Discussion in 'Marketplace Discussions' started by Cherrycherry, Oct 26, 2019.
Not Bob Seger lol.
Do record companies even produce promo CD's anymore?
Yes, here's one example off the top of my head: Nine Inch Nails - Bad Witch
It almost looks homemade.
The interpretation of that statute by federal copyright office as something that applies to all digital files not just software
Copyright and Digital Files (FAQ) | U.S. Copyright Office [/QUOTE]
Once again no one can provide the
It says you cannot copy a digital file on a computer hard drive that had copyright protection when it was downloaded to the computer...DRM in other words.
It is a stretch to say from that you cannot keep rips from a cd once you don’t have the cd anymore.
If you ripped a cd and then proceeded to sell those files or upload them to bit torrent that would be against the law...no one would care about the source or whether you had it anymore. But if you don’t network them or sell them you are ok.
Being required to own a cd after you rip is an urban legend.
Like getting radiation from sitting to close to thenTV.
Whether the not you would be prosecuted I am 100% confident it is not ethical to continue owning a digital copy of intellectual property of any kind after selling the original one purchased.
Still a promo disc.
And still ugly.
I think @Rfreeman is to be commended for digging into the issue of back-ups. My understanding of §117, which dates back to the original 'holding' legislation that was adapted from CONTU, is that it applies to "computer programs" which are a defined term and different than say, "phonorecords," which is a different defined term. These definitions are in §101 of the 1976 Act. The FAQ says that the limited right to back up a computer program under §117 doesn't apply to other kinds of works, e.g. those other than computer programs, like music and films. The FAQ also talks about a prohibition against selling the back up copy. The statute itself, in §117(b), makes that clear. I think the question was selling the store bought CD, not the back-up.
I haven't surveyed the recent literature. I can tell you the RIAA has taken the following position: About Piracy - RIAA
This echoes what Rfreeman said about selling or disposing of the copy:
"The copy is just for your personal use. It’s not a personal use – in fact, it’s illegal – to give away the copy or lend it to others for copying." See RIAA 'About piracy' link, above. (Note that the RIAA is careful to say that this isn't a 'right' but something that won't usually raise concerns).
That doesn't really address the question -- whether it is ok to make a copy and then sell the "original" (authorized store bought copy). I think the RIAA has better things to do than chase individual users-- something that caused a huge amount of blowback when they launched an enforcement campaign in the early 2000's. But, anyone who is systematically ripping copies and reselling the originals would probably be violating the law and I suspect if you asked the RIAA, that's what they'd tell you. How they would 'know' is another matter--
The main objective, at least in my estimation, is to curtail large scale infringement mechanisms, not to take individual users to task for their private activities unless those activities pose a risk that, if done on a widespread basis, it could impact authorized sales or markets. There are, on occasion, 'test cases' that are brought to settle such issues when they become significant enough.
The current Act is undergoing legislative revision, which will likely take years.
Our copyright statute is often overtaken by newer technologies that were not addressed at the time the statute is put into force, thus necessitating court interpretation or further legislative revision.
My 'take' is informal, is not necessarily a reflection of the industry's views at large and isn't meant to condone any activity or to provide legal advice.
PS: I didn't address DRM which is an entirely different matter and is separate from copyright infringement.
The first such test case I was aware of was the case involving George Aiken's chicken shop in Pittsburgh. George was playing the radio in the background while making chicken sandwiches for retail consumption and take-out. Customers could hear and enjoy the music being played on George's radio. ASCAP brought a test case to determine whether George was 'publicly performing' the radio broadcasts by doing so. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled on the issue and condoned it. That ruling was embodied in an exemption in the 1976 Act which concluded that the Aiken model was the 'outer limit' of permissible behavior regarding passive reception in a public place. Since then, the statute has been revised several times, and the case law has addressed newer features of the Act aimed at this activity.
Unless someone can point to an express grant of permission to make a digital copy of a CD, that act in itself is a clear violation of the copyright statute. So if the 117 grant to make backups of software (as long as the original is not sold) does not apply to digital back ups of music files (which are a kind of software - as they instruct a computer how to produce a specific sound) then the rip itself is illegal.
As an ethical rather than a legal matter (and clearly these laws are not being actively enforced against folks who rip CDs for personal use) I would draw the line at when those two copies are owned by 2 different people, based on a single copy being purchased.
And used CD sales clearly aid and abet that violation.
I will look over these later when I get some time, but I did skim them and it looks like there is still some interpretation of language still going on.
Of course, excecutive agencies and courts are charged with interpreting statutes to apply them. When the copyright law was written, music was analog not digital, so the government had to figure out how to apply older statutes to copying digital music and decided to treat is as software.
As has been pointed out, the Millennial Digital Rights Act adds to it. Also, in skimming the two articles, I did not see any clear-cut language that demands that personal copies of copyrighted works be destroyed. No, i'm not being obtuse.
From the second link I provided from the Copyright office:
"Under section 117, you or someone you authorize may make a copy of an original computer program if the new copy is being made for archival (i.e., backup) purposes only; you are the legal owner of the copy; and any copy made for archival purposes is either destroyed, or transferred with the original copy, once the original copy is sold, given away, or otherwise transferred."
I am a lawyer, and copyright law is among my specialties. Can't imagine why you would definitively state that someone you dont know is not a lawyer. Perhaps you have seen me post that I am a musician. One can be both.
The essence of copyright law is that you cannot legally make a copy of any copyrighted property without permission of the copyright holder unless there is an exception to copyright law thst allows it. If you don't get this, you are too ignorant to be even worthy of having this discussion.
There is an exception I pointed to in the copyright statute that allows creating backup copies of software for personal use, so long as you continue to be the owner of the original software. And the US Copyright office has interpreted that exception as allowing ripping of CDs under the same conditions.
I am trying to inform people of a few basic points of law in my free time and am not inclined to spend time proving anything to you, but go read up on it in Nimmer's treatise on Copyright Law if you wish to learn about it.
As it pertains to computer programs. Audio recordings are a different animal. If they are being treated as software, well, good luck trying to track rip & sell. A person could easily rip and sell, then when asked to prove they have the original,, they can simply claim that their spouse has the original, the original was misplaced, or that it is in storage 3,000 across the country in a sea of boxes. Who is going to go through the trouble to check?
Most of the CDs I buy these days are:
- long out of print
- by dead dudes
so I have no horse in this “ethics” race.
Of course it is impossible to thoroughly enforce this. Thst does not detract from the ethical principle embodied in the law.
Ethics and morals are subjective.
Yes if one does not believe in intellectual property rights, one can believe it is ethical to pay for one copy of a person's IP, make a second copy for oneself, and sell the first copy.
It is absolutely not legal in the US, whether or not it is possible to catch and prosecute everyone who does it. It is also not possible to catch and prosecute every shoplifter or everyone who drives drunk and kills someone. These things are still crimes.
Good thing what you wrote is not an absolute truth.
Why don’t you quote the actual verbiage of the US Copyright Office about ripping with an actual quote and link. The part about where software policy is supposedly
transferred to music CDs. The quote referenced before about downloaded music being protected is not what I am referencing. Quote a reference where the music cd is
automatically considered computer software. That should be enough for everyone.
Actually I mis-spoke and it technically has not been applied to music CDs by them - but to the extent there was any right at all to rip for personal use, that section would be the basis for that right.
So there is no basis for the ripping and selling argument you say. I want to know where it says you can’t rip and sell a music cd. Anywhere.
we know it is legal to rip your personal cds.
I don’t see it as ethics or a horse. I am just tired of seeing all these posts about how it is supposedly illegal to rip a cd and then either sell said cd or give it away while keeping the files on your hard disc, etc.
There just isn’t any statute anywhere that states this.
It just shows how people will start to believe something on the internet that isn’t true and just keep repeating it when in fact it is not true. Not just here but in other places and not just the people in this thread.
Separate names with a comma.