e. the ones whose permission is actually necessary).

While I agree with the inconsistency of their answers, I do not necessarily agree with this part. The vast majority of those rights holders are members of the RIAA. It is not as if the RIAA is some detached 3rd party making decisions independent of the right's holders. Presumably those rights holders would withdrawal their membership if they did not agree in some way with the actions of the RIAA. It is also reasonable to assume that some such actions are brought before the membership for decisions. This is a significant concession to their previous "hardline" stance, and I think there is some legitimacy in presuming they speak on behalf of the membership.

I also think it is a pretty significant that they are teaching kids in school "It's okay to copy for personal use" and then distinguish when it is not legal. While I still agree that the "Fair Use" argument has no place here, I consider this to be pretty significant evidence of permission on the part of the member labels of the RIAA. It is a current statement (despite the ambiguity of previous statements) and it is directed at young developing minds who are (in my estimation) probably among the most grevious violators of copyright by file-sharing.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The RIAA is not a trustworthy exponent of the actual man-made facts about permission. Its multifarious, often murky, and irreconcilable statements cannot rationally be considered permission. Permission is not a nebulous concept, and it was actually not given by the copyright holders (i.e. the ones whose permission is actually necessary).

What does it take, indeed.

Indeed. What does it take? If you live in a society and engage in its activities you do accept is laws and general methods of operations. You might want to change things, but until you do, you function within what is.

If a producer of music does not wish his music treated as the RIAA treats it or the online stores, etc., then he should not put it out there. He should work to change these operating proceedures. For example, the Beatles catelog was held off the market for a long time (still is?).

If a person respects copyrights, then he addresses the laws and the representatives of the copyright holders. That is what those institutions are for, so that people know what the rules are and act accordingly. Now if you know that the laws were put in place to explicitly steal property, like Reardon Metal was stolen, that is different. That is not currently the case. It is not necessary, however, to run around and ask every copyright holder his position. Nor is it necessary to demand that an institution like the RIAA have full rationality that we would like. What they do and say is their problem and their members problem.

Part of the problem is that the context has changed. With LPs and even the poor quality cassette, the product was rather permanent and tied to the limits of playback options. If you had LPs, but spent a lot of time in your car and it had a cassette deck, you were stuck. You, the consumer, might be tempted to copy a few LPs onto blank cassettes so you could listen in your car, But the time and quality issues were a significant barrier.

In the digital context, the situation has reversed. You have lots of different playback options, and the form of the product is immutable. But the playback options are also short term. MP3 players, phones, and computers all tend to be short term in their physical nature and the features they offer. If the digital product you buy is to have any lasting value, that is, if the consumer isn’t going to be forced to buy a new product every few years (a song tract), then he is going to have to be able to move it from one device to another. In addition, the music buying public wants to be able to listen at home on their computer, on their stereo, in their car, when they are walking around, etc. If the producer’s decision is that music can’t be copied, the product becomes much less desirable and sales will drop. (I am regarding copying for resale and trading CDs around for copying to be separate issues and immoral.)

It is in the interest of the producer to allow personal copying.

Of course, if the producer has not figured this out and not given permission, copying is still wrong. Just because we may be smarter than the producer, in this respect, doesn’t mean that we get to make the decision for him. It doesn’t matter if they themselves do it, etc. No specific permission means no permission.

The comments in and out of court of the legal representatives of the producers just show that attorneys are not your best representatives. The view of the attorney is narrow, legitimately so, but in some contexts, he can screw things up badly. The RIAA has not helped. Because of the changing environment some people can't keep up. How confusing this is can be seen in the video industry.

But we do have evidence from the RIAA and the digital music stores that personal copying is acceptable. I think that it will become even clearer over time.

One context I am not clear on is the one within a family. Does ownership fall to just one of a couple? Maybe. Maybe not. If the music goes on a common use computer? If they share the same music programs? Do they buy two and one just sits? On the other hand, if they split, only one of them can keep the song tract. What to do? (Fortunately – or maybe not – for me, music is one of the least compatibility areas with my girlfriend. Not so much a problem.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The vast majority of those rights holders are members of the RIAA. It is not as if the RIAA is some detached 3rd party making decisions independent of the right's holders. Presumably those rights holders would withdrawal their membership if they did not agree in some way with the actions of the RIAA.
It represents over a thousand different labels. Now, clearly those companies who are still members of RIAA are not so outraged at RIAA's statements that they feel that they must repudiate the organization; equally, I am not so outraged at income taxes that I have renounced my citizenship. But you can be danged sure that my continuing to be a US citizen is not evidence that I consent to being taxed. I can't reasonably conclude of the individual labels that by not quitting RIAA, they are giving explicit permission.
It is also reasonable to assume that some such actions are brought before the membership for decisions.
That is possible, but I don't think it's likely. RIAA has a corporate board of directors which is dominated by larger labels (EMI, SONY, Universal, Warner). It would not be normal to submit propaganda statements or even policy to the membership for a vote. I would conclude that there is not great outrage among the members about saying that "personal" copying is okay; we don't know whether the matter was voted on, by who, or what the count of votes was, so I can't get from what we can see about RIAA to assumed permission by the rights-owners.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As this thread appears about to close, I want to make a few observations for the sake of those who are learning Objectivism and might be confused by the opposing views presented here.

I have communicated with many people who call themselves "Objectivists" over the years, from forum discussions to study groups to Obj. conferences. Many of them make significant errors in applying Obj. principles, either because of a lack of understanding or simply the difficulty in doing so.

Most errors appear to be due to rationalization: the principles are, in some way, considered too rigid and rationalizing can enable one to act more flexibly while still believing he is adhering to the principles.

Others are due to 'over-applying' the principles: one interprets them so rigidly that he will believe he is truly applying a principle when in fact the latter is not in question.

Those who most consistently apply the principles are the more abstract thinkers who focus on reason and rationality.

One can often apply the principles correctly despite being limited in his ability to abstract, simply by being basically rational and applying sound common sense.

We have seen all the above in this thread. But worthy of note from the thread are:

1. Copyright legislation has had addendums to limit restrictions.

2. While the "fair use" statute has been dismissed as a factor by some, its intent cannot be ignored: to provide rough guidelines to enable the courts to determine what types of copying represent fair, and thus acceptable, use.

3. With or without the application of "fair use", no court has ruled that one cannot use an owned CD on multiple devices strictly for personal use. I say "use" here for a purpose: the courts may simply not be interpreting such use as "copying" in the legally restrictive sense; and I see no evidence that they will ever do so.

4. The Howell case, believed by 1 or more persons here to be the case that fights personal use, has been shown not to apply to same; in fact, the prosecution clearly implied that personal use is not a violation.

5. A lot of reasonable common sense arguments have been presented in support of personal use; no common sense arguments have been presented that opposes it.

6. The RIAA, again dismissed by some but yet an organization representing a large portion of music producers/artists, has acknowledged that personal use is acceptable.

7. I am the only one who has noted numerous examples of implicit and explicit permissions - without exception.

8. I have objectively concluded - from all the above - that the concept of "certainty" applies here: until told otherwise by the courts or some music association or artists, personal use is acceptable/moral. No, one cannot generally say that the lack of an explicit denial of permission to do something suggests - by itself - implicit permission; but that is not the case here: all the evidence supports permission, thus "certainty" in my conclusion.

Those whom I believe fall into the "over-applying" category will continue to disagree with me; and they need not reiterate their objections. But I am confident that I am moral in my limited use of CDs (or other s/w), and others should believe likewise.

Edited by TLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It represents over a thousand different labels.

Yes, it does, each of whom applied to the RIAA for membership - they were not born into it, they sought them out to represent them (and they pay dues to be a part of it). In reading about the RIAA's structure (on a very general scale), they allow each label to appoint representatives of the company to various committees that exist for policy and decision-making. When a label seeks them out and applies for membership, it seems reasonable to conclude that they know (or should know) what kind of representation they can expect, and how much input they will have in the decision-making process. They accept (as a package deal) that they will make some decisions for them. I think that by proxy they have given the RIAA the authority to speak for them explicitly (when the RIAA actually does that) within the realm of the purpose for joining the membership.

While you are correct that there are some factors we do not know with certainty, I'm contending that there are some very reasonable conclusions to be drawn from this particular action. The primary purpose (I think) of a label belonging to the RIAA is to protect it's IP from unauthorized duplication (presumably to minimize revenue loss). It is not a trivial thing (propaganda or minor policy issues) for them to go ahead and start a program in schools (and in some colleges) that would expressly counter a significant aspect of this purpose by telling the masses it is okay to copy under this specific circumstances. This is not some minor or trivial decision that lies on the fringes of their purpose, it is a decision that lies at the very heart of their purpose. I think it is reasonable to assume that they solicited input (vote or not) from the membership or involved the membership in a very significant way with the development of this program. This is not simply a press release on some tertiary matter, this is a very proactive campaign to go and a (apparently) clarify to the larger body of offenders what is or is not acceptable in terms of copying on behalf of their membership.

I also do not think this is an issue of where we have difficulty interpreting anything from the silence of the individual labels who are members. They KNOW that the RIAA is going out to speak for them, that is why they applied for membership with them. While the individual labels may or may not have made an explicit statement of permission, their representative now has (with their authority to do so), and therefore their silence can be reasonable interpreted as implied agreement. Given that, I have, and will still, actively search for dissenting statements from any label. Any member label could at this point do one or more of at least three things; 1) withdraw their membership; 2) release a dissenting statement; or 3) employ copy protection measures on their media (as Sony has done in the past and may still do).

I think this is sufficient permission both morally and legally. However, for me the preferred option is purchasing digital music to begin with that comes with more liberal licensing.

Lastly, for those member labels who release both CDs and digital format media, it would seem irrational to charge less for the same material in digital file form with broader permissions and licensing and charge more for the CD version of the same exact material and then take issue with converting that onto computer and your media player in digital format (all assuming personal use). That just does not make sense. Clearly whatever revenue loss they are trying to prevent is not tied up in the plastic used to make the CD.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that by proxy they have given the RIAA the authority to speak for them explicitly (when the RIAA actually does that) within the realm of the purpose for joining the membership.

Even accepting this conclusion based upon the RIAA's general structure -- a conclusion which is debatable -- I don't see how it can possibly be squared with Title 17, Section 106, U.S. Code, which states: "... 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 ..." (emphasis added)

In other words, "the authority to speak for them explicitly" so as to authorize copying is generally non-transferable. The law doesn't allow such proxy to be given, with the very good reason that the rights of creators not be implicitly given away by the propaganda actions of whatever organizations they might be associated with. This is especially true since the copyright owners have expressly reserved their rights according to the copyright law and their only recourse after-the-fact is to withdraw their membership, release a dissenting statement, or employ copy protection measures on their media. By then, "the horse has left the barn" and it is too late. The only limited basis I could conceive as allowing such permission by proxy to be granted would be through the copyright owner's legal representatives acting in a legal context. I conclude that the law generally does not allow such permission to be given by proxy, accordingly I reject the contention that by proxy the record labels have given the RIAA the authority to make an explicit statement of permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, accordingly I reject the contention that by proxy the record labels have given the RIAA the authority to make an explicit statement of permission.

I don't see anything in that code the prohibits them from authorizing a proxy. It doesn't matter that if they give someone that proxy "the horse may be let out of the barn" because if they have that concern, then they do not have to give anyone that proxy authorization. In much the same sense, if you think there is a risk someone might not return your car, you don't give them the keys to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After doing some research, I've found that while my terminology was incorrect (proxy), the concept I referred to is indeed legally possible. The copyright owner can grant a non-exclusive copyright license for any or all of the copyright rights to another party. Whether such written contract exists between the labels and the RIAA or not I cannot claim. However, what I said is legally possible. Granted, I think this law even goes beyond what I mentioned. As I understand it, no paperwork even need be filed with the government in this case as is required for a Transfer of the exclusive rights of copyright, all or in part. Certainly one would expect some written contract or agreement for the non-exclusive copyright license with terms (such as time limit) included. However, the law apparently does not require any form of written documentation for the non-exclusive transfer or license.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see anything in that code the prohibits them from authorizing a proxy.

Taking "proxy" to mean "spokesperson", I understand that companies have spokespersons to say various things on their behalf under a variety of circumstances, but I don't get that it is "within the realm of the purpose for joining the membership" to give the RIAA authority to announce grants of permission. The authority to grant permission is an individual right. Joining an organization so that you can have a collective spokesperson announce what is (usually) your individual decision would be quite odd. Here, the oddness is underscored by the fact that the intended audience of the statement is limited to schoolchildren. What about the adults who bought copyrighted music? Where is the spokesperson speaking to them? The RIAA's purpose entails educating fans about the right way to obtain music generally, however, the idea that the reasons for joining include having a spokesperson for permission seems incredible.

Equally incredible is assuming that permission was granted without exception as required by 17 USC § 106 -- at least a minority of holdouts could be expected. I would need to know more about how such a decision was made and who participated, who approved and who dissented; I certainly could not infer such from what little I know of the general purpose and structure of the organization.

Also, because the RIAA's other statements given in a variety of contexts are inconsistent with a unanimous grant of permission, it doesn't make sense that the RIAA is acting as spokesperson for such. We have already seen that the online statement (directed to a general audience, not schoolchildren) does not describe such permission.

At best, the RIAA makes statements that accurately reflect what permission has actually been granted (as with online piracy, none). At worst (as with personal copying) it muddies the waters.

Whether such written contract exists between the labels and the RIAA or not I cannot claim.

I think that this possibility is extremely unlikely given what the RIAA's actual purpose is, which as far as I can tell does not even include acting as spokesperson to announce grants of permission, much less actually granting permission.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that this possibility is extremely unlikely given what the RIAA's actual purpose is, which as far as I can tell does not even include acting as spokesperson to announce grants of permission, much less actually granting permission.

I respectfully disagree, I think it is highly possible. I don't think that the RIAA is acting as distinctly from the member labels as you appear to think. In fact, the board of directors consists almost entirely of music label executives with the exception being the CEO (yea, big exception, I know :) ). Granted, they all belong primarily to the few major labels, but these label executives ARE the RIAA. I think the program I mentioned is a substantial enough statement that they would have conferred with the rest membership before implementing the idea. So if the Board of Directors is made up of label members, and the various committees are made up of label members, who in the RIAA is making decision not in conjunction with what the member labels want? And yes, I grant that there may be minor label members that have little to no direct representation and may have dissented. Again, my main point is that the RIAA is not some third party decision maker detached from it's member labels, those member labels ARE the RIAA.

Clearly the purpose of bringing this to children (and college students) is an attempt (fruitful or not) to change the runaway train idea that copying music anyway you can get it is okay. It is not unheard to try to change things (like cultural ideas and attitudes) from the "bottom" up. I also stated previously that I think they were targeted because in my estimation the largest group of offenders are probably teen to college age people. It makes sense to place your efforts where you think the larger part of the problem lies.

I certainly could not infer such from what little I know of the general purpose and structure of the organization.

I understand your decision. As I said before, I buy digital music now because the licensing is more liberal and it is less expensive (on the whole). I've even replaced some of my old CD's by buying new digital files. However, I do have some interest in the issue because I do have some older CD's I've collected over the years. I think my position is quite reasonable but I still continue to seek more information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is some more information to consider regarding personal use copying.

17 USC S 1008 -

<H2>§ 1008. Prohibition on certain infringement actions

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.

This section was cited in the case RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia from which the following quote comes;

In fact, the Rio's operation is entirely consistent with the Act's main purpose — the facilitation of personal use. As the Senate Report explains, "[t]he purpose of [the Act] is to ensure the right of consumers to make analog or digital audio recordings of copyrighted music for their private, noncommercial use." S. Rep. 102-294, at *86 (emphasis added). The Act does so through its home taping exemption, see 17 U.S.C. S 1008, which "protects all noncommercial copying by consumers of digital and analog musical recordings, " H.R. Rep. 102-873(I), at *59. The Rio merely makes copies in order to render portable, or "space-shift", those files that already reside on a user's hard drive. Cf. Sony Corp. of America v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 455 (1984) (holding that "time-shifting" of copyrighted television shows with VCR's constitutes fair use under the Copyright Act, and thus is not an infringement). Such copying is paradigmatic non-commercial personal use entirely consistent with the purposes of the Act.[18]

The Act being referred to is the American Home Recording Act of 1992.

Any thoughts on this?

Edit: The above should read the "Audio Home Recording Act of 1992".

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm thinking that pretty much settles the issue of at least copying music to compliant portable music players (such as the iPod). The main reason for this is that the act also establishes compensation to copyright owners by means of royalties for each digital audio device sold.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that 17 USC 1008 settles in favor of personal copying. The purpose of the act is to immunize the makers of digital recording technology against contributory infringement lawsuits. Whether or not the law that was actually passed does give blanket permission for "personal copies" is a matter open to interpretation. We can read the language of the statute to see what it says.

The part stating "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" states that it is not copyright infringement to make a device that could infringe copyright, and that is quite obvious (to us). The act of making a device that allows a person to violate the rights of another does not thereby mean that the device-maker has thereby culpably contributed to the violation of rights.

The rest of the section "or based on the noncommercial use by a consumer of such a device or medium for making digital musical recordings or analog musical recordings" is somewhat odd, but let us focus on the fact that it does allow the use of such devices to make recordings. That means that if you have an Edirol, you can use legally use the Edirol to make a recording.

It does not say that you can make copies of any existing protected material. Suppose that one were to interpret this section as allowing the making of multiple copies of existing protected material, as long as that copying is not done for commercial purposes. That would plainly extend to any form of illegal free downloading of CDs posted on the interwebs, and we know that that is not allowed. To interpret the words as meaning "you are permitted to copy any material, as long as you do not do so commercially" would lead to the conclusion that as long as you don't require payment for the unauthorized music that you offer on a pirate site, you are in legally fine shape for any copying by downloading. And furthermore it would state that the downloader is in no legal jeopardy. This would be an absurd result: it is impossible to believe that Congress intended that result; and the words of the law that they passed don't say that. It does not anywhere allow the making of copies.

Furthermore, the act specifically excludes computer hard drives from the class of devices covered by that law. The significance of that exception is that whatever permission 17 USC 1008 grants does not apply to copying to your hard drive. Whether it covers copying to an Ipod depends on whether the copying is itself legal, i.e. does not circumvent the copy protection.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree that 17 USC 1008 settles in favor of personal copying.

I respectfully disagree. Based on what I've read to this point, including the code, a page with independent analysis, the court statement, and the provision regarding compensation (royalties) for digital audio device, I think that is exactly the purpose of the second part of the code.

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...