Secondhand CDs

Ethics
41

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

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

So I elevated its significance a bit. :wink:

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

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

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

42

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

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

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

43

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

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

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

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

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

44

So I elevated its significance a bit. :smiley:

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

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

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

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

45

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

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

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

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

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

46

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

47

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

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

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

48

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

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

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

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

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

49

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

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

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

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

50

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

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

51

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.

52

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

He certainly doesn’t seem to understand the concepts “permission” and “property”.

53

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.

54

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.

55

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).

56

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.)

57

(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.

58

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?

59

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.

60

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.