Secondhand CDs

Ethics
61

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:

62

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.

63

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.

64

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?

65

More evidence that there is no implicit ‘permission’ given by silence… because there has been a case in which someone was for sued for personal copying.

66

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.)

67

However, there is a “Fair Use” exemption to US copyright law: “copying music for personal use is not a violation.”

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

68

He asks for evidence, I give him evidence, and then he ignores it… nice.

69

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…?

70

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.

71

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”.

72

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…

73

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.

74

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.

75

Can someone please provide me some examples of why it actively hurts me if I pirate copyrighted material? I’ve had the urge to do so lately, but I need to stay in full focus and realize why it would actively harm me. However, I can only seem to see the upsides or really vague principles like “you’ll become a parasite.”

76

However, I can only seem to see the upsides or really vague principles like “you’ll become a parasite.”

Have the concepts of “earn” and “justice” become unimportant values to you? Will your mind be at ease with idea that you are taking what is not rightfully yours from someone who does not deserve to become an end to you? Have you become incapable of producing the value you need for yourself?

77

Have the concepts of “earn” and “justice” become unimportant values to you? Will your mind be at ease with idea that you are taking what is not rightfully yours from someone who does not deserve to become an end to you? Have you become incapable of producing the value you need for yourself?

None of these questions are what I’m looking for. I need examples of why this will harm me, because I only undertake actions that benefit me as an egoist. “Will I be upset if I take it?” doesn’t provide me with some kind of negative result I was looking for.

78

“Will I be upset if I take it?” doesn’t provide me with some kind of negative result I was looking for.

So you will be happy being unhappy then? Unhappiness is not a negative result?

79

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.

No, in fact if you search the IP threads, you will see that I support the purpose behind the Fair Use section; I dismiss what it actually says, after extensive consideration of its legal language. It fails to objectively state the criteria for the exception – it is a monument of non-objective legal writing.

80

So you will be happy being unhappy then? Unhappiness is not a negative result?

Why do you not steal copyrighted material? Why would stealing it effect you negatively?

At the moment, the only thing that is emotionally “real” to me is the benefit of obtaining the material. So I’m asking what are the effects in reality from stealing it that will decidedly hurt my ability to live.

No, if I told myself not to feel guilty I would not feel guilty. What you’re advocating there is hedonism anyway–I don’t need to reference a feeling to find out if something is the right or wrong course of action.