Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Secondhand CDs

Rate this topic


TheAllotrope
 Share

Recommended Posts

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.

I'll give you a helping hand here. You need to say what this evidence is you're talking about, because it has not been offered up in this thread so far. For example, if you have a pile of written letters from various record labels all saying that you have their permission to make personal copies of your CDs of their music on your computer and portable music player, and all of your friends have similar piles of letters, then you might not realize that that is by far and away the exception, that the vast majority of people do not have such permission. In the context of this discussion, there is no evidence of such authorizations. So, I call upon you to say what these authorizations are.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 155
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'll give you a helping hand here. You need to say what this evidence is you're talking about, because it has not been offered up in this thread so far. For example, if you have a pile of written letters from various record labels all saying that you have their permission to make personal copies of your CDs of their music on your computer and portable music player, and all of your friends have similar piles of letters, then you might not realize that that is by far and away the exception, that the vast majority of people do not have such permission. In the context of this discussion, there is no evidence of such authorizations. So, I call upon you to say what these authorizations are.

I don't need a helping hand: I am very much an Objectivist; but thanks.

It has been noted more than once that such permissions have been given. And no one has provided a counter example.

Let's take a different tact: how many of you can say that you do not have any music on your computer via a CD?

If you do not, is it because you got an explicit refusal to do so?

If you do, did you get an explicit acceptance, or did you believe it was ok without asking?

And don't say that that does not constitute making a copy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has been noted more than once that such permissions have been given. And no one has provided a counter example.

Okay, here's a counter example for you. I went to my CD collection and picked out a disc at random. At the bottom it says quite clearly: "© 1983 A&M Records Inc. All Rights Reserved". All rights to make copies were reserved by A&M Records in a statement on the very disc, thereby explicitly denying permission to copy that disc. I looked at several more discs, and they all have the same or similar statements explicitly reserving all rights to the respective copyright owners. Where permission is explicitly denied, implicit permission cannot be inferred.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at the same time that section on fair use referenced above said that some purposes (such as commentary, education, etc) are not copyright infringements, even if copies are made without explicit permission. Home use, without friends involved in lending/sharing music, seems to me to be one of the acceptable cases insofar as you take a CD, add the music to your hard drive (ie, copy it without explicit permission), and listen to it from there, retaining the original CD on a shelf or something like that. There is no monetary gain or transfer of the music, it's simply being put in a more convenient form. Despite the haziness of the RIAA's official statement and the law in question, I'd give the benefit of doubt to the consumer, who has every expectation that he can listen to the same music in a more convenient form (ie, mp3 as opposed to audio CD).

If something like that is instead a major property rights violation, why has the RIAA not sued Microsoft and Apple for writing software that can rip music from CDs and even burn new CDs? Why do the license agreements of those programs (which I do read, by the way) not mention that ripping music is a prohibited activity?

I can accept that one should not infer permission, because it has not been explicitly granted. But the question in my mind then becomes, "What is the extent to which permission is a factor in copyright laws?" I submit that obtaining permission for copying is not an absolute, but that it depends on the intent (and actual actions) of the person doing the copying. How it depends, we identify from a reading of the (vague) law, which offers a positive indication that some uses are acceptable justifications for copying (with an incomplete selection of activities enumerated), and others are not (with very few examples enumerated).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, here's a counter example for you. I went to my CD collection and picked out a disc at random. At the bottom it says quite clearly: "© 1983 A&M Records Inc. All Rights Reserved". All rights to make copies were reserved by A&M Records in a statement on the very disc, thereby explicitly denying permission to copy that disc. I looked at several more discs, and they all have the same or similar statements explicitly reserving all rights to the respective copyright owners. Where permission is explicitly denied, implicit permission cannot be inferred.

So you are saying that you do not use a CD to put music on your computer or any personal device?

(I'll address your response later after David, RationalBiker, Freestyle... respond.)

Edited by TLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(I'll address your response later after David, RationalBiker, Freestyle... respond.)
I will give you the basic response, and in order for this exchange to be of any value, you have to understand these points and either accept them and integrate them into your thinking, or else reject them and give reasons to reject them. And of course you know that it would be wrong to reject these points.

First, the concept "property" implies that the owner has the exclusive right to dispose of it. That entails that if you want to use someone else's property, you must get their permission. You have no right to another man's property if you do not have their permission.

Second, the burden is on you to obtain that permission. The permission must exist. You cannot use another person's property under the assumption that permission always and automatically exists. You cannot take another man's car on the grounds that you assume there is automatic permission. The burden is on you, the non-owner, to obtain permission, and it is not on the owner, to deny permission. In a rights-respecting property, a property owner need not actively prohibit others from using his property. Ownership of property does not entail an obligation to deny the right to use the property.

From this it follows that you do not have a right to copy IP, unless you have actual permission. When you receive actual permission, you may rightly copy the IP. The fact that you receive actual permission from one owner does not create an exception to the property rights of other owners, and you cannot conclude "Because I received permission to copy the IP of one man, I now have the right to copy the IP of all men". Permission to use can only be granted by the owner of the particular property; permission is not a communicable disease.

In the specific context of IP-copying, there are two fundamental facts which you must recognize in making a decision to copy or not (on the assumption that you are only engaging in moral copying, which means copying with permission). The first is that software does come with a EULA which you must read and agree to, and the terms of the agreement include the permission to copy. Furthermore, you can grasp why it is in the nature of the product that you must be allowed to copy the product -- it is because the product simply cannot function if it is not copied. And finally, if you actually read these agreements, you will observe that sometimes the permission to install on multiple machines is granted, and sometimes it is not granted. From this you learn that there cannot possibly be any automatic, default assumption about the right to install multiple copies of software.

You must also grasp the fact that when you buy a music CD, there is no EULA, there is no statement that you have permission to copy the music in any way. Furthermore, such permission cannot be reasonably inferred from the nature of a music CD -- it is trivially easy to use a music CD for its intended purpose, by putting it in a CD player and listening to it. Copying is never necessary for you to use your music CD. Therefore, there is no basis in reality for concluding that you ever have permission to copy a music CD.

Such a conclusion cannot be supported by pointing to software. The broad concept IP is differentiated into at least two genera, music and software. The facts of software IP are different from the facts of music IP, and no facts of reality indicate that a conclusion about software IP also holds of music IP.

Finally, the frequent assertion by music IP-owners that they assert their rights is sufficient reason to conclude that the IP-owners have not relaxed or abandoned their claim on their property.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I've read all the posts.

Permission is permission. Evidence that "points to permission" is not permission. I'm not sure why you won't grant the obvious. The permission to copy IP is not granted. If it were, you could point to it and there would be no debate.

My analogy (about the sand castle) was even better than I had thought based on seeing your reply.

1.) You argued that there was no "preponderance of evidence" that would give you permission to destroy the castle. Fill in any amount of "evidence" you can think of into the situation. Without the creators permission, which bit of that evidence give's you the creator's permission? Obviously, none.

2.) Incorrectly, you stated that there is no ownership of the creative outcome of the sand sculpting. I can't imagine any logic to support that. If I take sand and make a castle or water and make an ice sculpture, by what possible rationale do I not own that creation? Who does own that man made creation then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But at the same time that section on fair use referenced above said that some purposes (such as commentary, education, etc) are not copyright infringements, even if copies are made without explicit permission. Home use, without friends involved in lending/sharing music, seems to me to be one of the acceptable cases insofar as you take a CD, add the music to your hard drive (ie, copy it without explicit permission), and listen to it from there, retaining the original CD on a shelf or something like that. There is no monetary gain or transfer of the music, it's simply being put in a more convenient form. Despite the haziness of the RIAA's official statement and the law in question, I'd give the benefit of doubt to the consumer, who has every expectation that he can listen to the same music in a more convenient form (ie, mp3 as opposed to audio CD).

First, convenience copies do not fall under the law's Fair Use provisions given any non-evasive reading of that statute. It is just making things up to say that whatever one rationalizes as "fair" qualifies as "Fair Use" under the law. That's not what the Fair Use law means.

Second, making unauthorized convenience copies isn't "fair", nor is it necessary. Having the same music in a computer/portable music player is often possible through legitimate online services such as Apple's iTunes music store, which sell copies for that purpose. It is also possible to play CDs directly in a computer's CD drive without making any copy, and to use a portable CD player instead of an iPod. Finally, the consumer can also request the copyright owner's permission to make copies legally. Anyway, whether the music can be found legitimately in the form the customer wants, whether that disc sits on a shelf or not, it still says "copyright ... all rights reserved", including the right to make copies.

Third, giving the benefit of the doubt to the consumer presupposes his ignorance in these matters. I am sympathetic to this situation, but it changes entirely when the consumer has been properly educated. That's why I am so disappointed in the RIAA. They could have helped educate people that making unauthorized copies for personal convenience is wrong, and they didn't.

Edited by Seeker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If something like that is instead a major property rights violation, why has the RIAA not sued Microsoft and Apple for writing software that can rip music from CDs and even burn new CDs? Why do the license agreements of those programs (which I do read, by the way) not mention that ripping music is a prohibited activity?

The RIAA's failure to sue for contributory infringement doesn't amount to a grant of permission by the copyright owners. As we have already seen, the RIAA is not the most reliable watchdog when it comes to protecting the rights of the copyright owners it represents. Their inaction doesn't alter the plain fact that making unauthorized copies for personal use violates the rights of the copyright owners.

Ripping music is not a prohibited activity per se, making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works is. Tools have legitimate and illegitimate uses. A hammer can be used to smash somebody else's window for example, but that doesn't make hammers bad, nor does it permit the inference that because the hammer manufacturer doesn't include a notice not to smash other people's windows, that smashing their windows is okay. The license agreements of those software programs deal with those software programs; for the applicable statement regarding copyrighted music, see the copyright notice printed on the music, which reserves the right to make copies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you are saying that you do not use a CD to put music on your computer or any personal device?

(I'll address your response later after David, RationalBiker, Freestyle... respond.)

I am anxiously awaiting for all to respond to TLD...

If I might throw in something on a more concrete, common sensical level here...

The law is clear. Copying IS ILLEGAL.

HOWEVER, am I to believe that there is even one single artist who, if asked, would deny me the right to copy to my computer/MP3 player?? ABSURD.

For any artist to deny this type of copying would be cutting off their nose to spite their face. :dough:

The CD and DVD business is dying, and will not likely survive much longer. If unable to copy one's CDs to MP3's and such, sales would flat out end.

How would that benefit the artist? It wouldn't. People would buy only a few songs off an album online and the artist would receive only a fraction of their royalties from a CD.

I believe in today's climate of rampant piracy, the industry obviously doesn't want to give any specific permissions that can be tweaked and twisted in a court of law to vindicate the ignorant, immoral thieves we see passing around CDs like a plate of cookies and downloading music and software at the speed of light.

Nor do they come out with any statement whatsoever stating their desire for the type of copying I do to end. If they were against this type of copying, then why the silence? Can we assume nothing from this silence? I believe we can.

I previously posted some information I obtained from a copyright attorney. He told me that my son and I sharing a CD on both of our computers and MP3 players is "generally" considered to be covered under the "fair use" rules. I question this in part. I'm not sure we should both have them on our MP3s at the same time and I am considering this. I will certainly delete everything from my son's devices when he leaves home.

I do not steal anything, from anyone, anytime, under any circumstances. I buy my music. I do not copy friends CDs or download "free" music. I am "Certain" that the recording industry and artists wish everyone was just like ME. :pimp:

Am I evading or justifying? I think not.

Ok...let me have it... :nerd:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am anxiously awaiting for all to respond to TLD...

Why, do you think that changes the moral argument that has been provided? He's fishing for a strawman... what people do is not what makes something moral or not. The reason they do it combined with other facts of reality is what makes it moral or not. You don't need to anxiously await my response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HOWEVER, am I to believe that there is even one single artist who, if asked, would deny me the right to copy to my computer/MP3 player?? ABSURD.
That question is actually irrelevant, because in most cases, the artist has assigned his copyright to the record company. It is not absurd to think that the record company would want to deny the right to make a copy, if they could get more money. So for example, you could buy the CD for one price, or the CD plus specified copying rights for a higher price.
The CD and DVD business is dying, and will not likely survive much longer. If unable to copy one's CDs to MP3's and such, sales would flat out end.
They also claimed that vinyl is dead, and yet... But suppose that you're right, that CDs are a dying technology, and nowadays everybody will simply download to an Ipod. Then there is no question of copying from CD. So how does the impending technologically-motivated death of the CD an argument that one should be allowed to copy from CD?
Nor do they come out with any statement whatsoever stating their desire for the type of copying I do to end. If they were against this type of copying, then why the silence? Can we assume nothing from this silence? I believe we can.
We can conclude something from the conduct of the industry. First, they know that there is currently no way to detect or prevent illegal copying unless the person does something public like post the album or try to sell it somewhat openly. Second, they know that people feel entitled and that there will be massive outrage if they prohibit "personal" copying. Third, it is legally unwise to give express permission to copy unless you're really carefully thought it through -- once the horse is out of the barn, it's hard to re-barn it. There would be no point in annoying the customer base, if in fact it doesn't result in something of value (respect for property). It's a sad recognition of man-made reality, that many people have no respect for property.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why, do you think that changes the moral argument that has been provided? He's fishing for a strawman... what people do is not what makes something moral or not. The reason they do it combined with other facts of reality is what makes it moral or not. You don't need to anxiously await my response.

Fair enough.

Other thoughts on my post?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can now summarize and make my final remarks.

Seeker uses the copyright symbol & "All Rights Reserved" on a CD as evidence that no copying is proper.

If you look at copyright legislation, you will find that that is a phrase to broadly protect (under all scenarios) the creator of the CD (or other s/w) from theft.

However, there is a "Fair Use" exemption to US copyright law: "copying music for personal use is not a violation." (There may be some limitations in other countries.) "Fair Use" also says that "Intent, and damage to the commercial value of the work are important considerations."

Clearly, copying as we have been discussing is not considered theft.

Allotrope acknowledges that "Fair Use" makes exceptions such as those we are discussing and that "intent" is a consideration; he gives "benefit to the consumer." But then he hedges a bit re implied permission.

(Convenience, per se, is not a consideration - leaves open too many examples.)

I think it is reasonable to assume that he copies for personal use.

David tried to educate (unnecessarily here) about property rights, explicit permissions et al. But he does not show an understanding of the real applications of copyright law and explicit exceptions as above. His assumption that s/w copying does not relate to CD copying is not entirely true.

Freestyle says "permission is permission" without acknowledging that some amount and type of evidence of permission can indeed lead to a general assumption of permission. His Sand Castle analogy is not appropriate.

Scott points out that the (basic copyright) law says copying is illegal. As with "All Rights Reserved", there had to be a broad law and such messages to cover all attempts to steal copyrighted materials. But the courts have clarified the law many times, in part with the "Fair Use" doctrine as above.

He copies for personal use.

RationalBiker simply noted a case where "someone was sued for personal copying (of music)." Interestingly, that was an RIAA suit - the organization that wants the most strict interpretation of the law. But more interesting is the fact that it sued the defendant over his “unauthorized” copies because he allegedly placed them in his “shared folder” for distribution over a peer-to-peer network, not because he was simply using the music on his computer or other device. The court granted the defendant's reconsideration motion claiming that his actions did not meet the criteria for violation and that the original motion should be denied. Regardless of who wins, this case goes beyond the copying we have been discussing.

I have discussed this issue over time with a significant number of s/w companies and music artists and a CD manufacturer. They all not only explicitly gave permission to copy for personal use, but they clearly implied that that is generally a given, thus implied permission/authorization.

Clearly, current law leaves room for such copying and does not suggest it is a moral concern. No one has provided a single example of a refusal to copy. With all this, it is rational to conclude, and I am absolutely certain, that one is authorized and moral to copy a CD for personal use.

Note that 3 of us copy for personal use; the remaining 4 have refused to say. I am not sure what to assume by their silence; but it does not matter. They have been arguing the wrong principle all along, leaning on the strictest interpretation of the law, refusing to see the intended exceptions and how the concept of "certainty" applies. And none of them have said such copying is immoral. All of us are indeed moral here; those who don't copy are simply denying themselves some pleasure and/or reasonable convenience.

(In principle, nothing new has been presented here. But I hope this summary with perhaps more clarity on some points will change at least 1 person's mind on this issue.)

Edited by TLD
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are going to falsify what the Fair Use section says, it isn't possible for rational men to deal with you further.

TLD was not quoting the fair use law, but rather an interpretation of the fair use law, of which their are many. Most of them do, in fact, indicate that the activity we are discussing here is well within the fair use guidelines.

The case Rational Biker referred to(the Howell case):

"The facts of the case are fairly typical. MediaSentry, the private investigator that researches these matters for the RIAA, used Kazaa to identify 4,000 files available from the Howells' computer, with 54 of them copyrighted music files. MediaSentry took screenshots showing the files available and downloaded 12 of the songs."

This is not what we're talking about, obviously.

Interestingly, the RIAA...

Monday, December 10, 2007

In the US Supreme Court, the record company lawyers said:

The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod. There is a very, very significant lawful commercial use for that device, going forward.

It would seem they have since changed their mind on this:

"As part of the on-going DMCA rule-making proceedings, the RIAA and other copyright industry associations submitted a filing that included this gem as part of their argument that space-shifting and format-shifting do not count as noninfringing uses, even when you are talking about making copies of your own CDs:

"Nor does the fact that permission to make a copy in particular circumstances is often or even routinely granted, necessarily establish that the copying is a fair use when the copyright owner withholds that authorization. In this regard, the statement attributed to counsel for copyright owners in the MGM v. Grokster case is simply a statement about authorization, not about fair use." "

Idiots. Like a politician. "Oh, what I meant to say was...(total contradiction)..."

My interpretation of this is they don't care if people copy for personal use, but coming out and stating it explicitly was not in their best interest considering other cases they have pending. A crafty attorney will undoubtedly try to twist such a statement to their own ends.

Copyright. Fair Use. Legal? Moral? What are we to conclude?

Many of you are clearly under the impression that the copying in question is illegal. I think that is debatable. I have not found a single case brought forth against anyone for anything less than what we all agree is a clear violation. I contend there may be a reason for that...a legal reason... With so many interpretations of fair use out there, should I not be comfortable with assuming the overwhelming majority of them is accurate?

I have not heard anyone say it is immoral. Is there a reason for that...?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of you are clearly under the impression that the copying in question is illegal. I think that is debatable. I have not found a single case brought forth against anyone for anything less than what we all agree is a clear violation. I contend there may be a reason for that...a legal reason... With so many interpretations of fair use out there, should I not be comfortable with assuming the overwhelming majority of them is accurate?
The Fair Use section is a monument of non-objective, meaningless law which amounts to saying "Or not, depends". However, reading the actual statutory language at best supports a limited right to copy without permission: to copy a part, and to copy for a specific purpose (research, education, comment). Allowing the quotation of parts of the works of Ayn Rand on this forum for the purpose of comment -- to document what Objectivism actually holds, for example -- is essential to a society where men exchange ideas and advocate positions, and are held responsible for what they say. The best defense against a dictatorship is public criticism, and an essential tool of that criticism is publically throwing a person's words back at them. Show the world the true depravity of altruist or skepticism. None of these considerations apply to copying for personal use.

There are many informed interpretations of Fair Use, and there is no majority legal interpretation. The "time shifting" VCR analogy fails the test of being a reasonable argument, since there is no analogy between video taping a broadcasted show to view at another time, and making a second copy of an already repeatable recording (a CD).

I think you should be uncomfortable with accepting the rationalization of the masses, because the masses have accepted the premise that entertainment should be free. When legal standards at SCOTUS decay further and it becomes a matter of resolved law that any amount of copying for personal use is allowed, then until Congress repairs the Fair Use section, we will be stuck with that particular interpretation of the law. Until that happens, a plain reading of Fair Use law simply does not support the conclusion that copying for personal use is automatically allowed.

I have not heard anyone say it is immoral. Is there a reason for that...?
Yes, because in this context, a person who engages in personal copying would be immoral if they evaded the legal requirement for permission and the fact that they don't have permission. If a person is aware of the old RIAA statement, that might reasonably seem like permission, though to conclude that you'd have to take a intellectually passive (non-virtuous) approach to the question of who the copyright owner actually is. A similar intellectually passive approach to the need for permission (under the common misconstruction of copyright law that it only prohibits copying for profit) could lead you to believe that permission is not required. My conclusion is that most people who copy their legal CDs are following moral principles, but their knowledge context is defective.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Freestyle says "permission is permission" without acknowledging that some amount and type of evidence of permission can indeed lead to a general assumption of permission. His Sand Castle analogy is not appropriate.

I need to acknowledge that some amount and type of evidence leading to a "general assumption of permission" is somehow EQUAL to permission? That makes no sense whatsoever.

Why is the sand castle analogy not appropriate? Just because you say so? I've already allowed for you to add "evidence" to the analogy and have articulated why ownership does apply. Apparently the sand castle analogy doesn't allow you to apply your logic and that is the only reason it is not "appropriate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fair Use section is a monument of non-objective, meaningless law which amounts to saying "Or not, depends". However, reading the actual statutory language at best supports a limited right to copy without permission: to copy a part, and to copy for a specific purpose (research, education, comment). Allowing the quotation of parts of the works of Ayn Rand on this forum for the purpose of comment -- to document what Objectivism actually holds, for example -- is essential to a society where men exchange ideas and advocate positions, and are held responsible for what they say. The best defense against a dictatorship is public criticism, and an essential tool of that criticism is publically throwing a person's words back at them. Show the world the true depravity of altruist or skepticism. None of these considerations apply to copying for personal use.

There are many informed interpretations of Fair Use, and there is no majority legal interpretation. The "time shifting" VCR analogy fails the test of being a reasonable argument, since there is no analogy between video taping a broadcasted show to view at another time, and making a second copy of an already repeatable recording (a CD).

I think you should be uncomfortable with accepting the rationalization of the masses, because the masses have accepted the premise that entertainment should be free. When legal standards at SCOTUS decay further and it becomes a matter of resolved law that any amount of copying for personal use is allowed, then until Congress repairs the Fair Use section, we will be stuck with that particular interpretation of the law. Until that happens, a plain reading of Fair Use law simply does not support the conclusion that copying for personal use is automatically allowed.Yes, because in this context, a person who engages in personal copying would be immoral if they evaded the legal requirement for permission and the fact that they don't have permission. If a person is aware of the old RIAA statement, that might reasonably seem like permission, though to conclude that you'd have to take a intellectually passive (non-virtuous) approach to the question of who the copyright owner actually is. A similar intellectually passive approach to the need for permission (under the common misconstruction of copyright law that it only prohibits copying for profit) could lead you to believe that permission is not required. My conclusion is that most people who copy their legal CDs are following moral principles, but their knowledge context is defective.

Interesting. I have also noted that most of the explicit fair use interpretations are, in fact, referring to portions, pieces, a few notes...

However, the concensus among copyright attorneys is that fair use DOES include the copying we're talking about. The rulings by courts, while not specific to our example, supports that concensus. it supports that by telling the RIAA that MP3 players are perfectly acceptable under the law, etc...

The only rulings condemning copying involve P2P networks, CD and DVD passing and copying/sharing, etc. Those are the only rulings of that type because there simply ARE NO CASES BROUGHT AGAINST ANYONE who engages in the activity we are discussing. Why not? Well, we can only speculate, I'll grant you that; but there is only one rational conclusion we can come to... It is NOT ILLEGAL. Am I to assume that the only reason a case has not been brought is because "they can't prosecute everyone"? They would at least try to nail someone to set a precedent and make people conscious of the law.

So why would I assume it is illegal?

Morally, I would not consider the legality of the issue at all. It is up to the artist, and the artist alone, whether or not he wishes to grant ANY copying rights. I would bet a hefty sum that you can not find an artist who would deny that right. I think they would all say "Follow Scott's lead...he's the man". I would bet an even heftier sum that you will not find a single artist who doesn't have a computer and an MP3 player with music from another artist on them without explicit permission. Irrelevant? Sure, but you get my point...

I have done plenty of research and spoken with every source I thought could clarify this for me. Nothing and no one has given adequate evidence of illegality OR immorality. Based of course on what I have said in all my posts and all the research I have done.

But, due to what I consider ambiguity in the law, I'm still listening...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Fair Use section is a monument of non-objective, meaningless law which amounts to saying "Or not, depends".

It seems you would completely dismiss the Fair Use section, and it's intent, out of hand. I do not understand why you would do so. It was an amendment to the copyright law. For a reason.

Edited by scottd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems you would completely dismiss the Fair Use section, and it's intent, out of hand. I do not understand why you would do so. It was an amendment to the copyright law. For a reason.

I think what he is saying is that the Fair Use section is rife with ambiguity.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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