I think the complaints boil down to the fact that some people don’t want to be forced to pay for the price of DRM incorporation into the hardware, as well as the performance hit it will take in terms of CPU burden to process the encryption management. PCs are on the threshold of becoming very powerful, but this will set them back a good 3-4 years, not to mention add more bloat to an already puffed up OS.
I guess the question turns to “should PCs be media/entertainment centers?”
Whether or not the cops can be trusted to monitor the Internet, good people should turn in the thieves, indeed. One version of such good people would be software and hardware makers who work to prevent thieves from violating copyrights. I don’t know whether the technology being invisioned includes a reporting function, or simply a blocking function. The thing is, I’m not certain whether a person can be sued for attempted copyright violation, though they certain should be. I’ll see if I can figure that out.
There’s a separate question of whether a person who knowingly aids and abets the violation of other peoples right should be held liable (as in the Grokster case, or Moussaoui). I would say that they should.
People turning in thieves is one thing, machines doing it is another. This isn’t really like a burglar alarm at a bank, either; it would be more like trying to put a sensor on a handgun that stops the handgun from being fired if it is being used for murder, but allows it to be fired if it is being used in self-defense. How would such a sensor work? How can it tell the difference? And what if something causes the sensor to be set off inappropriately (in either direction); is it merely an inconvenience, or is it depriving someone of their rights?
I think the complaints boil down to the fact that some people don’t want to be forced to pay for the price of DRM incorporation into the hardware, as well as the performance hit it will take in terms of CPU burden to process the encryption management. PCs are on the threshold of becoming very powerful, but this will set them back a good 3-4 years, not to mention add more bloat to an already puffed up OS.
I guess the question turns to “should PCs be media/entertainment centers?”
If you want to watch a movie on your laptop on a plane, you might want your PC to double as a media and entertainment center. (Although I wonder if technically you might need “public performance” rights, if the people in the row behind you decide to watch too.)
I find it interesting that Steve Jobs of all people has called for the end of DRM on music. Interesting, because he has not extended that to movies, or to Mac OS X for that matter. But he is not in favor of abolishing music copyrights either.
People turning in thieves is one thing, machines doing it is another.
That’s true: machines don’t give in to emotional pressure, which people do.
How would such a sensor work? How can it tell the difference?
And most important, why should it tell the difference? Remember that the question is not whether some machine figures out a person’s purposes, but whether it can figure out a person’s actions. Stealing with a fancy excuse is still stealing, and the nice thing about having robust anti-theft devices (in your grocery store and in your computer) is that it doesn’t care that you were only going to steal for a short time, or that you didn’t feel that your stealing was hurting anyone.
I would really love it if there were a huge cultural change and people actually came to understand that theft is immoral. Of course, they wouldn’t say “In some cases, theft is okay”, instead, they have constructed a whole different concept of theft. The most common construction of copyright violation that people have built for themselves is that it’s about marketing competing books and CDs on a massive scale. Most people actually believe that if you do something for your own use, or for friends, at any rate not for profit, then you can copy anything you want, because the object of copying is public property (and copyright is a government license to make a profit from that public property).
When was the last time you got all angry and denounced a person for violating another person’s copyright? When did you say to your brother “You shouldn’t copy that CD, it’s stealing – buy it, instead”? When did you tell your child “You only bought that one copy of the song for your computer: it is not yours to give away to all of your friends”? So although I agree that it would be better if people were to get up in arms about the massive theft that typifies the utter contempt for IP in our culture, that is not going to happen. The only hope is going to be a robust and objective physical procedure which actually enforces respect for rights. A system that prevents theft.
When was the last time you got all angry and denounced a person for violating another person’s copyright?
All the time. It really irks me that people are ok with things like limewire or certain videos on youtube or peakvid. My friends know my views on the situation.
That’s true: machines don’t give in to emotional pressure, which people do.
And most important, why should it tell the difference? Remember that the question is not whether some machine figures out a person’s purposes, but whether it can figure out a person’s actions. Stealing with a fancy excuse is still stealing, and the nice thing about having robust anti-theft devices (in your grocery store and in your computer) is that it doesn’t care that you were only going to steal for a short time, or that you didn’t feel that your stealing was hurting anyone.
What you’re saying is that humans cannot be trusted to make the distinction between murder and self-defense, or between legitimate and illegitimate copying, because of “emotional pressure.” Such a statement impugns all of humanity and, if I am reading it correctly, is outrageous.
A proper government should be like a robot with the laws as its only motive power, but – it is not the case that “any robot will do.”
DRM systems are typically designed and owned by media companies and are therefore not designed to acknowledge the rights of anyone else.
No one should own the police.
I would really love it if there were a huge cultural change and people actually came to understand that theft is immoral. Of course, they wouldn’t say “In some cases, theft is okay”, instead, they have constructed a whole different concept of theft. The most common construction of copyright violation that people have built for themselves is that it’s about marketing competing books and CDs on a massive scale. Most people actually believe that if you do something for your own use, or for friends, at any rate not for profit, then you can copy anything you want, because the object of copying is public property (and copyright is a government license to make a profit from that public property).
I haven’t seen people connect their casual copyright violations to the widespread idea that a copyright is “a monopoly granted by the government as a reward for creativity.” I have seen the latter used as justification for many bad changes to copyright law, though.
Most people believe however that if they make private copies for themselves it is none of anybody else’s business. That sounds like common sense to me and I agree with it.
I detest the modern trend toward there being all sorts of “terms of use” associated with everything that you buy – whether licenses to copyrighted work, or land (which can come with use restrictions), or physical objects. The presence of such terms means that you cannot really own anything anymore. You have to agree to all the terms set by the previous owner – not just at the time of the sale, but for all time. And these terms can be completely arbitrary.
(I am stuck sometimes having to abide by such terms, and I do abide by them, but I try to avoid buying things that come with such terms.)
I daresay that such a trend is anti-property and anti-capitalist. When you sell an object, it should properly be no longer yours, and you should no longer have the right to set the terms of its use. You can set the terms under which you’ll sell it, but that’s different from controlling the object after its sale. When you buy an object, similarly, it should become yours.
So what does it mean to “own” a license to a copyrighted work? It doesn’t mean you can make copies for other people – that is the exclusive province of the copyright owner. But the copyright owner shouldn’t have any business knowing what devices you have in your home that you may use to “process” his work. You may even wish to invent such devices yourself. Provided that your devices don’t make copies available to others, they should be allowed.
This is especially important when you consider that, if Ray Kurzweil’s predictions are correct, some of the devices you use to enjoy works may become more and more intimate with your brain. Do you really want a copyright owner being able to dictate the structure of your brain or the method of its operation?
When was the last time you got all angry and denounced a person for violating another person’s copyright? When did you say to your brother “You shouldn’t copy that CD, it’s stealing – buy it, instead”? When did you tell your child “You only bought that one copy of the song for your computer: it is not yours to give away to all of your friends”? So although I agree that it would be better if people were to get up in arms about the massive theft that typifies the utter contempt for IP in our culture, that is not going to happen. The only hope is going to be a robust and objective physical procedure which actually enforces respect for rights. A system that prevents theft.
All the time. It really irks me that people are ok with things like limewire or certain videos on youtube or peakvid. My friends know my views on the situation.
It happens to me a lot, too. I have bought and paid for several software packages over the years (FrameMaker, Acrobat, MSDN subscription, Partition Magic), only to be told by coworkers that I am “wasting money” buying things I “could have gotten for free.” (They are not talking about open-source alternatives, either.) I tell them that if somebody didn’t pay for them, there wouldn’t be anything to copy, but their general opinion is that I am “being a sucker” for paying. It really ticks me off.
Hey, I forgot about this thread. Steve Jobs yesterday or the day before threw his view into the ring with the release of his “Thoughts on Music”, which I blogged on. I found his view (elimination of DRM) to be particularly self serving.
What you’re saying is that humans cannot be trusted to make the distinction between murder and self-defense, or between legitimate and illegitimate copying, because of “emotional pressure.” Such a statement impugns all of humanity and, if I am reading it correctly, is outrageous.
Stop being ridiculous and holster your outrage. Humans have free will; humans do murder and steal, and you are not guaranteed that no person will murder or steal. Your implicit denial that there are many thieves would be outrageous if it weren’t so funny. Getting back on topic and off of your confused wandering into murder, I see no reason to think that even half of mankind respects copyright. You yourself, below, expressed your contempt of copyright. Most people believe it is acceptable to copy without permission. The majority of them do not understand why it’s wrong to do so. But it’s still wrong, even if most people operate on immoral premises. Most people are religious, too.
DRM systems are typically designed and owned by media companies and are therefore not designed to acknowledge the rights of anyone else.
So what? Lawnmowers are not designed to acknowledge the rights of anyone else. If thy lawnmower offends thee, pluck it out. If you don’t like the DRM systems that are available, don’t buy them. There is no law that forces you to buy anything. Expect to get sued if you buy these systems and steal other people’s property – it’s as simple as that. If I were to witness you stealing another person’s material, even without DRM, I would probably be willing to testify against you at your trial. But of course there is little change that I’d witness you stealing other people’s stuff or that the owner would know that they could call on me, so you’re safe.
Most people believe however that if they make private copies for themselves it is none of anybody else’s business. That sounds like common sense to me and I agree with it.
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Yes, most people do hold that belief. Most people now also hold the belief that it’s okay to steal from big companies, that cheating on insurance claims is okay (because insurance companies are just trying to get rich). Still, theft is theft.
The question is what can be done about this disease. One possibility is to make copyright violation a crime. Send the evil miscreants to prison, just like other thieves are dealt with. I have been thinking about this, and I think it is probably the right thing to do, exactly because of this decline in respect for property rights. The alterative is to simply abandon the concept of intellectual property. That is giving in to the evil conduct of the masses.
I detest the modern trend toward there being all sorts of “terms of use” associated with everything that you buy – whether licenses to copyrighted work, or land (which can come with use restrictions), or physical objects.
And I detest the modern trend to denying property rights. Contracts are becoming meaningless, property rights are all but gone, all we are going to be left with is the largesse of the state, which will confiscate all wealth and distribute it “fairly”. Rand wrote a book about this --you might want to give it a look.
(I am stuck sometimes having to abide by such terms, and I do abide by them, but I try to avoid buying things that come with such terms.)
Why? What is it about these agreements that you feel you should abide by them?
I daresay that such a trend is anti-property and anti-capitalist. When you sell an object, it should properly be no longer yours, and you should no longer have the right to set the terms of its use. You can set the terms under which you’ll sell it, but that’s different from controlling the object after its sale. When you buy an object, similarly, it should become yours.
If you do buy something, you can sell it or give it away. Your problem is that you want own things that you have not bought and paid for. You can sell your CDs to your friend because you did buy the CDs. You did not buy the music. Sell the physical object, okay. No copying: you do not own the music.
But the copyright owner shouldn’t have any business knowing what devices you have in your home that you may use to “process” his work.
That’s a non-sequitur. If you are unwilling to submit to the rights-protecting measures that a seller requires his customers to use, then don’t become a customer! You have theright to only buy unprotected materials – are you claiming that a seller has no right to protect his property?
I can’t make sense of your position. If you reject property rights and don’t think that a man has the right to the product of his mind, then I can’t understand why you would have any reservations about any level of stealing of protected material. Why would you turn in a data-thief, if you don’t think he’s doing anything wrong? If you do accept property rights, then why do you claim that you have a right to do something that you do not actually have a right to do – you do not have the right to copy. It is not your property. Is it simply that you’re laboring under the delusion that when you buy a book or a CD that you’ve bought the right to make copies? You haven’t. You only have the right to use that one physical copy – if you can figure out how. I assume that you also know that your right to listen to a music CD does not mean that the government have the obligation to give you a means to play the thing, or that if you have a Beta tape, somebody has to somehow provide you a method of playing it.
You only have the right to use that one physical copy – if you can figure out how.
I appreciate the logic of your position (if I understand it correctly) but I see practical problems that doom it in reality. I transferred my entire CD collection to Apple iTunes for convenience, so I can play the music on my iPod (and iTunes has an easy-to-figure-out feature for CD importing that facilitates doing exactly this). When I backed up my hard drive, another copy was generated. Strictly speaking, this all violates the copyright, does it not? So now, to be moral, I have to go back to the musical stone ages lug around a huge box of discs and change them manually, instead of using my iPod? Also, what if there isn’t a physical copy, just an iTunes download? When I put it on my iPod, that makes a copy. So there’s got to be some copying that’s morally okay in certain specific contexts, and DRM will surely provide for that. Now, given that that is the case, why must it be wrong to (for example) do essentially the same thing by creating a mixed cassette tape (like everyone did back in the 80s) for one’s own convenience and personal use? What is the moral - not what the law or DRM allows, but the moral answer? I think it’s a bit more complicated than just saying that the single physical copy you buy is all you get to have, period. There is value in the flexibility as to the manner of use that technology offers, and I really struggle to see how using my iPod in that specific context could be immoral. Have I misunderstood your position? If not, I think that view will simply be consigned to practical irrelevancy. Arguing that using an iPod is immoral and we need to carry backpacks full of CDs everywhere to play on our discman to be good Objectivists sounds like a decent way to kill the movement (not to mention, our backs).
I transferred my entire CD collection to Apple iTunes for convenience, so I can play the music on my iPod (and iTunes has an easy-to-figure-out feature for CD importing that facilitates doing exactly this).
I’m not surprised (and I mean, simply, that this is within the realm of what most people think is morally okay). 1: Did you do that because you thought you had permission from the artists to make copies? 2: Did you do that because you figured that a major company would not have an easy method for ripping off CDs (it’s usually shortened to “ripping”) if it weren’t actually okay? 3: Do you have specific legal knowledge that informs you that it is okay. 4: Do you feel that since you paid for those CDs, you ought to be able to do whatever you want as long as it only involves you?
Answer 4, and its variants, are what really bug me. Answer 3 is the “hat’s off to you” answer. 2 is intellectually sloppy; 1 is too, but the sloppiness is less striking. The answer should be in category 3. What you want is to be sure that you only get music that has the kind of license that allows you to copy it to your ipod or PC or whatever. The problem is not copying, the problem is copying without permission. If you can get permission, if you are certain that you have permission, then feel free to… [NB I am betting that you may not give away your CDs without erasing the dowloaded music from the Ipod. That is certainly the standard condition on disposition of programs).
When I backed up my hard drive, another copy was generated. Strictly speaking, this all violates the copyright, does it not?
If you’d ship me your hard drive, I can probably make a determination. I’ll try not to damage it. Anyway, possibly, but improbably. Copying with permission is allowed, and my handy Adobe EULA does allow making backup copies. If you can find a Software Nerd who has a lot of experience with software licenses, you might get a better answer, but my recollection and experience has been that any software that lets you install to a hard drive allows you to back the software up.
So now, to be moral, I have to go back to the musical stone ages lug around a huge box of discs and change them manually, instead of using my iPod?
If you don’t have permission to stuff the sum of western pop music on your Ipod, yes. Are you thinking otherwise, that it would be an inconvenience for you to respect the property rights of the owners of the tunes, and therefore you have the right to do what you want, and not that they permit you to do? Copying with permission is moral; copying without permission is immoral. That is a very simple rule. Do you disagree with that statement that distinguishes the moral and the immoral in the realm of copying?
Also, what if there isn’t a physical copy, just an iTunes download?
I’m not a user of such services, but I think you buy a kind of license which allows you to install on various iPods. Downloading is a form of copying, so you do have a copy. I looked into one of those online tunes places, and the EULA did give you the right to download (multiple times) to your media devices. To Apple’s discredit, they make it extremely difficult to determine the terms of their license. But is you’re a users, you should be able to tell what the conditions of usage are. What did they say that made you think you had permission to make multiple copies?
What is the moral - not what the law or DRM allows, but the moral answer?
Excellent, now we’re down to the essential issue. It is moral for you to make as many copies as you have been granted permission to make, by the owner of the IP. That could be zero copies (learn not to patronize them), one (still risky), two or any number, subject to the “own use” condition. The law sets the baseline – zero copies. By permission, that can be increased. Read the EULA and you will know the answer. Demand a clearly stated EULA. If your favorite artist insists on a zero-copy policy, then get a new favorite artist. For a few more years, we still have a nominally free market, so you can use your dollars to influence the available options.
There is value in the flexibility as to the manner of use that technology offers, and I really struggle to see how using my iPod in that specific context could be immoral. Have I misunderstood your position?
First, understand that I do ultimately support a general license to the individual, so that you can buy a tune and play it wherever you are. Part of making this possible, while protecting copyright, is something like DRM. Remember that the copyright owner can choose to allow multiple copying, or disallow it. That is the right of the copyright owner. The customer has the right to not buy a product which they judge to be too restricted to be practical. Now you can put those two together. In a society that respects property rights which also has a way of enforcing restricted multiple copying, no sane artist would support a no-copy policy – because customers would simply not buy the product. The problem we’re faced with right now is the growing contempt for property rights in society, matched by soaring rates of theft. Tighter restrictions are necessitated because in the digital world, 1 loose copy becomes 10,000+ freebies with just a few keystrokes.
Now maybe you can solve my dilemma. I want to buy a CD, Musta Lindu, which appears to be completely out of print, everywhere in the world. I’d pay them real money for a copy, but it seems that the rights-owners are simply not interested. I don’t know if they have a plan to re-release the album, or they hate me, or they can’t be bothered. So what am I supposed to do? They aren’t leaving me any choice, other than to buy one of the LPs that are occasionally available but my god who uses vinyl. Or I could rip off a copy. I really don’t have any choice. They are forcing me to be immoral.
Oh, wait, my wants do not constitute a valid claim on another person’s life. The idea of “acting morally” is based on acting in a principled way. In the short term, it would be great if I could steal a copy of that album. In the long run, it’s a step towards death. A repudiation of the principle behind the concept “property”. I don’t want to be a contributor to the destruction of a principle which is necessary for my survival.
The practical answer is, make it profitable to allow restricted multiple copying.
So what? Every pathetic attempt at DRM has been cracked in a matter of months anyway. It’s not like *any* DRM scheme has been even remotely successful in preventing people from copying media. If you don’t like Vista DRM just wait for the inevitable crack to come out…
If you want to talk about morals, MS has every right to implement DRM. But I also have every moral right to crack it if I want, so this is really not an issue in my mind.
I’m not surprised (and I mean, simply, that this is within the realm of what most people think is morally okay). 1: Did you do that because you thought you had permission from the artists to make copies? 2: Did you do that because you figured that a major company would not have an easy method for ripping off CDs (it’s usually shortened to “ripping”) if it weren’t actually okay? 3: Do you have specific legal knowledge that informs you that it is okay. 4: Do you feel that since you paid for those CDs, you ought to be able to do whatever you want as long as it only involves you?
Apple’s iPod documentation explicitly instructs users to import their CDs into their iTunes library. You may say it is sloppy thinking to believe that Apple wouldn’t do that if it weren’t proper, and it probably is, but I can totally understand why people wouldn’t see it as a problem when Apple is not only telling them it’s okay, but instructing them to do it when setting up their iPod.
The following is from page 6 of the iPod user’s manual:
Four Steps to Playing Music on iPod shuffle
To set up iPod shuffle, you install software from the iPod CD, and import songs
from your music CD collection or purchase songs from the iTunes Music Store
(available in some countries only). Then you transfer the songs to iPod shuffle for
listening on the go.
Step 1: Install the Software
Insert the iPod CD into your computer and install iTunes and the iPod software.
Step 2: Import Music to Your Computer
Complete this step if you haven’t already transferred music to your computer. You can
import music from your audio CDs, or if you have an Internet connection, you can buy
music online and download it to your computer using the iTunes Music Store. You can
browse over a million songs and listen to a 30-second preview of any song.
To import music to your computer from an audio CD:
1
Insert a CD into your computer. iTunes opens automatically and the CD is selected in
the iTunes Source list.
2
Uncheck songs you don’t want to transfer, then click Import.
3
Repeat for any other CDs with songs you’d like to import.
There is not a word about contacting the copyright holders to get their permission.
Copying with permission is moral; copying without permission is immoral. That is a very simple rule. Do you disagree with that statement that distinguishes the moral and the immoral in the realm of copying?
No disagreement. I didn’t see it as impermissible.
If you want to talk about morals, MS has every right to implement DRM. But I also have every moral right to crack it if I want, so this is really not an issue in my mind.
Okay, but the question is whether you also think you have the right to steal other people’s property with your clever program? A related question is whether you think that a person who knowingly assists rights-violators in the pursuit of rights-violations deserve to be punished. As an intellectual exercise in programming, I don’t intellectually object to such an act, or to constructing a computer virus that destroys the the economies of all free nations, but I would be quite concerned if such a purely intellectual exercise was actually implemented in the raw. So I’m not sure how far you’re willing to go before you conclude that your act is evil.
If you want to talk about morals, MS has every right to implement DRM. But I also have every moral right to crack it if I want, so this is really not an issue in my mind.
You mean similar as to how every property owner has a right to their property. But you also have every moral right to break into their home and take their stuff. You’re right, there’s not a problem in sight there 
Apple’s iPod documentation explicitly instructs users to import their CDs into their iTunes library.
Okay; I’m sympathetic to the average user who doesn’t understand that this is wrong. The Napster case was similar, and there have been a number of “Hey, it wasn’t me that pulled the trigger” defenses. What saddens me is that those kinds of defenses manage to prevail sometimes. If the President of the US can lie, why can’t I? If Apple says it’s okay, who am I to argue? I have a long list of “if the university administration says…” anecdotes which I will not insert for self-preservational reasons. There is no question in my mind that there are wholesale mechanisms that encourage theft. And really, WTF is a rational person supposed to do besides get a JD and specialize in IP law or, become an Objectivist and look at the underlying principles. I too totally understand, and yet I weep at the continuous and relentless, systematic denial of property rights.
I only see one real solution, and that is understanding. Let’s just take your statement that you didn’t see it as impermissible. I want to know where you have the “wait, I don’t buy that” moment. If you don’t see something as impermissible, then that means, you have evidence that that you have permission, and no evidence at all suggesting lack of permission. That means that you have some evidence (it wasn’t just a wish, but you heard or saw something). And the permission has to some from someone, so someone gave you permission: who? That permission has to come from the person who, by right, can give permission, i.e. the owner of the property.
In the case of Apple’s “load any CD into your Ipod” scam, this would lead to the conclusion that either Apple has somehow acquired the exclusive proper copyright to every music CD on the planet (I believe that any person who would actually accept that conclusion is hopelessly detached from reality), or that Apple has somehow acquired a license to authorize such copying from every music CD maker on the planet (I believe that any person who would actually accept that conclusion is hopelessly detached from reality). My beloved goal-CD, Musta Lindu, is not in their collection, and this persuades me that they have not magically acquired universal rights to all music. But they do have some music that you can buy. So what explains the disparity – they don’t actually offer all music for download, but they seem to claim that you may rightly copy any music?
You can fill in the blank. And yet, isn’t Apple a responsible major corporation? They wouldn’t actually do things that encourage theft, would they?
Apple’s iPod documentation explicitly instructs users to import their CDs into their iTunes library.
Regardless of what Apple says, uploading store-bought CDs into the ipod, or to a blank Cd for use in a car stereo, strikes me as fair use of the content you’ve paid for.
Regardless of what Apple says, uploading store-bought CDs into the ipod, or to a blank Cd for use in a car stereo, strikes me as fair use of the content you’ve paid for.
Why? Is it fair use if I borrow a CD from the library and copy it for my own use? Is it fair use if I give copies to friends? What evidence do you have that you paid for “content”? In all of the CDs that I’ve ever purchased, not a single one of them has ever said “Congratulations!! You now own this ‘content’!”. In fact, pretty much every one of them actually says that I do not own the content, by reminding me that the content is actually copyrighted. Do you define “fair use” as “whatever I feel is fair, i.e. I’m not uncomfortable with”? What is the relationship between “fair use” or “fair play” and “rights”?
If you don’t see something as impermissible, then that means, you have evidence that that you have permission, and no evidence at all suggesting lack of permission. That means that you have some evidence (it wasn’t just a wish, but you heard or saw something). And the permission has to some from someone, so someone gave you permission: who? That permission has to come from the person who, by right, can give permission, i.e. the owner of the property.
I think the idea is that permission for fair use was granted when I bought the CD from the store, and the question then was what constituted “fair use”? The evidence of that general principle could be garnered not only from the property holder but by such things as Apple’s documentation and the fact that they’ve not been slapped with a court injunction forcing them to cease and desist encouraging outright theft. Why accept the idea of “fair use”? I would take it that “fair use” is a correct legal principle because there is underlying it a corresponding moral principle, something along the lines of, “I can take reasonable measures to make use of the copy for which I paid, including making a subsidiary copy for my iPod, because permission to do that was implicitly granted when I made the purchase”. Now we can argue over that reasoning, but my point is that did _not_require knowledge of the specific IP holder’s permission, but only the general concept of “fair use”. The questions I see are:
Is “fair use” a valid concept? If so, what does it mean?
Does “fair use” entail importing the CDs into iTunes and my iPod?
Can individual copyright owners deny “fair use” to those to whom they sell copies?
When I bought my iPod, it came with a plastic wrapper around it that said something, albeit very simple, to the effect of “don’t steal music.” The iTunes EULA also contains this handy warning:
IMPORTANT NOTE: This software may be used to reproduce materials. It is licensed to you only for reproduction of non-copyrighted materials, materials in which you own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce. This software may also be used for remote access to music files for listening between computers. Remote access of copyrighted music is only provided for lawful personal use or as otherwise legally permitted. If you are uncertain about your right to copy or permit access to any material you should contact your legal advisor.
So it’s not entirely true that Apple tells you it’s okay.
Also, I think there’s one more category of excuse; the “I don’t act on principle” excuse:
-Q
Is “fair use” a valid concept? If so, what does it mean?
Does “fair use” entail importing the CDs into iTunes and my iPod?
Can individual copyright owners deny “fair use” to those to whom they sell copies?
‘Fair use’ is the legal doctrine by which the Federal Government systematically refuses, in certain circumstances, to protect private property. Or I should say, one of many such legal doctrines. The doctrine attempts to create a means whereby people don’t get in trouble for legitimate, scholarly criticism of someone else’s copyrighted work, but is overly broad.
As written, no. An argument can be made that it used to, but Congress recently did away with the “commercial gain” requirement. Unless you’re a special, exempt party (libraries, government institutions, blind people), or you’re citing a limited quantity for educational or scholarly use, you can’t make the copy. Unless you’re contractually authorized.
No. Fair Use is the Government saying “we’re not going to enforce copyright against people under these circumstances.” The copyright holder holds subject to the Government’s willingness to enforce the copyright.
-Q
When I bought my iPod, it came with a plastic wrapper around it that said something, albeit very simple, to the effect of “don’t steal music.”
And of course in the context of today’s climate, that first and most likely explanation is that that refers to online piracy. iTunes is, after all, a program that replaces Napster or other such programs as the way to get music online. The idea that by stealing they might be referring to following their instructions to import CDs that one has already paid for simply does not leap to mind.
The iTunes EULA also contains this handy warning:
So it’s not entirely true that Apple tells you it’s okay.
That’s lovely. Where is that EULA buried? In tiny print? The README.TXT file in the bin directory? It’s certainly NOT in the prominent printed user’s manual that TELLS you to import CDs from your collection. And who honestly expects the average users’ CD collection to contain non-copyrighted CDs? That’s just CYA for Apple. It doesn’t change at all their encouragement of precisely the conduct at issue here.