Music copyright know-it-somes

[Hamhock]

I have previously consulted Google and remain unclear.

What is the law with respect to copying music i have purchased?

1. I buy a CD. I have 3 kids. Can I make a copy of CD to use when my kids eat the original?
2. I buy a CD, can I put that music onto my IPOD? vice versa?
3. I buy a CD, can I burn a copy for use in my second vehicle?
4. I have purchased several CDs. Can I burn 1 CD of my favorite songs from each CD?
5. Can I give said CD away to a friend?
6. Have any of you killed a bobcat yet?

tia

[Turd_Ferguson]

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YESSource (http://www.zombo.com/)

[sooner_born_1960]

I think legally you can do 1 -4. Realistically, you can do 5 also.

[Hamhock]

I think legally you can do 1 -4. Realistically, you can do 5 also.


i notice you stayed away from #6.

[sooner_born_1960]

i notice you stayed away from #6.
I'm not an attention whore like some golfers and hunters around here.
Edit to add the ;)

[Hatfield]

technically no. you can't do 2-3..but that is a very gray (or grey) area.

[springs sooner]

you can do all 6 just dont brag to your friends and deny everything and you will be cool.

[Hamhock]

you can do all 6 just dont brag to your friends and deny everything and you will be cool.

my question is to legality, not ability.

for example, it is legal for any of you to obtain the proper license and harvest a bobcat with a bow, however, ability is a whoooole nuther issue.

[Hatfield]

i answered your question.

[Hatfield]

RIAA Claims Ripping a CD to Your iPod is Not "Fair Use"
Thursday, February 16th, 2006 at 4:25 PM - by Bryan Chaffin

The RIAA is once again trying to assert that ripping a CD and space-shifting it to your iPod is not a noninfringing use (fair use) of the music you have bought, according to the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). The EFF found a filing from Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) rule-making proceedings where the RIAA argued that moving music to an iPod was not noninfringing, a position that not only is devoid of logic, but that is also diametrically opposed to its position as argued before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The passage as found by the EFF:

"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."

And the RIAA's position argued by its attorney in front of the Supreme Court:

"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."

Should the RIAA have its way on this issue, one would presumably have to buy a copy of a song for your car or home CD player, and another copy of the same song for any digital media devices you wished to play it on. This has been a dream scenario for the RIAA for some time, and one that this editor has often discussed when writing on the issue at The Mac Observer.

[Hamhock]

so, what's the difference in copying to my ipod and copying to another CD for use in my second vehicle?

[Osce0la]

I downloaded LimeWire yesterday morning, and in the set up process there are 2 buttons that state:

- No, I am not going to use this for copyright infringement
- Yes, I am going to use this for copyright infringement

First, I wondered "what moran actually clicks the yes button". Then I thought, "I should click yes just to see what happens". :D

[Osce0la]

Just don't burn the CDs and then try to sell them...

[Hamhock]

Just don't burn the CDs and then try to sell them...


is that the law? i can burn all i want as long as i don't sell them?

[Boomer.....]

You can sell CD's to a bobcat, though.

[springs sooner]

is that the law? i can burn all i want as long as i don't sell them?


sounds about right. i believe as long as you are trying to make money off it.

how about you call Metallica and ask them.

[Hatfield]

so, what's the difference in copying to my ipod and copying to another CD for use in my second vehicle?

none.

technically you are allowed to burn 1 "backup" copy.


and my knowledge of this area is rudimentary at best.

[Hamhock]

my knowledge of this area is rudimentary at best.


sounds like you're light years ahead of the rest of the people in this thread.

[Hatfield]

i did stay at a holiday inn express but there were no bobcats there

[Frozen Sooner]

sounds about right. i believe as long as you are trying to make money off it.

how about you call Metallica and ask them.

Incorrect.

Burning a CD of music you have not legally purchased is a copyright violation even if its not for monetary gain.

[Frozen Sooner]

I have previously consulted Google and remain unclear.

What is the law with respect to copying music i have purchased?

1. I buy a CD. I have 3 kids. Can I make a copy of CD to use when my kids eat the original?
2. I buy a CD, can I put that music onto my IPOD? vice versa?
3. I buy a CD, can I burn a copy for use in my second vehicle?
4. I have purchased several CDs. Can I burn 1 CD of my favorite songs from each CD?
5. Can I give said CD away to a friend?
6. Have any of you killed a bobcat yet?

tia

1. Yes.
2. Yes. So long as you do not defeat any DRM to do so, you are explicitly allowed to do this under the DMCA.
3. See 2.
4. See 2.
5. Yes, but only if you destroy all of your backup copies.
6. With my bare hands from 40 feet.

[springs sooner]

Incorrect.

Burning a CD of music you have not legally purchased is a copyright violation even if its not for monetary gain.


thats why he said i buy a cd and make a copy. that looks like a legal purchase to me.

[Suerreal]

When you buy a CD or pay for a download track, you are not acquiring any rights to the music. You are acquiring a license to use the music in accordance with the stipulations within the license.

The RIAA has tried to maintain the position that the track on a CD and an .mp3 (or .wav or other file type) file for use on a computer, or digital playback device such as an iPod are different intellectual properties, and that converting one type to another is a copyright infringement. No one else has bought into this assertion.

The generally accepted interpretation of copyright law is that purchasing a CD or download track gives you the right to listen to that track on one device at a time. So in theory, you can have multiple copies of the track on your computer, your iPod, the original CD in your stereo, and a burned CD in a car as long as you are only listening to 1 version at a time.

Things get gray very quickly if you are listening to your iPod and your spouse is listening to the burned CD in the car. Or clearly exceed fair use if you upload CDs your kids have bought (for their stereo/computer/iPod) to you computer onto your iPod. No one is likely to come after you for this, or if your kids borrow friends' CDs and upload them to a computer, but this is still copyright infringement.

Where the RIAA is going after users for copyright infringement is organized file-swapping such as occurs on Kazaa, Morpheus, or the original incarnation of Napster. Exchanges of files on these services is often used to avoid paying for access to intellectual property, and is copyright infringement. RIAA goes after the biggest abusers, and some "average volume" abusers to scare people into refraining from putting files on file-swapping services or downloading from them.

IANAL, this is what I have gleaned from fairly extensive reading on this topic. Use at your own risk.

[crawfish]

6. Not yet, but I'm working up to it by strangling hobos.

[def_lazer_fc]

this may not be correct, but i heard they were pretty much targeting uploaders as opposed to downloaders. and especially college students, for they aren't as likely to fight the charge since your typical college student is kinda broke anyway. either way, people are really going to have to start addressing the legality of this matter way more than it is. all the laws right now are fuzzy at best. kind of the same thing that happened when the VCR was introduced. my best advice to the RIAA is to stop churning out crap albums with one slightly above sucky single on it that people d/l.

[def_lazer_fc]

and quit charging 18.99 for a new cd. jesus.

[def_lazer_fc]

6. Not yet, but I'm working up to it by strangling hobos.
i hear that's a popular passtime in florida right now. seriously.

[Osce0la]

is that the law? i can burn all i want as long as i don't sell them?
I have no idea what the actual law is...that is just the law I go by ;)

[Frozen Sooner]

thats why he said i buy a cd and make a copy. that looks like a legal purchase to me.

I didn't see where you said that and misinterpreted your post to mean that you could burn as many CDs as you wanted of other people's music as long as you don't sell it. Which is a fairly common misinterpretation of copyright law.

[Frozen Sooner]

this may not be correct, but i heard they were pretty much targeting uploaders as opposed to downloaders. and especially college students, for they aren't as likely to fight the charge since your typical college student is kinda broke anyway. either way, people are really going to have to start addressing the legality of this matter way more than it is. all the laws right now are fuzzy at best. kind of the same thing that happened when the VCR was introduced. my best advice to the RIAA is to stop churning out crap albums with one slightly above sucky single on it that people d/l.

The "sucky music" defense always amuses me. Why would anyone want to own sucky music, even if it's stolen?

[Hamhock]

does coach stoops post here? 'cause I hear he owns a file sharing company.

<runs away>

[sooner_born_1960]

The "sucky music" defense always amuses me. Why would anyone want to own sucky music, even if it's stolen?
He's saying that people download the one song that doesn't suck, so they don't have to buy the who album.

[Frozen Sooner]

He's saying that people download the one song that doesn't suck, so they don't have to buy the who album.

Sorry, he said "One slightly above sucky single."

Which still makes no sense, since that same song is available (in most cases) for legal purchase for less than a dollar.

[yermom]

yeah, but who wants to deal with Apple's crappy product? (the new DRM free stuff is a step better, but i am a little freaked out by the personal info in the files)

the RIAA is grasping at straws because their business model is crap with the new technology

a CD should not cost almost $20, that is just stupid

[Frozen Sooner]

Where in the hell are you guys buying CDs? The vast majority of new releases I see at Best Buy are well under that price.

Regardless, whether a product is overpriced or not is not a great justification for theft. I happen to think the BMW 5 series is overpriced-but I don't get to just "borrow" one off the lot.

[yermom]

personally, i'd like to see a circle of people buying CD's and selling them to each other for a dollar or something and buying it back
this would be even better with used CD's :D

have you seen the stuff with pushing for background checks and waiting periods on used CD sales? seems like it was in Florida

[yermom]

Where in the hell are you guys buying CDs? The vast majority of new releases I see at Best Buy are well under that price.

Regardless, whether a product is overpriced or not is not a great justification for theft. I happen to think the BMW 5 series is overpriced-but I don't get to just "borrow" one off the lot.

i'm not justifying anything, i'm just saying that it's easy, and you aren't going to get people to not break the law by overcharging

lots of CD's are ~$17 at retail places

sometimes the big movers are cheaper, or the crap no one wants

[Frozen Sooner]

I've heard some stuff about that. It's pretty silly, for sure.

I'm not going to claim that the record industry's business model isn't whacked, 'cause it is. They have to come up with some viable way of protecting their copyright while still making their product alienable to the end user.

[yermom]

well, the problem is that as more people embrace technology they are needed less and less

all they are really needed for now is marketing, distribution can be done independently now

someone still has to pay off the radio stations though

[def_lazer_fc]

Sorry, he said "One slightly above sucky single."

Which still makes no sense, since that same song is available (in most cases) for legal purchase for less than a dollar.
to clarify.....the fact that the music industry churns out record upon record of crap that no one likes, odds are there will be that one song on there that people will want. mostly teens, but still, there's gonna be that single they hear on the radio. all of these singles adds up for your casual "fan" of music, so they will just d/l that song.

[def_lazer_fc]

Where in the hell are you guys buying CDs? The vast majority of new releases I see at Best Buy are well under that price.

Regardless, whether a product is overpriced or not is not a great justification for theft. I happen to think the BMW 5 series is overpriced-but I don't get to just "borrow" one off the lot.
best buy is one of the few places that does an alright job at selling cds for less. i just picked up the new queens of the stone age there last week for 9.99. great deal. i used to also drop by warehouse music for good buys, but no more b/c they are being changed to an RYE or whatever and they rape you on the price. even a lot of "indy" stores rape you. guestroom in norman? i only shop there if there's something i know i can't find elsewhere. otherwise, im not gonna spend 15 bucks for a 5 song ep from dead meadow. (just a recent example)

[GottaHavePride]

When you buy a CD or pay for a download track, you are not acquiring any rights to the music. You are acquiring a license to use the music in accordance with the stipulations within the license.

See, and I understand the legal reasoning behind all that, but to me - and this is coming from a musician - if I buy a CD I did not buy a license. I bought a damn CD. And that CD contains music in data form. And so long as I am not making a profit off that data, I should be able to do whatever the heck I want to with that data.

[yermom]

short of handing it out to your friends, i completely agree

i don't understand why they think they should be able to dictate how you play it

my tinfoil hat answer is that they want to be able to charge you per listen eventually

[Vaevictis]

Strictly speaking, you don't necessarily even receive a license with a CD. You receive a copy, and sometimes there's a license attached. (... a license which is often ruled unenforceable, at that...)

The issue with copyright law is that it reserves the lawful act of copying a work to the copyright holder. Everyone else who makes a copy is, at the most basic level, doing so illegally. This includes copying to your mp3 player or PC.

One of the interesting things about computers (wrt copyright) is that as a part of their operation, they make multiple copies of a work. This is why a license agreement is necessary for software -- you receive a copy on CD, which then installs itself to your hard drive. When you start the program, pieces are copied into memory, into the cache on the CPU, and into the registers on the CPU. The license is necessary to make all of this copying unquestionably legal.

Now, all of that said, the Courts and Congress have to varying degrees authorized additional copying of works -- mostly space and time shifting, ie, copying from a CD to mp3 player, TV to VCR/DVR, etc.

The number one question you need to ask yourself when copying a work is, "Am I negatively impacting the commercial value of this work by this act of copying?" If you're making a copy in such a way that it impacts the commercial value of the work... well, that's where you're most likely to get in trouble. Making money by selling illegally copied material is a clear case of costing the copyright holder revenue -- you got the money instead of the copyright holder. Making an additional copy so you can listen to it in your car? Not so much.

Also, people really ought to stop confusing (usually deliberately!) copyright violation with theft. It's not theft. "Intellectual property" is not real property, and it is not a zero sum game. It's not like I took your car -- if I take your car, you no longer have it. If I copy your work, no such loss occurs.

Copyright in the USA is a legal construct which restricts copying of a work. That is all. It was not put in the constitution because of any belief that the creator of a work had any natural rights to it; rather, it CREATED an artificial right -- the right of copy -- with the intent that such a right would provide financial incentive for the creation of such works.

Copyright is a social contract. The government will restrict copying of your work for a certain period to allow you to earn money off of it in the hopes that people will be financially incentivized to create such works. Copyright is NOT an inalienable right. It is a privilege that exists for the people, at the pleasure of the people.

"Intellectual property" ain't property, and copyright violation ain't ****ing theft.

[Sooner_Bob]

Should artists or I guess I should say record companies get paid everytime a song is played?

Didn't everyone involved get paid at the time it was written according to their contract?

Don't most artists make the majority of their money from touring and not music sales?

To me, this isn't as much about intellectual property rights as it is about the record companies being hacked off because they didn't come up with "Napster" first.

I'm with GHP on this. You're buying an item with information on it . . . use it how you want.

What's going to be next? The record companies asking for a cut of your garage sale money when you sell your CD collection?

[Vaevictis]

What's going to be next? The record companies asking for a cut of your garage sale money when you sell your CD collection?

Already been tried, sort of. See Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus (1908); copyright holder tried to restrict second hand sales. Supreme Court shot it down and established what's now known as the "First Sale Doctrine."