Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Secondhand CDs

Rate this topic


TheAllotrope

Recommended Posts

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.

And for clarity sake, I did not claim "blanket permission", I specified "I'm thinking that pretty much settles the issue of at least copying music to compliant portable music players (such as the iPod)" I suspect you still disagree, but I just wanted to clarify that what you said was not what I claimed.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I have a question about this region-DRM encoding. Does anyone know what the companies want us to do with this stuff?

Here's my situation. I bought a tonne of Korean DVDs in Korea (which are not available in Canada) so I could practice listening to Korean for fun, in my spare time. I never actually watched them in Korea, as I had Korean TV and radio to watch for free. So now I have them in Canada and I realized that playing them on my computer DVD player with Windows Media Center caused a message that said "This is not available in your region." However when I play the DVD's with other media players, they work. Additionally, my girlfriend's laptop which is usually at my house, plays the DVDs in every situation since it is of Korean origin. Another thing, the DVD player for my living room TV plays the DVD's as well with no problems. So now that I discovered this region coding, what am I morally bound to do?

I thought the purpose of the region coding is for price fixing in a certain region. Since I bought the DVDs in Korea rather than importing them cheaply to avoid domestic prices, shouldn't using them here be okay? Also, I can't even find these DVDs available in Canada with region 1 encoding, which makes me believe they wouldn't mind since they didn't produce an alternative. But I'm still not sure--most people wouldn't even know about this if they had just played the DVD in my living room DVD player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that the RIAA is acting as distinctly from the member labels as you appear to think.

Which is the more fundamental distinction: the distinction between the RIAA and its members, or the distinction between the individual and the collective? I think the latter. Some cooperative actions are legitimate, i.e. those that generally serve to promote the interests of the music industry as a whole, such as creating and distributing educational materials to promote respect for intellectual property, and helping enforce copyright laws. The authority to take other actions, such as granting permission to copy vis-à-vis the original terms of trade (substantially altering what customers have permission to do with their CDs), belongs to each individual member. Nothing I have seen suggests that the RIAA has the purpose or authority to give away, rather than assiduously defend, the individual rights of any of its members. The distinction is more fundamental than the organization's structure and membership, and focus on IP issues; the only relevant fact (which is not known to us) is that a particular member label has granted permission. For the reason stated, I do not think that a record label's belonging to the RIAA is enough to draw that conclusion.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the purpose of the region coding is for price fixing in a certain region.
No, it is also to regulate availability in a region. A TV show released to DVD in the US a year after the show may not be released at the same time in Europe if they are broadcasting the show. This is part of the right of the copyright owner. In fact, it follows from the property nature of IP that the copyright owner can simply refuse to authorize making copies, and their property right is not simply the right to profit from sales.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any thoughts on this?

The Audio Home Recording Act did not grant the right to copy; it took the more limited step of prohibiting infringement actions as part of a calculated legislative effort at the advent of the digital media revolution to bring a "truce" between the record industry and manufacturers of digital audio recording devices (including the imposition of royalties on such devices and media to be paid to the record industry, a requirement for such devices to employ a copy protection scheme to prevent second-generation copying, and legal immunity for first-generation "noncommercial" copying on such devices and media).

Emphatically, AHRA did not establish "personal use" copying by right, since it did not grant the right to copy; it also did not immunize copying performed by digital devices other than those covered by the Act, i.e. the ones on which royalties were imposed along with the copy-protection requirement. Congress' circumscribed intent was reflected by limiting the Act's application to certain types of devices in a calculated manner. The Act was thus neither an authorization nor an endorsement of "personal use" copying generally.

With respect to copying CDs to computer, not only does AHRA's legal immunity not apply (because computer hard drives are not considered "digital audio recording devices", see RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia), but royalties and copy protection -- also important in the Act -- aren't required. I conclude that the AHRA does not render "personal use" copying of CDs to computer permissible in any way.

The Audio Home Recording Act confirms that when Congress finds that copyright law ought to be modified to keep pace with advances in technology, it amends the law accordingly.

Diamond Multimedia, although not a Fair Use case, in citing Sony vs. Universal City Studios serves as reminder that future court action might expand Fair Use to cover the sort of copying at issue here.

At most we might conclude that Congress or the courts might determine that copying CDs to computer for personal use is not copyright infringement -- someday. Until that day arrives, such copying remains illegal except by permission of the copyright holders.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying the recording industry is telling kids it is ok to violate copyright law and they should feel free to do so?

Of course not. In the "Music Rules!" program, they tell kids that "personal use is permitted". If it is permitted then it is not a violation of copyright law, so you can't get from there to " the recording industry is telling kids it is ok to violate copyright law and they should feel free to do so".

For my opinion of whether such copying is in fact permitted, see my posts above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course not. In the "Music Rules!" program, they tell kids that "personal use is permitted". If it is permitted then it is not a violation of copyright law, so you can't get from there to " the recording industry is telling kids it is ok to violate copyright law and they should feel free to do so".

For my opinion of whether such copying is in fact permitted, see my posts above.

The recording industry says go ahead and copy to your computer and MP3 and you question whether or not it is permitted?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seeker,

I do appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Instead however, I agree with the Judiciary and Senate opinion that I posted above.

That is one of the things about law, readings are almost always expressed in terms of opinions, and very frequently they do not coincide.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The recording industry says go ahead and copy to your computer and MP3 and you question whether or not it is permitted?

But they haven't said that. For my views, see the following posts:

Post #18 (the RIAA's online statement does not actually describe a grant of permission)

Post #54 (the copyright holders have explicitly withheld permission to copy)

Post #59 (copying isn't necessary to use a CD)

Post #60 (RIAA's failure to sue does not amount to permission)

Post #103 (a sizable market exists for digital copies, and the copyright holders have not relinquished their rights in the wake of technological advancement)

Post #111 (the RIAA's conduct is unprincipled pragmatism and its inconsistent statements cannot be regarded as permission)

Post #117 (the RIAA lacks statutory authority to grant permission on behalf of its members)

Post #120 (the RIAA's purpose does not include announcing or granting permission, and one cannot assume that permission was granted unanimously)

Post #128 (the conceptual distinction between the individual and the collective trumps what I know about the RIAA's structure, membership, and focus on IP issues from which, it was argued, permission could be inferred)

Based on the above, I cannot rationally conclude that such copying is permitted, the statement in the RIAA-sponsored "Music Rules!" program notwithstanding.

Seeker,

I do appreciate your thoughts on this matter. Instead however, I agree with the Judiciary and Senate opinion that I posted above.

That is one of the things about law, readings are almost always expressed in terms of opinions, and very frequently they do not coincide.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're disagreeing with, but since you mentioned Senate opinion I will just point out that the actual statute doesn't support a general "personal use" exemption since the legal immunity to copyright infringement lawsuits does not apply to copying CDs to computer, because computer hard drives are not digital audio recording devices. Saying "but the Senate report said..." i.e. citing various extraneous indications of legislators' intentions only applies if the law is ambiguous; here, it isn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

David and Seeker - Are you saying the recording industry is telling kids it is ok to violate copyright law and they should feel free to do so?
I am saying that the recording industry is failing to state clearly what permission is granted to make copies, though it is implying that some permission has been granted by someone to do something. They are attempting to have their cake and eat it, too. They refuse to say something clear, like "Permission is hereby granted by the undersigned rights owners to copy any legally owned music to any personally-owned devices", or whatever permission they are granting; but at the same time they refuse to assert the rights of copyright owners by saying "You may not make any copies whatsoever". They masterfully state the obvious --"Personal use is permitted when music fans buy their music" -- without saying that personal copying is permitted. They rely on the fact that most people will understand "use" to include "copying", while at the same time they maintain deniability for future court cases.

At this point, the only solutions are either a congressional clarification -- new statutory language -- or else a case centering around the so-called "right to make personal copies", decided by SCOTUS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But they haven't said that. For my views, see the following posts:

Post #18 (the RIAA's online statement does not actually describe a grant of permission)

Post #54 (the copyright holders have explicitly withheld permission to copy)

Post #59 (copying isn't necessary to use a CD)

Post #60 (RIAA's failure to sue does not amount to permission)

Post #103 (a sizable market exists for digital copies, and the copyright holders have not relinquished their rights in the wake of technological advancement)

Post #111 (the RIAA's conduct is unprincipled pragmatism and its inconsistent statements cannot be regarded as permission)

Post #117 (the RIAA lacks statutory authority to grant permission on behalf of its members)

Post #120 (the RIAA's purpose does not include announcing or granting permission, and one cannot assume that permission was granted unanimously)

Post #128 (the conceptual distinction between the individual and the collective trumps what I know about the RIAA's structure, membership, and focus on IP issues from which, it was argued, permission could be inferred)

Based on the above, I cannot rationally conclude that such copying is permitted, the statement in the RIAA-sponsored "Music Rules!" program notwithstanding.

I'm not sure what part of my post you're disagreeing with, but since you mentioned Senate opinion I will just point out that the actual statute doesn't support a general "personal use" exemption since the legal immunity to copyright infringement lawsuits does not apply to copying CDs to computer, because computer hard drives are not digital audio recording devices. Saying "but the Senate report said..." i.e. citing various extraneous indications of legislators' intentions only applies if the law is ambiguous; here, it isn't.

RIAA:

"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."

They clearly state all we have discussed is considered personal use and they explicitly state it is permitted.

They explain that copies cannot be made and distributed, stating that that is where the line of copyright violation is crossed.

Clear enough for me.

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They clearly state all we have discussed is considered personal use and they explicitly state it is permitted.

They explain that copies cannot be made and distributed, stating that that is where the line of copyright violation is crossed.

I am well aware of that statement. I acknowledge that mistaking it for an actual grant of permission is understandable. But my (and hopefully your) knowledge context is larger than that one statement.

What that statement signifies is the RIAA's lack of clarity. As David notes, the statement does not say that personal copying is permitted, though that is what most people will understand.

I think that the conclusion that personal copying is permitted is belied by the relevant context, including RIAA's other statements, the express reservation of the right to copy by copyright owners, the fact that copying is not necessary to enable personal use, the purpose of the RIAA, the market for digital copies, the distinction between the individual and the collective, the copyright law itself and, not incidentally, the fact that the RIAA does not represent every copyright holder. For an explication of all of these points but the last, see my previous posts.

Taking the statement and relevant context into account, I cannot accept the conclusion that personal copying is permitted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am well aware of that statement. I acknowledge that mistaking it for an actual grant of permission is understandable. But my (and hopefully your) knowledge context is larger than that one statement.

What that statement signifies is the RIAA's lack of clarity. As David notes, the statement does not say that personal copying is permitted, though that is what most people will understand.

I think that the conclusion that personal copying is permitted is belied by the relevant context, including RIAA's other statements, the express reservation of the right to copy by copyright owners, the fact that copying is not necessary to enable personal use, the purpose of the RIAA, the market for digital copies, the distinction between the individual and the collective, the copyright law itself and, not incidentally, the fact that the RIAA does not represent every copyright holder. For an explication of all of these points but the last, see my previous posts.

Taking the statement and relevant context into account, I cannot accept the conclusion that personal copying is permitted.

The statement explicitly defines personal use as "on a CD, on the computer, on an MP3 player, or even on a cell phone...Typically, fans make copies in several different formats...".

The statement goes on to say "Personal use is permitted when music fans buy their music."

When David notes that the statement does not say that personal copying is permitted, he is wrong.

The statement is here(Biker already provided a link to this)

http://www.music-rules.com/pdf/MusicRulesParentBrochure.pdf

At the bottom of the music rules website you will see the following:

© 2009 Recording Industry Association of America

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am well aware of that statement. I acknowledge that mistaking it for an actual grant of permission is understandable. But my (and hopefully your) knowledge context is larger than that one statement.

I urge you to re-read Biker's post where you will see this statement:

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."

This comes from, and refers to, the AHRA of 92.

My context of knowledge is quite the same as yours and David's. Yet you and David seem to dismiss this quote and that of the RIAA as ambiguous and unclear.

I am at a complete loss as to how that could be...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The statement explicitly defines personal use as "on a CD, on the computer, on an MP3 player, or even on a cell phone...Typically, fans make copies in several different formats...".

The statement goes on to say "Personal use is permitted when music fans buy their music."

When David notes that the statement does not say that personal copying is permitted, he is wrong.

When you say it "explicitly defines personal use", that is not true. It does not say "personal use, defined as copying copyrighted CDs to computer, is permitted". That is how you are understanding it (and that's what the RIAA is relying on to have its cake and eat it, too), but such a conclusion is belied by the relevant context and is not believable.

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."

I urge you to re-read my reply to RationalBiker. Copying to personal computers is not exempted by the law, and that's what matters. Senate reports only (sometimes) come into play when the law is ambiguous. The AHRA clearly does not exempt personal copying to computer. Until Congress amends the law or the courts decide otherwise, such copying is illegal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When you say it "explicitly defines personal use", that is not true. It does not say "personal use, defined as copying copyrighted CDs to computer, is permitted". That is how you are understanding it (and that's what the RIAA is relying on to have its cake and eat it, too), but such a conclusion is belied by the relevant context and is not believable.

I urge you to re-read my reply to RationalBiker. Copying to personal computers is not exempted by the law, and that's what matters. Senate reports only (sometimes) come into play when the law is ambiguous. The AHRA clearly does not exempt personal copying to computer. Until Congress amends the law or the courts decide otherwise, such copying is illegal.

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.

Can we agree that this statement at least IMPLIES permission?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My context of knowledge is quite the same as yours and David's. Yet you and David seem to dismiss this quote and that of the RIAA as ambiguous and unclear.
I (and presumably Seeker) am relying on the law. A Senate committee report is not part of the law -- it is not voted on, and cannot be enforced. The law is contained in the US Code, and this was just a part of the conversation that led up to an actual change of the US Code.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I (and presumably Seeker) am relying on the law. A Senate committee report is not part of the law -- it is not voted on, and cannot be enforced. The law is contained in the US Code, and this was just a part of the conversation that led up to an actual change of the US Code.

But the Senate report states the intention of the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to be sure, do you understand the technical difference between "implying" and "entailing" or "meaning"? That is a very important distinction, because the law deals in entailments, not implications.

This statement was from the RIAA, not the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the Senate report states the intention of the law.
Laws do not have intentions. Laws are objective statements of fact. Men have intentions in enacting laws. Do you see the difference?

I suggest this essay by Scalia. While Scalia's positivism is philosophically unacceptable, his points about the subjectivity of appeals to "intent", especially the selective quotation of committee reports, is 100% on target. If you want an essay that gets at the real essence of the problem of objective law, read Tara Smith's paper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Laws do not have intentions. Laws are objective statements of fact. Men have intentions in enacting laws. Do you see the difference?

I suggest this essay by Scalia. While Scalia's positivism is philosophically unacceptable, his points about the subjectivity of appeals to "intent", especially the selective quotation of committee reports, is 100% on target. If you want an essay that gets at the real essence of the problem of objective law, read Tara Smith's paper.

Good point.

Congress wrote the law. Congress subsequently stated the "purpose" of the law.

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...